Talk:Jakob Lorber
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article needs to be rewritten from a more neutral point of view. As it stands, it accepts the accuracy of Lorber's visions, and Christianity in general, as undisputed fact. Adding NPOV message.
- Gwalla 06:41, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
NPOV message had been removed without any evidence of editing in accordance with Gwalla's comment. Re-added NPOV message.
C'mon, it's still not neutral. The claims about Lorber having known modern physics before it was developed are not substantiated in this article. Re-re-added NPOV message.
-- Did much research, made significant changes, added new material and footnotes, removed some portions which were not easily supported in a few words. Also changed the language to NPOV throughout, understanding that many of the points made by Lorber cultivate faith, which is itself outside the scope of NPOV, which is a viewpoint predicated in skepticism. I sought for the point of equilibrium which handles both concerns, and anticipate future additions and corrections to refine this. Jds 21:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] critic litteratur
Gassmann Lothar: "Kleines Sekten-Handbuch", Lorberianer Seiten 92-95, MABO-Bücher Schacht-Audorf, 2005, ISBN 3-9810275-9-7
Horst Reller, Hans Krech & Matthias Kleiminger (Hrsg.): Lorber-Bewegung - Lorber-Gesellschaft - Lorberianer. In: Handbuch Religiöse Gemeinschaften und Weltanschauungen, Gütersloh 5. Auflage 2000, 214-226.
Obst Helmut: "Apostel und Propheten der Neuzeit", Vandenhoeck et Ruprecht in Göttingen, ISBN 3-525-55438-9, 233-264
Pöhlmann, Matthias: Lorber-Bewegung, durch Jenseitswissen zum Heil?. 2002, ISBN 376217704X
Stettler-Schär, Antoinette: Jakob Lorber: zur Psychopathologie eines Sektenstifters Bern 1966
[edit] external links
http://www.jakoblorber.de Widersprüche und Irrtümer in Lorbers Werk
http://de.geocities.com/winnywindl/lorber.htm Schwachstellen von Jakob Lorber
Avoye
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avoye (talk • contribs) 10:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Cleanup
This articles needs better sources and re-formatting sources using ref-tags. As the current sources are rather week, reformatting them looked like a waste of time to me, otherwise I'd have started. --Pjacobi (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

