waysider

My take-away from the response: They made yet another plea to "sweep it under the carpet" and rolled out the time-worn cliche of Biblical icon equivalence. They really need a fresher approach if they want to engage in serious discussion.

The Way liked to represent itself as replicating a lifestyle from the book of Acts. This is delusional. It's a bit like believing that when you have that General Tso's chicken at the local Chinese restaurant you are eating something that is typically consumed in China.

Oh, sorry. Were we talking about dogs? heh. I mean, they could come to that realization. I just don't see it happening suddenly. For me, it evolved over quite some period of time and took willingness and effort on my part.

Some of them have been doing this stuff for almost 50 years. Realistically, what are the chances they will have a sudden realization they've been hoodwinked??

.I read your post and grasped the point of it. I'm simply answering the question you posed.

Because it requires proving a negative.

Science has not proven there is life after death nor has science proven there is not life after death. I think this might be a more correct mathematical assessment.

Somewhere, deep in the data files of The Way, it would seem there were be information pertaining to this young lady, especially since we know it was a common practice for Wierwille to keep files of personal information on young women. (Birth to Corps, for example) No, I'm not saying Wierwille was involved in this. I'm only saying that there may be information in the files that could prove useful.

Philosophy gave us the questions, science (and religion) gave us the answers.

Thanks for listening, T-Bone. I kinda thought you might like it. Sometimes with a long podcast like that I just listen in multiple short sessions, like reading a book a few chapters at a time. I especially liked his take on "your right to believe what you what to believe.". You cross the line when your beliefs start to have a negative impact on others. It reminds me of how dangerous the *law of believing* can be. Also, his use of the eagle's eyesight as an example of how "the truth" can be relative resonated with me. Keep on thinking and questioning. And, if you don't know the right questions to ask, that's o.k., too. Make your quest, then, about finding the right questions to ask. Well, that's what I took away from it. I think it helped me better understand what defines atheism.

Sorry, I've never heard of this case before. Maybe some data exists at Way HQ, such as Corps sponsorship or class participation, that would offer helpful information.

When I was in junior high school and beginning my journey into the higher levels of mathematics, I found myself completely lost. Oh,teachers would willingly offer to resolve any questions I had. I was so lost, though, that I didn't even know what questions to ask, much less how to articulate them. So, religion and philosophy are a bit like this. Not only about seeking answers but about finding the right questions to ask and learning to voice them. I stumbled on this audio cast recently that addresses this issue. It's quite a bit lengthy and I will understand completely if you pass on it. If you do happen to listen, please don't allow yourself to be intimidated by all the academic references. (I certainly am not familiar with almost all of them.) I don't think that's as important as trying to get a grasp of the total message being presented. I think it's appropriate for the discussion at hand. Your mileage may vary. HERE

We are star dust, billion year old carbon.

HERE ........HERE

The new guy has to buy everyone donuts and coffee.

It wasn't the new people who bought it. The established believers bought it and used it as a witnessing tool. I read it more than once while I was in TWI because I would try to read it at the same time as whoever I was undershepharding and then use it as a springboard to discussion. (I didn't reread it because I was so fascinated with the content.) edit: I wanted to add that it was customary to do this with the class materials, as well. (When your "babe" was in session 3, you read the same collaterals they read so you could discuss them.)

I still have a copy. In fact, I lent it to another poster here a couple of years ago who had never read it before. I have read it more than once but not recently, other than to reference particular sections. When it was first published, almost everyone in the local area bought a copy. Whether they read it more than once, I'm not sure. It wasn't too unusual to lend it out as a witnessing tool.

At one time, there was another session, as well, that dealt with the "unforgivable sin". This session taught that people could supposedly be born again of the seed of the devil. I'm not sure why it was discontinued but I would assume it was too far over-the-edge for most students. I'm not sure where this material came from but I would be willing to bet it didn't originate with Wierwile.

"Opportunity"... Them: "Sounds like you have an opportunity." Me: "No, what I have is a big freakin' problem."

Mike, give me a break. Point of view has nothing to do with it. It's right there in black and white. Did you even look at the comparisons? Wierwille clearly copied that material, almost word for word. Suppose the subject had been farm machinery or furniture repair, would it have been copying then or would that just be a "point of view"?

Sorry, Charley. This really is an accurate account of how it played out. The facts don't change simply because they don't suit your taste.

O.K., but only since you insisted. Wierwille heavily plagiarized other sources. Then, he lied about it and claimed the information he plagiarized hadn't been known for 2,000 years. Clearly it had. Otherwise, he would not have been able to copy it.What he did was unethical, illegal and contrary to how the scriptures suggest a man of the cloth conduct himself. You can dance around that with discussions of polygraphs and plant consciousness and conversations forgotten long ago. None of that in any way changes what actually took place. But, I'm glad you had an enjoyable day.

Well, it did take place in a rural setting so there's that.

I read those posts quite well. Quite frankly, I don't "see it". All I saw was your personal opinion, with which I happen to disagree. Plagiarism is wrong and it's illegal. Wierwille knowingly plagiarized multiple sources. What he did was both wrong and illegal. His motive is not relevant to that particular fact.