Thou Shalt Not Repeat Others ??

In this thread all those who criticize the "regurgitating" of effective words that you heard from others, can explain why in principle, it should not be done.

Luther taught some things.
Why is it a no-no to repeat them?

Calvin taught some things.
Why is it a no-no that they be "regurgitated" ?

Watchman Nee said some effective things.
So what, that I repeat them here embedded in lots of my own words too?

Is ORIGINALITY a REQUIREMENT to discuss Spirituality ?

All the "Regurgitation Police" of this Forum can explain to us all why useful words from the wisdom and experience of other Christians is forbidden to repeat on this Forum.

FMF, you take the first crack.

The Apostle Paul -

"The things which you have also learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things; and the God of peace shall be with you." (Philippians 4:9)

Ie. paraphrase - "Learn from me and my success in the Christian life. Regurgitate my teachings if necessary. "

Once again - learn from the successful and pass these things to others who in turn may ALSO be competent to pass them to still others.

"And the things which you have heard from me through many witnesses, these commit to faithful men, who will be competent to teach others also. " (2 Tim. 2:2)

The Regurgitation Police of the Forum may now explain why we should not repeat the effective utterances of more experienced Christian teachers who have gone before, or any spiritual teachers for that matter. ( See Buddhist threads )

It is noted that we have someone quoting Buddhist masters in the thread called simply .... I see no complaint there that too much regurgitation is taking place.

@sonship said
Once again - learn from the successful and pass these things to others who in turn may ALSO be competent to pass them to still others.

"And the things which you have heard from me through many witnesses, these commit to faithful men, who will be competent to teach others also. " (2 Tim. 2:2)

The Regurgitation Police of the Forum may now exp ...[text shortened]... ad called simply .... I see no complaint there that too much regurgitation is taking place.

Can you clarify if you mean regurgitating stuff verbatim without crediting the source? (As in plagiarism). In the Buddhist thread, for example, all the poems have the authors referenced at the end.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

You're a good boy Ghost. We can count on you to run ahead of FMF and clear the way for him, giving him some time to collect his critical thoughts.

When I quote I quote usually and show you where you can go to read more.

Everytime some Evo talks about Darwinism I don't demand credit to be sighted.

Everytime some skeptic copies Richard Dawkins about God being an unpleasant unjust fellow, I don't demand page and paragraph to be sighted.

Every time somebody spouts off about the multiverse or quantum physics I don't insist they indicate who they are deriving such concepts from whether Stephen Hawking or Sean Carroll or of Lawrence Krauss, or whoever.

Every time somebody levels charges of God in the Old Testament not being fair to women, I don't insist they site which Feminist theologian they unearthed these criticisms from.

Everytime some Atheist says they "lack belief in God" I don't require them to give credit to which atheist first coined that expression.

Should I begin to ?
Like me, I figure that to let others know WHERE they can go to read more if their interested, calls for credit to be indicated.

Fair use and free reference to concepts is okay with me.

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

You're a good boy Ghost. We can count on you to run ahead of FMF and clear the way for him, giving him some time collect his critical thoughts.

When I quote I quote usually and show you where you can go to read more.

Everytime some Evo talks about Darwinism I don't demand credit to be sighted.

Everytime some skeptic copies Richard Dawkins about G ...[text shortened]... sted, calls for credit to be indicated.

Fair use and free reference to concepts is okay with me.

Pretty much everyone else cites their source, hence there being no reason for you to request it.

With you, it's more sporadic.

'Many people think of plagiarism as copying another's work or borrowing someone else's original ideas. But terms like "copying" and "borrowing" can disguise the seriousness of the offense:

According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, to "plagiarize" means:
to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
to use (another's production) without crediting the source
to commit literary theft
to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward.

But can words and ideas really be stolen?
According to U.S. law, the answer is yes. The expression of original ideas is considered intellectual property and is protected by copyright laws, just like original inventions. Almost all forms of expression fall under copyright protection as long as they are recorded in some way (such as a book or a computer file).

All of the following are considered plagiarism:
turning in someone else's work as your own
copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules)
Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source is usually enough to prevent plagiarism. See our section on citation for more information on how to cite sources properly.'


www.plagiarism.org/article/what-is-plagiarism

How much do I QUOTE ... the Bible ?

A little?
Or a lot?

That's my ultimate source.

How much do you see me put the Bible in quotations with references to WHERE you can locate that passage ? a little or so much that most unbelievers here get weary of reading the quotes?

Ie.

.. the last Adam became a life giving Spirit. (1 Cor. 15:45b)

Have you seen me do something like this a few times over the last ten years ?

Look, When I want to be original I go and practice my hobby of composing music or writing a song.

I have no vested interest whatsoever in you or anyone here thinking I am SO original to explain various aspects of the Christian Gospel.

I do promote some explanations of some Christians like Watchman Nee or Witness Lee. It may seem to some that I am doing so for their own sake. I may be promoting and encouraging people to be familiar with these concepts. But it is not for their own sake. It is because in this day and time they have proven to be very useful in spiritual progress.

I'm not making a nickel on anything I write here.
And I don't care if some other pursuer of the spiritual truths can boast - "Look at me. I can be original ! "

@ghost-of-a-duke said
'Many people think of plagiarism as copying another's work or borrowing someone else's original ideas. But terms like "copying" and "borrowing" can disguise the seriousness of the offense:

According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, to "plagiarize" means:
to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
to use (another's production) with ...[text shortened]... ore information on how to cite sources properly.'


www.plagiarism.org/article/what-is-plagiarism

That about sums it up, except I can't think of one poster that necessarily has violated those rules to the extent they should be labeled a plagiarist.

Galveston, if you're reading - I think it is good that believers in God go from door to door to tell others.

I don't believe though that it is good to go door to door and preach "another Jesus" or wrong New Testament teachings.

I don't fault the JWs for going from door to door.
I do fault them for spreading false teachings about Jesus - ie. like He is the angel Michael.

As a side comment.

@sonship said
In this thread all those who criticize the "regurgitating" of effective words that you heard from others, can explain why in principle, it should not be done.

Luther taught some things.
Why is it a no-no to repeat them?

Calvin taught some things.
Why is it a no-no that they be "regurgitated" ?

Watchman Nee said some effective things.
So what, that I repeat them h ...[text shortened]... rase - "Learn from me and my success in the Christian life. Regurgitate my teachings if necessary. "

Why not post links to the Witness Lee and Watchman Nee stuff so people can go and look at it if they are interested. It's not as if they are your ideas. Then you could have real conversations with people here. You are a poor teacher: too dull and vain and semi-detached. You seem to take some kind of pleasure in not knowing who anyone is, what they have posted, what gender they are, or how to spell their names.

Thou shalt give proper attribution for all quotes, as thou dost with Bible verses.

It's an integrity thing.

@FMF

Why not post links to the Witness Lee and Watchman Nee stuff so people can go and look at it if they are interested.

I do that too.
And I post YouTubes.

It's not as if they are your ideas.

Incorrect. They ARE my ideas as I also see them in the Bible.
They are often EXPRESSED better by those with more experience and with more insight.

I do not usually post spiritual concepts which are not ALSO .. MY thoughts.

Others often EXPRESS them more effectively, IMO.
But nice try.

Then you could have real conversations with people here.

I have conversations here with people I think is worth the time and effort to converse with.

There are few people on a list of those to whom I NEVER respond to in a conversational way. And you're not on that list.

I don't go out of my way to repeat debates had with you in years past.

There is no requirement that you engage the SAME debater ad infinitum here. Proper use of this Forum is not defined by perpetual argument with you. Grasp it.

You are a poor teacher: too dull and vain and semi-detached.

Probably so said Judas Iscariot about Jesus.

Large deal!

You seem to take some kind of pleasure in not knowing who anyone is, what they have posted, what gender they are, or how to spell their names.

You may yet grasp SOME flimsy straws there at the bottom of your barrel. Keep scraping.

@sonship said
@FMF

Why not post links to the Witness Lee and Watchman Nee stuff so people can go and look at it if they are interested.

I do that too.
And I post YouTubes.

It's not as if they are your ideas.

Incorrect. They ARE my ideas as I also see them in the Bible.
They are often EXPRESSED better by those with more experience and ...[text shortened]... ]

You may yet grasp SOME flimsy straws there at the bottom of your barrel. Keep scraping.

It really isn't complicated sonship. 'Use someone else's words, give them the nod.'

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

You're a good boy Ghost. We can count on you to run ahead of FMF and clear the way for him, giving him some time to collect his critical thoughts.

When I quote I quote usually and show you where you can go to read more.

Everytime some Evo talks about Darwinism I don't demand credit to be sighted.

Everytime some skeptic copies Richard Dawkins abou ...[text shortened]... sted, calls for credit to be indicated.

Fair use and free reference to concepts is okay with me.

Because there is a difference between talking about a concept someone pioneered and actually quoting them.

@sonship said
In this thread all those who criticize the "regurgitating" of effective words that you heard from others, can explain why in principle, it should not be done.

You forgot to say “without citing the source” “crediting the author” or generally “ripping off someone else’s intellectual property and passing it of as my own”