Original thoughts forum - one rule only (Or how this all started...)

[fccool]

Hmm Tom... I've been reading the same Bible, living in the same house, and married to the same wife for some time now. You are making out consistency to be boring. I don't think it's a fair statement.

On top of that, you are constantly quoting someone. There's no such thing as an original thought. None. Zip. Every "original" thought is built upon previous not so original material. In fact, quoting someone else is how our learning process goes. All of the humans are repeaters, we repeat thought, words, and ideas. Even you do... in this very thread.

Now, we can make a rule against "Cutting and pasting", but why? I don't think any would like to rediscover let's say the Mendelyeyev's table on their own. We need to learn from people who came before.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

But we don't need to copy Mendelyeyev's Table of Elements every time we say the word "oxygen."

[Tom Wetmore]

I think you may being missing the point...

If you believe there are no original thoughts, you live in a rather small and limited world. That seems to me like saying that since there are only 3 primary colors, artists cannot create an original painting, because they are simply recycling old colors that have been used by every artist to have painted a picture before them.

[Tom Wetmore]

Ever conscious of being forced to eat my own words, I seasoned them, cooked them well and savored the delicious irony myself before offering them for consumption of others. :smilewink:

Sometimes it takes a violation of the rule to best understand it.

[Neil D]

Ever conscious of being forced to eat my own words, I seasoned them, cooked them well and savored the delicious irony myself before offering them for consumption of others. :smilewink:

Sometimes it takes a violation of the rule to best understand it.

Those of us, who are...or were ...parents, call this "modeling".....

[Jeannieb43]

This sounds like a fabulous premise on which to build a forum.

I'll enjoy lurking.

[i too have felt cheated when I click on "Active Topics" and find the same old, same old topics being chewed up and hashed over, again and again.]

[Neil D]

This sounds like a fabulous premise on which to build a forum.

I'll enjoy lurking.

What?!?!?!? You lurk??? Sorry, I ain't gonna let that happen, Jeannie.... [smile]

So, let's test this premise....Let's take a subject and prove the points....without quoting EGW or the Bible....

Here's the subject.....

Ellen G White is concidered a prophet where her words may or may not be on par with the bible....Without quoting her or the bible, support your position regarding the level where her words are inspired and answer the questions of whether ALL of her writings are to be on par with the bible or whether SOME of her writings are par level and which ones if the latter...Be prepared to defend yourself as others will question your position and are also NOT allowed to use the bible quotations nor EGW writings...

And Jeannie...put that lawyer mind to work....start us out...[smile]

[Ellen]

The test of EGW's inspiration is to read her literature. I get so incensed with people who know so much about what her writings is Not and having never read more than a line or two here and there.

I have read the conflict series and am reading the testimonies through. I especially recommend volume 9 - I think every Adventist convert should be required to read the last chapters of that book.

Funny thing, the ones who are bothered most about the inspiration of her writings are the ones who don't want to believe them and those of us who have had a spiritual feast from them don't need the external proof.

[Bravus]

Um, I think this is one of those perpetually repeated issues that Tom started this idea to get *away* from: you know, the kind where everyone is nailed hard to their position and just keeps restating it louder and louder forever?

[Neil D]

Yeah, but while they say it "louder and louder", they do so with EGW quotes and hide behind her, and can't formulate a thought without using her words....

I admit to flunking mindreading back in the 3rd grade, and it just fustrates me to no end when someone quotes her, and then doesn't understand why ***I*** don't understand plain english when they quote her....

So, I figgered that they now can say what she meant to say without using her words....

I thought I could finally find out what they were really trying to say...

...Sorry, guys...I was just taken advantage of the situation....If I was wrong, pick another subject....

[Tom Wetmore]

Yep! Been there done that one til I could puke...

Emphasis must be on original... If invested with moderator super-powers of deletion, if I have heard it before, it would be gone in a flash.

Let's consider an original concept like... Let's apply a stochastic process to time theory and see how it might relate to the prophetic gift... History from God's perspective might resemble a fractal.

OK. Do some thinking and see what you might come up with.

You get extra points if you can google your idea and get no hits. Yes, the search - "stochastic process" "time theory" prophecy fractal - gets no hits.

[Bravus]

OK, but we might take it to the new forum (woot!)

[Tom Wetmore]

WOOT!! Yowza, Dude! How do we get this train out of the station?

[LifeHiscost]

Second, I have grown very weary of logging on here and doing my usual check of the active topics only to discover dozens of new( ) posts that have nothing new in them, and new( ) topics that have already been pounded into the ground already, even recently, or multiple topics about the same topic in which the same people are repeating what they posted in the other same topics. 98% of what is posted in some of the seemingly most active topics is a virtual avalanche of post after post of nothing but quotes of previous posts, long collections of EGW quotes, lists of Bible verses, or the same 2 or 3 posters repeating the same things they have said, and what others have already said, for the last 30 pages of the topic, and often the same thing they always say, no matter what the topic. I either have to rapidly skim through to glean for any new thoughts on the topic or give up and move to another topic.

The world already is full of thought control freaks, no offense meant, Tom. I come from the premise every person should be applauded for thinking the way they wish, especially if they are willing to accept personal consequences of their unabashed effort to present truthfulness as they understand it. IMHO only those afraid they will lose control or other coveted power, seek to make sure others only think and say what those who are fearful accept as best, correct and proper.

World wars have ensued directly attributable to one or a few thought control police.

OTOH some of the greatest discoveries of the age have been a result of individuals who wouldn't let others put their thoughts and actions in a straight jacket.

Even your own effort to circumscribe the thoughts of others has the right of freedom to do just that, as it will promote a sense of responsibility in others to reject association with any effort for thought police, unless joining a segment of society searching for elitism that separates the perceived lesser of society.

It's always good to leave to Him Who is able to read the hearts of men, who shall be the tares and who shall be the wheat.

Regards!

[LifeHiscost]

So Tom I guess your the first to go against your own rule!!! hahahahahahahaha

pk

[LifeHiscost]

Ever conscious of being forced to eat my own words, I seasoned them, cooked them well and savored the delicious irony myself before offering them for consumption of others. :smilewink:

Sometimes it takes a violation of the rule to best understand it.

"Every man's way is right in his own eyes...." Proverbs 21:2 NASB

Regards!

[LifeHiscost]

The test of EGW's inspiration is to read her literature. I get so incensed with people who know so much about what her writings is Not and having never read more than a line or two here and there.

I have read the conflict series and am reading the testimonies through. I especially recommend volume 9 - I think every Adventist convert should be required to read the last chapters of that book.

Funny thing, the ones who are bothered most about the inspiration of her writings are the ones who don't want to believe them and those of us who have had a spiritual feast from them don't need the external proof.

And agreed, but then those you refer to would lose the power and control and could only risk putting their arm out of joint by patting themselves on the back.

Regards!

[LifeHiscost]

If invested with moderator super-powers of deletion,

A favorite form of personal power, to weed out the undesirables. Stalin and chairman Mao come to mind.

Respectfully!

[Tom Wetmore]

You seem to have missed the point entirely...

[Woody]

Quote:

The world already is full of thought control freaks, no offense meant, Tom. I come from the premise every person should be applauded for thinking the way they wish, especially if they are willing to accept personal consequences of their unabashed effort to present truthfulness as they understand it. IMHO only those afraid they will lose control or other coveted power, seek to make sure others only think and say what those who are fearful accept as best, correct and proper.

I have found this to be true. But the point of this thread is that those who think they are right and want to control ... are those who quote volumes of EGW ... page after page. If only they could give us an original thought and just a few snippets ... it would spare those of us who reject the EGW mind-readers.

[LifeHiscost]

Point well taken. However it sometimes is those who feel themselves in need of a Higher Power, thus adding lengthy quotes to verify their settled conclusions, that remain consistent in obtaining power for personal useful service for others.

Those who wish not to learn from their source of inspiration need only to refrain from reading their quotes, especially the long and lengthy ones. After all, most of the world (not to mention a great many professed disciples of Christ) practice that with the Word.

"And go, get thee to them of the captivity, unto the children of thy people, and speak unto them, and tell them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear." Ezekiel 3:11 KJV

Regards!

[phkrause]

Yes I see your point, but the problem is that when people have something to say that EGW or even the Bible says, everyone wants the reference's listed. So sometimes you can't get away from lots of quotes!!!!

pk

[Bravus]

Since every other subforum here seems to have a near-terminal case of quote-itis, I don't think it will be any great hardship for those of you who have a problem with it to avoid the single quote free one. Or should it not even exist, in your opinion? And if that's the case, who's doing the thought-controlling?

[LifeHiscost]

Since every other subforum here seems to have a near-terminal case of quote-itis, I don't think it will be any great hardship for those of you who have a problem with it to avoid the single quote free one. Or should it not even exist, in your opinion? And if that's the case, who's doing the thought-controlling?

It appears you've come up with a very viable solution, especially if the 'no quotes, no repeated thoughts forum' is plainly identified at the outset. Although I'm not too sure that will work effectively in the society we live in today, anymore than keeping girls out of the boy scouts proved successful.

Lots of luck.

Regards!

[Lineman]

Well, this is a very interesting concept. There are a few things that have come to mind as I have read this whole thread in one sitting though:

* What if I have not read the same things the moderator has read and he deletes what I have been thinking about for so long and finally come up with "something new" to post?

* What if I read something written by EGW and read it the same way as the moderator even though I have never read it that way before and all of a sudden I see "something new" that the moderator has seen all along?

* This thought was already written in this thread, but what if I want to comment on what someone wrote back about 6 posts? How do I refer to what they were saying? How would anyone know?

* What if my memory is not as good as the moderators and I repeat something I wrote last year? (Maybe I just thought of it again! It's new to me. Happens all the time for me )

* The idea of putting someone elses thoughts into your own words and those thoughts being checked by a piece of software for plagerism seems a little "wrong". It was suggested that we do exactly that very thing, take a thought and reword it using your own words.

* What is old news to you may not be old news to me even if it was written just yesterday. (I don't get much time to read, maybe you do.)

I understand the problem of having to read so much "stuff" just to find the nuggets of real worth because I love to learn and find new and interesting things too and I really don't have much time to dig, but isn't that kind of like panning for gold? Maybe we need to find a better way to "wash out" all the garbage and get to the really "new and interesting" stuff?

The problem seems that each of us would have to have a totally different set of what is "old stuff" so that we would never reread what we have already read. But really, isn't that what God is asking us to do with our brains? Isn't that what "thinking" is? You and I take in information from many different places. Some of us will read one thing and someone else hears the same thing. Another feels something and another smells it, but it's all new to to each of us. Kind of like the three blind men trying to describe an elephant. All of us will come away with a different understanding of what is/was being talked about.

When we get to heaven will we be disappointed if we hear something again that we just learned last Sabbath, or maybe 2,000,000 years before? My memory will not be so bad anymore, so I will know if I have heard it before, so don't ever tell me something I already know. I only want to hear NEW stuff, OK?

(BTW-That brings up an interesting point, how are you going to keep track of what everyone has already heard there?)