waysider

Not relevant.

As you're saying that as far back as the early 1970's you were already aware these were two distinctly independent institutions? Sorry, dude...not buying it.

This is incorrect. Wierwille got his masters from Princeton Theological Seminary, which is not connected to the more well known Princeton University.

During The Great Depression, my grandmother made sandwiches and various other items at home , which my grandfather then took downtown at lunch time to sell to the office workers. I am in no way saying my grandfather invented "fast food". I am merely saying that the basic concept most definitely did not originate with Wierwille.

Well, you know what they say... The sty's the limit.

That seems like a fair enough request.

Well, there you have it. Mike admits the material was stolen.

Based on the information we have seen so far, it wasn't only VPW that lied. VPW said that God promised him He would teach him "the word" like it hadn't been known for 2,000 years. We now know, thanks to Mike, VPW's staunchest advocate , that the information had, in fact, been known for quite some time. What Wierwille did, according to Mike, was take existing material and "assemble" it in a way it hadn't been assembled before. Plagiarism issues aside for the moment, what this means is that God must have lied when He made the promise to VPW. He promised Wierwille exclusive information but, instead, pulled a fast one on VPW by giving him previously known material to assemble. Of course, I don't actually believe this. Still, it suggests God was lying when He made the promise. edit: "God is not a man, that He should lie..." (Numbers 23:19)

Wouldn't that make it circular logic?

I've seen no evidence to suggest it is.

We don't live in a theocracy. A judge is not supposed to make a ruling based on his or her own religious beliefs.

We're nineteen pages into this thread, Mike. I have yet to see you offer any proof for your assertion of PFAL being "God-Breathed".

Again...apples and oranges.

What's that smell?

This is an apples to oranges comparison, a false equivalence, or whatever term you choose to use. This is just flat out false. Wierwille was NOT "totally upfront with his sources". If anything, he was deliberately vague with his sources. In addition, Whiteside's recalling of Wierwille's off -the -cuff statement was not at all a "formal disclaimer of originality". I suggest you go back and reread that section of her book and look at her statement in context. For that matter, why not just go ahead and post her actual statement here, in context, and let others see what she wrote.

Mike is saying it's acceptable to plagiarize Biblical writers because there was an ancient custom that said anyone was free to eat of a fig tree. He said it was the "Peoples' Tree". First, we don't know if this was even a custom, as the only place I ever heard it taught was in The Way. And, as you noted, if the custom did exist, it's not clear why it would be relevant to modern society. As far as I know, there is no scriptural basis for this custom. If, indeed, the custom was authentic, it's still a false comparison, as it's attempting to equate an antiquated societal custom with the legality of modern plagiarism. Sort of an apples and figs comparison, if you will.

Was the wild fig a "community tree"? I don't know. I'd like to have some non Way sources to verify. All we have at the moment is the word of VPW and K.C. Pillai. Maybe they are correct. I'd like to see it from some outside sources, though.

"Remember the Peoples' Tree? It's not stealing to take the fruit from the the Peoples' Tree." I remember VPW teaching that. Where is that found in the Bible?

Here's some information on the author. So much for "hadn't been known since the first century". HERE

Everything goes better with a hot cup of Joe HERE

This is not a thesis, it's a personal opinion. There is a vast and very important difference,.

This is absolute nonsense. Even VPW knew the writings weren't up for grabs. Maybe that's why he, himself, registered copyrights on them before he could get caught. edit: This idea presupposes that the writings in PFAL are a product of revelation. I have yet to see evidence to suggest they were.

Time and time again, I, and many other posters, have openly stated there were good times and good people mixed in with the bad. The take-away point here is that the good does not outweigh the bad. Same goes for the PFAL materials. There may be some good mixed in with the bad. But, there is just too much bad to make it a worthwhile pursuit.

It really doesn't matter what you "think", much as it doesn't matter what you "think" about murder or bank robbery. Plagiarism is unethical and against the law. Period. No, his citations were not "unconventional", they were nonexistent. Dropping a few names to make your self appear to be in good company is in no way a substitute for proper citation. In your last paragraph you are conflating various phases of the ministry to make it appear the unethical behavior is excusable. It's not.