Bolshevik I'll try not to derail this thread with too much info about my pov concerning TWI or VP. Perhaps, if you really want to know where I stand on certain issues you can ask me in this thread but, briefly here I'll simply say I don't consider it a waste of my time to find "good things" in anyone. I'll even try my best to find something "good" to say about you.
My concern was that people not spread Wierwille/twi. Just rub his/their name off the book then. Like you said, there are many other books out there.
Unless I intend to respond to a post I generally don't bother reading who wrote it. Your comments happened to be one where I felt like responding and so I thought it important to know who wrote what I was responding to. Thus, I agree with you that it's not necessary to know who wrote JCING. I once shared with someone, who had no knowledge of TWI and VP, snippets from the book to get their unbiased opinion. It was an interesting experiment. My personal pov is that you can learn something (if you're interested in learning something about God and the Bible) from just about anyone -- I might even learn something from you -- but you should also learn how to chew on the meat and spit out the bones.
That is indeed unfortunate but, I don't know how I can avoid saying what I think (in response to you) and soothe your troubled mind. I'm just trying to be honest with you.
Twi will never die.
The TWI that I knew and enjoyed being a member of died long before I ever left it. As to what they are doing now I have very little knowledge of and much less concern for. However, I can't help thinking about Solomon when thinking about this -- although Solomon was said to be the wisest among all men he also was one of the biggest idolaters. God must have seen more of the good in Solomon than the bad to have placed him in such a prominent position in the Bible.
The best thing I can say about JCING is that it inspired the CES book.
:) That's fair enuf. I haven't read CES's book on the subject. Would you recommend it? I have read a few of their other books -- in particular "Don't Blame God" and found it although interesting and informative nevertheless not error free.
The thought that Wierwille's book could have some kind of ripple effect presumes that it was some kind of seminal work in the field. It was not. Despite his protestation, it really was a johnny come lately idea set forth to be iconoclastic. It was not revolutionary. It was not unique. The whole reason we have the word "Unitarian" in our language is that there were Christians who did not believe Jesus is God.
"Either JCING is the word or it is not."
Wrong. The book presents a thesis that is either correct or not. That doesn't mean it's "the Word" by any stretch. Its presentation of history is downright laughable; it misrepresents (by omission) the position of Arius; it draws false comparisons between the Christian Trinity and the deities of other religions; and it provides a tortured explanation of the first chapter of John's gospel that no one merely reading the Bible, in any language, can draw from the words alone. He could be correct in his thesis and still have written a shoddy book about it.
:) That's fair enuf. I haven't read CES's book on the subject. Would you recommend it? I have read a few of their other books -- in particular "Don't Blame God" and found it although interesting and informative nevertheless not error free.
If you believe JCING and want a stronger book to explain it than Wierwille's, then I recommend the CES book and the Buzzard book (Google "Christianity's self-inflicted wound" and you should find it easily).
I also recommend becoming familiar with the counterarguments to those books. While you may not agree with them, they will help you better understand what people believe and why.
I would also recommend getting on the mailing list for Glad Tidings, which is put out by the group once known as Christian Biblical Counsel (I've lost track of what their name is now). Sean F, the son of a well-known TWI minister, has been writing some interesting pieces on the subject lately.
and it provides a tortured explanation of the first chapter of John's gospel that no one merely reading the Bible, in any language, can draw from the words alone.
Although you may be right (opinions can carry that weight) I nevertheless find it equally amusing how anyone can say that Jesus is God from just a cursory reading of John 1. In my opinion (which usually doesn't carry much weight in some circles) to draw the conclusion that Jesus is God from just that short section while ignoring many unambiguous verses which seem to support just the opposite is somehow an exercise of separating one's mind from reason. An example of gymnastics that are of Olympic status.
I lose sleep over these statements. Twi will never die.
Well, you never know..
With what's happening in this world, these sycophants very well may find themselves squeezed right out of existence..
I think they are gonna have to start producing some good fruit, if they have any plans of the following generation even remembering the name of the founder.. that is a very distinct possibility, even with offshoots trying to perpeptuate his name.
If you believe JCING and want a stronger book to explain it than Wierwille's, then I recommend the CES book and the Buzzard book (Google "Christianity's self-inflicted wound" and you should find it easily).
Thanks for your recommendation.
I also recommend becoming familiar with the counterarguments to those books. While you may not agree with them, they will help you better understand what people believe and why.
I've been there, done that. Thanks anyways.
I would also recommend getting on the mailing list for Glad Tidings, which is put out by the group once known as Christian Biblical Counsel (I've lost track of what their name is now). Sean F, the son of a well-known TWI minister, has been writing some interesting pieces on the subject lately.
I'll check it out. I use to be on the mailing list of CES but for some reason (maybe my lack of financial support) I no longer receive their mailings.
Well, this isn't the place to get into a "what does John 1 say" discussion: I was merely pointing out that Wierwille's explanation of it doesn't do the job he set out to do, and I offer that as my opinion. Others will vary. I'm not even saying I disagree with his overall conclusion. Another example is his explanation of the verse in Philippians (thought it not robbery to be equal with God). Wierwille's explanation proves/disproves nothing. It's downright silly. But that doesn't mean I disagree with his overall conclusion on the identity of Jesus.
By the way, here's a link to what was once Christian Biblical Counsel.
Well, this isn't the place to get into a "what does John 1 say" discussion:
Excuse me, while I naively try to figure out where things belong. I'm just an old fart, who sometimes takes a little longer than young bucks in trying to keep things in their proper place. :)
I was merely pointing out that Wierwille's explanation of it doesn't do the job he set out to do, and I offer that as my opinion.
I can see your point but, if one thinks about what "he set out to do" I think it can be argued that he succeeded. The book was primarily meant for the eyes of members of TWI (in my opinion) and most accepted what he presented therein as true. But what many didn't do -- which was often the case -- was to bother checking out the validity of things stated in the book.
Excuse me, while I naively try to figure out where things belong. I'm just an old fart, who sometimes takes a little longer than young bucks in trying to keep things in their proper place. :)
Didn't mean to sound like I was reprimanding you. iwas just explaining why I wasn't going into further detail on my point here. :)
I can see your point but, if one thinks about what "he set out to do" I think it can be argued that he succeeded. The book was primarily meant for the eyes of members of TWI (in my opinion) and most accepted what he presented therein as true. But what many didn't do -- which was often the case -- was to bother checking out the validity of things stated in the book.
If, however, what he set out to do was provide a logical and Biblically sound explanation of what John 1 is trying to communicate, he did not succeed (in my opinion).
In dealing with this issue, I found very quickly that using JCING's explanation of John 1 was practically useless and involved logical leaps that were unsupported by the text itself. The other books make much better arguments, though Trinitarians will, of course, disagree with them.
If, however, what he set out to do was provide a logical and Biblically sound explanation of what John 1 is trying to communicate, he did not succeed (in my opinion).
I suppose the true measure of success would be determined not by sampling just one (your) opinion but to ask everyone who read the book what they thought. Unless the vast majority of members of TWI were being dishonest, I'd say the majority of them thought he succeeded in what he set out to do. Now, it would be easy to say that the vast majority were brainwashed into accepting anything VP did or set out to do was successful and while that may be true it would still follow that he succeeded if he felt he had a following which blindly followed wherever he led them. I suppose it's just a matter of how you look at it and define success.
With what's happening in this world, these sycophants very well may find themselves squeezed right out of existence..
I think they are gonna have to start producing some good fruit, if they have any plans of the following generation even remembering the name of the founder.. that is a very distinct possibility, even with offshoots trying to perpeptuate his name.
I don't lose sleep over it though.
I'm just concerned how my son will fair in a Wierwille-loving family.
That others still can't look at a subject unless it had been through the Wierwille filter bugs me. That people grasp at any little morsel of truth that came from wierwille, as if it wouldn't be known without his life, is idolatry.
There are numerous sources on the subject of Jesus' identity, but here people are, measuring the great success of Wierwille's life. My understanding is that we use ideas that came from Hitler and Nazi Germany (highway, jet engines etc.) But what idea of Wierwille's is an original?
Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
If you look at any person's teaching you might discover that much of it was built on the foundation of other's work or thinking. Much of orthodox Christianity owes a debt of gratitude to the philosophy of Aristotle.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
If you look at any person's teaching you might discover that much of it was built on the foundation of other's work or thinking. Much of orthodox Christianity owes a debt of gratitude to the philosophy of Aristotle.
How do you arrive at the conclusion that I AM promoting his works? Would you prefer simple validation/affirmation that what you think is what anyone else should think or would rather be challenged on what you think?
Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book.
Got a source for this claim?
Otherwise, I'm saying you made it up.
It doesn't make sense, either. vpw and JCING critics objected to its main assertion and its conclusions.
They did not care at ALL what his background was like.
They didn't care his MOTIVATION for writing the book-they objected to the book.
Considering how weak an "argument" it makes for something so controversial,
most of us-even those who agree with its conclusions- can see the critics had a point, too.
Nope. I did not make this up.
So, you have a source supporting the claim that
"Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book."?
I bet you don't, and the rest of the post will obfuscate the question...
Apparently you skipped over the Introduction in JCING. (Taken from page 2-3):
"So while studying God's Word for the past several decades, I have always kept the trinity in mind, hoping I would find the key to understanding it, hoping that this wasn't one of God's secrets.
But, through the years, the more and more I carefully researched God's Word for knowledge, the less and less I found to substantiate a trinity. Even though I had always accepted the idea of a three-in-one God, I continually found evidence in the Word of God which undermined a Christian trinity."
Congratulations!
You COMPLETELY FAILED to support your claim that
"Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book"
and attempted to change the subject at the same time!
You demonstrated that you have NO support for your claim of what "most critics" say,
or even ONE critic, let alone 51% of them!
I knew vpw was raised Trinitarian. He'd addressed correspondence before this with a Trinity invocation.
YOU made a claim that critics misrepresented him- and when I asked you to show this misinterpretation,
you did everything to hide FROM any quote from any critic!
Your statement about critics was unsupported, and you elected to distract and change the subject
when asked TO support it.
Logical conclusion: this statement of yours:
"Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book."
Was MADE UP ENTIRELY, and has NO BASIS IN ANY QUOTES FROM ANY CRITICS,
LET ALONE "MOST" OF THEM.
There is VPW's own personal tesitmony regarding his original stance on the doctrine of the trinity. But if you are saying I need to back up the statement of the critic's who claim VPW was always anti-trinitarian, then apparently you have never read the Introduction in any of their books either. They often state and make the claim that VPW was always anti-trinitarian in the Introduction of their books (while aligning his position along with that of Arius) and then go on to refer to VPW as the one who is the: "Johnny-come-lately" to the party (debate) - i.e. saying Arius was the first one who came up with the anti-triniatarian idea of God, and VPW just came along later.
Let's see ONE, ONE quote from ONE Introduction to ONE of their books.
YOU'RE the one who made the claim they said that.
Therefore, YOU'RE the one who needs to support your made-up claim.
Don't pretend I have to find books that I think NEVER EXISTED, to quote
Introductions that NEVER EXISTED, when you're the one who claims they do.
That's not how INTELLIGENT discussions work- the Burden of Proof is on the one
claiming the existence of something.
The only question I would ask the critics is why do they feel the need to distort this fact regarding VPW's own personal "indoctrination" of the trinity from his childhood? The only answer to that is because it helps reinforce their weak doctrinal position - so that question really doesn't need to be asked.
The obvious question is why you feel the need to distort the critics? The obvious answer is that it helps
reinforce your weak position- so that they appear to make weaker arguments than the weak arguments
WW asks you to prove that people have accused VPW of always being anti-trinitarian, and WTH replies with a quote from JCING that does not even remotely address the question. Then he goes on to pretend to cite the introductions to other books. Since it's so difficult to prove a negative, let's ask WTH to establish a positive:
Can you name one book that claims VPW was always anti-Trinitarian?
Your claim was that MOST of his critics made this claim. I'm not asking you to prove that. I'm asking you to prove that ANY of his critics made that claim.
How do you arrive at the conclusion that I AM promoting his works? Would you prefer simple validation/affirmation that what you think is what anyone else should think or would rather be challenged on what you think?
My apologies if I assumed you were promoting his works when you are not.
your second sentence, um, Yes, the slave owner thinks differently than the slave. twi, the fruit of wierwille's life, prefers to run peoples thoughts and lives, (here an old free will discussion can be pulled up). Introducing people to wierwilles books gives more power to twi because wierwille will be seen as theologian, or good source on understanding the word. That gives twi credibility and thus power, rightfully earned or not. That helps hold the "innies" in, because their ministry is still wonderful. But why worry about them?
Well, Bolshevik, I guess that just goes to show you shouldn't believe everything you're taught, unless it's supported with evidence. If you look at Bullinger's notes on the structure of the Gospel of John you'll see where he states the purpose of that Gospel "is to present the Lord Jesus as God."
That's true. To judge only from Bullinger's writings, he was unquestionably a Trinitarian, and there are no
HINTS, even, that he considered otherwise. The suggestions he "would have changed his opinion" or anything
along those lines were promulgated by those in the top in twi *cough* vpw* cough* to try to make him agree
with EVERYTHING they taught.
Here, again, I wouldn't find it very logical to draw any conclusion absent evidence. Even though VP most assuredly borrowed (that verb probably won't sit well with many) from the writings of Bullinger and others as seen in some of his books it does not follow that he did likewise with every book or article he ever wrote including JCING. If you have evidence showing that he plagiarized someone else's writing (when he wrote JCING) then I'd like to see it.
We have had many threads dedicated to demonstrating the strong case that vpw plagiarized most of
"his" works, and those he did not (POSSIBLY excepting JCING) were written by the research staff and vpw
left THEIR names off and put "by VPW" on the covers. If you need help finding any of these threads,
pm me and I will point you to a few.
Isn't the "argument" (message) more important than the source? Whenever, someone tries to discredit the source they are generally committing the fallacy called Ad Hominem.
You missed what that post was about.
So far, we've documented the sources for most of "vpw"'s books- books that vpw took chapter by chapter,
or paragraph by paragraph, or word by word from-
EXCEPT JCING.
One might argue that it's only a matter of time, since all the others were found over time.
However, the question is: what materials did he plagiarize to make JCING?
That's a separate question from "is the book any good?" or "is the book making its case?"
So, the book was not being DISCREDITED by vpw's blatant plagiarism there or anywhere else,
at least as regarding the quality of the material on the pages.
(If the supposed author is a cheat, liar, rapist, plagiarist, and so on,
My apologies if I assumed you were promoting his works when you are not.
Accepted. These days I don't even promote Christianity but, I'm not opposed to having a discussion on that subject (or on TWI). I've pretty much come to the point in my life where I really don't care what people believe or don't believe.
your second sentence, um, Yes, the slave owner thinks differently than the slave. twi, the fruit of wierwille's life, prefers to run peoples thoughts and lives, (here an old free will discussion can be pulled up). Introducing people to wierwilles books gives more power to twi because wierwille will be seen as theologian, or good source on understanding the word. That gives twi credibility and thus power, rightfully earned or not. That helps hold the "innies" in, because their ministry is still wonderful. But why worry about them?
I don't suppose the thought occurred to you that there's a flip-side to this coin. If TWI was (as many claim) opposed to exploring the writings/teachings of others then can it not be said that those who oppose the exploration of VP/TWI writings have the same mind-set as those who were/are followers of TWI?
True freedom is being able to read the writings of anyone and have the ability to think through what's taught and make up your own mind.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
9
20
17
Popular Days
May 31
41
May 30
28
May 29
15
Jun 1
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 15 posts
WordWolf 9 posts
Bolshevik 20 posts
Larry N Moore 17 posts
Popular Days
May 31 2007
41 posts
May 30 2007
28 posts
May 29 2007
15 posts
Jun 1 2007
11 posts
Larry N Moore
Hi back at ya dmiller!
I also admit (shyly) that I am. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Bolshevik I'll try not to derail this thread with too much info about my pov concerning TWI or VP. Perhaps, if you really want to know where I stand on certain issues you can ask me in this thread but, briefly here I'll simply say I don't consider it a waste of my time to find "good things" in anyone. I'll even try my best to find something "good" to say about you.
Unless I intend to respond to a post I generally don't bother reading who wrote it. Your comments happened to be one where I felt like responding and so I thought it important to know who wrote what I was responding to. Thus, I agree with you that it's not necessary to know who wrote JCING. I once shared with someone, who had no knowledge of TWI and VP, snippets from the book to get their unbiased opinion. It was an interesting experiment. My personal pov is that you can learn something (if you're interested in learning something about God and the Bible) from just about anyone -- I might even learn something from you -- but you should also learn how to chew on the meat and spit out the bones.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I know it's hard. I'm a product of twi myself.
I lose sleep over these statements. Twi will never die.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
The TWI that I knew and enjoyed being a member of died long before I ever left it. As to what they are doing now I have very little knowledge of and much less concern for. However, I can't help thinking about Solomon when thinking about this -- although Solomon was said to be the wisest among all men he also was one of the biggest idolaters. God must have seen more of the good in Solomon than the bad to have placed him in such a prominent position in the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The best thing I can say about JCING is that it inspired the CES book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
:) That's fair enuf. I haven't read CES's book on the subject. Would you recommend it? I have read a few of their other books -- in particular "Don't Blame God" and found it although interesting and informative nevertheless not error free.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The thought that Wierwille's book could have some kind of ripple effect presumes that it was some kind of seminal work in the field. It was not. Despite his protestation, it really was a johnny come lately idea set forth to be iconoclastic. It was not revolutionary. It was not unique. The whole reason we have the word "Unitarian" in our language is that there were Christians who did not believe Jesus is God.
"Either JCING is the word or it is not."
Wrong. The book presents a thesis that is either correct or not. That doesn't mean it's "the Word" by any stretch. Its presentation of history is downright laughable; it misrepresents (by omission) the position of Arius; it draws false comparisons between the Christian Trinity and the deities of other religions; and it provides a tortured explanation of the first chapter of John's gospel that no one merely reading the Bible, in any language, can draw from the words alone. He could be correct in his thesis and still have written a shoddy book about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
If you believe JCING and want a stronger book to explain it than Wierwille's, then I recommend the CES book and the Buzzard book (Google "Christianity's self-inflicted wound" and you should find it easily).
I also recommend becoming familiar with the counterarguments to those books. While you may not agree with them, they will help you better understand what people believe and why.
I would also recommend getting on the mailing list for Glad Tidings, which is put out by the group once known as Christian Biblical Counsel (I've lost track of what their name is now). Sean F, the son of a well-known TWI minister, has been writing some interesting pieces on the subject lately.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Although you may be right (opinions can carry that weight) I nevertheless find it equally amusing how anyone can say that Jesus is God from just a cursory reading of John 1. In my opinion (which usually doesn't carry much weight in some circles) to draw the conclusion that Jesus is God from just that short section while ignoring many unambiguous verses which seem to support just the opposite is somehow an exercise of separating one's mind from reason. An example of gymnastics that are of Olympic status.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Well, you never know..
With what's happening in this world, these sycophants very well may find themselves squeezed right out of existence..
I think they are gonna have to start producing some good fruit, if they have any plans of the following generation even remembering the name of the founder.. that is a very distinct possibility, even with offshoots trying to perpeptuate his name.
I don't lose sleep over it though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I've been there, done that. Thanks anyways.
I'll check it out. I use to be on the mailing list of CES but for some reason (maybe my lack of financial support) I no longer receive their mailings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Well, this isn't the place to get into a "what does John 1 say" discussion: I was merely pointing out that Wierwille's explanation of it doesn't do the job he set out to do, and I offer that as my opinion. Others will vary. I'm not even saying I disagree with his overall conclusion. Another example is his explanation of the verse in Philippians (thought it not robbery to be equal with God). Wierwille's explanation proves/disproves nothing. It's downright silly. But that doesn't mean I disagree with his overall conclusion on the identity of Jesus.
By the way, here's a link to what was once Christian Biblical Counsel.
http://www.kingdomready.org
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I can see your point but, if one thinks about what "he set out to do" I think it can be argued that he succeeded. The book was primarily meant for the eyes of members of TWI (in my opinion) and most accepted what he presented therein as true. But what many didn't do -- which was often the case -- was to bother checking out the validity of things stated in the book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Didn't mean to sound like I was reprimanding you. iwas just explaining why I wasn't going into further detail on my point here. :)
If, however, what he set out to do was provide a logical and Biblically sound explanation of what John 1 is trying to communicate, he did not succeed (in my opinion).
In dealing with this issue, I found very quickly that using JCING's explanation of John 1 was practically useless and involved logical leaps that were unsupported by the text itself. The other books make much better arguments, though Trinitarians will, of course, disagree with them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I suppose the true measure of success would be determined not by sampling just one (your) opinion but to ask everyone who read the book what they thought. Unless the vast majority of members of TWI were being dishonest, I'd say the majority of them thought he succeeded in what he set out to do. Now, it would be easy to say that the vast majority were brainwashed into accepting anything VP did or set out to do was successful and while that may be true it would still follow that he succeeded if he felt he had a following which blindly followed wherever he led them. I suppose it's just a matter of how you look at it and define success.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'm just concerned how my son will fair in a Wierwille-loving family.
That others still can't look at a subject unless it had been through the Wierwille filter bugs me. That people grasp at any little morsel of truth that came from wierwille, as if it wouldn't be known without his life, is idolatry.
There are numerous sources on the subject of Jesus' identity, but here people are, measuring the great success of Wierwille's life. My understanding is that we use ideas that came from Hitler and Nazi Germany (highway, jet engines etc.) But what idea of Wierwille's is an original?
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
If you look at any person's teaching you might discover that much of it was built on the foundation of other's work or thinking. Much of orthodox Christianity owes a debt of gratitude to the philosophy of Aristotle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
So why promote Wierwille's works?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
How do you arrive at the conclusion that I AM promoting his works? Would you prefer simple validation/affirmation that what you think is what anyone else should think or would rather be challenged on what you think?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Got a source for this claim?
Otherwise, I'm saying you made it up.
It doesn't make sense, either. vpw and JCING critics objected to its main assertion and its conclusions.
They did not care at ALL what his background was like.
They didn't care his MOTIVATION for writing the book-they objected to the book.
Considering how weak an "argument" it makes for something so controversial,
most of us-even those who agree with its conclusions- can see the critics had a point, too.
So, you have a source supporting the claim that
"Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book."?
I bet you don't, and the rest of the post will obfuscate the question...
Congratulations!
You COMPLETELY FAILED to support your claim that
"Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book"
and attempted to change the subject at the same time!
You demonstrated that you have NO support for your claim of what "most critics" say,
or even ONE critic, let alone 51% of them!
I knew vpw was raised Trinitarian. He'd addressed correspondence before this with a Trinity invocation.
YOU made a claim that critics misrepresented him- and when I asked you to show this misinterpretation,
you did everything to hide FROM any quote from any critic!
Your statement about critics was unsupported, and you elected to distract and change the subject
when asked TO support it.
Logical conclusion: this statement of yours:
"Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book."
Was MADE UP ENTIRELY, and has NO BASIS IN ANY QUOTES FROM ANY CRITICS,
LET ALONE "MOST" OF THEM.
Let's see ONE, ONE quote from ONE Introduction to ONE of their books.YOU'RE the one who made the claim they said that.
Therefore, YOU'RE the one who needs to support your made-up claim.
Don't pretend I have to find books that I think NEVER EXISTED, to quote
Introductions that NEVER EXISTED, when you're the one who claims they do.
That's not how INTELLIGENT discussions work- the Burden of Proof is on the one
claiming the existence of something.
The obvious question is why you feel the need to distort the critics? The obvious answer is that it helps
reinforce your weak position- so that they appear to make weaker arguments than the weak arguments
of JCING.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
My apologies if I assumed you were promoting his works when you are not.
your second sentence, um, Yes, the slave owner thinks differently than the slave. twi, the fruit of wierwille's life, prefers to run peoples thoughts and lives, (here an old free will discussion can be pulled up). Introducing people to wierwilles books gives more power to twi because wierwille will be seen as theologian, or good source on understanding the word. That gives twi credibility and thus power, rightfully earned or not. That helps hold the "innies" in, because their ministry is still wonderful. But why worry about them?
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
That's true. To judge only from Bullinger's writings, he was unquestionably a Trinitarian, and there are no
HINTS, even, that he considered otherwise. The suggestions he "would have changed his opinion" or anything
along those lines were promulgated by those in the top in twi *cough* vpw* cough* to try to make him agree
with EVERYTHING they taught.
We have had many threads dedicated to demonstrating the strong case that vpw plagiarized most of"his" works, and those he did not (POSSIBLY excepting JCING) were written by the research staff and vpw
left THEIR names off and put "by VPW" on the covers. If you need help finding any of these threads,
pm me and I will point you to a few.
You missed what that post was about.
So far, we've documented the sources for most of "vpw"'s books- books that vpw took chapter by chapter,
or paragraph by paragraph, or word by word from-
EXCEPT JCING.
One might argue that it's only a matter of time, since all the others were found over time.
However, the question is: what materials did he plagiarize to make JCING?
That's a separate question from "is the book any good?" or "is the book making its case?"
So, the book was not being DISCREDITED by vpw's blatant plagiarism there or anywhere else,
at least as regarding the quality of the material on the pages.
(If the supposed author is a cheat, liar, rapist, plagiarist, and so on,
the book itself may still have merit.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I don't suppose the thought occurred to you that there's a flip-side to this coin. If TWI was (as many claim) opposed to exploring the writings/teachings of others then can it not be said that those who oppose the exploration of VP/TWI writings have the same mind-set as those who were/are followers of TWI?
True freedom is being able to read the writings of anyone and have the ability to think through what's taught and make up your own mind.
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.