quote: In addition to that, you are assuming that this learning takes place NOT on earth, the natural/factual senses realm, but in heaven at God's right hand, the spiritual/devine realm.
What makes you thing that Jesus Christ is not on earth now?
What makes your theology of the Second Coming so accurate that you can definitively say it's all future?
WordWolf - Don't you realize that Jesus Christ has already appeared, has already come back, to "Mike" in the form of his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit?
Whenever "Mike" sits down to "master" PFAL, Jesus Christ is sitting down to "master" PFAL.
"Mike" won't come straight out and say it in public. He knows that would be just too bizarre. But, that's what you'll find out, if you follow him far enough.
quote: ...if FPAL [sic] said that the earth was flat, you'd argue all over the world that the world is indeed flat, barring all proof to the contrary.
The truth is, that "Mike" doesn't really believe in PFAL. He believes only in the secret, hidden meanings his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit feeds him. "Mike" blindly violates both the letter and the spirit of PFAL as readily as he violates the letter and the spirit of the Word of God.
You wrote; "Wasn't the context of your statement on ethics regarding Joshua, WWII, etc plagiarism?"
Plagiarism is a form of lying IF IT OCCURS IN ACADEMIA or in the MARKETPLACE. The Joshua and WWII items I mentioned involved espionage which is also a form of lying.
***
You wrote: "Who was in danger of dying if Wierwille didn't plagiarize?"
I'd prefer to answer that without acknowledging that what Dr did was plagiarism, seeing that it happened in a context of ministering to God's family with material God Himself supplied other members of His family. Lets call it Righteous Appropriation, or Appropriate Appropriation.
Q: Who was in danger of dying if Dr didn't Appropriately Appropriate?
A: You and me for starters. Lots of grads. Not only in danger of dying, but of wandering aimlessly with no real knowledge of God. God shared with some men who got lots of things right. God inspired Dr to find these men and appropriate what He, God, owned and share it with us.
***
You wrote: "I don't want to get involved in ethics discussions either, but I am continually amzed at the contortions that you go through to justify Wierwille."
It's no contortion to recognize that God owns all good ideas, and that He operates above and beyond the laws of man, especially men who do do not recognize that God amply rewards all good works, and who therefore construct laws to "get theirs" while the getin' is good.
It's no contortion to recognize that the Family of God shares, while academia and the marketplace operate with a set of rules that accommodates ungodly men.
You wrote; "Wasn't the context of your statement on ethics regarding Joshua, WWII, etc plagiarism?"
Plagiarism is a form of lying IF IT OCCURS IN ACADEMIA or in the MARKETPLACE. The Joshua and WWII items I mentioned involved espionage which is also a form of lying.
***
You wrote: "Who was in danger of dying if Wierwille didn't plagiarize?"
I'd prefer to answer that without acknowledging that what Dr did was plagiarism, seeing that it happened in a context of ministering to God's family with material God Himself supplied other members of His family. Lets call it Righteous Appropriation, or Appropriate Appropriation.
That's a nice phrase, too bad it won't stand up in any court. But first you have to ask yourself, who said that it was God who gave these people their stuff. (Because there is much debate about the doctrines of the people who vpw took from) And if He did, why didn't he remind vpw to give credit where credit was due?
Q: Who was in danger of dying if Dr didn't Appropriately Appropriate?
A: You and me for starters. Lots of grads. Not only in danger of dying, but of wandering aimlessly with no real knowledge of God. God shared with some men who got lots of things right. So you say.
God inspired Dr to find these men and appropriate what He, god, owned and share it with us.
***
You wrote: "I don't want to get involved in ethics discussions either, but I am continually amzed at the contortions that you go through to justify Wierwille."
It's no contortion to recognize that God owns all good ideas, and that He operates above and beyond the laws of man, especially men who do do not recognize that God amply rewards all good works, and who therefore construct laws to "get theirs" while the getin' is good.
It's no contortion to recognize that the Family of God shares, while academia and the marketplace operate with a set of rules that accommodates ungodly men.
Whether you call it plagiarism or not, Mike, that's what it was. It is arguable whether or not this plagiarism was justified, not whether or not it existed.
Your views on what constitutes plagiarism have been effectively debunked.
quote:It's no contortion to recognize that the Family of God shares, while academia and the marketplace operate with a set of rules that accommodates ungodly men.
It's only "sharing" when the person in possession of the thing or idea agrees to let others use it. It's stealing when that person does not agree, or is unaware of the "appropriation".
Rafael may decide that he "needs" my extremely hip felt hat (seen at Weenie Roasts for the last two years), but that does not give him the right to come into my home and take it for his own use. If I decide to let him borrow it, or use it when he sees the need, then I have given permission, and sharing has occurred.
"Sometimes, I think you can understand why we find the concept of Jesus Christ, in the presence of his Father, learning anything from a book _when_ his Father is RIGHT THERE utterly ludicrous no matter what you or Johnny Cochren would say. Other times, I'm sure you'd never see it.
Your use of the word "when" is why you feeling of my statement being utterly ludicrous should be suspected.
Your use of that word injects time into an area where it does not belong.
In addition to that, you are assuming that this learning takes place NOT on earth, the natural/factual senses realm, but in heaven at God's right hand, the spiritual/divine realm.
What makes you think that Jesus Christ is not on earth now?
What makes your theology of the Second Coming so accurate that you can definitively say it's all future? Instead of trying to understand or ridicule my statements, why don't you examine your fundamental assumptions of how the Second Coming works? I suggest that if you want to do that with any certainty you will have to separate yourself from world theologians and accept the teaching that God gave us in PFAL.
_When it is the case that YOU YOURSELF are learning from PFAL again, then, AND ONLY THEN, you will have an understanding of what I've said on this subject of Christ learning from it. _
]
I'm interrupting what I WANTED to post next to comment on this.
Mike, 2/2/04 12:17am.
"When you see Christ in his glory he will be holding a PFAL book in his hand
and teaching you from it."
("So, Mike, you weren't kidding about JC coming with a pfal book in his hand?")
Mike, 2/3/04, 7:53pm.
"Totally serious. I've already seen him this way more than once."
=====
So, Mike, what are you trying to claim here-that the pfal books claimed it is
NOT a future reality, but instead some Gnostic-leaning "special revelation"
for today?
=====
=====
BTW, Mike?
A "rapture/gathering together" in the future IS what vpw taught, all the time!
quote: My decision to start mastering PFAL was anything BUT blind.
It was with full knowing of what I was doing... that I willingly accepted PFAL.
You see folks, it's a perfect illustration of Romans 1:28a,
quote: And even as they did not like ["dokimazo" = to test, to prove] to retain God in their knowledge ["epignosis" = experiential knowledge], God gave them over to a reprobate ["adokimos" = unable to test, unable to prove] mind...
Mike willingly, with full knowing, accepted the lie, that PFAL is God-breathed. Mike deliberately surrendered his responsibility to judge the difference between true and false. As a result, "Mike" no longer has the freedom to recognize the difference between true and false.
"Mike" HAS TO BELIEVE whatever his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit tells him, no matter how contra-perceptive, no matter how illogical, unless he repents and receives deliverance from the Lord.
The stuff "Mike" spouts tries to project a false-face of concern for people and regard for truth, but we've all seen that he just can't keep up the pretence for long. The deceit, the malignity, the despiteful pride, the boasting come "shining" through.
You wrote regarding my fresh coinage of "Righteous Appropriation" and "Appropriate Appropriation" as opposed to plagairism:
"That's a nice phrase, too bad it won't stand up in any court. But first you have to ask yourself, who said that it was God who gave these people their stuff. (Because there is much debate about the doctrines of the people who vpw took from) And if He did, why didn't he remind vpw to give credit where credit was due?"
What about GOD'S court??? You seem to keep on wanting to drag this argument into the lower courts of the marketplace and academia. If Dr had operated i those areas he'd have been in hot water. He didn't, and he wasn't.
God most certainly DID remind Dr to give credit to the men (most of them) from whom he received much teaching. It's the FORMAT of that credit you are quibbling about.
Once again you too, in you last post, are refusing to look at these matters from within God's family. From that perspective the negative word "plagiarism" does not fit.
Grads and Gospel writers alike rarely operate with full recognition of God's ownership. It's hardly practical to do that in this world, the way it's run.
When and where that recognition is full, then borrowing without explicit permission is totally ok. When everyone see's that God repays, and everyone walks in love, no one is going to borrow the wrong thing at the wrong time. These things are highly theoretical right now, but when God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven, THEN it will be different.
So the current rules apply, whether you like or agree with them or not. So if vpw took without permission or attribution, then its stealing.
It's the same if you took pfal and republished it under your name without permission. American Christian Press owns the copyright and can sue you for infringment.
Are you totally ignorant or are you just acting like a complete imbecile?
Our court system is based on biblical doctrines. Where? Oh yeah, from one of those old books we in twi could ignore because it "wasn't written to us" Exodus 20 the Ten Commandments.
Thou shall not steal, covet, bear false witness. Does any of this ring a bell?
Sometimes I am convinced that maybe you are sold out to some sort of demon.
Let me ask you this, if you took money for a window washing job that you did not do, (because you believed God had told you to claim you could wash windows better than anyone since glass was invented) but it instead was done by another believer, would that be wrong?
You wrote: "But it's not then now, it's now. __ So the current rules apply, whether you like or agree with them or not. So if vpw took without permission or attribution, then its stealing. __ It's the same if you took pfal and republished it under your name without permission. American Christian Press owns the copyright and can sue you for infringment.
But it's not THERE in the marketplace or academia, it's HERE in God's family where Dr Apropriately Apropriated what God told him to give to us.
If the American Christian Press wants to step outside God's family and get persnickety about their copyrights, then let them.
I think TWI may, by this time, know that it's unwise to stray from the Real Owner of those revelations and of those copyrights. They have strayed enough already from the True God, and they were trounced for it by the world's courts. I think they want to stay where God's protection can work for them: WITHIN His family.
Book production does not cost what was charged for those books. You're talking to a former JW. If you want to see people who sell books at cost, no profit, look at them. You'll see that TWI made quite a sum on its "non-marketplace" books.
Let me retract that: if anyone knows for a fact what the production costs are for a PFAL book v. the selling price, please let us know. I don't trust Mike to tell the truth on this, and I don't have firsthand knowledge on this. So if you do, settle this. If no one comes forward I'll consider it moot.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
22
23
55
Popular Days
Jan 22
41
Jan 24
17
Feb 1
16
Jan 31
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 22 posts
def59 22 posts
WordWolf 23 posts
Mike 55 posts
Popular Days
Jan 22 2005
41 posts
Jan 24 2005
17 posts
Feb 1 2005
16 posts
Jan 31 2005
14 posts
Steve Lortz
"Mike" wrote,
WordWolf - Don't you realize that Jesus Christ has already appeared, has already come back, to "Mike" in the form of his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit?
Whenever "Mike" sits down to "master" PFAL, Jesus Christ is sitting down to "master" PFAL.
"Mike" won't come straight out and say it in public. He knows that would be just too bizarre. But, that's what you'll find out, if you follow him far enough.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Garth - you wrote,
The truth is, that "Mike" doesn't really believe in PFAL. He believes only in the secret, hidden meanings his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit feeds him. "Mike" blindly violates both the letter and the spirit of PFAL as readily as he violates the letter and the spirit of the Word of God.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No Steve, it's YOUR theology and YOUR take on what it means to have Christ formed (Galatians 4:19) within that I knowingly and willingly violate.
Garth, it took me a full 27 years of pondering the senses evidence and God's guidance that brought me to accept PFAL with OPEN EYES.
My decision to start mastering PFAL was anything BUT blind.
It was with full knowing of what I was doing (like my rejection of Steve Lortz's religion) that I willingly accepted PFAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Mike:
Are you a Republican?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Mike:
Wasn't the context of your statement on ethics regarding Joshua, WWII, etc plagiarism?
Who was in danger of dying if Wierwille didn't plagiarize?
I don't want to get involved in ethics discussions either, but I am continually amzed at the contortions that you go through to justify Wierwille.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oakspear,
You wrote; "Wasn't the context of your statement on ethics regarding Joshua, WWII, etc plagiarism?"
Plagiarism is a form of lying IF IT OCCURS IN ACADEMIA or in the MARKETPLACE. The Joshua and WWII items I mentioned involved espionage which is also a form of lying.
***
You wrote: "Who was in danger of dying if Wierwille didn't plagiarize?"
I'd prefer to answer that without acknowledging that what Dr did was plagiarism, seeing that it happened in a context of ministering to God's family with material God Himself supplied other members of His family. Lets call it Righteous Appropriation, or Appropriate Appropriation.
Q: Who was in danger of dying if Dr didn't Appropriately Appropriate?
A: You and me for starters. Lots of grads. Not only in danger of dying, but of wandering aimlessly with no real knowledge of God. God shared with some men who got lots of things right. God inspired Dr to find these men and appropriate what He, God, owned and share it with us.
***
You wrote: "I don't want to get involved in ethics discussions either, but I am continually amzed at the contortions that you go through to justify Wierwille."
It's no contortion to recognize that God owns all good ideas, and that He operates above and beyond the laws of man, especially men who do do not recognize that God amply rewards all good works, and who therefore construct laws to "get theirs" while the getin' is good.
It's no contortion to recognize that the Family of God shares, while academia and the marketplace operate with a set of rules that accommodates ungodly men.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Mark S,
Why do you ask? Do you want to drag me into the Political forum?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Hi Mike:
No, the political forum is crazy enough as it is. I was just curious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Whether you call it plagiarism or not, Mike, that's what it was. It is arguable whether or not this plagiarism was justified, not whether or not it existed.
Your views on what constitutes plagiarism have been effectively debunked.
It's only "sharing" when the person in possession of the thing or idea agrees to let others use it. It's stealing when that person does not agree, or is unaware of the "appropriation".Rafael may decide that he "needs" my extremely hip felt hat (seen at Weenie Roasts for the last two years), but that does not give him the right to come into my home and take it for his own use. If I decide to let him borrow it, or use it when he sees the need, then I have given permission, and sharing has occurred.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'm interrupting what I WANTED to post next to comment on this.
Mike, 2/2/04 12:17am.
"When you see Christ in his glory he will be holding a PFAL book in his hand
and teaching you from it."
("So, Mike, you weren't kidding about JC coming with a pfal book in his hand?")
Mike, 2/3/04, 7:53pm.
"Totally serious. I've already seen him this way more than once."
=====
So, Mike, what are you trying to claim here-that the pfal books claimed it is
NOT a future reality, but instead some Gnostic-leaning "special revelation"
for today?
=====
=====
BTW, Mike?
A "rapture/gathering together" in the future IS what vpw taught, all the time!
You're questioning it?
=====
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Def59,
I think you missed the place where Mike told you that if vpw had
cited his sources in the backs of "his" books,
that we would have died and wandered aimlessly in error.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
"Mike" wrote,
You see folks, it's a perfect illustration of Romans 1:28a,
Mike willingly, with full knowing, accepted the lie, that PFAL is God-breathed. Mike deliberately surrendered his responsibility to judge the difference between true and false. As a result, "Mike" no longer has the freedom to recognize the difference between true and false.
"Mike" HAS TO BELIEVE whatever his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit tells him, no matter how contra-perceptive, no matter how illogical, unless he repents and receives deliverance from the Lord.
The stuff "Mike" spouts tries to project a false-face of concern for people and regard for truth, but we've all seen that he just can't keep up the pretence for long. The deceit, the malignity, the despiteful pride, the boasting come "shining" through.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
def59,
You wrote regarding my fresh coinage of "Righteous Appropriation" and "Appropriate Appropriation" as opposed to plagairism:
"That's a nice phrase, too bad it won't stand up in any court. But first you have to ask yourself, who said that it was God who gave these people their stuff. (Because there is much debate about the doctrines of the people who vpw took from) And if He did, why didn't he remind vpw to give credit where credit was due?"
What about GOD'S court??? You seem to keep on wanting to drag this argument into the lower courts of the marketplace and academia. If Dr had operated i those areas he'd have been in hot water. He didn't, and he wasn't.
God most certainly DID remind Dr to give credit to the men (most of them) from whom he received much teaching. It's the FORMAT of that credit you are quibbling about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oakspear,
Once again you too, in you last post, are refusing to look at these matters from within God's family. From that perspective the negative word "plagiarism" does not fit.
Grads and Gospel writers alike rarely operate with full recognition of God's ownership. It's hardly practical to do that in this world, the way it's run.
When and where that recognition is full, then borrowing without explicit permission is totally ok. When everyone see's that God repays, and everyone walks in love, no one is going to borrow the wrong thing at the wrong time. These things are highly theoretical right now, but when God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven, THEN it will be different.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
But it's not then now, it's now.
So the current rules apply, whether you like or agree with them or not. So if vpw took without permission or attribution, then its stealing.
It's the same if you took pfal and republished it under your name without permission. American Christian Press owns the copyright and can sue you for infringment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Mike
Are you totally ignorant or are you just acting like a complete imbecile?
Our court system is based on biblical doctrines. Where? Oh yeah, from one of those old books we in twi could ignore because it "wasn't written to us" Exodus 20 the Ten Commandments.
Thou shall not steal, covet, bear false witness. Does any of this ring a bell?
Sometimes I am convinced that maybe you are sold out to some sort of demon.
Let me ask you this, if you took money for a window washing job that you did not do, (because you believed God had told you to claim you could wash windows better than anyone since glass was invented) but it instead was done by another believer, would that be wrong?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
def59,
You wrote: "But it's not then now, it's now. __ So the current rules apply, whether you like or agree with them or not. So if vpw took without permission or attribution, then its stealing. __ It's the same if you took pfal and republished it under your name without permission. American Christian Press owns the copyright and can sue you for infringment.
But it's not THERE in the marketplace or academia, it's HERE in God's family where Dr Apropriately Apropriated what God told him to give to us.
If the American Christian Press wants to step outside God's family and get persnickety about their copyrights, then let them.
I think TWI may, by this time, know that it's unwise to stray from the Real Owner of those revelations and of those copyrights. They have strayed enough already from the True God, and they were trounced for it by the world's courts. I think they want to stay where God's protection can work for them: WITHIN His family.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Yes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It wasn't in the marketplace?
Hey everyone, raise your hand if TWI gave you free copies of all the books? Raise your hand if ALL you paid was production cost: no profit to TWI.
Yeah, it wasn't in the marketplace. Pleeease.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
def59,
The points you just brought up in your second post were just recently handled on my General proPFAL thread alongside this one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Raf,
Those prices for the books were to cover costs only. Actually books were given free to new students. I gave books to people too.
When I say marketplace, I mean in competition with other writers, as I have clearly stated in recent days.
To this day, the books sell well below marketplace book prices.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Nonsense.
Book production does not cost what was charged for those books. You're talking to a former JW. If you want to see people who sell books at cost, no profit, look at them. You'll see that TWI made quite a sum on its "non-marketplace" books.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Let me retract that: if anyone knows for a fact what the production costs are for a PFAL book v. the selling price, please let us know. I don't trust Mike to tell the truth on this, and I don't have firsthand knowledge on this. So if you do, settle this. If no one comes forward I'll consider it moot.
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.