Juedes does have a booklet of VPW's plagiarism. I tried to deny for years he did this even after reading Juedes booklet. One day I just came to terms.
Eagle
There are still a lot of people, even those who left TWI, that refuse to believe that anything taught by VPW is still the gospel truth, and he got revelation to write and teach it.
These people do not speak to me anymore. But you know, I bet they would not speak to many on Greasespot, either.
I can't say what that makes us in their eyes. I try not to think about or care what they think of me or people at Greasespot anymore.
Eagle, you shouldn't care what they think. I know it's a hard habit to break, but they don't validate you and you don't need their approval, regardless of what they'd like you to believe.
I truly don't care what they think of me. I feel sorry for them for not having the option to think for themselves.
even to putting his name on it as author when it was clearly written by someone else. his character begs examination and is found wanting.
just because something looks like it's free to use doesn't mean you should.... like a bicycle parked on public property, unlocked. it could be abandoned... so I should just take it and call it mine?
Potato that is ridicules nonsense A bicycle is not public domain when parked. It is not protected as such under the law you are not free to use this under the law . Things in public domain are however. Here is a definition.
public domain
–noun Law. 1. the status of a literary work or an invention whose copyright or patent has expired or that never had such protection
public domain (PD) The total absence of copyright protection. If something is "in the public domain" then anyone can copy it or use it in any way they wish. The author has none of the exclusive rights which apply to a copyright work.
The phrase "public domain" is often used incorrectly to refer to freeware or shareware (software which is copyrighted but is distributed without (advance) payment). Public domain means no copyright -- no exclusive rights.
Public domain means no copyright -- no exclusive rights. I think that about sums it up......
sigh... I'm making a point about character, not law. look at the context of my argument and you'll see that I didn't say a bicycle is public domain when parked. just read what I wrote and don't read into it.
I got your point The point is It is a matter of opinion, if their is no legal wrong there is no character flawno law was broken If you place a bowl of fruit on a table marked free to use then you can't condem those who eat it as having bad caracter or stealing the fruit after all it is free use. the same applies to public domain items free to use.
Exactly Raf we have no case for any legal wrong. So what is left because we don't have a legal leg to stand on and still want to take issue is that we try to squeeze the moral issue into making the legal right. That is each to decide if it fits in their moral mode or not . Just to keep the facts straight. The judge follows the law he does not care if you personally think the law is moral or not. In this case VP had a perfect right to use the material, some may think he should have done this others maybe think he should have done that. It looks to me like he felt that it was free to use having no legal restrictions.
Do you even HEAR yourself, WD? You are excusing dishonesty in a so-called man of God that you would never excuse in any other profession. What, because he spoke for God (aka, his belly), he can use all sorts of dishonesty, he can lie to you about his own words, and you think we're the ones who are wrong for calling him on it? Your priorities are twisted.
I got your point The point is It is a matter of opinion, if their is no legal wrong there is no character flawno law was broken If you place a bowl of fruit on a table marked free to use then you can't condem those who eat it as having bad caracter or stealing the fruit after all it is free use. the same applies to public domain items free to use.
Umm, no, that's not how it works. As I said earlier, if I released "Romeo and Juliet," by Rafael Olmeda, would you not call me a liar? VPW was a liar. That is not a matter of opinion. It is established fact. The matter of opinion iws whether you find it excusable or not. And clearly, you do.
Public domain means no copyright -- no exclusive rights. I think that about sums it up......
And integrity means integrity. It means truthfulness. It means honesty. I think that about sums it up.
I agree with you, Raf. just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you should, and the subject at hand has every bearing on a person's integrity.
go peruse the plagiarism policies of any major university. what you excuse as being ok, WD, would get any student dropped because, while legal, it is still unethical.
By the way, on what are we basing the thought that these works were in the public domain? On Oldiesman's reprinted copies of the books? Not for nothing, but I wouldn't go to court with that defense. I'd do a LOT more homework.
Regardless, plagiarism of a work that is in the public domain would still get you an F in any college course. But I guess real life and the word of the almighty God is less important than that. Lower standards for God, higher standards for man. Is that it?
No I said to accuse him of stealing is not correct that's the point you can't steal what is free to use. the point is for people to stick to the truth once again....... and don't make s**t up to prove the point.
It should read VP was free under public domain to use the material as he saw fit he did no legal wrong in using it. (ie was not stolen). that said however some would argue that he should have maybe mentioned that he got this info from a source. I might even agree. While that may have been a nice thing to do he is /was under no obligation to do so. Whether he did or did not has no bearing on the fact that he did have a right to use the material as he saw fit under the law. As such he committed no crime. As I said he may have assumed that since he was free to use the material as he saw fit from a legal standpoint, that he did not need to document the source. You assume that someone should have a moral issue for doing what the law says is perfectly fine. I don't! Either way you can't accuse him of a crime that he did not commit. He stole nothing he used what the law said he could. the moral issue is another one and has no bearing on the first.
I agree with you, Raf. just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you should, and the subject at hand has every bearing on a person's integrity.
I agree I never said it was but it also does not mean that just because your idea or mine for that matter of morality makes someone a thief when they did what was legal. It is fine to say I have a problem with the morality of what he did based on my morals. It is another to imply that he committed a crime when the law says otherwise thats the point.
I'm curious about something. earlier versions of the book didn't carry a copyright notice, but later ones did? my copy is really old, and doesn't carry the notice... which would have put the work in the public domain... but subsequent releases of the book did carry the copyright notice? perhaps the book was copyrighted, because once in the public domain, a work cannot be copyrighted. has anyone done the required research to see if it was on file with the copyright office?
No , which was my original question as it appears that according to the law it had to have a notice or it went into public domain my copy has none either. and pre law change that appears to have put it into public domain.
VP's plagiarism would get any high school or college student an F on the paper or course, and would get a prof censured or fired. So how can anyone defend VP for doing even worse?
But there is a deeper issue here. In PFAL (class and book p. 119-120) VP makes a big deal about saying he took his 3,000 books to the dump and studied the Bible alone.
Then in the intro to RTHST VP plainly said that he "put aside all I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook." He is clearly saying that he did not use any other book in writing RTHST. Yet, most of the book is plainly plagiarized. This is a bald-faced lie.
VP never once in RTHST ever mentions the name of Stiles or Bullinger, who he stole most of RTHST from. In the earlier 3rd ed. the intro vaguely mentions that VP met a man who taught him something (Stiles, but you'd only know this if you knew the part of the story VP was hiding). But all later editions delete this and instead say that VP used the Bible alone. This conscious deletion from the intro reinforces how VP was consciously lying about his plagiarism.
Again you assume it is plagiarism , not if the material is in Public domain. I defended his right to use public domain material in the manner it by law says you can. Thats all. I take issue with calling it stealing when the law says it is not
As to the other your reaching the context of that was in regard to not reading around the Word. Reading books to get your understanding for the Word as opposed to getting your understanding from scripture and then reading books.
I don't think he ever implied that he or anyone else should not read books. At that point he was reading to find understanding. If you believe his story then he read scripture for understanding then when reading books it supported the understanding he had gained from reading scripture. The key is "TIme" he said one day, one day when? one day before he had understanding from the bible he dumped the books then after understanding scripture he came across Stiles who taught him a deeper understanding of what he had learned from the scriptures not the books.
As far as Stiles I have a a disk where VP talks about how he taught him about the Holy Spirit it was never a secret to me that he did.
And I still believe that it is very possible that J.E. Stiles did not copyright his book because he was not concerned about his credit, or making money, but rather that people helped spred his message . I think it is very possible that was his intention, a good one at that.
university policy still typically considers it plagarism if the source is in the public domain.
vpw seems like he didn't mind revising history as it suited him. from what I've been reading of narcissists, it's their way of dealing with inconvenient facts that don't fit in with their present reality. they expect everyone to get on board with it, and that's what good TWIts did.
And this relates to VPW how was he in school? The law says he can use it as he wishes he was not submitting a school paper. different venue, diferent rules apply.
read what's been written... several people have asserted that vpw should know better regarding plagairism because of his pretended level of doctor... if he was a researcher, scholar, as he passed himself off to be, then he would adhere to the standards of academic circles, which he clearly did not. there have been many threads regarding plagiarism, and you've only focused on the US law version, which has been revised because it is flawed. there are other standards that could be adhered to, rather than the letter of the law. you are focused only on the law and ignoring other issues with his decision to, yes, steal another man's work and pass it off as his own. it's theft because of the intent, even if it's not theft by law.
Nope it may be a moral issue depending on who's morals you assume are the standard but if the law says you can use something then it is not theft period. Last I looked VP lived in the US which is why one would look at US law.
Which says that if in PD he can use the material in any way that they wish. Period.
public domain (PD) The total absence of copyright protection. If something is "in the public domain" then anyone can copy it or use it in any way they wish. The author has none of the exclusive rights which apply to a copyright work.
The phrase "public domain" is often used incorrectly to refer to freeware or shareware (software which is copyrighted but is distributed without (advance) payment). Public domain means no copyright -- no exclusive rights.
Your right I am focusing on the law thats the point what is legal if it is legal then it can not be a crime If it is free then it can't be thieved,stolen. Thats common sense. my point all along the moral issue is a seperate issue. right or wrong depending on your morals or someone elses. it does NOT change the law.
If one goes to the store and the sign says free apples take as many as you want and do what you want with themthen you can't accuse someone of stealing when they do . if they then take the apples and throw them at cars it still does not make them accountable for stealing the apples only for their moral choice to throw them at cars.
It proves he was LAZY. Yes, lazy. No, he didn't work his *(&*%'s off night and day, year after year-
Someone else did the work FOR him. In medical terms, this would make him a parasite, just wallowing in pre-packaged resources.
yes. he was a parasite.
Maybe this stuff bothers people that really try to work at something in life, and see somebody just help themselves..
maybe that's why I started this thread. at one time I respected what I thought was his research although I could barely stand to sit through any of his teachings. I always thought he wrote better than he spoke (now I know why, it's because the written material was pretty much all done by others) but I actually thought the material was his.
now, I understand ideas can't be copyrighted, but there's a huge difference between learning from others and incorporating their ideas, and pretending you came up with something by revelation from God. maybe some people heard him say he learned from others, but that stuff didn't get passed around as part of the culture.
the most useful thread in this discussion has been the academic standard, since vpw passed himself off as a doctor and an academic. as an academic, he fails on all counts in the character department. of less importance is the information about copyright law, although that is also interesting.
if I was at all acedemically pursuaded, I'd right a book quoting large passage of Stile's book and put a copyright on it and see how long it took for twi lawyers to write me a letter. that could be a fun experiment.
I'm suprised they haven't gone after Stiles/Kenyon society/Leonard Ministries to begin with.
They'd sue King James for copyright on the bible if they could..
What amazes me about most of the posts here from "the other side"- is the "right dividing" of all of the legal issues about plagiarism- "well, it wasn't REALLY plagiarism. It was public domain, he had the right to do it, its not the same as academics, or publication, or etc, etc"
"Look at ALL THE GOOD that came of it"- questionable to me at least..
Its hard to admit you've been taken by a charlatan, a fake- it was for me, anyway.
"but the guy that sold me the bridge had good intentions.."
Put all the legal mumbo jumbo on the back burner for a moment. He took someone elses work and pretended it was his own( Knowing full well it was not). He claimed God gave it to him in a bundle of revelation the likes of which the world hadn't seen for 2,000 years. He knowingly deceived a lot of unsuspecting people including myself. Personally, I don't really give a rats' posterior whether it was legal or not. The man knowingly lied, plain and simple, and that is not an acceptable practice for someone who supposedly is Gods' representative to the world for modern times. If that makes him "one of the finest men you have ever known" you have my sympathy. Did he tell us "not to read other books"? As a matter of fact, that very challenge was presented in the PFAL class by VPW himself. Why people feel compelled to look for loopholes that will excuse his unGodly and conscious "nose thumbing" of those areas of Gods' word in which he professed himself to be expert is beyond me.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
47
69
62
127
Popular Days
Jul 6
142
Jul 4
63
Jul 2
54
Jul 5
48
Top Posters In This Topic
waysider 47 posts
Bolshevik 69 posts
Grace Valerie Claire 62 posts
rrobs 127 posts
Popular Days
Jul 6 2017
142 posts
Jul 4 2017
63 posts
Jul 2 2017
54 posts
Jul 5 2017
48 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
"I find it interesting that everybody here attacks me personally. Nobody address the things I say about the word. You keep wanting to make it about VP. Nobody here really knows my thinking on VP or th
Grace Valerie Claire
Robs, I think you should STFU.
waysider
OOPS!
Eagle
Juedes does have a booklet of VPW's plagiarism. I tried to deny for years he did this even after reading Juedes booklet. One day I just came to terms.
Eagle
There are still a lot of people, even those who left TWI, that refuse to believe that anything taught by VPW is still the gospel truth, and he got revelation to write and teach it.
These people do not speak to me anymore. But you know, I bet they would not speak to many on Greasespot, either.
I can't say what that makes us in their eyes. I try not to think about or care what they think of me or people at Greasespot anymore.
Eagle
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
Eagle, you shouldn't care what they think. I know it's a hard habit to break, but they don't validate you and you don't need their approval, regardless of what they'd like you to believe.
I truly don't care what they think of me. I feel sorry for them for not having the option to think for themselves.
(edited for inadvertant repetition)
Edited by potatoLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Potato that is ridicules nonsense A bicycle is not public domain when parked. It is not protected as such under the law you are not free to use this under the law . Things in public domain are however. Here is a definition.
public domain
–noun Law. 1. the status of a literary work or an invention whose copyright or patent has expired or that never had such protection
public domain (PD) The total absence of copyright protection. If something is "in the public domain" then anyone can copy it or use it in any way they wish. The author has none of the exclusive rights which apply to a copyright work.
The phrase "public domain" is often used incorrectly to refer to freeware or shareware (software which is copyrighted but is distributed without (advance) payment). Public domain means no copyright -- no exclusive rights.
Public domain means no copyright -- no exclusive rights. I think that about sums it up......
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
potato
sigh... I'm making a point about character, not law. look at the context of my argument and you'll see that I didn't say a bicycle is public domain when parked. just read what I wrote and don't read into it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I got your point The point is It is a matter of opinion, if their is no legal wrong there is no character flawno law was broken If you place a bowl of fruit on a table marked free to use then you can't condem those who eat it as having bad caracter or stealing the fruit after all it is free use. the same applies to public domain items free to use.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Umm, no, that's not how it works. As I said earlier, if I released "Romeo and Juliet," by Rafael Olmeda, would you not call me a liar? VPW was a liar. That is not a matter of opinion. It is established fact. The matter of opinion iws whether you find it excusable or not. And clearly, you do.
And integrity means integrity. It means truthfulness. It means honesty. I think that about sums it up.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
potato
I agree with you, Raf. just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you should, and the subject at hand has every bearing on a person's integrity.
go peruse the plagiarism policies of any major university. what you excuse as being ok, WD, would get any student dropped because, while legal, it is still unethical.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
By the way, on what are we basing the thought that these works were in the public domain? On Oldiesman's reprinted copies of the books? Not for nothing, but I wouldn't go to court with that defense. I'd do a LOT more homework.
Regardless, plagiarism of a work that is in the public domain would still get you an F in any college course. But I guess real life and the word of the almighty God is less important than that. Lower standards for God, higher standards for man. Is that it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
No I said to accuse him of stealing is not correct that's the point you can't steal what is free to use. the point is for people to stick to the truth once again....... and don't make s**t up to prove the point.
It should read VP was free under public domain to use the material as he saw fit he did no legal wrong in using it. (ie was not stolen). that said however some would argue that he should have maybe mentioned that he got this info from a source. I might even agree. While that may have been a nice thing to do he is /was under no obligation to do so. Whether he did or did not has no bearing on the fact that he did have a right to use the material as he saw fit under the law. As such he committed no crime. As I said he may have assumed that since he was free to use the material as he saw fit from a legal standpoint, that he did not need to document the source. You assume that someone should have a moral issue for doing what the law says is perfectly fine. I don't! Either way you can't accuse him of a crime that he did not commit. He stole nothing he used what the law said he could. the moral issue is another one and has no bearing on the first.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I agree I never said it was but it also does not mean that just because your idea or mine for that matter of morality makes someone a thief when they did what was legal. It is fine to say I have a problem with the morality of what he did based on my morals. It is another to imply that he committed a crime when the law says otherwise thats the point.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
potato
I'm curious about something. earlier versions of the book didn't carry a copyright notice, but later ones did? my copy is really old, and doesn't carry the notice... which would have put the work in the public domain... but subsequent releases of the book did carry the copyright notice? perhaps the book was copyrighted, because once in the public domain, a work cannot be copyrighted. has anyone done the required research to see if it was on file with the copyright office?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
No , which was my original question as it appears that according to the law it had to have a notice or it went into public domain my copy has none either. and pre law change that appears to have put it into public domain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
VP's plagiarism would get any high school or college student an F on the paper or course, and would get a prof censured or fired. So how can anyone defend VP for doing even worse?
But there is a deeper issue here. In PFAL (class and book p. 119-120) VP makes a big deal about saying he took his 3,000 books to the dump and studied the Bible alone.
Then in the intro to RTHST VP plainly said that he "put aside all I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook." He is clearly saying that he did not use any other book in writing RTHST. Yet, most of the book is plainly plagiarized. This is a bald-faced lie.
VP never once in RTHST ever mentions the name of Stiles or Bullinger, who he stole most of RTHST from. In the earlier 3rd ed. the intro vaguely mentions that VP met a man who taught him something (Stiles, but you'd only know this if you knew the part of the story VP was hiding). But all later editions delete this and instead say that VP used the Bible alone. This conscious deletion from the intro reinforces how VP was consciously lying about his plagiarism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Again you assume it is plagiarism , not if the material is in Public domain. I defended his right to use public domain material in the manner it by law says you can. Thats all. I take issue with calling it stealing when the law says it is not
As to the other your reaching the context of that was in regard to not reading around the Word. Reading books to get your understanding for the Word as opposed to getting your understanding from scripture and then reading books.
I don't think he ever implied that he or anyone else should not read books. At that point he was reading to find understanding. If you believe his story then he read scripture for understanding then when reading books it supported the understanding he had gained from reading scripture. The key is "TIme" he said one day, one day when? one day before he had understanding from the bible he dumped the books then after understanding scripture he came across Stiles who taught him a deeper understanding of what he had learned from the scriptures not the books.
As far as Stiles I have a a disk where VP talks about how he taught him about the Holy Spirit it was never a secret to me that he did.
And I still believe that it is very possible that J.E. Stiles did not copyright his book because he was not concerned about his credit, or making money, but rather that people helped spred his message . I think it is very possible that was his intention, a good one at that.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
potato
university policy still typically considers it plagarism if the source is in the public domain.
vpw seems like he didn't mind revising history as it suited him. from what I've been reading of narcissists, it's their way of dealing with inconvenient facts that don't fit in with their present reality. they expect everyone to get on board with it, and that's what good TWIts did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
And this relates to VPW how was he in school? The law says he can use it as he wishes he was not submitting a school paper. different venue, diferent rules apply.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
potato
read what's been written... several people have asserted that vpw should know better regarding plagairism because of his pretended level of doctor... if he was a researcher, scholar, as he passed himself off to be, then he would adhere to the standards of academic circles, which he clearly did not. there have been many threads regarding plagiarism, and you've only focused on the US law version, which has been revised because it is flawed. there are other standards that could be adhered to, rather than the letter of the law. you are focused only on the law and ignoring other issues with his decision to, yes, steal another man's work and pass it off as his own. it's theft because of the intent, even if it's not theft by law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Nope it may be a moral issue depending on who's morals you assume are the standard but if the law says you can use something then it is not theft period. Last I looked VP lived in the US which is why one would look at US law.
Which says that if in PD he can use the material in any way that they wish. Period.
public domain (PD) The total absence of copyright protection. If something is "in the public domain" then anyone can copy it or use it in any way they wish. The author has none of the exclusive rights which apply to a copyright work.
The phrase "public domain" is often used incorrectly to refer to freeware or shareware (software which is copyrighted but is distributed without (advance) payment). Public domain means no copyright -- no exclusive rights.
Your right I am focusing on the law thats the point what is legal if it is legal then it can not be a crime If it is free then it can't be thieved,stolen. Thats common sense. my point all along the moral issue is a seperate issue. right or wrong depending on your morals or someone elses. it does NOT change the law.
If one goes to the store and the sign says free apples take as many as you want and do what you want with themthen you can't accuse someone of stealing when they do . if they then take the apples and throw them at cars it still does not make them accountable for stealing the apples only for their moral choice to throw them at cars.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
trumpeter
Cancer? Shmancer! Plagiarism? Nonsense!
Dr. Victor Paul Wiereille is one of the finest men I have ever met.
No brag, just fact.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I agree Potato.
But even theft aside..
It proves he was LAZY. Yes, lazy. No, he didn't work his *(&*%'s off night and day, year after year-
Someone else did the work FOR him. In medical terms, this would make him a parasite, just wallowing in pre-packaged resources.
This is the same guy that made corps work their buts off..
stole their labors as well.
I don't think he was the "workman" he made himself out to be.
Lazy.
I find it despicable that he slapped der vey's copyright on it.. on at the very least, PUBLIC DOMAIN material.
It shows that academically, he was a fraud, on a systematic basis.
A charlatan.. a fake..
A traitor to the very doctrine he reputedly represented.
If I took Newton's calculus, and claimed I independantly came up with it.. some would ignore me, the rest would laugh me out of town.
If I somehow could convice about 5,000 people that I actually did, they'd brand me a charlatan.
Maybe this stuff bothers people that really try to work at something in life, and see somebody just help themselves..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
yes. he was a parasite.
maybe that's why I started this thread. at one time I respected what I thought was his research although I could barely stand to sit through any of his teachings. I always thought he wrote better than he spoke (now I know why, it's because the written material was pretty much all done by others) but I actually thought the material was his.
now, I understand ideas can't be copyrighted, but there's a huge difference between learning from others and incorporating their ideas, and pretending you came up with something by revelation from God. maybe some people heard him say he learned from others, but that stuff didn't get passed around as part of the culture.
the most useful thread in this discussion has been the academic standard, since vpw passed himself off as a doctor and an academic. as an academic, he fails on all counts in the character department. of less importance is the information about copyright law, although that is also interesting.
if I was at all acedemically pursuaded, I'd right a book quoting large passage of Stile's book and put a copyright on it and see how long it took for twi lawyers to write me a letter. that could be a fun experiment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I was thinking of something along those lines..
I'm suprised they haven't gone after Stiles/Kenyon society/Leonard Ministries to begin with.
They'd sue King James for copyright on the bible if they could..
What amazes me about most of the posts here from "the other side"- is the "right dividing" of all of the legal issues about plagiarism- "well, it wasn't REALLY plagiarism. It was public domain, he had the right to do it, its not the same as academics, or publication, or etc, etc"
"Look at ALL THE GOOD that came of it"- questionable to me at least..
Its hard to admit you've been taken by a charlatan, a fake- it was for me, anyway.
"but the guy that sold me the bridge had good intentions.."
Pretty embarrassing..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Put all the legal mumbo jumbo on the back burner for a moment. He took someone elses work and pretended it was his own( Knowing full well it was not). He claimed God gave it to him in a bundle of revelation the likes of which the world hadn't seen for 2,000 years. He knowingly deceived a lot of unsuspecting people including myself. Personally, I don't really give a rats' posterior whether it was legal or not. The man knowingly lied, plain and simple, and that is not an acceptable practice for someone who supposedly is Gods' representative to the world for modern times. If that makes him "one of the finest men you have ever known" you have my sympathy. Did he tell us "not to read other books"? As a matter of fact, that very challenge was presented in the PFAL class by VPW himself. Why people feel compelled to look for loopholes that will excuse his unGodly and conscious "nose thumbing" of those areas of Gods' word in which he professed himself to be expert is beyond me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.