User talk:Hampsty2

Hi there Hampsty2,

I just undid a revision you made to the GCAC article here on Wikipedia; before that in respect I first checked your other contribs, and found that under this username you've made none; I'd like to give you some background and some suggestions (and that's what they are, suggestions) to that particular article in order that you may fruitfully edit it with a minimum of trouble:

1. Wikipedia has both its "laws" (so to speak, more exactly they're "guidelines" which determine outcomes for disputes) and its "customs"; long-time Wikipedians know these as opposed to newcomers, of course, but in general you don't want to show-up and just edit something highly controversial without knowing the rules or the customs, both for the Wikipedia community as a whole, and for particular articles: those composed with especial diligence have that propensity to form something like their own mini-communities too, which is good to keep quality had, but can be bad if they're overzealous to prevent anymore editing: sometimes it prevents edits that do not conform properly to guidelines, but sometimes good materia: hope you find more the former. 2. As aforementioned, that article is controversial, so immediately editing that one, and having done no others in the history of your username, can be regarded as suspicious; the particular reason for the edit that was made is a category on Wikipedia called "Weasel Words": almost anybody who's edited that article is familiar with GC in-speak, and explanations, how they're used, and how wider audiences use words and hear them; in this particular case those would count as weasel words.  3. Before editing an article, make sure to familiarize with the dicussion page of that article. 4. Don't just edit things as you see fit: remember there are guidelines to follow, and also contemplate that the "customs" become respectful community-like conventions that violation of, or of the guidelines, can be mean moderators and whatnot getting involved. Also, when you make edits and such, and don't know all what to do, asking about things on discussion will usually bring people glad to give good advice and help.  5. Information added should be attributed, among other things. 6. Attributions are required to be reliable sources according to Wikipedia's guidelines: there was negotiation that you can read back-and-forth between a couple fellows sent by GC to sterilize the article (though they weren't to say so), and those who'd already been working on it: I know about the sterilize part because though it was denied, I was both informed of this by the leadership in that organization, and one of those assigned to do so and say otherwise broke down, repented, apologized he was duplicitous, and both works for GC, but is now unwelcome to some extent, because he also corresponds with people who were abused, and talks with leadership that's currently ostracized but wants to bring reform (which right now amounts to about one guy, unfortunately): at least that's what I last knew about, as a couple of years have passed now. 7. Discerning from the nature of your addition I would guess you are, or have at some point considered yourself, Christian, and have had affiliation with that organization: therefore, and this is just a personal request, no required, I would ask that before using scriptural terms, you familiarize yourself with the biblical (after all, that's the "Sole source of faith and practice" in most statements/confessions) definitions and use of those terms as opposed to just what is widely spouted as discipline: discipline is only possible scripturally for correct reasons, but is persecution when it is enforced invalidly: savage wolvery; with the history of GC, and its current practices, with which I, and others, are both personally familiar, as well as informed by others, from ranks of common attenders, to members, to leadership, we have both audio and documentation (transcripts, citations, and more) of gross improper conduct perpetrated by the organization against innocent people: excommunications for someone daring to say we must be discerning even of our own leaders at conferences, numerous people excommunicated for publicly challenging the founders for blatant lies, outside organizations themselves writing-up warnings about the damage they were dealing with in people who got out or were kicked-out improperly, and who'd been taught dreams and visions, but not fed as sheep: I was getting to see all this come about where I was, and I myself had to leave after I was around people in a chapel who were praying "that so and so would come to 'This Vision'", which harks back to McCotter's days when he proclaimed himself "apostle" (in the sense of Paul, not functional) given a new revelation, a "plan" from God, and which wasn't surprising: the older long-time leadership of the place I was at are both highly influential throughout the organization, and were trained by the defunct apostle they've told us they refuse to repudiate: I think immediately of Revelation, though, where Jesus commends those who'd proven those who claimed they were apostles, and found that they were not; unfortunately in GC in America there are men still functioning in those roles, just without claiming the name, but in Honduras they're teaching there are still apostles: in history and to Scripture, that's heretical and the men trying to draw people after themselves: it's odd because I searched long and hard for a good biblical church after I'd left and found one that others from my old one are starting to come to after having been members for 10+ years, who'd thought the leadership were they're friends but who told them to leave when they requested they undertake to teach theology systematically, were told GC and the leaders had none--didn't even know it, and confronted them for that: that means they have nothing, and aren't teachers, and I don't say that lightly: the pastors they were talking about were men I'd worked with, though friends, on various events at a campus, in organizations, in efforts, and so forth.  8. (Obviously you can tell I'm in "background") I had to leave when I found that I could argue "if it comes to God or men, we must obey God", and the reply was "no, I have to obey my leaders", when checking LTC and other audio that obeying God is equated with obeying the leaders (at one point a guy even throwing a Bible across the room at someone who stood up in a crowd and stood on Scripture when the teacher was teaching gross false teaching), audio for women's sessions at the conferences they were being told to obey husbands even if they were ordered by them to do something even if against conscience or against what God commanded, teaching or implying, in a weird way, that by their faithfulness they'd be in a word, excused; when in six months I counted about three or four false gospels in this "healthy" Church; it was very sad, but it was not Christian, nor Christianity, but something else, and I mourn for them because of it: that's a bit of my background, and I'm sorry if any of this sounds accusing, offensive, or like "slander", but even the definition passed-around for that word while I was there is in origin traceable, and was made by a bait-and-switch between two Greek terms by one of the more influential leaders and original members of the organization. I'm no accuser, I left rather to learn and be sure in order to be able to rightly categorize, summarize, and elucidate the right from wrong, but as one person put it, "it's a mosh-pit of teaching", so it's almost fruitless to try anything anyways, and we were taught not to hear any "accusation" anyways, (i.e. those still there were too), and anyone I've known, or learned about, who has ever tried "helping", clarifying, or working things out, has been told they're no longer welcome, a slanderer, and walking with Satan, or worse, even when their accusers couldn't name that they'd said or brought-out anything that was untrue or inaccurate, which those persons had requested they point-out if there were any such things. You can guess who will be acquitted before God for loving their siblings and doing right, and who called Him Lord, and did much in His name, but were never known, and even persecuted those they called "brothers": the first mark of a Christian, the "Great Commission", so to speak, is "love one another, as I have loved you": despite the heading placed over Matthew 28. I found myself around those I loved, but they praying "Oh Lord, please save so and so because s/he's so cool" (among other things), and it sickened me: I was a guy beat-up by leadership for daring once "usurp" authority (and yet they had nothing planned) by asking brothers to come distribute food to the homeless. I watched couples be brainwashed and manipulated and split-up needlessly, or sat around with accountability groups were men confessed repeatedly and every time gross unrelenting sin they could not cease from, while they were being taught by leadership to give their youth "to God", "through us", when Scriptures teaches that it is better one marry than burn in lust; singing songs against "an ordinary life" when we're commanded to pray for the earhtly rulers that we may live quiet and peaceable lives which is good in the sight of God: it's not that I'm against people doing the extraordinary, but when I see siblings worshiping excitement, never fed and always needing the next thing "to get refreshed", not exhorted in these things, and falling in love with the world (and this is no rail against beer or cigarettes), well, "Ichabod": God's glory is not here, (because His teaching is not here). 

Besides the assumption of point 7, I'll assume no more, and wish you love and grace in Christ Jesus, that you be guided and walk into all truth, and edified unto perfection (maturity) by Him. I usually don't come onto Wikipedia and provide a big sob story like the above, but I think perhaps from now on I should, as strange as it may sound. For reasons of health and family I never really did get to talk to those I knew and loved, and to the measly extent I ever got the chance I was just trampled over by people everyone thought were very loving and the best people in the world.  As I said, I don't know who you are, though I'll say one thing: your username looks a lot like something that someone I knew would say, and you know, it reminds me to think of that someone along with those I knew; I think about those guys a lot: but whether to choose the fellowship of men who's false teachings conflict Jesus's and His apostles, even in the very most basic things, or rather choose fellowship in the Lord, and to suffer--even estrangement, and I think you can guess what one should choose: suffering in Christ is sweeter than the greatest joy in company of those one loves!  [9. Read Scripture, in-context, minimizing distractions, and understanding you don't know the cultural background, the way the words are used in the original languages, and other such things, that it is thus not like reading a newspaper, nor as if it's really even English: that humility alone is highly helpful; and in discernment, apply what is said to wider Christendom, to oneself, and to one's own fellowship and those with whom one fellowships: it is both obedience, in popular lingo "God's love language", but to God, not men, and it is an eye-opener in our age.]

Grace, TheResearchPersona ([that above]@[google's mail suffix].com)