Talk:Christadelphians/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Nontrinitarian

I noticed the recent edits with first the deletion and then the replacement of the "nontrinitarian" description in the first sentence of the article.

Personally I think it's curious that anyone would want to introduce themselves with a "negative" statement (i.e. "We don't believe in a trinity"), and I would have thought that it would be better to make a positive statement about Christadelphian doctrinal distinctives rather than beginning with the "nontrinitarian" statement. Ekklesiastic 12:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think i'ts quite clear why they chose to do this. If you are familiar with christadelphian teaching then you would understand that not believing in a trinity type God while still believing in the bible and the lord jesus christ is the one thing that sets them apart from the vast majority of groups that believe the bible and also a risen christ. --202.78.145.179 14:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Although it is true that in our beliefs the Christadelphians DO NOT believe in the Trinity and it is an important doctrine many Christadelphians feel that expressing negative terms first when stating their beliefs is not the best option. However this does not mean it is not one of the key beliefs we hold. So it's a tricky one. Cls14 13:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed link

I removed the link to the Sydney companion Christadelphian as there is only one site for all the other fellowships (if we add all the central meetings websites this page will double in length!) --Samtheboy 01:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Christadelphian Bands

I think there should be a section or a link section to Christadelphian bands. I know that Fisher's Tale has a wiki page, but not sure about the other ones that are out there! --Samtheboy 11:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What on earth for! What relevance is that to a page about Christadelphians! The page is not for promoting personal web sites or ego trips for budding pop groups.

If you think that's a good idea Samtheboy I suggest you go ahead and do it. You don't need anyone's permission, and if I were you I certainly wouldn't take notice of anyone who doesn't sign in or identify themself when posting comments. There may indeed be many people who would be interested in Christadelphian worship and the bands that contribute to the Christadelphian worship experience. Perhaps you could use the heading "Christadelphian worship" for a section with links to bands. Ekklesiastic 01:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears that there are now references to Christadelphian bands within other sub-sections of the article which I feel is the best option. There is a place for such information but not as its own subsection. Cls14 13:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

86.138.90.17 ARE YOU GODS SENSOR?

Please could you explain in what Christ like Spirit you keep deleting a perfectly scriptural AND intresting Christadelphian web site that I am trying to add to Wikepedia so that anybody intrested may browse the site. TheChristadelphians.net site is highly relevant to the wikepedia article on Christadelphians. ALL the content of the christadelphians.net web site[1] is verifiable, totaly scriptural, and completley in harmony with the BASF, so what is your problem? Any scripture in mind that supports your sensorial attitude? --TCWIK 18:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Just checked the history of when you first started to delete this site and notice a comment that "fellowship sites ok but not personal preaching sites". NB This is a fellowship site, we are more than happy to supply you with full details and history of our fellowship right back to DR Thomas.--TCWIK 20:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As a general principle Wiki users should sign in before editing, and use four tildes (~) after posting messages. At the least it's good manners. I'm always suspicious of the motives of people who constantly change or delete information without signing in. It smacks of cowardice to me. Ekklesiastic 01:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ekklesiastic I agree it is suspicious when people delete with out signing! I did try to communicate directly with 86.138.90.17 on this matter but just got a very emotional reply as follows

1)Your comment is blasphemous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Howe dare you take the name of God in vain!!!

2) For many months a long list of web sites was added and subtracted by various fellowships. After time a consensus was reached of one per fellowship. It has been that way for a long time and peace has reigned. If you took the trouble you would note that the Companion Fellowship added an extra one and another Central brother removed that one for the same reason (see his notes. See also discussions from earlier 2006 if they are still there about web sites being promoted against Wikipedia policy.

I replied to him as follows

I asked you for scripture to support your deletion, but you provide none.If before hastely deleting this site you had looked at the site and e-mailed the site to ask about the fellowship you would have known this. How about addressing the questions I put to you in a calm and scriptural manner, and how about signing in as is usualy polite on wikipedia?--TCWIK 08:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW I notice you say a consensus was reached of one site per fellowship, therefore if you are as good as your word you will no longer delete this site as we are an autonomous fellowship, and our site is relevant to the Wikipedia article on Christadelphians.--TCWIK 09:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I recieved no reply he just deleted the site again...what can I say ?!! --TCWIK 19:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"... he just deleted the site again". Your "he" may even be a "she". The problem with people who hide under a cloak of anonymity is that they obviously have a reason for wanting to conceal something. I think Jesus said something about people who "love darkness", and I feel that the principle applies in situations like this. Ekklesiastic 01:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree with your comments. The site was removed again this morning by Wikidelphia (Not sure if this is 86.138.90.17 but no matter, lets hope it is and that they took note of your comments above) with a comment that we should have put it at the end of the list, so we have moved it. Hope there is no further need to comment under this heading. Thank you for your comments.--TCWIK 09:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the view that Wikipedia is not about promoting external web sites unless totally relevant to the article. A long discussion took place around the end of last year, see Discussion on External Links. I therefore agree with Wikiadelphia (note in history 29th Jan) that they should be removed. Whist agreeing that 86.138.90.17 could have made some constructive comments to explain if he/she wishes to be anonymous it is not a major problem, most 'handles' are to a large degree anonymous anyway unless the user has an information page. --Adelph 15:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

To Adelph/Wikidelphia We are not a “splinter group” but a fellowship Wikidelphia referred to Manchester Christadelphians and the possibility we were trying to increase traffic to this site. We have not attempted to link their site to this page because it is not appropriate. The Manchester Christadelphian site is set up by an Ecclesia in our fellowship to provide information regarding the Lectures they are giving in the area. The members of this Ecclesia are indeed members of our fellowship, therefore there is a link to their site on our fellowships web site (thechristadelphians.net) our fellowship is not just based in Manchester. We have no need to try to increase traffic to the Manchester Christadelphians web site as it was already at the top of the Google search results for Manchester Christadelphians before we ever tried to add our fellowship web site (thechristadelphians.net) to Wikipedia. After trying to add our fellowship web site to Wikipedia and being repeatedly deleted by someone (who still remains anonymous) I contacted Wikipedia asking them to clarify there policy to me, they replied and assured me I was not breaching there policy. I did this before ever posting a comment to anyone on the Wikipedia site as I wanted to make sure that I was keeping the rules. It was their suggestion that I take up the repeated deletion with the person concerned, not easy when they are anonymous!! But as you see I have tried. Just a note. I am partially Dyslexic and do make a lot of spelling mistakes, especially when typing online, sorry if it causes any confusion. I hope I have clarified the position enough for everyone, please before just deleting the site again tell me what your concerns are and don’t be so hasty, and quick to judge. You have your opinions and I have mine, but you notice I do not delete anybodys link or any content whatever my opinion may be. Kind Regards to all --TCWIK 19:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Adelph/Wikidelphia It is interesting that the arguments have consistently changed regarding justifying the deletion of thechristadelphians.net, but in the end it just seems to come down to your individual opinions. Why do you feel emboldened to impose your opinions on others rather than letting anyone who visits this site decide whether the web sites listed in external links are good, bad, interesting or otherwise? --TCWIK 19:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear TCWIK

Please see your talk page in regard to the site links and changes made - thanks - also check the history.

If you need to know the location of an IP address then you can (and probably know) that these can be checked on the web or through programs that are readily available.

You will also see yet, once again, the edit war has started but trust this will settle.

You do need to identify your fellowship as stated in your talk page - it is the general public who use wiki (not Christadelphians) in general and who come here for information and that is why you do need to identify your fellowship and especially if you are a smaller group, that is all that is being said, and especially if you don't and won't fellowship other fellowships.

I also find your comment about God's sensor very offensive language - many brethren here have endeavoured to stop the link war. :This link war also includes those linking who have left the body of Christ and who also contribute to this war more so than anybody else, and the childishness it would appear in some of the behaviour, or even to the extent it would appear as 'payback' (also please note that 'ekklesiatic' also edits these pages under IP Address only (several, it would appear)so his comments in this regard are unwarranted when he is also active in this same practice, others of course also edit under IP address, it is allowable, then who are you? are you anonymous? is the contact point on your pages anonymous, is there a name behind the 'info'?).

Many brethren have spent hours of work on these pages only sometimes to see it destroyed by other fellowships (not all) who include information which condemns other fellowships, because 'we are right' rather than leaving the article neutral.

You have identified yourself as another fellowship, and the link stays (as discussed and previous discussions), however; other brethren have tried to point out to you that the message gets lost with dozens of links and that is not what wiki is about. You also stated that you didn't need the traffic because you are listed number one on google, so I am at a loss with some of the comments you have made in this discussion?

This same rationale seems to be adopted by so many among us 'why can't I have a link' or 'I have a right' but it is this Godly conduct because we are all about Godly conduct, Christlike behaviour, no matter what fellowship, and how we reflect to the general public as a group under the 'General Banner' of 'The Christadelphian Brotherhood'.

Reading much on the history pages of Christadelphian wiki it is really quite disturbing (though apparently it is an on-line wiki problem because so many other pages have similar wars and vandalism) almost it seems that one is better than the other - then apparently, ex-Christadelphians also playing games here, of which one should be wary - we should be 'wise as serpants but harmless as doves'.

No matter what fellowship you are listed under, what 'name tag' you hold, we all come under the same banner in the article 'The Christadelphian Brotherhood' and are we encouraging with the information provided, and that includes the 'history' recorded on wiki for those viewing the pages to seek out further information and if we do play 'name tags' then also for the sake of the general public we should let them know.

Wikiadelphia 01:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiadelphia, I would appreciate it if you stop making comments about me, seeing you almost always get it wrong. Your anonymous attacks say more about the kind of person you are than anything else you have to say. Ekklesiastic 04:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ekklesiastic, as discussed on this page previously and by others, that dialogue with you is futile.

You have made many attacks on brethren and sisters on the wiki talk pages, you have also stated peoples REAL NAMES, which is also against wiki policy. You continue to attack brethren and sisters about sites, which in no uncertain terms is a form of harassment (evidence the history pages of wiki), I would suggest, and in light that you did, and you apparently left the brotherhood by you own statement which you also stated could be freely used, now, leave the brotherhood alone once and for all - get on with your life.

This is the final dialogue that I will have with you, taking advice from other brethren and sisters, that any discussion with you is futile.

Wikiadelphia 06:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiadelphia, if you want to discuss my fellowship or membership position you know there is a right way of going about that, and posting something anonymously on a public website is not the right way. An anonymous personal attack containing untrue and unsubstantiated allegations is contrary to the spirit of Christ and is cowardly. Your anonymous attacks say more about the kind of person you are than anything else you have to say. Ekklesiastic 08:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Just one last comment Ekklesiastic, it is all about honesty, and you know you withdrew, you also know that you listed a forum on wiki that a good proportion contained what amounted to slander against the Christadelphian brotherhood.

You also know that you heavily edited any discussion (and it does relate to wiki because you promoted such a site on wiki). On that site when Christadelphian brethren wanted to discuss issues you banned them, or did not approve their posts, you also know that on other Christadelphian sites you did the same and also example what you are doing here.

You have complained here about comments or if others edit pages, but you do exactly the same and more so, which makes your protestations rather funny.

Face up to truth, but you simply don't, and you place slurs continually here about certain brethren and sisters, which is a form of harassment and once again evidenced by comments you have made above. Yet, you then appear to claim 'the higher moral ground' again, you on your website allowed slander of the Christadelphian community to be posted, and advertised it here on wiki.

Move on, leave the Christadelphian fellowships alone, you know you withdrew, and you know you gave authorization for your comments to be used. You are not fooling any of the brethren and sisters here, as they, many of them have been on the receiving end of your behaviour both here and on your forums.

I also understand that brethren and sisters have endeavoured to discuss issues with you privately but to no avail.

That said, to take the advice of brethren and sisters, that discussion with you here is pointless, discussion with you on forums (under your control) is pointless, discussions with you by email is pointless and discussions with you in person are also pointless, because truth, what is truth Ekklesiatic? You know many brethren have taken these issues up with you privately on many, occasions.

One last word, truth is truth, and that is what God is all about, truth, and truth and love go hand in hand, and one without the other is meaningless.

Wikiadelphia 08:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiadelphia, I won't discuss any allegations with an anonymous person who doesn't have the courage or decency to come out from under their cloak of anonymity, and won't make your complaints in a brotherly or Scriptural way (incidentally, making anonymous allegations reminds me of these words in John's Gospel: "they love darkness because their deeds are evil" Jn 3:19). I really don't think this hostility you are demonstrating towards me can be doing you any good, and I would counsel you to take a few deep breaths, spend some time in prayer, focus on something calming, and leave the keyboard alone. Ekklesiastic 09:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

.... and resurrection ....

I'm new to this so hopefully I havn't trodden on too many toes by adding this to the Beliefs section. I think Christadelphians in general remember Jesus' resurrection also at the memorial meeting, else our "faith is vain"!Ozzibloke 23:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems ok to me :-) Cls14 13:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Are Christadelphians a "sect"?

Included in the definition of the word “sect” in Webster dictionary it says that it is “…used esp by members of the established churches to express their disapproval of the less established or smaller”. This seems to be the reason why 217.40.26.169 wishes to use the word “sect” to define Christadelphians. Paul was a member of what others called a “sect”, a “sect” “every where … spoken against.” (Acts 28:22). All those who are members of the same “sect” as Paul are Christadelphians, so personally I have no problem with the use of the word “sect”, as long as a note is added to this effect. Others may not agree?--TCWIK 08:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Wiki definition of the word sect is good I think.--TCWIK 08:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with "sect" being used according to the current (19th Feb. 2007) Wikipedia definition (or the Acts 28:22 definition). --Woofboy 11:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I don't per se have an issue with the word sect, wiki does point out that in it's English form, the word sect can have negative connotations. --Samtheboy 22:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Early history

This is for the historians amongst you. It might just shed some light on the early history of Christadelphians useful to the article, though it would need to be researched.

I used to be a Christadelphian. I think in the late fifies or during the sixties Christmas Evans did a series in The Christadelphian on the history of the denomination (a word I prefer to sect). He had quite a library and on his death one of his books came to my father. It was a fascinating read. It was penned by a man - his surname might have been Norrie - who had been part of the Edinburgh meeting in its earliest days. It recounts lots of things that were happening at the time, not just in Edinburgh, and has discursions such as their interest in phrenology, all the rage in those days. I had heard that the book was printed in a severely limited edition. I think I heard that this copy of it ended up in the Christadelphian office. Ddruk 21:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC) (but no postings please in my user area; that is for stuff related to my day job).

External links

I came across this one:

The Christadelphians.net Group not in fellowship with the main body of Christadelphians (Central/Amended) but who profess original Christadelphian Beliefs.

Can anyone enlighten me on why they are not in fellowship? --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 16:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Samtheboy, don't know. Perhaps contact them - I'm sure they'd be happy to answer. --Woofboy 10:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed some of the external links. The magazines websites that were in the external links already have links to them within the article itself, and one of the links was to an Australian site (which looks fantastic, by the way) that is specific to the area, so not applicable for the links on this article (see previous discussions) - sorry about that. Yours, --Woofboy 10:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)