Wouldn't it be refreshing to see a forum that had but one rule - Every post must be the original thoughts of the poster, nothing more, nothing less. That would mean that no post could contain any quoted or paraphrased material from any source or other person, and one wouldn't be able to repeat even themselves.

(Stan, that would conserve bandwidth, in a major way.)

Sure would, 'cause few people would be able to post.

If one is to have an online conversation with more than one person, readers need to know to which comment you are responding. The easiest way is to quote a segment. Granted, quoting can be way overdone, especially by some who like to pick apart a paragraph, but in the long run it is useful and lessens the "What is he talking about?" puzzle.

Just MHO,

LynnDel

That means no quoting from the Bible or EGW either.

I predict such a forum would last...oh, perhaps five minutes...

aldona

HEY TOM WETMORE

WHAT is the old saying here "good in theory but hard to
put in practice"

dgrimm60

I dunno - I reckon it's worth a bash as a subforum here. I take your broader point, Tom, and I do think quoting - both of other posters and of external material including the Bible, EGW and various articles from magazines and such - has been abused to some extent.

I think if you're going to have forums with serious Bible study it's sometimes necessary to quote a verse or two that you're studying, but we can assume everyone here has a Bible (or access to Bible Gateway) and can look up texts it we just give the references.

The quotes I object to most is the use of quotations as a weapon...

But I dunno Stan - what say you to the idea of a new 'Original Thoughts' subforum?

It does sound like it would be worth a try - go for it. What would be the punishment if someone breaks the rule? And how picky would that rule be? Would we need a code of law that identifies what a quote is and isn't?

LynnDel

Didn't someone say?....There is nothing new under the sun.

That being the case...IMO, it would be nearly impossible to have an original thought.

It does provoke curious interest so perhaps Tom can give an illustration. Can you, Tom?

Proper reference to someone elses material is a natural form of sharing knowledge. No man is an island. Today's innovative gadget is a result of someone elses curiosity and research in the past.

DB

Can I quote you on this? OR is that against the rules?

I do understand your point. Sometimes I see such volumes of quotes. And often times they have nothing to do with the subject.

What about other subsection.... where people can only speak using quotes of other people? Or only use 3 words and have to complete sentence that other start? Kind of like "Who's line is it anyway?".

We had a 'five words' thread on another forum I participate in, and that was fun.

fccool, that 3 words idea sounds like a good idea for a thread, but not a whole forum.

An original thought doesn't have to be something no one else has ever thought of before. It just has to be something we've never heard or read somewhere, the result of long (or not so long) thought on some matter that interests us, or that we are wondering about. It can make for a very good discussion, if someone else is interested in the same ideas. Personally, I have trouble finding anyone interested in discussing most of the things I wonder and think about.

Actually an original thoughts would would be interesting..


Tom, would you be interested in being the moderator?

"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."
Ecclesiastes 1:9 NIV

Good thought, ChildofChrist, and you wouldn't have been able to include that if participating in Tom's forum thread. Nor would I have been able to refer to your thought. In fact to follow that one rule would be like the next post I'm submitting to Tom of which no one else would be able to duplicate since it came from my thought first.
Regards!

The reply was blank and wouldn't post so I'm assuming somebody already tried to post that thought.

Nup. Neither of you read the one rule. It was 'no quoting'. It was *not* 'thoughts that have never been voiced in the history of the world ever'.

I like that idea of having a 3-word or 5-word thread. Challenging conciseness is always good for the brain.

Or maybe, to flex the idea of a no-quote thread, you could only quote a maximum of five words from someone else in your entire post. Instead of a NaNoWriMo* project, we would have a FiveQuoNoMo thread or forum.

LynnDel

*National Novel Writing Month that happens every November.

The title of this would then be called 'snippets' which at one point on this forum was a bad name.

It would be refreshing to see this.. not "I will let EGW explain to you what I think" (and I remain a fan of EGW) or "I will let me Church explain to you what I believe"

Just my thoughts

Here are some of my thoughts on the why of the matter and what prompted this idea, even though I suspect by comments here so far that my reasons are fairly obvious.

First, you have to understand something about me. I really like new and novel ideas and thoughts. I like new experiences, making new discoveries, learning and expanding the world between my ears. I seldom like to reread a book or repeat watching a movie, unless it is really, really good and I think I have forgotten much of it. I also don't like to have to repeat myself.

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.

Would you buy a book or magazine or watch a movie that showed that utter lack of creativity or originality? Do you like hearing the same sermon at church, week after week? Do you like to have conversations with people that repeat the same old stories and jokes, or that repeat everything everyone else is saying?

So, um, Tom....you are asking us to ....THINK?

....and not hide behind the skirts of EGW....???


You realize that that thread wouldn't have much in it, don'tcha?

How do you expect to maintain bandwidth here????


[/tic]

Yep! Those who cannot think for themselves and express their own thoughts need not attend this gathering.

Imagine actually having to think! It's a think tank sort of thing.

As for being a place with not much in it... Hmmmmm, my point is that at least you wouldn't have to waste time wading through thousands of words to discover there is nothing here.

Silence is an opportunity to think. If people think, they might actually have something signifcant to say when they do break silence.

Good Suggestion Tom.

I think this idea will make this a much better place to visit.

Here is what I would envision for this sort of forum.

When I say no quotes or repeating, there would be no exceptions.

One would hope that participants would understand the premise so there would need to be little moderator enforcement. But, the moderation would be simple. Quotes and repeated thoughts would be deleted. Added topics covering the same ground as one already started would be deleted.

Teachers know of and use software to detect plagerism, including bad attempts at paraphrasing published works. That sort of thing could be helpful.


As for nothing new under the sun... Oh, really!?!? I wonder if Solomon if he came to life today would offer the same bit of wisdom? Even Rip Van Winkle discovered that things had changed during his 20 year sleep. You see, we let these quips and sayings flow forth without really thinking about them.

Which brings me to how it would be refreshing to use old ideas. Come up with a new way of saying things you've heard before. Think and speak creatively. Say it in your own words with maybe even some value added. But it is going to have to pass the most aggressive plagerism filter. Do you like that quote from EGW? Figure out a way of expressing the idea she conveyed in 21st century English and applications that fit a contemporary context.

For example, take the familar EGW quote, "to be thinkers, and not mere reflectors of other men's thought." Isn't that what I have been saying? No real need to repeat it.

Or a less familiar EGW quote:



Yep, in other words I said that already...

Carry on!

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


pk

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Original thoughts!!! Wow, lets do it, looking forward to new explorations!!!

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.]

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

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...

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.

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?

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....

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.

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

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

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!

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

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!

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

You seem to have missed the point entirely...

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.

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!

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

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!

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?)

It is good to know you are thinking about this as evidenced by the questions you have raised.

The idea is a work in progress. While a bit of hyperbole may have been used here to make the point, in practice applying common sense to the concept will be helpful.

The biggest bugaboo to be avoided on the original thoughts forum is primarily twofold: 1.) no cutting and pasting from another source to make a point; and 2.) within the context of the immediate thread itself, no cutting and pasting from another post, either as an unedited block of the whole former post or chopping it up dissecting it and feeding it back bit by bit.

The objective of the second point is to force the writer to think about it enough to connect the prior thought to his own new added thought in a more conversational or normal writing format that flows more naturally. That might involve a simple reference back by a word or two or simply picking up the train of thought. In normal conversation it would be very annoying to have everyone repeat everything or substantial portions of what had just been said previously before making their own point. The dissecting cut and paste approach easily devolves into an argument.

A huge objective of the new thoughts forum is to add something of value to what has already been said not to reduce, rip apart and destroy what others say as is so typical in an argument. Consider it a building process with each person bringing their own bricks to add to the whole discussion as apposed to a demolition project where everyone comes armed with sledge hammers and crowbars to pry apart and smash everyone else's thoughts in order build on the resulting rubble of their defeated opponent. The hope is that it becomes a cooperative process rather than a competitive one. That builds friendship and camaraderie. Argument and debate tends to drive people apart and destroy friendships.

The first point above is simply that cutting and pasting is lazy and seldom requires much real personal thought of the poster. They are just regurgitating someone else's idea. Leaving a short reference or link is enough to allow the really interested person to go read for themselves. If someone else's idea conveys what you are really thinking, try to put it in your own words.

While my initial thoughts suggested avoiding any paraphrasing, what I meant was that it needs to be enough to pass a typical academic plagiarizing filter. Simply rearranging a few words or changing a couple phrases so that it is technically not a direct quote is not acceptable. But taking the idea, completely putting it in your own words, editing, rearranging order, etc., with some additional thoughts or points makes it new and fresh and your own work product. It is like a basic premise of copyright law. Ideas are not copyrighted, the expression of them is. Doing a real and allowable paraphrase requires you to really think about what was originally said to be able to convey the idea in a new way. Ask Jerry Thomas. To do it well is not easy.


Tom

I think the one main rule should be like you said above, we should bring our own thoughts (bricks) to build on rather than to destroy what has been said.

Seems to me that if someone has said something "smart" and has already worded it very well, as you have done above, maybe we should not try to reword or restate it? But I do like the idea of adding to what has been said.

When a group of people set out to build something usually they have a plan as to what they want to create. Do you see our adding one "brick" onto another as building something that is actually good for us or only something different?

I don't see it as just something different. I see real benefit in a more constructive process of exploring ideas. Being a critic is a easy task. Some would like to think that offering critical analysis would encourage the other person to rethink and maybe reconsider what they say and come back with a better idea or even change their mind. But I seldom, if ever, see that happening here. Argument simply boxes others into a defensive posture where they stubbornly dig in their heels and maintain the same point of view and calcifies their resolve against seeing things any other way.

But it requires actual thinking to take an idea and build on it, expand it and add value in a constructive way. It is the thinking that I want people to do. So much of what gets posted strikes me as having engaged a minimal amount of brain power.

It's like a think tank or a true out-of-the-box brainstorming session. If you have ever participated in such a creative process of coming up with something new where no idea is too far-fetched to put on the table and no idea gets shot down. The ideas start to fly thick and fast. At some point, a really great idea stands out, head and shoulders above the rest. But the rest are still on the table with out bruises. They are just left behind or held for another day or further development later.

Since I am boxed in by the way or the what or the where or the how an idea is presented, I am left only with my opinions as the most that can be offered. Those opinions are no more nor less valid than any other fallible opinion. Therefore the necessity to rely upon greater Wisdom already established, that is without equivocation, Whose foundation is sure and without peer and will not change as other opinions are later presented.

BTW, have you seen or heard some of the most recent scientific, archaeological, astrological, theological, and physical evidences being presented as of late? These not only disprove some of the greatest principles of past generations that have been relied upon for establishing "evident reality", but also reveal how our present civilizations have been led into disastrous goals that have wreaked havoc upon millions who believed in men, who had feet of clay, as having the "way" of salvation.
Regards!

You make a lot of very good points, Lineman. Don't you feel great when you recognize that Jesus doesn't make you fit into the philosophy or theology of others, but is willing to allow you to pursue the path in which the Holy Spirit guides you?
OTOH He also allows all others the same freedom and I'm glad of that also, as it lets all accept responsibility for their own choices.

Then, of course, it's good to give those choices we've made, to Jesus. He may just wash them in His blood and put us on a sure path.

"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." John 14:6 NASB
Blessings!

But almost all of Lineman's points are based on a misunderstanding of the goals and approaches of the new forum. It's as though people have trouble with reading comprehension. I'm not trying to be mean, but it gets frustrating. None of those things you raise, Lineman, are going to happen, because we all recognise that 'there is nothing new under the sun'.

What is forbidden - *all* that is forbidden - is using quotes to either bring in text from outside (which can, however, be referenced, e.g. Matthew 7:12 or GC p. 248 etc.) or earlier comments from other posters (which can likewise be referenced, e.g. 'As Jim was saying in an earlier post, we tend to think that...').

That's it. It's *really* not that complicated.

PS, LifeHisCost, I should make it very clear that as far as I know (can't speak for Tom) this iniative was *not* aimed at you and at your style of posting. I know that, although I am occasionally frustrated by your posts because I would be interested to know what *you* think, in general I very much appreciate your posts because they bring new Scripture to the question and inform the debate. I'm absolutely happy for you to keep posting that way in every one of the more than 100 forums other than the Original Thoughts forum, and will read your posts with enjoyment.

Oh my Bravus ... LifeHisCost is "blantantly and intentionally" disobeying the rules by posting John 14:6 NASB and Ezekiel 3:11 KJV and Proverbs 21:2 NASB and Ecclesiastes 1:9 NIV on four different posts. And yet no snide comments and no deletions?

And after all this time ... when the rules have been so clear and so easy.

But no outcry? Stand up and be heard. Don't be timid.

Well that is my original thought for the day.

I'm starting to think that one of the rules needed is a ban on what is termed "fire-hosing" another persons idea. Someone has already said it here that we need to build on and add to what has been said, not slam it or make fun of it or drag it through the dirt. (Sorry, I guess I said almost the same thing last night, but I really didn't mean to. I just went back are reread what I had written. Oops, my bad.)

I love the idea of using a thread here as a "think tank" where you can really say what is on your heart, knowing that you will not be "laughed at". I for one, though, appreciate it when someone places a quote in the forum because I do not like having to leave the forum just to look something up. (Maybe I'm just lazy?) OTH, I really dislike reading something over and over. In fact, most of the time I just skip the quotes unless I need them. Really though, isn't that what our brains are for, weeding out the unwanted?

Bravus, I'm thinking that this idea was aimed at me and what I posted a few days ago, "Food Riots, Tax Rebellions By 2012 ...". That article was not meant to keep dragging the issue of scaring people, but I really wanted to know what people thought of that post. I got it from my dad. Just trying again to look at all sides. I was thinking that maybe I would see it in a new light, find something NEW.

Back to our topic here. I really like the idea of a "Think Tank" right here in this thread. I am just wondering what others use as their "rules"? Maybe we should take a look before we "reinvent the wheel".

I searched for "think tank rules" and here are a couple of links:

http://academic.regis.edu/volunteer/ivan/sect03/sect03e.htm

This set of rules seems to have the basics, as long as you can leave out the comments related to volunteering. The two main processes seem to be understanding the "why" and the "what if" of ideas.

http://thinktank.wpi.edu/Rules

This set of rules seems to be related mostly to long posts/submissions, but two rules stand out. One is kind of what Tom has already said:
Articles and links that have already been uploaded previously will not be approved a second time. .

There other is actually a short list of unwanted items:
Articles will not be approved if they contain any of the following:
Crude language
Vulgar content or mention of any illegal activities
Disrespectful remarks
Gross spelling or grammatical errors
Clearly unverified statements


What do you think Tom, want to start a brand new thread and state the rules for us? I have never been involved in a "think tank" and find it appealing to imagine. I think we should try it. Do you have something in mind to start us out?

Stan, if this actually gets going you might have to move it into it's own "box".

That's great. And you can have that on all the other forum here. But this forum has decided to ban such quotes. I can verify this as having my small quotes deleted. What I find interesting is the selective allowing of some quotes such as what LifeHisCost has done in four of his posts.

Perhaps the moderator could clarify what quotes he allows and what selection process he goes through to allow said quotes. Or does LifeHisCost just have a free pass?

Maybe "Tom Wetmore" and "LifeHisCost" are the same person and he gets to do what he wants? Actually I didn't know that there were set rules yet, only that we were talking about them. I am surprised that some quotes have already been deleted.

Perhaps you are right.

Thank you for clarifying the point, Bravus. Although I happen to see myself as a loose cannon, I do know that the style can grate against the preferences of others. Recently I withdrew from a Sabbath group because I perceived the person/s in charge felt there was too much contention caused by putting forth ideas foremost from the Scriptures.
I recall another illustrious figure Who ran into this problem also and I do believe this is going to be a greater and greater problem, especially as we see the day of the Lord drawing closer. As a primary example we can already see any public reference to certain aberrant human behavior being legislated as hate crimes in various places in the U.S.

As to what I think, I do feel safe in saying I think the ideas presented from particular Scriptures defines the principle/s (or sometimes lack)of good conduct as espoused by the Creator.
And I also think that what I think personally is of little consequence in establishing foundational truth, especially if it is revealed to contradict or conflict with readily understood Scripture.
God Bless!

I think it is all in the presentation.

If one presents scripture as 'thus says the Lord' ... THIS is what the Word of God says. When in reality ... you are saying that scripture says what your particular interpretation is.

OR ... we can say ... this is 'one' way to look at the subject and then quote scripture. OR ... this is the way I interpret the issue from this particular text.

It is the dogmatic quoting of scripture that drives people away from it.

Patience Humility and Tolerance goes a long ways ....

Just a quick one here:

1. I'm not the moderator of this thread and neither is Tom Wetmore - this is part of the Town Hall forum and is therefore moderated by John317.

2. As I understand it, the 'no quotes' rules applies to the new Original Thoughts forum, but not to this thread *about* that forum in Town Hall. As such there's no inconsistency between removing your quotes there, Redwood, and allowing LifeHisCost's quotes here.

Each moderator still has the right to set the tone of their forum.

...and LifeHisCost has not participated in the Original Thoughts Forum yet.

Just bumping this out to get it on the active topics index...