As far as "plagarized" I wouldnt say that, because Jesus wanted us to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth, whether it bve spoken by a layman, a priest, a pope, or Billy Graham
If there are striking similarities between Gosple representives, thats probly cause it the same Gospel of Christ! Im sure Jesus would want us all to speak Gods Word in love, and NOT claim it as his own in a "cult of personality"
The troubling thing about VPW's teachings being invalidated, they ARE invalidated insomuch as they............
The contradict good Christian doctrine
Charging high prices for Bible Classes
The Deity of Christ is denied
Believeing = Recieving without Gods help
promises that right "believing" will keep away sickness, ensure prosperity, and even protect soldiers from enemy bullets
Poverty is condemned as the result of imperfect faith.
The "Good Life" is the proper reward for believing
If you fail or make a mistake in some way you are "marked and avoided" even if it causes you great suffering and danger
and finally that adultery is ok when its done to "bless" a man of God!
It sounds like you're saying that Wierwille's character indicated or pointed out the falsity of what he was teaching, not that it made false what was otherwise true. Also that his character was a red flag to accept nothing he said at face value.
Correct me if I'm wrong and you were really saying that there was truth that his sins turned into lies.
While we're at it, is there anyone here who thinks that any of Wierwille's material was false because it was plagiarized? Or even that all of what Wierwille taught was plagiarized?
Is there anyone here who believes that any truth in Wierwille's work is somehow not truth due to any of Wierwille's sins or abuses? If so, please step up and say so clearly.
I don't think such a poster exists. I hear posters asserting that Wierwille's character influenced what he taught, should cause one to not take it at face value and that the teachings were not truth.
Yet various arguments are addressed by the statement that Wierwille's sins don't negate the truth in them. This strawman has been around so long that it's taken on a life of its own.
Still waiting for this assertion to be made, other than some posters claiming it has been made.
Every poster who has been accused of saying that Wierwille's sins invalidate any truth in his teachings has explained the misunderstanding.
Come on! If you're out there and believe that any truth is no longer truth because of Wierwille's sins, step up to the microphone and say so!
well, as i previously pointed out, i think that this is a moot point because vpw's teachings are fatally flawed!
but i will still give an answer...
truth remains truth at all times...
however, the teachings of a false prophet (although they may contain minute traces of truth) when taken as a whole and in the context of how they were taught BECOMES A DISTORTION OF THE TRUTH!
every false prophet sprinkles their teachings with trace amounts of truth, or else no one would follow them...
those trace amounts of truth are the hook upon which false prophets build their house of cards...
but when taken in the context of the false prophets teachings, they become a distortion... and a distortion of the truth is better known as A LIE!
now the reason this happened is because of who vpw is/was (i.e. a lying, hypocritical, power-hungry, lust-filled man)
Yet some of our fellow posters take words like your own and decide that they mean that Wierwille's sins invalidated the truth in them. Excuse me, I assumed that these posters decide what others' words mean. But the facts are that the frequent response to posts like yours is "Wierwille's sins do not invalidate the truth that he taught".
We all have different ideas of how much that Wierwille taught was true.
However, I have yet to see someone who believes that previously true doctrine, whether plagiarized or original became false once Wierwille taught it due to his character flaws, sins, abuses, etc.
Also that his character was a red flag to accept nothing he said at face value.
unfortunately, his true character was rather well hidden. I sincerely believe the few of his yes men who knew, consented, and/or partook, and subsequently covered up, have as much blood on their hands as he did.. if not more.
They are like a blight spreading over the land.. what they grow, poisonous and inedible..
makes one want to drop a life, a livelihood and profession, and go join an offshoot, doesn't it?
The problem with the truth that Wierwille spoke(and, yes, I believe some of what he spoke contained "truth", at least in the conventional sense.) is that it's like mixing flea poop in a pepper shaker.
How in the world can you completely separate it all back out again?
These continued accusations of idolatry by you and others are getting old. Its sort of the same thing when twi taught that the trinity is idolatry ... i.e. anybody with a trinitarian viewpoint was committing idolatry. Much the same here, anyone who believes PFAL is doing so because of idolatry. Worship of the teacher. I think its actually trying to guilt someone out of their beliefs. Accuse them of idolatry.. thats it, make it a guilt trip. They are worshipping other gods!
Please knock off the idolatry accusations. If you truly believe this, then keep this opinion to yourself. This is getting personal and its against the forums rules. I will try not to respond in kind even though I have opinions of you that are uncomplimentary and better kept to myself.
I think you're overreacting to my post – but since it seems to have struck a nerve with you, allow me to elaborate.
...A well-read student with good critical thinking skills is more apt to think for themselves – and less likely to succumb to worshiping a lying teacher.
I did NOT use the word "idolatry" in my post…My use of the word "worshiping" is not as narrow as the TWI-definition. It's common to use the term about someone who holds another beyond reproach. A person can say something like "He just worships the ground that his supervisor walks on." It can also be an act of devotion as in worshiping wealth, fame, beauty, power, etc.
Butchaknow…after thinking about how some zealously come to the defense of vp – they're quick to minimize, rationalize or whitewash his wicked behavior, and honor him as the man-o-god-for-this-day-and-time-and-hour, I can understand how some would be alarmed over my post.
If you see a poster that looks idolatrous to you, whether you are right or wrong, I think it would be in compliance with the rules of the forums to keep that opinion to yourself. I think we all see things about posters that, if allowed to be typed out, could lead to all types of personal attacks and insults. Let's not get personal with posters and try to be more respectful.
If you see a poster that looks idolatrous to you, whether you are right or wrong, I think it would be in compliance with the rules of the forums to keep that opinion to yourself. I think we all see things about posters that, if allowed to be typed out, could lead to all types of personal attacks and insults. Let's not get personal with posters and try to be more respectful.
That sounds a bit counter-productive to me.
This is a forum for voicing opinions.
Those opinions will not always be in agreement.
Voicing an opinion that is in disagreement with another poster's opinion does not constitute a "personal attack" in and of itself.
If another poster voices an opinion that appears to me to be idolatrous, there is nothing wrong with me or anyone else voicing an opposing view to that opinion as long as I address the opinion without attacking the poster.
let me just say that i will not call YOU idolatrous... however, if i see someTHING that looks idolatrous, i will say so (and i will provide the reasons why i think that)
I did NOT use the word "idolatry" in my post…My use of the word "worshiping" is not as narrow as the TWI-definition. It's common to use the term about someone who holds another beyond reproach. A person can say something like "He just worships the ground that his supervisor walks on." It can also be an act of devotion as in worshiping wealth, fame, beauty, power, etc.
(snip)
But your usage of the word "worship" is CONSISTENT with how twi used with some verses.
Matthew 18:25-27 (King James Version)
25But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
26The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
27Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.
Surely, if he was reading Matthew 18, he wouldn't conclude the servant was an idolator and
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
11
12
7
7
Popular Days
May 6
28
May 5
28
May 7
4
May 4
4
Top Posters In This Topic
jen-o 11 posts
year2027 12 posts
WhiteDove 7 posts
waysider 7 posts
Popular Days
May 6 2008
28 posts
May 5 2008
28 posts
May 7 2008
4 posts
May 4 2008
4 posts
Steveo
Id like to put my two cents in....
As far as "plagarized" I wouldnt say that, because Jesus wanted us to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth, whether it bve spoken by a layman, a priest, a pope, or Billy Graham
If there are striking similarities between Gosple representives, thats probly cause it the same Gospel of Christ! Im sure Jesus would want us all to speak Gods Word in love, and NOT claim it as his own in a "cult of personality"
The troubling thing about VPW's teachings being invalidated, they ARE invalidated insomuch as they............
The contradict good Christian doctrine
Charging high prices for Bible Classes
The Deity of Christ is denied
Believeing = Recieving without Gods help
promises that right "believing" will keep away sickness, ensure prosperity, and even protect soldiers from enemy bullets
Poverty is condemned as the result of imperfect faith.
The "Good Life" is the proper reward for believing
If you fail or make a mistake in some way you are "marked and avoided" even if it causes you great suffering and danger
and finally that adultery is ok when its done to "bless" a man of God!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Ham:
It sounds like you're saying that Wierwille's character indicated or pointed out the falsity of what he was teaching, not that it made false what was otherwise true. Also that his character was a red flag to accept nothing he said at face value.
Correct me if I'm wrong and you were really saying that there was truth that his sins turned into lies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
While we're at it, is there anyone here who thinks that any of Wierwille's material was false because it was plagiarized? Or even that all of what Wierwille taught was plagiarized?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
well, as i previously pointed out, i think that this is a moot point because vpw's teachings are fatally flawed!
but i will still give an answer...
truth remains truth at all times...
however, the teachings of a false prophet (although they may contain minute traces of truth) when taken as a whole and in the context of how they were taught BECOMES A DISTORTION OF THE TRUTH!
every false prophet sprinkles their teachings with trace amounts of truth, or else no one would follow them...
those trace amounts of truth are the hook upon which false prophets build their house of cards...
but when taken in the context of the false prophets teachings, they become a distortion... and a distortion of the truth is better known as A LIE!
now the reason this happened is because of who vpw is/was (i.e. a lying, hypocritical, power-hungry, lust-filled man)
peace,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Jen-o:
Yet some of our fellow posters take words like your own and decide that they mean that Wierwille's sins invalidated the truth in them. Excuse me, I assumed that these posters decide what others' words mean. But the facts are that the frequent response to posts like yours is "Wierwille's sins do not invalidate the truth that he taught".
We all have different ideas of how much that Wierwille taught was true.
However, I have yet to see someone who believes that previously true doctrine, whether plagiarized or original became false once Wierwille taught it due to his character flaws, sins, abuses, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
hey oak,
i hear ya... it's just another straw man argument... and a way to avoid what i'm really saying...
hey ham-ster,
i was just telling someone that if vpw said the sky was blue, i would have to go check it for myself... LOL
hey roy,
THANK YOU for posting your teaching on "false prophets" and for citing all the scripture references... :)
peace to all,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
unfortunately, his true character was rather well hidden. I sincerely believe the few of his yes men who knew, consented, and/or partook, and subsequently covered up, have as much blood on their hands as he did.. if not more.
They are like a blight spreading over the land.. what they grow, poisonous and inedible..
makes one want to drop a life, a livelihood and profession, and go join an offshoot, doesn't it?
one day I'll tell you how I REALLY feel..
Edited by HamLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The problem with the truth that Wierwille spoke(and, yes, I believe some of what he spoke contained "truth", at least in the conventional sense.) is that it's like mixing flea poop in a pepper shaker.
How in the world can you completely separate it all back out again?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think you're overreacting to my post – but since it seems to have struck a nerve with you, allow me to elaborate.
I did NOT use the word "idolatry" in my post…My use of the word "worshiping" is not as narrow as the TWI-definition. It's common to use the term about someone who holds another beyond reproach. A person can say something like "He just worships the ground that his supervisor walks on." It can also be an act of devotion as in worshiping wealth, fame, beauty, power, etc.
Butchaknow…after thinking about how some zealously come to the defense of vp – they're quick to minimize, rationalize or whitewash his wicked behavior, and honor him as the man-o-god-for-this-day-and-time-and-hour, I can understand how some would be alarmed over my post.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
well.... i'm not gonna tap dance around the issue of idolatry!
a person does not have to say "i worship money" in order for someone to realize that they do...
people look at your behavior, actions, words you post, etc. and are able to see who worships what...
if i see something that looks idolatrous, then i'm gonna say so...
i'll repeat what i said earlier:
if the shoe fits..........
(and i sincerely hope it doesn't)!
peace,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
If you see a poster that looks idolatrous to you, whether you are right or wrong, I think it would be in compliance with the rules of the forums to keep that opinion to yourself. I think we all see things about posters that, if allowed to be typed out, could lead to all types of personal attacks and insults. Let's not get personal with posters and try to be more respectful.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
That sounds a bit counter-productive to me.
This is a forum for voicing opinions.
Those opinions will not always be in agreement.
Voicing an opinion that is in disagreement with another poster's opinion does not constitute a "personal attack" in and of itself.
If another poster voices an opinion that appears to me to be idolatrous, there is nothing wrong with me or anyone else voicing an opposing view to that opinion as long as I address the opinion without attacking the poster.
IMO
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
oldies,
let me just say that i will not call YOU idolatrous... however, if i see someTHING that looks idolatrous, i will say so (and i will provide the reasons why i think that)
is that better?
peace,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved oldiesman, WhiteDove, Oakspear, jen-o, waysider, T-Bone, Ham, and Steveo
God loves you my dear friend
Thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
But your usage of the word "worship" is CONSISTENT with how twi used with some verses.
Matthew 18:25-27 (King James Version)
25But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
26The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
27Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.
Surely, if he was reading Matthew 18, he wouldn't conclude the servant was an idolator and
was idolizing his lord....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
hey roy!
i bet you didn't know this one post of yours was gonna cause quite a stir... LOL
:)
peace,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved WordWolf and jen-o
God loves you my dear friend
jen-o - no I didn't but its ok
Thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Good point, Word Wolf.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Recently Translated from the Estranged Aramaic
1: Now, the beginning of PFAL was on this wise.
2: In the beginning was the Word and the Word was [became] without form and void [lost] and darkness
was upon the face of the earth.
3: And Gawd, seeing the broken cisterns of theology and the plight of the world that was
being destroyed for a lack of knowledge, had compassion upon man.
4: So Gawd went to and fro and searched all four corners of the earth for a man spiritual enough and humble
enough to learn the lost Word and to be Gawd's spokesman to the world.
5: But He could find no one but Victor, a defrocked ( for fraking his secretary) Ohio preacher.
6: And Victor, being the only man spiritual enough and humble enough to be taught the revealed Word like it had
not [never?] been known since the first century needed a sign or he was going to chuck the whole mess.
7: So Gawd made it snow on the holy gas pumps as a sign to Victor that He would teach him
the Word if Victor would agree to teach it to others [especially young, naive, sexually
active pot-smoking hippie kids].
8: And Victor, after throwing out all his books except for a few tattered remnants, wrote PFAL
as Gawd [and Bullinger, Stiles, Leonard, et al] taught him
9: And Victor began teaching PFAL, [ while fraking his flock] and the Word became known
like had not [never?] been know since the first century.
10: And the light began to shine once again.
11: Thus was the beginning of PFAL.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved WordWolf and Goey
God loves you my dear friend
Goey - I bet Craig M. parted the ministry and gave the commandments to live by within the household of VPW
Thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
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.