Raf

I've read several critical pieces against Fred Price. I think if he had taken PFAL or been associated with TWI in any other way, these articles/pamphlets (which were not friendly to Price) would have exploited the connection. That's not airtight proof, but it's worth notning at the least.

That was my instinct, too, alfakat. I don't know Fred Price, except that he's a believingequalsreceiving word-faith type of preacher. I don't know nearly enough about him to say with certainty that he would NOT teach from a book written by (ha!) a man Price would consider a Godless Christ-denier. It just strikes me as unlikely. WB, were you reading along in JCOPS? If not, Wierwille and Price could have been relying on the same source, which would account for the similarities you observed.

WTH: These things that the plagiarism accusers have allegedly ignored have been discussed and debated countless times here on GS Cafe. That you would bring them up again shows that you haven't the slightest idea what plagiarism is, nor have you given us the courtesy of reading our responses before arrogantly dismissing us as "idiots." For the record, if I plagiarize, and later tell you I plagiarized, that doesn't absolve the plagiarism. Second, if I plagiarize, and later tell you that I used other sources in developing my paper, that doesn't absolve the plagiarism. Third, plagiarism and using sources are NOT synonymous. We all have a PFAL background, but very few of us have committed plagiarism. For example, I do not believe someone who is genuinely speaking in tongues will curse God, and I reject the account someone once presented to me (that a Way believer had spoken in an "evil tongue"). I don't think that's Biblically accurate. I have now expressed the same basic thought as Wierwille did in Question 8 in the frequently asked questions chapter of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today. However, I have not committed plagiarism. Wierwille, asking and answering the same question, committed arguably his most flagrant act of plagiarism, as the question and answer are lifted almost word-for-word from JE Stiles, WHOM HE DOES NOT ACKNOWLEDGE IN THE BOOK. That's the difference between plagiarism and expressing the same idea. So do me a favor, before you call me and others who agree with me "idiots," at least make sure that you are not, in the process, establishing your own claim to the title.

Research Geek's Top Ten List. Consider it interesting reading, teknon. Raf

Oops. thanks for the correction.

You don't have to be silent at all.

I'm with Goey on this, to an extent. I'd need to refresh my memory about exactly what was said and/or written. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 11, 2004 at 16:39.]

Ah, but Oldies, we can't control what anyone else does. That's the point. You can only control what YOU do. So I ask again, are you really game?

Don't get me wrong, oldies. You're free to talk about him all you want. I'm just getting tired of it myself.

Are you really game? Are you game enough that when someone says something about him, you're not going to jump in and say, "well, some of the women were willing." Are you really game?

Oldies, The answer to your question is irrelevant to my point. It distracts, and I'd rather stay on point: You DO dismiss the evil. You say you don't, but to even hear it causes you to spring to VPW's defense, every time. You have to accuse people of blindness if they don't agree with you. Where does that come from? Yes, Jesus Christ paid the price for my blessings. You are correct. And VPW took advantage of those Christ-purchased blessings to figuratively fleece and literally f* the flock. The Bible tells us to watch out for people like that. It does not tell us to compare the number of times they resisted temptation to the number of times they succumbed. It tells us to avoid these people, not to debate their legacies. What was it VPW said: Small minds talk about people, great minds about God's Word? There's a piece of advice I'll take from him. But enough of him, already, far as I'm concerned.

It's disingenuous to say we're comparing Hitler and Dahmer to VPW. What we're doing, oldiesman, is critiquing the validity of your defense of VPW in this regard. The point is, you can't dismiss the evil for the good. It doesn't work that way. I don't think VPW is the worst of the worst. In fact, if not for this board, I wouldn't think much of him at all. He is not a part of my life. But when I see people trying disingenuous defenses, like we're supposed to revere him or think the earth moved under his feet and the sky tumbling down whenever he walked, well, that's when I have to have a tad more sympathy for the women he used as receptacles than I have for his precious legacy.

No, Oldies, Wierwille wasn't a cannibal. But here's the consensus (others feel more strongly, but most agree on the following)... He committed serial acts of adultery and justified it with a tainted interpretation of scripture. He slandered and expelled those who confronted him. He pretended to write things he did not write. He pretended to research things he did not research. He pretended God intervened in his life via two snowstorms, at least one of which most definitely did not happen (most feel neither happened, but in deference to the miniscule possibilities raised by others, I'll decline from insisting on this point). He did this in order to claim some kind of supernatural stamp of approval on his ministry, and since at least one of those did not happen, we are obliged to question his integrity on the matter. And that's without even MENTIONING money. These were not things he did in his private life. THESE ARE THINGS HE DID IN HIS MINISTRY, IN GOD'S NAME. Those are the consensus points. So did he ever pray? Sure he did. Did he lead people to Christ? Of course he did. But are we supposed to ignore the harm he did to God's people? Not on your life. Oldies, why is it so important NOT to remember the harm done by a cult leader who used (usurped?) his position in the body of Christ to harm people? Why is it so important NOT to hold him up as a warning to others? Because in SPITE of whatever good he did (and he did do some good), Victor Paul Wierwille has a badly tainted legacy. I'm sorry, but when you twist God's Word to your own lascivious ends, you don't get a "Get out of bad memories free" card. You get the legacy you earn. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 11, 2004 at 13:18.]

I'm sure Jeffrey Dahmer once gave money to a homeless guy. And I know for a fact that he resisted the temptation to eat people far more often than he succumbed to it, so we should really weigh his life in that perspective. Yet somehow, that doesn't seem to matter to people who insist on calling him a serial killing cannibal. I don't get it.

Be happy to help in any way. rafael@livingepistlessociety.org

See if this works. Zix, I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't change my avatar.

Paw! Ask him for a copy! Let's all chip in for the rights. We could post the thing here.

Mr. Lingo: Koestler's conclusions were plain old-fashioned wrong. I'm not saying anti-Semitic. I'm saying factually incorrect. Modern Jews were not descended from the Khazars, and Yiddish is not the Khazar language written with Hebrew letters. This factor ALONE disqualifies Wierwille's works as "the God-breathed Word." Wierwille's stuff is interesting, and sometimes quite valuable. But to stake your life on it (I'm not saying you would) takes a healthy dose of idolatry mixed in with closed-mindedness masquerading as steadfastness. Not that I'm making accusations, mind you. Just an observation.

Hi everyone! Sorry I've been away from these discussions so long. Have I missed anything? Hi CoolWaters! God Bless You.

The speculation that the former and disgraced president of the Way now lives in a home owned by TWI is fair game. A photo of said home with enough information to identify its location is not fair game. This is my opinion. Official positions may vary.

Literally. In the opening scene of ROTK, I could not tell when they started using the CGI Gollum on screen.

Bernard Hill was outstanding. Come to think of it, Sean Bean got robbed in FOTR, and Andy Serkis was robbed in both sequels (I use the term loosely).

Spoiler below: Highlight with the mouse if you want to read it, but it discusses details of the movie that you won't want to know before you see it... I guess you're right. But then, I figured out the ending to the Sixth Sense about 30 minutes into the movie. As for Mystic River, the moment the mute showed up in the grocery store, my date and I looked at each other and nodded as if to say "He did it." Then, as the movie progressed, it seemed that he did it to keep his brother from running off with the girl. Later we find that wasn't the motive, so we got the motive wrong but we got the killer right. I loved what they did with Tim Robbins character, because I never felt that he was guilty, but I was dying to know how he got those cuts.

It's not funny. I mean, I'm listening to it, and it's not funny. Not even slightly. If Mel Brooks, Woody Allen and the ZAZ team all deconstructed and rewrote it, it still wouldn't be funny. At all. But hey, to each his own.

I didn't realize that she won the Golden Globe award for Best Actress by the time I posted that message. She was so deserving.