Plagarism !?

[Mike]

Since the 1960s, paradigm has been used in science to refer to a theoretical framework, as when Nobel Laureate David Baltimore cited the work of two colleagues that "really established a new paradigm for our understanding of the causation of cancer."

This one sentence, buried deep within all the data you posted, is what I was talking about.

The exact timing started in 1962, when Thomas Kuhn wrote "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." It caught on quick within science circles. This is what I meant by the relativity of definitions. Relative to scientists who knew this book back then, paradigm took on this new meaning, graduating from old rarely used literary pinnings up to modern scientific theoretical structures. By the time I met Thomas Kuhn (?1969-70?) it had caught on like wildfire, but still within science. My professor (a former student of Kuhn's) told me that it would catch on OUTSIDE of science, as she had already been seeing it happen in small but growing ways. It did. I'll bet all the times you ever heard "paradigm" it was NOT the old literary definition that was being used, but the new scientific one. Dictionary companies are slow in changing. They change AFTER the culture changes a word, which is has already happened. Ten years from now a Google search may show you this better.

*******

[Having seen the way you process the threads we post on, and knowing you're HIDING your specifics,

I'm NOT impressed that you've "found" something.

I don't know what you mean here with "...HIDING your specifics...."

I do know much of the way I "process the threads" is dealing with a huge amount of human animosity. This makes it difficult for me to get to my point at times, and generates a lot of side points that suddenly command attention. Sometimes I resort to humor to lighten the load for me and hopefully some posters and readers. But I am unaware of me hiding anything. It's early and I've only had half a cup of coffee. Maybe you’ll wake me up with something am hiding but can't remember right now. I was pretty baffled with your use of that phrase "HIDING your specifics."

***

And, please, if you want to get personal, like how I am on the phone, could you please be thorough and not anecdotal. If we did a thorough poll here I think you might be surprised at how many posters I have a great relationship with by phone, e-mail, and PMs.

Even the one (I'm only aware of one) that said let's cut off communications to me quickly softened and we later reconciled some on the board. Her cutting off communications came only when she finally realized after MANY hours on the phone and e-mail that she was NEVER going to change my mind. It had nothing to do with me being ugly with her in any way. She called me dozens of times. I thought it was pretty petty of you, WW, to bring that up, something that you had only scant information on. It reminds me of the SNL Church Lady, minus the laughter, when you behave like that.

***

Now let me address this one last thing, because I can see you still don’t get it or don’t want to get it. It’s how plagiarism SHOULD evaporate from your mind IF my thesis right.

To follow what I mean you have to strap yourself in with the word “IF.” You have to hold onto the “IF” and think it’s true FOR A SHORT TIME. After that you can relax, pop off your safety belt, and go back to denying it is true. I promise it won’t stick and keep you locked in with me forever.

Ok, ready? IF my thesis is true, it starts with God giving Kenyon revelations. Some of them may have been direct, word-for-word dictations, or some could have been guidance toward some other teacher who provided the word-for-word. It doesn’t matter to me. Both are revelations from God and Kenyon can print them. Middle-men are ok with me if they are accurate. Let’s just say for argument sake that Kenyon got it word-for-word and then published it mixed in with a lot of pretty right on sense knowledge that Kenyon had worked.

So who owns the rights to that part which is revelation? That depends on who’s point of view you take.

From the US Government’s point of view, it’s who holds the copyright on file, Kenyon. From God’s point of view it’s God, Who gave the original revelation.

Next step: Years pass and God guides VP towards Kenyon’s work. As Dr reads the passage God wanted distributed farther and in a different format than Kenyon’s book could take it, God tells him something like this: “That’s IT. I gave that passage to Kenyon, and now you take it. I want you to place that passage right after another passage that was given by revelation to Stiles and finish that latest collateral. Don’t worry about the human ownership. If Kenyon and Styles get bent out of shape I’ll have to try and guide them back into fellowship with Me. But in the meantime I’ll cover for you so that you don’t have to worry about the human laws. ”

Ok, the ride’s over.

I know that was difficult. Pop open you safety belts, and slowly stand up. Kinda like an amusement park ride, huh? So now that your getting your balance again, and no longer are willing to entertain my thesis, can you remember while you were on the Tilt-O-If Machine how it all COULD fit if my thesis were right?

If God is the owner of those Kenyon and Stiles passages, then He has the right to give permission to anyone to use them.

That last sentence was the Kiddy-O-If Ride. You still have to hold onto the “if” but adults can usually ride it without safety belts.

Edited April 16, 2008 by Mike

[waysider]

Mike

The definition of confabulate has not changed.

Yes, it can be used in a context that is devoid of malice and its use does not necessarily indicate the presence of some pathological or organic abnormality.

Likewise, the definition of paradigm has remained essentially constant over the course of many centuries.

What has changed is the increased frequency with which the term has found its way into mainstream conversation.

It is my opinion that your thesis relies heavily on confabulation and extrapolation.

Extrapolation

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extrapolation

Your attempt to justify plagiarism by associating it with divine revelation is a blatant rationalization.

Rationalization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization

But for what it's worth, Mike, I like you.

It pains me, though, to see you continue to beat yourself up over a "golden pony" that can't be lassoed

edited for spelling.

Edited April 16, 2008 by waysider

[T-Bone]

...Now let me address this one last thing, because I can see you still don't get it or don't want to get it. It's how plagiarism SHOULD evaporate from your mind IF my thesis right.

To follow what I mean you have to strap yourself in with the word "IF." You have to hold onto the "IF" and think it's true FOR A SHORT TIME. After that you can relax, pop off your safety belt, and go back to denying it is true. I promise it won't stick and keep you locked in with me forever.

Ok, ready? IF my thesis is true, it starts with God giving Kenyon revelations. Some of them may have been direct, word-for-word dictations, or some could have been guidance toward some other teacher who provided the word-for-word. It doesn't matter to me. Both are revelations from God and Kenyon can print them. Middle-men are ok with me if they are accurate. Let's just say for argument sake that Kenyon got it word-for-word and then published it mixed in with a lot of pretty right on sense knowledge that Kenyon had worked.

So who owns the rights to that part which is revelation? That depends on who's point of view you take.

From the US Government's point of view, it's who holds the copyright on file, Kenyon. From God's point of view it's God, Who gave the original revelation. ...

"A thesis statement declares what you believe and what you intend to prove."

from

http://www.sdst.org/shs/library/thesis.html

You have yet to prove your thesis. For evidence, all you offer are assumptions and wishful thinking. Whereas, lots of folks on Grease Spot have provided tons of evidence to prove vp was a plagiarist.

Edited April 16, 2008 by T-Bone

[Mike]

waysider,

Let's let it sit at that on confabulation. I've said what I have to say on it and am content.

I think I'm also done with plagiarism. I've said what has accumulated for years, I think.

"A thesis statement declares what you believe and what you intend to prove."

from

http://www.sdst.org/shs/library/thesis.html

You have yet to prove your thesis. For evidence, all you offer are assumptions and wishful thinking.

Oops! I think you're right here.

I should have not used the word "thesis." In the past I've used the word "postulate" or "assumption."

Edited April 16, 2008 by Mike

[WordWolf]

[WordWolf responds in boldface and brackets.]

Documented are 22 of Dr's statements that they ARE God-breathed. I have found a total of 90.

[[Having seen the way you process the threads we post on, and knowing you're HIDING your specifics,

I'm NOT impressed that you've "found" something.

Lots of people "find evidence" the US space program is faked, and so on.

Someone here kept claiming to "find" "proof" the Holocaust didn't include mass executions.]

*******

I don't know what you mean here with "...HIDING your specifics...."

[it's easy to see. You keep saying "I've found all this stuff." Others have said "If you've found it, prove it.

Post it." You keep responding with flat refusals or claims you HAVE. In one case, you linked to where you

didn't post it, and said you'd posted it.

So, you're expecting us to trust you that these unposted quotes say what you claim they've said.

Based on how you've misunderstood so much on tape or in text, few people are ready to line up and say

"Mike says it, that settles it, I believe it."]

I do know much of the way I "process the threads" is dealing with a huge amount of human animosity. This makes it difficult for me to get to my point at times, and generates a lot of side points that suddenly command attention. Sometimes I resort to humor to lighten the load for me and hopefully some posters and readers. But I am unaware of me hiding anything. It's early and I've only had half a cup of coffee. Maybe you’ll wake me up with something am hiding but can't remember right now. I was pretty baffled with your use of that phrase "HIDING your specifics."

[Actually, I was also referring to how you've posted some claims, had them completely refuted by one poster or another,

then summarizing the threads later by saying we were confused by you because you arrived and had an answer for

everything we said, and refuted all of us.

A post would say "red", and you'd remember it saying "blue."

If I can't trust a man to understand plain text in posts, I'm not going to be the first to presume, sight unseen, that

he's the only one who's right, and everyone else is wrong. And I'm hardly unique about that.]

***

And, please, if you want to get personal, like how I am on the phone, could you please be thorough and not anecdotal. If we did a thorough poll here I think you might be surprised at how many posters I have a great relationship with by phone, e-mail, and PMs.

Even the one (I'm only aware of one) that said let's cut off communications to me quickly softened and we later reconciled some on the board. Her cutting off communications came only when she finally realized after MANY hours on the phone and e-mail that she was NEVER going to change my mind. It had nothing to do with me being ugly with her in any way. She called me dozens of times. I thought it was pretty petty of you, WW, to bring that up, something that you had only scant information on. It reminds me of the SNL Church Lady, minus the laughter, when you behave like that.

Here's what you said:

"Please PM (Private Message) me sometime for more discussion. I'd like to minimize my use of the board. You need to turn on your PM settings. No one can PM you right now. It's set to "off" right now. OR e-mail me at mike7sd at cox dot net. I wrote it that way to confuse spambots."

Here's what I replied:

"Feel free to do so, if you want.

HOWEVER,

please note that a number of posters who opened communication with Mike by phone, by email, by pm

have gone on to post publickly, some demanding Mike never contact him privately ever again,

and some DEMANDING that Mike stop posting things they confided privately to him.

If you care to run the risk of agreeing with them, go right ahead and communicate privately with Mike."

I've read posters communicate with you on threads some time back, and insist you cut off communications

with them. I've read at least one poster (I wasn't counting) demand you stop posting what was confided

to you. That's not "personal". That's what their posts said. I didn't ediorialize about it, or give my opinion

as to what happened when they communicated with you that would motivate them to insist you stop

communicating with you privately.

Of course, since it's something you didn't want me to bring up,

you view that as "personal" and "pretty petty."

When I see people complain about something being a problem, and I see someone else recommend what

was complained about, I note the complaints. The adults are then able to make a more-informed decision.

I don't LEAN on them, I just lay it out. That's true of everything, not just your posts.

In fact, this is probably the first time it involved you.

If you can't accept that you've actually gotten that response from people- and have to make it a matter

of me being "petty", and thus somehow MY fault people close communications with you,

well, I don't think that's healthy, and I wouldn't think it was healthy if one stranger said that of

another stranger. In fact, if I had worn out my welcome, and someone warned someone else that I had,

I'd accept that it was a consequence of my OWN actions, not primarily an issue of the one who made the warning.]

***

Now let me address this one last thing, because I can see you still don’t get it or don’t want to get it. It’s how plagiarism SHOULD evaporate from your mind IF my thesis right.

To follow what I mean you have to strap yourself in with the word “IF.” You have to hold onto the “IF” and think it’s true FOR A SHORT TIME. After that you can relax, pop off your safety belt, and go back to denying it is true. I promise it won’t stick and keep you locked in with me forever.

Ok, ready? IF my thesis is true, it starts with God giving Kenyon revelations. Some of them may have been direct, word-for-word dictations, or some could have been guidance toward some other teacher who provided the word-for-word. It doesn’t matter to me. Both are revelations from God and Kenyon can print them. Middle-men are ok with me if they are accurate. Let’s just say for argument sake that Kenyon got it word-for-word and then published it mixed in with a lot of pretty right on sense knowledge that Kenyon had worked.

So who owns the rights to that part which is revelation? That depends on who’s point of view you take.

From the US Government’s point of view, it’s who holds the copyright on file, Kenyon. From God’s point of view it’s God, Who gave the original revelation.

Next step: Years pass and God guides VP towards Kenyon’s work. As Dr reads the passage God wanted distributed farther and in a different format than Kenyon’s book could take it, God tells him something like this: “That’s IT. I gave that passage to Kenyon, and now you take it. I want you to place that passage right after another passage that was given by revelation to Stiles and finish that latest collateral. Don’t worry about the human ownership. If Kenyon and Styles get bent out of shape I’ll have to try and guide them back into fellowship with Me. But in the meantime I’ll cover for you so that you don’t have to worry about the human laws. ”

Ok, the ride’s over.

I know that was difficult. Pop open you safety belts, and slowly stand up. Kinda like an amusement park ride, huh? So now that your getting your balance again, and no longer are willing to entertain my thesis, can you remember while you were on the Tilt-O-If Machine how it all COULD fit if my thesis were right?

If God is the owner of those Kenyon and Stiles passages, then He has the right to give permission to anyone to use them.

That last sentence was the Kiddy-O-If Ride. You still have to hold onto the “if” but adults can usually ride it without safety belts.

Skipping over the patronizing tone that added unnecessary padding to your post,

I could SEE what you were trying to say. I disagree that this does anything to "evaporate" any claims of plagiarism.

God says to obey the law. If you forget where and when it says that, I can provide the chapter and verses.

If Kenyon puts words in print in the US, legally, the words belong to Kenyon. Kenyon can choose to retain his copyright,

or he can voluntarily choose to release it into the Public Domain (which still retains certain legal obligations.)

How does God feel about the law saying it's Kenyon's? God says to obey man's laws, so God's ok with it or actively approving.

IF God later came along and said "I gave that passage to Kenyon, and now you take it. I want you to place that passage right after another passage that was given by revelation to Stiles and finish that latest collateral",

then God would include "here's how you include Kenyon's legal due- WHICH MAN COULD HAVE TOLD VPW,

let alone GOD ALMIGHTY".

If God supposedly said "Don’t worry about the human ownership," then God would be expecting vpw to be prepared to go to jail

over the matter. Men of God, facing difficult decisions, have been prepared to go to jail or be executed in order to obey God.

That's old, old news.

In your scenario, God has four possible courses of action:

A) send an angel to Kenyon and send an angel to Leonard, announce what He will do, and get them to agree beforehand

so they legally give their permission in writing. Then they pass along the written agreements to vpw.

B) Give completely different words to vpw that cover the same subjects. If God Almighty gave a passage to one person, it's just as

easy to give a completely different passage to another, and still do it within the laws of man He's said to submit ourselves to.

C) Prepare vpw to go to jail because God has chosen to do neither.

D) Have the human laws changed entirely.

God CAN do any of those. Each of them accounts for the laws we're supposed to obey.

Would God tell vpw to break the law? Well, some people have spent time in jail as "political prisoners" because they believed God

wanted them to act as they did, and this broke the law. That includes people struggling to end slavery, or to stand up for human

rights in different countries. For the sake of discussion, let's suppose each WAS doing the will of God.

That means God was clear with them that they would face legal consequences for breaking man's law, and they would have to

deal with them-whether that meant jail, torture, slow death, or any of a number of things people had done to them for obeying God.

In each case, it was because the other option was to act within the law- and permit evil to thrive.

In this case, there were plenty of ways for God to accomplish His Will without encouraging evil AND within the bounds of the law.

(The 2nd one I named was the easiest.)

So,

if I were to look at the theoretical situation

(go from inspired Kenyon and Stiles to inspired vpw)

I find YOUR scenario is not the most consistent with God's behavior,

nor the most efficient course to get His Will done.]

[What The Hey]

Begging your pardon, WTH

That's really a wheel barrow full of vegetable nutrients.

Plagiarism is not defined by whether or not you make any monetary gain.

A monetary gain is only relevant in determining whether or not punitive legal action is warranted.

One does not need to sell a high school term paper in the "marketplace", for example, for it to be considered plagiarism It only needs to satisfy the identifying criteria. Failure to make an improperly cited work available publicly does not absolve the writer of the impropriety.

The knowledge in PFAL was not "common" knowledge. In fact, Wierwille's contention was that it promised to reveal "the greatest secret in the World today". The knowledge in PFAL was so UN-common, said Wierwille, no one had even known about it for 2,000 years until it was revealed to him.

Here is where we disagree, although this seems to be what VPW may have said. Rather this is a classic example of what VPW never said at all. (This is what Mike here often refers to a TVT). Of course, people also did this with the words of Jesus Christ - They claimed he [Jesus] would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days. That was their claim, but then, those were not the exact words of Jesus Christ either.

What at one time can be called common-knowledege can be lost. Example: "New light" can consist of old light, it is just new unto the generation the apostle brings it to. What Dr. claimed was that the greatest secret in the world today is that the Bible is thre revealed word and will of God. He didn't claim that PFAL was the greatest secret in the world, nor did he claim that the keys for the bibles interpretation that are presented in PFAL were also a secret. Those keys are not a secret to many bible scholars and are what I term as "common-knowledge". The only reason they are not common-knowledge to you, is because there are still many "modern day legalisits" who, as Christ himself put it, "Woe unto you lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge; ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." (Luke 11:52)

Kind of remarkable to discover that this whole plagarizm issue is only an issue for the lawyers and the legalists here at GSC - those who struggle over meaningless legalities and have also likewise "taken away the key of knowlege" and hinder those who are entering in. God forbid somebody today take PFAL and learn how to rightly divide the Word of God.

And, he said, it was only given to him on the condition that he teach it to others.

Again, this not exactly what VPW said, but it only sounds like what was said. VPW never claimed it was only given to him.

You will have to go back to the written PFAL to find out exactly what was said, not rely on you memory of what was said. Then, as Mike said here, many of these charges evaporate. I prefer to call them shadows. People are seeing all these shadows, and claiming they are the real deal.

....

[waysider]

Plagiarism and "Common Knowledge"

http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets/plagiarism.shtml

[Oakspear]

Mike, you're assuming several things: (1) that the words that Kenyon, Stiles, et al wrote were revelation and (2) that God gave Wierwille permission (as revelation) to use these previously published works.

The way it looks from this side of the Platte River, is that your premise is undermined by the obvious copying and plagiarism so you invent an explanation that makes it "fit like a hand in a glove". <_<

[Sushi]

If this has been covered before, my apologies, buuuuuuut,

IF he wasn't a "Dr" at all, then he was truly ignorant of what he was doing

Even if this is the case, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[What The Hey]

Plagiarism and "Common Knowledge"

http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets/plagiarism.shtml

Problems in defining exactly what aspects of Christianty constitute "common knowledge" will always abound. The basic reason for this is because many facets of our faith are shared and they also contain common truths (common knowledge) that are likewise shared by those of different faiths - while at the same time there exists real and distinct basic core differences among those of different faiths and those invovled in different Christian groups.

Dr. Wierwille essentially said the same thing in JCING, p.4 of the second edition, i.e. "...we must define our terms. Many people could be misled because while we may be using the same language or words [common knowledge] we may not mean the same thing." Until those of the Christian faith have the desire to come to the place of "defining our terms" then these accusations will persist because while "we may be using the same langauge or words, [common knowledge] we may not mean exactly the same thing." I am sure you have heard it said: "There is nothing so uncommon as common knowledge." We therefore end up asking for standards of behavior that would certainly be wonderful to expect, but no serious man does expect. Yet that is exactly what we expect when we are struggling to maintain our own position of power within our own democratic society. But let's be reasonable. That is not the real world, and this is not what is taking place.

I am sure you must have also heard it said, "One does not need to apologize for the truth, one only needs to apologize for error." That phrase was often taken to the extreme to imply the Christian does not need: "Apologetics" or to apologize for the truth. To assume this should always be the case would indeed be a horrible and a grave mistake. Affirmative or positive apologetics answers questions that the Christian has about their beliefs and doctrine, while it proposes arguments for the validity of the faith all while involving the refutation of false teachings within the Church. Without this very important aspect of the faith, the unbeliever may end up finding Jesus but in the process only end up losing their mind. Without it the Christian is going to react with outrage and indignation, hurl imprecations at others, resort to abjurations… What else should we expect?

Edited April 17, 2008 by What The Hey

[waysider]

What else should we expect?

We should expect that people would use words and phrases in the same manner as the rest of general populace rather than insist they now have some "special" proprietary meaning.

[T-Bone]

That's a good point, Waysider. Re-defining words and phrases was always a "useful feature" of the TWI mindset – with a little twist, one can re-interpret reality: Fear is believing in reverse or F.E.A.R. is false evidence appearing real. On this topic – the usual vp-apologists are hard at work: vp's plagiarism is re-defined as assembling the work of others by divine revelation, and offering a confusing definition of common knowledge.

[WordWolf]

Begging your pardon, WTH

That's really a wheel barrow full of vegetable nutrients.

Plagiarism is not defined by whether or not you make any monetary gain.

A monetary gain is only relevant in determining whether or not punitive legal action is warranted.

One does not need to sell a high school term paper in the "marketplace", for example, for it to be considered plagiarism It only needs to satisfy the identifying criteria. Failure to make an improperly cited work available publicly does not absolve the writer of the impropriety.

The knowledge in PFAL was not "common" knowledge. In fact, Wierwille's contention was that it promised to reveal "the greatest secret in the World today".

The knowledge in PFAL was so UN-common, said Wierwille, no one had even known about it for 2,000 years until it was revealed to him.

(snip)

WhatTheHey, Apr 17 2008, 3:39 PM (pg-6)

Here is where we disagree, although this seems to be what VPW may have said. Rather

this is a classic example of what VPW never said at all.

vpw, "The Way, Living in Love", pg-177.

"I was praying. And I told Father outright that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on.

And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said

He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others."

Waysider:

And, he said, it was only given to him on the condition that he teach it to others.

WTH:

Again, this not exactly what VPW said, but it only sounds like what was said. VPW never claimed it was only given to him.

Actually, if you UNDERSTAND what he says, that IS one of the things he says.

I shall explain.

If you're learning something that is UNKNOWN, then you until you learn it, ZERO people on the Earth know it.

We can all count to zero.

If there are people who ALREADY know it, even ONE person, then it is not UNKNOWN.

Therefore, if he claimed to learn something "as it had not been known since the first century",

then he's saying that no person alive knows it,

which means there's no authors WITH BOOKS IN PRINT for him to learn from

(alongside the other readers of the books, alongside the people the authors taught personally....)

Some people consider legitimate issues, and pretend they're not.

Edited April 17, 2008 by WordWolf

[WordWolf]

We should expect that people would use words and phrases in the same manner as the rest of general populace rather than insist they now have some "special" proprietary meaning.

That's a good point, Waysider. Re-defining words and phrases was always a "useful feature" of the TWI mindset – with a little twist, one can re-interpret reality: Fear is believing in reverse or F.E.A.R. is false evidence appearing real. On this topic – the usual vp-apologists are hard at work: vp's plagiarism is re-defined as assembling the work of others by divine revelation, and offering a confusing definition of common knowledge.

(snip)

I am sure you must have also heard it said, "One does not need to apologize for the truth, one only needs to apologize for error." That phrase was often taken to the extreme to imply the Christian does not need:

"Apologetics" or to apologize for the truth.

To assume this should always be the case would indeed be a horrible and a grave mistake. Affirmative or positive apologetics answers questions that the Christian has about their beliefs and doctrine, while it proposes arguments for the validity of the faith all while involving the refutation of false teachings within the Church. Without this very important aspect of the faith, the unbeliever may end up finding Jesus but in the process only end up losing their mind. Without it the Christian is going to react with outrage and indignation, hurl imprecations at others, resort to abjurations… What else should we expect?

This was one example where vpw redefined a word. In pfal, he said outright that in "apologetics" you "apologize"

for being Christian. In actuality, the only one who took that phrase there was vpw.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics

"Apologists are authors, writers, editors of scientific logs or academic journals, and leaders known for taking on the points in arguments, conflicts or positions that are either placed under popular scrutinies or viewed under persecutory examinations. The term comes from the Greek word apologia (απολογία), meaning a speaking in defense."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics

"Christian apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of Christianity. The term "apologetic" comes from the Greek word apologia (απολογία), which means in defense of. Therefore, a skilled person involved in Christian or Bible Apologetics is a defender of Christianity. Those who engage in Christian apologetics are called "Christian apologists". Christian apologetics have taken many forms over the centuries, starting with Paul of Tarsus, including writers such as Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, and continuing currently with the modern Christian community, through the efforts of many authors in various Christian traditions such as C.S. Lewis. Apologists have based their defense of Christianity on favoring interpretations of historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, and other disciplines.

This Classical Greek term appears in the Koine (that is, common) Greek of the New Testament. The apostle Paul employed the term "apologia" in his trial speech to Festus and Agrippa when he said, "I make my defense" (Acts 26:2)"

http://www.carm.org/apologetics/intro.htm

"The word "apologetics" comes from the Greek word "apologia," pronounced, "ap-ol-og-ee’-ah." It means, "a verbal defense." It is used eight times in the New Testament: Acts 22:1; 25:16; 1 Cor. 9:3; 2 Cor. 7:11; Phil. 1;7; 2 Tim. 4:16, and 1 Pet. 3:15. But it is the last verse that is most commonly associated with Christian apologetics.

"....but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" (1 Pet. 3:15, NASB).

Therefore, Christian apologetics is that branch of Christianity that deals with answering any and all critics who oppose or question the revelation of God in Christ and the Bible. It can include studying such subjects as biblical manuscript transmission, philosophy, biology, mathematics, evolution, and logic. But it can also consist of simply giving an answer to a question about Jesus or a Bible passage. "

===================

Did vpw not know that there was a specific meaning to "apologetics"?

He graduated from Princeton Theological Seminary, a respectable school, for his Masters.

Am I supposed to believe they NEVER taught him what "Christian Apologetics" is?

Am I supposed to believe he graduated but didn't understand what "Christian Apologetics" is anyway?

That's like getting a Masters in Psychology and being unable to explain the difference between

Psychiatry and Psychotherapy.

Is it more likely that vpw was educated in Christian Apologetics-at least the basics,

knew what the word meant, and decided to claim it meant something else,

in order to convince people that places like Princeton Theological Seminary

(he called seminaries "cemetaries", remember) didn't have the answers they

wanted, but HE had them instead?

Edited April 17, 2008 by WordWolf

[T-Bone]

WhatTheHey, Apr 17 2008, 3:39 PM (pg-6)

vpw, "The Way, Living in Love", pg-177.

"I was praying. And I told Father outright that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on.

And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said

He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others."

Waysider:

WTH:

Actually, if you UNDERSTAND what he says, that IS one of the things he says.

I shall explain.

If you're learning something that is UNKNOWN, then you until you learn it, ZERO people on the Earth know it.

We can all count to zero.

If there are people who ALREADY know it, even ONE person, then it is not UNKNOWN.

Therefore, if he claimed to learn something "as it had not been known since the first century",

then he's saying that no person alive knows it,

which means there's no authors WITH BOOKS IN PRINT for him to learn from

(alongside the other readers of the books, alongside the people the authors taught personally....)

Some people consider legitimate issues, and pretend they're not.

Word Wolf, thanks for a very thoughtful response!

[What The Hey]

...

If you're learning something that is UNKNOWN, then you until you learn it, ZERO people on the Earth know it. We can all count to zero.

If there are people who ALREADY know it, even ONE person, then it is not UNKNOWN. Therefore, if he claimed to learn something "as it had not been known since the first century", then he's saying that no person alive knows it, which means there's no authors WITH BOOKS IN PRINT for him to learn from (alongside the other readers of the books, alongside the people the authors taught personally....) Some people consider legitimate issues, and pretend they're not.

Of course you are only addressing one avenue of one's ability to learn. Here's the avenue you are overlooking:

"But I certify you brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11,12)

What exactly did Paul mean when he said .. "I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it? ... " Paul must have either read the wrong books and/or listened to the wrong instructors then if the only avenue to learn is by men or being taught by men. There must be another avenue available to be able to make such a claim like that, and thereby make a claim worthy to be put forth as scriptural truth itself ... for he [Paul] said he didn't receive it of man nor was he taught it.

Basically that is the only way one can aquire knowledge - receiving knowledge from man or being taught it by man --- unless there is another avenue available for one to aquire knowledge. Now VPW may have claimed to receive it the same way like the apostle Paul had, but he certainly never claimed to be the only one who ever did. (Unless you're trying to make a case that God could only talk to VPW and to nobody else. Not even I believe that one.)

Edited April 17, 2008 by What The Hey

[oldiesman]

... but he certainly never claimed to be the only one who ever did. (Unless you're trying to make a case that God could only talk to VPW and to nobody else. Not even I believe that one.) ...

I agree. His statement "lots of the stuff I teach is not original" confirms just that. He was confirming he wasn't the only one receiving these truths and he said as much. He said he "learned from men of God scattered across the continent". These men were receiving truths from God. Yes, giving proper written acknowledgement in his books would have been the right thing to do. But the idea that he was trying to palm off his teachings as original (when he tells us they are not, when he tells us who he learned from, when he says he learned from men of God scattered across the continent, and when he sells some of the books he learned from in the Way Bookstore) is simply, a fairy tale.

[waysider]

Of course you are only addressing one avenue of one's ability to learn. Here's the avenue you are overlooking:

"But I certify you brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11,12)

What exactly did Paul mean when he said .. "I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it? ... " Paul must have either read the wrong books and/or listened to the wrong instructors then if the only avenue to learn is by men or being taught by men. There must be another avenue available to be able to make such a claim like that, and thereby make a claim worthy to be put forth as scriptural truth itself ... for he [Paul] said he didn't receive it of man nor was he taught it.

Basically that is the only way one can aquire knowledge - receiving knowledge from man or being taught it by man --- unless there is another avenue available for one to aquire knowledge. Now VPW may have claimed to receive it the same way like the apostle Paul had, but he certainly never claimed to be the only one who ever did. (Unless you're trying to make a case that God could only talk to VPW and to nobody else. Not even I believe that one.)

Wierwille stated that God told him that He (God) would teach him (Wierwille) The Word(Didn't say whether by 5 senses or revelation) like it hadn't been known since the first century if he(Wierwille) would then in turn, teach it to others.

How many more times are you going to walk that tired horse around the barn?

[Ham]

"But I certify you brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11,12)

Nice to see you cite your source.

I still wonder why.. Paul cites Abraham, gives him credit for his story..

Peter cites Joel.. David..

You'd think they were so busy "moving da word" that they didn't have time to perform such a degrading task.

Matthew cites Jeremiah..

why is that important? Hmm?

I kinda look at it like.. it's so simple to do, it must be pure laziness to not cite one's source. "lotsa stuff" is pretty vague, general..

so God's not supposed to be in the business of handing revelation and the secrets of the world to lazy people..

add to that, vic was LAZY..

what's the logical conclusion?

[WordWolf]

vpw, "The Way, Living in Love", pg-177.

"I was praying. And I told Father outright that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on.

And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said

He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others."

If you're learning something that is UNKNOWN, then you until you learn it, ZERO people on the Earth know it.

We can all count to zero.

If there are people who ALREADY know it, even ONE person, then it is not UNKNOWN.

Therefore, if he claimed to learn something "as it had not been known since the first century",

then he's saying that no person alive knows it,

which means there's no authors WITH BOOKS IN PRINT for him to learn from

(alongside the other readers of the books, alongside the people the authors taught personally....)

Some people consider legitimate issues, and pretend they're not.

Of course you are only addressing one avenue of one's ability to learn.

Of course I am. The claim was about THAT avenue of learning-that it came from the works of other people.

If it did NOT come from the work of other people, there would be no plagiarism.

I stayed on topic when answering that post.

Here's the avenue you are overlooking:

"But I certify you brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11,12)

What exactly did Paul mean when he said .. "I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it? ... "

Exactly what the rest of the sentence said-by revelation. He didn't plagiarize the books of others and say

"I wrote this."

Paul must have either read the wrong books and/or listened to the wrong instructors then if the only avenue to learn is by men or being taught by men. There must be another avenue available to be able to make such a claim like that, and thereby make a claim worthy to be put forth as scriptural truth itself ... for he [Paul]said he didn't receive it of man nor was he taught it.

Basically that is the only way one can aquire knowledge - receiving knowledge from man or being taught it by man --- unless there is another avenue available for one to aquire knowledge.

You're making some progress now, Sherlock!

We all knew this, didn't dispute this, and considered this "common knowledge" around here.

I'll give you another one for free: triangles have 3 sides.

Now VPW may have claimed to receive it the same way like the apostle Paul had, but he certainly never claimed to be the only one who ever did. (Unless you're trying to make a case that God could only talk to VPW and to nobody else. Not even I believe that one.)

Well, since he was proven beyond a REASONABLE doubt to have gotten it from the books of other people,

books whose authors all had the information before 1942, and most were in print by 1942,

the supposed 1942 promise (scroll up a few posts for it again) was proven to be invalid.

All the information was KNOWN since the first century-they were known in the 20th if not sooner.

I'll give you another one for free. If you'd read a little more, you'd see I'd actually "run the numbers" on how

divine revelation would have figured in on this one- and said the most LIKELY approach-

IF-and ONLY IF- God Almighty was running the vpw show directly- then the easiest answer that accounts for

what God tells man to do, would be to give text by revelation.

[WordWolf]

I agree. His statement "lots of the stuff I teach is not original" confirms just that. He was confirming he wasn't the only one receiving these truths and he said as much. He said he "learned from men of God scattered across the continent". These men were receiving truths from God. Yes, giving proper written acknowledgement in his books would have been the right thing to do.

When he said that, he was not being entirely deceptive.

He was STILL deceptive, because we ALL learn a little here and a little there, which is what he said.

What he DID was to take entire chapters, paragraphs and sentences, and reprint them with his name

on them. That's not "learning" from others.

And saying "lots of stuff I teach is not original" is so vague it conveys no information.

ANY teacher teaches lots of stuff that's not original.

But the idea that he was trying to palm off his teachings as original (when he tells us they are not, when he tells us who he learned from, when he says he learned from men of God scattered across the continent, and when he sells some of the books he learned from in the Way Bookstore) is simply, a fairy tale.

The idea that he told us he lifted Leonard's class, Stiles' book, and nearly everything he taught from

the book or class of another Christian- which IS what he did-

rather than just say he learned a little from this person but had to add the Bible to it,

and that one, but take out all the error is, simply, a fairy tale.

Wierwille stated that God told him that He (God) would teach him (Wierwille) The Word(Didn't say whether by 5 senses or revelation) like it hadn't been known since the first century if he(Wierwille) would then in turn, teach it to others.

How many more times are you going to walk that tired horse around the barn?

He'll say it every chance he gets for life.

vpw said different, contradictory, things to different people.

He didn't think he'd get caught.

And, during his lifetime, he wasn't caught to any real degree.

[What The Hey]

Of course I am. The claim was about THAT avenue of learning-that it came from the works of other people. If it did NOT come from the work of other people, there would be no plagiarism.

Just what makes you think it wasn't VPW's work to start with and they borrowed from him?

What proof do you have it wasn't VPW's work to begin with?

Of course, you have to pit VPW against those that he studied the Word of God with to create this "psuedo-rivalry" amongst themselves to make that "psuedo-charge" of plagiarism stick. Yes, it is all clear to us now. Here they are gathered around the table folks with their bibles out studying God's Word together --- and now they are arguing with each other over who initially came up with the characters: Henry Boloko, Maggie Muggins, Johnny Jumpup, Snowball Pete amongst a lot of other things ...

BTW, an inventor can improve upon an existing invention and it is still his invention and that invention belongs to him. I am specifically speaking of the improvement which is that persons invention and he isn't under any legal obligation to give credit to the original inventor. (Oh, but I guess it doesn't work quite that way in written published works does it? Then someone must have really goofed-up when they insisted on changing the rules.) Better solutions always require a knowledge of a previous body of work - whether it be technology, a published work, etc. Whatever the previous body of work consists of, it is usually and normally accepted to be: "common knowledge". The "better solution" however is not.

Edited April 18, 2008 by What The Hey

[waysider]

Just what makes you think it wasn't VPW's work to start with and they borrowed from him?

What proof do you have it wasn't VPW's work to begin with?

Well for starters, E.W. Bullinger died in 1913.

Here is a link that has some information on him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._W._Bullinger

In addition to being the person who introduced the concept of understanding The Bible in light of "figures of speech" ,(Figures of Speech In The Bible/ E.W. Bullinger) http://www.peterwade.org/articles/bullingr/append6a.shtml, Bullinger promoted the concept of the "7 dispensations" which were referred to in PFAL as the "7 administrations".

(This is from the Wiki link)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Theology

Bullinger's theology was a form of dispensationalism on which he wrote numerous articles which appeared in his monthly journal Things to Come. Bullinger described dispensations as divine "administrations" or "arrangements" wherein God deals at distinct time periods and with distinct groups of people "on distinct principles, and the doctrine relating to each must be kept distinct." He emphasizes that "Nothing but confusion can arise from reading into one dispensation that which relates to another." {Companion Bible, [10]}

He listed seven "dispensations" in the Bible:

1. The Edenic State (Innocence) - which lasted until the expulsion from Eden.

2. Mankind as a whole (Patriarchal) - from the expulsion from Eden until the giving of the Law to Israel, although in one place Bullinger says that this dispensation ended with the Flood and the confusion of Babel.

3. Israel (under the Law) - ended with the rejection by Israel of the grace of God at the end of Acts.

4. The Church of God (The Secret Dispensation of Grace) - gradual transition from Law to Grace during the Acts period, culminating in the rejection of Israel in Acts 28:24-28. {Companion Bible, Appendix 193}

5. Israel (Judicial) - begins at the "Gathering Together".

6. Mankind as a whole (Millennial or Theocratic) - ends with the destruction of Satan.

7. The Eternal State (Glory) - no end.

His name has become virtually synonymous with Ultra-dispensationalism. Although Bullinger was influenced by Edward Irving [11] and although Bullinger shared with Irving's contemporaries, the Plymouth Brethren such as John Nelson Darby, similar dispensational doctrines, members of the Brethren became some of his most persistent critics.

Bullinger also taught a form of annihilationism.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

What exactly had Wierwille written prior to 1913 that Bullinger could have copied?

Edited April 18, 2008 by waysider

[WordWolf]

Just what makes you think it wasn't VPW's work to start with and they borrowed from him?

What proof do you have it wasn't VPW's work to begin with?

Your Honor, I am outraged!

This court has not even considered the possibility

that Nicole killed OJ!

======

A) Bullinger died in 1913.

vpw was born in 1916.

Bullinger could not have "borrowed" (or plagiarized) work that wasn't in existence while he was alive.

B) Leonard had never heard of vpw.

According to vpw's OWN accounts, vpw heard of him and took his class.

Later in the same year, vpw FIRST taught "his" class, "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" (later renamed pfal.)

According to Mrs W's own accounts, the classes were virtually identical- graduates of Leonard's class

were AUTOMATICALLY considered graduates of vpw's class.

This agrees with Leonard's account, by the way.

C) Stiles had never heard of vpw.

Supposedly, vpw met with him, and-according to vpw's OWN account- Stiles worked with him for a

few hours. Later in the same year, vpw's book "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" is written, with material

straight from Stiles' already-in-print book, complete with all Stiles' own phrasings. In the beginning of

the first edition of "his" book, vpw alludes to Stiles without naming him, saying he found a man who made

the Scriptures on that subject fit together. (Later editions drop the reference, and say vpw made the

Scriptures on that subject fit together.)

etc.

Of course, you have to pit VPW against those that he studied the Word of God with

Those reading our posts can tell we're concerned with the TRUTH being reflected-

that vpw was a STUDENT of Leonard for a time, and a STUDENT of Stiles for a time,

and bought all Bullinger's books,

and then produced classes and books that were amalgams of the works of those Christians.

We're not "pitting" anyone against anything.

to create this "psuedo-rivalry" amongst themselves to make that "psuedo-charge" of plagiarism stick.

The plagiarism vpw did from the works of the other men has been demonstrated beyond any REASONABLE doubt.

The only thing "pseudo" here is the idea that there's any REASONABLE question otherwise.

And there's no "rivalry" when one person plagiarizes another-the plagiarizer is a "thief",

the plagiarized is a "victim of a crime."

Yes, it is all clear to us now. Here they are gathered around the table folks with their bibles out studying God's Word together --- and now they are arguing with each other over who initially came up with the characters: Henry Boloko, Maggie Muggins, Johnny Jumpup, Snowball Pete amongst a lot of other things ...

They were never in the same room at the same time.

vpw never stood as an equal with any of them when he interacted with Leonard and Stiles- he was purely a student.

In the case of Stiles, he was a REMEDIAL student.

vpw never met Bullinger and never met Kenyon-he just read their books.

So, this meeting around a table is imaginary.

As for the characters, there's no confusion. Leonard's class was taught for years before vpw heard of it OR took it.

Leonard's class had Henry, Maggie and Johnny. Leonard mentioned them in the class vpw took.

vpw retaught Leonard's class and told the students it was vpw's class, and used the same names.

Is this in and of itself the most offensive thing? No, the entire criminal action is offensive.

That he stole the names needlessly shows a lack of CARING about the CRIME he knew he was committing.

(He'd been taught that in high school, college, and in Princeton Theological Seminary.)

There's no argument, confusion, or disagreement when REASONABLE people look at what happened.

It's EASY to follow the timeline.

BTW, an inventor can improve upon an existing invention and it is still his invention and that invention belongs to him. I am specifically speaking of the improvement which is that persons invention and he isn't under any legal obligation to give credit to the original inventor. (Oh, but I guess it doesn't work quite that way in written published works does it? Then someone must have really goofed-up when they insisted on changing the rules.) Better solutions always require a knowledge of a previous body of work - whether it be technology, a published work, etc. Whatever the previous body of work consists of, it is usually and normally accepted to be: "common knowledge". The "better solution" however is not.

When a man can't understand that a man who died before a second man was born

can't plagiarize the second man,

I don't see the point in even TRYING to educate him on copyright and trademarks,

or even "common knowledge."

[waysider]

For the benefit of anyone concerned with what is and what isn't acceptable in regards to inventions, patents and trademarks, here is a link to the United States Patent and Trademark Office.(USPTO)

http://www.uspto.gov/

For the benefit of anyone concerned with what is and what isn't acceptable in regards to copyrights, here is a link to the United States Copyright Office.(The Library of Congress)

http://www.copyright.gov/