"Works that are no longer protected by copyright, or never have been, are considered "public domain." This means that you may freely borrow material from these works without fear of plagiarism,
provided you make proper attributions."
Emphasis mine.
(same source)
"When do I need to cite?
Whenever you borrow words or ideas, you need to acknowledge their source."
Seems to be misunderstanding or what Public Domain means.
"It must be remembered that copyright has two main purposes, namely
the protection of the author's right to obtain commercial benefit from valuable work, and more recently the protection of the author's general right to control how a work is used."
Neither of those means citations are required BECAUSE OF COPYRIGHT.
Copyright affects how much of the original source can be used,
and the author's ability to recover damages legally if the law is broken.
So,
how does one plagiarize something in the open domain?
Well,
it does not have protections against how much can be used.
It does not have the power for the author to recover monetary damages.
HOWEVER,
that does not mean the source is not LEGALLY REQUIRED to be cited.
That's a crime against society, and the government can sue on behalf
of the public, either as a misdemeanor or a FRAUD
(if the publication earned more than $2,500), and FRAUD IS A FELONY.
For those of you who will insist that there has to be an injured SPECIFIC
person for there to be a crime, I'd like to point out that the law does not
see it that way.
If a single man who makes lots of money hires a high-class prostitute
(call-girl) in the State of New York, he and she have committed a crime.
Society is deemed to be the victim, regardless of the consent of all parties.
I've heard people excuse vic's plagiarism by saying "well, if it was such a BIG DEAL, why didn't Stiles, Leonard, Kenyon and Bullinger publications, etc, etc, take action? It MUST NOT have really hurt their feelings or something.."
Who says it didn't hurt? I wonder how Leonard felt, seeing his life's work cut and pasted by a second rate con artist.. he was well aware of the raw copying that was going on.
I think he felt legal remedies to be more distasteful than the issues they would correct. So be it- that perhaps was his belief.
The real objection I have with the vicster's raw copying, and not giving any credit or documentation- it made him out to be what he was not.
A scholar. An innovator. One who by isolating himself like a monk, and after years of toil and study- single-handedly came up with something which had a remarkable resemblence to other scholars works.
I think it's hypocrisy at it's worst.
He actually got on stage, and said something like "you have it easy- you don't KNOW the kind of junk I had to go through to get this.."
Word Wolf, thanks for your informative posts - and especially for post # 23 the changes made in the White Book [eliminating the man schooled in the Holy Spirit in the later edition]. Great find, brother!!!!!!
And in case you're interested in "borrowing" someone's work, copyright now extends to 70 years after the author's death. (I believe Sonny Bono helped make that law happen -- yep, here it is: http://www.keytlaw.com/Copyrights/sonybono.htm .)
And a work does not have to be registered in order to be copyright protected. It just has to be in a fixed form (i.e. written down). Registration helps when it comes down to proving date of origination, and is used when deciding on the amount of plagiarism fines.
I once found a copy of the Stiles book at a used book sale, and took it home and compared the QandA section with my Holy Spirit book. Yep, identical, even some insignificant portions were word for word.
There used to be something called a "Poor man's copyright." You would type out your work and send an original to yourself and keep the envelope sealed. This would document the time of your work.
I've got a lot of things to consider in your responses and it is definitely going to take some time to absorb it all.
For me the hardest consideration seems to be taking it all in and facing the possibility of having to change my assessment of Dr. Wierwille's character.
I have no problem considering these specific facts in light of my knowledge of the pressures of the ministry that existed in the different time frames from the 1940's to present. It is unthinkable to me now that I could condemn Dr. Wierwille for his actions in this topic without also being humane enough to acount for the situation at the time. Thinking like that does not prevent me from acknowledging mistakes, I just think that in general it is a very bad idea to condemn a man's character and intentions without being willing to consider their point of view also.
History pushed Dr. Wierwille to a point of being alone, and mostly without the good will of his contemporaries. I've seen it myself that many Christains are completely willing to demonize me for not believing the trinity and believing that the dead will not live again until after they're raised. I don't mind discussing the differences at all and in general I believe that I'm willing to change any belief that I hold if convinced otherwise. But the demonizing and the "mark and avoid" stuff that many of you remember being harmfully missused in TWI is often just as harmful in contemporary Christianity. I have desired honest discussion and many have marked me and avoid me even now. I'm not bragging or anything either, I'm just saying that that's how it is for me right now.
Another thing that I know that I will consider is that in spite of any mistakes that Dr. Wierwille made, I learned a lot of good things in PFAL and other classes and programs. I can sympathise with the many of you who getting out of TWI lead to a more radical purging of "way- brain" too, it's just that it's not that way for me. I guess if there are those of you who think that I'm "way-brained" I just have to say that I'm doing my best to be honest with you all. I'm certain that even with my consideration of the plagarism issue ongoing, I'll be able to credit the PFAL class with teaching me many good things. In other topics and threads I've already acknowledged changing some of what I was taught in PFAL, but I do my best to back up the changes that I've made by applying the critical thinking skills that I leared in PFAL. The worst case scenario that I can see right now is that I would be abliged to consider PFAL as a product of something like " Phillipians 1:15,16". I mean the bad one of the two points in those verses.
I know that a lot of you have been harmed far worse in TWI and consider the organization in far worse biblical terms than a product of strife and envy. I support you all 100% and tend to believe you completely. (At least as much as I can believe folks that I don't know outside of the internet.) I'm hoping to limit the discussion on this thread to the plagarism issues however.
I was harmed by a splinter group and it's ruler especially, just as badly as many of you shared about being hurt by TWI. But not as badly as others, so I 'm glad that you're willing to let me consider these things as they pertain to TWI.
ONCE AGAIN, THANKS FOR THE FEEDBACK!! You've said a lot and I'm just taking it in.
I've got a lot of things to consider in your responses and it is definitely going to take some time to absorb it all.
For me the hardest consideration seems to be taking it all in and facing the possibility of having to change my assessment of Dr. Wierwille's character.
History pushed Dr. Wierwille to a point of being alone, and mostly without the good will of his contemporaries.
Hi Jeff,
I think you might want to consider where and how you formed your opinions of the eminent "Dr." Wierwille as well.
The history we were fed as good Wayfers concerning Mr. Wierwille was predominantly of his own making, and, surprise surprise, he always came out looking good. He seemed to covet the "poor, persecuted, but always faithful" sort of personna. The actual accounts of those same events often tell a different story.
Everybody accepts that the Vicster's doctorate was obtained from an unaccredited, basically unheard of, little mail-order college in Colorado. But he sure loved the title didn't he? Ever wonder why he was so enthralled with titles, robes, pomp and circumstance, even though he derided such things when practiced by "religion"?
Maybe he wasn't all that he liked to portray, huh? Maybe...
I've already came face to face with a man who I'm convinced thinks his job in the ministry is to control every word and thought of his followers. It still amazes me looking back how much control he has within the group over what they think about him. When I got kicked out it was encouraged by example to call him "the Word in the flesh" within the group. And it was also councelled within the group to hide many things like that because people just wouldn't understand after all. I'm fairly certain that his concern over what they think about him is at the least an obsession, and at worse some kind of fear driven insanity.
I will not be overly quick to throw that kind of accusation at any man George. Really, far and away I wouldn't wish that kind of experiential knowledge on anybody.
I'm content on this thread to focus on the plagarism issue.
(added in editing)
I'm going to be leaving again soon. Than you for your responses Waysider, BFH, Ham, Coolchef, Pawtucket, Doojable, Socks, Garthp2000, T-bone, Wordwolf, Shazdancer, and George Aar.
I'll be thinking about all of this quite a bit I'm sure.
IF he was really a "Dr" then he was well aware of the standards for avoiding plagiarism - even back in the 40's. He would have to have been aware, because there would have been theses to research and write. Perhaps he also learned that it was easy to not get caught.(this would be lying and stealing)
OR....
IF he wasn't a "Dr" at all, then he was truly ignorant of what he was doing, BUT he lied about the doctorate degree. (again - lying)
In either case you can see the early signs of the pattern of deceit. I'm not so sure it's judgmental to call something for what it is. It may be impossible to really know a man's motives, but it is possible to look at the details he himself has put forth.
I wish you well in your journey and hope to see you posting again soon.
Just a side note on Bullinger to Socks and any other "old-timers"
By the time the 90's rolled around the word on the Way street was that "Doctor" came to the same conclusions that Bullinger did independently. In fact this position is alluded to in PFAL, where he relates how his friend (Dr. Higgins?) supposedly introduced him to Bullinger, telling him that Bullinger wrote like Wierwille taught.
Just a side note on Bullinger to Socks and any other "old-timers"
By the time the 90's rolled around the word on the Way street was that "Doctor" came to the same conclusions that Bullinger did independently. In fact this position is alluded to in PFAL, where he relates how his friend (Dr. Higgins?) supposedly introduced him to Bullinger, telling him that Bullinger wrote like Wierwille taught.
"The Way:Living in Love", pg-210.
"She gave me my first copy of Bullinger'sHow to Enjoy the Bible. She said, when she first heard
me teach, that I taught like he wrote, and I'd never met the man or even read his stuff.
It's times like these when I wish I hadn't dragged all of my TWI stuff to the gehenna/city dump :(
On one hand I'm glad that crap isn't around my home, but I miss out on some of these discussions.
Well, Oakspear, you aren't missing much...IMO. These discussions are valuable to some, but to me they're a tangled web of sorting out a lot of messy and ill-conceived research. I think our time is better spent doing something else.
I think there are enough topics at GSC already to substantiate the fact the VP stole, borrowed, tweaked, misrepresented and otherwise contorted other people's Bible research. His zeal to prove something that cannot be proven (the Bible is the Word of God, the Bible is perfect, etc.) drove some of us crazy long enough...I think he missed the important fact that the scriptures are products from various cultures from various times for various reasons and offer various levels of various sorts of enlightenment, etc. (now that's a record for the number of times I've used the same word in one sentence). I think they've been made out to be something they were never intended to be.
I'll stop now... I'm not trying to disillusion anyone who still feels differently. My "beliefs" are not necessarily for everyone...I'm just sharing part of my own personal experience.
Excellent point, Oaks. He restated the incident with Dr. Higgins many times over the years and as far as I know it's correctly recorded in TWLIL.
A lot of the discussion on plagiarism looks at the use of others writing, sections from their books, sentences and paragraphs that are identical or paraphrased so close to another's that the relationship between his and others is noticable. Terms, phrases, illustrations, many noted on GS posts and others too, all bear close resemblance to others writings.
Bullinger's work - comparing it to a dictionary reference might not the best or most correct example, but there is a similar flavor, to me. Using a dictionary style explanation for the meaing of a word for instance implies a dictionary was used, or that the meaning of a word is so commonly understood that the "Webster's" reference isn't even cited. Words have meanings and dictionaries define them, pretty much everyone knows and accept that. So some places a person might put "From the 20XX edition of Websters/Whovever Dictionary: " The definitive meaning of a word would at least include if not start with a citing of the dictionary meaning.
I'd venture to say - my opinion - that based on a comparison of VPW's use of say, figures of speech in the bible, and Bullinger's work on figures of speech, that VPW used Bullinger's figures and definitions as a reference and starting point. Some uses, like for exa. "pros" use the Bullinger nearly exact to complete VPW's definition of the word. Polysendeton is another, uses of "and".
It's understandable that with VPW's education, the exposure and study at Princeton Theological, etc. that he could have been familiar with an area like figures of speech in the bible. However, of the other sources he notes for his background, there doesn't seem to be one that carries the breadth of Bullinger. Which is probably why he notes him in PFAL the way he does when he does. There's no question in my mind that Bullinger was a constant source of reference for him, in much the same way a dictionary might be.
To me it would seem he recognized areas like that in biblical research and was able to use them. Bullinger's finished work on figures offered a huge reference resource to study figures in the bible and approach them in an organized way, as an area of study as well as a means to greater understanding of topics in context. In that way, there's value to citing the reference.
VPW would often do this in Way Corps presentations, often noting where he agreed or differed. Bullinger seemed to be the definitiive starting or launching point, along with others, for work on a verse.
There were at least three variations from the 70's to the 80's (not counting any older hard cover "hymnals").
The book was just a paperback collection of songs and choruses to sing at the fellowships and meetings.
Eventually the book was added to, expanding its contents.
Soon after this was released, the legal team (new at hq at the time) pulled the plug on it, a recall of sorts occured.
The problem was copyright permission, that no effort had been made to secure it for any songs being used.
After copyright permissions were completed, a new reissue was made.
Much thinner songbook though, many songs omitted. It seems that several lyrics had been changed (adapted) by TWI to suit unique doctrines, and were not acceptable to the rightful copyight owners.
No one sued for copyright infrigment, those songs were simply dropped.
Does anybody else remember this?
Was this plagerism, of a sort? Maybe not as high handed as other specifics already discussed on this topic. But it does serve as a reminder of how such a 'fast and loose' attitude (policy?) existed about using other people's stuff.
The church that I attend now (and I am a part of their music program) had to buy a license in order to play copyrighted songs as part of the church services. But the license does not grant them blanket permission to publish those things.
One thing that seems clear ( thank you WordWolf) is that plagarism can simply be an uncredited reference to a public domain source. That in and of itself is pretty cut and dry.
As concerning the whole line of thinking that Dr. knew some things before he read them in Bullinger, I have to admit that it is possible.
I chose Apollos as my first choice for being "the writer of the book of Hebrews" long before I knew that William Tyndale and Martin Luthor believed the same thing. When I found that out, I was very happy to find that I arrived at the same conclusion independently of them and for pretty much the same reasons. ( In the doctrinal section I started a thread that discusses this topic and I also share that this particular point is not worth fighting about. )
The thing is that once I knew Tyndale's thinking on the subject I learned a lot from him by reading the things that he wrote on the same subject. It's very easy to see that if I wasn't very clear on the specifics that the line between what I thought up and what he wrote would be very thin. Even if it's clear to me and I'm clear in my communication I could see where someone would be able to accuse me of plagarising Tyndale's ideas. How would I be able to disprove the accusation?
My experience doesn't prove anything as it may pertain to Dr., but it at least gives me some experience along these lines to think about.
I also have had folks take doctrinal points that I've shared with them and then ignore me completely as they've progressed with the topics. I've had to put up with the slight in order to continue watching what was going on. In one case I shared what was new territory in God's Word with one man only to watch him take it into the most selfish and destructive place that I could imagine, and all the while making sure he kept all the credit, honor, and/or glory to himself.
Sometimes I think about sharing what he did in more detail, but I don't want to give any potential sociopaths out there any pointers in the "conquer them and decieve them" categories.
At any rate, the topic of this thread touches my life in many respects and in order to consider Dr. Wierwille's life I probably will sort out a few of these issues in my own life too.
( edited for clarity ) Was it successful? I hope so.
As concerning the whole line of thinking that Dr. knew some things before he read them in Bullinger, I have to admit that it is possible.
Sure it's possible, but I personally consider it unlikely. Why? Because in several different instances Wierwille would come to the same conclusion as Bullinger, but omit or change one of Bullinger's premises, or one of the intermediary steps, which then did not support the conclusion. Or he would quote Bullinger as if Bullinger's work supported his own, when an even cursory read of Bullinger would indicate that it did not. In a number of cases it is obvious that Wierwille did not fully understand what Bullinger was saying. All of this indicates to me that he didn't come up with this stuff on his own.
Bullinger's finished work on figures offered a huge reference resource to study figures in the bible and approach them in an organized way, as an area of study as well as a means to greater understanding of topics in context. In that way, there's value to citing the reference.
Socks.. It makes me wonder.. why did in this rare occurence the vicster happened to refer to Bullinger, he did so as suggesting Bullinger was a second rate source? That's the way I understand his reference in the class.. "there is one man who listed and collated most of these figures... didn't really take the field of figures of speech to it's ultimate" or some such nonsense.. the best I remember anyway.
That's not the way he referred to Bullinger in PFAL, Ham. He states the Mr. E. B. was the person who'd done the most work in the field, that he knew of. I don't remember a reference there like that.
Over the years I heard him refer to Bullinger in generally respectful terms. For whatever reasons he came to the conclusion that Bullinger's convictions on the topic of Jesus Christ and "the trinity" would have changed had he "lived longer", he seemed to think that Bullinger believed as he did largely due to his background and tradition. This kinda contradicts Bullinger's history, but I'm not an authority. (Juanita Carey's done some serious work on Bullinger, and her name's all over Wikipedia's piece on Bullinger so I don't think there'd be a problem citing her name here) He also made some comments from time to time about Bullinger's "people" finishing the Companion Bible after Bullinger's death and mucking it up.
Bullinger didn't spring out of the ground fully formed. John Darby and Edward Irving were early developers of the "dispensational" view of the bible that Bullinger continued in, Darby was "trinitarian" and from what I've read Darby's dispensational teaching benefitted greatly from the publishing of the Schofield Study Bible which contained references to the dispensations. (I might compare the influence similarly to Bullinger's own Companion Bible which, when completed offered a very clear breakdown for studying his view of dispensations).
My take is that VPW's conclusions about Bullinger's work gave him serious props. Bullinger's books and Companion Bible specifically formed much used go-to material for him over the years. It's really not a clear cut issue of plagiarism (IMO) that when VPW constantly notes things like certain figures of speech and greek definitions and such, and they're seemingly based on Bullinger's work, that he doesn't make the reference for the listener - but it's also clear that information is based on "something", some authoritative reference.
PFAL kinda whooshes a person into that world, without giving much of a view of what it is, where it comes from, how it's being used to form the conclusions that are taught and how to access it directly yourself. Interlinears, greek texts, concordances, a lot of that's referred to, yes. Coming out of PFAL though, there's so much that's been taught over 36 hours, it's a bit of a mash up, to say the least. (I do feel there's some good mashings in there though, so sue me, but don't expect to get much in the settlement )
For those of us who'd never heard of any of that kind of stuff, my point is that PFAL was what brought it to our attention as a useful and correct way to study the bible for further knowledge and understanding. If you went with the flow, you tended to come out of it slighly hamstrung - you knew about the material from the mentions but to use them to any degree you needed PFAL as the guide to your conclusions. Basically you would use them to rework what you already knew. People would come away with "use Bullinger, but watch out! He's off in this and that". As if Bullinger was going to bite your head off or something.
Some would say that's to benefit the teaching style of PFAL. I dunno. VPW presents himself as Mr. Research. Research is based on study, work, time, materials, reference, and some means of metrics, measuring. That entire system is so formalized by Bullinger and repeated in PFAL, it's just hard to get around it not being stated more clearly throughout so the listener is able to form a view for the scope of the work, moreso because PFAL was marketed as something, new, different, true.
To add: this may have been VPW's problem with laying it all out. He wanted PFAL to be "his own", the result of a revelatory instruction from God. In fact, PFAL contains large parts of the work of others. I think whether someone views that as right, wrong, honest or dishonest, it can be generally accepted that's true. So how to handle - VPW said he didn't teach anything "new", he just "put it all together". If that's the reality we're dealing with there should be no problem with giving a complete open view of all the sources, everything, all the time. It's as if to say "so what? I didn't invent this stuff, but I see the pieces coming together like this..."
Is that what he really did? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......in practice, I don't think so. We can assume that he was using all of this written work from others, but not usually stating where he got it. If he really felt the way he said he did, it shouldn't have mattered to him to credit sources.
He really jumped ship and knowingly shot himself in the foot academically by not doing so. He either knew he'd be skewered for it someday and didn't care, or just didn't care. A little leaven would have leavened the whole loaf, in hindsight, y'know?
I haven't made up my mind yet as to how I'm going to sum up this thread as it developes so I'm going to respond to your opinions by pointing out other options, I'm willing to let the chips fall wherever they may when it's all said and done however.
Or it may be the result of some sloppy writing mixed with very pressing concerns that Dr. Wierwille was dealing with at the time he was writing. For example they could be the result of many of his contemporaries rejecting him and questioning his motives, or maybe at a different time he might have been emotional about people being kidnapped as part of a deprogramming campaign.At the very least it indicates that Dr. Wierwille did not have adequate help in terms of proofreading and editing.
There has been enough said on this site for me to not condemn anyone that was in a potential position to help Dr. Wierwille either, I believe that there is plenty of good reason to believe you all that you felt generally intimidated by the high handedness of TWI at the time that much of this stuff was written.
On the other hand, if I have correctly recalled Chr-s G--r's teaching and I have correctly percieved his intent, it seems that some were able to at least try to help things become better than they were in terms of handling God's Word correctly.
Dear Ham,
I remember Dr. Wierwille say thing like that about the people he learned things from too. It seems clear to me that he didn't want folks in TWI focusing too much on the folks that he learned things from.
To be completely frank Ham, I'm still considering "what's up with that" too. I'm still willing to consider the possibility that these things happened for what Dr. Wierwille considered good reasons, but I'm pretty sure that I'll end up considering some of these things that he did at the very least to be mistakes.
Dear Socks,
The fact that you do not paint Dr. Wierwille in "evil" terms as touching the plagarism issue helps make your posts easier for me to read.
"Shot himself in the foot" or "leavened the whole loaf"? I'm still chewing on the issues here.
This may be opening up a whole different can of worms, but it seems to me that William Tyndale believed that the dead are not alive also. As I read his 1534 new testement and his commentary it seems that it wasn't uncommon for him to refer to what he believed as it pertains to the issues he was dealing with in an indirect manner. The way that he handled the resurrection in his introduction leads me to draw that conclusion about what he believed. In the same manner of reading-between-the-lines I first saw that he thought that Apollos wrote the book of Hebrews. The manner in which he brought it up was so gentle though that it seems much harder to rail against what he believed though. I take it as a very good example of gentleness while speaking the truth.
BOY OH BOY, these issues are not easy ones to deal with, but IMO not demonizing anyone unjustly tends to make the whole thing much easier to look at.
To be frank, I think that there is a reference in the bible (Jude 9) that would cause me to not demonize (so to speak) even the devil himself.
To me there is both truth and a little tongue-in-cheek humor in saying it that way.
NOT DEMONIZING THE DEVIL, chuckle.
(edited for clarity) not uncommon for me
P.S. I just figured out how to get to some of these articles through the home page. I'm just taking a lot of it in still.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
21
14
24
16
Popular Days
Apr 15
23
Apr 14
20
Apr 16
14
Apr 17
11
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 21 posts
Mike 14 posts
waysider 24 posts
JeffSjo 16 posts
Popular Days
Apr 15 2008
23 posts
Apr 14 2008
20 posts
Apr 16 2008
14 posts
Apr 17 2008
11 posts
WordWolf
Now then,
Some people are under the impression that there is an exemption to
plagiarism- that you can freely plagiarize works that are not protected by
copyright.
This is untrue, and either reflects an inadequate education on the subject
of plagiarism, copyright, or on PUBLIC DOMAIN, which is the term for
works not protected by copyright.
I quote again...
http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_faqs.html
"Works that are no longer protected by copyright, or never have been, are considered "public domain." This means that you may freely borrow material from these works without fear of plagiarism,
provided you make proper attributions."
Emphasis mine.
(same source)
"When do I need to cite?
Whenever you borrow words or ideas, you need to acknowledge their source."
Seems to be misunderstanding or what Public Domain means.
http://www.kyvl.org/html/tutorial/research/glossary.shtml
"Public Domain
Works in the public domain may be copied, distributed, or sold without restriction or prior permission."
http://www.lib.jmu.edu/gold/mod7ethics.htm
"Whether an information source is copyrighted or in the public domain, you should cite it if you quote or paraphrase it in your paper or speech."
(That's from James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Va.)
Something being unprotected by copyright does not mean the sources should not be cited.
Sources should ALWAYS be cited, and one should not need the force of law
(which DOES enforce this) to see that this should be so.
That's not what copyright was designed for.
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
"It must be remembered that copyright has two main purposes, namely
the protection of the author's right to obtain commercial benefit from valuable work, and more recently the protection of the author's general right to control how a work is used."
Neither of those means citations are required BECAUSE OF COPYRIGHT.
Copyright affects how much of the original source can be used,
and the author's ability to recover damages legally if the law is broken.
So,
how does one plagiarize something in the open domain?
Well,
it does not have protections against how much can be used.
It does not have the power for the author to recover monetary damages.
HOWEVER,
that does not mean the source is not LEGALLY REQUIRED to be cited.
That's a crime against society, and the government can sue on behalf
of the public, either as a misdemeanor or a FRAUD
(if the publication earned more than $2,500), and FRAUD IS A FELONY.
For those of you who will insist that there has to be an injured SPECIFIC
person for there to be a crime, I'd like to point out that the law does not
see it that way.
If a single man who makes lots of money hires a high-class prostitute
(call-girl) in the State of New York, he and she have committed a crime.
Society is deemed to be the victim, regardless of the consent of all parties.
(Don't like that? Write your congressman.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I've heard people excuse vic's plagiarism by saying "well, if it was such a BIG DEAL, why didn't Stiles, Leonard, Kenyon and Bullinger publications, etc, etc, take action? It MUST NOT have really hurt their feelings or something.."
Who says it didn't hurt? I wonder how Leonard felt, seeing his life's work cut and pasted by a second rate con artist.. he was well aware of the raw copying that was going on.
I think he felt legal remedies to be more distasteful than the issues they would correct. So be it- that perhaps was his belief.
The real objection I have with the vicster's raw copying, and not giving any credit or documentation- it made him out to be what he was not.
A scholar. An innovator. One who by isolating himself like a monk, and after years of toil and study- single-handedly came up with something which had a remarkable resemblence to other scholars works.
I think it's hypocrisy at it's worst.
He actually got on stage, and said something like "you have it easy- you don't KNOW the kind of junk I had to go through to get this.."
sheesh..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
So,
can you use works not under copyright?
Of course.
Musicians play classical music not under copyright all the time.
And you can buy CDs of that.
If you do, you'll notice they're a lot CHEAPER.
That's because nobody's getting profits for owning the copyrights to the songs.
If you try to use music that is protected by copyright, without obtaining copyright,
the RIAA will be VERY interested in having a little chat with you.
The Verve Pipe did that. They sampled an orchestral track the Rolling Stones did
for their song "Bittersweet Symphony".
The result?
The courts granted ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the profits of the song to the
Rolling Stones. The band got NOTHING.
If they had obtained permission FIRST, there would have been no problem.
=========
So,
let's mention what you CAN and CAN'T do.
You can write any book you want, and use any idea you want, so long as you cite the source.
You can write any book you want, and use any idea you want, and use SMALL DIRECT QUOTES,
so long as you cite the source.
If your source is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN, you can write any book you want, and use any idea
you want, and use ANY SIZE QUOTES YOU WANT,
so long as you cite the source.
IIRC, Rev Alexander Hislop's "The Two Babylons" is no longer protected by copyright.
When Ralph Woodrow wrote "Babylon Mystery Religion", he lifted almost all his ideas
from TTB, and used direct quotes whenever he wanted.
However, he cited his source every single time.
His book was completely legal.
And, if you read it, you'll see that all the citations in no way made the book difficult to read.
(He included them, chapter by chapter, as endnotes and booknotes, but not as footnotes.)
THAT is a correct usage of material in the PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Some of Bullinger's stuff is in the Public Domain, and is perfectly legal to use in manners
congruent with that. What does this mean?
Here's some examples:
Legal: Publishing "the Companion Bible by EW Bullinger" as a book, 100% of its original content.
Illegal: Publishing "the Companion Bible by WordWolf" as a book, 100% of EWB's original content.
Legal: quoting an entire Appendix of Bullinger's Companion Bible as a chapter in your book,
SO LONG AS YOU CITE FULLY.
Illegal: changing a few words, then rewriting an entire Appendix of Bullinger's Companion Bible
as a chapter in your book, with no mention of the original book or Appendix.
Legal: publishing a book compiling Bullinger's previous published works:
"The Rich Man and Lazarus: An Intermediate State?" and
"Saul and the Witch at Endor: Did the Dead Rise at Her Bidding?"
as one book by EW Bullinger.
Illegal: taking Bullinger's previously published works I just mentioned,
rearranging the contents, and composing one "new" book by yourself,
WITH NO CITATION OF BULLINGER.
For most people, this is not difficult to understand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Word Wolf, thanks for your informative posts - and especially for post # 23 the changes made in the White Book [eliminating the man schooled in the Holy Spirit in the later edition]. Great find, brother!!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
And in case you're interested in "borrowing" someone's work, copyright now extends to 70 years after the author's death. (I believe Sonny Bono helped make that law happen -- yep, here it is: http://www.keytlaw.com/Copyrights/sonybono.htm .)
And a work does not have to be registered in order to be copyright protected. It just has to be in a fixed form (i.e. written down). Registration helps when it comes down to proving date of origination, and is used when deciding on the amount of plagiarism fines.
I once found a copy of the Stiles book at a used book sale, and took it home and compared the QandA section with my Holy Spirit book. Yep, identical, even some insignificant portions were word for word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
There used to be something called a "Poor man's copyright." You would type out your work and send an original to yourself and keep the envelope sealed. This would document the time of your work.
I'd have to look to see if this is still viable.
*checking......*
It apparently is NOT a good choice:
Poor Man's Copyright
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Thanks everybody,
I've got a lot of things to consider in your responses and it is definitely going to take some time to absorb it all.
For me the hardest consideration seems to be taking it all in and facing the possibility of having to change my assessment of Dr. Wierwille's character.
I have no problem considering these specific facts in light of my knowledge of the pressures of the ministry that existed in the different time frames from the 1940's to present. It is unthinkable to me now that I could condemn Dr. Wierwille for his actions in this topic without also being humane enough to acount for the situation at the time. Thinking like that does not prevent me from acknowledging mistakes, I just think that in general it is a very bad idea to condemn a man's character and intentions without being willing to consider their point of view also.
History pushed Dr. Wierwille to a point of being alone, and mostly without the good will of his contemporaries. I've seen it myself that many Christains are completely willing to demonize me for not believing the trinity and believing that the dead will not live again until after they're raised. I don't mind discussing the differences at all and in general I believe that I'm willing to change any belief that I hold if convinced otherwise. But the demonizing and the "mark and avoid" stuff that many of you remember being harmfully missused in TWI is often just as harmful in contemporary Christianity. I have desired honest discussion and many have marked me and avoid me even now. I'm not bragging or anything either, I'm just saying that that's how it is for me right now.
Another thing that I know that I will consider is that in spite of any mistakes that Dr. Wierwille made, I learned a lot of good things in PFAL and other classes and programs. I can sympathise with the many of you who getting out of TWI lead to a more radical purging of "way- brain" too, it's just that it's not that way for me. I guess if there are those of you who think that I'm "way-brained" I just have to say that I'm doing my best to be honest with you all. I'm certain that even with my consideration of the plagarism issue ongoing, I'll be able to credit the PFAL class with teaching me many good things. In other topics and threads I've already acknowledged changing some of what I was taught in PFAL, but I do my best to back up the changes that I've made by applying the critical thinking skills that I leared in PFAL. The worst case scenario that I can see right now is that I would be abliged to consider PFAL as a product of something like " Phillipians 1:15,16". I mean the bad one of the two points in those verses.
I know that a lot of you have been harmed far worse in TWI and consider the organization in far worse biblical terms than a product of strife and envy. I support you all 100% and tend to believe you completely. (At least as much as I can believe folks that I don't know outside of the internet.) I'm hoping to limit the discussion on this thread to the plagarism issues however.
I was harmed by a splinter group and it's ruler especially, just as badly as many of you shared about being hurt by TWI. But not as badly as others, so I 'm glad that you're willing to let me consider these things as they pertain to TWI.
ONCE AGAIN, THANKS FOR THE FEEDBACK!! You've said a lot and I'm just taking it in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Hi Jeff,
I think you might want to consider where and how you formed your opinions of the eminent "Dr." Wierwille as well.
The history we were fed as good Wayfers concerning Mr. Wierwille was predominantly of his own making, and, surprise surprise, he always came out looking good. He seemed to covet the "poor, persecuted, but always faithful" sort of personna. The actual accounts of those same events often tell a different story.
Everybody accepts that the Vicster's doctorate was obtained from an unaccredited, basically unheard of, little mail-order college in Colorado. But he sure loved the title didn't he? Ever wonder why he was so enthralled with titles, robes, pomp and circumstance, even though he derided such things when practiced by "religion"?
Maybe he wasn't all that he liked to portray, huh? Maybe...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I already know what you mean George,
I've already came face to face with a man who I'm convinced thinks his job in the ministry is to control every word and thought of his followers. It still amazes me looking back how much control he has within the group over what they think about him. When I got kicked out it was encouraged by example to call him "the Word in the flesh" within the group. And it was also councelled within the group to hide many things like that because people just wouldn't understand after all. I'm fairly certain that his concern over what they think about him is at the least an obsession, and at worse some kind of fear driven insanity.
I will not be overly quick to throw that kind of accusation at any man George. Really, far and away I wouldn't wish that kind of experiential knowledge on anybody.
I'm content on this thread to focus on the plagarism issue.
(added in editing)
I'm going to be leaving again soon. Than you for your responses Waysider, BFH, Ham, Coolchef, Pawtucket, Doojable, Socks, Garthp2000, T-bone, Wordwolf, Shazdancer, and George Aar.
I'll be thinking about all of this quite a bit I'm sure.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Jeff - please consider one last thing:
vp painted himself into a corner.
IF he was really a "Dr" then he was well aware of the standards for avoiding plagiarism - even back in the 40's. He would have to have been aware, because there would have been theses to research and write. Perhaps he also learned that it was easy to not get caught.(this would be lying and stealing)
OR....
IF he wasn't a "Dr" at all, then he was truly ignorant of what he was doing, BUT he lied about the doctorate degree. (again - lying)
In either case you can see the early signs of the pattern of deceit. I'm not so sure it's judgmental to call something for what it is. It may be impossible to really know a man's motives, but it is possible to look at the details he himself has put forth.
I wish you well in your journey and hope to see you posting again soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bfh
Jeff:
When R. handed me that sheet of paper with the "Teaching on Love by VPW to the Way Corps" ,
she had tears welling up in her eyes, as she told me about VPW's great heart.
One problem though, in reality, it wasn't VPW's heart, it was Eric Fromm's heart that was so great, kind, and beautiful.
One of the reasons that people went into the Way Corps was "to sit at the Master's feet",
to have a certain kind of access to top leadership, especially VPW.
VPW would teach the Corps what God, himself was teaching VPW.
Pretty powerful and heady stuff - and what an honor, who in their right (Way) mind wouldn't want to avail themselves of that?
But now here's the problem, since VPW seemed to have no compunction against cribbing from Fromm,
how many other people did VPW crib from? How many other Corps night teachings came from someone else's heart and mind?
To me, this makes VPW a fraud. He billed himself as The Man of God, but he was really nothing more than a two-bit hustler,
cribbing from other people's work to keep up the "god is teaching me the word like it hasn't been known since the first century " sham.
Moreover, if VPW "borrowed" other people's work, how many other top leadership engaged in this practice?
Did LCM, did J*hn L*nn, did Mich*el F*rt, and the rest of them do the same thing?
Was this practice systemic?
Well, I can give you one example of LCM copying someone else's work - Athletes of the Spirit: the dance production.
He took that from Travolta's movie Stayin' Alive.
Of course, LCM said, in explanation, that God gave him the revelation first and once it was out there,
the debil got ahold of it, and was able to use it before LCM had a chance to get it together.
Yeah, right.
At one point in my life I bought that bs, but not anymore. Not Anymore.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Just a side note on Bullinger to Socks and any other "old-timers"
By the time the 90's rolled around the word on the Way street was that "Doctor" came to the same conclusions that Bullinger did independently. In fact this position is alluded to in PFAL, where he relates how his friend (Dr. Higgins?) supposedly introduced him to Bullinger, telling him that Bullinger wrote like Wierwille taught.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"The Way:Living in Love", pg-210.
"She gave me my first copy of Bullinger'sHow to Enjoy the Bible. She said, when she first heard
me teach, that I taught like he wrote, and I'd never met the man or even read his stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I heard this being used as early as the early 1970's as a corroboration of something that VPW taught.
It might have been four crucified.
I don't recall off hand.
The point that people made was that if two people who knew nothing of each other's work had reached the same conclusion, it surely must be true.
This reasoning is tainted on more than one level.
First, because we now know that Wierwille WAS aware of Bullinger's work.
Secondly, because Wierwille presented this as being unique information that was given to him personally by God.
Third, because Wierwille had stated that he had hauled all his reference material to the dump and started over.
Fourth, because we now know it is faulty research that arrives at an erroneous conclusion.
Wierwille not only used someone else's work as if it were his own, he never even did the proper work required to prove or disprove its validity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
On one hand I'm glad that crap isn't around my home, but I miss out on some of these discussions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Well, Oakspear, you aren't missing much...IMO. These discussions are valuable to some, but to me they're a tangled web of sorting out a lot of messy and ill-conceived research. I think our time is better spent doing something else.
I think there are enough topics at GSC already to substantiate the fact the VP stole, borrowed, tweaked, misrepresented and otherwise contorted other people's Bible research. His zeal to prove something that cannot be proven (the Bible is the Word of God, the Bible is perfect, etc.) drove some of us crazy long enough...I think he missed the important fact that the scriptures are products from various cultures from various times for various reasons and offer various levels of various sorts of enlightenment, etc. (now that's a record for the number of times I've used the same word in one sentence). I think they've been made out to be something they were never intended to be.
I'll stop now... I'm not trying to disillusion anyone who still feels differently. My "beliefs" are not necessarily for everyone...I'm just sharing part of my own personal experience.
peace,
penworks
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Excellent point, Oaks. He restated the incident with Dr. Higgins many times over the years and as far as I know it's correctly recorded in TWLIL.
A lot of the discussion on plagiarism looks at the use of others writing, sections from their books, sentences and paragraphs that are identical or paraphrased so close to another's that the relationship between his and others is noticable. Terms, phrases, illustrations, many noted on GS posts and others too, all bear close resemblance to others writings.
Bullinger's work - comparing it to a dictionary reference might not the best or most correct example, but there is a similar flavor, to me. Using a dictionary style explanation for the meaing of a word for instance implies a dictionary was used, or that the meaning of a word is so commonly understood that the "Webster's" reference isn't even cited. Words have meanings and dictionaries define them, pretty much everyone knows and accept that. So some places a person might put "From the 20XX edition of Websters/Whovever Dictionary: " The definitive meaning of a word would at least include if not start with a citing of the dictionary meaning.
I'd venture to say - my opinion - that based on a comparison of VPW's use of say, figures of speech in the bible, and Bullinger's work on figures of speech, that VPW used Bullinger's figures and definitions as a reference and starting point. Some uses, like for exa. "pros" use the Bullinger nearly exact to complete VPW's definition of the word. Polysendeton is another, uses of "and".
It's understandable that with VPW's education, the exposure and study at Princeton Theological, etc. that he could have been familiar with an area like figures of speech in the bible. However, of the other sources he notes for his background, there doesn't seem to be one that carries the breadth of Bullinger. Which is probably why he notes him in PFAL the way he does when he does. There's no question in my mind that Bullinger was a constant source of reference for him, in much the same way a dictionary might be.
To me it would seem he recognized areas like that in biblical research and was able to use them. Bullinger's finished work on figures offered a huge reference resource to study figures in the bible and approach them in an organized way, as an area of study as well as a means to greater understanding of topics in context. In that way, there's value to citing the reference.
VPW would often do this in Way Corps presentations, often noting where he agreed or differed. Bullinger seemed to be the definitiive starting or launching point, along with others, for work on a verse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wing
Remember the Sing Along the Way book?
There were at least three variations from the 70's to the 80's (not counting any older hard cover "hymnals").
The book was just a paperback collection of songs and choruses to sing at the fellowships and meetings.
Eventually the book was added to, expanding its contents.
Soon after this was released, the legal team (new at hq at the time) pulled the plug on it, a recall of sorts occured.
The problem was copyright permission, that no effort had been made to secure it for any songs being used.
After copyright permissions were completed, a new reissue was made.
Much thinner songbook though, many songs omitted. It seems that several lyrics had been changed (adapted) by TWI to suit unique doctrines, and were not acceptable to the rightful copyight owners.
No one sued for copyright infrigment, those songs were simply dropped.
Does anybody else remember this?
Was this plagerism, of a sort? Maybe not as high handed as other specifics already discussed on this topic. But it does serve as a reminder of how such a 'fast and loose' attitude (policy?) existed about using other people's stuff.
The church that I attend now (and I am a part of their music program) had to buy a license in order to play copyrighted songs as part of the church services. But the license does not grant them blanket permission to publish those things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
That is a lot for me and I'm still chewing on it.
One thing that seems clear ( thank you WordWolf) is that plagarism can simply be an uncredited reference to a public domain source. That in and of itself is pretty cut and dry.
As concerning the whole line of thinking that Dr. knew some things before he read them in Bullinger, I have to admit that it is possible.
I chose Apollos as my first choice for being "the writer of the book of Hebrews" long before I knew that William Tyndale and Martin Luthor believed the same thing. When I found that out, I was very happy to find that I arrived at the same conclusion independently of them and for pretty much the same reasons. ( In the doctrinal section I started a thread that discusses this topic and I also share that this particular point is not worth fighting about. )
The thing is that once I knew Tyndale's thinking on the subject I learned a lot from him by reading the things that he wrote on the same subject. It's very easy to see that if I wasn't very clear on the specifics that the line between what I thought up and what he wrote would be very thin. Even if it's clear to me and I'm clear in my communication I could see where someone would be able to accuse me of plagarising Tyndale's ideas. How would I be able to disprove the accusation?
My experience doesn't prove anything as it may pertain to Dr., but it at least gives me some experience along these lines to think about.
I also have had folks take doctrinal points that I've shared with them and then ignore me completely as they've progressed with the topics. I've had to put up with the slight in order to continue watching what was going on. In one case I shared what was new territory in God's Word with one man only to watch him take it into the most selfish and destructive place that I could imagine, and all the while making sure he kept all the credit, honor, and/or glory to himself.
Sometimes I think about sharing what he did in more detail, but I don't want to give any potential sociopaths out there any pointers in the "conquer them and decieve them" categories.
At any rate, the topic of this thread touches my life in many respects and in order to consider Dr. Wierwille's life I probably will sort out a few of these issues in my own life too.
( edited for clarity ) Was it successful? I hope so.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Socks.. It makes me wonder.. why did in this rare occurence the vicster happened to refer to Bullinger, he did so as suggesting Bullinger was a second rate source? That's the way I understand his reference in the class.. "there is one man who listed and collated most of these figures... didn't really take the field of figures of speech to it's ultimate" or some such nonsense.. the best I remember anyway.
What's up with that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
That's not the way he referred to Bullinger in PFAL, Ham. He states the Mr. E. B. was the person who'd done the most work in the field, that he knew of. I don't remember a reference there like that.
Over the years I heard him refer to Bullinger in generally respectful terms. For whatever reasons he came to the conclusion that Bullinger's convictions on the topic of Jesus Christ and "the trinity" would have changed had he "lived longer", he seemed to think that Bullinger believed as he did largely due to his background and tradition. This kinda contradicts Bullinger's history, but I'm not an authority. (Juanita Carey's done some serious work on Bullinger, and her name's all over Wikipedia's piece on Bullinger so I don't think there'd be a problem citing her name here) He also made some comments from time to time about Bullinger's "people" finishing the Companion Bible after Bullinger's death and mucking it up.
Bullinger didn't spring out of the ground fully formed. John Darby and Edward Irving were early developers of the "dispensational" view of the bible that Bullinger continued in, Darby was "trinitarian" and from what I've read Darby's dispensational teaching benefitted greatly from the publishing of the Schofield Study Bible which contained references to the dispensations. (I might compare the influence similarly to Bullinger's own Companion Bible which, when completed offered a very clear breakdown for studying his view of dispensations).
My take is that VPW's conclusions about Bullinger's work gave him serious props. Bullinger's books and Companion Bible specifically formed much used go-to material for him over the years. It's really not a clear cut issue of plagiarism (IMO) that when VPW constantly notes things like certain figures of speech and greek definitions and such, and they're seemingly based on Bullinger's work, that he doesn't make the reference for the listener - but it's also clear that information is based on "something", some authoritative reference.
PFAL kinda whooshes a person into that world, without giving much of a view of what it is, where it comes from, how it's being used to form the conclusions that are taught and how to access it directly yourself. Interlinears, greek texts, concordances, a lot of that's referred to, yes. Coming out of PFAL though, there's so much that's been taught over 36 hours, it's a bit of a mash up, to say the least. (I do feel there's some good mashings in there though, so sue me, but don't expect to get much in the settlement
)
For those of us who'd never heard of any of that kind of stuff, my point is that PFAL was what brought it to our attention as a useful and correct way to study the bible for further knowledge and understanding. If you went with the flow, you tended to come out of it slighly hamstrung - you knew about the material from the mentions but to use them to any degree you needed PFAL as the guide to your conclusions. Basically you would use them to rework what you already knew. People would come away with "use Bullinger, but watch out! He's off in this and that". As if Bullinger was going to bite your head off or something.
Some would say that's to benefit the teaching style of PFAL. I dunno. VPW presents himself as Mr. Research. Research is based on study, work, time, materials, reference, and some means of metrics, measuring. That entire system is so formalized by Bullinger and repeated in PFAL, it's just hard to get around it not being stated more clearly throughout so the listener is able to form a view for the scope of the work, moreso because PFAL was marketed as something, new, different, true.
To add: this may have been VPW's problem with laying it all out. He wanted PFAL to be "his own", the result of a revelatory instruction from God. In fact, PFAL contains large parts of the work of others. I think whether someone views that as right, wrong, honest or dishonest, it can be generally accepted that's true. So how to handle - VPW said he didn't teach anything "new", he just "put it all together". If that's the reality we're dealing with there should be no problem with giving a complete open view of all the sources, everything, all the time. It's as if to say "so what? I didn't invent this stuff, but I see the pieces coming together like this..."
Is that what he really did? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......in practice, I don't think so. We can assume that he was using all of this written work from others, but not usually stating where he got it. If he really felt the way he said he did, it shouldn't have mattered to him to credit sources.
He really jumped ship and knowingly shot himself in the foot academically by not doing so. He either knew he'd be skewered for it someday and didn't care, or just didn't care. A little leaven would have leavened the whole loaf, in hindsight, y'know?
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Dear Oakspear,
I haven't made up my mind yet as to how I'm going to sum up this thread as it developes so I'm going to respond to your opinions by pointing out other options, I'm willing to let the chips fall wherever they may when it's all said and done however.
Or it may be the result of some sloppy writing mixed with very pressing concerns that Dr. Wierwille was dealing with at the time he was writing. For example they could be the result of many of his contemporaries rejecting him and questioning his motives, or maybe at a different time he might have been emotional about people being kidnapped as part of a deprogramming campaign.At the very least it indicates that Dr. Wierwille did not have adequate help in terms of proofreading and editing.
There has been enough said on this site for me to not condemn anyone that was in a potential position to help Dr. Wierwille either, I believe that there is plenty of good reason to believe you all that you felt generally intimidated by the high handedness of TWI at the time that much of this stuff was written.
On the other hand, if I have correctly recalled Chr-s G--r's teaching and I have correctly percieved his intent, it seems that some were able to at least try to help things become better than they were in terms of handling God's Word correctly.
Dear Ham,
I remember Dr. Wierwille say thing like that about the people he learned things from too. It seems clear to me that he didn't want folks in TWI focusing too much on the folks that he learned things from.
To be completely frank Ham, I'm still considering "what's up with that" too. I'm still willing to consider the possibility that these things happened for what Dr. Wierwille considered good reasons, but I'm pretty sure that I'll end up considering some of these things that he did at the very least to be mistakes.
Dear Socks,
The fact that you do not paint Dr. Wierwille in "evil" terms as touching the plagarism issue helps make your posts easier for me to read.
"Shot himself in the foot" or "leavened the whole loaf"? I'm still chewing on the issues here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
This may be opening up a whole different can of worms, but it seems to me that William Tyndale believed that the dead are not alive also. As I read his 1534 new testement and his commentary it seems that it wasn't uncommon for him to refer to what he believed as it pertains to the issues he was dealing with in an indirect manner. The way that he handled the resurrection in his introduction leads me to draw that conclusion about what he believed. In the same manner of reading-between-the-lines I first saw that he thought that Apollos wrote the book of Hebrews. The manner in which he brought it up was so gentle though that it seems much harder to rail against what he believed though. I take it as a very good example of gentleness while speaking the truth.
BOY OH BOY, these issues are not easy ones to deal with, but IMO not demonizing anyone unjustly tends to make the whole thing much easier to look at.
To be frank, I think that there is a reference in the bible (Jude 9) that would cause me to not demonize (so to speak) even the devil himself.
To me there is both truth and a little tongue-in-cheek humor in saying it that way.
NOT DEMONIZING THE DEVIL, chuckle.
(edited for clarity) not uncommon for me
P.S. I just figured out how to get to some of these articles through the home page. I'm just taking a lot of it in still.
Edited by JeffSjoLink 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.