Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/Archive 9

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between Nov. 17 to 28 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/Archive10. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.

Neutrality suggestions

You're going to have to help us to achieve neutrality and encyclopeidity here.

• You can't stop other's from editing , anonymous, pro -Iglesias and anti Iglesias.
• Stop attacking each other whethere they be anonymous, filipinos, pro-Iglesias, Christians or not.
• You can't post doctrines. eg. You can't say INC was established by Jesus. You can say however, INC professes to be established by Jesus.
• Please compare wordings with other denominations. Eventually somebody is going to do it. (Me?)
• Divide et impera.Divide and conquer.Break up arguments and try to put these to a vote:

INC is a Christian religion

• Agree -- Raul
• Disagree - Frederick

INC was established by Jesus Christ

• Agree -- Raul
• Disagree - Frederick

--Jondel 02:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Jondel, your assistance in making this article closer to NPOV and more informative is appreciated.--Ironbrew 03:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Your assistance is also highly appreciated. Actually I've been trying to see if a consensus based article could be achieved. Eventually those who want to argue , stop and then contributers can work. It would be better if the concerned already create a neutral encyclopedic article based on the procedure above. --Jondel 03:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It has been attempted in the past, but a lack of trust and disputes over semantics scuttled the project. The key to making a project like this successful is by having all main contributors adhere to Wikipedia rules regarding POV, neutrality and mutual respect.--Ironbrew 04:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I do hope this gets resolved. Hear that guys? It is up to the participants(you) to develop mutual respect. Else an impasse. I believe a neutral article can be achieved , acceptable to both. I hope we get there and move on. --Jondel 05:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Building Consensus, part II

I have reinstated the link to the "Unofficial Site of the Iglesia ni Cristo" in the link section, as well as deleted the Neutrality Dispute tag above the criticism section until that contributor offers us an explanation. Let me make it clear that my contributions are in good faith and if anyone has any disputes with them, make your case here instead of resorting to edit wars and flames. --Ironbrew 06:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

But why put the link back, isn't it a farse? --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 05:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

This one isn't a farce to my knowledge, it is the one at http://incworld.faithweb.com with a listing of debates between INC members and members of other faiths. I believe you might be thinking about Iglesianicristo.us which is the spoof site.--Ironbrew 20:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you're talking about that one. I thought you meant the INC.US one. It's cool --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 21:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Major article content purge.

I was thinking about this for some time now, and I dont' see a reason not to to do this. The INC article should be cleared out of all it's unsourced content, and I'll be bold and do so.

After all, the article is controvercial and it must be verifiable. I know this will not go well with many editors, because it wipes out work we all (including myself) have done over the past year. But it would help make the article more on track with the Arbitration Committee's verdict. Once we find a source which can be easily verified (as in read by everybody, such as God's Message articles) which cover the subject, then we can add it confidently. What this will do is avoid edit wars, since the evidence is right there. In order for this article to go forward, we must look for Verifiability, not truth. Of course, there's the other policies which must be followed. I'm aware of them, and I'll try my best to follow them. For reference and such, I'll post the previous version at Iglesia ni Cristo/Workshop. ---LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 19:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Forked from Archive 8.

I found a better solution which will help all of us. I deleted all the unsourced information off the article. None of us can verify the information on it ourselves, and it is not our job to do so. We (are supposed to) do research based on published material, and summarize it on an article. At the beginning of our argument Starbucks said something about citing the Pasugo. This article needs to be sourced, or we won't know what's accurate or not. The message that was at the top of the article already stated the article was not reliable. It's now time to dig into our Pasugos and God's Messages and look up where the information of the doctorines and worship service practices are, if we're going to put it back on the article with no dispute. Read this from the verifibility policy:

"Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X. Theory X has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you meet the physicist, and over a beer, he tells you: "Actually, I think Theory X is a load of rubbish." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry. Why not? The answer is that it is not verifiable in a way that would satisfy the Wikipedia readership or other editors. The readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you directly for confirmation. And even if they could do this, why should they believe you?". --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} (forked by LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 05:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC))

Criticism section

I don't have a problem seeing a POV dispute sign above the Crits section if there really is one, but there is no use having one unless the user with the dispute comes and explains what exactly is not neutral. Remember, Wikipedia policy mandates that all sides should be covered in the articles.--Ironbrew 03:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

This was because of the crits section being too redundant. But we cut it down earlier, didn't we? --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 05:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Ironbrew, you are a funny guy. criticism means to find fault, and by its meaning is POV. example, I found fault in you because you lied and continued to deny you were a sockpuppet of onlytofind. the pov here was your lying. your pov was that you were'nt lying. notice that truth(that you lied) does not play a role here. so, for as long as criticism is criticism, it will always be POV. 207.66.248.166 21:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, I think you're a funny guy too and I think we'd enjoy your company more if you'd spend your time here trying to work with us instead of trying to get revenge on us. The Catholic and Protestant articles have criticisms also, and that's part of the NPOV, approaching information from all viewpoints. Now, we can't take out the Crits section just because you disagree with its existence, but you can help us balance it out by revealing any non-encyclopedic criticisms or adding verifiable material (such in the Pasugo) which answer those claims.--Ironbrew 22:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPA

If you don't want to be reasonable, we won't force you to. We'll just revert your edits at will, which is perfectly allowable since you are banned from this article. And until you start behaving and apologize for your past conduct, let this be my final post to you.--Ironbrew 11:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Forked from the 7th archive:

Any edit Emico makes to this article may be removed without comment, any sockpuppet or anonymous ip he uses may be blocked, if practical. He may be blocked under his own account for up to one week. If you make a note of his violation of his editing ban at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Emico the ban on editing certain articles will be extended from that date. It is not necessary that you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that an editor is Emico, it is enough that he has the same point of view and style of editing. Fred Bauder 14:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC) (forked by LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 19:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC))

I hope it goes without saying that NPOV does not mean that each section has to contain equal amounts of positive and negative information. A criticism section will obviously have mainly negative information in it. The balence is provided by the other sections. It is usually not necessary to say that an organisation disagrees with criticism of it (though it may agree - not all people or organisations think they are perfect). Specific reasons why the subject may disagree can be included. Criticism cannot be excluded on the grounds that it is 'not neutral'. DJ Clayworth 19:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Know what you talk about

lbmixpro, a frequent contributor of such pages as Christina Aguilera and WrestleMania 21 wants to put a "page protection" on this page. More than anything else, the reason for this move is that lbmixpro is upset because I pointed out his obvious ignorance of the Iglesia ni Cristo. Lbmixpro decided he knows more of the doctrines of the INC, than the INC itself. The debate was the doctrine that God is eternal, immortal and invisible. This same doctrine was even presented as late as Nov 19, 2005, in the TV program "The Message". Obviously, lbmixpro is not interested in presenting the "fact" about the INC, but only what he believes and thinks of the INC as more important. So, fair warning to all who comes across this article, do not believe what you read. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.172.129.242 (talk • contribs) 11:36, November 22, 2005 .

The anonymous user here is believed to be by consensus, a sockpuppet of User:Emico designed to circumvent his one-year ban on editing any article related to the Iglesia ni Cristo.--Ironbrew 06:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The reason I was upset wasn't because you pointed what I didn't know about INC. It was because you said I knew absolutely nothing about INC, told me to leave the article, and created User:IHeartWWF only to bash my interests, which have nothing to do with the INC, or this article. That last action alone is vandalism at its worst! What do you expect from other editors when they read these comments? We're not at Network54. It's a completely different ballgame here.

Your actions have caused the article to be locked! Who cares what articles I edit? It's Wikipedia for crying out loud! Other respected members of this community edit the Christina Aguilera article, and there's an official Wikipedia project for Pro Wrestling. Every article is taken seriously. If they weren't, they'd be deleted. Now as you said before, "If you want to know about the INC, get it yourself by talking to their ministers. Take this article for what it is, an outsiders view.". User:TheoClarke signifigantly improved this article in ways I wasn't able to, and he never set foot in an INC locale in his entire life, for all I know! He never knew what INC was until he ran across this article. One does not need full first-hand knowlege of INC to edit this article! Yes, I may be ignorant about some of INC's teachings. I'm no minister or Pasugo editor, I don't have what it takes to create an authorative guide, but Wikipedia is not an authorative source for information! It was never intended to be.

I explained myself about the three words before, and I won't repeat it. If you want to present a fact about INC, find the source in a God's Message or another reputable source and cite it in an {{Inote}}. I'll happily accept it! I'm no longer interested in presenting unsourced facts to controvercial Wikipedia articles!

If someone asked me for information about INC, I'd either refer them to a locale, or ask them to read a God's Message. I hope everybody else here is doing the same. Do you really think people will go to Wikipedia for official information of any subject? Take Wikipedia for what it is. Oh, and by the way: I NEVER EXPRESSIVELY STATED OR THOUGHT I KNOW MORE ABOUT INC THAN INC DOES! DON'T GET IT TWISTED! --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 08:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

For someone so prolific and one who pulls out wikipedia rules at every chance, it's a bit shocking to find out that before this episode, he is clearly "interested in presenting unsourced facts". A "serious" writer, especially for something as widely available as wikipedia should care that what he presents is, at the very least, factual.

No, I don't think people should go to wikipedia for official information, but people expect to see information, facts NOT disinformation and propaganda. 63.68.127.202 15:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for reassuring that I should have posted that. I appreciate it. But here's some points to ponder:

1. Your reason for me being interested in presenting unsourced facts may be misleading, or unintentional to say the least. I had plans to purge the unsourced content since July 20th. But I felt it would have been easier for the other editors to cite sources for what we had already, instead of having to place the information back once we found the source. But what's been done is done, and what has to be done has been done. Remember, I am not the only contributer to this article. Much of the unsourced content came from other contributers as well.
2. The accuracy template at the top of the page before I purged the information warned about unreliable content, which may include misinformation. What is so propagandic about the article, not counting the people around it?
3. The NPOV policy at Wikipedia is not easy when it comes to critisism and controvercial issues. Neuturality is the key here. WP can't oppose or support the chruch. WP should express the what people see good and bad about the church. If you seriouly want to write an encyclopedia entry about INC from a different point of view, then try Wikinfo. There's a reason that site exists.
4. Editors with different views of religion in general come here. Not everyone here is a supporter or detractor of INC. Not everybody here has a strong faith or following in any particular religion. Editors who are focused on the multi-disciplinary, secular study of religion will come here and edit the article based on their findings. It is crucial that their view is respected.
5. Although you are banned, I've kindly addressed your concerns about the Insiders group in the section below, as well as cited some of your edits. We need to run this by a consensus free of personal critisisms in order for this article to work for everybody who reads and edits it. If it helps, think of yourself as if you are in the workplace when you edit this article. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 10:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions?

The article is locked for 48 hours, so the revert wars may stop, and actual improvements to the article may begin. There's a couple of issues that have been brought up, which need consensus.

• The Insiders web page claims to be a group of INC members who have problems with the administration. One issue from this stems from it's verifibility. The site is a Tripod website, which has no associated forum for other "insiders" to communicate. I haven't seen any other reference to this group other than a link to this site. It may be created by one person (who is either inside or outside INC) who wants to make it look like there's a whole group who agrees with his or her ideas. When the article opens again, should the reference to them be removed since there's no verifible evidence of the "insiders" as a group?
• User:Jondel stated we not post the doctorines in their exact from. I think we should add something to the article which explains what INC belives in, but be understandable to everyone who reads it. How are we to do this? See Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/Archive07#Changes on 21 August.
• DJ Clayworth already brought the issue of the crits section in regards to NPOV.
• Is there a chart in any INC publication which is available to the general public which explains the Heirarchy of INC?
• Should the INC doxology have any part in the Doxology article, and how?
• Any other concerns about improving the article itself?
• Should the "Unofficial site of INC", the faithweb link, be deleted because it's title can be deceptive?
• Should round up all the INC related articles in a new category:Iglesia ni Cristo?

comment

Comment, I would like some idea or sample of the doxology. What makes INC different from Catholics, Baptists, Unitarians, Seventh-Day Adventists, Judaism, etc? If Jesus is not as significant, is the new testament still significant or authoratative? How about Heaven, Hell, ? Does the Crucifixtion guarantee salvation or not according to INC? Did Jesus have to die for us then? What about INCs stand on abortion, priesthood, reincarnation,purgatory, euthanasia, grace by works or faith? Judgement day? Doctrinal Dialogue with the Catholic church. This is not to critize but a sincere request. I don't want to be misunderstood about not posting the exact form. The reason behind is that wikipedia can not be used as a platform for evangelism or propaganda. But for references, the stand or position of INC with respect to these other issues need to be addressed. Just like the position of other religous or ideoligical groups need to be referenced. --Jondel 09:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Examples of the doxology could be found at Talk:Doxology, although they're not cited. There's a lot of differences which I can't explain here. One of the best things is to look through the talk page archives, mostly archive 6 and 7. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 10:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I might be digging up past discussions then proposing article changes here.--Jondel 08:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Unitarian

If INC is not Trinitarian is it Unitarian? --Jondel 09:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I also got another question, can INC be considered added to the Antitrinitarianism category? --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 10:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

INC is based on shares some of the same ideas as "Biblical Unitarianism". "God is one being Who consists of one person—the Father. Jesus is Messiah and Son of God, but not God Himself;" There was a discussion on Unitarianism's talk page about whether or not INC can be considered unitarian. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 10:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain further why you're sure the INC is based on "Biblical Unitarianism"? What other, aside from what you mention above, characteristics on "Unitarianism" specifically fit the INC?. The INC does not belong to any other denomination, religion or sect.

I'm assuming the question was directed toward me. Maybe "based on" isn't the term I was looking for, since INC wasn't created from Unitarianism. If you read the point about Biblical Unitarianism (which is the oldest form of Unitarianism), along with the section about Unitarian's origins in regards to Michael Servetus, you may get an answer. "...the result of the union between the divine [God] and the human being Jesus (Servetism)..." "...in which [Serventus] rejected the Nicene dogma of the Trinity and proposed that the Son was the union [which I assume means association] of the divine [God] with the man Jesus, miraculously born from the Virgin Mary through the intervention of God's spirit." --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 10:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to know how you come to your conclusions, so don't point me to another document, enumerate them here. There's less chance of being misunderstood. I repeat the question:What other, aside from what you mention above, characteristics on "Unitarianism" specifically fit the INC?. Do you think the INC regarded the ideas of Michael Servetus's. Where is your basis for this assumption? 193.194.84.195 16:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I've done that. I have graciously saved you the trouble of looking through other articles and sources, and copied them here. I've highlighted my findings in green. Why are you going to ask me not to point you to another document, while you ask me to cite my sources? That's what citing is, refering someone to the document you base your finding on. As for your question, there are no other characteristics, other than those of Biblical Unitarianism. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 05:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Generally speaking there is only one characteristic necessary to be considered 'unitarian'; that is believing in a God who is one person rather than three. As far as I understand it that seems to sum the INC beliefs up rather well. What exactly is the objection to being considered unitarian? DJ Clayworth 00:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Too simplistic an explanation, I bet even you would agree. Shows the lack of real knowledge of the subject and taking the easy way out. That seems to be the main fault of majority of editors here who think they know enough about the INC to write about it. Newadvent.org defines Unitarians as a "liberal Protestant sect". That in itself and by itself is enough to make the label inaccurate to use to describe the INC. 193.194.84.195 01:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

One of the troubles here is that there is a Unitarian denomination (strictly denominations) which is indeed a liberal protestant sect. However there are also other unitarian churches (small u, which is what I wrote above) which are not necessarily either. They are united pretty much only by not believing in the Trinity, and that would seem to include INC. (It's a bit like the difference between Catholic and catholic, if you understand that). DJ Clayworth 03:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Princeton U wordnet defines unitarian as an adherent of Unitarianism. That takes care of the u. Why don't you cite your source as to why you are sure the INC is unitarian?193.194.84.195 05:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The first sentence in the "Name and Doctorine" section of NewAdvent.org's definition: "In its general sense the name designates all disbelievers in the Trinity, whether Christian or non-Christian;" Dictionary.com's third definition specifies Unitarian as "A Christian who is not a Trinitarian." Of course, INC was not reestablished with Servetus in mind, but INC and Biblical Unitarianism (excluding all other forms) both have similar beliefs when it comes to the Trinity. Similar to the way the Christian church spread into different forms, Unitarianism has too. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} (updated 08:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)) 08:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Why don't the two of you cite your source as to why you are sure the INC belongs to unitarian sect? Trying here to lump the INC, which you don't fully understand, with the unitarians, which you also don't fully understand is not working. 193.194.84.195 22:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

To User:193.194.84.195 I respect the INC and have many friends who are members and I have attended myself. However please understand that that articles will be mercillesly edited here . Things will work better for all of us however if you assume good faith on all concerned(but I'm already ready repeating what others have said many times).--Jondel 00:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The source is this:Iglesia ni Cristo. It says that the church disagrees with the doctrine of the Trinity and believes in God having only one person. Therefore, by the above definition, they are unitarian. I can cite other sources that say the same thing if you like. It doesn't matter is they don't fulfil all the different interpretations of unitarian. All it does is allow the reader to put INC in an appropriate category of churches. DJ Clayworth 01:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

So you're willing to erroneously categories the INC just to satisfy your personal craving? That's not only wrong in every sense, but POV per wiki rules. Go ahead, cite your sources. That's what I've been asking for from the start.193.194.84.195 04:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I just did cite my sources. They are in the paragraph immediately above yours Emico. What part of "The source is this:" didn't you understand? DJ Clayworth 14:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Most of us here have personal cravings for encyclopedias(encyclopediaholics). Very few here want to defame INC or any of the subject matter of the articles here. Work with us will you? Stop being so antagonistic. Let us do our work.--Jondel 04:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I strongly concur with Jondel's above statement. My citations are written in green. It's obvious that INC has absolutely no ties with the Unitarian Churches, so it isn't Unitarian. We're talking about unitarian: the adjective, not Unitarian: the proper noun. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 05:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

My Bottom Line: Although INC holds the historical unitarian belief that Jesus is not God, it is not derived from the Unitarian sect which was formed from that belief. It would probably be a better idea to categorize it as Nontrinitarian. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 08:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

To Jondel, get off your high horse. You calling me antagonistic is the same as when I'm called a vandal for my edits while others are called bold editors for theirs.

To lbmixpro, I'll take that as an abandonment of your previous position that the INC is unitarian(which is not) and removing yourself from the debate. And adapting a new one (nontrinitarian).

To clayworth, I'm not emico. Let me remind you of your post:The source is this:Iglesia ni Cristo. It says that the church disagrees with the doctrine of the Trinity and believes in God having only one person. Therefore, by the above definition, they are unitarian. I can cite other sources that say the same thing if you like . 24.199.136.150 15:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You are Emico, and you're in violation of your ban from the Iglesia ni Cristo articles and from your ban on personal attacks.--Ironbrew 06:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

High horse huh? Maybe you weren't following etiquete in your 'bold' edits or maybe we have diferent interpretations of civility or working within a consensus? Maybe you think you can afford to be arrogant with your proxy ip address ? --Jondel 08:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Nontrinitarian

There's a post at the Unitarian talk page by User:Mkmcconn who suggested that INC would fit the Nontrinitarian description instead. How about that term? --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 05:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The last edit by 24.199.136.150 concedes that INC is also unitarian.--Jondel 11:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)