Plagiarism

[Salty]

I have never plagiarized anyone. I hate violence.

All I ever do is copy the work of someone and leave off their name.

 

[USN2Pulpit]

Good OP, here are my thoughts on the subject. Not only is plagiarism strictly against Baptist Board rules, in the strict sense of the word, it is against American and state laws. It happens quite often here, I suppose for the purpose of a poster exhibiting knowledge about a doctrine that he or she knows nothing about.

It seems to me this is a more serious offense than all of the back and forth that has been the subject of much debate as of late.

:applause:

 

[exscentric]

In a small Bible school they had many speakers that came through for chapel and conferences. They always taped the messages in case a student wanted to pass on the blessing.

Over the years two of the speakers when they found out about the taping became quite excited and ask/demanded that the tapes not be given out. One even admitted the reason was because most of his seminar material came from others. (Never had he alluded to the fact.)

This is not only a problem for the run of the mill folks either. In a forum I recognized a portion of a man's question as being someone else's. I contacted him and brought the point to his attention. He was quite apologetic and said that a "well known tv personality" had asked him to post the question for him.

Edit: Revm mentioned: "If I get anything right it came from the Lord so I have no claim." Actually, very true in most of our lives, it is from Him that we have most of our knowledge, why not share it freely?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I have never plagiarized anyone. I hate violence.

All I ever do is copy the work of someone and leave off their name.

I'm working on my masters in behavioral psychology. Think I could get away with that? :smilewinkgrin:

Oh ... 'kay then.

 

[Salty]

I'm working on my masters in behavioral psychology. Think I could get away with that? :smilewinkgrin:

Let me ask Joe Biden the next time he comes back to Syracuse,....

 

[Van]

If a person studies a passage, reading various translations, and doing word searches to find all the relevant passages on the topic and forms an opinion based on accepting the views of some and rejecting the views of others, are they plagiarizing? No. Do they need to footnote or put in quotes everything gleamed from others? No, common usage allows use of material, especially if they are providing commentary on the material. I often put some Calvinism quote in my post, then show why it is malarkey.

At its core, the purpose of addressing Plagiarism, is to attack others rather than the viewpoint expressed. It is an effort to coerce, rather than persuade.

Almost all the arguments made by Calvinists (excluding the most absurd) can be found on the internet, many hundreds of years old. Paul tells us we have nothing we have not received. Rather than try to vilify an opponent, we should stick with presenting from scripture why his or her view is mistaken.

 

[exscentric]

"I'm working on my masters in behavioral psychology. Think I could get away with that? :smilewinkgrin:"

Maybe it could be one of your case studies :smilewinkgrin:

 

[saturneptune]

If a person studies a passage, reading various translations, and doing word searches to find all the relevant passages on the topic and forms an opinion based on accepting the views of some and rejecting the views of others, are they plagiarizing? No. Do they need to footnote or put in quotes everything gleamed from others? No, common usage allows use of material, especially if they are providing commentary on the material. I often put some Calvinism quote in my post, then show why it is malarkey.

At its core, the purpose of addressing Plagiarism, is to attack others rather than the viewpoint expressed. It is an effort to coerce, rather than persuade.

Almost all the arguments made by Calvinists (excluding the most absurd) can be found on the internet, many hundreds of years old. Paul tells us we have nothing we have not received. Rather than try to vilify an opponent, we should stick with presenting from scripture why his or her view is mistaken.

This is why you are in error. At its core, the purpose of plagiarism is to give the appearance of knowledge that does not exist. It takes a few seconds to cite a source. The typical pattern of deception is to start off the post with a few sentences of your own, then cut and paste another source, then to end with your own words, usually an insult to the other side. Another area that you are in error is to isolate the sides. Both sides are guilty. You in fact, are using an argument of not being held accountable for plagiarism to attack Calvinists. The reality is, the worst offender on this board represents your side.

In the detailed post I gave about Scriptural references for irresistible grace, I cited every reference. When we give book, chapter and verse in the Bible, that is a citation.

If you want to oppose the doctrine of election and sovereignty, use doctrine and facts. There is no need to paint a picture of Calvinists being the only one guilty of this offense.

 

[Van]

1) Start out with a charge, you are in error.

2) Then misrepresent the opponents position, I said "the purpose of addressing Plagiarism" and this is misstated as the purpose of Plagiarism.

3) Many times, we older folks, learned something from long ago, i.e. the view of Leon Morris that John 3:16 refers to believing into Christ, rather than just believing in or toward Christ. But I have had that commentary for a number of years and so I may not remember which commentary I gleamed that insight from.

4) Next we get the "both sides are guilty, so the behavior is ok" argument. Please talk to Agedman, he will tell you we Christians are supposed to compare ourselves with Christ rather than each other. If you compare with another man, you can always find, at least in your own eyes, someone worse. There is no level of depravity that cannot be justified by the practice.

5) Lastly another false charge is leveled, that I said anywhere that Calvinists are the only ones guilty. The point was the arguments made by Calvinists are seldom cited, and they do not have to be, the issue is whether the view is biblical.

 

[saturneptune]

1) Start out with a charge, you are in error.

2) Then misrepresent the opponents position, I said "the purpose of addressing Plagiarism" and this is misstated as the purpose of Plagiarism.

3) Many times, we older folks, learned something from long ago, i.e. the view of Leon Morris that John 3:16 refers to believing into Christ, rather than just believing in or toward Christ. But I have had that commentary for a number of years and so I may not remember which commentary I gleamed that insight from.

4) Next we get the "both sides are guilty, so the behavior is ok" argument. Please talk to Agedman, he will tell you we Christians are supposed to compare ourselves with Christ rather than each other. If you compare with another man, you can always find, at least in your own eyes, someone worse. There is no level of depravity that cannot be justified by the practice.

5) Lastly another false charge is leveled, that I said anywhere that Calvinists are the only ones guilty. The point was the arguments made by Calvinists are seldom cited, and they do not have to be, the issue is whether the view is biblical.

Five points of gibberish. This is a thread about plagiarism, not your views of John 3:16.

 

[preacher4truth]

Back to the OP, here is one of my quotes which SN plagiarized:

'Five points of gibberish' - p4t

I coined this phrase. :tongue3:

 

[Van]

Five points of gibberish. This is a thread about plagiarism, not your views of John 3:16.

The frequent charge of plagiarism made by Calvinists is for the purpose of deflecting any actual discussion of the mistaken doctrines of Calvinism, and shifting it to disparaging an opponent, questioning his or her qualifications and character. It is a standard play from the playbook of Calvinism.

This thread is a sideshow, an effort to intimidate an opponent of Calvinism. Rather than vilify an opponent, the Christ-like response would be to show from scripture why their view is mistaken.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

The frequent charge of plagiarism made by Calvinists is for the purpose of deflecting any actual discussion of the mistaken doctrines of Calvinism, and shifting it to disparaging an opponent, questioning his or her qualifications and character. It is a standard play from the playbook of Calvinism.

This thread is a sideshow, an effort to intimidate an opponent of Calvinism. Rather than vilify an opponent, the Christ-like response would be to show from scripture why their view is mistaken.

I must have lived a very sheltered life. I honestly had no idea how much hatred there was toward us until I came here and to OnlineBaptist.

 

[preacher4truth]

The frequent charge of plagiarism made by Calvinists is for the purpose of deflecting any actual discussion of the mistaken doctrines of Calvinism, and shifting it to disparaging an opponent, questioning his or her qualifications and character. It is a standard play from the playbook of Calvinism.

This thread is a sideshow, an effort to intimidate an opponent of Calvinism. Rather than vilify an opponent, the Christ-like response would be to show from scripture why their view is mistaken.

Hmmmm. Go fetch some proof of your accusation that Calvinists have falsely accused of plagiarism and that it is a Calvinist tactic (that it happens frequently). Good luck with that, but go get your proofs. You'll need several. :wavey:

 

[Tom Bryant]

The frequent charge of plagiarism made by Calvinists is for the purpose of deflecting any actual discussion of the mistaken doctrines of Calvinism, and shifting it to disparaging an opponent, questioning his or her qualifications and character. It is a standard play from the playbook of Calvinism.

This thread is a sideshow, an effort to intimidate an opponent of Calvinism. Rather than vilify an opponent, the Christ-like response would be to show from scripture why their view is mistaken.

Van,
This thread has nothing to do with Calvinism. It has to do with being honest in our attributions and, broadened, to what we preach and the illustrations we use as if we are the originator. It has nothing to do with you trying to make everything about calvinism.

And before you ask, i am not a calvinist.

 

[Van]

Hi Tom, we are to be vigilant, and keep our eye on the ball.

1) Did I say Calvinists have "falsely" accused opponents? Nope, so yet another false charge by a Calvinist. Thus turning the discussion away from Plagiarism to my character and qualifications.

2) Do I need proof Calvinists make charges of Plagiarism. No, this thread speaks volumes.

3) Any non-Calvinist would freely share which of the 4 points of gibberish (the TULI) they disagree with.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Hi Tom, we are to be vigilant, and keep our eye on the ball.

1) Did I say Calvinists have "falsely" accused opponents? Nope, so yet another false charge by a Calvinist. Thus turning the discussion away from Plagiarism to my character and qualifications.

2) Do I need proof Calvinists make charges of Plagiarism. No, this thread speaks volumes.

3) Any non-Calvinist would freely share which of the 4 points of gibberish (the TULI) they disagree with.

Your view of "the ball" and mine are not the same. I made charges of plagiarism but it had nothing to do with soteriology. My disagreement about calvinism is not the issue.

 

[Van]

To restate, rather than attacking the character and qualifications of an opponent, we should address his or her views, are they biblical or are they gibberish. The tactic of questioning the character and qualifications of opponents is not productive.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

To restate, rather than attacking the character and qualifications of an opponent, we should address his or her views, are they biblical or are they gibberish.

...Unless he's a Calvinist, in which case you can feel free to attack his character all you like.

 

[annsni]

My hubby has often used materials or quotes from others but I've always heard him cite the work. He has even directly read from a book to drive home the point that the source is not him. I appreciate that about him.

Online, I always will post where I got information from with a link. It's wrong not to!