So_crates

There are two great differences between what you did and what Brother Andrew did: 1). Was the information available elsewhere? By your own admission, PLAF was plaigerized from other sources. Not to mention the ministry was teaching PLAF until 1988. So it was available elsewhere. Were bibles available elsewhere in the countries Brother Andrew was smuggling them in? I doubt it, otherwise why smuggle? You know it's see-spot-run PLAF to know that God expects you to use every channel available, then He uses more esoteric methods. So, people could have read Stiles or take BG Leonards class. Again, there's no rationalizing or loopholes with God. Stealing is stealing. 2). Did Brother Andrew infringe on someone's livelihood? Were there other bibical salesmen in the countries he was smuggling bibles into?

So what your attempting to tell me is that people who claim to love God and want to teach me the bible think that concern someone has broken one of His commandments (a commandment repeated by Paul in Ephesians, no less) is stupid. The same people who if anyone else would have broken fellowship would have called them on the carpet without any hesitation? So, tell me, doesn't Ephesians relate to spiritual growth? Doesn't being in fellowship relate to spiritual growth? As I said, there is no loopholes or rationalizations with God. You stole or you didn't. As a matter of fact, God tells us to go even a step further than that: 1 Thess 5:22: Abstain from all appearance of evil. Once again, you try to set your opinion up as the measure of right or wrong. Your not the measure of what's stupid or not. Nor is Saint Vic's private interpretation. The bible is. This also shows what you really think of God. Not only are you rationalizing someone stealing, you claiming that anyone concerned about said theft is stupid. Which comes as no real surprise, previously you've said: So what your saying is you think its cool BG Leonard and Stiles livlihood were stolen and given Saint Vic. All those White books sold by Saint Vic could have been sold by Stiles. All those classes sold by Saint Vic could have been given by BG Leonard. Now tell me, does a loving father steal from one child so the other child could continue in his sinful ways? That's playing favorites, which God doesn't do.

Saint Vic never told student to go out and teach what they've been taught. Saint Vic was into Weirwille Over the World (WOW), so he told them to push the class.

And once again, there is no book markets and academia with God. You stole something or you didn't. There is no right in this realm. wrong in that realm. You obeyed The Law or you didn't. You stole or you didn't. Isn't this basic PLAF? No big sins or little sins only sins (or absolutes--you sinned or you didn't).

Odd, that was your position. And you fail to understand, as I saaid, with God there is no in the marketplace and academia this is true, but everywhere else this is true. As I said, God must work in absolutes, you either steal or you don't, otherwise those same rationalizations can be used by Christ to get out of fulfilling the law. As I further said, Christ could rationalize stealing all the silver from the tabernacle,"Everything is God's, I'm the Son of God, so this isn't sstealing..." Just where in the bible does it say everything belongs to God in the future? All 24 of these verses are in present tense: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/All-Things-Belong-To-God

After a few moments static it appears we're back with our regularly scheduled program: There have been claims that all intellectual property belongs to God, so plaigerism isn't stealing. There are also claims that since Christians have all things in common there can be no stealing. These claims negate everything Christ came to do. How? God works in absolutes, you've absolutely obeyed the law or you didn't. You absolutely stole or you didn't. Anything less and Christ could have used that loophole to get out of having to fulfill the Law. Christ for example could have stolen all the silver from the tabernacle. "Well, all things belong to God and I'm the son of God, so its not really stealing..." Or to use another previously mentioned loophole, all Christ had to do was pick people who would not report his disobedience of the law to the authorities.

Your the one that started insulting. What was that about choosing battles wisely. Perhaps you should find someone else to harass.

What was that you were saying about slander being the tool of the loser?

Oh, you mean that bit you did that looked like sarcasm? You apparently need more practice. What pray tell do you think the quote above the claim of errors was for? Decoration? You mean like the slander your attempting to dish out now? Yah, I can see that. You mean when you don't have a response you divert and change the subject. Like now. I notice you have no answer for the God works in absolutes argument. Well, you want one at a time, don't present so many errors in your reasoning. Your milage may vary.

So, in all your travels you've never encountered the Socratic method of arriving at the truth? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method And, naturally, getting straight answers is so important to you that you respond with a sarcastic answer like the one above. Your error here has negated everything Christ came to do. How? God works in absolutes, you've absolutely obeyed the law or you didn't. You absolutely stole or you didn't. Anything less and Christ could have used that loophole to get out of having to fulfill the Law. Christ for example could have stolen all the silver from the tabernacle. "Well, all things belong to God and I'm the son of God, so its not really stealing..." Or to use your loophole, all Christ had to do was pick people who would not report his disobedience of the law to the authorities.

A couple of things: 1). Do you know if there are any document that show any the original authors granting Saint Vic permission to use the texts he stole? 2). Sometime back, on my way home I was mugged. The mugger only got $5, so I didn't bother filing a police report. Does that mean I wasn't mugged? 3). "Soup is soup, apple butter is apple butter" and stealing someone's work is stealing someone's work.

Once again your falls flat. Let him that steals, steal no more. (Eph 4:28) Therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal? (Rom 2:21) That suggests its possible to steal within God's family. Why else would God make it a commandment and have Paul repeat it? Again, your not the standard. What God says is.

'Fraid that's not how it works in the bible. Jesus Christ said doing something in your heart is worst than doing it physically. And where is your heart? Since you have to think about things in order for them to sink into your heart, the heart is in your mind, your intellect. So theft of intellectual property is worst than theft of physical property

No it proves Saint Vic stole other peoples work and he has no legal recourse which further re-enforces his theft. I seriously doubt God would disrespect others efforts. I'm still waiting for that explanation of why God says let him that steals steal no more, yet that only applies to the physical realm, not the intellectual realm. I got a feeling I'm going to be waiting a long time, because there is no explanation which invalidates your point.

You've got a short memory. We've already proven this theory has more holes than swiss cheese and that makes it no gouda. For example, God own everything in the physical universe. too. So what your telling me is that its acceptable to steal your PLAF book or someone's car. Previously, you've scoffed at this suggestion, but you've never explained why its acceptable to steal in one realm, yet not in the other, The other obvious question is if what you say is true about the family of God, yadda, yadda, yadda, then why did Saint Vic copyright his materials? The real reason is when you sue your supposed to come to court with "clean hands," meaning you haven't broken any laws yourself. For example, you can't sue a drug dealer to get your money back if his product is bad, In the case of PLAF, you can't sue for copyright infringement if all your works can be proven to be copyright infringement. Plus TWI probably doesn't want it to come out in court that the works are copyright infringement.

California raisins dead....police suspect a cereal killer

The above is where you first posted, in this thread, about Saint Vic. So, if you didn't want to discuss Saint Vic, why did you start discussing Saint Vic? And, once again, you get the predicted response and you run everyone down. What did you think, you were going to present your everything belongs to God so its okay to steal intellectually, but wrong to steal physically arguement and nobody was going to challange it?

The phrase is also not relevent to the discussion as its old enough to have fallen into public domain. The works Saint Vic stole from were not only much, much longer, they were also still copyrighted.

Once again: Your not the yardstick. It's plaigerism, plain and simple. As far as hoping for some insights and brainstorming on creative thought: real or illusion, your getting it, you just don't want to accept it. What did you think our response was going to be when you claimed Saint Vic "tweaked" a book rather than honestly saying he stole the text? Didn't they teach us in grade school to state ideas in our own words?

Once again: all you stated above is about as important as a fruit platter is in a steakhouse. Regardless of the ministry consisting of farmers and townfolk, Saint Vic, who's Parker Brothers degree was so important to him he insisted on being called "Doctor," should have known and followed the rules of citation. I was versed on MLA the first year I was at the university. How much more practice should he have gotten if his degree was real? Heck, citation shoild have been second nature to him. Just because you don't need something doesn't make it acceptable or unacceptable. It's plaigerism and that makes it wrong.

Revelation?! What revelation did he need to steal BG Leonard's class right down to Maggie Muggins, Johnnie Jumpup, and Snowball Pete?

Tweaked, is that what you call plagiarism, tweaking? http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/22281-vp-plagiarism-documentation/

I agree with you: ideas are often recycled. I say recycled because you are free to use ideas of someone else as you see fit. Ideas are not copyrighted. Romeo and Juliet and West Side Story are basically the same idea. How many versions of Dickens A Christmas Story will we see on sitcoms this yule season? However, "line by line and word by word" copying is a no-no. This is the type of stealing Saint Vic did. Saint Vic not only stole paragraphs, but often whole sections of anothers work. That's known as theft and plagiarism Below are links showing how Saint Vic stole others works: http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_stolenrthst.htm

After the colon and below is a box titled AOS: SOMEBODY PLEASE MISTIE THIS. Click on the grey arrow to the right

Have you checked the segment of AOS on Youtube? Here is a link to that video on the forum: