Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/Archive 10

message: Comment, I would like some idea or sample of the doxology. What makes INC different from Catholics, Baptists, Unitarians, Seventh-Day Adventists, Judaism, etc?  If Jesus is not as significant, is the new testament still significant or authoratative?  How about Heaven, Hell, ? Does the Crucifixtion guarantee salvation or not according to INC? Did Jesus have to die for us then? What about INCs stand on abortion, priesthood, reincarnation,purgatory, euthanasia, grace by works or faith? Judgement day? Doctrinal Dialogue with the Catholic  church. This is not to critize but a sincere request. I don't want to be misunderstood about not posting the exact form. The reason behind is that wikipedia can not be used as a platform for evangelism or propaganda. But for references, the stand or position of INC with respect to these other issues need to be addressed. Just like the position of other religous or ideoligical groups need to be referenced.    --Jondel 09:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Examples of the doxology could be found at Talk:Doxology, although they're not cited. There's a lot of differences which I can't explain here. One of the best things is to look through the talk page archives, mostly archive 6 and 7. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 10:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be digging up past discussions then proposing article changes here.--Jondel 08:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: ::Fine with me too. The 'other groups' section is section. With all due respect,INC is still comparatively young and new. It has a lot of social and political significance and I am planning to do translations on it after I get a good solid description on it. --Jondel 08:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's tl:Iglesia ni Cristo, which is a stub... LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 08:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am planning Spanish, Interlingua and French. I really would like the other issues addressed(how does INC view Jesus, a prophet?,ressurection, crucifixtion, bible, etc).--Jondel 08:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody willing to use these words to create the simple english version of the article? --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 08:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a simple editor. Lets get a beliefs section up. Dominick (TALK) 13:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's get the article unlocked first. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 21:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Translations

message: The page has been unprotected. If it gets bad again, let us know on the RfP page. It's been 5 days...that's about all that's usually allowed for vandalism. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reprotected the page. Please work this out. When you feel like it's ready to unprotect, I'll take a look. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I can? Well, the policy says nothing about restricting unprotection, only protecting it. I'm taking your word for it, and unlocking this. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 01:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotection

message: It's been a while since the article was locked, and the anon hasn't been around lately. Who feels it's time to get User:Woohookitty to unlock the article?
* Unlock ---LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 21:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can? Well, the policy says nothing about restricting unprotection, only protecting it. I'm taking your word for it, and unlocking this. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 01:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus

message: I wanted to collect basic beliefs as I know them for this group. When things are unprotected we can add them in a nice tidy section.
:moved to Iglesia ni Cristo/Workshop, so not to be backed up in the next archive.
I am sure there is a lot more. I only have four articles and the text of some copies of God's Messenger Magazine. I can't find any INC published books in any collections locally. Dominick (TALK) 15:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked at Truthfinder's copy of "Introducing the Iglesia ni Cristo" and did some work with the God, Trinity, Holy Spirit, Gospel and Jesus beliefs. Including adding biblical references which were from the pamplet. It's a pretty good pamplet. I'll continue with the rest at a later time. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 07:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, if you cite the issues and pages you got the info from, it's all gravy. But I see one potential issue with the "ride to heaven" term. There's a absurd INC joke circulating, based on its architecture where the INC locales will fly into heaven when the rapture occurs. Is there a better termology we can use?  --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!>
 
I read they would be transported inside the churches. I discount the aerodynamic church idea, and I have a question waiting for an answer. Dominick (TALK) 23:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: What is meant by now? Will the apocalypse occur according to INC next year or within Manalo's lifetime? Is there a date? Did Jesus have to die for man's salvation?  (These are  neutral objective questions). Does INC have an INC Bible like the Mormon bible regarding 'being sheltered in a church'?  --Jondel 00:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on personal experience, they're no additions to the bible with INC. They rely on different translations of the Bible, and nothing else. I'm not absoluetly clear about the importance of the crucifixion. But they acknowledge it, since they observe Holy Communion in the grape juice/cracker fashion. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 05:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: How about a 'nice tidy' doctrine section as Dominick suggests like this :United_Church_of_God#Doctrine?--Jondel 02:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now means a sense of immediacy. This isn't written in final form, and the UCoG doctrine section is a great model! Dominick (TALK) 03:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we stalled on the belef gathering? Dominick (TALK) 20:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Nah, we're still trying to find sources and such. It's not that easy when sources which are neutral are difficult to find. Also the lock on the article is bad as well. My library's reference databases (ProQuest, EBSCOHost, etc.) don't show much of what's not on the article already. I wish someone would find a copy of that INC booklet and verify the info. That offers a wealth of info about INC which will most definetly help this article.--LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 20:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All INC's website were taken down, I dont know why. I have ways to get the content, but SHHhhh! Dominick (TALK) 02:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll leave the offline research to you then. I was able to find some info on a few GeoCities pages (e.g. Truthfinder). But there's WP:V screaming: Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable as sources... Which brings up a question. Could we cite a credible source, which are copied to a non-credible source (Such as Gods Message articles which were posted on Tripod.com and GeoCities)?  --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 09:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If we use them as sources, we do not have to have a online link, afiac. We have to verify the source, and I can do that. I can not rehost it, because even religeous material have copyright. Unfortunatly, I am not willing to defend fair use in court, so I can write an article about a group that has taken down thier webpages to prevent commentary. Scientology has done this same exact thing. So, we can't rehost the articles, but we can cite them, and leave it to the reader to get a copy themselves. It is just like referring to an article in an scientific journal, we need not supply the article, just the reference. Dominick (TALK) 13:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The INC has does not teach that it is now the final apocalypse or FYM is the messenger of the final apocalypse. The INC never uses the term apocalypse in its literature. Nor do they teach that on the day of judgment members must enter houses of worhship. The INC does not teach that the chapels will be saved. Only the members. References are no problem, since I have sufficient INC published literature to support a thorough presentation.Guava wrench 22:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic Beliefs 

message: The Insiders web page claims to be a group of INC members who have problems with the administration. One issue from this stems from it's verifibility. The site is a Tripod.com website, which has no associated forum for other "insiders" to communicate. I haven't seen any other reference to this group other than a link from this site and its mirrors. It may be created by one person (who is either inside or outside INC) who wants to make it look like there's a whole group who agrees with his or her ideas. Should the reference to them be removed since there's no verifible evidence of the "insiders" as a group? --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 21:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to note that the insiders website has been removed because it violated Tripod's Terms of Service (whatever that means). It makes you wonder who is behind this. For reference you can access the site via web.archive.org Coffeemaker 18:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the page and all that came up was a 404 page. It could have been deleted because of inactivity (the last paragraph in section 6 of the ToS), or it could be INC themselves. We may never know. The Internet Archive link is great, but I'm still not confident in having the site as a reference. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 08:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On 22 March it really said: The page you are attempting to access has been removed because it violated Tripod's Terms of Service.This page now shows up the in the Google Cache. Two days later it is a page not found. Coffeemaker 09:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The INC Insiders

message: Before the lock, we had an influx of anon edits overtly sympathetic to the INC while we now have anon edits overly antagonistic to the INC. If this is the same user, we've got biger trouble than expected.--Ironbrew 09:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Coffeemaker has been around for a while, although he rarely posts here. I had to copyedit some of his edits in the cults list. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 11:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We can lock out the anonymous editors , e.g. allow only registered users to edit.--Jondel 05:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need to sprotect the article anytime soon, since I haven't seen much vandalism to it, execept once in a long while. However, if things come back to how they were in Nov. I doubt they'll be any problem with sprotection. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 05:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something's weird. 

message: :This conversation is forked from User Talk:Coffeemaker
With INC being an independent religious organization, how come there's a link to Protestants in the Philippines? Also, according to the sources section in the cult list, INC is in the "decreasing consensus" category, since INC wasn't called a cult in any major news source in the "Wide consensus" section. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 10:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If they don't employ mind control, ask members to kill etc. I don't think they should be labeled as a cult.  Christian coalitions may not accept them because of their unitarian doctrines however. They may belong in the same category as Adventists, Mormons , Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. --Jondel 11:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree. As a matter of fact, this whole cult/sect issue has been brought up in /Archive06#Religion, sect, cult or denomination?. And we came up with the consensus to call it a religion, since it's size no longer warrants its "sect" label. And INC's administration is not risking the physical safety of its members. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 11:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Uh , I don't see any harm with a Protestants in the Philippines link. --Jondel 11:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the definition of cult that was used is too narrow, and presumes a negative standing. People are welcome to join a cult at any time, or leave one. If people are prevented from leaving one physically, or by coercion, it is a legal issue. When we mean cult, it is the exclusive "raison d'etre" of the individual, forces the member to subscribe to unique or wild theories only the group knows or which has access, and immolates the individual within the group. I think a lot of organizations act in this manner, but we soft pedel the description. Dominick (TALK) 12:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just went through the archive 6.I guess this discussions are repeating itself. I'll try to read through the different archives.--Jondel 12:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Cults employ strong peer pressure to prevent persons from leaving. Cults discourage or cut off social ties of individuals . If a person is not free to leave, it has the makings of a cult. It is hard for members to leave because they have no friends or support outside of the cult. Ussually members have insecurities,  problems like poverty and the leader is very charismatic (not Christian Charismatic but has the 'voice of promise' ). My info is Readers Digest.  --Jondel 12:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have good points by preying on the vunerable, the can achieve their ends. The powerless feel empowered by the secret knowledge of the cult that was entrusted to them. Few cults restrain the members physically. The worst of the three I listed encompass your other points. Immolation refers to the elimination of identity and individual connection to others. A non-cultic example would be a maid who may willingly immolated her identitiy, to where she is a part of the furniture, while on duty. Dominick (TALK) 12:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: See also links in INC

message: Tagging the INC with a catholic cross. I challenge you two to discuss this here!
LenlenBunting, you're welcome to join. (unsigned USER:IBeinGrosserLugner)
:Uh , please no more personal attacks and heated, subjective time wasting discussions, or "I'll show you!"  wars ;  but a mature goal-oriented , objective neutral discussion. Lets not waste time.  Show sources as needed but enough only to establish points of discussions. But focus on moving on. --Jondel 01:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is no place to debate! I know INC strongly dislikes the Protestant unadorned crosses and Catholic crucifixes, but the problem is that the cross was part of the  template, which I have no part in editing. I didn't think of the the cross when I added the template, since the template is about the list of wikilinks which may contain information about a belief or disbelief of the INC; not a symbol. If I wanted to add a cross, I would have used an image: tag. As a matter of fact, Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus was executed on a single beamed torture stake, not on a two beamed cross, but they still have the same template attached to their article. If you have problems with the cross on the template, go to the template's talk page and address them there. You'll get a better response.
At this moment, I think the template should come up after a beliefs section is established. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 02:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates and the Beliefs section 

message: Please delete any instances of this link [www.angtamangdaan.com] if someone tries to readd it. It is run by the Ang Dating Daan organization who has been engaged in a perennial tit-for-tat with the INC, and therefore its validity is doubtful, much like a profile on the Ford Mustang sponsored by General Motors.--Ironbrew 03:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links section 

message: I have added references to items on the workshop page. Can they now be returned to the main page?Guava wrench 21:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I noticed in the workshop there's now two different "Beliefs" sections. I see a good idea in this. If we use the detailed version in the INC article, the page will be way too large, (usually 70kb is the unofficial limit, even when the site says it's 30k). I suggest we have the detailed version in it's own article called Beliefs of Iglesia ni Cristo, which explains each belief  in detail. We'll then use the first beliefs section to make a very basic (five paragraphs max) summary of INC's beliefs. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 19:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. I made the second beliefs section separate out of respect for the authors of the first one. I think when I complete the sections about 'God' and Jesus it will be clearer how the INC expresses these beliefs and how we should modify the briefer version. My only question is does the page limit mean we won't be able to go any more in depth than the section i've been working on? There are many more details I was considering including in a more robust article. It would include doctrines amd verses not taught during Bible Studies, but taught in the ministerial college and in other lessons. I guess we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.Guava wrench 21:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we could split different areas into different articles and summarize the point in the main article. That's how it is with most long articles at WP. But as I said earlier, it's usually about 80k which is the cut point. I've seen other articles go at least 60k without complaint (other than the "article too long" message when you edit. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 06:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two beliefs sections

message: Recently some clown has modified the Iglesia ni Cristo article. Apparently he does not understand the role of an encyclopedia. There are many forums for such people to espouse their views, but this site is for information about the group, which he could then use in some other forum as evidence that his conclusions are true. I don't feel much like contributing here anymore and wrestling with such immature individuals so I'll just find a better forum to get this information out. Guava wrench 02:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sad to see you go, but that's one of the problems with Wikipedia. Sometimes people take advantage of the open editing format of the site. However most only come once do their thing and don't come back. But WP has a division which is dedicated to fighting vandalism, which was what you went through. Hopefully you'll be able to come back, since you were such a great help to the site. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 04:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If you mean the addition by , I've binned it as copyvio. It was a text dump from www.catholic.com and an eBalita article. Tearlach 03:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey, don't go. Lets try to work on keeping the article neutral. It's easy to block anonymous ip's.--Jondel 05:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your assistance was really moving this article forward. Please reconsider.--Ironbrew 06:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loss of NPOV 

message: From the article:
Members who are not living in accordance with the doctrines taught in the INC are admonished. Those who continue in violation of INC doctrines after being admonished are expelled from the INC. Certain violations, such as eating blood, marrying non-INC members, and not uniting with the decision of the INC administration concerning voting, usually result in mandatory expulsion after the first proven offense.
Most former members who were expelled from the INC are allowed to return if they can prove that they have stopped the behavior that led to their expulsion and make an oath to stop performing such activity in the future.
What are the administration's criteria for the bold words usually and most ?
Coffeemaker 12:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Membership section

message: How can we get this sourced? The Introducing INC booklet has nothing about the worship services, and Fundamental Beliefs of Iglesia ni Cristo only states that members are to stay active (lesson 18). The longer that section stays unreferenced, the less comfortable I am with it being there. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 07:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worship Service section 

message: I propose that this and all Iglesia ni Cristo-related articles be semi-protected, which means that they cannot be edited by anonymous users or users with accounts less than 96 hours old. This will cut down on the number of anonymous IP vandal(s) and stop edit wars. IMHO, it is not unreasonable to ask the anonymous editor(s) to register as to hold their edits accountable. What do the other contributors here think of that? --Ironbrew 06:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm about to issue a request for page protection. This edit war is gone long enough, and it's now gotten to the point of blatant disruption. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 21:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected article