Jump to content

Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

This is an archived version of the talk page. Please see talk:Iglesia ni Cristo for the latest topics.

No Concensus

I would like to inform Glenn and Emico, that through my discussions with other Wikipedians, their posts regarding this topic, and in accordance with Wikipedia rules, that there is absolutely no formal concensus or law upholding the informal poll we took where we compromised on having the links 3/3.

I would also like to inform everyone that it was my idea to initiate the poll, because at the time, Glenn Cessor and I were engaged in a revert war and Glenn stated that he wanted the article to be written to "his conditions," which he found "reasonable." I initiated the poll to try and keep the uneasy peace we had at the time, and back then, the only member taking part who had no prior association with the INC was Rlquall. There were only five editors really involved with the article at the time, myself, LBMixPro, a former indoctrinee, and gcessor, Emico and Ealva, INC members, which made this a kangaroo election with the lack of any contributors not affiliated with the INC and the majority of voters being INC members.--Onlytofind 18:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're conveniently forgetting Rlquall (who you quote so much) voted in favor of the current consensus. I believe you'll always call the results of a vote a "kangaroo election" whenever it doesn't favor your biased views. You, Dejvid, Emico and Gcessor voted 2 each on the extreme ends, Rlquall, LBMixPro and I voted on the moderate side. The moderate side won, which made both extreme ends unhappy. But unlike you, they respected the outcome. Go ahead on the vote, but people here should know that you don't give respect to it anyway. Ealva 21:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Look at the statements that Glenn and Emico have made, claiming foolishly that all of us (Ray, David, Gracenote and myself) are the same person, just to try and destroy our credibility. The hypocrisy of the INC members is obvious- now that other Wikipedians unaffiliated with the INC are speaking out about the Wikipedia rules and giving their input on this article, they just don't want to listen to them since the other Wikipedians are not agreeing with their bias! --Onlytofind 01:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, Onlytofind, I did NOT accuse, but I DID imply. There's a difference, you know. The implication was warranted since there are several new participants on this site that weren't here before, and they were discussing the results of a vote that you lost (and tried to bypass by putting another 'con' site in a different section). That's why I made the implication - but NO accusation, because I knew I could be wrong, as it looks like I was. None of them except for possibly one are actually you. You see, Onlytofind, that's the difference between thee and me. If I'm wrong about something, I admit it. Speaking of which, where is your proof that I've insulted every detractor - or even a fraction of them? And while you're at it, please post your justification for posting dozens of insults while claiming to be a Christian.--gcessor 13:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You lie, insult (yes, I said it) and manipulate this article to your own blatantly biased POV. You're a hypocrite, pure and simple. You claim to have "God on your side" which makes you act and think that you're doing God's work when you're not. It's because of people like you and Emico, in part, why I left the INC and why other people, like even these contributors, some who haven't heard of the INC before this think the way they do. Instead of trying to do what you feel is "God's work," by judging others and trying to push your own POV, why don't you let God do his work? Take the plank out of your eye, Glenn.--Onlytofind 19:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Still waiting for you to post proof of any of your accusations against me.--gcessor 15:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Still waiting for you to post your Biblical justification to throw insults.--gcessor 15:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, count me out. I hadn't joined when the vote took place so don't see any need to be bound by it (even if it were binding). There are at least two other editors here in the same position. I go by the guidelines at Wikipedia:External_links, and I've no idea where the 3 Pro, 3 Con comes from (many religious pages have more, and all links used to source information are supposed to be cited).
These links do need an overhaul. You may be surprised, but I agree with Emico about the forums. They are not information-rich. AsCII is a computing site: again, it's not a source of information about the main topic of this page. RayGirvan 22:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think the the AsCII link is best in the Eduardo Manalo article, since he's the one who appearently is more involved than other notable INC figures --08:29, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Count me out then too. If somebody calls for a poll, then lost, then suddenly complains that it was a "kangaroo election", I don't think he'll ever be satisfied until he wins. Besides, I don't think a vote will ever be appropriate to this article (or any article for that matter). I only voted because that time I thought this will make people come to their senses and respect the results. Ealva 02:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, the vote was originally meant to be a temoporary solution to an NPOV dispute where the con section had a signifigant amount more links than the pro did (about 4 to 2, if I recall). When I created the vote, besides resolving the issue, I was thinking about the "WP is not a link repository" statement, and I didn't know how many were "too many" links. So I thought 3 + 3 = 6. Six links isn't a lot. At this moment, I don't feel we should be limited to 3 links, but I doubt we want to see a list of 5 pro links and about 8 con links. The measure was mostly to keep a fair balance of pro and con links. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 04:31, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • I can agree with Raygirvan about the forums and about the ASCII site.--gcessor 13:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • The INC members here will never be satisfied until they have a one-sided POV article.--Onlytofind 19:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • A very convenient excuse from someone who initiated a vote and lost. Ealva 00:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • When will it dawn on you that the survey (not really a vote) has no bearing on the current status of the article, except with you, Glenn and Emico?--Onlytofind 01:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Now it's a "survey". I wonder what will you call the next poll, if ever there will be one... Ealva 02:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edited section about Diosdado Macapagal

The Macapagal website is not an official source published by the Macapagal family, but by one "liambautista@gmail.com," who is obviously an admirer or the Macapagals. And the quote included by Emico from the Inquirer, only speaks about the faith of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and not necessarily about her father.

On further analysis, it is not the actual words of Diosdado Macapagal, but composed through biographies by the site owner to make it look as if it is actually him speaking. In light of this information, I have omitted the quote, and have changed the sentence to the hopefully more-neutral: "Arroyo's father, Diosdado Macapagal, due to his religious and political views, refused INC's preferred support during his runs forVice President in 1957" while keeping the source link at the end.--Onlytofind 20:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good enough, I guess... Do we know what the actual words are? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!)
Not for me. I'll revisit this when I have the time. --Emico 15:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Splitting the talk page into sub-pages

As I try to edit this page, there's a sign that says "This page is 106 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." It's also harder to read through this long talk page. Who here feels we should separate the talk page into different sub-pages? For example, we can have a talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/links for the discussion of the links page, talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/politics for the politics section, etc. I've seen it work with other active talk pages.

  • Just split it into multiple archives (e.g. Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/Archive 1). We never know when the article might be reorganized. Just a suggestion. Ealva 00:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That's what we've been currently doing. As you can see from the top of this page. Hmm... Come to think about it, it's about time to archive and purge. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 04:04, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Scientology article

Raygirvan has made the excellent suggestion to rewrite this article more along the lines of the Scientology article, with both the pro and con sides making their points in this article. I think it would be good for this article, as it would give more space to explain the church's doctrine and beliefs further, and a section explaining the issues some might have with their practices. This would truly be NPOV, because right now, there isn't any information on the origins of the INC in this article, the reason they believe why they do and further information on their practices. And a section focused on criticism would make all viewpoints heard, and make this article what I believe most everyone would want it to be: a place where one can hear all factual information about the INC and truly NPOV, in the vein of: "NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past."--Onlytofind 02:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with this suggestion, and, quoting RayGirvan: all text should maintain that balance between believers' and nonbelievers' views. Ealva 03:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes! Great idea. I'd love to think of it like this: Make the INC article good enough, so it can actually be worthy of a nomination for featured status. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!)
I am trying to create a section on the beginnings of the Iglesia ni Cristo, but it is extremely difficult to include information not of questionable origin. I think the article at [www.iglesianicristo.us/fymbio.html] is seemingly full of information, and seems to be quoted from the Pasugo magazine itself. Now, even I agree that most of the site is a load of grade-A bunk, and I'm not sure how much of that section is worth using or if it's a complete falsification. --Onlytofind 04:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK, I added information about the beginnings of the INC and information about its structure. I left it intentionally vague, with information just about everybody can agree on so that it can be expanded on by those more knowledgeable.--Onlytofind 04:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It would be nice to get a picture of a chapel or the Central Office for the article- I know there are many on the 'net, but I don't want to infringe copyright.--Onlytofind 08:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is looking very hopeful. There's a huge amount of background information that I don't think anyone here would dispute. For instance, a section on the INC flag and emblem would be worth including: the one at the Truthfinder site is a bit hard to find, and its image of the emblem isn't very clear. RayGirvan 13:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This brings up another question. Most articles at WP have a main image to give some kind of visual representation of what the subject is. For a few months, I was thinking about using the INC's emblem as that main image. Obtaining a clear image of the emblem isn't difficult, especially for the contributers who are INC members. Since the contributers would be the one's taking the picture, Image copyrights shouldn't be a problem. But what about the emblem itself? Is it copyrighted where fair use wouldn't cover it? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 14:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Unless there's a religious prohibition on reproducing it, I'd say it's probably OK under fair use, but it would do no harm to get permission. For a comparable example, see the format for the Society of Jesus page and its Jesuit emblem. RayGirvan 17:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Emico has taken to changing my original title of "Origins of the Iglesia ni Cristo" to "Felix Manalo's Early Life." I tried to make my first edit sympathetic enough without being POV, and I believe that the revised title doesn't exactly give enough background, and I've changed it to "Early History of the Iglesia ni Cristo" which I hope is agreeable to everyone. I also deleted the obnoxious italicizing of the word "founded" by Emico. I understand that the INC believes that Felix Manalo reestablished the first Church founded by Jesus, but I'm sure we can agree that the INC (as an organization) has beginnings and I would think that implying "Felix Manalo established the Iglesia ni Cristo (after all if you reestablish something, you've established it again) which the INC believes is the reestablishment of the first Church founded by Jesus." would be neutral and sympathetic. What is everyone's opinion?--Onlytofind 16:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Question about offices in the INC

I've wondered this to the time back when I was an INC Member, but never got around to asking. If the officers make up the church administration, such as the deacons and ministers, do the choir members, financial officers and the secretariats make up the administration too, even though their positions are largely non-administrative?--Onlytofind 16:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • "Church Administration" is a general term given to those with authority to decide for certain church issues. It can range from a group overseer up to the Executive Minister. Choir members also have their own choir leader, who decides on matters pertaining to the choir. Same goes with the other offices. Ealva 04:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I made explicit the doctrine that Jesus is not God. This is necessary, since mainstream Christians also believe that Jesus is a man. DJ Clayworth 17:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Erano, Eduardo and Felix Manalo articles

I added a disclaimer to both Erano Manalo and Felix Manalo that "Some sources claim that Felix Manalo founded the Iglesia ni Cristo, but he did not claim to be its founder. The official stance of the INC maintains that Mr. Manalo was sent by God to reestablish the first Church established by Jesus and that the Iglesia ni Cristo is the direct descendant of that organization." I think my edit was NPOV to both sides, and Emico once again shows his complete lack of fairness and objectivity. He has also made an unfounded claim on the Eduardo Manalo page that the author of a book was biased against the INC which is totally baseless. Now that progress is going through on this page, I suggest that all who are watching this page watch those three also in order to protect them from Emico sneaking in baseless allegations and personal opinion.--Onlytofind 20:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to get a consensus whether reverting these pages from Emico's obviously biased edits would count as a revert from vandalism- because of the severe lack of objectivity.--Onlytofind 20:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vandalism. That explains what vandalism is in WP. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 21:17, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
So no - POV edits are considered a breach of NPOV, not vandalism. RayGirvan 01:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I know that our friend Emico isn't too objective in his actions, and I would like to know if anyone else has any quarrel with the disclaimer above, included in the Felix and Erano Manalo pages.
I think it's accurate, but a little cumbersome. Ideally, it'd be nice to find some neutral phrasing to make it into a seamless article. What about something like:
"Felix Ysagun Manalo was a Filipino evangelist revered by adherents of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) as the 'Angel of the East' of biblical prophecy. The first Executive Minister of the INC, he registered this church with the Philippines Government on July 14, 1914. While he is often described as its founder, the INC holds that he was sent by God to reestablish the first Church established by Jesus.
Fill in details as appropriate.
Incidentally - I don't know who 203.190.89.130 is, but I think the Background section is drifting into excessive biographical detail that really belongs in the Felix Manalo article. RayGirvan 13:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Emico graciously used some of his precious time to vandalize this article once again, deleting the phrase "Until 2000, the INC also distributed lists of supported candidates for elections in the United States." which he considered to be "POV." I already discussed this with Mr. Cessor, the only other member at the time, to my knowledge who is residing in the U.S and we both agreed that the last occurence of this occurring was 1998, and being there no elections in 1999, this statement is true.--Onlytofind 04:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please get your facts straight, Onlytofind. I made NO such agreement with you. The 1998 date is there solely by your say-so, your claim that the INC Administration gave guidance for a state election (California, IIRC)...never mind that I have never seen the Administration give any recommendations for ANY state election whatsoever. I let you go because I was simply tired of arguing with you - but it looks like the newer participants in this article might have something to say about using 1998 as the cutoff date "just because you say so".--gcessor 04:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Technically true, but misleading. Why not amend it to 1998? DJ Clayworth 05:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It would need sourcing too. RayGirvan 11:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note to self: Continue ignoring the trolls. --Emico 15:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can run from the truth, but you can't hide the fact that you're guilty of bias and hypocrisy. Onlytofind 21:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for admitting to trolling me. BTW, you went lunatic on the article and added a lot of stuff I need to look at, so I added the dispute tag. I hope you don't mind. --Emico 21:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're the one who's trolling. I apologize for making myself unclear- You can run from the truth, but you can't hide the fact that you're guilty of bias and hypocrisy. Let Glenn and Ealva take a look at the article, I think your credibility amongst the Wikipedia community has been wiped out a long time ago.--Onlytofind 21:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And I add: we are not obliged to treat Emico as arbiter of content here. Any factual doubts (and I agree that there are some) are the province of all editors here, and I trust Glenn and Ealva far more. RayGirvan 23:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think we are coming very far in our progress to present in-depth, INC practices and beliefs in a neutral, sympathetic point of view. Once we have consensus that the article is informative enough, then I will start the addition of the "Criticisms" section, just like the ones in the RCC and Scientology articles. I stand with LBMixPro in trying to make this a candidate for "Featured Article."--Onlytofind 00:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, you two are still sore at me for correcting you? Onlytofind seems to spend a lot of time trolling me. Take a break, spend a little time with the family. Everytime you remove the dispute tag, it just takes time from me in checking your contributions. In turn, the dispute tag will stay longer. It's up to you. Have a nice day to all. --Emico 14:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's the use of the dispute tag to mean "Emico doesn't like the article getting out of his control" that some of us dislike. If we're going to get picky about factual accuracy, bear in mind that virtually nothing in this article - except parts that cite newspaper links - has verification in external named references. It cuts both ways. RayGirvan 18:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's a way of keeping you honest raygirvan. lighten up, will ya. Cite you credible, verifiable source and everything will be alright. It's a wiki rule anyway, so what's your problem? You're the ones pulling rules all the time, so this should'nt be a problem. I've added a cite sources section for you. Have a nice day raygirvan. --Emico 20:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What about this? Click on the random page link, and read if the article displayed is not completely cited in the way the INC page should be. If it isn't, put a dispute template on it, asking to site their sources. Then repeat if desired. I'd like to let everyone know that RayGirvan is no longer with us at WP.--LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 08:29, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
So, as I said, if you support citation of sources, then do so for all the other material: Structure of the Iglesia ni Cristo, General Beliefs and Practices, and Organizations. I'm not saying they're untrue, just that they are as unverified (by Wikipedia standards) as the material you complain about. RayGirvan 20:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Don't you worry, raygirvan. We'll get to those soon enough. The obvious ones first, ok? Happy researching to you. --Emico 20:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why don't you show your sources on the Bereans and Creationism? Oh, that's right, those were your own personal opinions.--Onlytofind 09:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That's interesting. This morning I made an edit and left several comments, but now the comments are no longer there, and there's nothing in the edit history.
WP's server acted up again lately. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 08:29, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

A question concerning edit history

Will the more exprerienced of the WP members explain to me what happened on this edit history page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iglesia_ni_Cristo&diff=15460839&oldid=15460363

The reason I ask is that it looks to me like Onlytofind added a line about a report about FYM stealing a turkey...and then the next edit on the edit history page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iglesia_ni_Cristo&action=history) contains this quote by Onlytofind: "Emico, you are not the judge on factuality for this article. Why not let Ealva and Glenn take a look at this? Also removed turkey accusation for lack of proof and dubious necessity."gcessor 04:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Onlytofind removed the 'factual dispute' notice, which is what his talk message was about. Only, it does look as though you added rather than deleted the turkey line. Possibly it was a mistake? DJ Clayworth 05:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • That statement didn't make a lot of sense (and served no useful purpose), because do they even have turkeys in the Philippines? I thought they were limited to North America. :) Unfortunately after reading the "turkey edit", I think that we've now got two POV editors on our hands :(--Onlytofind 21:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, they do have turkeys in the Philippines - I've seen a particular one several times, kept as a sort of 'community pet' in Manila.--gcessor 01:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  • I deleted the 'turkey' line - but on the 19th, and when I checked last night to see any further edits to the talk page, I found my edits to the talk page (and the turkey line still gone, of course) were missing, and so I checked the edit history, which strangely didn't record my edits at all. I was puzzled then and still am. It's as if I somehow made the edit while the WP was being reloaded, or perhaps my edit occurred simultaneously with a conflicting one. I certainly didn't add the turkey line! That, sir, would go completely contrary to the thousands of posts I have made defending the Church over the past five years. Anyway, it doesn't look as if Onlytofind added it, and rightly removed it.--gcessor 12:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems a user who goes by the IP address of 203.190.89.130 added that turkey statement along with other unfounded statements. Judging from the edit history [1], he seems to be a member of Ang Dating Daan, another religious group in the Philippines who's at odds with the INC for quite some time. Ealva 06:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vandals in the INC articles

We've got a few vandals here:

  • 192.55.40.96 [2], 192.55.40.97 [3], 192422212 [4] seems to be one person, judging from the edit history
  • Emico [5]
  • 203.190.89.130 seems to be a member of Ang Dating Daan who has every reason to discredit the INC

Beware of their edits. Ealva 06:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cite sources

A lot of new information added but no sources cited. --Emico 13:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) 1. First time I heard of Mr Manalo's involvement with 'spiritist'. Please cite source. --Emico 14:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Item removed by contributor due to lack of source. --Emico 00:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Check the history, I didn't contribute that, you hypocrite.--Onlytofind 18:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And also cite sources for existing information: Structure of the Iglesia ni Cristo, General Beliefs and Practices, and Organizations. RayGirvan 20:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) Added sign. --Emico 00:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's a question for Glenn and Ealva- We all know that Iglesianicristo.us is a spoof site, but the article here, it seems mostly factual and taken from the Pasugo (aside from the sneaked in POV). Would it be safe to use this as a reference for FYM's former religions? [[6]]--Onlytofind 21:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That specific page as you say seems to be a rather good biography. It raises some interesting relevant background that checks out against another source; I got a chance today to look at the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry, and that noted a strong cultural context in Philippine nationalism in the early 20th century. There were many rural-based messianic movements at that time: see here and here. RayGirvan 22:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. If North Korea had a website that seems to be a good history of the U.S., would you still want to use it as a credible reference? Of course not.--gcessor 01:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But comparing this to North Korea a different topic altogether. Also, I doubt GeoCities pages are all that reliable as a major source, due to the fact anybody can register and write whatever.

Speaking of the inc.us site, is there any other source online which is similar to the page in question? If so, best use that. -LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 15:00, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

2. Please cite your source on being atheist. Google is not as helpful as only detractors pages say this. Thanks. Also, I'd appreciate it if you will post your response before removing the dispute tag. You added a lot of stuff and I'm still trying to go through it now. --Emico 23:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3. Please cite source for your claim and implication that Mr Manalo's had anti-colonialism ideals when he started his ministry. And prove your implication that his motivation are not purely religious. --Emico 00:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say that, but it's fair to refer to historical and cultural context, which all religions have and which Wikipedia accounts are expected to include. Read WP:NPOV#Religion "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". RayGirvan 01:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That is called an assumption.--gcessor 01:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, someone accusing me of being biased against the INC is an assumption. That is historical context. I'm not trying to start anything with you, I think we're making more progress than ever.--Onlytofind 00:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your statement sounded like you know the whole history of the INC, even from the beginning. I think of it as a generalization. Please cite your source so others can assess. Thanks.--Emico 01:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I cited them above. The particular observation about the socio-political context is from the Encyclopedia of new religions, new religious movements, sects and alternative spiritualities ed. Professor Christopher Partridge, Lion, 2004 [7]. RayGirvan 02:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Great! The book is available on amazon.com. Can you give me the pages to make it easier for me? thanks. --Emico 14:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
FYI: Click the following link to get info on this book from WP: ISBN 0745950736 --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 15:00, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Starting at page 56. I can't simply quote the text because I read it in the city library and didn't have time to copy it. RayGirvan 16:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3. Background Info - most of this is new to me. The '3 days' part I heard about but not the many religions Mr Manalo studied. Please cite source. --Emico 14:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've heard it before as well, somewhere in the church. I'm not sure if it's accurate though. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!)

4. Politics - Please cite source on your claim that the INC gives out a list of candidates to vote for. --Emico 14:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pasugo? -LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 15:00, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

5. Semantics?. origin vs. started his mission. I'll revisit this when I have time. --Emico 15:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you show your sources on the Bereans and Creationism? Oh, that's right, those were your own personal opinions.--Onlytofind 09:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Onlytofind, if you cannot cite a source other than your own experience that the INC Administration rendered guidance for elections after 1996, then it must be deleted IAW Wiki rules. I'm not trying to start a war here, but let's follow the rules for citations, please.--gcessor 22:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The last time my area supported a candidate, it was 1998- and on the flip side, the possibility exists (emphasis on possibility) that other areas might have done so after that. Since the both of us aren't sure on the date, I'll remove it, but keep the claim, since we both agree that the INC in the U.S used to endorse candidates. I'm not trying to start a war either, but I also support the rules for citations. Speaking about citations, right now, we have a big problem on our hands (everyone here) since the information about Church doctrines and practices are almost impossible to support by printed media, which discredits it by Wikipedia rules, even though we seem to agree that almost all of it is factual.--Onlytofind 03:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If any area 'supported a candidate' in a national election after 1996, then it was not IAW Church doctrine and policy at that time...and again, I am unaware of ANY candidate support in any state elections whatsoever (and I expect to see your disapproval of churches' support of Republican candidates in the future, of course). Speaking of citations, ALL of Church doctrine and many of our practices are supported by printed media i.e. the God's Message magazine, which, in accordance with Wiki rules, can be used as a reference in the description of the INC.--gcessor 07:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agreed - if it's specific enough (like date and issue) for someone else to find. Otherwise - a secular equivalent - it's at the level of saying some fact was in The Times. There do appear to be a few books if anyone can find them: see the bibliography to [here] RayGirvan 21:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Glenn, When will you realize that the Republicans and the Democrats both stink? Don't blame me, I voted for real change in 2004. I also expect you to admit one day, that you don't agree with everything in the INC... BTW: We have to get specific enough in using Pasugo sources regarding issues and dates.--Onlytofind 00:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trinity, Arianism & Other Doctrines

So what's the problem with the descriptor "nontrinitarian"? It's accurate, isn't it? If we're really going to quibble, small-c "unitarian" appears to be a standard neutral outside descriptor: Encyclopaedia Britannica and the ''Encyclopedia of new religions both use it. RayGirvan 11:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not really. The "article" make no specific mention that the doctrine of a One True God preceded everything else. As far as I know, this is what the INC believe in. So the label do not accurately describe the INC. --Emico 14:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Emico, you've got that wrong. "Nontrinitiarian" simply means "doesn't believe in the Trinity", which is a perfectly accurate description of INC. DJ Clayworth 15:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. Here's the desc:Nontrinitarianism or antitrinitarianism is the doctrinal description applied to rejection of the Trinitarian doctrine that God subsists as three distinct persons in the Holy Trinity.. To me, this sounds like the trinity doctrine preceded the doctrine of a One True God. Remember that according to sources, the trinity doctrine did'nt materialize until AD325, whereas bible accounts to the One True God doctrine in Genesis 1:1. --Emico 15:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Bear in mind NPOV#Religion. You're trying to make the article treat as fact a non-historical timeline (ie which bases its chronology partly on scripture that not everyone believes). 17:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's not about which one came first, since that itself is a matter of dispute. All it's saying is, some people believe in it (trinitarians) and some don't (nontrinitarians). DJ Clayworth 17:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The same NPOV#Religion says explanation encompasses ... an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be. So even though some may regard the bible as a non-historical timeline(I disagree, but wish that we don't discuss it here), to Christian religions, it is. As far as which came first, surely you don't believe Constantinople lived before Adam. --Emico 15:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So even though some may regard the bible as a non-historical timeline ...to Christian religions, it is - Not so. Even many branches of Christianity don't believe in literal biblical truth - rather that its historical detail grades into myth (in the purest sense - check out Myth#Myths as depictions of historical events).
I'm not familiar with these Christian branches. Can you name them? I'm afraid I don't want to discuss those here, though. Perhaps yoou can start an article about them. Also, please sign your post. I use the second to the last button above. --Emico 18:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No need to start an article. It's the stance of just about all Christian churches that aren't fundamentalist: for instance, the majority of the Church of England and most Roman Catholics in the West. See Liberal_Christianity. - 195.92.67.*
But this is an example of the trouble. Adam as the first man is not a generally accepted belief (only followers of specific religions believe it) so Wikipedia can't incorporate it as a fact. RayGirvan 00:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
only followers of specific religions believe it, two of which are being discussed here. If we are to talk about these two religions, it is but fair to include that which they believe in. --Emico 06:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, Constantinople was a place, not a person, so it didn't "live" in any real sense. No I have no difficulty with the idea that monotheism came before Trinitarianism. Judaism came before Christianity, and Judaism is monotheistic. Shouldn't we be talking about this at Talk:Nontrinitarianism? Your objection appears to be with that article, not this one. DJ Clayworth 16:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Of course. I meant Emperor Constantine. Well, we're talking about why the INC should not be labeled nontrinitarian.

As far as I can see, Emico, your problem with Nontrinitarianism as a label is that it does not describe the complete doctrine of your church. Well of course it doesn't. Saying it is a nontrinitarian church just describes an aspect of its teachings. You seem to equate Nontrinitarianism with Christian. That is a POV but not one Wiki can adopt. Dejvid 28 June 2005 15:37 (UTC)

Of course! Exactly. Why would you label the INC with something that it is not? That should be enough explanation, don't you think?
No, I'm not equating it to being Christian. I merely pointed out that biblically, the doctrine of a One True God preceded the doctrine of the trinity. --Emico 28 June 2005 16:05 (UTC)

Emico, by your own logic we shouldn't be calling anyone a member of the INC. Because even if it's true, it doesn't completely describe them. In fact, of course, it's perfectly normal to give a group a label if it accurately describes them, even if it isn't a complete description (which it never is). DJ Clayworth 28 June 2005 18:17 (UTC)

DJ, that's a weak argument. Member in itself is a "complete" description. Of course you can qualify it, but by itself, it is enough. The article nontrinitarian on the other hand presumes that the trinity doctrine preceded the One True God doctrine, which is false according to the bible.
I hope this does'nt develop into a religious discussion. I should really stop here. --Emico 28 June 2005 18:32 (UTC)

My point is that "member of INC" does not completely describe a person. They might also be a father, six foot tall, one-legged or whatever. So "member of INC" is not a complete description. But it is true. And no-one, I repeat, denies that monotheism came before Trinitarianism. Like I said, Jews are non-trinitarian, and they came before Christians. DJ Clayworth 28 June 2005 19:29 (UTC)

Point taken. But the article in it's present form still do not describe a belief similar or resembling the beliefs of INC, sufficeient enough to be used as a label for the INC.--Emico 28 June 2005 19:55 (UTC)

The article describes many different kinds of beliefs, all of which are 'nontrinitarian'. Some of these beliefs include: 1) that Jesus is God, but not different from God the Father - just a different representation of him. 2) That Jesus was not God, just a divine messenger 3) That Jesus is a God, separate from God the Father.

Obviously no-one holds all of these beliefs at the same time. However as far as I can tell 2) pretty much sums up the INC belief. It's a belief shared by several different organisations, who have different reasons for believing it. Isn't that so? DJ Clayworth 30 June 2005 13:31 (UTC)

I did'nt want to go into specifics but here we go, let's start from the top. The article says Nontrinitarianism or antitrinitarianism is the doctrinal description applied to rejection of the Trinitarian doctrine. Though it is true that the INC rejects the trinity, this statement does not completely describe INC doctrines. We agree, 2) Origins and Basis will be the place where description of the INC doctrine. As it is now, it does not have anything close to what the INC believe in. --Emico 30 June 2005 14:31 (UTC)

Like I said, nontrinitarian is not a complete description of INC beliefs, but it is true. You don't seem to have any problem with Christian, which is not a complete description of INC beliefs, but is true. For other people nontrinitarian is helpful because it says a lot about what INC believes in one word. DJ Clayworth 30 June 2005 15:41 (UTC)

Well, at the very least the article says Christian means "belonging to Christ", which describes all religion that profess to follow Christ, which includes the INC. The article nontrinitarian on the other hand and as I said above, do not describe the INC enough for her to fit the label. It would be good to have the description in the first paragraph of 1). Right now it does not fit because: though the article says Jesus is a messenger, it should also say Jesus is the Only begotten Son of God. The INC did not come from the ebionites, nor are they a protestant sect, so unitarian is out. and a few more. --Emico 30 June 2005 17:40 (UTC)

Actually that belief is mentioned. It is Arianism (see below) which believes exactly that - that Jesus was the begotten son of God, but is lesser than God himself. Maybe we'll continue this discussion in the section below. DJ Clayworth 30 June 2005 21:23 (UTC)

Arianism

Some point to Arianism as a doctrine bourne out of disagreement with the Trinity. That may be so. But the doctrine of a One True God, which Arianism seem to be in agreement with, existed even in the first book of the bible. --Emico 28 June 2005 16:18 (UTC) As I This may be so and had there never been churches that adopted the Trinity it would be pointless to have the concept of nontrinitarianism as is a negative. Given that the overwhelming majority of churches come from a Trinitairian tradition ( to what extent they still all believe in it is another matter) it is notable that the Iglesia ni Cristo unambiguously rejects the Trinity. It is however not unique in this.Dejvid 28 June 2005 16:32 (UTC)

Weird. Seems like your post got mangled. See this history diff [[8]] --Emico 28 June 2005 19:45 (UTC)

The first to adopt the doctrine of the trinity was the catholic church. Before that, there was no concept of the doctrine. The triune god concept was practiced by pagans, not only in the Roman Empire, but elsewhere. Sects which separated from the catholic church carried with them this trinity doctrine.
But going back to the nontrinitarian label, I guess later on when we(contributors) can incorporate some basic doctrine of the INC in a separate section, then the label may be appropriate. --Emico 28 June 2005 16:48 (UTC)

I read in to what you are saying that were it to be in the sentence it would look as if it was qualifying the description of the church as christian implying that as Nontrinitarian they were not fully christian. As long as it does not appear in the first sentence then I don't think this is true. Dejvid 29 June 2005 22:50 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't get what you mean. Perhaps you can elaborated. But to further clarify my point: as I said, the current nontrinitarian article talks about other religions, who's faith is not the same as the INC. Therefore, to lump the INC with these religions is COMPLETELY wrong, which follows that using this article to label the INC is also wrong and not factual. As I suggested, if the nontrinitarian article can be updated to describe the INC, then the label will be appropriate to use.
I will be reluctant to start making the additions because I don't have time right now.--Emico 30 June 2005 00:33 (UTC)

And yet you are happy to lump it in with other religions under the label Christian? The nontrinitarian page says at the beginning "Though modern nontrinitarian groups all reject the doctrine of the Trinity, their views still differ widely on the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit." That should be clear.Dejvid 30 June 2005 16:52 (UTC)

Well, the definition of Christian is followers of Christ. (We may have opened another discussion here.) I hope you're not trying to say that anyone not believing in the doctrine of the trinity is not Christian. Nowhere in the bible can you find Christ teaching the trinity. He actually preach about a One True God.--Emico 30 June 2005 17:11 (UTC)

Dejvid. Can I asked you what you know about the INC and where you got your knowledge of the INC. I am currently being indoctrinated, and was a previous member. Thanks.--Emico 30 June 2005 17:47 (UTC)

Entirely though Wiki, following up the references and the debate here. But you do not dispute that the INC is opposed to the Trinity hence the difference between us is not about facts. To be quite honest I'm not sure what your objection is to the link to the nontrinitarian link. If it really is that you don't like that page then do some editing there. If you don't have the time well I'm sorry that isn't a good reason for cutting a link that is logical.Dejvid 30 June 2005 19:58 (UTC)

You have to agree then that I know more of the INC and it's doctrine and history than you. Up to this time and all the discussions where I pointed out my reason for objecting to the label you still ask what my objections are? We're you even considering my point? Your only reason for labeling the INC is because it does'nt believe in the trinity? Labeling something that it is not is wrong. What you're doing is akin to labeling all Muslims as terrorist just because the last big terrorist act was by done by people who were muslims.
May I ask what religion you belong to? So I can better understand where you're coming from. --Emico 30 June 2005 20:42 (UTC)

I understand what you're getting at Emico. You think that because the article nontrinitarianism doesn't describe precisely the doctrines of INC it shouldn't be called that. But our point is that nontrinitarian refers to all Christians who reject the Trinity; they come in many different kinds. The INC is one of those kinds. Saying 'nontrinitarian' is helpful to people who want to know about INC because it tells them something important about it in one word. It's not meant to be a 'label' in the sense you mean. DJ Clayworth 30 June 2005 21:23 (UTC)

(Incidentally, I found a history mistake above. The doctrine of the Trinity was not unknown before the Council of Nicea. Christendom was divided between Trinitarians and Arians in roughly equal numbers. The Trinitarians prevailed in the discussion. That was all. DJ Clayworth 30 June 2005 21:33 (UTC))

Nontrinitarian is a negative blanket term to cover all christian groups that reject the trinity. INC rejects the trinity and is Christian. Therefore it is covered by the label of nontrinitarian, I concede you know more about the INC but the logic of that follows from things you do not dispute. Indeed you have taken a lot of trouble to confirm that the church does reject the trinityDejvid 30 June 2005 23:28 (UTC)

Although one may think the INC's belief about Jesus are somewhat similar or resembling that of Arianism, this is not enough to assume that these two faith's are the same. So lumping them together is wrong too. Even more so when we don't know exactly what Arianism is all about since records of their belief were burned.
I disagree. Labeling a group with something we know is not descriptive of the group is wrong. Is'nt this similar to stereotyping? If we want to use a helpful label, "...does not believe in the trinity" is more precise and true.
The trinity did not exist as a Christian doctrine in the time of Christ and the apostles, as far as the bible is concerned. I believe it arose after the death of the apostles. I do agree that the trinitarians prevailed over the Arians, and Emperor Constantine had something to do with it.
I will probably not object to the label if the current article would describe what the INC is. The current article, if applied now, would imply that the INC belong to the unitarians. The unitarians are protestant sects, which the INC is not. I removed the wiki description of christian and added footnote so that we may settle and agree with this matter. --Emico 1 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)

Because it useful to draw attention to simularities that exist. It is useful to say that two flowers are yellow even where they may be different shades. No one who uses the term Arianism of modern Christian groups has in mind that there is any continuity with Arius or that any of the groups exactly follow Arius's teachings. They certainly do not imply anything about doctrine of such groups on matters other that the relation between the father and Christ. Were Arius alive today, I have no doubt that he would regard the INC as sound on that issue (tho he might have the odd quibble) but he would regard the evangelicals as heretics.

I see you are also are now objecting to the wiki link to Christian. I'm a bit gob-smacked to see that. Links are one of the key features of Wiki and you should really contribute to those pages if you don't like them rather than deleting links. If the INC defines itself as Christian, as it does, it is lumping itself together with lots of evangelicals, Catholics an the like. There's no getting away from that.Dejvid 2 July 2005 22:47 (UTC)

While, as you say, links are key features of wiki, it is a disservice to do so if one knows the link is not correct, applicable to the subject or totally untrue.
Using labels is also sometimes propagates a disinformation. When one hears the word Arianism, what do they think of? It's the doctrine that was defeated by Trinitarianism, therefore it is the false doctrine? Is it really? Who knows now. The complete text were burned by Trinitarians. --Emico 4 July 2005 08:10 (UTC)

Judaism and other pre-Christian religions

"But it is true. And no-one, I repeat, denies that monotheism came before Trinitarianism. Like I said, Jews are non-trinitarian, and they came before Christians. DJ Clayworth 28 June 2005 19:29 (UTC)". I thought this statement and point is worthy to have it's own subsection. This is important in understanding the where the INC are coming from. --Emico 28 June 2005 20:02 (UTC)

Actually what I wrote here was in response to something you wrote. (Strict) Monotheism came before Trinitarianism. And Paganism came before Monotheism. That doesn't mean that Paganism is right. DJ Clayworth 30 June 2005 21:28 (UTC)
I disagree. If the one God preach by Christ(which would be the one God of the Christians) is the same God who created everything then paganism did not come before monotheism. --Emico 1 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)

Uniform Redirects

I did a few redirect fix-ups for the Felix, Erano, and Eduardo Manalo articles:

I hope this cleaned up the articles a bit. Ealva 02:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Truthfinder

I followed the 'Truthfinder' link in this article, and I found the following statement: "That The Lord Jesus Christ is The Only True Cod And That He Is The Father, The Sim, And The Holy Ghost According To The Bibte.". I'm not joking, I copied that exactly. I can only conclude that this site is in fact a joke site, or that it has such a low level of proofreading as to effectively call into question anything else it says. This is not the sort of site that Wikipedia should be linking to. DJ Clayworth 18:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I assumed it's just that English isn't the author's first language. Whatever - it's an entirely personal site with no sourcing or verification of content, which makes the information low-quality by Wikipedia standards. Personally, I'd scrap the Catholic.com site too, which is just a rant with no sourcing and sums up as "Catholics don't like the INC" - no surprise there. RayGirvan 19:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My suggestion for this article is for it to describe in-deep, the INC doctrines and practices in a fair, sympathetic tone. Since we have no external sources for them, I think that if LBMixPro, Ealva, Glenn and I can agree or compromise on the content, that it probably is true. After that is done, I would propose the start of a Criticisms page, in the line of those in the Scientology and Roman Catholic Church articles. I have no problems with the link section as it currently stands, people who read Truthfinder's site would probably come to their own conclusion as well.--Onlytofind 22:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agreed: I'm sure they will come to their own conclusions. But the point of Wikipedia is to provide reliable sources, not ones that people have to pick through and decide the reliability.
A big difficulty currently is that much of the information here is coming from a bunch of people referring to inside knowledge. No, it's not sufficient for you all (where "you all" are INC members or ex-members) to agree or compromise on content. From the POV of outsiders, there's no verification: for all anyone knows, you might all be lying and INC followers actually get naked and worship asparagus. This lack of verification isn't acceptable by Wikipedia standards. Personally, I do trust Onlytofind, simply because his dealings with me are 100% rational. But if checkable external sources can't be provided, material shouldn't be here.
I'm undecided whether to snip the whole Felix Manalo biography and put it on the Talk page as Wikipedia requires. There is currently absolutely no verification for any of it. RayGirvan 04:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I thank you for your support, Ray, and the support of the other Wikipedia users here. I will admit that some of my past dealings weren't things I was 100% proud of, but I hope that I've had a chance to prove my salt as a Wikipedia contributor with the last contributions I made to this article. I agree with Ray's stance that unless information is verifiable to everyone, that it isn't up to Wikipedia standards. Our big problem here is that there is no neutral or official sources on the Iglesia ni Cristo to fall back on- everything is either 100% in favor or 100% against the doctrines of the INC. I would use the Pasugo magazines as a reference, but I'm concerned that they present only one side of the story. If needed, I will delete the Felix Manalo background on the page, and the section about the practices inside the Iglesia ni Cristo. The only problems is that it's impossible to find books describing the main beliefs of the INC as well as the organizations inside. This is going to make things difficult in the future, but if the page has to become as generic as it was one year ago to adhere to Wikipedia policy, then I guess that's the way it should be.--Onlytofind 05:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate that. As I and others who are savvy to WP have said before, it's sometimes difficult to deal with controversial issues, when many people who come to the article came because they found it on Google, fed up with the negative POV from everywhere else, instead of from WP itself. I agree with Grace Note. Maybe you should try editing another article outside religion. There's more to the world than INC.
Let's be honest; out of the 605,538 or so articles which exist on WP, how many of the actually cite their sources word-for-word? I don't think at least 10,000 of them do. And those who do seem to get Feature Article status. If we must go the way of citing every single thing written on the article, might as well do it in hopes of getting the INC article posted on the Main Page for all of WP to see.
how many of the actually cite their sources word-for-word? - Fair comment - but unsourced stuff usually comes into the territory of generally accepted fact. The importance of source citation starts kicking in when the facts are disputed. RayGirvan 11:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with everything Raygirvan says below. God's Message is a good source for the basic practices and church structure. But like I said months ago, published neutral information about INC is very difficult to obtain. The information which is neutural cannot be backed up because there is no written source to back it up with. I feel that this article is the Internet's ONLY neutral source for INC, for what it's worth. But I'm very happy with the recent improvements to the article. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 08:24, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
As I said below, I think Pasugo sources would be fine as long as they were approached with the standard editorial caution for partisan sources. Much isn't going to be contentious (stuff like admin, locations, names of the various posts in the hierarchy, etc). The problematic stuff is likely to be in biography and history, since religions' own origin stories often don't mesh with an external historical perspective. RayGirvan 19:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
DJ, please tell me where on Truthfinder's website is the problem, and I'll communicate with Truthfinder to help with the English on his website.--gcessor 22:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
From a Wikipedia point of view, the English is not the problem: it's that all the text is unsourced. I believe it to be authentic - but anyone can put up a Geocities page claiming what they like. RayGirvan 23:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why would the English be a problem when the source info can simply be copyedited? I mean, although all info should be cited, I know we are not allowed to copy the source word-for-word. But of course what you do between the Truthfinder and yourself is on your own accord. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 08:24, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
If you're going to use the 'Wikipedia point of view' as your reasoning, then your complaint shouldn't be about the English!--gcessor 07:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I didn't complain about the English - only that it's source is unverified. Copyediting won't alter that. RayGirvan 11:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You didn't, but DJ did, and apparently believes it's a 'joke site'. I would point out to DJ that English is not Truthfinder's first language, and would like to point out that the page is a pretty good effort in writing in one's second language - particularly when that language is one of the hardest in the world to learn.--gcessor 13:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anne Harper paper

A note on a current edit. Emico's edit - "examining the INC's view of Evangelical's - quoted selectively. The actual phrase is "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" - so "examine the relationship" is a reasonable summary. RayGirvan 19:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And what is the final goal of the paper? Is it only to 'reassess' an approach, or is it to better enable the evangelicals' efforts to draw people away from the INC?--gcessor 01:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK, the latter is its aim: but nevertheless it's a vastly more reasoned assessment of the situation than the stupid polemic at other Evangelical sites such as the Bereans.
However, that was not the point of my comment: it was about Emico's mispresentation of it as a one-sided examining the INC's view of Evangelicals when it conversely also examines, very critically, Evangelicals' view of the INC. RayGirvan 03:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is obvious that the paper is to aid evangelicals in their efforts, much like the Pasugo is designed to encourage people to question their current religious beliefs and join the INC. Just as we describe the contents of the Pasugo on this page, we describe the contents of the Harper paper, not its "intended purpose", because that would lead us into POV, which I'm sure we'll agree is not a good thing. Glenn, I would also to know your opinions regarding Emico's view on this paper and his other edits.--Onlytofind 05:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's a good analogy - much like the Pasugo. And just as an online Pasugo would belong in the 'pro' section, Ann Harper's paper would belong in the 'con' section. Anyway, to answer your question, I looked at the past several edits that Emico has made, and I don't see a problem with it. For instance, he removed your claim that the Church gave election guidance until 2000...and the only reason that the year 2000 was there in the first place was because of your claim that the INC had given such recommendations in 1998 in a state election, never mind that I had never heard of the INC meddling in any state elections whatsoever here in the U.S. An observation (I think by DJ) was made recently that one's claims to personal experiences do NOT qualify as encyclopedia statements...which would necessitate the removal of your '2000' date.--gcessor 07:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue whether Emico's edits are correct or not, but I'm doubtful of his neutrality and objectivity, as you can see with the disputes regarding his edits towards the Bereans and Creationism. If so many are questioning his edits on those qualities, I believe that I speak for more than one of us here that Emico doesn't have the right to continue to keep placing a disputed tag on this page, since it seems that he doesn't like any contributions from non-INC members.
Since we both agree [*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo&oldid=11779783] that the INC endorsed candidates in the past, I have readded the information, without the date. I would like to note, that I might delete my contributions regarding church practices and background, or make it more generic, as to keep in line with the Wikipedia policy regarding sources.--Onlytofind 00:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Okay. No complaints there. Thank you.--gcessor 07:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Along the same line, it looks like Raygirvan linked to a country studies page - one wherein the INC is described as having mandatory membership fees, guards taking attendance and forbidding entrance by nonmembers, ministers with little formal education - and I think you'll have to agree that all of these are completely untrue. However, since the link references a government site, it carries a legitimacy that personal experience does not, even though you and I both know that its claims listed above are false. But, thank God, there's more than one way to skin a cat....--gcessor 07:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be good to contact the webmaster of that page and the source they quoted from and ask them where they got that information from, and why you disagree with it.--Onlytofind 00:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is a general difficulty with Wikipedia policy. It crops up with anything sufficiently specialist: there's stuff you just know, but can't find written backup. I don't see anything wrong with quoting Pasugo material as long as (like any other material) it's sourced to a known issue or article. Is it possible that the Country Studies paper, dated 1984, is describing a situation in the past?
I hate to use this as a refutation, but if a church forbids entrance by non-members, it would be pretty hard for that church to grow. Furthermore, any church that charges 'membership fees' would be roundly ridiculed in a media circus. These simply fail the 'common sense' test.--gcessor 07:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The latter may be just a semantic issue. Many churches, while not charging "membership fees" as such, expect tithes or other forms of ongoing donation that are mandatory in practice. RayGirvan 11:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just want to make it clear, the INC does not practice tithing. I know this might sound POV, but members give according to the dictate of their hearts (which may be less or more than 10%). It's a doctrine to contribute, but nobody is forced to.
I know that failure to provide an offering is taboo, at least in the United States. (I remember being critisized for not inserting as much money as usual for an offering when I was in CWS. But then again, some members thought it was strange for me to bring a bible to worship services when I returned to INC as a doctoree.) --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 08:29, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
It's not taboo to not give offerings. We deacons and deaconesses who collect the offerings do not take note of who does or does not offer - because it's none of our business, and between that person and God. Perhaps that person is going through a rough time, or perhaps he or she is a visitor, or perhaps there is some other reason. God knows, but it is not for us to know.--gcessor 15:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
When it comes to bringing a Bible to the Worship Service or a Bible Study, one of the biggest reasons why is because it's normal for several different Bible translations to be referenced, and there are quite a few verses that say completely different things depending on the translation one uses. That, and there is NO translation extant that is error-free. There are more reasons, but that should suffice for now.--gcessor 15:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ealva 20:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As to intentions of documents, I think that Pro and Con is less important than information quality. The Truthfinder site is poor quality for its lack of sourcing. The Harper, despite its intentions, is good quality.
I've hesitated about putting it up for discussion, but another article I think extremely good is Iglesia ni Kristo - religion and politics in Philippine society. Current and well-sourced, it apppears to be written from a nonreligious leftwing viewpoint. RayGirvan 12:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I disagree, "examine the relationship" is NOT reasonable summary. Why don't we just use the writers own description.--Emico 14:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Emico here. It's a little long-winded, but is guaranteed accurate. DJ Clayworth 16:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re RayGirvan's link, here's a few things that are not accurate (emphasis mine):

  • Attendance is mandatory at the Sunday and Thursday meetings, and is monitored with attendance cards. Failure to attend can result in visitation from the church leaders and public reprimand.
Partially accurate. INC doctorine states in order to stay a member of INC, one must be an active member. INC doesn't get on your case if you missed one or two services. Although attendance IS monitored using attendance cards (or tags in some CWS locales). I've never heard any officer publicly reprimand someone during services. Usually they go after somebody in private. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 08:29, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Is it a bad thing to monitor attendance? Think about that, please. Think back to Jesus' description of how the shepherd would leave the ninety-nine in the flock to find the one that was going astray. We are also admonished in Hebrews 10 that we are not to forsake the gathering of ourselves together. Also, there are those who might be ill, or who are having to work longer hours to cover debts - and the minister might never know their need if he or the overseers don't visit to see if there's a problem. So, is monitoring attendance a "Big Brother" evil, or is it a way to care for the flock in a way that upholds Biblical teachings?--gcessor 15:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Who said it was a bad thing? I didn't. I know other religions do that as well. I was only stating what I saw as accurate and not. The quote was how INC has "public reprimand", when they obviously don't. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) June 28, 2005 08:31 (UTC)
Also, discussing something in private doesn't mean they're being reprimanded. Ealva 22:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The visitation is for the group overseers to find out what is the cause of the unattendance (e.g. sickness, work, personal or family problems). The INC is probably the only religion that, despite its size, has a fairly accurate picture of the well-being of its members. That public reprimand thing is quite absurd.
  • Tithing is also mandatory. Personal income of members is monitored and failure to contribute the appropriate percentage of income can likewise result in reprimand or expulsion. Mandatory tithing accounts for the wealth and grandeur of the Iglesia ni Kristo and its buildings.
    • As stated above, the INC does not practice tithing. Onlytofind, having held multiple offices, can probably attest that we never monitor personal incomes, nor expel anybody for not giving contributions. It's probably the "grandeur" of the buildings that baffled the author and tried to find an explanation that suited his taste.
My reply to this has been moved to my talk section to save space, since the conversation doesn't affect the article.


  • "...the buildings are jarringly ill-suited to the poverty of their surroundings"
    • What suits their poverty then? It is a rarely stated fact that the majority of INC members are poor and are living below poverty levels. Even in such depressing situations, they take pride in the fact that they (yes, they) built a house of worship that is worthy of God. Ealva 20:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


That's a really interesting link, Ray. Seems well-written and well-sourced. Since it contains several quotes from INC literature itself I think we should make it an external link and also use it to expand the article. The quotes from the constitution are interesting in themselves. DJ Clayworth 16:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ann Harper's article, while it may not be overtly hostile in language, IS a 'con' article. Please stop trying to pretend that it is not. Nice, kind, and flattering language is that of the diplomat...but please remember that diplomacy is but the velvet glove that hides the mailed fist. In other words, flattering language, if read closely enough, may reveal a purpose that is not so flattering. So it is with Harper's article, for it is an attempt to help her fellow 'evangelicals' to be more effective at drawing people away from the Church...and that means her intent is every bit as hostile as that found in the other 'con' sites.--gcessor 29 June 2005 13:20 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo/Archive_3&oldid=789387771"