So_crates

Really? So if there is a verse out there saying it was okay to steal anothers work where is it? Why hasn't Saint Vic presented it? He's presented his rationalizations for his sexual misconduct, but somehow he missed where it says thou shalt steal in the bible. First off, your presenting a Middle Eastern custom as a rationalization for stealing. That's like saying because they cut off theives hands in some parts of the world it's okay for us to cut off theives hands here. Guess what? We're not in the Middle East and our custom is a man has the right to the benefits of his work, hence patent and copyright laws. I want to see where it says in the bible "line by line and word by word" thou shalt steal. Meanwhile, you've said Saint Vic is guilt in the courts of men. Well, as presented on the previous page and once again you chose to ignore, "line by line and word by word": So what of Roman 13:2: So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow. Couple that with I Peter 2:13: Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; As you can see, God expects us to respect the laws of our land, including copyrights and plagerism. Discuss

You want cringeworthy? "The Word, the Word, and nothing but the Word." "We have no friends when it comes to the Word" In both instances the Word is not the bible, but whatever Saint Vic says.

If Saint Vic were alive he'd probably plagerize O'Reilly's Killing Jesus, claiming it as his own.

I find it no end of interesting that a class, supposedly built on bibical principles, has not one bible verse explaining what gives Saint Vic the right to steal others work.

Little convenient, don't you think? The only way, in your mind, to prove something is to come back to it. Why don't we do this with everything? The only way to prove fire burns is to come back to it and get burned again. ------- Purity. What purity does a stolen class have? It's tainted from the moment Saint Vic stole it. -------- Oh, and here's an oldie but a goody. Ignore the errors (which would point to the fact that its not God-breathe) -------- Bless me? The only reason it blessed me was because I lied to myself, buying into that pantload. Believing equals recieving. Sure. Unlike you I've used scientific method and found this to be a lie. We are of the body. Sure. As long as we're putting cash in the horn of plenty. Mike said: It seems no one here has the ability to "think through" thoroughly what it means for God to give a revelation to men and expect them to share it. In man's courts - guilty In God's Higher Court - NOT guilty Until you rise up and see it from a greater height you will always be stuck. I could care less about plagiarism guilt in man's court. If I were find myself in such a court I would be wise to change my tune as much as possible. This forum is not such a court so go ahead and proclaim guilt in all its triviality. God's attitude will prevail. So essentially your saying God is giving us a license to steal. All we have to do is claim God gave us the revelation to do it So what of Roman 13:2: So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow. Couple that with I Peter 2:13: Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Is plagerism a law of the land? You just admitted it was.

Oh, I get it all too well. Your telling us I don't want to prove anything because I can't. Your telling us to think it through, yet you haven't thought it through. If you thought it through, please answer the question, why is it acceptable to steal in one realm, but not in the other. We've all seen the purity of PLAF, the purity of how it was stolen from BG Leonard. And you expect us to take your word, right? Remember, you claimed Saint Vic didn't steal anyones work because God owns all intellectual property. When I claimed that God also owned everything on earth, you denied it. I showed you a verse in Psalms that said that very thing and asked does that make it okay to rob someone or steal a car? You said that's silly. So I asked you why is it okay to steal in one realm and not the other? Then you produce this obscure Kenyon quote. When I presented another quote from Psalms saaying God has given us everything on earth and asked that you answer the same question you got all huffy and started demanding I drop out of the debate. So you can see why I'm hesitant about accepting your word... Yah, we should believe Saint Vic. The guy who saw snow on gas pumps on a sunny day. Snow that was never reported in the newspapers. The guy who claimed he gat a call about a non-existant blizzard, so he would lay over to meet someone. When someone caught him in his deception, he shifted to well it must have been an angel that called me. The guy who claimed he invented the hook shot and fast food The guy who would have accused his victims of being possessed by devil spirits if the told their stories. The guy who word-for-word stole others works. Very credible source you have there /sarc

This is like me telling you if you don't want to accept the ground rules of evil Saint Vic stealing others work, then bow out of the debate. I would never do that. You know why? It would be conceding. It would be saying, I can't address the points he's making. I have just as much right to present an alternate viewpoint as you do. And I will continue to do so. What's wrong? I'm making headway so you have to silence me? See the above post. A copy of an earlier post. Let's see how many more trivialities we can find in the 5-senses realm. Rape...that's in the 5-senses realm, do you think that's trivial? Abuse..that's in the 5-senses realm, do you think that's trivial? PLAF...that's in the 5-senses realm, do you think that's trivial? The bible.. that's in the 5-senses realm, do you think that's trivial? Saint Vic..,he was in the 5-senses realm, do tou think he was trivial? Now that we've established that things in the 5-senses realm aren't so trivial, we're back to the original question: If God owns his word, which makes it okay to steal others work, and God owns everything in the earth, then why is it okay to steal in one realm, but not the other? (I'll add the earth we'll all inherit and Psalms 115:16, as you seem to love moving goal posts)

Not all, I never betrayed anyone. So, your excuse falls flat right there. Once again, you go over ground covered pages back, you forgive a thef for robbing your house, but that doesn't mean you leave the front door open. Many a murder has been forgiven by the victim's family, but they went to jail all the same.

God also told us everything on earth is ours (the meek shall inherit the earth, remember?). And just to cement the idea further, Psalms 115:16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD'S: but the earth hath he given to the children of men. Again, does this give us the right to steal? We've already went through this several pages back, remember? You never bothered to answer the question: If God owns his word, which makes it okay to steal others work, and God owns everything in the earth, then why is it okay to steal in one realm, but not the other? (I'll add the earth we'll all inherit and Psalms 115:16, as you seem to love moving goal posts)

And the writings were a transcription of the class. Which, once again, was stolen from someone else.

To continue your war metaphor, many of those leaders are experiencing bitterness because they were spys working for the enemy. Many were a disgrace to their uniform. Many committed treason by betraying their comrades in arms. But, heck, let's forget about that, after all we still have the ideology that made it all possible, right?

So essentially, if we were to buy your argument, the only thing that went right in the ministry was a class Saint Vic stole from someone else down to Johnny Jumpup, Maggie Muggins, and Snowball Pete (he couldn't even make up his own fictional names).

I think I'm getting a bead on the crux of the whole stealing others work difficulty for Mike When people here at GS reference plagerism, Mike, they are NOT, repeat NOT, refering to themes. Romeo And Juliet and West Side Story have the same theme. Every yuletide some sitcom does a variation of the A Christmas Carol theme. Themes are not copyrighted and fair game for anyone wanting to use them. However, where Saint Vic went off the rails was by copying other peoples work word-for-word. Those words are copyrighted and it is plagerism. I've seen side by sides of others and Saint Vic's works. Someone would write sentences ABCD and Saint Vic would write exactly the same sentences BDAC. If he had put the themes in his own words there would be no problem, but no00000000!, he had to steal the work word-for-word. Think about it, if he had cited those works, word-for-word, he had stolen, he may have gained even more street cred as the person who put it all together. But, mores the pity, it was more important to steal other words.

All research. Your the one claiming there's no scientific method, therefore its all superstion. Perhaps you don't understand what stepping away from scientific method, logic and reason, implies.

So essentially your telling me all Saint Vic's research is bull. After all, if there's no scientific method, then all you have is superstition. Without scientific method, every statement is just as valid as every other statement, as you never have to prove anything. Believing equals recieving is just as valid as Saint Vic is a Keebler elf So tell me, if all you have is superstition, what gives any validity to Saint Vic's claims? God spoke through him? Sorry, that's superstition, too. Reminds me of a Tick quote: So your telling me all those people whose work he stole were grad students? And he was the college professor? First off, college professors cite their sources, he didn't. Second, any college freshman can tell you what the penalty for stealing someones work and claiming it as your own is. You either got an F in the course or you resigned your tenure.

You mean obtain someone elses work to steal or tell the research department what he believes to passage means and it was the research departments job to find the verses to back it up. Both fly in the face of any manner of scientific method.

All this describes divine dictation. What difference does it make whether it was dictated directly or a recorded sermon? As you said, Saint Vic supervised every step. Was the Christ in him asleep at the switch when he read the glaring errors in PLAF and ignored him? I thought he operated all nine all the time.

Clutter up the book? Give me a break. Do you know MLA? It all goes in the back of the book, organized by authors name. Parenthetical prompts, in the text, such as (SO_CRATES 2018), refer you to the back of the book. So were all this clutter your talking about? You mean, back then people were unable to skip over parenthesis? That's a new one. "Back in my day, people didn't want to cite sources of information because they didn't know how to skip over parenthesis." Nobody has to read them if the don't want to. I've read secular, non-scholarly books that use MLA.

On the contrary, Saint Vic wanted to appear uber-intellectual. Why else insist everyone refer to him as "Doctor"?

And what's wrong with doing them the conventional academic way? You know, the way every higher learning student is versed their freshman year? You know MLA?

It's supposed to be an explaination from the horse's mouth of how Saint Vic cites his source via a SNS tape transcript from 1965, specifically an excerpt from SNS Tape #214 Selling Plurality: Acts 4:34 (sometimes called "Light Began to Dawn").

Both are critical questions, T-Bone. Considering the chair stringing and cleaning made us detail minded, how does a detail minded person let and other error than a typo slip into a body of work so vital as something God-breathe? Then, if we accept the PLAF collaterals are God-breathe, then them being transcribed means it went from God's mouth to Saint Vic's ear, from Saint Vic's mouth to the transcriptionist's ear, then onto paper. So were is the room for glaring errors in PLAF? And if it was Saint Vic's misunderstanding, then he's not very good at recieving revelation. Which leads one to ask, how many other revelations has he misunderstood?

A search of the forum ("pikes peak" and "research geek") turned up only your reference. Unlike Saint Vic, I got my B.A. the hard way, by taking five years out of my life. And not at a diploma mill, at Purdue University

Your error here is that, if we follow the ministry's model, God did not say "Ship it!" to Paul when Paul wrote Ephesians. The ministry model would claim that Paul's copy of Ephesians was perfect, as God is perfect, and that was the goal the ministry was attempting to arrive at (or as close as possible to that original version, again "when holy men of God spoke moved by the Holy Ghost." Remember the part in the class where Saint Vic said Moses didn't sit down and write, In the beginning, yah that sounds good? According to Saint Vic, God's spirit moved Moses spirit which guided Moses Hand. Now, how did people so obsessed with stringing chairs and making sure every object at HQ was cleaned within an inch of its life allow errors to creep in? Typos, okay. But, again, the collaterals were transcribed. How many mistakes do you think court reporters make in their transcriptions? And if Saint Vic is that bad at recieving revelation why should we trust any of his revelations?