Wikipedia

Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/Archive 6

< Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo
(Redirected from Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/Archive06)
Latest comment: 19 years ago by TheoClarke
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 12 August 2005 and 19 August 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/Archive07. Thank you. Theo (Talk) 10:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticism/Hierarchy

Latest comment: 19 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Poster using ip 69.231.227.190 removed my edit and claim "Last edit biased towards INC, link irrelevan". Let's discuss it.

Reminder to some users who may be tempted, please see rule on sockpuppets. --Emico 18:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Speaking of that, I would like to see the user from 66.xxx.xxx.xx explain his edits. <small[Unsigned at 13:54, 11 August 2005 by 69.231.208.157]

As I said when reverting your reversion, Emico, I agree with the anon editor here. I think that the changes that you made are making an argument rather than simply stating the pertinent facts. And I do not understand the relevance of the TV schedule link. How does the TV station fit into the article? —Theo (Talk) 19:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

That's fine. No apologies needed. You're the most neutral I've seen so far that's why I asked for your mediation.
I guess I need to reword my post? English is not my first language so what I may see as neutral may be, as you say, argument.
Remember that the original paragraph was an observation(dare I say opinion). It is a fact that catholics and the church of england, as well as the INC, believe that their leaders are elected with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
With regards to the TV schedule, and the webcast, these presents doctrines of hte INC. Anyone can listen and draw their own conclusion. --Emico 19:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I would like to point out that the Agustinongpinoy site regarding the Message linked to [1]is a site designed to defamate the original blogger going by that name [2]. Please scroll down to see the complete message. [3][4]<small[Unsigned at 11:13, 11 August 2005 by 69.231.208.157]
  • Irrespective of the validity of any of these claims. I have been looking for this TV station on the web and can find no other trace of it. I do not think that we should be describing a broadcaster that does not even have a web-site. I have removed the link to the blogged schedule and I will delete the para in the main article if someone does not provide a reputable source for the TV station's existence.—Theo (Talk) 10:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Added my previous post to Structure section rather than Criticism section. Now, it's a statement, not an argument.
    Also, added link to aired to point to schedules site for The Message. Also added the same link in Pro section. The schedule now has links to websites of tv stations, to address Theo's concern. --Emico 15:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you for deleting the section inferring that your site was created by the blogger Agustinongpinoy when indeed, it is not. I would also like to hear from Theo whether your site should be linked to twice in the article. Unlike the References section, this is the exact same site.--Ironbrew 06:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
      I see that the inappropriate duplicate link has been removed. I think that any link to the blog is inappropriate and I have linked directly to one of the TV station sites that Emico provided. —Theo (Talk) 22:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Using edit summaries

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Two things arise from User:69.231.208.157's unsigned comment at 13:54, 11 August 2005. The first is, please would everyone who posts on this (and any other) talk page please sign their contribution. You can use four tildes (~~~~) and they will be converted when you save the page. The second is, please could everyone complete the Edit Summary box for every edit they make. The software adds the section heading to reduce some of the work but it is still helpful if you add a brief summary of what you have done and why. —Theo (Talk) 13:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Religion, sect, cult or denomination?

Latest comment: 19 years ago22 comments4 people in discussion

Some quotes from the wiki cult page:

  • In religion and sociology, a cult is a relatively small and cohesive group of people (often a new religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Its marginal status may come about either due to its novel belief system or because of its idiosyncratic practices.
Which proves INC isn't a cult, because it is not relatively small - INC's membership spans multiple continents, nor does INC have doctorines which are far outside the mainstream. Cults like Heaven's Gate is a clear example of a cult. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 03:40, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Doctrines far outside the mainstream; You better check out the Insiders page to verify. Relatively small; Why do they not publish their membership figures? How many non-filipinos members in these multiple continents. The fact that the INC is not labelled as a cult by mayor newagents like Associated Press and Reuters only confirms its marginal status. Besides: "You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows" Coffeemaker 19:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Religions are also distinguished by being publicly open and accountable. .... Such features common to religions clearly distinguish them from cults, which generally do not allow unimpeded public access to their rituals and full access to doctrines. Cults, on the other hand, require some degree of secrecy to be kept from those outside the church, and require some degree of self-disclosure to its authorities within.

Coffeemaker 00:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, just as the article says, one may attend a service and see for themeselves what the place is like. There's an article somewhere at WP, (Talk:List of groups referred to as cults by some media outlets) which lists what is a cult, and by what degree of authenticity it is. On it's scale of 1-8, where 1 is definetly a cult by all accounts, and 8 is one that's called by non-reputable sources, INC would probably count as 7, since it's only accountable by anti-cult groups, and below. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 03:40, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
What about a journalist or a non-INC evangelist; Do they also just walk in to attend the worship service? I don't think so! They even lock the door when the service is started for their own members. Can tourists just walk in to the central complex to take some pictures? Is this publicly open? Full access to doctrines; How is the INC website doing with their full doctrines? Does anyone know were I can buy the book "Fundamental Beliefs of the Iglesia ni Cristo" by Felix Y. Manalo. Coffeemaker 18:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
No, you cannot just walk-in to a worship service. The INC place the highest respect to a worship service to God the Father in heaven. That is why members and guest are reminded to come early and meditate, to participate and sing with the choir and prayer and listen to the lesson. The reason for the closing of the door is so as not to disturb the occasion. Anyone can come, just don't disturb the orderliness. After all, it a worship service to God.
Just as you cannot walk into the Whitehouse and take pictures.
Everyone has full access to the doctrines, but you need to attend Evangelical Missions to hear them. And of course, watch or listen to the TV and Radio programs. --Emico 05:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I consider it a cult. Most media speak about a chistian sect. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] In the christian denomination article I would classify it as "Non-mainstream Christianity". Size is not the issue here and even 3 million can be relatively small. The "multiple continents" is only for marketing reasons. On all cult checklists I have seen the INC score 80% or more. [10] [11] [12] [13]. Another test is: What where they praying and preaching right after 9/11 or the invasion or Iraq? Was it about the victims and world peace? Or was it about calamities, the end of the world and themself? Let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late. Coffeemaker 22:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
On the INC's "The Message" 9/11 television program (I have the video), they showed the INC members who survived the disaster, and many of them claimed that God saved them from the disaster because they were INC members. I found it shocking that the INC would use a tragic event like that as a tool to attract more people into their organization, especially after the host said "Although their lives were saved, their souls won't be because they haven't accepted the Iglesia ni Cristo" which made me wonder how much sympathy he had towards those involved in the event. The worst thing is that INC member Rex Reynaldo Ferrer perished in Madrid on the day of the 3/11/2004 terrorist attacks whilst boarding a train on his way to an INC worship service. I wonder what the members interviewed would say now if they found out about Brother Ferrer's death.--Ironbrew 07:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
As with Coffeemaker, you are also entitled to your own opinion. And base on your post, I for one do not expect to hear positive things about the INC from you.
As far as the TV program is concerned which I saw when it was broadcast, what I saw were people thankful to God for getting another chance at life. I did'nt see the "using" of the event that you claim, rather the usual warning that life is short and that prophesies written in the bible are being fulfilled. --Emico 07:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Did or did not the host of that program say "Although their lives were saved, their souls won't be because they haven't accepted the Iglesia ni Cristo?" Watching the tape right now, I can clearly hear him say that. That doesn't sound like someone who had any sympathy for the victims or fully grasped the tragedy of that event. Please also explain to us why you have tried inserting your own opinions as fact about the Catholics, Presbyterians and the Bereans into the main Wikipedia articles.--Ironbrew 20:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Again, you have to put the statement in context. You cannot just pick words and add your own meaning to them.
What opinions are you talking about? We can discuss them if you want. But I'd rather do it in either of our own talk pages. That's exactly what you're doing here, so we can discuss this too. --Emico 05:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
My interpretation aside, the statement explains itself and since we don't have any disputes whether or not the host (Mr Ventilacion??) said that, people can draw their own conclusions. And as for adding opinion to articles, the overwhelming concensus at this moment is to have you banned from editing this and other INC-related articles, as well as the Bereans[14]. Speaking of everyone having their own opinion, it sounds quite familiar. [15]--Ironbrew 07:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
The statement by itself is incomplete. Who's lives is it talking about, for instance.
Would'nt you want that? And I bet you want that sooner rather than later. You forgot to mention, Onlytofind get's a similar ban and he started the arbitration. And in case you have'nt notice, I've improved quite a lot thanks to my INC brethren who display so much patience. Hey, if you want to discuss those opinions you are talking about. --Emico 07:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I thought anyone could infer that we were talking about those who survived the attack, but I guess not... I'll let facts speak for themselves, you can see the opinions I'm talking about at the link below- people have already discussed them with you so I won't go there again. Although it seems you have improved since you started, it's obvious that you still have a severe disdain for anyone who criticizes the INC and that your idea of NPOV for this article is to have only information favourable to the church and distributed from it. This statement from Fredbauder is interesting though: "The pot Emico notes that Onlytofind is very black kettle." [16]From what I can see, Onlyto Find is being banned for personal attacks for a week, while you are being banned permanently from editing this and any other INC-related article. There's a big difference.--Ironbrew 07:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
No. The inference you wanted to promote would only be made by you adding your own POV. That's the reason you only took a snippet. And now, as you've done before, you are taking two unrelated items, and taken out of context again, and using them to push you POV.
Is being being banned from editing so bad? You'd be surprised. --Emico 14:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what you are trying to infer by your last sentence, and quite frankly, I'm not interested. Your actions as well as the actions of Cessor speak for themselves.--Ironbrew 01:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


You're entitled to your own opinion. But your own post, as Lbmixpro clearly pointed out and which you were not able to dispute, proves the INC is not a cult. At least one of the links you posted list the INC as one of "5 major religious groups in the Philippines" which contradicts the basis of your claim(that cults are small).
In your last post above, you seem to back out of your previous stand by saying "Size is not the issue". A website list Judaism has 14 million adherents, relatively small compared to 1.2 billion muslims. Does this make Judaism a cult?
As the article states, the INC is now in 84 countries, or as you say, "multiple continents". So, it's not only useful for marketing, it is also factually true. She grew faster in it's first century compared to the catholics or the protestants in their own first centuries. --Emico 06:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Let us take this checklist for bad groups or cults compiled by Michael D. Langone, Ph.D [17]

The group is focused on a living leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment.
Checked: The Manalo family

This other church has the make their leaders saints

The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
Checked: GEM, fruits, fruits, fruits, conversion quotas, buying extra Pasugo's, shine brightly and share the message of salvation to all.

This other church came to the Philippines to convert the people

The group is preoccupied with making money
Checked: Thursdays and Sundays offerings, Weekly local fund offerings, Weekly EGM offerings, Weekly deposits for the year end thanksgivings, Monthly District offerings, Monthly God's Message offerings, Special Worship offerings, July Anniversary offerings, Additional cash to supplement the deposited thanksgiving offerings.

I know in this church, one needs to pay for weddings, baptism and other.

Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
Checked: Unity, ask your local minister, questioning the sanity of the doubter - maybe you are confused or tempted by the devil. Group pressure and expelling.

this church call this heresy

Mind-numbing techniques (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, debilitating work routines) are used to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
Checked : Seven days of devotional prayers

Filipinos nail themselves to the cross and whip their back bare. that'll surely numb you mind

The leadership dictates sometimes in great detail how members should think, act, and feel (for example members must get permission from leaders to date, change jobs, get married; leaders may prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, how to discipline children, and so forth).
Checked: Think - Unity, Act - Unity, Feel - Unity

You can't use birth control pills

The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity).
Checked: Angel Felix Y Manalo and the only true church in these last days - The Third group of God.

Priest call to be vicars of Christ

The group has a polarized us- versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society.
Checked: The people of the world vs the INC. Detractors, lawsuits, high security, violence and secrecy.

Crusades!

The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, military commanders and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream denominations).
Checked: The law only apply to them when it is in their favour (eg. TRO on Tipon's book). They are guided be the Holy Spirit anyway.

Boy, are they in a lot of legal trouble

The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example collecting money for bogus charities).
Checked: Complete unity, block voting, ever increasing offerings, the gift of a officer position by God, joining a labour, free thinking.

Same with this other church

The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them.
Checked: THE LAKE OF FIRE

Hell and purgatory

Members' subservience to the group causes them to cut ties with family and friends, and to give up personal goals and activities that were of interest before joining the group.
Checked: Value your membership above your work, family, friends and yourself.

Same with this other church

Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group.
Checked: Worship services, committee prayer meetings, GEM, social activities, devotational prayers, the INC family hour, Bible Expositions, etc, etc.

You have to live in a monastery

Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members

What's so bad about that? And this other church does this also

Checked: Forbidding dating non-members

The writing is on the wall. Coffeemaker 14:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, by your checklist, the Catholic church and all churches are cults too My respond in italics. --Emico 05:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Emico, you did not convince me at all with branding the other curch as a cult. First of all we not live in the dark middle ages anymore; this is the modern time, the catholic church has changed a lot since then. I think the same will happen with the INC in the near furture or else it will destroy itself. The "Same with this other church" is not really a strong statement. Do catholics display a excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment to their saints. I thought they serve as an example of righteousness and humbleness. Do you think it is easy to become a saint; did Pope John Paul II sued or condemmed the guy trying to assassinate him? Is it the duty of all cathholics to bring new members in? Do they preach 10 times a year about the importance of monetary offerings in their church? Filipinos who nail themselves to the cross do this out of free will; the same with the ones entering a monastery. Is birth control a great detail of a members life; what the pope say does not always correspond with what a pastor will say. About the us-versus-them mentality; did you every hear of full communion. About Hell and purgatory, how many times a year do they preach about the "good news" inside the INC? Instead of learning to live the INC members are learning to die. May God bless you. Coffeemaker 06:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
It was'nt meant to convince you rather to prove you and your checklist failed to support your cult claim.
And I don't see how you can make such claim about the INCs' future. It just shows how much you don't know about the INC.
Don't you bear your saints on your shoulders? You call this prusisyon don't you? We could'nt go tit-for-tat on this checklist but the bottom line, you have not proven you claim. --Emico 14:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Whether my claim failed or not is for each individual to decide. Prusisyon has more to do with honouring than with unquestioning commitment. Just like you honour Felix Y. Manalo with a statue on central. I wish they also put up a statue for the guy who founded your church ;-). Futhermore for a saint it takes more than locking yourself in a room for 3 days and re-establish a church. Coffeemaker 20:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
As for my prediction about the INCs' future. In this internet age where information travels with the speed of light, the administration seems to have hard time dealing with it. Their claim about the continious growth of their church I am just not buying. Looking at the Insiders page and the controversial sermon of Erano Manalo I can smell their is something cooking inside this organisation. A reformation and/or schism seems to be inevitable. You better start swimming for the times they are a-changin'. Coffeemaker 21:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
If that's the case, then why hasn't INC been suggested to be on the List of groups referred to as cults by some media outlets? Yet alone on that list? Be bold, although the article is locked, doesn't mean you can't suggest INC be on that list. If a consensus there says it is, then it is. If not, then it's not. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 22:28, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Although I see the INC as being at the cultic end of the demomination continuum, I disagree that it crosses the line into cult. Applying Langone's criteria in the harsh way that they are applied to the INC here, I find that my local Roman Catholic, Anglican, LDS, and Jehovah's Witness churches are also very close to cult status. The definition is a matter of degree: how preoccupied is 'preoccupied'? What amount is 'inordinate'? I do not challenge the validity of Langone's framework—I am, however, concerned by its application to demonstrate a pre-existing view. I think that LBMixPro's suggestion is a sound one. When the INC appears on the list then it can be called a cult here. —Theo (Talk) 23:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Election of leaders guided by the Holy Spirit

Latest comment: 19 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Can someone explain how the choosing of the executive minister is guided by the Holy Spirit. Is there any information available about the election process of any officer. Sources? Is the expelling of members also guided by the Holy Spirit? If it is, better put it in to make it more NPOV ;-) Coffeemaker 00:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm sure many, if not most religions professing to be Christian believe in one way or another to be guided by a divine power. What sect do you belong to? How are your leaders "chosen"? Is there expulsion in you church? Let compare. --Emico 06:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I belong to the human race sect. Why do you say in particular "the election of their leaders"? Are not all decisions made by the administration guided by the Holy Spirit? I think this statement was made to put decisions made by man in the shoes of the Holy Spirit and surround them with mystery. Purely blasphemy, hidding of facts and POV. Futhermore the INC article does not say anything about this election process. Does it work the same way as the election of the pope or bishops ? Can you candidate yourself for deacon or this position pushed in your face and a sin to be refused. Let us please stick to the facts only. Coffeemaker 12:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    You did not reveal the sect you belong to. I hope it's not to hide your real identity. --Emico 05:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Like i said: "I belong to the human race sect". Are you threatening me? Coffeemaker 06:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Now why would you think that? All I did is ask you what sect you belong to? So I may better understand your POV. --Emico 06:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I thought you meant my "Personal identity". But surely you meant my "Cultural identity". Question remains why are you hoping I am not hiding it? Should anyone belong to something? Coffeemaker 06:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Um, we were talking about sect, remember? Sect is on all of the responses so I don't see how that can be mistaken for personal identity, and now cultural identity. I'm a bit puzzled by your responses.
You display strong opinion against the INC. To me that indicates you have personal religious beliefs that run counter(in your case, in a big way) to what the INC believes. Most sect that contends with the INC have their own doctrines that are controversial. that's what I meant when I said hiding. and of course, sockpuppeting, which I raised a few days before. --Emico 06:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Emico, tell us now, does your IP range start with the number 66.xxx.xx or not? BTW, I can see how he would feel threatened after [18] and [19]. --Ironbrew 07:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I'll tell you mind if you tell me yours first.
Oh yes. I caught a lie on a blog post. Is that why he should feel threathened? Read the blog, the details are all there. Now I understand. Thanks. --Emico 07:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
No, you impersonated another's identity to defame him and tried to attain the identities of webmasters who run forums critical of the INC. What were you planning to do if you were able to attain them? I'm not particularly interested in knowing your IP, but let's keep in mind that if necessary, Wikipedia can link IPs to usernames. BTW: How's the ML320 working out for you? --Ironbrew 08:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The article does not assert that the elections are guided by the Holy Spirit. It states that the INC believes this to be so. The fact that many people do not share this belief and that some of those consider it blasphemous does not alter the fact that the INC members hold the belief. The election processes of the Catholic church are not pertinent to this article. Likewise, your request "Let us please stick to the facts only" is a non sequitur after your hostile speculations about the nature of the election process. —Theo (Talk) 23:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Exposing? How?

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

To Coffeemaker, can you explain what you mean by saying the forum is "exposing the INC bible lessons."? --Emico 04:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I was not talking about the forum but about the postings of Cultic Research. He is putting the Bible lessons out of the INC chapel's darkness into the light of the internet. I've made the desciption clearer now. [Unsigned edit by User:Coffeemaker ]
    Because English is not your first language, I am assuming that you do not appreciate just how offensive the phrase "the INC chapel's darkness" can be to those not hostile to the INC. Given the controversial topic, please avoid extreme language (be it promotional or hostile) so that we do not get distracted from improving the article. —Theo (Talk) 00:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Latest comment: 19 years ago24 comments4 people in discussion

I question the NPOV of this article and its editors. I will give you some examples:

  • The Xanga blogring link with information about the daily life of 900+ INC members was removed because it was not encyclopedic enough. What we got back for it is a link to an audio webcast with INC missionary programs in Tagalog (This is a English article)
More reason to establish the tagalog article. Maybe if we look within the blogring, and see some blogs which are encyclopediac, it'll help. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!)
In general, blogs are considered to be unencyclopedic and should only be linked or used as sources in the absence of any other source. A blogring is even further removed from the desirable. I do not understand how the Xanga link is connected to the webcast link. I do not understand why a link to something that is not in English is NPOV. I believe that some English-speakers understand Tagalog. I recognise that an English equivalent to the Tagalog link would be preferrable. Does the INC send webcasts in English? —Theo (Talk) 01:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
You don't understand how the two link relates? The anwser my friend is just in the main article itself. "Instead of posting INC-related material online, members are encouraged to refer anyone with questions about the Iglesia ni Cristo to a minister or other church officer." By the way, for what reason were the forum links removed? Coffeemaker 05:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry; I still do not understand. The quoted sentence suggests that querents should speak to Church officials. The webcast is addressed to querents and potential querents. Xanga is a blogging site. I can understand why I specific Xanga message might be a suitable reference in some special case but I do not understand why it is an appropriate external link. And, as I opened this paragrah: I do not understand what links the webcast to xanga.com. —Theo (Talk) 15:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
The removal of the Xanga and forum links and keeping the audio webcast link seems to fit in perfectly with the strategy of the administation which is:
  • Refusal to put up official website in plain text which we could use as a reference here; instead there is a audio cast link which is very hard to use as a reference for this article.
  • Instruction to its members to refrain from posting information about the INC on the internet.
  • Instruction to its members to not form cliques (blogring)
Coffeemaker 18:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Now I get it. Thank you for your patience. What you write suggests that the policies of Wikipedia are more convenient for INC's supporters than its opponents because you consider the INC to be secretive and feel that its active prevention of the formal publication of information enables it to control what is published here. I sympathise with your conclusion although I do not see the Church as being malicious. I still can see no justification for linking to xanga.com, however. What we need are published accounts of the Church's history and policies. I think it regrettable that the Church's publications seem to be restricted to magazines that are difficult to obtain outside the Philippines and that the accessible sources are either hostile or demonstrably erroneous. —Theo (Talk) 19:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
You can get all the material you want by going to the INC ministers and asking them whatever question you have. --Emico 05:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
But can you walk into an INC locale and ask for back issues of God's Message over the last few decades? I doubt it. They usually have only the new ones. One is better off asking an INC member who has copies laying around. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 09:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • This POV "The INC believes that the election of their leaders is guided by the Holy Spirit" was removed by me and within 50 minutes restored. The article now gives no other information about how leaders are elected than this.
What's so pov about that? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!)
I too cannot see the POV of a statement about what INC believes. This is an article about INC. Its beliefs about itself are part of the subject. Stating that some people disagree with some religious beliefs is redundant not NPOV. It is a given that some people disagree with any religious belief. Why is the election process so important? This is not rhetorical. From the level of hostility that you display, I deduce that you are far more familar with INC than am I. —Theo (Talk) 01:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Given it some thoughts, I now have to admit that my POV accusation was wrong. The article just need to give some details about the election process. This is important because this process seems largely to be driven by cliques. Futhermore refusing a position like deacon seems to be a capital sin inside the INC. Thank you for clearing up my mind, Theo; your input here is greatly appreciated. I am still learning. Coffeemaker 03:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Links not endorsed by the adminstration are labeled "unofficial" while the adminstration keeps silent.
That's something which is INC's problem, all WP can do is make it clear that INC has no web presence. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!)
I concur with LBMixPro. —Theo (Talk) 01:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Critique about the church is followed by stuff like:
  • It should be noted that due to its theologically controversial doctrines, the majority of Web accounts are from a hostile religious viewpoint.
  • It should be noted that, unlike in the United States, political endorsements by religions are practiced by most religions in the Philippines.
Would it help if we removed "It should be noted that...", since it's not up to the article to implicitly tell what should be noted above other parts. -LBMixPro(Speak on it!)
Good point. "It should be noted that" is more essay than encyclopedia. Does anyone want us to keep this phrase? —Theo (Talk) 01:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Which of the article intro's is clearer:
01:54, 12 August 2005 - The Iglesia ni Cristo (also known as INC or Iglesya ni Kristo; Filipino for Church of Christ) is a Christian religion which originated in the Philippines. Noted for its Gothic-style chapel architecture of narrow-pointed spires, it was registered with the Filipino government by Felix Manalo on July 27, 1914. The registered Church had no immediate precursors and its members believe it to be the reestablishment of the original church founded by Jesus, in fulfillment of biblical prophecies. It is a Christian church that does not accept the doctrine of the Trinity.
12:40, 31 July 2004 - The Iglesia ni Cristo (INC, Tagalog for Church of Christ) is a non-Trinitarian or Arian Christian sect originating in the Philippines. The church, noted for its distinctive church architecture of narrow pointed spires, is a controversial organization that seeks to disestablish mainly the Roman Catholic Church, the predominant religion in the country, and claims to be the true Church of Christ. It was founded by Felix Manalo on July 27, 1914 and is a highly influential organization that keeps close tabs on its congregations.
The first, but "no immediate precursors" should be clarified --LBMixPro(Speak on it!)
The first.—Theo (Talk) 01:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • My description "exposing the INC bible lessons" for a con link to a very negative article was editted because it was unduly negative. Should the description of a negative article be positive? Is this a new Wiki house rule?
The statement is POV, best if we use the author's description so the reader can figure it out for themeselves. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!)
The description should be encyclopedic. It should neither promote nor denigrate its subject. In this case, "exposing" suggests that there is some deceit to be revealed (I know that this is not the literal meaning of the word but it is important to recognise the connotations of our choices).—Theo (Talk) 01:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Words like protestant, founded, sola scriptura, non-Trinitarian seems to be taboo in this article.

I think we have a double standard here. These are nice new sections for you/me to write: Baptisme, Offerings, Sole Corporation. Have fun with it! Coffeemaker 22:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  • It is clear that your knowledge on this subject far outstrips mine. If you can write those new sections, please do so. I hope that you will try to make your contributions to the article conform to NPOV. From your recent contributions I think that it may help for you to reread WP:NPOV because it is my impression that you see an NPOV article about INC to be one that derides the Church, its beliefs and processes. —Theo (Talk) 01:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I sympathize with Coffeemaker, legitimate criticism has been suppressed in this article by users who would rather not see the practices of the INC discussed publically. It would be good to discuss more of the INC's controversial practices in this article, but at the same time, we all have to adhere to the NPOV and label criticism and beliefs as such. I also feel that the Criticism section seems more like a venue to downplay the criticism of the INC with the "It should be noted" statements.--Ironbrew 02:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • that's your POV and you're entitled to it, as I am with mine. --Emico 05:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
        • You are not a party in the Arbitration, that's the Arbitrators did find your bias. Everyone has a bias, if this is'nt so, we won't be discussing here. You know, you really remind me of Onlytofind. --Emico 07:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
          • You're discussing a whole different tangent here, but I believe that I've made my point crystal-clear already. Also, it seems that you have discussed improving since you started at Wikipedia. If so, then you'll understand that it's not in one's favour to spread accusations around. The INC is a controversial topic, with strong feelings on both sides. It seems that our problem is that everyone here, except for Theo has had prior experience with the INC but I'm glad him and LBMix are doing a fabulous job keeping this objective. This can go only downhill so let this be my final non-edit related post here. Happy editing.--Ironbrew 10:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
          • The more you post the more I'm reminded of Onlytofind. Notice the emphasis on reminded. Which reminds me, you did not confirm nor deny that you are Onlytofind. That would have ended the discussion.
            I suggest you drop the subject of the current arbitration as it doesn't concern you or your edits in this article. I can discuss this with you at length if you want but not here. --Emico 16:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
            • It does concern me, as you and Cessor accuse me of bias and oppose my edits. I am only showing why I feel your opposition is unfounded and unfair. I would rather focus on the present rather than the past myself.--Ironbrew 22:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
They are also accusing you of being a sockpuppet of User:Onlytofind. With the final decision from ArbCom very soon, some people here would be very quick to slam a {{Sockpuppet}} template on your user page. There are a few things Onlytofind has done which are very similar to what you've done, but they're other things which convince me that you are different from him. All we really want to know is if the Ironbrew and Onlytofind usernames are owned by the same person. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 23:56, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
            • To Ironbrew: Have I accused you of being biased? I don't remember doing that to you. Can you point me to it and maybe I'll take it back. I admit I did that a few times before. that was my early times on wikipedia. If the posters then where among the likes Theo, it would have been different.
              Why don't you just confirm or deny that you and Onlytofind are the same person and get it over with? But aside from this, is it really that offensive to be compared to Onlytofind? I only know the poster from my own exchanges with him. Other than that nothing. I could'nt even get him to say his religion, but I think he's berean. I bolded think to emphasize it's not an accusation. Onlytofind is a little bit sensitive about this. --Emico 19:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Edit made to Structure of the INC

Latest comment: 19 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I added this phrase: "The INC also believes that its administration, through prophecy, has the exclusive right to vicariously carry out God's plans during these times." Emico then deleted it claiming it was "hostile." I don't see which part of it is hostile as all I am doing is stating their belief as NPOV as I possibly can. I understand that Emico has a record of hostility towards those who do not agree with his viewpoint and AFAIK, it seems that he cannot separate one person's opinion from their edits. He has even readded the link to his personal blog after Theo spoke out on the illegitimacy of blogs at Wikipedia and has taken it upon himself to remove my edits made in the past day. I would like to hear Theo and Leon's take on this.--Ironbrew 18:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Vicariously is your opinion. that's a catholic term not used by the INC.
exclusive is misleading. It is not used or claimed by the INC.
Stick to waht we're discussing.
Theo made his edits, and what you removed was'nt part of it. --Emico 18:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that Ironbrew seeks to introduce phrasing that has hostile connotations, thus creating an article that conveys implicit criticism of INC. At the same time, Emico appears to be trying to constrain the article to the perspective of the church administration. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia founded on the Neutral Point of View. To conform to policy we should construct and article that reports all the material facts about INC. Where those facts are the existence of opinions they should be sourced and reported neutrally. In this context some opinions are beliefs supported by faith. As a boy studying Divinity, I was taught that there are seven types of truth. I do not recall them all but the key ones foir this discussion were: demonstrable truth, revealed truth, and observed truth. This encyclopedia is only concerned with demonstrable truth. It will accept observed truth where the only available source is the writer's observation as long as it does not appear to be the promulgation of a new idea. It will only accept revealed truth (or faith) where it can be reported as demonstrable truth that some people accept the revealed truth. So, any statement of what the INC believes must be a report of what the church says or what the writer has seen (not what the writer thinks; what s/he observes). On this basis I can parse Coffeebrew's statement: The INC also believes that its administration, through prophecy, has the exclusive right to vicariously carry out God's plans during these times. The statement is unsourced so it is not demonstrable. It must, therefore, be observed. A belief cannot be observed, however; only its statement can be observed. Had Coffebrew said "An INC officer said that the INC believes…", the discussion would become one of sourcing. As it is, we must rely on the observations of an avowed officer of the church (I may misrepresent Emico here, but I believe that he has claimed to be an officer of the Church and, given that he has revealed his real name, I am prepared to believe that). So, if Emico says that the Church does not believe itself to be the exclusive agent of God's plans, we should accept that unless we have sources showing otherwise. "Vicariously" seems redundant to me. The Church adminsitration believes itself to be carrying out God's plans. I infer that Coffeebrew used "vicariously" to mean "on behalf of God" although strictly, it means "through another" (not necessarily God). Similarly, "during thes etimes" seems redundant becasue the sentence is cast entirely in the present. I end up with "The INC believes that its administration, through prophecy, has the right to carry out God's plans." I would like to be able to cite a source for this but if Emico and the other INC members accept this, that is good enough for me. It occurs to me that we could self-source much of this by creating a subpage Iglesia ni Christo/Statement by officers in which Emico and other members make statements about the church that can be cited as internal sources. If they "signed" and datestamped the statement that would provide a fixed point upon which readers might rely. Such a statement would have the graeatest credibility idf signatories used their real names as well as their Wikipedia usernames. —Theo (Talk) 23:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

    • Theo, thank you for the through summary regarding the status of this article. I also think you might be mixing up me and Coffeebrewer ;) From what I know, Emico is not an officer, but a former member of the INC looking to rejoin it, and Glenn Cessor is an INC officer (deacon) from the Northwestern US. I think that I can justify my edit using this source: [20] As for the exclusivity belief, I hereby submit this excerpt from the above source: "This tells us how valuable the Church Administration is. As God's instrument in carrying out the divine work of salvation, the Church Administration is indispensable. As the commissioned source of the words of God, the ministers of the Church, with the executive minister at the helm, are the only legitimate leaders toward the salvation of man's soul."--Ironbrew 00:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Ironbrew: Thank you for your good-humoured tolerance of my confusion. On the basis of your cited source, I suggest that the sentence should read: The INC believes that its administrators, through prophecy, are the agents of God's plans and "the only legitimate leaders toward the salvation of man's soul." I would welcome comments on this from Emico and Glenn. —Theo (Talk) 13:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Theo, I would change the word agents to instruments.--Emico 14:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I have no problem with that. Instruments has connotations of lacking free will. I am surpriseed that you would prefer this but if it is closer to the belief, so be it. —Theo (Talk) 16:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Strict adherence to the teachings. Now, before detractors jump on this and claim something else, fair warning to not do it on this page. [Unsigned at 18:53, 16 August 2005 by Emico]
            • Your language is unnecessarily provocative and can be perceived as baiting. Here at Wikipedia, you cannot deprive someone of the right to disagree with you. As for the sentence I would go with this: The INC believes that its administrators, through prophecy, are the commissioned instruments to consummate God's plans and "the only legitimate leaders toward the salvation of man's soul." (followed by source) --Ironbrew 22:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Blog

Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Leon and Theo- Should the blog be removed from the links list due to the Wikipedia policy on blogs? I've already heard arguments about how blogs are unencyclopedic, and in turn, I think that the links to the TV stations should be added to the reference section. I would also like to say that this last edit was unfair against those critical of the INC and IMHO, bordered on advocacy. [21] [22]--Ironbrew 00:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Only if the blog in question reveals important information about the subject using that demonstrable truth Theo was talking about, or if that particular blog is mentioned in the article. As we know, some blogs are baseless opinions about the subject. Anybody can write a blog or GeoCities type website about whatever, but it still doesn't make it credible. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 02:57, August 16, 2005 (UTC) (updated 09:29, August 16, 2005 (UTC))
Since we already know the sites of the television stations carrying this program, shouldn't we link to those instead of linking to the blog (which seems to have been created for the sole purpose of inclusion into this article?) I already deleted the link once, but it was restored. I just want to know your guys' take on it so there is no further confusion or hostility. --Ironbrew 21:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Upon further reading, there has been many edits making this article more advocacy then impartial NPOV: "unity and discipline of her members" "and specially her teachings which set her apart from other churches" I'm not sure whether these edits are being done in bad faith or not, but I can say for certain that they are not objective and do not present facts in an NPOV manner. I also think that my link section disclaimer is fair without being biased towards either side. --Ironbrew 00:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, who refers to INC as "her", when the subject is an organization (religous or not)? I don't see anything wrong with the term "unity and discipline of [its] members", as long as it is brought into the correct context, but the second term is redundant, because every religion has aspects which set itself apart from other religions. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 02:57, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, Emico's additions to the lead section (cited by Ironbrew above) were inappropriate on two grounds: that level of detail is too great for the lead, and the language is promotional. The article should contain no unattributed emotion. Many recent edits have introduced emotion; hostile and promotional alike. The link disclaimer becomes increasingly charged with each addition. That is why I pared it down to the minimum. There are so many bases for hostility to a religion that it is not possible to summarise them clearly without discursion. Nobody has grounds upon which to challenge the statement that most sites are hostile. Listing any reason invites refutation of that reason. All religions evoke hostility among some opponents. The specific grounds for INC criticism and hostility are partially explored in the ==Criticisms== section. I see no need to repeat them in the hostility disclaimer. —Theo (Talk) 13:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The additions I made to the lead were in response to another post some time back, regarding the INC is noted only for the spires on it's chapels. The thought were from a newspaper article that I can no longer find, which I planned to substantiate with the following:
http://www.mb.com.ph/MTNN2005072640351.html
http://www.mb.com.ph/OPED2005072740323.html
http://www.mb.com.ph/OPED2005072740323.html
and this article.
Regarding the Worship services section, that is the truth in fact. But I can live with revision of Theo of 16 august, 6:10.
Regarding the External Links section, the disclaimer is inadequate. But I'll let it go for now. --Emico 15:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Your last edit towards the link sections was definitely unfair against those critical of the INC. Remember, we need to stick to verifiable facts, not one's personal opinions about others.--Ironbrew 21:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I now remember the discussion of the architecture. I have moved that topic to the end of the lead. I did not doubt the truth of what you added to the ==Worship services== section; my changes there were all copy editing to improve the grammar and style; I removed the duplications but intended to delete no facts unless you meant to communicate that at the start of the service an officer says: "remember to come early and meditate, to participate and sing with the choir, to respond to congressional prayer and to listen to the lesson." (or something similar). If such a reminder is made as part of the service, that could be mentioned here. —Theo (Talk) 16:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Disclaimer

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Emico says that the disclaimer in the ==External links== section is inadequate. Please explain your concerns here and we can try to address them. —Theo (Talk) 16:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I would like to hear Emico's specific gripe with the disclaimer in the links section, because Emico's last edit to the disclaimer was definitely unfair and POV against those who disagree with the INC, especially with this phrase "retaliation specially from those who have personal gripes with the INC" It's a dangerous accusation and borders on personal opinion. --Ironbrew 21:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo/Archive_6&oldid=854017328"