Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This is an archived version of the talk page. For the current version please see Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo.

Con link removal vote (Closed)

In light of recent events, I'm now issuing a poll in which I hope all Wikipedia users who read this article participate. The main dispute is how "con" links outweigh "pro" in the external links section, causing an NPOV dispute, with the Bereans link as major subject matter. The links page as it stands is 2 pro to 4 con. I strongly recommend nobody edit the link section until the vote is over, and any edit to it is subject to revert. Some users believe there should be an equal number of links, while others feel a maximum of three for each category. (Note: The links section was changed during the voting period between 06:28, May 19, 2005. and it's current edit. "Delete One" may now have different meanings to different voters. If you have voted before, please include a view to view ratio such as 2 pro to 3 con, or 1 pro to 1 con) in order to clarify your vote.)

What should we do with the External links section? This vote will be open until midnight GMT, May 23, 2005.

• Delete one (2 pro to 3 con) According to Wikipedia's rules, the links section is not a link repository and should be reduced to a suggested 3 link per sub-section listing. So 4 is definetly too many for the 'con' section. Removing links deprives the user of otherwise informative content outside Wikipedia. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)}
• Delete only one. It is hardly the fault of the "con" side that the pro side is somewhat opposed to websites, however it is true that Wikipedia is not a links repository and the "con" side should be duly reduced to three links. Rlquall 04:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• One pro to One con. It's not a question of fault, but of fairness. And delete those garbage link to network54. Emico 05:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• One pro to one con. Emico said it best - it's not a question of fault, but of fairness. If we are as wrong as detractors believe, then one 'con' site should be enough to prove their point anyway.Gcessor--71.32.86.239 14:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete one (2 pro, 3 con). If I could find real "pro" links in the future, I want it 3 to 3, which seems like a good balance. I agree that those network54 / berean forums are garbage and should go away. Ealva 16:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep all. The page on external links I found did not seem to mention three as an upper limit and four is not excessiv IMO. Dejvid 16:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep All. In previous efforts to settle this matter, third-party sources have decided that the links were acceptable. And I agree that it's not about fault, but of fairness. Wikipedia rules state that the NPOV is about providing all points of a story, not only negative or favourable parts of the story. Much of the information on the con sites can be fairly included in the article in accordance with Wikipedia rules, but due to the dearth of pro-INC sites, I have refrained from doing so. As a sign of good faith and fairness, I have listed reasons why there might not be many pro-INC sites on the Internet, and have stopped short of encouraging people to contact the INC directly if they want to hear information supporting the INC's doctrines. I think this is an excellent way to solve our dilemma, and promise to abide by the final decision agreed upon by the sysops. --Onlytofind 21:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Resolution

Consensus is in favor of the reducing the con section to three links. Three say remove one link, two say keep one link for each category and two say keep as is. The decision to reduce the con section stands, and I'll now remove the Con link to Bereans. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 07:58, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

• The forums should be removed, there is a majority vote to remove them. Besides, they're not authoritative and mostly garbage is posted there. --Emico 15:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

I have to say that the Bereans link seemed to me the most informativ of the antis and I say that as someone not remotely sympathetic to the Bereans POVDejvid 10:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I have to say that you should read my vote carefully. I am saying the forums. Ealva 15:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the forums should stand, after all, they are places where people can discuss the INC, and I'm pretty sure people have enough sense to wade through some of the truly absurd posts from both sides there. --Onlytofind 20:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

For LBMixPro, why is an e-mail address being counted as a 'pro' site, resulting in a count of 'two' pro sites to four con sites? How can an e-mail address possibly be counted as such?--gcessor 13:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Although its not a site, it's still a link regardless. As a matter of fact, it's the best pro link on there, since the only best way to get accurate information about INC is to contact the INC themselves. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 20:48, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Then why not put it in a separate section - for it is not a 'pro' site in any real sense. It is an e-mail address and that's all. It belongs in a separate section.--gcessor 06:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Once again, although it's not a pro site, it is a pro link or in this case an external resource. It's a link which in essence is in favor of INC. It would be awesome if Manalo allows [1] to become active, so we can replace the email address. But at this point, it's the best thing we have to an actual site resource, since INC appearently doesn't allow unofficial sites from members. I thought at first if the email address was a good idea as a link, just like you are. But after some thought, I think it's good where it is. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 08:29, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, good explanation. I'll live with that.--gcessor 20:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

A different route to resolution

The current dispute is on whether to keep the Bereans' 'con' site. I suggest it should be removed since the ONLY information on the site that is not duplicated on the other 'con' sites are (1) the "countries penetrated" section (which is very outdated compared to the "worship schedules and locations" link), and (2) the "how to start a conversation with/witness to an INC member" sections - and such sections by nature rely upon opinion and do not warrant an encyclopedia's link on their own merit. That would be equivalent to, say, including to a Republican web page that only has a section named "How to talk to a Democrat".--gcessor71.32.86.239 10:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• agree --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 13:44, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

The how to talk to a Iglesia ni Cristo member makes it quickly clear that Iglesia ni Cristo is has an Arian view on the Trinity. That was far less clear on the other sitesDejvid 22:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The other sites plainly say that we do not believe that Jesus is God, the 'same' God as our Father. That should be quite enough to label us with 'Arianism' in your view without ever having to say the word.--gcessor71.32.86.239 14:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Arianism

The INC holds Arius in high regard in its lessons and has referred to him as the only one with the truth compared to the Nicean Council. Why are the INC members insulted by a mention of Arianism? I don't know though, whether the INC would agree with Arius' teachings regarding whether Jesus Christ was born with his powers or given to them after birth. --Onlytofind 02:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Give it up, Onlytofind. You lost the vote - and what you do not understand is that we're not insulted by the 'mention of Arianism'...it simply doesn't apply to us because Arian also believed at the time of the Nicean Council that the Catholic church was the true Church. And FYI, there was no belief in the 'trinity' at that time, for the Holy Spirit had not been 'officially' declared God by the Catholics until some 70 years later...and you are upholding this Catholic tradition.--gcessor71.32.86.239 13:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

But Arianism is normally applied to those who share the same view of the relationship between the father and the son. It doesn't normally imply sharing the same line as Arian as to which organization is the correct church. Has there been a vote to exclude the description of Arian or something? I really didn't know it was so controversial.Dejvid 15:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

It is only controversial to those who want to use 'Arianism' as a label, insinuating that it is not true 'Christianity'. As I said, 'Arianism' cannot apply to us because he also believed at the time of the Nicean Council that the Catholic church was the true Church. Because of that, Arian cannot be associated with the Church of Christ in any way. It is this difference that those who want to throw around the 'Arianism' label simply don't understand.--gcessor71.32.86.239 20:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this still related to one of the doctrines? I think we agreed some time ago not to get into detail with the doctrines, because it causes disputes. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 08:04, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my original statement which I placed in the article. I can say before the sight of God that Iglesia ni Cristo lessons have portrayed Arius (not Arian) in a favorable light, and the ministers have claimed him as an instrument of truth against the Nicean Council (paraphrased, but you get the gist). Do they or do they not? I'm not looking for a theological discussion, I want you to answer me, before everyone here and before God, am I telling the truth or not?--Onlytofind 21:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm don't know, did they actually mention Arius during bible studies? Do you think it's notable enough to be put on the article tho, since it looks like a comparison IMO. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 01:25, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Arian also believed that the RCC was the true Church, and so his system of belief cannot be applied to the INC. Also, please be aware that you don't have to state that all your declarations are in the sight of/before God, because everything we say and do is in the sight of/before God anyway.--gcessor 19:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Discussion Forums

• I would like to propose the restoration of the link to the Network54 forum 70210 which was recently deleted back to the discussion forum link section. I have seen topics posted there which were deleted on the INC member-moderated boards without explanation and is probably the most visited out of the INC forums, and although not moderated- allows for the most liberal and frank discussion of the INC. --Onlytofind 07:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that the 70213 forum is in the top three most-active forums, after the 84590 forum and the Bereans' forum...but it's full of crude insults and profanity because it is unmoderated. There is a real possibility that when people follow a link to that forum, they might realize that the majority of the profanity and insults come from the side of the detractors, which would help us--71.32.86.239 14:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Let's not forget about the reality distortion field surrounding the pro-INC crowd, such as ETE and friends. I think anyone interested in the INC would reconsider after reading their posts.--Onlytofind 02:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
      • And now we have a 'reality distortion field' surrounding us. That's three insults by you on this page I've found this morning - and I remember how you berated me for ONE comment that you took as an insult.--gcessor71.32.86.239 13:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Once again, here we go with the double standards. You're going to accuse the INC detractors of doing the majority of insults at the forums when it's mainly the pro-INC crowd behind all this bickering. I've already tried to maintain decorum in my debate, and even stood with you in that Discover fiasco. But it seems that you have to insult every INC detractor, along with your assistant Emico and think that you're justified in doing so since I'm the lone INC detractor who frequently edits this article. That's the entire reason I'm here- to prevent tyranny of the majority. --Onlytofind 04:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
          • I "have to insult every INC detractor"??? Better back that up with facts and references, for you have falsely accused me YET AGAIN. Go back to my posts on the Bereans forum or on the 84590 or 70213 forums, and try to Google insults I have made, even in the face of literally HUNDREDS of insults by detractors. Know what you'll find? Rebukes - light rebukes, strong rebukes (even against my own brethren) - but I think you'd find PERHAPS five insults, and you'd also find sincere apologies that followed them. Looks like we're going to have another long, LONG discussion here waiting for you to prove your accusation that I "insult every INC detractor". That's one reason I'm here - to ensure you back up your accusations with proof--gcessor 17:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Well, I dunno. I've seen the forum myself and a lot of it's either bickering. What percentage of that forum's posts are actually useful? --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 11:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • There are usually many useful and relevant discussions at that forum, which are unfortunately overpowered by some rotten apples (on both sides). I would like to add it back, because as it stands now, there are two forums moderated by INC members and one which is not. I think it would add balance to the discussion section.--Onlytofind 02:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • But do you feel anybody who reads this article would want to wade through the garbage posts? I'd rather have moderated forums. That's the point. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 08:04, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • You are mistaken, Onlytofind. The 84590 forum is moderated by Gordon Cancio, a Catholic and a longtime INC detractor. The Bereans' site is of course moderated by detractors, and the sole remaining Network54 forum listed is the only one moderated by an INC member, RS. --gcessor71.32.86.239 13:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Then why does the forum's description clearly state: "Lastly, I'm an INC." I don't doubt you that Cancio moderates that forum, but why? If that's the case, shouldn't you go and tell him to delete that? --Onlytofind 04:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Because the owner of the forum is an INC - but the owner is NOT the moderator. Perhaps you are unaware that there are those who are able to separate their faith from their professional duty. Gordon is one such man who is able to be fair, firm, and impartial - even when his fellow Catholics insult him and call him a 'false ecumenist'. Those of us who understand the concept of 'fair, firm, and impartial' (also known as 'professionalism') know it when we see it.--gcessor 17:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
          • And you wonder why this discussion page is as bad as it is?--Onlytofind 21:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• I also would like to add a link. I'm still in the process of creating it but what it will contain basically will be the same stuff you will see on the forum on Network54. I will, of course, not put my name on it but will be anonymous as the other forums. It will be a la thebereans.net. I'm thinking of calling it liarandthelyingliars.com.
  • You've gotta be kidding me. Just make your point before others try to figure out what it is.
    • What happened, emico? Was RabidINCFanboys.com already registered? You really need to get back on your medication before you hurt yourself or someone else.Onlytofind 02:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Onlytofind, didn't you accuse me of insulting you? I said that those with good reading comprehension could easily see how I had said we DID charge for the Pasugo at one time, but not now (after you had implied that I was posting a lie)...and you accused me of insulting you and calling you illiterate. And then you post the above.
        • I stand by my insults, while you beat around the bush and did everything short of outright insulting me and ran around stating that since you didn't outright try to insult me, it wasn't an insult at all. I take it that from your reply, you don't mind the insults on the Bereans or any other religions but when factual criticism is put up against the INC, you and emico make it seem like it's the world against the INC, who both of you think obviously do nothing wrong against people of other faiths while you believe that all INC detrators have to play by "your standards". Say what you want, the truth is obvious.Onlytofind 04:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
          • But an insult is still a personal attack. You know Wikipedia doesn't allow that. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 08:04, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
          • Insults on forums are a form of freedom of speech (and may be subject to moderation, of course), but insults on ENCYCLOPEDIAE are not acceptable. Please understand the difference. And FYI, I DO mind the insults. I DO take offense when someone posts perverted insults concerning my close family - but I will NOT allow myself to sink to the same level! There's a REASON why Jesus said to turn the other cheek, Onlytofind. It would help you to understand that God watches what you do, too. Lastly, the "rules" on this ENCYCLOPEDIA are set by the admins, and not by me or any other user, INC or not.--gcessor 17:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
            • Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I hope that you're not accusing me about insulting your family, because I have never done such a thing to you, and I sincerely hope that you're not trying to accuse me of being Discoverer again.--Onlytofind 21:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
              • I never said you insulted my family (the ones who did were squidd, Voiceinthewilderness, discoverer, and RSP) - I said that even though some detractors did so, I did not allow myself to sink to the same level and fire back insults in return. And if you'll remember, I gave a sincere apology for thinking you were 'discoverer'. You see, when I find I am wrong about something, I feel it's right to apologize - even if I don't like at all the one I'm apologizing to.--gcessor 19:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
                • FWIW, I love you, Ealva and Emico even though we find ourselves in heated disagreement, and I pray that God enlightens us all. (Matthew 5:46)--Onlytofind 20:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Have you noticed how someone from nowhere pops in here talking about arianism, and then right on cue, only to find adds arianism on the discussion? interesting. Emico 07:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I seen it too. Since there's no source backing up the Arianism claim, I would have reverted it as well. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 11:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Emico, I wish that I could reply to your comment, except that I can't understand your atrocious grammar.--Onlytofind 02:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Emico, I think Onlytofind's "strongly implying" that you are illiterate!--gcessor71.32.86.239 13:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Not another ridiculous "illiteracy" argument. For the good of this article, and everybody editing it. Please take it somewhere else. I'm begging you. It only causes needless purges. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 08:04, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
          • Sorry, LBMixPro - it's just that it bugs me when someone complains about what he believes is an insult, and then uses even stronger language insulting someone else.

--gcessor 17:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • • I see. But it still fills this place with useless bickering, which leads nowhere. Hopefully this article should help. Glenn, please don't bait the wikipedians.--LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 05:54, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Folks...

...let's turn the heat down a little. We can all disagree without being this disagreeable. Remember, Wikipedia:No personal attacks. This is supposed to be discussion about how to improve the article, not about how awful, evil, or sinful we find each other to be. (I certainly can't claim the ability to speak for him, but I doubt that Jesus is greatly pleased by all of this.) That having been said, I have little interest in moderating an INC forum. So I'll ask an utterly unrelated question to persons more knowledgable than myself. Which is proper, INC or InC, Iglesia Ni Cristo or Igelsia ni Cristo? (I don't have to wonder whether Church Of Christ or Church of Christ is correct, that is obvious. Why would this not be the same way?) Rlquall 11:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Well said, Riquall (and to answer your question, AFAIK it doesn't matter). I would further point out that while those who insult are wrong, those who see those insults and use them as an excuse to hurl their own insults are equally wrong. It's not easy, but I remember being on the receiving end of insults for years on the 84590 forum - and such attacks included lies posted about my family. I finally left the forum when those who were attacking me began posting my personal information. What's the point? While I rebuked time after time after time those who insulted me, I did NOT lower myself to their level and start hurling insults of my own. Sometimes I made judgmental statements in those rebukes, but they were never meant as insults. What is important about this? If I can withstand hundreds and hundreds (no exaggeration!) of insults, perhaps those who complain about being insulted can say to themselves that they can achieve the same level of conduct. It ain't easy....--gcessor71.32.86.239 13:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Friendly reminder, Glenn- sign in before you perform any edits to the article so that your username can properly be accredited and that you can use the talk page to solve any disputes. I also request for you to read the comment posted by Rlquall at my talk page User_talk:Onlytofind. --Onlytofind 05:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Simply put, I heartily agree with the comment Rlquall left here, and from now on, I promise to only discuss matters relating to this article here in this section and refer all irrelevant discussion to Wikipedia sysops or personal user talkpages. I hope that the other major contributors to this article will join me in doing the same.--Onlytofind 05:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks Rquall. About your INC or InC question. I think we should name it to whatever is written on the signs of the locales. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 20:31, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• From the chapels I've seen, the name of the church is always written in all caps (IGLESIA NI CRISTO), but in the magazine, it is continuously referred to as the "Iglesia ni Cristo."--Onlytofind 05:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Well if that's what INC calls itself, then that's what it is. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 08:04, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it's Iglesia ni Cristo with a small n as it's used in God's Message. That usage better applies in articles, as opposed to IGLESIA NI CRISTO whose only usage is for the chapel signs. Iglesia ni Kristo with a K I've only seen in quite a few really old newspapers. Ealva 08:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • INC is the correct acronym. I have never seen "InC" used anywhere. Ealva 08:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

INC central office

Anybody care to merge the info from INC's central office article to the central office sub section here? I mean, that notice looks ugly on the page. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 08:04, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know how to merge information, but I've already integrated the information into that section. Would it be OK to delete the notice now, or is there something else to be done so that the Central Office page reverts to this article?--Onlytofind 21:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• • This task seems to have been done properly. Rlquall 23:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Why we can never reach consensus regarding this article

I quote from Rlquall left on my user talk page:

"Apparently I am the only admin (to date) with a great interest in the INC article. As previously stated, I am neither a member nor a former member of this group, but rather someone interested in learning truthful and objective facts about it and other Christian-related groups (and other religious bodies, for that matter). I think that our problem here results from some followers, whom I will give the benefit of the doubt as being well-meaning, whose world-view is so shaped by that of their church that they see it as The One True Path to Heaven, and feel that this viewpoint is no longer a point of faith but rather a matter of fact. From this perspective, everything about the church is good and any dissent or questioning is evil. (Of course I don't know because I don't know you, but assume that this attitude was at least part of the reason for your being a former member). We will continue to work on this as practicable, as time permits. Of course, I do have other interests besides Wikipedia (everyone should remember that we on the admin side are getting paid exactly what you are for your contributions) and also Wikipedia interests other than the INC article. That having been said, I'll see what I can do. If you can attract the interest of admins of higher status and longer standing than I, please involve them as well." Rlquall 11:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)--Onlytofind 21:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• I understand and respect the right of the Iglesia ni Cristo members to believe in the way they want, and I'm sure that the INC members know that I disagree with them, that is why until now, we severely disagree on the direction of this article. I propose that from now on, we keep this page relevant to edits and developments regarding this article and keep it focused on deciding if the information proposed by one user should be integrated into this article or not.--Onlytofind 21:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• We should also discuss anything in the article which anyone of us might not find NPOV so that we can take a further consensus in that we can find a compromise editing this article into a version which is acceptable to everyone and abiding under Wikipedia rules, so that all of us can stop spending so much time here :)--Onlytofind 21:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I see what you're recommending - and I see that the recommendation came six minutes after you insinuated wrongdoing by me again. I responded above, and kept it nice. I'll keep the rest of my reply for the other talk page.--gcessor 19:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
    • So we can start turning the wheel, I'll apologize for all actions on my behalf which are not befitting of the Wikipedia or Christianity and pledge to keep every action related to the article.--Onlytofind 21:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Assistance needed on the Felix Manalo, Erano Manalo and Eduardo Manalo Articles

I am asking for everyone to please take a look at those articles and see if we can improve them as well as protect them from Emico, who has been found in violation of the rules of the Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Emico.

Motivation and Intention

I question the motivation and intention of Onlytofind and lbmixpro with regards to their entries on the following articles Iglesia ni Cristo, Felix Manalo, Erano Manalo, Eduardo Manalo and Bereans. They colluded to get around Wikipedia rules. Emico 15:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Both claim to be former members of the INC but fought hard to keep a webpage link to this article which was critical of the INC. This particular article contained an issue in which all current and former INC can attest to not being factual. By this alone, it can be safely assumed that they have a biased opinion against the INC. Emico 21:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Give it up, buddy. Ever notice why nobody's taking you seriously?--Onlytofind 20:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• My motivation and intention of the INC article has always been the same. Just as I told the first person who felt I was biased against INC, e. lantaran, back in March: "No, I don't have any animosity against INC. All I want is this to be an informative, non biased article, and I've been trying to make it that over the past week or so." After a while, this same e. lantaran asked who was going to remove the "sect" reference from the article. Who was the one who did? If we can go even further back in time, back when I made my first edit to the article. I noticed a negative bias against INC. So I was the first to actually call out a point of view dispute and opened the talk page for the first time. I have nothing but good intentions for this article. That will not change, no matter what anybody thinks of me. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 07:16, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Can you please mention this "website link" in which you write of. We, the main editors of this article (Ealva, Glenn, Onlytofind, I, etc..) need to discuss this link, since the only conclusion about the links section was to limit each point of view to 3 links maximum. We haven't gone into detail about these links. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 07:16, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

• • I don't need to mention the link. I will not help propagate a liar's webpage. You said you removed it, so you should know, correct? You and others' professed good intention for the INC is admirable. But only time and succeeding post will tell if they are genuine. The INC and her leaders are victims of vicious attacks and lies on the internet by people who hide behind anonymous names and websites. For all we know, this may be one of the INC leaderships reason why the iNC does'nt have a presense on the Net. But whatever the reasons may be, we should respect. Concerning these websites and forums. Where do the owners find honor in spreading lies. I call their attention here, to identify themselves and defend what they write. --Emico 14:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • I now know what link you're talking about. I'm sorry to see the INC in that kind of light, but that's what happens for every small religion. I can assume when the catholic church was first established, other religions called them a cult as well. Although the original Church of Christ was created two millennia ago, the fact that it was re-introduced into modern memory in the 20th century, can give such claims. These other religions have been established, uninterrupted for centuries. About the forums, I see nothing wrong with healthy discussion between both sides. It's like a GEM event, where a INC minister debates with another church's minster/pastor/priest/rabbi/etc. I dislike forums which people can run rampant making posts which have no point, or stray away from the point. That's why I dropped the popular INC forum at Network 54. Do you want to wade through useless posts just to find a topic worth reading? It's like finding a needle in a haystack. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)}

• • • • By mentioning its name, you are not stating agreement or endorsement of their site or their policies, just as when GMA mentions Estrada's name she is not endorsing or supporting him. We just want to know which site is it? Assuming it's the Bereans, their forum remains, as the consensus decided that there should only be one link to its site. The only thing I want to see is factual and open debate between both sides, and if you feel that any website isn't treating the Iglesia ni Cristo fairly, why don't you contact the administrator of the website and tell them your objections? You already have a blog, and you can start another one featuring your correspondence to those websites, which you can link to on your user page, and maybe in this article, if the other contributors to this article agree. And Emico, according to the Google search, the name "Emico Lantaran" registers. Would it be correct to assume that you and Mr. Lantaran are one and the same?--Onlytofind 03:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No Verifiable source cited

No verifiable source for the contents of this article. The intention and motivation of the contributors is suspect. Beware of misinformation. Emico 16:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Verifiable by whom? What can be verified online has been verified. I think the main point you're post is conveying can be why INC doesn't allow its members to post information about INC online. But if you think something which hasn't been verified (sections other that Politics) is inaccurate. Don't be afraid to fix it. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 22:52, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• • Let me ask you. Why do you want sources for the Berean article and NOT for the INC article? What's good for the gander, etc. Emico 22:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • What does this have to do with the Berean article, Brother Emico? The bereans appearently have an official Website, the INC doesn't. Therefore, it's more difficult to get sources for the INC article. If you want, use the mailto link at the INC article, and ask them to verify the information here. But based on what I seen as a member of INC, I know CWS, Binhi, KADIWA and the Buklod exist. There are 28 doctorines, cuz I remember getting a card as an inductee which had 28 different fields for minsters to sign when I understood the lesson. Does "LOUD AND CLEAR AT THE SAME TIME!!" sound familiar? I know about the sports events and GEMs. My locale hosted a sports event when I was there, and one of my INC ministers convinced a pastor at a Southern Baptist church I was a member of to change some of his beliefs about Christmas. Your GEMs work. I know there's a magazine called "God's Message" which I recieved myself. Although I don't know the current state of that magazine. Just because I agree with 85% of INC's teachings, doesn't mean I want discredit INC for the other 15%. My point remaining I want more sources for the INC article.

If anybody who reads this is a member, can you try to get through to the administration to establish an official site? --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 23:30, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• The administration already owns the domain (inc.org.ph). There has been speculation as early as 1998 that the Iglesia ni Cristo would set up a website, but those plans were scuttled "as to prevent the spread of misinterpretation," according to an officer I was acquainted with. --Onlytofind 01:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the article can stand on its own now

By having three links for each major category, a summary of the Church administration, beliefs and practices, as well as an official contact for the Iglesia ni Cristo, I think the article as it stands currently meets Wikipedia standards, and even though we engaged in extremely passionate discussion, I would like to thank Dejvid, Ealva gcessor, LBMixPro, and Rlquall for their significant contributions in improving this article.

I don't think that we will have much more to add to the article, notwithstanding that the INC creates an official website or that there is a newsworthy event related to the INC, but hopefully we can work together to edit and improve the article in the future as we have done.

• It should be made clear that this article does not have the authorization of the INC Administration and the accuracy of it's content is therefore suspect, beware of misinformation. As far as I know, the instruction from the INC administration concerning web presence has not been rescinded, which makes this web content and all related contents as a direct affront to the authority of the Administration. Information about the INC can still be obtained from any local congregation. --Emico 13:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry to burst your bubble, but the authority of the INC administration does not apply at the Wikipedia. Just as you can write about the Bereans without their consent, we can write about the INC without their consent. This is free speech in a free country. Deal with it.--Onlytofind 20:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Never mind regional laws. It's specified in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion. There is absolutely no requirement that articles on a religion report exclusively the stance of its believers or originators. RayGirvan 00:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks all for your input. This is actually what I wanted. Statements like the 'bolded' above, especially from an avowed "INC detractor", should be very useful to readers in gauging the motivation you have. You helped me more than you know. --Emico 13:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Except that the statement is not a specific detraction. It's a general Wikipedia stance that happens to be applied here; it applies to any organisation. RayGirvan 14:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • Emico, I think you understand the Wikipedia rules perfectly. Your baiting must stop.--Onlytofind 19:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • • I think you are confusing 'responding' and 'commenting', which I do, to baiting. They're different. And I think, given the 'trolling' and insult you're thrown at me, most of which I did not respond in kind, you're not in a position to accuse me of anything. --Emico 20:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Yawn.--Onlytofind 20:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will now paste a reply about authorization and articles from sysop Rlquall

To the claims of "unauthorisation" I must respectfully say, "So what?" The article on Stalin is hardly authorised by him or by his estate, nor is the one on Mother Teresa. An encyclopaedia is hardly a compiliation merely of "authorised" entries; many "authorised" biographies, for example, are full of lies and misrepresentations and many "unauthorised" ones are closer to the actual truth.

Also, it should be noted that most founders of Christian denominations have stated that they are re-establishing or attempting to re-establish Christ's original church, not a new denomination, but this something that is generally accepted only by their converts and not everyone in general. That Felix Manalo claimed such is neither surprising nor unique; the purpose of an encyclopaedia article is not to establish the validity of such a claim, nor to disprove it, but rather to establish facts about its subject. That Felix Manalo claimed to have re-established Christ's original church in these "last days" is indisputible; whether he succeeded is an article of faith beyond the scope of this or any other encyclopaedia, as is whether or not these are truly the "last days". Let's stick to the facts. Rlquall 00:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)}

GEM

Something called a 'GEM' has been mentioned in this talk page a few times now. Would someone mind explaining what this is? If it's something particular to the INC maybe it should be mentioned in the article. DJ Clayworth 20:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It's short for "Grand Evangelical Mission" a missionary activity where INC members are encouraged to bring guests to the chapel, where a minister discusses the beliefs of the INC and encourages guests to question their current religious beliefs with the intention of having them join the INC. (this post vandalized by Emico) David, if you have the time, could you also leave a comment here: [2]--Onlytofind 20:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• A GEM is short for Grand Evangelical Mission. It's a missionary activity and focuses on doctrines. --Emico 20:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to attend these GEMs. You should attend one, if only to see if Onlytofind's comment above which I 'bolded' is true or not. --Emico 20:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For once I (somewhat) agree with you, I think anyone interested in the INC should attend a GEM, bring all questions and information from any INC critics they might want to have answered, so that they can decide for themselves. (bolded by myself) But I ask you, do you think that your conduct here would make someone more interested or less interested in visiting the INC?--Onlytofind 03:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the endorsement. More interested, of course. Afterall, I was'nt the one spewing all the insults and the whining. BTW, what religion do you belong to? --Emico 05:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I belong to the original Church, founded by the Lord Jesus. I'll give you a hint: it never apostacised and it isn't led by Joseph Ratzenberger or by any other man.--Onlytofind 17:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Berean. --Emico 21:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not a Berean. Stop making up lies and accusing others of doing the same things which you are guilty of.--Onlytofind 07:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then answer the question! What religion do you belong to? Also, I was guessing NOT lying. there's a difference. --Emico 12:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I would consider coming to a GEM; however there is no Iglesia ni Cristo near where I live. Also my experience interacting with you does not make this organisation seem attractive. DJ Clayworth 00:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh. Is'nt that being a little narrow minded? Pity. So, I guess you'll just take Onlytofind's words for it? Is that why you copied it verbatim? What a pleasant present you telling me you are biased toward Onlytofind. Thanks.

Well, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about really. DJ Clayworth 13:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can hardly blame me for my comments. It is true, you did copy/pasted verbatim. Is that really contributing to the article? I noticed that about you; It seems your examinations of facts comes after you've already posted and your post is questioned. See bereans talk page. Also, you knew exactly which part of Onlytofind's post is POV and biased against the INC, because you edited it later on. Don't take this as a personal attack, but rather an objective observation. --Emico 15:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't lecture, Emico. If you could tell what was POV in what you wrote we wouldn't be here now. As to the above, you are the one spewing out the insults. A few lines above here you called me 'narrow minded' and 'biased'. DJ Clayworth 17:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Like what I've said, it is an observation. Also, English is not my first language as you have stated many times. But I believe calling you narrow-minded after your statement is not an insult, but just a description of what you just said. And I'm currently not even a member(yet).--Emico 21:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your double-standards regarding insults hold no water.--Onlytofind 07:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look who's talking :o --Emico 12:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Emico, your version doesn't say very much about GEMs. I've revised - please let me know if there is anything untrue in what I wrote, or if you think there is bias, exactly what it is. DJ Clayworth 13:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Created Missionary Activity section

I created a specific section about the INC's missionary activities, and went into each of them in detail--Onlytofind 19:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Seems reasonably accurate. I have some reservations about that Ann Harper article, though. Looks more like a con link to me. Ealva 02:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • To be sure, its basic thrust is a cultural primer for the benefit of Evangelicals, and many of its comments (eg assumes that it alone has the clear and unbiased interpretation of the Bible) are equally applicable to many other Christian groups. But it's also critical of Evangelical attitudes, and has a wealth of solidly-referenced background detail. It's certainly far more informative and, within the limits of its brief, objective than anything else I've been able to find on the Web. RayGirvan 12:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I changed "might hold a GEM" to "will hold...", because there is no question as to whether one 'might' be held. Also, I deleted the line that said the God's Message magazine contains schedules of Worship Services. While the magazine does contain addresses and points of contact, for over a year it has no longer contained the schedule of the Worship Services.--gcessor 20:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I added information about pamphlets, and re-added the information about Pasugo worship schedules with the clause that it was featured in previous editions. If there is any disagreement over the edit, please post here so that we can avoid a Tom & Jerry style revert war and to avoid possibly violating the 3RR rule. As for the Ann C. Harper article, it is the most thoroughly-researched, cited source available regarding the INC, and it seems to be fairer and more neutral then any of the other sources linked to.--Onlytofind 07:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I deleted the Ann Harper article. Onlytofind, what you were effectively doing was trying to add a fourth 'con' site, in a section not meant for 'con' sites, in order to bypass the results of the vote. You're welcome to add it by replacing one of the other 'con' sites with it. Before you try to claim it's not a 'con' site, consider this quote from page 102: "The purpose of this paper is to explore the INC's view of Evangelicals and to consider whether we need to reassess our apologetic and evangelistic approach to this group." It is a paper written by a detractor, however polite the author may be, and is meant to be used as a how-to guide for detractors to draw members away from the Iglesia ni Cristo. That makes it a 'con' site, period.--gcessor 13:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Glenn, Raygirvan brought that link to my attention, and out of all the sources we have listed here, it is the most well-researched and well-written. I have found it to also be objective in its content. In case you haven't noticed, I wrote the majority of the section on the INC's evangelical missions and even added a link to the politics section, which states that other religions in the Philippines practice bloc voting too which made it more NPOV. I'm not going to revert the article just yet, but if necessary, I will have another vote regarding the addition of this article. I'm assuming that your edit was in good faith, and I would like you to assume the same for mine. I also sincerely resent your statement that I'm intentionally trying to get around the vote and I would like you to take back your claim because you have explicitly claimed something which I did not do or intended to do. If I wanted to break the rules, I would have just started another revert war. I welcome the input from other users regarding the inclusion of the Harper paper into this article. --Onlytofind 03:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • You can resent it all you like, but I have shown you absolute proof that it is an article BY a detractor, and its purpose is to HELP OTHER DETRACTORS AGAINST THE INC - says it in plain black-and-white. THAT MAKES IT A 'CON' SITE, AND THE ONLY SECTION WHEREIN IT MIGHT BELONG IS IN THE 'CON' SECTION. The vote was already held limiting you to three 'con' sites, if you'll recall....--gcessorgcessor 07:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I think we should make it clear that the "pro" and "con" links are to resources which focus on the Church's doctorines and procedures. And the "misc" links are links which are about the INC, but doesn't focus on what they do. For example, the INC chapel page (outside of comments) says nothing about INC's teachings. ASCII is a site about technology, but it's involement with INC is it's support. But the Pro and Con are focused on teachings. The PDF article is VERY informative, as it presents many hard facts. BUT the way the PDF concludes itself to show in a sympathetic tone how the general Christian community looks down upon INC and vice versa, but I cannot make a clear judgement until I finish reading the entire PDF. This one is difficult to decide what subsection it belongs to, and we should look into it closely. Glenn, do us all a favor and WP:AGF. He might not have read the full article completely. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 04:46, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
        • I deleted it before I read your opinion - but A very politely-written 'con' site...is STILL a 'con' site. The quote of mine that Onlytofind should be all you need to see that it is a 'con' site - and the article's conclusion is much the same. The author wrote the article as an aid to her fellow evangelicals to help them missionize INC members - that is EXACTLY what she is saying in the introduction. And as for accuracy, look on page 14 - "Members are not to read the Bible for themselves, much less interpret it." Her ignorance of the INC is obvious, for the Church Administration knows I do much Biblical research on my own and has never even hinted for me to stop - even after I disagreed with the local minister and even the district minister on the subjects of evolution and Noah's flood. On page 104 she references anecdotal 'evidence' based on experiences claimed by others - but one who is able to know NPOV should be able to easily see that only one side of the stories were given. On page 107 she referenced a book that claimed Manalo believed Filipinos "defective in thought power". And what did the original author base that claim on? And how about this from page 109: "Sanders APPROPRIATELY (caps mine) writes that the INC's three basic doctrines are serious devations from Biblical teachings and from the Christian faith...and are in large measure defective. The Iglesia has a deficient and confused Christology." MIND you that Miss Harper said Sanders' statement was APPROPRIATE. Is that NPOV? It can't be. That means that if this link is to be put anywhere, then it must replace any of the other three 'con' sites.--gcessor 07:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The underlined area has been written by 24.16.167.121. If this is you Glenn, please make sure you're logged in (check the top of the page for your username) before posting. It may help distingush if this edit is yours or someone else's.--LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 21:01, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay - thanks for the rebuke. I'll try my best to do so.--gcessor 07:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

INC link found

www.iglesianicristo.us looks a well-presented and informative Pro link. How about a trade-off: add this to the Pro, and the Anne Harper to the Con? (I should add, in case the address rings alarm bells, that it used to be an anti- site, but is under new ownership). RayGirvan 02:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well spotted Ray! That looks like exactly the sort of site we are looking for. Anyone any issues with it? I think we could reasonably write more about INCs beliefs based on this page. DJ Clayworth 03:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It was on there a few months ago, but one of the main editors of the article discovered the webmaster of that site is actually against the INC. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 03:29, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Hardly. Look closely and carefully, not just the front page. Very deceitful website, which I've already pointed out(somewhere) a while back. Just look at the 'big four' page, where there's a manipulated graphics poking fun at Mr Manalo. I object to this site. --Emico 03:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • You're right. I'm very sorry! I found the site while looking for pictures of the architecture. It's very sneakily arranged: plausible material at the top of each page, and the negative stuff further down. RayGirvan 03:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • I found a pro link, [Nida Crisostomo's Iglesia ni Cristo Website]. Would someone like to add this to the pro section and the Harper link to the con section? I would, but I believe that some other editors and I might get into a revert war because they do not assume good faith on my edits.--Onlytofind 03:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • Let's stick by the vote - three pro and three con. Personally, I'd prefer the three that are already there. And concerning your claim that we don't assume good faith on your edits...it's because we KNOW that deep inside, your edits are not for the purpose of NPOV, but to detract from the INC (just as mine is to defend the Church). Your recent attempt to insert a detractor's site (despite the obvious bias against the INC I quoted for LBMixPro above) in a section where it doesn't belong is a bit too obvious.--gcessor 07:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Let me ask the same of you. Are your edits for NPOV, or to provide your view on how the INC should be presented?--Onlytofind 08:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I find it hard to understand the rationale - unless it's fear of intelligent critique - for rejecting a source that's way superior in information content to anything else on the Web. Of the others, the Examine looks marginally the best, at least making some attempt to argue with reference to documented historical texts. But the Catholic.com and Letusreason sites are just rants based on claim to a unique handle on interpretation of biblical texts. It's like watching aliens argue over whether Zarg is the son of Zork, or Zork the son of Zarg. RayGirvan 19:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• One thing I got from this essay is the fact that foreign missionaries are bigots. --Emico 13:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A point I have to take with Glenn Cessor

Glenn, I am disappointed with your conduct regarding my addition of the Harper article, claiming that "I was trying to circumvent the vote" and that any link should not be valid if it was added by me. In doing so, you have violated the Wikipedia rules of assuming good faith and No personal attacks, which you did, claiming your assumptions about my character as fact. Not to mention that those count as "baiting," posts designed to create arguments with other users and make them angry.

Nobody's psychic, and it's plain wrong for you to make assumptions about my intentions and character and present them as fact.

I am a former INC member, who is critical of some of their practices, and you are a current INC member, as well as a well-known INC apologist online. This means that we will find ourselves in deep disagreement in a matter such like this quite often, but it doesn't make you and me above the rules. It seems that you want to continuously punish my past conduct, which I have apologized for on more than one occasion, but that is once again, in violation of Wikipedia rules.

I have contributed information both positive and critical about the INC, and keep in mind that I was the one who wrote the majority of the 'missionary activities' section, and even added a link to the politics section putting the bloc vote in context, and showing other Philippine religions that practice it. Not to mention that I found and added the third pro-INC link.

I would like you to read Wikipedia's [stance on religion and how Original_research is prohibited.

I am trying to settle this right here and right now because I believe that we are both reasonable people. If it cannot be settled here, then I will refer this to the Arbitration process.--Onlytofind 08:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a repetition of the problem in Bereans: the INC-sympathetic editors here seem incapable of understanding that some people are not part of the INC/anti-INC feud. They are certainly flouting the [stance on religion. (A good example of how a religious page should work is the much-debated Mother Teresa), which gives plenty of space both to believers and critics.

I really don't know what mechanism there is on Wikipedia for handling a page permanently strangled by a special interest group.

As for the bad link, I was fooled by a page designed to fool, and have apologised. "Assume good faith". RayGirvan 11:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Likewise. I was fooled too. DJ Clayworth 13:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's regrettable that the author of the site decided to take the low road instead of trying to foster intelligent discourse.--Onlytofind 21:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's an interesting link regarding the steps the INC took to prevent publication of a book critical of its doctrines: [[3]] Lots of personal opinion, but the legal documents at the top of the page speak for themselves. --Onlytofind 21:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The case is in the courts. Let the courts decide. --Emico 23:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • And I'll let the readers decide if the INC overreacted or not by suing Ross Tipon.--Onlytofind 02:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Have you read the book? You'll decide based on what? --Emico 02:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Will someone tell me exactly how Miss Harper's quote can possibly fit anywhere other than in the 'con' section? Here it is again: "Sanders APPROPRIATELY (caps mine) writes that the INC's three basic doctrines are serious devations from Biblical teachings and from the Christian faith...and are in large measure defective. The Iglesia has a deficient and confused Christology." MIND you that Miss Harper said Sanders' statement was APPROPRIATE - a statement of OPINION, and not researched fact. Again, how can this possibly fit anywhere but in the 'con' section?--gcessor 01:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • The first pro-website for the INC in the link section talks about "However, it was obvious to the listening audience that he was just groping for answers to most of the questions asked to him." regarding a debate between Steven Kroll and Edwin Anderson which was quoted word-for-word from the Pasugo magazine. That was a statement of opinion too, and I don't exactly see your questions about it being included on this site and in the magazine, Glenn. You and Emico believe that everything that comes from Central is neutral, unbiased and fact, even though it may be the opinion of a writer or minister. It might be to the both of you, and if so, it's your right to believe it. But, it doesn't count in the Wikipedia rules, and the both of you are being hypocritical by nitpicking on the articles critical of the INC and trying to push through your personal opinions as well as the INC's as facts.--Onlytofind 02:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • Um, you said that was in the first PRO-website? Then it BELONGS in the PRO section, just as Ann Harper's OPINION BELONGS in the CON section. Make your choice which one to replace, because the 'con' section is the only one where the link will stay. How 'bout answering this one question, Onlytofind? What was Ann Harper's purpose in writing that article?

• • Also, I would love to hear your response to the original post in this thread. Are your edits for the purpose of creating an article which examines all sides equally, such as stipulated in the Wikipedia rules regarding religion, or would you like to push a halcyon, one-sided view about what you believe is the truth?--Onlytofind 02:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • Apparently, Onlytofind, your definition of an NPOV article is one wherein every statement concerning the INC is negative. As the article stands right now (except for the Ann Harper debacle), it is close to NPOV - and I could easily make an argument showing that it is actually slightly CON INC overall. I would try to explain to you how the article is MUCH closer to NPOV than it was six months ago, but you would not understand.--gcessor 06:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Glenn, I'm getting fed up with you and your baiting. You're a liar, plain and simple. I already have shown my evidence that I've added factual information positive and critical about the INC. The other users here have already called your bias out into the open, and you refuse to answer my claims that you only want to portray the INC in a positive light, and to your own standards. I will take this case to arbitration.--Onlytofind 08:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A point I have to take with Onlytofind

I'm tired of your constant whining when you don't get what you want. I see this behavior in 5-year olds and it gets old very quickly. Add to this whining is the baiting, not only of those you disagree with but also with those sympathetic to you. This is to align support for your next step of threats. In my opinion, you are manipulating the system and the users/contributors to further your own agenda. Your overzealousness for this and related articles is cause enough to suspect your intention. --Emico 14:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Emico, the worst part of all this is that you, my friend are guilty of all the things that you have accused me of in your childish and lowbrow fabrication. And your post counts as both baiting, and a personal attack. After all the things which you have said and done, why should anyone take you seriously?--Onlytofind 21:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Link warring

The link's appropriate and useful. I don't think it should be suppressed. There was no consensus to restrict the number of links about this organisation. Controversial organisations are going to tend to have a fair bit written about them, not always positive. If Emico wants to put the link with the Cons, then he should do so, but he ought not to try to suppress it. Grace Note 02:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• There was a consensus to restrict the number of links. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)}
  • That's what I suggested on 06:22, 13 Jun 2005. But Onlytofind insist on getting around the vote. There's hardly a reason to whine about it, one of the pro item is an email address for goodness sake! --Emico 02:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • But you didn't. The e-mail address was already approved as a pro site. Keep in mind that we voted on the Bereans, not this article! There have been four editors (Clayworth,Girvan,Grace Note and myself) who want this link to remain, in contrast to the two who don't want it- you and Glenn. This reinforces your hypocrisy, only wanting to abide by democracy when it rules in your favor.--Onlytofind 02:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • • The main dispute is how "con" links outweigh "pro" in the external links section, causing an NPOV dispute, with the Bereans link as major subject matter. --Emico 02:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Insult Alert you'll never gonna change, are you? --Emico 04:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • The bait shop is officially closed for the season.--Onlytofind 09:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • I agree with everybody else, the PDF is con, but it should not be removed. Please read what I highlighted before you read further... Now, I just finished reading the article, and it seems to have a bias leaning toward con, although the article in my opinion is a guide on INC's view of the outside world, and how the outside world can get through to them. We also have that Max. 3 links on each POV limit we came up with. It's now a matter of which con link should be replaced for the article. I want to move it to con, because its place in the misc category is definetly out of place.I've seen other article talk pages create sub-talk pages based on subject, do you think we can spread this talk page out in seprate sub pages? --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 03:45, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • Thanks, Lbmixpro, for your agreement that it should replace one of the existing 'con' sites. I appreciate your fairness.--gcessor 06:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • We've got other users here now, and they want the article included in the link section. The only thing is that you and Glenn are not objective and want to portray the INC in your own manner.--Onlytofind 03:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • I wonder where these users come from? Anyway, we had a vote, abide by it. Will someone remove the link until Onlytofind decides which one to replace? --Emico 03:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • Like Emico, I wonder where these new users came from? And why is it their writing style looks so...familiar?--gcessor 06:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Here we go with the flaming insult statements once again to try and break the credibility of those who are trying to uphold Wikipedia standards and give their input into this article. In case you haven't read, these contributors come from different parts of the world, different walks of life, and have contributed to many different topics. How can you seriously say that all of us are the same person? If anything, I suspect Emico might be your alter-online ego, due to the fact that you have never criticized his obvious lack of objectivity on every article he contributes to.--Onlytofind 09:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • I removed the link again. I expect Onlytofind to break the agreement and add to to misc again. --Emico 12:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • There wasn't an agreement regarding this article, and the majority of users here find it to be fair. Once again, you only like democracy when it's in your favor, but when it's not, you want to try and subdue it anyway possible.--Onlytofind 09:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• There was a vote a while back regarding the matter of a link regarding the Berean religions' dispute with INC doctrines and practices. But, Glenn Cessor and Emico are trying to take it out of context, and saying it refers to all links. Glenn Cessor has already stated in the past that he has wanted the link section according to "his conditions" which he finds "reasonable," which might or not be, but is not in accordance with Wikipedia rules. I added another INC pro site, and they didn't seem to mind, but when I added an article which, gasp, examines the INC in a fair manner, as well as the doctrines of the writer's organization, well-written and researched, they seem to get angry and do everything they can to stop its inclusion, even though other users (more than the two of them) have spoken in its support. I welcome the input from the multiple Wikipedians who are coming to give their input on this article, and believe it is the only way to keep true NPOV as well as improving the article.--Onlytofind 02:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Umm, Emico already posted the reason for the vote. There really was a lobside to the con/pro listings. The result was to keep a max of 3 links per pov. The reason the Bereans link was removed was because it was already linked in the forums subsection. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 08:38, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Quite a few voted for "2 pro and 3 con". One interpretation of the vote is that they felt that a small disparity was acceptable but not 4 to 2. As we have more links on the pro side then it is arguable that to increase the cons is accptable. If those who voted for the middle position are still around I'd be interested to know how they feel their vote should be interpreted.Dejvid 19:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I say keep it as it is. If the Ann Harper article should be included, take out one of the con links. It's not just the number: The pro links themselves are quite weak (even that proposed Nida Crisostomo website), with one being an email address. We have reached a consensus on this before, and re-opening it will again turn this article into a forum. For those who have only tuned in, I suggest you read the discussion history to understand the rationale for the vote. Ealva 20:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One of the major problems here is that INC refuses to supply information about their own organisation, web-based or, aparrently, otherwise. For them refuse to give out information and then say "because you can't find web sites sympathetic to us, you shouldn't post ones that area unsympathetic" is unreasonable. Nor should we set any kind of precedent for limiting the numbers like this. 9 external links is nothing compared with the numbers some have. If an external link is reasonably reliable, and provides information that we wouldn't otherwise get, and doesn't inflate the size of the article inreasonably (if there were hundreds of links) then it should go in. DJ Clayworth 20:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I can give you tons of God's Message magazine, invite you to a worship service, GEM, or bible study, invite a minister to talk to you, or ask you to watch INC's TV programs. Just don't ask me to point you to official INC information on the internet--there is none. This article is as far as it gets. Ealva 04:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I can see now why the war over this article is heating up. Apparently, the INC members want to edit this article into becoming consisted only of information approved and disseminated by the INC and its administration, even against Wikipedia rules.--Onlytofind 08:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • We're here prevent the likes of you from turning this article into your obviously biased anti-INC POV. If I remember (again), your earlier edits were proven to the community to be biased, which you have admitted. I'm beginning to think your apologies for those are insincere--you haven't changed your ways. Ealva 15:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Right now, the burden of proof is on you, Glenn and Emico. Wikipedians with no affiliation to the Iglesia ni Cristo are already proving the bias from the INC members towards this article. In case you're wondering, I've added information both positive and negative here, and I've been man enough to admit my past mistakes while on the other hand, you three are weaseling around trying to pin the blame on someone else, whether it be me or another contributor when it's obvious that all of you are collaborating to try and strongarm this article towards your viewpoint. Now that's why I'm here, to keep and uphold Wikipedia standards, not the standards of the INC or its members.--Onlytofind 18:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • What bias? Even you have stated that the article can stand on its own. It was you who tried to sneak in the link, cleverly disguising it as "other INC-related link", which was obviously a con link. I have no qualms about the link itself, add it if you will, it's your way of bypassing the consensus that bothers us. You obviously have no regard for rules, Wikipedia or otherwise. Ealva 19:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't see any "consensus" on limiting links. I can see a discussion, an inconclusive survey, but no general agreement. Certainly, I don't agree. You cannot simply claim that every link that is found is "con" and try to have it removed. If the links are informative and interesting, they should be included. If you want to have balance, find "pro" links of a similar standard. Grace Note 06:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • • I said that the basic article can stand on its own now, which it can and does. That doesn't mean that I called for a moratorium on edits or an addition of information. And stop propagating that lie that I tried to sneak the article in, while Raygirvan, DJ_Clayworth and Grace Note have supported its inclusion. I highly doubt your neutrality, while Glenn and Emico try to bypass Wikipedia rules, you turn a blind eye to them, and criticise my past deeds just because I don't agree with INC teachings.--Onlytofind 18:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• FYI, perhaps you should look at the balance of pro-con links on other Wiki sites on religions - like the ones for the Catholics and the Mormons. There are FAR more 'con' sites on the internet for both of these religions, yet so few are listed on the Wiki page. That was the crux of my argument, and thanks be to God the vote supported our demand for fairness, that we be shown the same respect as all other sizable religions.--gcessor 07:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • All you're concerned about is "respect," and your definition of "fairness," not adherence to Wikipedia rules or its standard of NPOV. If you don't feel the Catholic and Mormon articles are fair, then contribute to them.--Onlytofind 09:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It's funny how you always make this quote about adhering to Wikipedia rules and NPOV when you yourself are obviously trying to take this article into your own POV. I say that you (and the new ones) should review this article's history: contrast Onlytofind's "contributions" to gcessor's and find out for yourself. Ealva 15:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • You're conveniently forgetting that other contributors (Raygirvan,Grace_Note,DJ_Clayworth)are in support of adding this link. And as for Mr. Cessor, he has continuously stated and implied that he wants this article written to "his standards," which is against Wikipedia rules. I found 2/3rds of the links in the Pro section, and wrote up the sections regarding the different organizations in the INC as well as missionary works. You're holding a double standard, supporting Emico's and Glenn's biased edits because they support your viewpoint, while I have worked since then to improve my contributions, visiting the INC for the first time in two years and trying my best to add factual information on both sides since them. But it's pointless trying to convince you three- you think everything I do is bad because I disagree with INC teachings. Well, I don't care- but I will not stop my efforts in trying to protect the neutrality of this page.--Onlytofind 18:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • You're conveniently forgetting that we reached a consensus regarding the links. Ealva 19:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • What consensus? It was a kangaroo election, without any nonaffiliated editors contributing to the article. Now that they have come, and want to uphold Wikipedia rules, you three are trying to circumvent them.--Onlytofind 18:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • But I think I'm wasting my breath. It's funny how these 'new users' are appearing, how familiar their writing styles are, and how their main topic of discussion is the number of pro-and-con sites, as if they had been participating in this dispute the whole time. I find that extremely interesting since in my six years of experience defending the INC online, most detractors who show up don't go straight to the topic of what link goes where, but are more interested in proving/disproving doctrine...but all these new users went straight to the pro-con issue - something I haven't seen from any detractor before. Is this the result of something completely new? Somebody wouldn't be trying to deceive us before God, as a good work unto God, now would he?--gcessor 07:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Here we go with the "everybody's the same" claim invented by Emico and piled on by you. Perhaps it's actually the both of you who are the same person. I cannot believe that you would stoop so low as to accuse everyone of these users of being the same person, just because there are Wikipedians trying to uphold the Wikipedia rules. Your neutrality is automatically disqualified by calling the Harper article "trying to deceive us before God". And this discussion is regarding this article about the Iglesia ni Cristo, Glenn, you have never referred to any other religion in a fair and sympathetic tone in discussion, and have used weasel terms to insult them and claim that "since I'm not outright insulting them, I'm not insulting them." There is a definite need for the moderators and sysops to come in. The Iglesia ni Cristo members obviously want to subdue the Wikipedia rules and write this article in their own viewpoint. I will make sure every sysop and administrator here knows of this fact. --Onlytofind 08:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Ann Harper link is not a polemic and to the exetent it critisizes it spends as much time critisizing evangelicas as the INC.Dejvid 16:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• One description of the essayy is this: "Ann Harper of the Alliance Biblical Seminary in Quezon City, The Philippines, has begun the necessary spadework for creating a contextually sensitive outreach to adherents of the Iglesia Ni Cristo church.". If I understand 'outreach' correctly, it is the initial step in converting away from the INC. I can go on but I think you got the point. --Emico 16:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have you read the the Ann Harper article? The source is not neutral, that's true. However it is not writen to persuade INC members but to show how her fellow evangelicals have been qui9te counterproductive (in her opinion) in their dealings with the church. Along the way she is quite informantive about the church.Dejvid 17:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The purpose of this paper...reassess our apologetic and evangelistic approach to this group. --Emico 17:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, Emico. The paper is written to evangelical Christians in order to get them to change their attitude. DJ Clayworth 17:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree also. As I've said before, despite its overall purpose, it's the single most informative document I've seen on the subject, and of vastly higher quality of research and analysis than the polemic elsewhere. It should go in for that reason alone. As is being suggested, I've replaced one of the Con links with it: Let Us Reason is nothing of the sort, just a theological rant. RayGirvan 17:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then add it to the Evangelicals article, not here. The INC's here have been more than gracious for even discussing it. It's a tutorial for evangelizing INC members, it does not belong here. --Emico 17:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whatever its origin, it contains useful and interesting info about the INC. If INC published a manual on how to evangelise others, then I would suggest making a link to it here. DJ Clayworth 17:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Useful information such as? Let me pick the simplest one I can find:Members are not to read the bible for themselves. Aside from being false, it makes the INC sound controlling. Which is totally untrue. --Emico 18:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quit swivelling. How many times have you put "Consider replacing one of the other con links" in your Edit summaries? It's done - and now you don't like it. Read WP:NPOV#Religion. As long as there's fair statement of what believers do believe, articles are allowed (and expected) to include external views of the same subject. RayGirvan 18:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What looks like swivelling to you is really me trying to maintain harmony that was on this article for a short time until someone started breaking the concensus. All of this could have been avoided if not for the selfishness of some. --Emico 20:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A good statement by DJ Clayworth

"However this is not the point. Even if you believe that the Trinity is wrong, an article about a group that does believe it is the wrong place to explain why it is wrong. DJ Clayworth 02:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)"

Now, let's take his statement one step further, and replace "Trinity" with "Iglesia ni Cristo". Would that make his statement any less right? And Onlytofind, please do not think that you have any purpose here other than to attack the INC. You might repeatedly say you're not attacking the INC, but your gut - and all the other readers - know better.--gcessor 07:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're the only one here who keeps bringing up that horrid lie, and trying to claim that you know my thoughts and intentions, which you don't, while everyone else is questioning your intentions and biases, which are pretty obvious. The only reason you are here is to push your own, biased, POV view of the INC. And as for DJ Clayworth, you took his quote out of context. If one wanted to add an article criticizing the Trinity, they wouldn't add it to the Bereans section, but to the section on the Trinity. I would like to hear DJ Clayworth's statement regarding this matter since it's him who you have quoted. --Onlytofind 09:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

gcessor is indeed taking what I said entirely wrongly. I said what I said about the Trinity because the article in question was not about the Trinity. In an article about the Trinity it would be reasonable - no, essential - to present different views about it. In an article about INC it is equally essential to present different views about INC - positive or negative. DJ Clayworth 13:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But their rejection of the trinity is what makes the INC stand out. The article does need some space on their reasons for rejecting the trinity. Dejvid 15:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the case of INC I would agree. However my comment was about the Bereans, who accept the Trinity, and therefore don't stand out on this regard at all. I'd have no trouble with putting in some of the reasons for the INC rejecting the Trinity, as long as it didn't become a lecture. Plus the INC's reasons aren't that different from the Mormons or JWs. DJ Clayworth 17:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the bible. Unlike other religions, the INC's sole basis for it's doctrines is the bible. --Emico 17:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You mean the Bible interpreted by the INC administration. Many religions adhere to a bible-only doctrinal system, hence the term Sola Scriptura. --Onlytofind 18:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Many Christian denominations take the Bible as their sole source of authority and doctrine. DJ Clayworth 21:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The whole article needs cultural context of this sort. The INC believes in its uniqueness, external observers claim similarities with other religions (for instance, its non-trinitarian and Sola Scriptura basis very much resembles Biblical Unitarianism in many respects). Those viewpoints should both be mentioned. RayGirvan 19:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Yes, I took your quote wrongly - in your view. However, think a little more deeply. Is an encyclopedia article on the Iglesia ni Cristo the place to discuss why you believe the Iglesia ni Cristo is wrong? Answer that, and then look again at your quote - not the exact language, but the overall meaning of your quote.--gcessor 04:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • DJ Clayworth wrote this sentence and knows exactly what he intended to imply, while you are secondguessing his intentions and trying to imply that you know better about what he said than he does, which you can't, since you are not him. "I took your quote wrongly - in your view." Do you know how preposterous and arrogant that sounds?--Onlytofind 06:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • And as for your efforts against criticising the INC on this article, Glenn, I see that you have either not read the Wikipedia rules regarding religion or are trying to disregard them.--Onlytofind 06:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Where's your apology now, Glenn??? You were wrong in this matter, now admit it.--Onlytofind 19:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's a relevant quote from Rlquall, not taken out of context.

I agree with every word written in this statement:

"...I think that our problem here results from some followers, whom I will give the benefit of the doubt as being well-meaning, whose world-view is so shaped by that of their church that they see it as The One True Path to Heaven, and feel that this viewpoint is no longer a point of faith but rather a matter of fact. From this perspective, everything about the church is good and any dissent or questioning is evil... Rlquall 11:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)"

If you would like to read the quote in full, please read my talk page.

• Nice quote. Too bad I believe he is human and makes mistakes too. Ealva 20:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yet, this quote seems oddly prophetic.--Onlytofind 06:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll add a quote from WP:NPOV#Religion, an official policy that all editors are expected to follow:

"Many adherents of a religion will object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They would prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which is often from a non-historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) Their point of view must be mentioned, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that we say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z."

The article on Scientology, another intensely controversial religion, has achieved a more or less successful compromise according to those guidelines. Believers' views are fairly represented, but criticisms are also included. That article makes a good model for how this one should be handled. RayGirvan 19:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think there's no disagreement here that criticisms for a certain religion (INC or otherwise) is necessary for a good article. It's the way that statements of criticisms are presented as statements of fact that turns up the heat in any discussion, and the INC article has had quite a few. Borrowing from the Scientology article, I think a separate section ala "Controversy and Criticisms" might alleviate these heated exchanges and help turn this article to NPOV. Ealva 20:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. The problem is that there is disgreement here about the inclusion of criticisms. Others - not you, Ealva - are objecting to any statement of criticisms, or indeed of any external views. A "Controversy and Criticisms" section is a good idea but, as with the Scientology article, all text should maintain that balance between believers' and nonbelievers' views.

This whole article is choked by suppression of information. For instance, take the disputed point as to whether Felix Manalo "founded" INC. INC members say not: Christ founded it. Externally, the mundane view is that he did - even the Philippine government website uses "founded". This doctrinal dispute - a fundamental point highlighting INC beliefs - ought to be documented, not swept under the carpet with a neutral "was registered".

I, and I'm sure others, have seen all this before. INC would get a far more informative, and even sympathetic, documentation (as has happened with Scientology) without this paranoid sabotage of articles. RayGirvan 00:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look at the history of the article over the past six months. For instance, Onlytofind insisted that the Iglesia ni Cristo members pay for the Pasugo. I pointed out that we once did several years ago, but no more. He insisted I was lying, so I provided the link to the addresses and phone numbers of locales around the world, and invited him to contact them to see if I was wrong. He then said that it was not 'several' years ago that we stopped the practice, and I provided him a dictionary definition showing the meaning of 'several'. If you will check the history, you will find that he accused me (several times) of calling him 'illiterate' when I had never done so...and used that as his justification to throw whatever insults he wished. He has also accused me of insulting 'every INC detractor'...and such is simply not my practice. I honestly don't think I've posted more than maybe five insults in six years' worth of debating on line. Of course, if Onlytofind can prove me wrong, I heartily invite him to do so.

It's not an endorsement of Onlytofind's behaviour to endorse his edits. You should be clear on that. Sometimes the road to a good article is rocky. What you have to ask yourself is whether you are approaching it in the right spirit, with willingness to compromise. Grace Note 05:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've already tried working with Glenn and Emico, the two most vocal INC apologists, on many occasions, but then the both of them try to dwell on my past behavior (how many times must I try to make amends?) while doing similar things and justifying them because they both feel that the Internet is inherently biased against the INC. Instead of trying to move this article to a POV sympathetic to the INC and personal beliefs, perhaps Emico and Glenn can collaborate on starting a pro-INC site or blog in response to all of the INC claims they disagree with and link it here.--Onlytofind 06:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If we INC members seem somewhat touchy, consider a discussion thread currently on the Bereans' forum. There is a new book out by a "Dr." Ruivivar in the Philippines who says, among other things, that we (1) are not allowed to own Bibles (I own two bound and one software), (2) are not allowed to read or study the Bible on our own (the Administration has never given me permission to debate, but I've done so for so long now, and have done MUCH research and study), and (3) are not allowed to disagree with the ministers (and I've disagreed with the minister and the district minister concerning Noah's flood and evolution - and they know of my debates - but there was not the least problem with either man). HOWEVER, in spite of how false I know Ruivivar's claims to be, these 'Bereans' - Night Chronicles, Rodimus, aG&Y, etc. - insist that his research is faultless.

One, I think the forums are unacceptable as a source and I'm not entirely sure they should be linked. Two, if there are assertions that lack acceptable sources, then you're entitled to contest them. You should list them in a new section, so that neutral editors can take a look. Most editors will support you if your opponent cannot or will not provide reputable sources for their material.Grace Note 05:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really complaining about assertations, but pointing out how pervasive is so much wrong information concerning the INC, and using that as an example of why we're so sensitive when we see such false information.--gcessor 13:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Want a better one? There's the U.S. Department of State website concerning the Philippines that has a link concerning their 'trustworthy information' about the Iglesia ni Cristo. Even now, it states "The church, led by clergy with little formal education, requires attendance at twice-weekly services conducted in local Philippine languages, where guards take attendance and forbid entrance to nonmembers. Membership dues, based on ability to pay, are mandatory." I think you'll agree that these are false, and plainly border on silliness.

No, I don't agree that that's false. If that is what the site says, that is what it says. We report what people say. It doesn't matter that your personal knowledge is otherwise. We are not writing a journal or an essay. We are only reporting what others state as the facts. Grace Note 05:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ha! Perfect example of one who would rather buy what a government says - regardless of how silly it sounds - rather than to make a few calls to find out for himself whether what that government says is true! All you have to do, grace, is to click on the link giving addresses and phone numbers of the INC chapels throughout the world, and ask for yourself...but I'm probably wasting my time, for you would rather believe bad things about people you don't like, than to find out for yourself whether those things are true. --gcessor 13:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Glenn, you've set the new gold standard for absurdity and paranoia. Message aside, who would someone trust more- the U.S Government, or someone who has clearly stated their intentions, not of fairness, but of defending and promoting their own beliefs? You think everyone (Wikipedia, the Internet in general and now the U.S Government) has nothing better to do than to target the INC. And once again, you would like to let people with no prior experience with the INC ask them about any practice they might do and take it as canon. If I were to ask George Lucas if Star Wars is a good movie, what do you think he would reply? And would that be completely neutral?--Onlytofind 17:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And that is the counter-intuitive aspect of Wikipedia. Personal knowledge is off-limits - even what we know to be true. At the moment I'm working on a geographical piece about some hills in Birmingham which all the editors have visited and know well. But we can only put in the article what we can find in sources that are generally considered reliable.

That particular link [4] comes from countrystudies.us. It may (as anything may) have a political agenda, but it has very solid official credentials: "Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress as part of the Country Studies/Area Handbook Series sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Army between 1986 and 1998". That's the kind of material this article should be drawing on, not religious rants. RayGirvan 10:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You feel the encyclopedia article should use information from a government website, even though you can easily verify for yourself whether the information contained within that website is false? Do you ALWAYS trust what a government says? I recommend you follow Reagan's quote of an old Russian proverb: "Trust, but verify".--gcessor 13:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This comes down, yet again, to your basic misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. How could I verify its being false? Your word for it is anecdotal, so that's out. Contacting INC is original research, so that's out too. I did say anyway that a political agenda is possible, so I'm well aware of that possibility. But still, a U.S. Federal study is far more worthy of note than what someone said on an Internet forum. RayGirvan 14:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But those are some of the reasons why we're so touchy about the false accusations and ignorance of others. If you took the time to visit a locale, I think you might find a group of people who are generally much nicer and humbler than you probably pictured them to be - that is, unless you are by nature a spiteful individual, in which case you would only see reflections of yourself. And a simple note of pity, that Onlytofind will probably see that last sentence as an insult aimed at him (it's not), and probably another excuse to tell the world how horrible the INC is, and especially me.--gcessor 05:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You should try editing articles that are not about an organisation you're a member of. You should allow the wiki to work, and for the article to grow. You'll find, if you give it a chance, that a fair article will come out of it. Probably.Grace Note 05:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tell you what - look at the history, particularly over the past couple weeks, and see for yourself how often I've been editing the article.--gcessor 13:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You mean reverting it? And really, why don't you try writing about your car, a singer you like or something else you're interested in at Wikipedia. Or just click Random Page and do an edit. I've tried editing other articles and have learned a lot. That's the point of the Wikipedia, through principled negotiations and debate, we end up with a fair article composed of both viewpoints. I'm a big proponent of having this article written along the lines of the Scientology article, with the beliefs of the INC clearly stated and the objections some might have to them also clearly stated.--Onlytofind 17:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Glenn, I've been to your myriad world of pseudo-insults once and I'm not interested on a return visit. I'm not going to explain further, since the other Wikipedians here can read your paragraph and decide what you were trying to imply by theirselves. And, I also believe that people's opinions regarding an organization are greatly shaped by experience with its members, and their conduct.--Onlytofind 06:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You've got a right to your own opinion, of course - but you've also got the responsibility to back up your accusations with proof.--gcessor 13:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I made a slight change to the wording of the doctrines of INC because I think the previous version was unclear (not clear to me anyway). If I have changed the meaning, or what I wrote is is not correct, please change it. DJ Clayworth 15:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)