Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/Archive 8

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between Oct. 20 to Nov. 17 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/Archive09. (See How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. --LBMixPro&lt;Sp e ak 05:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Unanswered questions in archive

 * Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/Archive04
 * Iglesia ni Cristo - It's a stub at the moment, but it's open for anybody to expand on. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 20:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

How can we make the Criticism section more neutral?

 * The following was forked from the talk page's 7th archive'

My goal, by adding the Kelly and Keating references, was to show how other religions might view the INC. I understand right now that the section is quite long and needs to be pared down. How can we do this? I've examined the criticism section on the RCC and it appears to be similar, but maybe there's something I'm not realizing here.--Ironbrew 05:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC) (forked by LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 07:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC))

1 Tim 1:17
Most of 1 Tim 1:17 being added to the belief section has been brought up at the God article, and whatever wasn't mentioned there has been added.
 * eternal, immortal, invisible

Eternal and immortal have the same meaning, listing both at the same time may be concieved as hyperbole (ie. wonderful, extravagant). Invisible is in the sense of God, the same as omnipresence, because his invisiblity originates from him being everywhere. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 08:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know what dictionary your looking at but best be you check again. eternal and immortal DO NOT have the same meaning, the same is true with invisible and omnipresence. 203.144.235.8 01:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said below, Eternal means lasting forever. Immortal means living forever. They may not be exactly the same, but they share the same concept, a concept mentioned in the God article. Invisible means something that cannot be seen. No denying he cannot be seen, but what makes it so unique from the other Abrahamic religions, yet alone important for including here? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 08:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ignorance of the subject matter

 * They don't mean the same thing. end of discussion. This article is about a group you know nothing about, so it's best that you leave it alone. Stick to articles where you may have some knowledge of. 168.243.84.113
 * That was uncalled for! I suggest you pick your words more carefully, since Wikipedia has rules against being rude. What makes you so certain that I don't know about INC? This article doesn't belong to anybody in particular, so you have no right to tell who can or cannot edit this article. Only the Wikipedia founder and the Arbitration Committee can do that. If you have a problem with it, take it to them! As a matter of fact, there was a defiant editor to this article who has been banned because he didn't follow WP's policies.
 * What makes you an expert about the INC? Those 3 words are part of the doctrine of the INC, and were written in Pasugo. Present you source that says otherwise.
 * What makes you and expert about the INC? Are you even in the INC, or are you User:Emico? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 01:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said, present you source! put up or shut up, don't answer a question with another question.


 * Please realize I'm only explaining redundancy in the english language, a grammar issue too trivial to even continue with, so I'll stop arguing about 3 words. I'll just remove the words to avoid percieved hyperbole. If anybody wants to return them, fine with me. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 05:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Taken from edit by redundant how? INC belief is different from mainstream, i.e. catholics god(jesus) died.
 * See above. God is immortal. The God article says so, so why must this as well? It is redundant in a language sort of way becuase it repeats a concept with a different word. To be clear, if we are talking about "the God of Abraham" (for lack of better word), we are talking about the same God. There's no difference between the Jewish God, the Christian God, nor even the Muslim Allah. Each religion is based on their view of God. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 09:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC) (08:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC))
 * Again displaying your ignorance of the subject matter. It may serve you to do a little research before making statements such as this. 168.243.84.113 18:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I did do my research. Maybe I'm not making myself clear enough for you to understand what I'm trying to write. Are you telling me that the God INC speaks of isn't the same one which Abraham spoke of in Genesis? The one which spoke to Moses in Exodus? The one who brought his followers to Jeruselem in Numbers? The same God who is mentioned in the Old Testament? Do you even know what the Abrahamic God is? Instead of telling me how ignorant I am about the article's subject, why don't you correct me, with sources to back you up? Tell me what is correct for once, so I won't be as "ignorant", as you say. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 08:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Show me a doctrine of the INC where is says the God the INC worships is the same as "the Jewish God, the Christian God, nor even the Muslim Allah". When you talk about "the Christian God", which 4 major "Christian" religion are you talking about? ~
 * It's called Comparative religion. Read the related articles I mentioned. If I read right Abrahamic God is the God mentioned in the Old Testament. If INC is sola-scriptura, meaning teaches only from the bible, then they must be talking about the god we are talking about, because the God I'm talking about is another word from "God of the Old testiment". Of course, interpetations of the New Testiment, (Jesus' time) are when things get distorted. I don't believe Jesus is God. And I believe the Father plays the role of the Holy Spirit. If you disagree, tell me why. Not everybody shares your views, and nobody should be put down because of it. I have reported you to the sysop who's in charge of this article, and I strongly advise you not to violate WP:NPA! --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 01:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You did'nt answer my questions. I'll take this as an admission of your ignorance of the article's subject. Go ahead and reporting, if that's what you're good at. 213.55.89.8
 * I'll repeat: Show me a doctrine of the INC which says the God the INC worships is the same as "the Jewish God, the Christian God, nor even the Muslim Allah". When you talk about "the Christian God", which 4 major "Christian" religion are you talking about?

My answer to 213.55.89.8's question
I did answer your question. Think carefully about what I'm about to write, hear me out before you begin to accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about! I linked those terms so you can read them and find for yourself if it relates to the God INC talks about? Maybe I'm not understanding what you ask, or you don't understand my answer. I assume what you are saying is that INC worships a God which is a completely different God from what is mentioned in the Old Testement., which I believe is entirely untrue. I understand the doctorines say to beware of other religions preaching of another Jesus, and that other religions will say INC's that "other" Jesus (something I heard from the mouth of my locale's resident minister). But we're not talking about another Jesus. We're talking about the Father. GOD, the CREATOR. The one who created the heavens and the earth! The one who is Jesus' FATHER! The one Noah, Abraham, Moses, Daniel and Jesus refer to. The one who is everlasting, everpowerful and everpresent! The one that Comparative Religion calls the Abrahamic God. There is only one God; the Father in heaven of whom Abraham (a person who was mentioned in both the Bible and the Koran as the one who was told by God to do his will) in Genesis (a book which is in the bibles INC, Mainstream Christians, and the Jews use) '''spoke of. That's what the doctorine means. That's my answer! The doctorine you want is the doctorine we're fighting over!''' It's like saying Kristo is not Christ. Filipinos give different names to the same Jesus! Different people give different names to God! If you don't get what I'm saying, then I give up!

But this is beyond the reason I deleted those 3 words. My question, the reason this who argument started; Why is it so important we mention "eternal,immortal and invisible"? Don't beat around it. Don't call me ignorant because I ask! We have wasted so much space because of this trivial matter! --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 07:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If you have to ask, then you don't know. If you think these words are trivial, then you don't know. Leave those words in the article.


 * Bottom Line Tim 1:17 refers to the same God as Gen 14:19, Gen 14:22, Exodus 20:2, Exodus 3:6, and James 2:23. The scripture speaks for itself! If you're going to tell me I don't know squat about INC, stop. Enough already. I already know your opinion, no need to repeat it again. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 09:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Anybody else please clear this up
I ask anybody, Ironbrew, Ealva, Glenn, or whoever to clear this up once and for all. This person's edit pattern is almost like Emico's. I assume he knew that, and he's only baiting me. I'll handle as if it were Emico until any of the above prove otherwise. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 05:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You're so full of it. What would I get baiting you? I added 3 words and you removed them, that's what started this. I don't know this emico person, nor do I care what you think. Do you always bait people to come help you everytime you're confronted?

' Full of it?! I'm full of it!!?? Look at the image! Do not lie to me about Emico! This whole situation is fowl. ' If you are User:Starbucks, then you're right this time. I mistaken you for Emico, and I apologize for it. When newcomers come to this site, I want to help them become the good editors for the project. Nobody here wants a twisted view of the Church, and that's what the Neutural Point of View is all about. As I said before, Emico has improved his behavior since he came to the WP. But he's suffering now from the acts he made from his first few weeks at the site. I don't want the same to happen to you. But it is of the upmost importance that you be polite when you're here. Nobody wants to be told to leave an article which was designed for anybody to edit, and everybody hates to have their intellegence insulted. That message at the top of the screen makes it clear. Be polite, for each opinionated personal attack you make; is another instance of you not showing any regard to Wikipeda's rules. As much as INC expells those who blatanly break its rules, so will Wikipedia. Of course, I cannot force you to believe what I say, but I'll use verses and templates to help prove my point. Since the God in this article isn't eternal, immortal, and invisible, as far as you're concerned, I'll leave the words alone. As a matter of fact, after all the stress you put on me, I'll leave this whole subject alone for a while.


 * Hoping you'll take a turn and be civil, let me explain myself. I took them off thinking it was redundant, since it was already on the God article with different wording. Why repeat something which is elsewhere? You reverted it. I put it back on, you reverted it. As per Wikipedia policy, I took the issue to the talk page so we can discuss this. You rebuke my claim, saying the God in the linked article doesn't apply to INC's. I disagree, since the God they're talking about in that article is the same one which is mentioned in the Old Testament, and explaned how the study of Comparative religion calls him the Abrahamic God, the same one every version of the Bible refers to. I explain redundancy in as a figure of speech in the english language. You took this whole discussion in a new direction. Acting like you own this article, you called me ignorant, suggesting I not edit it. I warned you that statements like those are against the rules, and could get you banned. Another editor read your comments and commented to one of your IP's user pages about how it's against the rules as well. You created a username called User:IHeartWWF, and blatantly insulted me and my interests (as well as the person who reminded you), on my talk page. That was so wrong of you. I contacted numerous Wikipedia administration channels about your behavior. I asked you to explain why INC's God is different than God instead of throwing insults. You threw them anyways. You asked me what doctorine supports the Abrahamic God, saying all I do is report people to the authorities. I said the first one. You repeated your statments. I once again ask why it's so important to post those 3 words. You reply: "If you have to ask, then you don't know. If you think these words are trivial, then you don't know. Leave those words in the article, in as much as you don't know anything about INC doctrines." I finally sent you an official personal attack notice. Those statements do nothing to help the article, and Wikipedia won't tolorate it. It's no longer about three words. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 06:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * One very important point is made clear and illuminated by this debate, and that is the writers are not fully knowledgable of the subject, though they make it appear that they are. take this article with a grain of salt. 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. With regards to personal attack, calling someone "clueless" is one 202.95.186.221
 * Exactly, but I want to let you know just because I am not crystal clear about all twenty seven doctorines, doesn't mean I know absolutley nothing about any of them. I signed documents at INC after bible studies indicating I understood them. But I do have enough knowlege to make useful contributions to this article. Both members and non-members of the Church have positively regarded my edits to the article over the past year. Hopefully you'll let me edit this article once again without arguing, I don't want to run away from this article. Although personal attacks are forbidden, Wikipedia takes Clueless Newbies as an exception to the rule. As there's a special Wikipedia page for people to help those who are new to Wikipedia understand their rules and polices. After all, the law of the land overrules the law of the religion. You may want to read the policy pages linked at the top of this page under "protocol" as well as Ownership of articles. You must also think of the site you're making edits to, not only the subject. About your username. I would like Theo to lift the ban of your username. --LBMixPro &lt;Speak 23:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There is something very wrong with your way of thinking about religion in general and INC in particular. Don't you realize that? Anything anyone adds to this article, whether intentionally to deceive, misinform or because plainly insufficience of knowledge of the subject is a loss to any intended reader. This is specially true when it concerns the doctrines in particular. One example: If you categorize the INC as a clique, you imply that the INC is small. You know the INC is not a small organization. Another example: if you call the INC a protestant sect, which is absolutely untrue, you imply that it is a supporter of the Reformation, which broke off catholicism. There's so many issue that need to be considered they all won't fit here. As far as my username, I now prefer to be anonymous. Beware of the cabals which took over wikipedia.
 * The use of "Beware of the (blanks)" and the belief that the sole purpose that this article is "to deceive people" is exactly what was used by user Emico in the past. Emico, I'm not trying to start a fight with you or stir up trouble, but speaking as a member, quite frankly, you are embarassing yourself and the INC. Not to mention that the evidence will incriminate you. If you don't believe me, imagine an indoctrinee stumbling across this page and a minister having to explain why an INC member would engage in such disruptive behaviour? I know you're not currently a member, but you are representing the church online. By your actions, I am also suspecting that you are possibly a member of another religious sect trying to make the INC look bad. --Ironbrew 01:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, you have no credibility. Such sockpuppeteer like you should be ashamed of yourself. You fought very hard at the bereans site denying your being a sockpuppet, and then spilled you guts. Shameful. I regularly watch that site and because you are too you should recognize me. Besides, you have a very twisted rationale and your accusations are unfounded. If you were a genuine INC, you would agree with me. I am not emico, and I don't care whether you or anybody else believe it or not. I must say, you are the only sockpuppet liar I know who got a barnstar. too funny.
 * Brother Emico, your anger and jealousy is blinding you from doing the right thing. I pray that God gives you the strength and courage to take the high road and renounce hatred and insults towards others.--Ironbrew 03:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 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&lt;Sp e ak

Posting INC's Doxology lyrics
Please do not post INC's Doxology lyrics anywhere on this site. Not only doesn't it belong in an encyclopedia, but a consensus has been reached not to post them, since it has been said by Wikipedians who are INC officers, that the lyrics to the doxology may be in violation of their copyright. Any lyrics posted here will be reverted. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 09:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Statements like that positively invite curiosity.


 * 1) Not only doesn't it belong in an encyclopedia. Why? There's a whole Doxology article with examples of doxologies from other churches.


 * I hold the same feelings about the other religions' doxologies. Not only INC. After all, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." as the policy says. If you worked for Funk and Wagnalls, would you add it to their INC article?--LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 20:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * For comparison, the Encyclopedia Britannica quotes in full the greater doxology, in both Latin and English, as well as the lesser and Thomas Ken doxologies in English. 86.139.226.200 11:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 2) but a consensus has been reached. Where? When? I don't see any consensus beyond Ealva asserting it in Talk:Doxology and your reporting it here. If it has been reached 'behind the scenes' and not by open discussion and reference to published sources, it's original research, and there's no reason for others to obey it.


 * WP:NOR only works with the main namespace (actual articles). I talk about this problem in your next question. But if there was an agreement, it would be on the talk pages. That's for sure. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 20:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC) (updated 08:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC))


 * WP:NOR only works with the main namespace (actual articles. Sure: people can express what they like on the Talk page. But if it's original research, its results can't be applied to the content of the main article. 86.139.226.200 11:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 3) may be in violation of their copyright. Doesn't wash. As Smerdis of Tlön said in Talk:Doxology, a short verse or two from a larger book almost certainly comes under fair use.


 * Maybe you should tell them it's okay to add it, provided you're a member of INC. IMO, the only person who disagrees with its posting is Ealva. We take his word for it, because he says he's an officer within the Church. Well, if you really feel it needs to be posted, talk about it at the Doxology talk page, and see what happens.


 * I see another problem with the current doxology posts. This is the english Wikipedia, and many people don't understand what's written when you post the Tagalog doxology. Remember, Theo isn't filipino, so he wouldn't know any tagalog. It make more sense to get the English version for the English Wikipedia, and post the tagalog one at the Tagalog version of the article. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 20:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 4) What is this really about? Judging by the Network54.com forum thread, my guess is that this is about disputes over interpretation of the INC doxology reference to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Am I right? 86.139.229.149 14:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't know about that thread until you mentioned it. But it seems to date before any major edit to this article, so I wouldn't link it to this. But doesn't the INC doxology change every so often anyway? In the '80s it began with "Praise O Praise O God in Heaven", in the late '90s it was "All glory to the Father's name" (or something like it), and from what I heard from Ealva, it's something different, now. Maybe you should ask Ealva what it means? That's if he still comes here... --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 20:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC) (updated 08:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

Ang Tamang Daan and Ang Dating Daan Self Contradictory.
Part of the article describes the Ang Tamang Daan as "A live audio webcast of the tagalog radio program "Ang Tamang Daan" (a show designed to rebut the claims of Ang Dating Daan, a controversial religious radio-television program in the Philippines)"

but the links page says "The Official website of Ang Tamang Daan - This site may be maintained by the Ang Dating Daan, which has an adversarial relationship with the INC."

Why would a radio program maintain a page which rebut their own claims? It makes no sense --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 01:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The INC does not own or maintain that website. It is apparently maintained by one Rene Panoncillo, according to WHOIS, an official in the Ang Dating Daan, the organization which the program speaks out against. It seems that the ADD registered that domain and misleadingly labeled it "the Official site of the Ang Tamang Daan" which it is not.--Ironbrew 02:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In fact, I think I'm going to delete this. It reminds me too much of the farcical IglesianiCristo.us site and shouldn't be used as reference. --Ironbrew 02:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Baptism
"I think we can compromise on the term "around""? Are you kidding me? Why don't you cite your source? Where do you get your info anyway?

Ironbrew aka Onlytofind introduces himself as an INC member, implying he has knowledge of the INC. But a recent post suggest otherwise. The post reads like this: " And as of now, I do not believe it(the INC) is the only way to salvation ... --Ironbrew 21:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)". This is very important because this goes against the basic doctrine of the INC. Ironbrew/Onlytofind should clarify this statement and until then his post, especially pertaining to doctrines and practices, church leaders and personalities, should be taken with skepticism. 207.66.248.166 17:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Emico, just because I attend the INC's services doesn't mean I agree with everything I do, and I have my doubts on their doctrine on exclusive salvation after hearing alternative evidence. I can't understand why you would like to seize upon my personal doubts within the INC, unless you're trying to present yourself as an holier-than-thou elitist. If you want to hear my source- My sister was baptized at ten. Ten is not twelve. I put "around" there in hopes of finding compromise, but instead of taking advantage of the situation to work together to make this article more productive, you seek revenge -conduct unbecoming of the INC or Wikipedia. Let me ask you, Brother Emico, where's your source on twelve? The INC has never told me of any age for baptism, only "at a time when one can understand and accept the doctrines." Just to make sure, I'll ask my group overseer next week and get back to you. --Ironbrew 18:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not emico. get over it and leave the guy alone. If you are INC, why are your postings contrary to INC doctrines? What are your "alternative evidence"? I was baptized at less than 9. Where do you get the "gall" to speak about something you don't know nothing about? Why is "at a time when one can understand and accept the doctrines." not enough for you? Go ahead, ask you imaginary "overseer" and while doing that, ask him about " And as of now, I do not believe it(the INC) is the only way to salvation.". My debate with you is post like these made while claiming to be INC.
 * You admitted you're Starbucks, and Starbucks is Emico, so... If you were baptized at less than ten than why are you so adamant at saying the age for baptism is twelve? I just stated that the correct phraseology is "at a time when one can understand and accept the doctrines" which, since you have concurred with me, only shows that you are trying to discredit me because you cannot accept the fact that not everybody, and not even your fellow members in the INC see eye to eye on everything. As for not knowing anything about the INC, my sister is married to a ministerial worker and I scored a "40" on the prebaptismal exam. Instead of looking at who's saying this, look at what's being said. We are now allowed to revert your edits at will and the article could even be locked in the future. Your angry posts are doing nothing in regards in helping you present your message and clear your name. Why not do the right thing?--Ironbrew 00:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)