If it was merely vp making that claim, we here at GreaseSpot and many other places would not be discussing THOUSANDS OF TIMES what a back-woods preacher said in Dayton Ohio in late 1967 in front of a 16 mm movie camera.
PFAL page 83 was NOT one of those items tucked away in a corner. There WERE some of those, but THIS one on page 83 was taken straight from the film class almost word for word. EVERYONE heard that statement from PFAL page 83, EVERY TIME they took the class. It was right out in front of us all the time. Anyone who thinks it's obscure in any way should look forward to a lot more surprises in the written forms of PFAL.
I said the earth shook when he walked because God was walking with him. And here it still shakes!...
I think the only thing behind vp's claim was his own deluded ego. But he was a fairly good con man to pull off this deception – which is why I'm thankful for a website like Grease Spot – where we have a rollicking good time unraveling his scam!
And from my Christian point of view – I tend to think anyone who believes that the Bible is indeed the very Word of God – would be appalled at some plagiarizing egotistical sexual predator who was drunk half the time - claiming that his stuff is "God-breathed" – a unique designation that Scripture ascribes only to itself. What audacity he had! What arrogance! What a deluded liar!
God is so big in grace mercy that He can work us sinners.
T-Bone, you just don't see how big GOD is. You're limited to the Roman Catholic model where only the "goodie goodie" saints get to be in God's presence and get revelation. That's not the Biblical model.
Mike, perhaps I see God as a lot bigger than your impotent version. God not only communicated His message by and to fallen creatures – but He oversees His message, enlightening every hungry soul who searches the Scriptures. That's the biblical model. God crafted such a superb "program" and with infinite resources at His disposal - that He didn't need to re-write the Bible or authorize a deluded liar to interpret it for us!
But I guess many of us in TWI were tricked into thinking God was so inept that He had to depend on a parasitic jerk - who re-defined plagiarism as getting revelation and hijacks the Jesus movement for a following. Sadly, some folks are still entangled in that deception.
And that makes me think of how God also safeguarded His Word by warnings throughout the Bible of false prophets, false teachers, wolves, etc., and criteria for how to spot them - - news flash: vp fits right in with the biblical model of a deceiver.
Everyone should read your post notice for the page 83 section, at least once, Mike. A simple reading of that post - will prove it doesn't say what you're saying it be saiding. If you don't deliberately pull it into the direction you're trying to and reinvent the statements, it's very very simple and easy to see what he meant.
A) We can't have WTH actually admitting to a mistake, can we?
It has to have been an INTENTIONAL error....
My only claim of "all with distinction" from my first post was that when I posted that initial message it was an oversight on my part. I did not say or claim it to be a mistake, even though you assume it to be one. Of course, there is a logical reason behind that oversight. It is also the same reason why many have problems with these words: "throughly" and thoroughly" - assuming and claiming the words are synonomous - or that one is merely the archaic form of the other.
From the mere sound of All without distinction on the surface it appears the phrase implies "all" is not being distinct - or that it is being without distinction or without clarity. THIS is how I initially interpreted the meaning of the phrase - "all without distinction". Since it did not make any sense to say, "all without distinction - i.e, meaning, "all without clarity" I changed the phrase to mean all with distinction, because that would imply the state of being distinct or being clear. This certainly made more logical sense to me than saying: "all is not being distinct or being clear".
But truthfully, this is NOT how the phrase "all without distinction" is used in PFAL. (In PFAL, "all without distinction" is used meaning: "all without discriminiation".) Now I certainly would not have changed that phrase: "all without discrimination" to prefer the phrase: "all with discrimination" because I thought that "all with discrimination" would be more clear or make more logical sense both to me and to others.
B) I saw it in the other post. However, if I responded to every single instance of something wrong, WTH would be furious and insist I was picking on him.
Not true. In fact, I appreciate your criticalness and sharpness of mind in certain areas. The only problem is, that sharpness is often hard for someone to get to, because your ego and cynicism from allowing yourself to become a critic often gets in the way of your ablility to build up the body of Christ as you ought. But then, even I am still learning how to separate these two -- as I really appreciate the former and am still learning even how to forego the latter myself.
...
If he'd used Occam's Razor (and used it CORRECTLY), his first guess would probably have been the correct one.
To help bring others up to speed: Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".
This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.
(BTW, source: Wikipedia - lest someone accuse me of plagarism again) ...
The only problem as I see it is, Occam's Razor can only apply to those: "multiple competing theories", the many theories (religious doctrines) that have all (without exception) been introduced to us and which have all come [all without exception] to us: "by the will of man."
But this is not the testimony of the Word of God -- and this is what a student of the Word of God must ALWAYS remember. That is, that: The "Word of God" was not written and it did not come: "by the will of man", but rather it came by holy men of God who spoke as they were moved [as they were inspired - not "pushed around"] by the Holy Ghost.
Compare 1 Peter 1:21 --
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.
to: Galatians 1:21 --
For I neither received it of man, [Paul states he never received it, -- the Word of God by or of man, which is by way of the will of man] neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Sadly, he's still trying to make the case that pfal was correct in using a word incorrectly, and willing to torture the English language and make elaborate, empty, circumlocuitous posts to do so.
This is because according to WW, one is to believe: "Occam's Razor" is the only correct route to go to get to the: "simplest definition or to the simplest explanation". But WW just doesn't want to admit any of the following: (also from: Wikipedia)
The term razor refers to the act of shaving away unnecessary assumptions to get to the simplest explanation. No doubt this represents correctly the general tendency of his philosophy, [specifically: William Ockham's philosopy - the one to whom "Occam's Razor was attributed to] but it has not so far been found in any of his writings.
Remarkably, one can't even see "that philosophy" present in the writings of William Ockham! But then, one is to rely on "Occam's Razor to get to the: "simplest explanation?" It certainly sounds more and more and more like a case of the: "blind following or leading the blind" to me indeed.
He's certainly free to do so. He's also free to think he's actually fooling someone. And to think he'll get some sort of "atta boy" for doing so. Technically, he'll get the last, but from other posters who do the same, not from the only one whose opinion truly counts.//
Here is a classic example of where WW's ego and cynicism is not only blocking and getting in the way of his own sharpness, but also others because his ego and cynacim often overshadows his ability to be sharper than an "Occams Razor". It shows up in the fact he believes I am looking for a: "slap on the back" - perhaps from him, or perhaps an: "atta boy" from someone -- to use his own words. Of course, the only reason WW says he is not being fooled is because the only opinion that still counts is his own. Oh well, (an I do mean "deep well") that's his "broken cistern" and why it is still so very hard for him to get beyond that "broken cistern" of ego and cynicism.
Everyone should read your post notice for the page 83 section, at least once, Mike. A simple reading of that post - will prove it doesn't say what you're saying it be saiding. If you don't deliberately pull it into the direction you're trying to and reinvent the statements, it's very very simple and easy to see what he meant.
I consulted with two of Dr's editors on PFAL page 83 a dozen times in the past ten years.
One of those editors was head editor of the Way Magazine for almost ten years. The other editor participated in the editing of the PFAL book with Karen. He remembered that line on page 83 the instant I quoted it to him, saying without hesitation to me "I remember THAT line." Both editors agreed with my assessment that it is a MOST strong "Thus saith the lord!" statement, tucked away with unusual aplomb, irony, and humor.
Maybe YOU are doing to that line what you think I am doing to it? Has that ever occurred to you?
I'm not getting between you two. But If anyone wants a productive conversation about plagarism I've stared a thread in "open."
P.S.
Ultimately, I want to be as sure as possible that the things that I believe are true.
That's been done up already more than you can imagine here. If you did a word search here on it you'd have enough material for a PhD thesis.
Here's the end of that road, though, a simple quote that Oldiesman found. I shall paste it in for us to see where any discussion (I'm excluding pot shots here) on plagiarism must end up at if it is to be honest:
*******
(With my re-formatting and truncation
in re-presenting the following quotes)
First dmiller wrote:
Docvic (plain and simple) took from other's works,
and passed it off as his own.
Then oldiesman wrote:
dmiller,
sorry but I am going to have to disagree in part with you,
and I base my belief on the following:
“Lots of the stuff I teach is not original.
Putting it all together so that it fit -- that
was the original work. I learned wherever
I could, and then I worked that with the
Scriptures. What was right on with the
Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped.”
Victor Paul Wierwille,
1972 The Way Living In Love
Elena Whiteside page 209
The previous statement by VP disproves that he “passed it off as his own.”
In 1972 he said it wasn't original; ... if you don't believe he said that,
there it is, right before your eyes.
He deserves credit for not passing it off as his own,
but rather saying “lots of the stuff I teach is not original.”
If he was trying to hide something, and pass off all of this as his own,
he would not have made the previous statement, nor have other authors' books,
from whence he learned, selling in the Way Bookstore for all to read.
*******
Now, what's all this have to do with forgiveness? The evidence is (and not merely with this one subject of plagiarism) heavy that most of the complaints here are emotional and the pinning of blame is far from exact. The blame that prevents most forgiveness is hysteria driven largely by misinformation mixed with a few sad facts. When the correct information is presented, some of the complaining ones have an opportunity to get a grip and work with the facts instead of their bruised egos.
Sure things went wrong, but let's get it accurate where they ACTUALLY went wrong and forget about the blame issue. Let's quit moaning and get things fixed, I say. The best way to do that is to see WHAT WENT RIGHT in twi, and why we stayed in there tolerating so much baloney for so long. There were good reasons to tolerate much, because we had a treasure in God's Word, we just forgot where it was: in the collaterals.
both of your editors then wrote something that doesn't read or hear as intended. The context of PFAL itself in the audio and context of the material makes it so plain you'd have to be a writer to go that route - it's called "repurposing" Mike and that's what you're doing.
3 wrongs don't make a right. Two editors and a Mike don't either. Faulty memories AND faulty language. Leaks - a poppin' everywhere.
Are you forgetting the twenty-one OTHER times Dr said "Thus saith the Lord!" which are documented on the previously linked thread? And then there are still more in the wings.
They are spread out in that thread in the next several hundred posts. Someday I'll start posting the remainder until I get all 90.
He meant "Thus saith the Lord" all the time when he taught, and some times he said so outright. He would even say, at times, "Father just told me to shut up."
That's been done up already more than you can imagine here. If you did a word search here on it you'd have enough material for a PhD thesis.
Here's the end of that road, though, a simple quote that Oldiesman found. I shall paste it in for us to see where any discussion (I'm excluding pot shots here) on plagiarism must end up at if it is to be honest...
First dmiller wrote:
Docvic (plain and simple) took from other's works,
and passed it off as his own.
Then oldiesman wrote:
dmiller,
sorry but I am going to have to disagree in part with you,
and I base my belief on the following:
"Lots of the stuff I teach is not original.
Putting it all together so that it fit -- that
was the original work. I learned wherever
I could, and then I worked that with the
Scriptures. What was right on with the
Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped."
Victor Paul Wierwille,
1972 The Way Living In Love
Elena Whiteside page 209
The previous statement by VP disproves that he "passed it off as his own."
In 1972 he said it wasn't original; ... if you don't believe he said that,
there it is, right before your eyes.
He deserves credit for not passing it off as his own,
but rather saying "lots of the stuff I teach is not original."
If he was trying to hide something, and pass off all of this as his own,
he would not have made the previous statement, nor have other authors' books,
from whence he learned, selling in the Way Bookstore for all to read....
Amazing how threads start repeating themselves…Guess I'll bring my post # 846 back up here – where I handled vp's ingenious way of re-defining plagiarism:
Interesting…vp re-defines plagiarism as assembling bits and pieces from other people's work to make them "fit". Funny, how he claims he learned wherever he could and sorted out what was right with Scripture – but he also claimed God taught him the Word like it hadn't been known since the first century.
Obviously vp had a long suit in lying – and through the wonders of make-believing and salesmanship he hides the truth in plain sight. Oh, he's got nothing to hide – puts the books he plagiarized in TWI's bookstore, makes reference to them in a false humility how he learned wherever he could – but belittles them all by insinuating only he could make it all fit together. But so much for how vp hoodwinked folks. Honest…sane folks call that plagiarism.
vp also lied about other things in Whiteside's book. Like on page 175 where he claimed he took everything he could from the Moody Correspondence School. In my post # 500 of The Way: Living in Wonderland thread I posted a letter from Moody Correspondence School that states otherwise:
vp was a boldfaced liar. No doubt about it. His toxic doctrine/mindset has poisoned thousands for sure – who follow in the footsteps of the imaginary alchemist of theology.
...Now, what's all this have to do with forgiveness? The evidence is (and not merely with this one subject of plagiarism) heavy that most of the complaints here are emotional and the pinning of blame is far from exact. The blame that prevents most forgiveness is hysteria driven largely by misinformation mixed with a few sad facts. When the correct information is presented, some of the complaining ones have an opportunity to get a grip and work with the facts instead of their bruised egos.
Sure things went wrong, but let's get it accurate where they ACTUALLY went wrong and forget about the blame issue. Let's quit moaning and get things fixed, I say. The best way to do that is to see WHAT WENT RIGHT in twi, and why we stayed in there tolerating so much baloney for so long. There were good reasons to tolerate much, because we had a treasure in God's Word, we just forgot where it was: in the collaterals.
So what does all this have to do with forgiveness? Are you suggesting we forgive a pathological liar? Well, ya know...maybe it's okay that vp lied about his education, stole other folks' material, twisted Scripture to justify sin and manipulate people and dubbed it "God-breathed", made up a story about God talking to him, SUCKED-like-a-Vampire-on-steroids the time, money, energy, commitment, even the very life out of good honest folks, sexually molested women, and was drunk half the time - oh wait! What's this? It's April Fool's Day! You were just kidding about forgiving vp, right?....Why is it so hard to come to grips with reality? Are you afraid it will bruise your ego?....Let's not sugar coat it. I'll tell you what went wrong – folks believed the bu11$hi+ of a pathological liar. Wanna know how to fix it? Flush the bu11$hi+ down the toilet! And if you're worried about the collaterals clogging the toilet – burn 'em on Uncle Harry Day.
Scriptures my private interpretation, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped -- and failed to give proper citing.
Victor Paul Wierwille,
1972 The Way Living In Love
Elena Whiteside page 209
The previous statement by VP disproves that he “passed it off as his own.”
In 1972 he said it wasn't original; ... if you don't believe he said that,
there it is, right before your eyes.
(Along with the failure to cite sources.)
There were good reasons to tolerate much, because we had a treasure in God's Word, we just forgot where it was (and thought it was in the collaterals.)
you said "the earth shook when he (vpw) walked"...
obviously, this didn't happen literally...
so you are using it as a figure of speech to emphasize your opinion about the man vpw... this is idolatry to speak about a man this way...
the earth trembles when God speaks, NOT a man...
i think that your description of vpw borders on idolatry...
if you were elevating the revealed Word of God, you would NOT need to mention ANY man... you would give God the glory, and NOT a man...
I think your G.D.D. (Glory Direction Detector) needs recalibrating. That might be expensive, what with gas prices rising and all, but I can help you for free here.
I think you need to hear the statement the way I intended it. Maybe this will help free you of worry about idolatry in me. I hate to see you loose sleep thinking that I was digging my spiritual grave.
By the phrase “when he walked” I mean when he was WALKING in fellowship with God Who had promised to teach him His Word like it had not been known since the first century if he would teach it to others.
By “earth” I mean the 5-senses realm (not the planet Earth) which was run by the god of this world, and it shook because the adversary’s grip was terminating due to the greatness of the revelation God was so graciously providing FOR US.
So in essence, I was saying EXACTLY as you wrote thusly: “the earth trembles when God speaks, NOT a man...” with the added nuance that it’s now time for the adversary’s grip to end so the trembling is BIGGER.
I like to say things (once in a while) in ways that overly religious people CAN misinterpret them, because they WANT TO so much.
Just being accommodating. I do the same thing (once in a while) with my “Jesus” quota, deliberately lowering it to see who takes the bait and reveal their religious disposition. I mentioned this earlier on this thread in Post #899.
***
So, what’s this baloney about “you would NOT need to mention ANY man...” ?
Where did you get THAT from? What do you say when you want to read out of the “Gospel According To Luke” or the “Epistle of Paul to the Romans.” and have everyone else turn to the same chapter?
The reason I speak of vpw this way is because people like you need available to you a true sight through the camouflage the adversary has thrown over the treasure God gave us in the collaterals.
God gives His revelation to men (and women) and mentioning the people whom GOD ALMIGHTY selects is fine in my book. Maybe you should ask your god to lighten up a little?
i think that your description of vpw borders on idolatry...
interesting.. a half a dozen other posters came to the same conclusion..
What exactly does this mean and exactly what is it supposed to prove Mr. Ham? Truthfully it doesn't prove a thing to me - other than the fact "half a dozen other posters" have come to the wrong conclusion. Let me explain why I believe this further.
In ninth grade I gave the conclusion and the correct answer to a math question when the rest of the class was completey wrong when applying the same formula. The correct answer to the quesion was "0". The rest of the class had said something else - they all (without distinction) said: "-1".
The teacher then asked, "How many of you say the answer is "0"? About half the class had their hands raised, mine included. Then she asked, "How many of you say -1?" There were a few more than half of the class whose hands were raised who said -1. She asked again, "How many of you still say 0? Now there were only 3 hands raised, instead of 8 like before. She asked again, How many of you think it is still -1? Nearly everyone's hands were raised now, except mine. Then she asked again, "How many of you still say 0? Now only my hand was raised.
Do you want to know why it was still raised? The reason was I had cheated. I looked in the back of the book to find the correct answer to that math question. That didn't mean I understood how to arrive at the correct conclusion to the math question, I just had the correct answer without having the understanding of how to come to the correct answer. That is exactly where I believe a lot of people are at with the PFAL class today and with the PFAL collateral materials. They cheated and "looked ahead". Of course, we got the correct answer in PFAL - but that doesn't mean we have got the understanding on how to arrive at the correct answer. Now everybody in the class has got their hand raised with some other answer that was already written in the book.
The next thing I knew the teacher had started questioning me on how I arrived at the answer. Since I was now the only one in the class left who had said "0" and also because I couldn't give her an appropriate answer (I didn't want to admit I cheated and that I already found the answer in the back of the book) I just said, "Well, I think it could be 0, but I might be wrong." The rest of the class was now looking at me to side with them. I then put down my hand. When she asked for the last time, "How many of you still think the answer should be -1?," then I raised my hand.
Of course I would have gotten an A+, that is, before the rest of the class "peer pressured and talked me out" of the correct answer, even when I knew the correct answer by cheating and looking ahead and not knowing how to arrive at the correct conclusion to the math question.
All (without exception) I learned from that experience in ninth grade taught me was I should not cave into "peer pressure" - that I should learn how to arrive at the correct answer without cheating and looking ahead. I should gain an understanding of the material that was presented by applying it and workng it for myself - especially if I want to keep an A+ grade I can be proud of.
you are kinda sarcastic toward me... and i have not been sarcastic toward you...
and part of the reason you are sarcastic towards me is because you insinuate that i don't understand what you mean...
and then you proceed to define your words...
as in:
when i said earth, i meant...
when i said walked, i meant...
[why didn't you just say what you meant to begin with??]
this is a problem - because i told you before that if you don't use words the way the rest of the english-speaking population does, then you are going to have a problem communicating with folks...
and if people don't understand you, you don't need to get sarcastic with them...
you also wrote:
I do the same thing (once in a while) with my “Jesus” quota, deliberately lowering it to see who takes the bait...
are you telling me that you deliberately "bait" people??
how can you think that is an honest or godly thing to do?
do you think that Jesus is some sort of game??
you wrote:
What do you say when you want to read out of the “Gospel According To Luke” or the “Epistle of Paul to the Romans.” and have everyone else turn to the same chapter?
what are you talking about?
telling someone to turn to the book of luke is NOT the same thing as elevating a man to god-like status...
i don't know how you can compare the two things...
you also wrote:
The reason I speak of vpw this way is because people like you need available to you a true sight through the camouflage the adversary has thrown over the treasure God gave us in the collaterals.
you worship those collaterals, don't you?
and it seems to me that you worship vpw (and vpw's writings) more than you worship God and the Lord Jesus Christ...
perhaps you would like to rewrite 2 Cor. 5:19 to say that: "God was in vpw, reconcilling the world to Himself"
you know, the mormons have added another book and claim it is part of God's "revelation to mankind" (which they hold as equal to the bible, having been written by their prophet, joseph smith, who they claim received this "new revelation" from God)
and you seem to be doing the very same thing...
you have added the collaterals (a set of books) and seem to be claiming that they are part of God's "revelation to mankind" (you seem to be holding these "collaterals" as equal to the bible, having been written by your prophet, vpw, who you claim received his information from God)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
128
169
106
102
Popular Days
Feb 19
54
Feb 26
50
Feb 22
47
Feb 25
40
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 128 posts
Mike 169 posts
Ham 106 posts
waysider 102 posts
Popular Days
Feb 19 2008
54 posts
Feb 26 2008
50 posts
Feb 22 2008
47 posts
Feb 25 2008
40 posts
Posted Images
T-Bone
I think the only thing behind vp's claim was his own deluded ego. But he was a fairly good con man to pull off this deception – which is why I'm thankful for a website like Grease Spot – where we have a rollicking good time unraveling his scam!
And from my Christian point of view – I tend to think anyone who believes that the Bible is indeed the very Word of God – would be appalled at some plagiarizing egotistical sexual predator who was drunk half the time - claiming that his stuff is "God-breathed" – a unique designation that Scripture ascribes only to itself. What audacity he had! What arrogance! What a deluded liar!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
God is so big in grace mercy that He can work us sinners.
T-Bone, you just don't see how big GOD is. You're limited to the Roman Catholic model where only the "goodie goodie" saints get to be in God's presence and get revelation. That's not the Biblical model.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Mike, perhaps I see God as a lot bigger than your impotent version. God not only communicated His message by and to fallen creatures – but He oversees His message, enlightening every hungry soul who searches the Scriptures. That's the biblical model. God crafted such a superb "program" and with infinite resources at His disposal - that He didn't need to re-write the Bible or authorize a deluded liar to interpret it for us!
But I guess many of us in TWI were tricked into thinking God was so inept that He had to depend on a parasitic jerk - who re-defined plagiarism as getting revelation and hijacks the Jesus movement for a following. Sadly, some folks are still entangled in that deception.
And that makes me think of how God also safeguarded His Word by warnings throughout the Bible of false prophets, false teachers, wolves, etc., and criteria for how to spot them - - news flash: vp fits right in with the biblical model of a deceiver.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Everyone should read your post notice for the page 83 section, at least once, Mike. A simple reading of that post - will prove it doesn't say what you're saying it be saiding. If you don't deliberately pull it into the direction you're trying to and reinvent the statements, it's very very simple and easy to see what he meant.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Dear T-Bone and Mike,
I'm not getting between you two. But If anyone wants a productive conversation about plagarism I've stared a thread in "open."
P.S.
Ultimately, I want to be as sure as possible that the things that I believe are true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
That's a lot of words y'all.
This is how it has allways worked for me.
BBBBBBBBBB
bbbbbbbbbbb
BBBBBBBBBB
bbbbbbbbbbb
A reference to all the B's without exeption would include the upper case and the lower case B's.
A reference to them with or without distinction (depending on which is correct) would be a reference to all the upper case or all the lower case B's.
IT HAS NEVER BEEN HARD FOR ME. That is how it has ALLWAYS worked for me anyway.
edited for spelling and grammar.
THIS EXPLANATION OF THAT PRINCIPLE IS ALL I NEED IT TO "B."
NOW, WHAT IS ALL THIS ABOUT FORGIVING, IS THAT IT FOLKS?
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I consulted with two of Dr's editors on PFAL page 83 a dozen times in the past ten years.
One of those editors was head editor of the Way Magazine for almost ten years. The other editor participated in the editing of the PFAL book with Karen. He remembered that line on page 83 the instant I quoted it to him, saying without hesitation to me "I remember THAT line." Both editors agreed with my assessment that it is a MOST strong "Thus saith the lord!" statement, tucked away with unusual aplomb, irony, and humor.
Maybe YOU are doing to that line what you think I am doing to it? Has that ever occurred to you?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
That's been done up already more than you can imagine here. If you did a word search here on it you'd have enough material for a PhD thesis.
Here's the end of that road, though, a simple quote that Oldiesman found. I shall paste it in for us to see where any discussion (I'm excluding pot shots here) on plagiarism must end up at if it is to be honest:
*******
(With my re-formatting and truncation
in re-presenting the following quotes)
First dmiller wrote:
Docvic (plain and simple) took from other's works,
and passed it off as his own.
Then oldiesman wrote:
dmiller,
sorry but I am going to have to disagree in part with you,
and I base my belief on the following:
“Lots of the stuff I teach is not original.
Putting it all together so that it fit -- that
was the original work. I learned wherever
I could, and then I worked that with the
Scriptures. What was right on with the
Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped.”
Victor Paul Wierwille,
1972 The Way Living In Love
Elena Whiteside page 209
The previous statement by VP disproves that he “passed it off as his own.”
In 1972 he said it wasn't original; ... if you don't believe he said that,
there it is, right before your eyes.
He deserves credit for not passing it off as his own,
but rather saying “lots of the stuff I teach is not original.”
If he was trying to hide something, and pass off all of this as his own,
he would not have made the previous statement, nor have other authors' books,
from whence he learned, selling in the Way Bookstore for all to read.
*******
Now, what's all this have to do with forgiveness? The evidence is (and not merely with this one subject of plagiarism) heavy that most of the complaints here are emotional and the pinning of blame is far from exact. The blame that prevents most forgiveness is hysteria driven largely by misinformation mixed with a few sad facts. When the correct information is presented, some of the complaining ones have an opportunity to get a grip and work with the facts instead of their bruised egos.
Sure things went wrong, but let's get it accurate where they ACTUALLY went wrong and forget about the blame issue. Let's quit moaning and get things fixed, I say. The best way to do that is to see WHAT WENT RIGHT in twi, and why we stayed in there tolerating so much baloney for so long. There were good reasons to tolerate much, because we had a treasure in God's Word, we just forgot where it was: in the collaterals.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
oh for goodness sake how the hell did he know anyway ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
*******
It had to be revelation or it was worthless.
It was "Goodness Sake Himself" who told him, Exy.
God can give revelation to us ALL, and He wants to!
Let Him.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
both of your editors then wrote something that doesn't read or hear as intended. The context of PFAL itself in the audio and context of the material makes it so plain you'd have to be a writer to go that route - it's called "repurposing" Mike and that's what you're doing.
3 wrongs don't make a right. Two editors and a Mike don't either. Faulty memories AND faulty language. Leaks - a poppin' everywhere.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Are you forgetting the twenty-one OTHER times Dr said "Thus saith the Lord!" which are documented on the previously linked thread? And then there are still more in the wings.
The 22 documented "Thus saith the Lord" statements can be found starting here deep inside a long Post #294 in purple fonts: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...9131&st=280
They are spread out in that thread in the next several hundred posts. Someday I'll start posting the remainder until I get all 90.
He meant "Thus saith the Lord" all the time when he taught, and some times he said so outright. He would even say, at times, "Father just told me to shut up."
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Well, no one said that's an easy admonition to obey did they?
Believe as you will, Mike. Someday, when you get 'round to it, it'll all be posted. All 90. Yup.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Amazing how threads start repeating themselves…Guess I'll bring my post # 846 back up here – where I handled vp's ingenious way of re-defining plagiarism:
So what does all this have to do with forgiveness? Are you suggesting we forgive a pathological liar? Well, ya know...maybe it's okay that vp lied about his education, stole other folks' material, twisted Scripture to justify sin and manipulate people and dubbed it "God-breathed", made up a story about God talking to him, SUCKED-like-a-Vampire-on-steroids the time, money, energy, commitment, even the very life out of good honest folks, sexually molested women, and was drunk half the time - oh wait! What's this? It's April Fool's Day! You were just kidding about forgiving vp, right?....Why is it so hard to come to grips with reality? Are you afraid it will bruise your ego?....Let's not sugar coat it. I'll tell you what went wrong – folks believed the bu11$hi+ of a pathological liar. Wanna know how to fix it? Flush the bu11$hi+ down the toilet! And if you're worried about the collaterals clogging the toilet – burn 'em on Uncle Harry Day.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
mike,
you said "the earth shook when he (vpw) walked"...
obviously, this didn't happen literally...
so you are using it as a figure of speech to emphasize your opinion about the man vpw...
this is idolatry to speak about a man this way...
the earth trembles when God speaks, NOT a man...
i think that your description of vpw borders on idolatry...
if you were elevating the revealed Word of God, you would NOT need to mention ANY man...
you would give God the glory, and NOT a man...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
.
:
*******
“Lots of the stuff I teach is not original.
Putting it all together so that it fit -- that
was the original work. I learned fudged wherever
I could, and then I worked twisted that with the
Scriptures. What was right on with the
Scriptures my private interpretation, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped -- and failed to give proper citing.
Victor Paul Wierwille,
1972 The Way Living In Love
Elena Whiteside page 209
The previous statement by VP disproves that he “passed it off as his own.”
In 1972 he said it wasn't original; ... if you don't believe he said that,
there it is, right before your eyes.
(Along with the failure to cite sources.)
There were good reasons to tolerate much, because we had a treasure in God's Word, we just forgot where it was (and thought it was in the collaterals.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I think your G.D.D. (Glory Direction Detector) needs recalibrating. That might be expensive, what with gas prices rising and all, but I can help you for free here.
I think you need to hear the statement the way I intended it. Maybe this will help free you of worry about idolatry in me. I hate to see you loose sleep thinking that I was digging my spiritual grave.
By the phrase “when he walked” I mean when he was WALKING in fellowship with God Who had promised to teach him His Word like it had not been known since the first century if he would teach it to others.
By “earth” I mean the 5-senses realm (not the planet Earth) which was run by the god of this world, and it shook because the adversary’s grip was terminating due to the greatness of the revelation God was so graciously providing FOR US.
So in essence, I was saying EXACTLY as you wrote thusly: “the earth trembles when God speaks, NOT a man...” with the added nuance that it’s now time for the adversary’s grip to end so the trembling is BIGGER.
I like to say things (once in a while) in ways that overly religious people CAN misinterpret them, because they WANT TO so much.
Just being accommodating. I do the same thing (once in a while) with my “Jesus” quota, deliberately lowering it to see who takes the bait and reveal their religious disposition. I mentioned this earlier on this thread in Post #899.
***
So, what’s this baloney about “you would NOT need to mention ANY man...” ?
Where did you get THAT from? What do you say when you want to read out of the “Gospel According To Luke” or the “Epistle of Paul to the Romans.” and have everyone else turn to the same chapter?
The reason I speak of vpw this way is because people like you need available to you a true sight through the camouflage the adversary has thrown over the treasure God gave us in the collaterals.
God gives His revelation to men (and women) and mentioning the people whom GOD ALMIGHTY selects is fine in my book. Maybe you should ask your god to lighten up a little?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
interesting.. a half a dozen other posters came to the same conclusion..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
That number is down from 74.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
QUOTE
i think that your description of vpw borders on idolatry...
What exactly does this mean and exactly what is it supposed to prove Mr. Ham? Truthfully it doesn't prove a thing to me - other than the fact "half a dozen other posters" have come to the wrong conclusion. Let me explain why I believe this further.
In ninth grade I gave the conclusion and the correct answer to a math question when the rest of the class was completey wrong when applying the same formula. The correct answer to the quesion was "0". The rest of the class had said something else - they all (without distinction) said: "-1".
The teacher then asked, "How many of you say the answer is "0"? About half the class had their hands raised, mine included. Then she asked, "How many of you say -1?" There were a few more than half of the class whose hands were raised who said -1. She asked again, "How many of you still say 0? Now there were only 3 hands raised, instead of 8 like before. She asked again, How many of you think it is still -1? Nearly everyone's hands were raised now, except mine. Then she asked again, "How many of you still say 0? Now only my hand was raised.
Do you want to know why it was still raised? The reason was I had cheated. I looked in the back of the book to find the correct answer to that math question. That didn't mean I understood how to arrive at the correct conclusion to the math question, I just had the correct answer without having the understanding of how to come to the correct answer. That is exactly where I believe a lot of people are at with the PFAL class today and with the PFAL collateral materials. They cheated and "looked ahead". Of course, we got the correct answer in PFAL - but that doesn't mean we have got the understanding on how to arrive at the correct answer. Now everybody in the class has got their hand raised with some other answer that was already written in the book.
The next thing I knew the teacher had started questioning me on how I arrived at the answer. Since I was now the only one in the class left who had said "0" and also because I couldn't give her an appropriate answer (I didn't want to admit I cheated and that I already found the answer in the back of the book) I just said, "Well, I think it could be 0, but I might be wrong." The rest of the class was now looking at me to side with them. I then put down my hand. When she asked for the last time, "How many of you still think the answer should be -1?," then I raised my hand.
Of course I would have gotten an A+, that is, before the rest of the class "peer pressured and talked me out" of the correct answer, even when I knew the correct answer by cheating and looking ahead and not knowing how to arrive at the correct conclusion to the math question.
All (without exception) I learned from that experience in ninth grade taught me was I should not cave into "peer pressure" - that I should learn how to arrive at the correct answer without cheating and looking ahead. I should gain an understanding of the material that was presented by applying it and workng it for myself - especially if I want to keep an A+ grade I can be proud of.
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
mike,
you are kinda sarcastic toward me... and i have not been sarcastic toward you...
and part of the reason you are sarcastic towards me is because you insinuate that i don't understand what you mean...
and then you proceed to define your words...
as in:
when i said earth, i meant...
when i said walked, i meant...
[why didn't you just say what you meant to begin with??]
this is a problem - because i told you before that if you don't use words the way the rest of the english-speaking population does, then you are going to have a problem communicating with folks...
and if people don't understand you, you don't need to get sarcastic with them...
you also wrote:
are you telling me that you deliberately "bait" people??how can you think that is an honest or godly thing to do?
do you think that Jesus is some sort of game??
you wrote:
what are you talking about?
telling someone to turn to the book of luke is NOT the same thing as elevating a man to god-like status...
i don't know how you can compare the two things...
you also wrote:
you worship those collaterals, don't you?
and it seems to me that you worship vpw (and vpw's writings) more than you worship God and the Lord Jesus Christ...
perhaps you would like to rewrite 2 Cor. 5:19 to say that: "God was in vpw, reconcilling the world to Himself"
you know, the mormons have added another book and claim it is part of God's "revelation to mankind" (which they hold as equal to the bible, having been written by their prophet, joseph smith, who they claim received this "new revelation" from God)
and you seem to be doing the very same thing...
you have added the collaterals (a set of books) and seem to be claiming that they are part of God's "revelation to mankind" (you seem to be holding these "collaterals" as equal to the bible, having been written by your prophet, vpw, who you claim received his information from God)
this is all idolatry!
perhaps you don't know what idolatry is...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
you mean you were the only one to get the right answer, and the rest of the students said "-1"...
you mean all the rest of the students without exception said "-1"
there was no distinction among the rest of the students - they all said "-1"
there was no exception to this, and there was no distinction made among the students who gave the wrong answer...
that is because all without distinction=all without exception....
it's the same set of students...
why don't you name all the students in the group "all without distinction" who gave the answer "-1"
then name all the students in the group "all without exception" who gave the answer "-1"
and tell me if you don't come up with the same list of names...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Hmmm...the "I" person from twlil.
He did it all, threw God out the window.
Just like 'it must interpret itself'.
BS
He said if we can't interpret it (the bible).
Then it must interpret itself.
Leaving out the author while claiming knowing the author?!
And going into a whole bible interpreting class and lifestyle of his own making.
What a mess from this person.
Exclude God entirely and rely on a book.
Which conveniently made VP God.
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.