Talk:Members Church of God International

message: There seem to be two organizations called Church of God International. One being the Philippine one (which you seem to be familiar with), and another one being an unrelated splinter group of the Worldwide Church of God. Both should be mentioned in the article, as both exist. We also could make the page a disambiguity page (see Barrel for an example). But both should be mentioned. -- Chris 73 Talk 13:51, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
:I have made Church of God International a disambig page, listing both Church of God International (Philippines) and Church of God International (USA). -- Chris 73 Talk 23:54, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
If this is listed as a "cult" then the INC should be listed as the same. Yet the INC is allowed to be changed to "independent, non-trinitarian Christian church"  which the same can be said for church of god international. 
So either replace the word "cult" with "independent, non-trinitarian Christian church" or go to the INC page and change "independent, non-trinitarian Christian church" to "cult"    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.83.200 (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Were you  referring to the rant (just removed) ? I will be removing mentions of cult in the article or rather the opinion of it being a rant in the article after this.--Jondel (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: User http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jondel  is starting an edit war with this page. Removing that the INC is a cult, but posted that Members of Church of God are a cult. Once again, both should be listed as cults, or the word cult removed from both. They can't keep vandalizing this page..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.83.200 (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you show me where I indicated that I said'Members of Church of God' is a cult?  --Jondel (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

text: There seems to be an anonymus IP address that has been indirectly starting and edit war with me, maybe we could end this indirect conflict by removing cult critisims, especially in the first paragraph of the page. Dar book (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I removed the word 'cult ' from both. If an organization, as an organization,  does harass, use violence physically, or psychologically to an individual or society or extort money or engage in scams or condone sex specially with minors, then it should not be labeled as a 'cult'. Please don't involve wiki with  internal 'family ' quarrels of the said organizations.--Jondel (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

text: It is not an "edit war". As a member of the organization (he has admitted such to Wiki members) Dar Book has a history of removing germaine, encycolpedic content that is construed negatively by the group. Do a check of his edits and you will see that his additions are often propaganda, and his removals are always facts that reflect poorly on the organization. Hence his desire to remove content (in the above statement) that has been accepted for many months. The statement regarding the status of the group in the larger Christian community is very relevant ESPECIALLY when discussing (as we are) possible confusion between this group and others. The statement becomes therefore more significant, not less.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.173.20.21 (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked his edits, and he just tries to remove facts that "less-propagates" the church, yet he only  admitted that he is an outcast advocator (he said it to 50%Quick). Yet, why are we all against him.   I saw an exxagerated fact that he didn't make. So why is everybody against him? A fact in this article is clearly wrong yet you say Mr.99.173.20.21 that he is only adding propaganda. Hence, his desire may me biased but is right. Defenz 07 (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You checked his edits? You and Dar book are the same person as established by CheckUser. But I wouldn't be surprised... no honest, upright and moral man would join a religious organization being led by a fugitive criminal. "By their fruits ye shall know them." (Matthew 7:16). I have told you before, if devotion to your leader drives you to commit evil then perhaps it is time to think twice about your religion. – Shannon Rose (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit it, Defenz_07 is my alternate account or a sockpuppet in your terms. I thought that your kind, but this waryness you have showed me before has already turned to hostility. You have reverted all postive edits done by other users thinking its propaganda. Why are so NEGATIVE about this article and all its related articles? I won't do anything to this article for a while, as you want it to be (in exchange for your kindness you gave me). Just wanting to know on what christian denomination do you belong. Your beliefs about this church are negative, and I belive that that is the reason why have reverted all postive edits done by other users even if it has references. I was touched by the verse you said, but if you were a Roman Citizen during the ancient times you would have also treated Jesus as a fugitive criminal leader. I already expected enemies. "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." (Mark 13:13, KJV). Well, I'll be dormant about this article (and about this edit war); goodbye. Dar book (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not wishing to be involve in this discussion but I just couldn't leave this alone. Whether intentionally or not, you Dar book comparing Soriano to the Lord Jesus' is at the very least, at the very least, blasphemous. The Lord Jesus was persecuted not because of any crime of the flesh for He was without sin, but because of his teachings. Any preacher who allows themselves to be compare to the Lord should be ashamed of themselves. Conrad940 (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Dar Book admitted to another Wiki user that he was a member of this church on this very page. Defenz - there is a difference between (as you put it) being an "outcast advocator", and as Dar Book said, that he was an "outspoken advocate". Your last sentence also indicates that you are not grasping the purpose of an encyclopedic site. Bias may be correct or incorrect (e.g. Abraham Lincoln was the greatest president of the U.S.), but it is not appropriate encyclopedic content. No one is "against" Dar Book. Intelligent people however are able to recognize the difference between "facts" and propaganda, and almost all of Dar Book's entries serve more to proseletyze than to inform. He has also removed encyclopedic content related to Eli Soriano's legal issues, and has added unverifiable information, POV, and trivial information that serves no other purpose but to defend the leader of this group. One notable example relates to Eli Soriano not making particular comments himself. As the unquestioned leader of the group, and as the one who controls all facets of the doctrine of the church, it is ridiculous to say that the beliefs of the group do not reflect his own, simply because an underling made the comments regarding his infallibility. Especially since he has never repudiated what was said on his behalf. I would ask you "Defenz", in the spirit of full disclosure, whether you would be willing to disclose whether you yourself are affiliated with this organization. 99.173.20.21  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.173.20.21 (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove ''Critical'' Facts

message: The name Iglesia ni YHWH at ni YHWSA HMSYH was deleted from the Tagalog version of the article. Does this mean that it’s not actually the church’s real name?
What're the English translations for the words 'YHWH' and 'YHWSA HMSYH'? And from what language did it come from? Just asking... Ü Zxyggrhyn 10:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iglesia ni YHWH at ni YHWSA HMSYH 

message: This page clearly does not satisfy the Wikipedia NPOV policy.  It is too laudatory of Eli Soriano and treats as accepted fact a number of things which are more religious creed than neutral, proven fact or accepted theory.  For example, the statement "Soriano, who showed UNDENIABLE MASTERY of the Bible and SINCERE AFFECTION to the congregants, is [sic: was] being groomed by the old Perez to be his successor when he [sic: Perez] passed away." [emphasis added].  Jkaki00 13:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reworded it. I agree, there is lots of POV on this article, I occasionally roll back some too extreme POV. Feel free to change it if you like -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contrary to NPOV Policy 

message: I found :Image:Add logo.jpg and noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. Someone will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If it was obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the  tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as  or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If there are other files on this page, consider checking that they have specified their source and are tagged properly, too. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unspecified source for [[:Image:Add logo.jpg]]

message: :Image:Add logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Add logo.jpg

message: Under subheading "Teachings about the Church" are these two items:
* Salvation can only be attained by following all the laws of Christ in the New Testament including joining the Members Church of God International.
* A person may be saved even though he has not heard of the Gospel. He will be judged by God according to his conscience.
Only the latter has a source. Should the former be removed? 12.42.238.243 00:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a contradiction, a person may be saved even though he has not heard of the Gospel.. It means that:
*for those who had heard the Members Church of God International, there is no excuse for you not to join it.
*for those whom have not heard the Members Church of God International and had passed away, God will judge him according to his conscience.
Dar book (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So a person may be saved if (a) she follows "all the laws of Christ in the New Testament including joining the Members Church of God International", or if (b) she "has not heard of the Gospel" and is subsequently saved after judgment. Would you please explain how the existence of a second option does not conflict with the assertion that salvation can only be attained by the former? I will leave the statements unmodified for now, but one or both will need to be changed. Thanks. 12.42.238.243 (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all those who haven't heard of the gospel will be saved. God will judge him according to his consience and if the person was evil (e.g. a murderer) he will not be saved since he did not change his ways. Dar book (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible contradiction?

message: Should this alternate title be used "Members of the Church of God International", I saw the second name at The UNTV Website. The second name could be used in the article. Dar book (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Members Church of God International or Members of the Church of God International 

message: Please be watchful of members of this religious cult manipulating the facts and using personal blogs and Internet discussion groups such as journeyist.blogspot.com/, robertbobclarita.newsvine.com, janeabao.newsvine.com etc. as sources. When you see such edits restore the article to the most recent NPOV version and warn the user straightaway. Obvious propagandists should be reported at WP:COI/N for immediate ban. - Shannon Rose (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah, thats the reason why I'll stop editing this article for a while, I don't want confilct with other users, especially with you Shannon Rose. I don't want this conflict to spread. But to ask you, Shannon Rose what is your religion? Defenz_07 and I saw what your wrote above. Since you know the gossip about our leader, what Christian denomination do you belong? Dar book (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a question you should be asking. Shannon Rose, you do not have to answer it unless you want to. I am quite convinced that religion is not Shannon's motivation here. Even I've heard of this chap, and I'm not Christian or Filipino. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RS|Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources]] 

message: There is currently discussion regarding the creation of a work group specifically to deal with articles dealing with this subject, among others,  here. Any parties interested in working in such a group are welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think a work group is a good idea. First, most of the members who edit this article (to admit it) add unbelievable facts about the statistics of the church. Also, most of the members and to those who know about the chuch are always accused of whitewashing this article. Second, if the "POV editors" keep trying to add black propaganda to this article. Then, the quality of this article may never improve. I'm very sorry. Dar book (Complains?) 02:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed work group 

message: Please respect other religions. If the organization does not
harass or harm individuals or society, physically, mentally or financially through scams please respect it. Otherwise you may doing an injustice. Please understand that this is a civil and neutral encyclopedia.--Jondel (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cult

message: You cannot respect or tolerate disease or poison, MCGI is a parasitic disease, it must be eradicated, it's members should be rescued, tolerance for evil? no way!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.68.114 (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: MCGI a Cult? 1000% yes

message: I noticed that the present logo displayed in this wikipedia article is far from the official logo displayed in the website.
According to the website, the official logo doesn't contain the English text "Church of God International". I've seen their logo in Brazil with this text around it: Membros da Igreja de Deus Internacional. So I think that the text around the logo is not a part of the official logo but only a decoration or customization depending on the language or the country where the Church is registered.
I think the logo in this wikipedia article should use the official one instead, but I'm not sure if it's legally possible. The source of the logo image can be found here: http://graphics.mcgi.org/3/2009/11/24/58.jpg
(Otanix (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm noticing a lot of Portugese entries into this english wiki. Is Mr Soriano now prepared to admit he's based in Brazil and abandon his Philippine headquarters? Any ADD members who can confirm? Conrad940 (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Logo 

message: Titles for wikipedia articles should not be the official name but should be common names per WP:Commonname.  See for instance Roman Catholic Church, which is not its official name.  Or the Big Dig for the Central Artery Tunnel Project.  Or Bill Clinton.  The list goes on and on.  This church is known most commonly as the Ang Dating Daan.  Indeed I have never heard of the Members Church of God International before reading this name in the INC page and wondering, What is that church?  and coming here.  All the signs on the road outside of the churches say "Ang Dating Daan".  Even the Philippine Daily Inquirer says "the Members Church of God International, which is more known as “Dating Daan”" Other quotes from the Inquirer: "UNTV is the television network of the Ang Dating Daan religious organization..."  and "... Fernando Poe Jr. backed his candidacy as did the religious group Ang Dating Daan."  and "The head of Ang Dating Daan evangelist group Eliseo "Ely" Soriano and two others were charged..."   Outside of official publications, how many refer to the group without identifying it as "Ang Dating Daan", e.g. "better known as "Ang Dating Daan"?  Isn't "Ang Dating Daan" much more common? --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change name to Ang Dating Daan 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Members Church of God International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mcgi.org/about/about_doctrines.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_issues_13.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mcgi.org/en/teachings_and_works/teachings/beliefs/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Members Church of God International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mcgi.org/about/about_mission.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: User:Proverbios47 has added very poor quality content such as  “the trump of God” “Christ came to the earth in many occasions” all referenced to blogs or Youtube, I think it should be removed. Theroadislong (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  addition of very poor quality content 

message: Please delete the following unreliable sources:
#Two instances of . The say-so of Twitter accounts, and unverified ones at that, is not sufficient to support assertions in Wikipedia articles.
#http://thetruthaboutreligions.blogspot.com. Likewise, blogs have neither editorial oversight nor a reputation for fact-checking and can say anything they want, so they are wholly unreliable as factual sources.
#Likewise, please consider deleting or modifying statements purported to be backed by these sources. At the very least they need to be tagged .
*Thank you very much! 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I added an  after the http://thetruthaboutreligions.blogspot.com reference and I removed the cite tweet refs. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 2018 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion