Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archived version of the talk page. For the current version please see Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo.

Deletion of Catholic Answers Link

I believe that the logic behind the deletion of the Catholic Answers link is flawed. Lbmixpro deleted this link, thinking that it is quite similar to the other links that are posted.

Catholic Answers provides a thorough walkthrough of the 'con' with Iglesia ni Cristo.

    • Out of curiosity, how is it different from Examine INC? I've seen both and IMO, Answers is like a condensed verison of Examine. --LBMixPro(Holla back!)

That is why I'm adding it back to the article. I do not consider my contribution as vandalism for the link has been there for quite some time already.

  • note - I have no problem with the 'Catholic Answers' link being there. I did not delete it and would not do so. I simply have a problem with having two links to the same 'con' site, which is EXACTLY what we have by linking TWICE to the Bereans' site...which I deleted again today from the 'con' list. For LBMixPro, again, what is the sense in linking TWICE to the same 'con' site? Is that proper and professional? gcessor
    • It's all about categories. The Bereans forum is linked under the "Discussion Forum" sub-section; independent of the Bereans' con link. Unless the forum's rules indicate the discussion should only be for one side or the other, I don't see why else it should be deleted. --LBMixPro(Holla back!) 06:08, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • As I stated below, the ONLY information on the Berean's 'con' site that is not duplicated by other 'con' sites is (1) the "countries penetrated" list, which is quite outdated and much less accurate when compared to the "worship schedules and locations" link, and (2) the "how to start a conversation with/witness to an INC member" sections - and these sections are by their nature opinions and do not on their own merit warrant a link from an encyclopedia.--gcessor71.32.86.239 10:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Network 54 is the oldest and most popular INC discussion board on the Internet AFAIK. It is a great source of views from both sides, and how each reacts to them. In case we find another INC related forum, maybe we should replace the unmoderated forum with it. --LBMixPro(Holla back!) 06:08, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Here's another moderated forum - not as active as the 70213 forum, but much friendlier, no insults, profanity, etc.: http://www.network54.com/Forum/281698
    • Good point. It looks a lot more organized than the 70213 forum as well. I don't see why we shouldn't use it instead... --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 13:33, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • btw, I changed "Network 51" in your paragraph to "Network 54".--gcessor71.32.86.239 10:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I have proposed dispute resolution between myself and gcessor for this article

  • Glenn, As a user of the Wikipedia- you have the obligation and the duty to follow all binding decisions put forth by Wikipedia administration. As I cannot reach a consensus with you regarding this article, I will step up and try to put our disagreements before a third party before our disagreement turns into something more uncouth than it already is.
  • And Instead of complaining to me, why not use the Wikipedia dispute system to see who's really correct in this matter? If you decline to use these means and want to stick to having this article conform to your own personal "conditions," then you have no business here at the Wikipedia --Onlytofind 04:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Discuss_with_third_parties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion

  • I for one also dispute the neutrality of the external links section (and marked it as such). We have almost reached a point that the article can be considered NPOV, but recent changes (too many con sites that suggests a motive to discredit the INC, edits on the disclaimer that portrays the INC administration in bad light) led me to believe that this article still needs a lot of work. Ealva 21:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Which parts of the disclaimer do you claim is not factual? The administration has requested for members not to post information about the Iglesia ni Cristo online unless approved by them and to refer anyone with questions to Church officials, which even I feel is fair. I put that there to inform people why there is a lack of "pro" sites, and that for anyone who is interested to get the fairest view of the INC, they can contact the appropriate sources and compare the messages from the pro and con sites equally. --Onlytofind 05:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Having two INC members and a former INC member being the most active editors to this article will probably lead to an edit war and definitely strong disagreements. In my humble opinion, I feel that Glenn and ealva are trying to make this article biased towards the INC, while Glenn and ealva believe that I am trying to bias this against the INC. Putting our differences aside, I'm sure we can all agree that we need a neutral voice to moderate the content in this article, which is why I've proposed intervention from Wikipedia administrators, and I hope that ealva and Glenn Cessor can join me in this effort. --Onlytofind 05:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • As a former member (inductee), no matter how neutral I may be, I may be percieved as an anti-bias. I suggest an outside party -- most perferably a sysop -- outside of the main INC article editors come up with a decision. --LBMixPro(Holla back!) 07:34, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Article_content_disputes


ATTENTION GLENN CESSOR

  • You have reverted this article once again to your own POV even though the link section has been deemed fair by numerous sources. Keep in mind that the Wikipedia is not to promote your own view of the Iglesia ni Cristo and be written under "your conditions." I have already been more than generous by inviting an outside source to determine the neutrality of this article, and if you are not willing to work within the rules of the Wikipedia, I will not stop until you are banned from editing this article or the Wikipedia.--Onlytofind 20:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
      • i for one do not see the fairness you say exist on this article. Remove the bereans link as per glenn request - emico
        • "Welcome to Wikipedia. I suggest you take a look at the rules regarding a Neutral Point of View, because judging from your user page and your first contribution about the Bereans, you are not even trying to hide your lack of objectivity, and your edits are also poorly written.If you want to take this article and other articles (ex.The Bereans) in a non-neutral direction, I will revert your edits and alert the Wikipedia sysops about your misconduct.--Onlytofind 18:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Thanks. I did, and I find that you are not following them, an example is your persistense on having more that one three cons versus one pro. Are you catholic by any change, you seem to equate one to three quite often. And by the way, your objectivity would be admirable, if you had any. I guess your are the expert with regards to writting? Do you by any change evangelize on the web, just like a friar I know? I like my contributions on the Bereans because it is true I've enquired and did not get a response. Are you a berean too? What a big cry baby you're turning out to be.
            • Emico, you were stupid enough to get kicked out of the INC, and you think that your rabid defence of it online will somehow get you back inside. I truly pity you. --Onlytofind 02:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
            • Welcome to Wikipedia, Emico. When it comes to talk pages, it's highly recommended you sign your post with four "~" signs a the end. This way people know who actually written that post without needing to compare document versions in order to find out. Also, do not write comments on the actual article itself ("Now this is fair. one pro, one con", for example). It only makes the article look very sloppy. If you look at it, there's actually two links on pro, regardless if one is a mailto. I'll now revert your edit, and open a vote to what we should do about the links. --LBMixPro(Holla back!) 21:07, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think the article is fair either, but the article as it stands before is a good compromise. The article as it stands now is not. Again, a quick comparison with articles about other religions will give you a clear idea:
  • Threatening gcessor with a ban just because he shares divergent views from Onlytofind is a little harsh. IIRC, he was the one who took this article to near-NPOV. One needs only look at the article and discussion history to prove my point. Ealva 03:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Ealva, as Wikipedia users, we are both required to follow the rules set down by the sysops. That is why I am requesting your support in using the Wikipedia dispute process to have the neutrality of this article decided by a third-party. I've already posted my neutrality claim using the links above, and you can post yours there also. We are never going to reach a consensus regarding this article, and I believe that it is only fair that a 3rd party arbitrate this article towards neutrality. --Onlytofind 18:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Both you (Onlytofind) and gcessor are editing the external links section from what you perceive as NPOV. So I don't see either of you following this so-called "rules set by the sysops". Nobody then has the right to threaten the other whose only fault is having a different POV. Ealva 16:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Con link removal vote (Closed)

In light of recent events, I'm now issuing a poll in which I hope all Wikipedia users who read this article participate. The main dispute is how "con" links outweigh "pro" in the external links section, causing an NPOV dispute, with the Bereans link as major subject matter. The links page as it stands is 2 pro to 4 con. I strongly recommend nobody edit the link section until the vote is over, and any edit to it is subject to revert. Some users believe there should be an equal number of links, while others feel a maximum of three for each category. (Note: The links section was changed during the voting period between 06:28, May 19, 2005. and it's current edit. "Delete One" may now have different meanings to different voters. If you have voted before, please include a view to view ratio such as 2 pro to 3 con, or 1 pro to 1 con) in order to clarify your vote.)

What should we do with the External links section? This vote will be open until midnight GMT, May 23, 2005.

  • Delete one (2 pro to 3 con) According to Wikipedia's rules, the links section is not a link repository and should be reduced to a suggested 3 link per sub-section listing. So 4 is definetly too many for the 'con' section. Removing links deprives the user of otherwise informative content outside Wikipedia. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!)
  • Delete only one. It is hardly the fault of the "con" side that the pro side is somewhat opposed to websites, however it is true that Wikipedia is not a links repository and the "con" side should be duly reduced to three links. Rlquall 04:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • One pro to One con. It's not a question of fault, but of fairness. And delete those garbage link to network54. Emico 05:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • One pro to one con. Emico said it best - it's not a question of fault, but of fairness. If we are as wrong as detractors believe, then one 'con' site should be enough to prove their point anyway.Gcessor--71.32.86.239 14:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete one (2 pro, 3 con). If I could find real "pro" links in the future, I want it 3 to 3, which seems like a good balance. I agree that those network54 / berean forums are garbage and should go away. Ealva 16:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • keep all. The page on external links I found did not seem to mention three as an upper limit and four is not excessiv IMO. Dejvid 16:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep All. In previous efforts to settle this matter, third-party sources have decided that the links were acceptable. And I agree that it's not about fault, but of fairness. Wikipedia rules state that the NPOV is about providing all points of a story, not only negative or favourable parts of the story. Much of the information on the con sites can be fairly included in the article in accordance with Wikipedia rules, but due to the dearth of pro-INC sites, I have refrained from doing so. As a sign of good faith and fairness, I have listed reasons why there might not be many pro-INC sites on the Internet, and have stopped short of encouraging people to contact the INC directly if they want to hear information supporting the INC's doctrines. I think this is an excellent way to solve our dilemma, and promise to abide by the final decision agreed upon by the sysops. --Onlytofind 21:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Resolution

Consensus is in favor of the reducing the con section to three links. Three say remove one link, two say keep one link for each category and two say keep as is. The decision to reduce the con section stands, and I'll now remove the Con link to Bereans. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 07:58, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

I have to say that the Bereans link seemed to me the most informativ of the antis and I say that as someone not remotely sympathetic to the Bereans POVDejvid 10:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I have to say that you should read my vote carefully. I am saying the forums. Ealva 15:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I think the forums should stand, after all, they are places where people can discuss the INC, and I'm pretty sure people have enough sense to wade through some of the truly absurd posts from both sides there. --Onlytofind 20:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Why, Glenn, Why

  • After the vote was put up, a moratorium was proposed on edits until the vote is over. Glenn disobeyed the democratic process and restored the page to "his standards.". Glenn, please explain to us why you did that in light of the poll and the moratorium?--Onlytofind 00:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I am highly dissapointed with you Glenn whoever edited the page. I wanted the links section unchanged so to make it clear what people are voting for. Now I can't determine whether or not "Delete One" means reduce to 3 or 2. Your edit has made matters more confusing, and I hope whoever voted clarify it by including a view to view ratio as suggested at the top of the vote. The original edit stands through Sunday. All edits will be reverted, and subject to the 3RR and Edit War rules. Whoever violates this be reported to a sysop as article vandalism. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 02:22, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • FYI, LBMixPro, I believe if you'll check the edit times, you'll find I made that edit before I came to the talk page and saw that you're holding this poll.--gcessor 13:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Gcessor: Please let this page be until this is decided. All of us should let it be until this is resolved. I am all for fairness. I think that once the number of links is resolved that we should address things like the Bereans' forum, but let's try to do one thing right at a time. I think that you can see from my history on this page that my efforts have been only about fairness and NPOV to the best of my ability. I am more than willing to defer to your vast knowledge of the group as an active and leading member, but this doesn't mean that you should always be editing the article whenever it disagrees with your point of view, although I realize that one person's POV dispute = another's "factual error". At one point I thought that we were really, really close to a good NPOV article, which apparently was satisfactory to no one other than myself. Please note that unlike many here, I am neither a member nor a former member of INC any my only interests are fairness and learning – I have no "axe to grind". (I remain in favour of deleting one con link in the interest of fairness as before.) Rlquall 02:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Riquall, as I told LBMixPro, if I remember correctly, I made the edit before I saw that a poll was being requested.

Why, Onlytofind, Why

Can't you find where I called you 'illiterate', but keep saying that I have insulted you? Either provide the proof or retract your accusation! YOU made the accusation, YOU provide the proof. In fact, if you provide proof of even ONE obvious personal insult (and not a simple rebuke) that I have made against ANYONE among the Wikipedians, I'll leave! After all, that's what you want, isn't it? And it's not a wager since I'm not requiring anything of you - except proof of your accusation.--71.32.86.239 14:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Can you please get over the illiterate accusation for once? We've been over it redundantly.
    • No. Onlytofind made the accusation with no evidence, repeated the accusation with no evidence, and I will not let it go. I will not allow someone to accuse me of something I have not done. Accuse me of something I HAVE done, and I'll own up to it, take my lumps, and I'll even thank you for it (and I've done it before), but I will NOT allow a false accusation to go by unchallenged.--gcessor 06:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, do whatever you want his own user-talk page. That's what it's there for. Besides the fact that this talk page isn't the place for personal issues, it only causes the page to fill faster than it needs to be. If you wanna continue on the "illiteracy" subject, do it away from the INC talk page, so we can deal with INC article issues. Please. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 08:29, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • I'd love to do so, but I can't until Onlytofind either provides proof of me having called anyone on the internet illiterate at any time...or realizes that maybe, just maybe he got confused, that perhaps he was called 'illiterate' by someone else, and his memory played a trick on him and he thought it was me. LBMixPro, you'd understand what I mean if you'd ever lost or nearly lost your career due to a false accusation...you'd become pretty thin-skinned to false accusations, as I certainly am.--gcessor71.32.86.239 21:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Onlytofind, are you listening? There is another way - unless you can provide proof that I've done so - you can save face and say you got me confused with someone else. If you do so, you'll hear no recriminations from me, because I've done the same thing before - I'd be a hypocrite to give you any grief over it. We're all human, Onlytofind, and your memory (though probably far better than mine) is not perfect. When one has problems with his memory (as I do), one learns (1) not to lie, and (2) to keep by a strict code of conduct, for that's the only way that someone with memory problems can be sure whether he has or has not committed a certain act. What do you say, Onlytofind? Is it possible you have me confused with someone else?--gcessor71.32.86.239 21:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
    • You might not have called me "illiterate" straight to my face, but your little tirade clearly implied so, and anyone would either be biased or foolish to not see the underlying undertones of condescendence and insult. I'm sorry to hear what happened about your job though. --Onlytofind 07:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I didn't lose my job, but was within mere moments of losing it, and I kept my career (from which I have since retired with lifelong benefits) because of the honesty of a young man who had no reason to help other than to do the right thing.--gcessor71.32.86.239 14:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I honestly have no idea what 'little tirade' you're referring to, but believe me when I say that however you took it, it wasn't meant in a way to insult you or call you illiterate. While I may have an outstanding fluency in English, when I can speak, read, and write more than one language, then I'll call myself literate...but until then, I am less literate than most of this world since I am fluent in only one language. I have held that opinion for over a decade, and I am absolutely certain that you're seeing a meaning that isn't there in this 'tirade' you're referring to...for 'illiterate' (or the insinuation thereof) is NOT an insult I would ever use. To me, it's a word of pity, like for my two disabled foster children aged 10 and 14 years of age. One of them has a vocabulary of ONE word, and the other none at all. THAT, sir, is 'illiterate', and a pity.--gcessorgcessor 13:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)----

(stricken section deleted to save space)--gcessor 13:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)--gcessorgcessor 13:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

      • God bless your family. --Onlytofind 03:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I have an idea about the real identity of discoverer though, he's probably the same guy who keeps using different aliases and runs the iglesianicristo.us site. If he's who I think he is, he's a fanatic, right-wing Catholic who's taken things much too far now especially when he made fun of the death of an INC member. --Onlytofind 07:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • huh! I hadn't thought of that - thanks!--gcessorgcessor 13:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I would be careful talking with him, especially since you use your real name, as he has said things advocating violence against INC members, which is truly disgusting and horrible. --Onlytofind 03:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

For LBMixPro, why is an e-mail address being counted as a 'pro' site, resulting in a count of 'two' pro sites to four con sites? How can an e-mail address possibly be counted as such?--gcessor 13:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Although its not a site, it's still a link regardless. As a matter of fact, it's the best pro link on there, since the only best way to get accurate information about INC is to contact the INC themselves. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 20:48, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Then why not put it in a separate section - for it is not a 'pro' site in any real sense. It is an e-mail address and that's all. It belongs in a separate section.--gcessor 06:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Once again, although it's not a pro site, it is a pro link or in this case an external resource. It's a link which in essence is in favor of INC. It would be awesome if Manalo allows [1] to become active, so we can replace the email address. But at this point, it's the best thing we have to an actual site resource, since INC appearently doesn't allow unofficial sites from members. I thought at first if the email address was a good idea as a link, just like you are. But after some thought, I think it's good where it is. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 08:29, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • Okay, good explanation. I'll live with that.--gcessor 20:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Glenn, I'm not asking you to leave, I'm just asking for an apology. Yes, I use the forums myself, but that's not my alias. If you want to know who I am, I asked you the same question about politics a while ago and got the same answer about "they didn't know what they're doing" from you. It seems that you want me to reveal my true identity here, which I am not foolish enough to do. But, I can clearly state to you that I swear before God that I am not discoverer from the forums. I would be ashamed to make a ridiculous statement like "The INC worships chairs." I've never chased you away from this website, heck, I even COMPLIMENTED YOU on the link below. I am very angry because you decided that you wanted the article to be written to "your conditions" even above the Wikipedia rules. --Onlytofind 20:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's your proof: [[2]] Search for the text "Those with good reading comprehension." and "no authority to speak." LBMixPro confirmed that we had to pay for the magazine, why can't you apologize for your statements? I already apologized for accusing you of post-editing the page, let's try to keep a spirit of reasoned dispute and personal responsibility here. --Onlytofind 20:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Okay, I retract my suspicion of you and discoverer being one and the same, for discoverer would not have replied as you had. I also apologize, for disco's not someone I'd want to be associated with. However, I will NOT apologize for calling you 'illiterate', because I NEVER have called you or anyone else on the internet illiterate. I don't ever recall having called anyone in my life 'illiterate' in an insulting fashion. Not once, not ever. Prove me wrong, and I'll leave, period.--gcessor 06:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
  • And when it comes to payment for the Pasugo, for the SECOND time, we did so several years ago (the last time in early 2001 I think), but we do NOT do so NOW. You made the statement that we do so NOW, and I said we do not do so NOW, and I invited LBMixPro to call any of the locales on the list to verify what I said.--gcessor71.32.86.239 21:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Early 2001 was NOT several years ago. Glenn, make up your mind, what was it- early 2001 or several years ago? I would like for a neutral source to call and prove once and for all that my accusations were correct, which in turn would be fruitless, since I would hear endless grief from the pro-INC lobby if I tried to add that factual information back into the article.--Onlytofind 07:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • That was four years ago. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines "several" thusly: "2 a : more than one <several pleas> b : more than two but fewer than many <moved several inches> c chiefly dialect : being a great many". "Four" is "several"...but are you now going to refer to this as another 'little tirade' wherein I'm 'implying' that you are illiterate?--gcessorgcessor 13:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I APOLOGIZE TO GLENN CESSOR IN REGARDS TO PAGE EDITING

  • I'll take personal responsibility for accusing Mr. Cessor of editing the article after the vote started, which on further examination, he did not do. I still stand by my other statements and criticisms though. --Onlytofind 20:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that, but you still accused me of calling you 'illiterate'. I'll sweeten the deal even more - if you can show where I have EVEN ONCE called ANYONE ANYWHERE ON THE INTERNET 'illiterate', I'll leave Wikipedia. Know why I have no problem issuing this challenge? I've got a rotten memory, but I KNOW that I (1) insult VERY rarely, and (2) NEVER EVER use 'illiterate' as an insult (because I've long considered myself far less literate than the majority of Filipinos who speak two or more languages).--gcessor 06:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

A different route to resolution

The current dispute is on whether to keep the Bereans' 'con' site. I suggest it should be removed since the ONLY information on the site that is not duplicated on the other 'con' sites are (1) the "countries penetrated" section (which is very outdated compared to the "worship schedules and locations" link), and (2) the "how to start a conversation with/witness to an INC member" sections - and such sections by nature rely upon opinion and do not warrant an encyclopedia's link on their own merit. That would be equivalent to, say, including to a Republican web page that only has a section named "How to talk to a Democrat".--gcessor71.32.86.239 10:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The how to talk to a Iglesia ni Cristo member makes it quickly clear that Iglesia ni Cristo is has an Arian view on the Trinity. That was far less clear on the other sitesDejvid 22:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
The other sites plainly say that we do not believe that Jesus is God, the 'same' God as our Father. That should be quite enough to label us with 'Arianism' in your view without ever having to say the word.--gcessor71.32.86.239 14:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
      • The INC holds Arius in high regard in its lessons and has referred to him as the only one with the truth compared to the Nicean Council. Why are the INC members insulted by a mention of Arianism? I don't know though, whether the INC would agree with Arius' teachings regarding whether Jesus Christ was born with his powers or given to them after birth. --Onlytofind 02:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Give it up, Onlytofind. You lost the vote - and what you do not understand is that we're not insulted by the 'mention of Arianism'...it simply doesn't apply to us because Arian also believed at the time of the Nicean Council that the Catholic church was the true Church. And FYI, there was no belief in the 'trinity' at that time, for the Holy Spirit had not been 'officially' declared God by the Catholics until some 70 years later...and you are upholding this Catholic tradition.--gcessor71.32.86.239 13:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
But Arianism is normally applied to those who share the same view of the relationship between the father and the son. It doesn't normally imply sharing the same line as Arian as to which organization is the correct church. Has there been a vote to exclude the description of Arian or something? I really didn't know it was so controversial.Dejvid 15:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
It is only controversial to those who want to use 'Arianism' as a label, insinuating that it is not true 'Christianity'. As I said, 'Arianism' cannot apply to us because he also believed at the time of the Nicean Council that the Catholic church was the true Church. Because of that, Arian cannot be associated with the Church of Christ in any way. It is this difference that those who want to throw around the 'Arianism' label simply don't understand.--gcessor71.32.86.239 20:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Discussion Forums

  • I would like to propose the restoration of the link to the Network54 forum 70210 which was recently deleted back to the discussion forum link section. I have seen topics posted there which were deleted on the INC member-moderated boards without explanation and is probably the most visited out of the INC forums, and although not moderated- allows for the most liberal and frank discussion of the INC. --Onlytofind 07:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that the 70213 forum is in the top three most-active forums, after the 84590 forum and the Bereans' forum...but it's full of crude insults and profanity because it is unmoderated. There is a real possibility that when people follow a link to that forum, they might realize that the majority of the profanity and insults come from the side of the detractors, which would help us--71.32.86.239 14:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Let's not forget about the reality distortion field surrounding the pro-INC crowd, such as ETE and friends. I think anyone interested in the INC would reconsider after reading their posts.--Onlytofind 02:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
        • And now we have a 'reality distortion field' surrounding us. That's three insults by you on this page I've found this morning - and I remember how you berated me for ONE comment that you took as an insult.--gcessor71.32.86.239 13:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Once again, here we go with the double standards. You're going to accuse the INC detractors of doing the majority of insults at the forums when it's mainly the pro-INC crowd behind all this bickering. I've already tried to maintain decorum in my debate, and even stood with you in that Discover fiasco. But it seems that you have to insult every INC detractor, along with your assistant ealva and think that you're justified in doing so since I'm the lone INC detractor who frequently edits this article. That's the entire reason I'm here- to prevent tyranny of the majority. --Onlytofind 04:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I dunno. I've seen the forum myself and a lot of it's either bickering. What percentage of that forum's posts are actually useful? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 11:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • There are usually many useful and relevant discussions at that forum, which are unfortunately overpowered by some rotten apples (on both sides). I would like to add it back, because as it stands now, there are two forums moderated by INC members and one which is not. I think it would add balance to the discussion section.--Onlytofind 02:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
      • You are mistaken, Onlytofind. The 84590 forum is moderated by Gordon Cancio, a Catholic and a longtime INC detractor. The Bereans' site is of course moderated by detractors, and the sole remaining Network54 forum listed is the only one moderated by an INC member, RS. --gcessor71.32.86.239 13:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Then why does the forum's description clearly state: "Lastly, I'm an INC." I don't doubt you that Cancio moderates that forum, but why? If that's the case, shouldn't you go and tell him to delete that? --Onlytofind 04:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I also would like to add a link. I'm still in the process of creating it but what it will contain basically will be the same stuff you will see on the forum on Network54. I will, of course, not put my name on it but will be anonymous as the other forums. It will be a la thebereans.net. I'm thinking of calling it liarandthelyingliars.com.
    • You've gotta be kidding me. Just make your point before others try to figure out what it is.
      • What happened, emico? Was RabidINCFanboys.com already registered? You really need to get back on your medication before you hurt yourself or someone else.Onlytofind 02:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Onlytofind, didn't you accuse me of insulting you? I said that those with good reading comprehension could easily see how I had said we DID charge for the Pasugo at one time, but not now (after you had implied that I was posting a lie)...and you accused me of insulting you and calling you illiterate. And then you post the above.
          • I stand by my insults, while you beat around the bush and did everything short of outright insulting me and ran around stating that since you didn't outright try to insult me, it wasn't an insult at all. I take it that from your reply, you don't mind the insults on the Bereans or any other religions but when factual criticism is put up against the INC, you and emico make it seem like it's the world against the INC, who both of you think obviously do nothing wrong against people of other faiths while you believe that all INC detrators have to play by "your standards". Say what you want, the truth is obvious.Onlytofind 04:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Have you noticed how someone from nowhere pops in here talking about arianism, and then right on cue, only to find adds arianism on the discussion? interesting. Emico 07:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I seen it too. Since there's no source backing up the Arianism claim, I would have reverted it as well. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 11:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • Emico, I wish that I could reply to your comment, except that I can't understand your atrocious grammar.--Onlytofind 02:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Emico, I think Onlytofind's "strongly implying" that you are illiterate!--gcessor71.32.86.239 13:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Not illiterate, just a bad writer and reader. He needs to look in the mirror before he insults anyone else.--Onlytofind 05:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Hello Team. Let just say I read and enjoy your post, but I rarely reply to post by juveniles, I think it's a waste of my valuable time. Emico 13:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
            • What are you going to do now, make more lies about me, like that I'm associated with the Catholics or the Bereans? It seems that you've taken your personal biases too far, and you're about to get disciplined by the sysops due to your shameless, biased and pathetic vandalization of the Bereans article, not to mention this one and the two Manalo articles. Unless you stop your tomfoolery and start adhering to Wikipedia rules, I will do everything I can to get you banned from the Wikipedia. --Onlytofind 05:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Folks...

...let's turn the heat down a little. We can all disagree without being this disagreeable. Remember, Wikipedia:No personal attacks. This is supposed to be discussion about how to improve the article, not about how awful, evil, or sinful we find each other to be. (I certainly can't claim the ability to speak for him, but I doubt that Jesus is greatly pleased by all of this.) That having been said, I have little interest in moderating an INC forum. So I'll ask an utterly unrelated question to persons more knowledgable than myself. Which is proper, INC or InC, Iglesia Ni Cristo or Igelsia ni Cristo? (I don't have to wonder whether Church Of Christ or Church of Christ is correct, that is obvious. Why would this not be the same way?) Rlquall 11:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Well said, Riquall (and to answer your question, AFAIK it doesn't matter). I would further point out that while those who insult are wrong, those who see those insults and use them as an excuse to hurl their own insults are equally wrong. It's not easy, but I remember being on the receiving end of insults for years on the 84590 forum - and such attacks included lies posted about my family. I finally left the forum when those who were attacking me began posting my personal information. What's the point? While I rebuked time after time after time those who insulted me, I did NOT lower myself to their level and start hurling insults of my own. Sometimes I made judgmental statements in those rebukes, but they were never meant as insults. What is important about this? If I can withstand hundreds and hundreds (no exaggeration!) of insults, perhaps those who complain about being insulted can say to themselves that they can achieve the same level of conduct. It ain't easy....--gcessor71.32.86.239 13:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Friendly reminder, Glenn- sign in before you perform any edits to the article so that your username can properly be accredited and that you can use the talk page to solve any disputes. I also request for you to read the comment posted by Rlquall at my talk page User_talk:Onlytofind. --Onlytofind 05:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Simply put, I heartily agree with the comment Rlquall left here, and from now on, I promise to only discuss matters relating to this article here in this section and refer all irrelevant discussion to Wikipedia sysops or personal user talkpages. I hope that the other major contributors to this article will join me in doing the same.--Onlytofind 05:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks Rquall. About your INC or InC question. I think we should name it to whatever is written on the signs of the locales. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 20:31, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • From the chapels I've seen, the name of the church is always written in all caps (IGLESIA NI CRISTO), but in the magazine, it is continuously referred to as the "Iglesia ni Cristo."--Onlytofind 05:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

INC central office

Anybody care to merge the info from INC's central office article to the central office sub section here?


mga ministro reypis.gaya ni ka emillio santiago tagapangasiwa ng batanngas ngayon.may crimen siyang ginawa noon nasa bicol pa siya ginahasa niya ang pamankin ng asawa niya.nang nagkaalaman na ay binantaan pa na papatay nila sila.sana makita ni ka erdie ito para naman maaksiyonan iton krimen na ngyare.katunayan nakakaalam nito ay sila kapatid na armando cuevas at lucy cuevas bali ninang niya ito.ang masaklap nagtatangahan na lang ang asawa niya.kahit kamg anak niya ang biktima.dahil alang alang na lang sa mga anak niya.masama pa nito nagtuturo parin siya ng aarl nang diyos kahit ganun na ang ngyari may voice tape akong hawak na isang ibidensiya na umamin si ka emil.sabihin ninyo lang kung saan ko ilalagay

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo/Archive_1&oldid=649320096"