Without even checking out the links on your mirror thread, just by reading the URLs I can see most are universities. After the links you list areas where plagiarism is an important breach of conduct, and they are ALL academic areas.
Why don't you see that in God's family different rules apply?
I hand it to you, Mike. You're a terrific apologist for the blatant dishonesty that was, unfortunately, one of the marks of Wierwille's ministry. "In God's family..." What a joke.
In addition to Song's litterbox, it seems this General thread has become the de facto Plagiarism thread I had planned.
I have a question to ask of all those who have challenged me on this plagiarism issue.
In the past ten to fifteen years, have any of you encountered ANY opposition to these plagiarism charges? Is this the first time you have heard the many ideas I have posted here?
I've ARGUED the position you hold. Please don't insult us by suggesting we're unfamiliar with it.
Actually, I have stated that where students are competing for a degree, or professors competing for jobs, or universities competing for reputations, that plagiarism is wrong. Let me now add when researchers are competing for government grants it's wrong.
When the context is God's family and blessing others then GIVING is the big deal.
When the context is within the 4 types of areas mentioned right above, then RECEIVING is the big deal, and plagiarism cheats some out of their just due.
In God's family no one gets cheated. We in give in God's family without the focus on what we receive, when we receive it, or who we receive it from, and God sees to it we receive what we are due.
In academia the receiving is paramount. In God's family the giving is paramount.
You want us to establish where in YOUR MIND it was wrong for Wierwille to plagiarize. Since you would justify his plagiarism no matter what form it took, and no matter what evidence was produced to prove it, and you expand the definition of "citing sources" under some ridiculous umbrella of an "in God's family" standard, No amount of logic and clear thinking will convince you that he showed a galling lack of integrity in producing his (not God's) published works.
quote: Why can't people remember these simple things that we were exposed to right up front in the film class? Why weren't they even noticed in the first place? That should have sent up red flags! Well for some of us who were serious students it did, and we dug deeper, and we resolved apparent contradictions like this one.
Why don't people remember these things? That's an easy one to answer. The reason they don't remember is because they care about the same things that the world cares about. And just what does the world care about? --- Another day, another dollar, another promotion!
The entire world is about promoting itself and also with seeing you promote yourself. It's all about self-promotion and self-agrandizement. If it weren't, then the subject of VPW plagarizing other people's works, where he got his degree, etc., etc, etc., ad-nuseum wouldn't have become issues for them. The only reason these things become an issue for some people is because for some people they only care about the same things the world cares about. (2 Corinthians 10:12)
Mike ... Are you a self-appointed authority on the issue of intellectual property theft in God's family? Who has given you carte blanche to decide what is, and is not, plagiarism??? You pontificate like a Supreme Pontiff, doncha?? Your fiat declaration does not make it so, sonny boy...
WTFH, you sure can obfuscate!! good work, as per your usual high standard...
Mike ... Are you a self-appointed authority on the issue of intellectual property theft in God's family? Who has given you carte blanche to decide what is, and is not, plagiarism??? You pontificate like a Supreme Pontiff, doncha?? Your fiat declaration does not make it so, sonny boy...
He has. He makes up his own rules, and then challenges us to prove him wrong by his own rules. When we can't (in this case, because he set an impossible standard to meet) he claims victory. When we can, he dodges, distracts...
Mike ... Are you a self-appointed authority on the issue of intellectual property theft in God's family? Who has given you carte blanche to decide what is, and is not, plagiarism??? You pontificate like a Supreme Pontiff, doncha?? Your fiat declaration does not make it so, sonny boy...
He has. He makes up his own rules, and then challenges us to prove him wrong by his own rules. When we can't (in this case, because he set an impossible standard to meet) he claims victory. When we can, he dodges, distracts...
we-e-llll, thanks, Raf -- I have followed Mike all over kingdom come here at GSpot, so i am aware of his rationale. That being said, I want Mike to flash his credentials...just to see if they are as impressive as mine are, doncha know... ;)--> ;)--> --> :D-->
quote:For Dr to cite a source for easy retrieval by one of his students it could mean a harmful distraction for that student, in addition to taking away time from more profitable studies with Dr.
I'm very glad that when I read my copy of "The Bible Tells Me So" or my PFAL book, that I can concentrate on the text and not the sources.
On some level, you must realize how truly silly these statements are (at least I hope you do). It's purely and ridiculously subjective. You're saying that God likes you more than he likes the rest of us, and is more willing to accommodate your preferences, at the expense of ours. What did you do to rate so highly?
From Power for Abundant Living by Victor Paul Wierwille:
quote:Punctuation is another man-made trickery. If you want the Bible to say something to substantiate your theology, all you have to do is to manipulate the punctuation. The Word of God can be made to say something that it does not really say by just putting in a comma. Each translator followed his own plan or his own pattern which makes all punctuation devoid of divine authority.
Let us observe the punctuation in the book of Luke.
Luke 34:43:
And Jesus said unto him [the malefactor], Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Some translations have the comma after the word "today" so that it reads, "Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee To day, thou shalt . . . " The King James puts the comma before "today" while other translations put the comma after "today." Why? Because one group teaches that the moment one dies, he goes to heaven, while other groups teach that the moment one dies, he does not necessarily go to heaven for there is a period before going to heaven. If there is a waiting period between death and heaven then He could not say to that malefactor, "Today you are going to be with me in heaven," for the malefactor would have had to wait a duration. On the other hand others say man goes to heaven immediately after death so that comma before the word "today" fits in with their theology (134).
From Eats Shoots & Leaves by Lynne Truss:
quote:Perhaps the key thing one needs to realise about the early history of punctuation is that, in a literary culture based entirely on the slavish copying of venerated texts, it would be highly presumptuous of a mere scribe to insert helpful marks where he thought they ought to go. Punctuation developed slowly and cautiously not because it wasn't considered important, but, on the contrary, because it was such intensely powerful ju-ju. Pause in the wrong place and the sense of a religious text can alter in significant ways. For example, as Cecil Hartley pointed out in his 1818 Principles of Punctuation: or, The Art of Pointing, consider the difference between the following:
"Verily, I say unto thee, This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise."
and:
"Verily I say unto thee this day, Thou shalt be with me in Paradise."
Now, huge doctrinal differences hang on the placing of this comma. The first version, which is how Protestants interpret the passage (Luke, xxiii, 43), lightly skips over the whole unpleasant business of Purgatory and takes the crucified thief straight to heaven with Our Lord. The second promises Paradise at some later date (to be confirmed, as it were) and leaves Purgatory nicely in the picture for the Catholics, who believe in it (74,75).
I fail to see how the second quotation might prove to be a “distraction.” I think Wierwille intended to dazzle, not inform. To me, the second is much more helpful and informative. I wonder why God didn’t keep in mind that I would feel that way when he was giving revelation to Doctor. Didn’t God know that I would have preferred citations?
I think there were many first time students of PFAL who are not so citation minded. I still am when it comes to the great heart material of BTMS and all the other volumes. The PFAL book has a nice clean (subjective) look to it.
I think it's anal retentive to insist on citations, and chucking the whole thing if they are missing.
We're talking about GOD's FAMILY here! We're talking about hearts getting healed, not brains getting a cap and gown.
I wonder how many people here sneered at the academic robes in some TWI ceremonies, and then insist of proper citations in the books? ...just a thought.
Mike: The bottom line is that your theology is all about you. It's about your personality, your preferences, your attitudes, your convictions. Then you further flatter yourself by pretending that man's greatest spiritual problem is that he doesn't think like you do. You say citations don't matter. Fine. To you, they don't matter. To others, they do. Rather than acknowledge that, you create a god who conveniently sees things your way and thinks exactly like you do.
At least Wierwille had a product. According to him, if you follow his formulas, you'll have life more than abundantly; you'll have something outside of yourself that gives your life meaning. You have no product, except yourself. According to you, if you think like I do, you'll be like me! Well, hallelujah! Where do I sign up?
Perhaps you should ponder the question asked by Rabbi Hillel: "If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?" Or, paraphrased, "If not me, Who? If not now, When?"
No, it's not about me. If it were I'd have quit long ago and done something that garners some respect that I certainly don't get here.
I mentioned this earlier in this thread... I think in my first post.
I didn't write the book! If I wrote PFAL then I'd see your point and back off. But I didn't "come up" with PFAL. I simply recognized it as bigger than me, so I embraced it.
quote:If I wrote PFAL then I'd see your point and back off. But I didn't "come up" with PFAL. I simply recognized it as bigger than me, so I embraced it.
There was no fear. You're making it up. He cited his sources. He also told us on numerous occasions towards the later phase of his ministry (again see my response to Abigail for some on the earlier phases) that research meant re-searching out what had already been taught to him by God.
I research the PFAL texts all the time, and I have to do a lot of thinking for myself in the process. You are confusing research with discovering from scratch. Somtimes in academia the two are similar, but with these truths God reveals things to whom He selects.
So we are to shut off our brains from crtical thinking and look at ONLY what he taught?
That's not research, that regurgitation.
Why shouldn't I look for truth everywhere? It's easy to stick with PFAL, then you don't have to think. All the answers are tied up nicely — like a TV show.
I think vpw was afraid we all would go out and really start looking at the scriptures and start coming up with different conclusions. That's why he started to the corps, to keep us all in line.
What are you saying? -- that if you were the one who wrote PFAL you would have cited your sources? I don't think I'm following you. Regardless, whether or not you wrote PFAL, you've definitely re-written it. Amazingly, you're capable of citing your own sources. I noticed that you don't post your conclusions or make your point without quoting from PFAL books. Do you think it is a "distraction" for me to wade through your citations and quotations? If not, then why hold Wierwille to a different standard?
No. I was saying that if I had written PFAL (not by inspiration but by myself) and then came here promoting it as intensely as I do (which socks so condescendingly and mockingly disapproves of), THEN you might have a point that I'm self promoting.
The reason I cite PFAL references is because I want you and others to know that I am NOT re-writing it.
I want you to see other gems in there as you check out my accuracy and therefore you can get blessed again. I knew several people who took the class long ago to prove it wrong, and ended up getting blessed.
It's not about me. I pay a price of degrading my reputation among the many here to bless the few who do take the time check it out in PFAL.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
29
23
17
106
Popular Days
Jan 20
29
Feb 23
26
Jan 21
25
Jan 22
23
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 29 posts
def59 23 posts
Oakspear 17 posts
Mike 106 posts
Popular Days
Jan 20 2005
29 posts
Feb 23 2005
26 posts
Jan 21 2005
25 posts
Jan 22 2005
23 posts
Raf
He did ask for it...
Pulpit Plagiarism
Resigned after preaching a sermon that was not his own!
Busted, busted, can't be trusted...
I hand it to you, Mike. You're a terrific apologist for the blatant dishonesty that was, unfortunately, one of the marks of Wierwille's ministry. "In God's family..." What a joke.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I've ARGUED the position you hold. Please don't insult us by suggesting we're unfamiliar with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I never have recognized organized religion as Christianity or God's family.
I see the organizations in your links as very much like universities or schools. They are a different kind of academia or a social clubs.
AGAIN, you take rules that apply in those denominational institutions and apply them to a completely different situation: God's family.
Dr told everyone up front MANY TIMES that he put it together from other sources.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
In other words, you want us to establish where in YOUR MIND plagiarism is forbidden.
Sorry, can't do that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Actually, I have stated that where students are competing for a degree, or professors competing for jobs, or universities competing for reputations, that plagiarism is wrong. Let me now add when researchers are competing for government grants it's wrong.
When the context is God's family and blessing others then GIVING is the big deal.
When the context is within the 4 types of areas mentioned right above, then RECEIVING is the big deal, and plagiarism cheats some out of their just due.
In God's family no one gets cheated. We in give in God's family without the focus on what we receive, when we receive it, or who we receive it from, and God sees to it we receive what we are due.
In academia the receiving is paramount. In God's family the giving is paramount.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Fairly put. If I may rephrase:
You want us to establish where in YOUR MIND it was wrong for Wierwille to plagiarize. Since you would justify his plagiarism no matter what form it took, and no matter what evidence was produced to prove it, and you expand the definition of "citing sources" under some ridiculous umbrella of an "in God's family" standard, No amount of logic and clear thinking will convince you that he showed a galling lack of integrity in producing his (not God's) published works.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hay
Why don't people remember these things? That's an easy one to answer. The reason they don't remember is because they care about the same things that the world cares about. And just what does the world care about? --- Another day, another dollar, another promotion!
The entire world is about promoting itself and also with seeing you promote yourself. It's all about self-promotion and self-agrandizement. If it weren't, then the subject of VPW plagarizing other people's works, where he got his degree, etc., etc, etc., ad-nuseum wouldn't have become issues for them. The only reason these things become an issue for some people is because for some people they only care about the same things the world cares about. (2 Corinthians 10:12)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I simply refuse to adopt your fundamental perspective.
My position is not ad hoc.
I thought these things many years ago, and am still finding ways to express them better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You simply refuse to adopt my fundamental perspective? Integrity? Honesty? Truthfulness. You refuse to adopt these things? About time you admit it.
I find it amazing that you guys would have a lower standard for integrity in the church than in the world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I gotta go to work.
What the Hay, can you check your PTs please?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
What the Hay,
I agree. You have nailed the ignoble side of the academia and marketplace needs to define plairgism.
There is also a noble side, but it's only temporary until paradise rules.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
Mike ... Are you a self-appointed authority on the issue of intellectual property theft in God's family? Who has given you carte blanche to decide what is, and is not, plagiarism??? You pontificate like a Supreme Pontiff, doncha?? Your fiat declaration does not make it so, sonny boy...
WTFH, you sure can obfuscate!! good work, as per your usual high standard...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
He has. He makes up his own rules, and then challenges us to prove him wrong by his own rules. When we can't (in this case, because he set an impossible standard to meet) he claims victory. When we can, he dodges, distracts...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
we-e-llll, thanks, Raf -- I have followed Mike all over kingdom come here at GSpot, so i am aware of his rationale. That being said, I want Mike to flash his credentials...just to see if they are as impressive as mine are, doncha know...
;)--> 
;)--> 
--> 
:D--> 
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
On some level, you must realize how truly silly these statements are (at least I hope you do). It's purely and ridiculously subjective. You're saying that God likes you more than he likes the rest of us, and is more willing to accommodate your preferences, at the expense of ours. What did you do to rate so highly?
From Power for Abundant Living by Victor Paul Wierwille:
From Eats Shoots & Leaves by Lynne Truss:I fail to see how the second quotation might prove to be a “distraction.” I think Wierwille intended to dazzle, not inform. To me, the second is much more helpful and informative. I wonder why God didn’t keep in mind that I would feel that way when he was giving revelation to Doctor. Didn’t God know that I would have preferred citations?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ridiculous - no
Subjective - yes, and I admitted that.
I think there were many first time students of PFAL who are not so citation minded. I still am when it comes to the great heart material of BTMS and all the other volumes. The PFAL book has a nice clean (subjective) look to it.
I think it's anal retentive to insist on citations, and chucking the whole thing if they are missing.
We're talking about GOD's FAMILY here! We're talking about hearts getting healed, not brains getting a cap and gown.
I wonder how many people here sneered at the academic robes in some TWI ceremonies, and then insist of proper citations in the books? ...just a thought.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
More straw man nonsense. No matter how many times we say plagiarism doesn't affect the content, Mike comes back with this mischaracterization.
So, you think it's anal retentive to insist on citations? Tough noogies. Your idol was the "Dr." with the "PhD" who started a "research" ministry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Mike: The bottom line is that your theology is all about you. It's about your personality, your preferences, your attitudes, your convictions. Then you further flatter yourself by pretending that man's greatest spiritual problem is that he doesn't think like you do. You say citations don't matter. Fine. To you, they don't matter. To others, they do. Rather than acknowledge that, you create a god who conveniently sees things your way and thinks exactly like you do.
At least Wierwille had a product. According to him, if you follow his formulas, you'll have life more than abundantly; you'll have something outside of yourself that gives your life meaning. You have no product, except yourself. According to you, if you think like I do, you'll be like me! Well, hallelujah! Where do I sign up?
Perhaps you should ponder the question asked by Rabbi Hillel: "If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?" Or, paraphrased, "If not me, Who? If not now, When?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No, it's not about me. If it were I'd have quit long ago and done something that garners some respect that I certainly don't get here.
I mentioned this earlier in this thread... I think in my first post.
I didn't write the book! If I wrote PFAL then I'd see your point and back off. But I didn't "come up" with PFAL. I simply recognized it as bigger than me, so I embraced it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You and God have one thing in common, then.
And that, sir, makes you...
Oh forget it already.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
So we are to shut off our brains from crtical thinking and look at ONLY what he taught?
That's not research, that regurgitation.
Why shouldn't I look for truth everywhere? It's easy to stick with PFAL, then you don't have to think. All the answers are tied up nicely — like a TV show.
I think vpw was afraid we all would go out and really start looking at the scriptures and start coming up with different conclusions. That's why he started to the corps, to keep us all in line.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
What are you saying? -- that if you were the one who wrote PFAL you would have cited your sources? I don't think I'm following you. Regardless, whether or not you wrote PFAL, you've definitely re-written it. Amazingly, you're capable of citing your own sources. I noticed that you don't post your conclusions or make your point without quoting from PFAL books. Do you think it is a "distraction" for me to wade through your citations and quotations? If not, then why hold Wierwille to a different standard?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Mike,
If you were to witness to someone who had never heard of TWI, VPW, or PFAL, would you take them to the PFAL book or the Bible?
why?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
laleo,
No. I was saying that if I had written PFAL (not by inspiration but by myself) and then came here promoting it as intensely as I do (which socks so condescendingly and mockingly disapproves of), THEN you might have a point that I'm self promoting.
The reason I cite PFAL references is because I want you and others to know that I am NOT re-writing it.
I want you to see other gems in there as you check out my accuracy and therefore you can get blessed again. I knew several people who took the class long ago to prove it wrong, and ended up getting blessed.
It's not about me. I pay a price of degrading my reputation among the many here to bless the few who do take the time check it out in PFAL.
I cite PFAL to help teach it better.
Ac
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.