Wierwillites

[oldiesman]

Thanks Mo.

[Thomas Loy Bumgarner]

Mark, you forgot to interpret your tongues speaking again. Let me try. There is only one God and prophet, and his name is Wierwille. White Dove, I didn't know you knew gangsta rap/hip-hop. LOL.

Edited February 28, 2006 by Thomas Loy Bumgarner

[WhiteDove]

Gangsta rap/hip-hop? :unsure:

[WordWolf]

The errors of great men are venerable because they are more fruitful then the truths of little men.

- Freidrich Nietzshce

You're quoting the writer of "the Gay Science", the man famous for saying

"God is dead"?

Fine. I'll quote Robert Burns.

"Nietzsche is a bore."

[Eagle]

I was going to say what a Wierwillite was, but markomalley summed it up so perfectly I decided to just say,

"DITTO".

What, BTW, are the Eagles White Dove is speaking about? I took my name from one of my favorite music groups. But I am curious to know what White Dove meant. Is it something of a dove compared to an eagle?

[WhiteDove]

Hey Eagle

I am lost too but the song I posted was an eagles song.

[markomalley]

"Wierwillite" is a slur intended to attack people who recognize truth in his teachings.

Well, I took a poll, and the majority of people here currently state that they subscribe to at least some of VPW's teachings. Does that mean that the majority are Wierwillites, at least to a degree?

[GrouchoMarxJr]

I'm not sure that a "Wierwillite" is a person who believes in his teachings because quite frankly, "his teachings" were not really his teachings...he stole most of them from other Christian teachers.

I would define a Wierwillite as someone who believes something is true because Wierwille taught it...someone who "worships" Wierwille, considers him to be their father in the word, esteems him above all other contemporary Christian teachers, thinks of him as the "greatest Christian teacher since the first century", the great prophet, apostle, teacher, etc...

In other words, a Wierwillite is not someone who holds his teachings in high esteem as much as they hold the man in high esteem.

[johniam]

Wierwille LITE is for those who are on a brain diet and can't have straight Wierwille.

[Raf]

Groucho, I think you've touched on something significant there.

If you consider Wierwille your father in the Word...

If you give an argument the benefit of the doubt because it was taught by Wierwille...

If the thought of Wierwille being wrong about something worries you...

you might be a Wierwillite.

[MountainTopCO]

A weirwillite is someone who, inspite of all the evidence, still believes VPW is THE MGOT similar to EW Bullinger, Martin Luther and the Apostle Paul. All of which VPW found fault in.

[justloafing]

Groucho, I think you've touched on something significant there.

If you consider Wierwille your father in the Word...

If you give an argument the benefit of the doubt because it was taught by Wierwille...

If the thought of Wierwille being wrong about something worries you...

you might be a Wierwillite.

Or if you believe he was the "Father" of the hook shot

[Raf]

If the thought of VPW ripping the Catholic Church to shreds by selling books about vicious and scandalous reports of the deeds of popes past (who can't defend themselves) doesn't bother you, but reciting the horrors committed by VPW does bother you, you might be a Wierwillite.

[Raf]

If you won't set foot in a church that has a doctrine different from yours, but you view looking critically at the work of VPW as "tearing down" and "nitpicking," you might be a Wierwillite.

[WhiteDove]

I'm not sure that a "Wierwillite" is a person who believes in his teachings because quite frankly, "his teachings" were not really his teachings...he stole most of them from other Christian teachers.

Groucho, I think you've touched on something significant there.

Man does that sound familiar I could swear I heard that somewhere before that his teachings were not his teachings.

I'm a little confused here. It is well documented here ,geese there have been several threads on where book by book the teaching In PFAL came from. This was not any big revelation to me but to some it is I suppose. If one would choose to hold on to something they learned in PFAL wouldn't it be correct to say they were holding on to BG Leonard or Charles Welch or Kenyon's teaching ,not VP Wierwille

If VP plagiarized others work then we were taught by them.

GEESE I thought this point was easy to understand most people get it why it is not true. I suppose it becomes true if one who is not considered a wierwillite posts it. Why it's almost a revelation. Level as a freaking pancake Yeah!

[justloafing]

OK dove lets have it your way. You "seem" to admit that wierwille stole works. I have seen here on GSC where his info came from. So from now on instead of quoting pfal quote the original auther where he stole it from.

[Raf]

White Dove,

I'm afraid you've quoted me out of context. When I told Groucho he may have touched on something, I was referring to VPW as "our father in the word." I was not discussing plagiarism at all, in the slightest, and connecting those two statements was an error on your part. Understandable error, not malicious in any way, but an error nonetheless.

Raf

[WhiteDove]

Thanks for the correction Raf noted you do not agree with that part of his conclusions.

OK dove lets have it your way. You "seem" to admit that wierwille stole works. I have seen here on GSC where his info came from. So from now on instead of quoting pfal quote the original auther where he stole it from.

No seem to it JL he compiled others works into his class.

I don't believe I have quoted PFAL very rarly if I have and if I did it would be in direct reply to a question about a section.

So then if we are agreed that the work was not his (VPW) teachings,

and we are quoting the original authors where it came from

Then I guess we can put the urban myth that we were taught by a false prophet to rest unless you think that those other authors were false prophets,because it was their teachings that taught us not VPW's

[templelady]

Then I guess we can put the urban myth that we were taught by a false prophet to rest

Not everything that came out of VPW's mouth was a quote from someone else-

And you can't hold the authors of the original work accountable from the extrapolations that came as a result of VPW reading, hearing and then "researching" them

Second I never heard that he was a prophet--The Man of God for our Day and Time, Our Father in the Word, yes, but never that he was a prophet. That he received revelation yes, that he received a word of prophecy yes, But never a Prophet.

Receiving a word of Prophecy does not a "Prophet" make "A Prophet is called by God to be a prophet --even Weirwille to the best of my knowledge never made the claim --He said that he was called to Teach the Word as it had not been taught since the first century church

[Oakspear]

White Dove:

Whether Wierwille "compiled" works from other authors, or "stole" them has little to do with whether he was a false prophet, IMHO. Futhermore, the truth or "accuracy" of these teachings was but a part of what went into the genuineness of his "ministry".

In my mind, what made Wierwille a false prophet was using what he taught to take advantage of and control others.

[WhiteDove]

Not everything that came out of VPW's mouth was a quote from someone else-

And you can't hold the authors of the original work accountable from the extrapolations that came as a result of VPW reading, hearing and then "researching" them

Second I never heard that he was a prophet--The Man of God for our Day and Time, Our Father in the Word, yes, but never that he was a prophet. That he received revelation yes, that he received a word of prophecy yes, But never a Prophet.

Receiving a word of Prophecy does not a "Prophet" make "A Prophet is called by God to be a prophet --even Weirwille to the best of my knowledge never made the claim --He said that he was called to Teach the Word as it had not been taught since the first century church

I agree I never thought he was either but I was giving them the benefit of the doubt that thought he was .....

1. So the teachings were not his (VP's) they were authored by others (per Groucho)

2. Wierwillites don't really follow VP's teachings because it was teachings by others that taught us. (per Groucho)

3. He was not a prophet at all so he could not be a false one. (per Templelady)

4. We were taught by others teachings not by VP's and not by a false prophet/or not even a prophet (per Whitedove)

Which is exactly what I said before when everybody took such offence at it. my point exactly because I said it there had to be a problem with it . When others come to the same conclusion it seems to be ok. Sounds level to me.

Whitedove -I'm a little confused here. It is well documented here ,geese there have been several threads on where book by book the teaching In PFAL came from.

If one would choose to hold on to something they learned in PFAL wouldn't it be correct to say they were holding on to BG Leonard or Charles Welch or Kenyon's teaching ,not VP Wierwille. On one thread the work was plagiarized and wasn't his teaching on the other thread we were now to move beyond his teaching(which wasn't his teaching) that we were taught by a false prophet. If VP plagiarized others work then we were taught by them. If we were taught by a false prophet then that would rule out Kenyon Leonard or Welch. Seems it cant work both ways.

Edited March 2, 2006 by WhiteDove

[templelady]

We were taught by others teachings not by VP's and not by a false prophet/or not even a prophet

But we were not taught ONLY teachings that VPW got from others--He threw a good deal of his own opinion and ideas into the mix. which means arguing that since he plagiarized he wasn't the one who was responsible for the wrong things taught falls short of the mark, even more so if you consider he had some obligation to ascertain if the plagiarized works he taught were right

3. He was not a prophet at all so he could not be a false one. (per Templelady)

Ummm---what I actually was asking is where the idea he was a prophet came from--And expanded on that by pointing out that VPW never, to the best of my knowledge made such a claim. As to whether or not he was in fact a prophet or a even false one--I never specifically addressed that issue since I am still waiting to find out if he ever made such a claim

[What The Hey]

You're quoting the writer of "the Gay Science", the man famous for saying "God is dead"?

While in popular belief it is Nietzsche himself who blatantly made this declaration, it was actually placed into the mouth of a character, a "madman," in The Gay Science. It was also later proclaimed by Nietzsche's Zarathustra. This largely misunderstood statement does not proclaim a physical death, but a natural end to the belief in God being the foundation of the western mind. It is also widely misunderstood as a kind of gloating declaration, when it is actually described as a tragic lament by the character Zarathustra.

"God is Dead" is more of an observation than a declaration, and it is noteworthy that Nietzsche never felt the need to advance any arguments for atheism, but merely observed that, for all practical purposes, his contemporaries lived "as if" God were dead. Nietzsche believed this "death" would eventually undermine the foundations of morality and lead to moral relativism and nihilism.

Nietzsche can most usefully be classified as a moral skeptic; that is, he claims that all ethical statements are false, because any kind of correspondence between ethical statements and "moral facts" is illusory. Moral skeptics hold that there are no objective values, but that the claim that there are objective values is part of the meaning of ordinary ethical sentences; that is why, in their view, ethical sentences are false.

I quoted Nietzsche to prove the ethical statement my contemporaries insist upon making is found illusory and false as they go about esteeming and promulgating the errors of VPW.

[WordWolf]

While in popular belief it is Nietzsche himself who blatantly made this declaration, it was actually placed into the mouth of a character, a "madman," in The Gay Science. It was also later proclaimed by Nietzsche's Zarathustra.

Which means that it sprang from the pen of Nietzche-twice.

Which means-guess what?-he wrote it.

I quoted Nietzsche to prove the ethical statement my contemporaries insist upon making is found illusory and false as they go about esteeming and promulgating the errors of VPW.

A) Your quote failed to accomplish this.

B) Nice work aping vpw's style!

I shall elaborate in a moment.

[WordWolf]

While in popular belief it is Nietzsche himself who blatantly made this declaration, it was actually placed into the mouth of a character, a "madman," in The Gay Science. It was also later proclaimed by Nietzsche's Zarathustra. This largely misunderstood statement does not proclaim a physical death, but a natural end to the belief in God being the foundation of the western mind. It is also widely misunderstood as a kind of gloating declaration, when it is actually described as a tragic lament by the character Zarathustra.

"God is Dead" is more of an observation than a declaration, and it is noteworthy that Nietzsche never felt the need to advance any arguments for atheism, but merely observed that, for all practical purposes, his contemporaries lived "as if" God were dead. Nietzsche believed this "death" would eventually undermine the foundations of morality and lead to moral relativism and nihilism.

Nietzsche can most usefully be classified as a moral skeptic; that is, he claims that all ethical statements are false, because any kind of correspondence between ethical statements and "moral facts" is illusory. Moral skeptics hold that there are no objective values, but that the claim that there are objective values is part of the meaning of ordinary ethical sentences; that is why, in their view, ethical sentences are false.

Nice article!

Almost looks like it's taken word-for-word from another source.

Did you pull this from the wikipedia entry

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

without attribution-

or another source without attribution?

It looks like it's word-for-word from the answers.com listing

for him, from the

"Place in Contemporary Ethical theory" section,

the last few paragraphs before

"Political Views" begins.

(From that page)

"While in popular belief it is Neitzshce himself who blatantly made

this declaration, it was actually placed into the mouth of a character,

a 'madman', in 'the Gay Science'. It was also later proclaimed by

Nietzsche's 'Zarathustra'. This largely misunderstood statement does

not proclaim a physical death, but a natural end to the belief in God

being the foundation of the western mind. It is also widely misunderstood

as a kind of gloating declaration, when it is actually described as a tragic

lament by the character Zarathustra."

http://www.answers.com/topic/friedrich-nietzsche?method=22

Well done!

You've absorbed the lesson of your teacher, vpw!

"Always use the sentences and ideas of others to attempt to make

yourself look clever,

and NEVER give them the credit for it!"

Sadly,

this method FAILS in the dawn of the Silicon Age...