waysider

Does PFAL qualify as an "existing manuscript"?

Another way to state this would be "The greatest secret in the world today is that the finished PFAL writings are the revealed, written Word of God.". So, then, by your own admission, you actually DO believe the written PFAL materials are the Word of God. Interesting. On what evidence do you base this opinion?

We have a solution to tangents here. If someone feels the tangent merits its own discussion, they may start a separate thread to do so.

So, in other words, the PFAL collaterals have replaced the Bible. Is that closer to what you believe?

Mike, I'm going to go out on a limb here and summarize what I have interpreted to be your core belief. If I am wrong, please correct me and accept my apology. You believe the scriptures are not "God Breathed", that holy men of God did not speak as they were moved. Therefore, God, desiring for his true word to be known, gave the perfected product to Wierwille in the form of Power For Abundant Living. Thus, PFAL replaces the Bible as the authoritative version of God's word. Is this correct?

Okay, here is a straight fact. Princeton Theological Seminary and Princeton University are not one and the same. Whether or not Princeton Theological Seminary is a good school is completely beside the point.

Can confirm. Lots of excessive screaming and confrontation in the FellowLaborers of Ohio program in the mid 1970's.

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?