Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/Archive 10

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

Suggestions?

The article is locked indefinetly. There's a couple of issues that have been brought up, which need consensus.

  • User:Jondel stated we not post the doctorines in their exact from. I think we should add something to the article which explains what INC belives in, but be understandable to everyone who reads it. How are we to do this? See Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/Archive07#Changes on 21 August.
  • Any suggestions to make this article Neutral, without having it either become a positive or negative view of INC?
  • Is there a chart in any INC publication which is available to the general public which explains the Heirarchy of INC?
  • Should the INC doxology have any part in the Doxology article, and how?
  • Should the "Unofficial site of INC", the faithweb link, be deleted because it's title can be deceptive?
I've reworded the link to disambig. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 21:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Should round up all the INC related articles in a new category:Iglesia ni Cristo?
  • Any other concerns about improving the article itself?

Comment

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)

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)
I might be digging up past discussions then proposing article changes here.--Jondel 08:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Nontrinitarian

There's a post at the Unitarian talk page by User:Mkmcconn who suggested that INC would fit the Nontrinitarian description instead. How about that term? --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 05:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The last edit by 24.199.136.150 concedes that INC is also unitarian.--Jondel 11:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
You originally said The last edit by 24.199.136.150 concedes that INC is unitarian (small u) this is a subset of Nontrinitarian.--Jondel 11:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC). Now where did you get that notion?

Hey! I remember deleting this, why was this reinserted? Impersonation 'is' a legal crime even outside wikipedia and both in the Philippines and the United States. But logically, if we assume that nontrintarian, this includes everything not trinitarian, including unitarian , why are you asking this questions by the was as mentioned below, if you are not willing to be accountable or create an account, you may be treated as persona non grata. Your comments may be removed. --Jondel 00:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Logically, you must be trinitarian or non-trinitarian. It would be like dividing people into living, and non-living. If you are alive, you are in the living category. If you are not, no matter your state (dead, undead, semi-dead, emo) you are non-living.
The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that it contains the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and maintains they are all three aspects of God, and are all divine, eternal, equal, and of one matter, whatever that may be in this case. Iglesia ni Cristo teaches Jesus is a created being, so that would deny him a place in the Trinity. Specifically INC documents teach that Jesus was a man. A man can't be part of the Trinity, as a man is not a eternal being. We can't place Iglesia ni Cristo as trinitarian, so we use the term, non-trinitarian. A better defense would be to use a less clumsy term than non-trinitarian. Please refrain from personal attacks, Mr. Anonymous. WP:NPA Dominick (TALK) 15:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
What part of my post is a personal attack?
Before making sweeping statements like "Logically, you must be trinitarian or non-trinitarian", it's best you first do some research, preferably more than just wikipedia. Can you point me to a definition of "Nontrinitarianism" other than wikipedia? I would'nt even go to the "living/non-living" analogy as this is a whole different debate.
I would be happy to debate you on the trinity if you want.
There is no debate here. It is not a sweeping statement, it is a logical conclusion. If I define people as standing, or non-standing, that would mean if you are not standing, then you are in the nonstanding group. Iglesia ni Cristo teaches Jesus is a created being. If this is a true statement, then INC can't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. There is no other conclusion than put them into the non-trinitarian category. I do not see why your answer that more research is needed can be considered when you don't point out your accusation of a fallicy. I did not use the wikipedia definition. There are several texts that define the term, a casual reading of anything about INC states they do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. Is this incorrect? Dominick (TALK) 16:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Why do I need to repeat myself?! Question: "Can you point me to a definition of "Nontrinitarianism" other than wikipedia?". You have to at least know what you're talking about.
You said: "There are several texts that define the term, a casual reading of anything about INC states they do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.". Can you list then here?
The term nontrinitarian is the negation of trinitarian[1]. One book accessable to a layman is {http://www.trinstore.com/ecom_2/item_view.cfm?inventoryid=188 Separated Brethern] Some independent web sites offer examples [2]. The INC does not hold to the Trinity [3] [4] [5] The direct reference I used before, were taken down by the INC for some reason. [6] [7] I dont understand your request. The burden of proof is on you, if these are wrong point me to a link. The issue here is specifically does the INC teach the doctrine of the Trinity, they do not, so therefore they are not trinitarian. Are you confusing this with Unitarian? Dominick (TALK) 17:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
You don't understand my request?? It's called citing sources!
You pointed me to dictionary term of trinitarian. I take this you did'nt find a dictionary term of nontrinitarian? I search too and can't find one, leaving me to strongly believe nontrinitarian is a made-up word, and probably exist only in wikipedia. This actually makes my arguments stronger and you cannot categories something when the category is not fully established. The issue in this debate is whether the INC can be categorized as nontrinitarian. Not the belief or not of the trinity., I think you're the one confused.
"Separated brethren" is not available online, so I can't comment on it. I'm not taking your word for it.
The others talks about the trinity, not nontrinitarian. One of them(bibleaction), I'm not even going to comment on.
So, I think it's safe to say that your only source would be wikipedia. wikipedia is incomplete, non-authoritative, unreliable, etc.
I now understand your contention. The term is commonly used to describe unitarian beliefs not the Unitarian Church[8]. I can counter that nontrinitarian is a neologism, created on wikipedia. First and foremost, it existed as a term that was used before the creation of wikipedia[9] [10] [11]. I cited one such book, but most books are not online. You can easily buy a copy, or visit the library if you care to check it yourself. Some Pentecostal churches are actually modalist churches, and classified the same way, prior to wikipedia. I will point out, you are not assuming good faith here, my sources are dismissed by you because they are not online and you don't care to check? If wikipedia is so bad, why are you here? Dominick (TALK) 18:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Your sources may have used the term but they did so when they were talking about churches which in one way or another separated from the catholic church but maintain in varying degree some of the teachings of the catholic church. The INC is an independent religious organization not affiliated or related to any existing church today. So, to use the same term is incorrect and not factual at best.
I did not say I "don't care to check". I may or may not for other reason(like maybe availability of the source), and not because I "don't care to check". I did say I was not going to comment on one website. Take a look if you want.
Why am I here? To prevent disinformation as much as I can. What about you?
That is problematic. They are not talking about the status of separation of the Catholicism in any way, in fact as far as Unitarians and Pentecostals, there was never a Catholic connection.. The belief of the INC is subject to the same taxonimy as any other group. Buddhists are nontrinitarin, as are muslims, and Jews. Libraries are available with the book, or you can look at the author and ask them. A simple email to an author can get you the answer. In theology textbooks, that I sourced, the term is used, and I think I amply proved this term in not a neologism. Dominick (TALK) 19:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
You said Unitarians and Pentecostals, there was never a Catholic connection. . Are you kidding me? You should read some more.
Did you mean taxonomy? Then you're in even worse position, you would have to define the INC first before you can classify it. How would you define the INC when you don't understand it?
neologism? That's not what were talking about here. You are still confused.
Thanks for trying, I am afraid you are wrong. Dominick (TALK) 19:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Here, to get you started: "The Pentecostal movement within protestant"

(SNIP)_ I read the protocol, no worth my time. Come back and edit when you get an account. Dominick (TALK) 21:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

And I thought we're having a meaningful conversation. Just read the wiki document on the pentecostals. you'll find it was borne out of catholics.

What the heck are we arguing about here? Nontrinitarian just means 'does not believe in the Trinity'. If you are saying that INC is not nontrinitarian then we are saying that it does believe in the Trinity. Eh? DJ Clayworth 21:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, if everybody doesn't start signing their postings unsigned postings will start being rmoved. DJ Clayworth 21:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Protocol Will be stricly enforced! This is not Network54.--LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 22:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Move them now. This was a waste of time. I thought I was working in good faith with an interested party. I find my work was a waste of ascii characters. Dominick (TALK) 22:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want to do anything to the above discussion, go ahead. But I wasn't actively involved in it other than RPA. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 00:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

INC was not created from or associated with Unitarian Universalism, or any organization associated with it, as INC is an independent church. However, INC could be considered unitarian (the adjective, not the proper noun) only by its core belief that Jesus is not God. Dictionary.com's 3rd definition. I don't think we should use the term Unitarian, until that article is split between the Unitarian congregations, and the unitarian belief, which are two completely different things. -LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 00:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Lbmixpro. Mainstream Christianity professes a belief in one God composed of the Holy Trinity is composed of three personalities :the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. INC does not profess a belief in one God composed of the Holy Trinity, therefore INC is non-trintarian and maybe unitarian(small case) and not associated with the Unitarian Church . Let us not entertain uselless discussions or allow this to drag on further . --Jondel 01:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

From an article I have from God's Message magazine, an organ of Iglesia ni Cristo Jesus Christ: God Incarnate? by Jose J. Ventilacion:

The biggest dilemma for the proponents of this doctrine is how to reconcile their view with the biblical truth that there is only one true God while maintaining a position that there is another God who was with the true God. How could another God be with this one God if He were that same God? The alleged plurality of persons in the godhead might be a tempting justification but this only creates another serious paradoxical situation for them. As the saying goes, "a mistake could not be corrected by another mistake." Trinitarians, when confronted with this obvious dilemma, would resort to the so-called "mystery" of the Trinity, hoping that they could extricate themselves from the theological quagmire they've got in. But beyond cavil, their teaching is untenable.

Spelling is as I found it. I think this is definitive. INC is nontrinitarian. Does anyone have any other issues with this topic? Dominick (TALK) 00:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Got an issue date/number for it? That would be great. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 03:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
OOPS! Jan 2004 Issue. It was removed from the web with everthing else in Jan 2005. I don't know why. Dominick (TALK) 10:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. definitive that the INC does not believe in the trinity and has a solid teaching to back it up! I'm glad you posted this, if I did you'll be saying I'm attacking the catholics.

I think you're confused again. the issue is not the doctrine of the trinity BUT the use of the made up term "nontrinitarian" to categorize the INC. I repeat for clarity: the issue is "the use of the made up term "nontrinitarian" to categorize the INC". —preceding unsigned comment by 80.58.11.42 (talk • contribs) 20:40, November 30, 2005

Outside view. I agree with Dominick, Jondel and DJ Clayworth. Small-u "unitarian" is best avoided because of the possibility of confusion with Unitarianism, which is something else entirely. But "nontrinitarian" is perfectly accurate: the existence of the Nontrinitarianism article shows that it has a working consensus as a term.
This comes down to nothing more than the INC disliking being categorized as just one of a varied bunch of churches with the same take on the Trinity, and wanting separate billing, so to speak. This is why we have to have two lists at Nontrinitarianism: Nontrinitarian groups and Other groups which reject the Trinity doctrine (the second with one entry, guess who). 86.141.147.68 05:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm cool with it. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 07:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Translations

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)
Well, there's tl:Iglesia ni Cristo, which is a stub... LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 08:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
I am a simple editor. Lets get a beliefs section up. Dominick (TALK) 13:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Let's get the article unlocked first. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 21:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotection

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)

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)

Consensus

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 We could have been doing more here to start this up. Too bad we can't protect against anoymous editors. ---Dominick (TALK) 21:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well , LBmixpro you're now an admin. You can unlock as appropriate. If the anonymous guy is not around, we can unlock it again It is no big deal.--Jondel 00:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Basic Beliefs

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)

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) (updated 12:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC))
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)

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)
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)
How about a 'nice tidy' doctrine section as Dominick suggests like this :United_Church_of_God#Doctrine?--Jondel 02:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
Are we stalled on the belef gathering? Dominick (TALK) 20:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

The INC Insiders

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)

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)
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)
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)

Bare-bones summary

/summary This is a barebones summary for use in initiating articles in other languages. Please do not expand. Please feel free to add only bare essential information.--Jondel 05:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Good job. I went ahead and converted it (or at least I tried to) into Basic English for its Wikipedia. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 08:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you . I was thinking the link would be better on top and excluded from the archiving to be be available to anyone who would like to use it. Maybe the simple English version is better.--Jondel 00:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the whole point of Simple English Wikipedia serves the same purpose as the summary. So people can get a barebones summary to translate into other Wikipedias. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!>
The Simple English is fine. Sometimes the Simple English tends to expand(with simple English) and translators don't want to spend too much time on non-essentials. --Jondel 01:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Something's weird.

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)

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)
We can lock out the anonymous editors , e.g. allow only registered users to edit.--Jondel 05:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
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)

See also links in INC

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)

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)
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)
Uh , I don't see any harm with a Protestants in the Philippines link. --Jondel 11:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Templates and the Beliefs section

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)
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 {{christianity}} 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) (after being hit by an edit conflict.) (updated 11:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC))

I am trying to read through the archives and suggest everyone (except LBmixpro, Ironbrew and other particpants)do the same unless you were a part of or familiar with the old discussions . This is to avoid repeating debates.

Some crucial issues below (--Jondel 04:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)):

1) Is everyone amenable to putting back the beliefs/doctrine section?

2) From the article on Christianity. Mainstream Christian organizations are (strictly )trinitarians. Wasn't it be established that INC is not trinitarian . Of -course other groups identify themselves as Christian(next point). Other major mainstream doctrines are salvation, ressurection.

3)There are Christianity/Christ oriented non-trinitarian groups such as Jehovahs witnesses, Adventists, Quakers(?), etc perhaps INC belongs to these(?)

4) As mentioned, the Jehovah's Witnesses article uses the cross symbol(Catholic or not) and Christian template. Do we use it here or not? Is everyone amenable ? Maybe we could vote on this?

Vote:

  • Support---Jondel 04:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - 1. People need to know what the INC believes in. 2. INC is not mainstream christianity. 3. INC belongs to itself, however it has beliefs which other people share. 4. I put it there cuz INC is christian. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 05:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - 1. My main issue which is the dealbreaker- we need to have verifiable and concrete sources for the beliefs and doctrine section so that there is not edit wars and the he said/she said game like there was a few months ago. 2. I don't think the INC is that far from mainstream Christianity, as they try to propagate to those of mainstream denominations, but they do profess that their doctrines and practices are unique and divinely inspired. 3. The INC has a unique belief system, with some unavoidable similarities to other religions, but most noticeably the Seventh-Day Adventists. 4. According to the Iglesia ni Cristo, they do not use the cross because it was a symbol of torture, but they do believe that Jesus died on the cross, as is even written in one of their hymns. No problems with cross usage, even some of the Bibles the INC uses have a cross on them.--Ironbrew 09:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • 1) Support If this is a serious issue perhaps a different template can be used. 2) 3) 4) Support - no conditions. Dominick (TALK) 13:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

External links section

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)

I've recently rolled back some anon edits which pertain to external links. The first link was rolled because it links to an outdated Wikipedia mirror. The content from the second link is mostly links to the already established con link (sans a few articles). WP isn't a link farm. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 08:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Doctrines

1) I am willing to do an unbiased summary of INC doctines. I am just curious how I should provide references for what I post. I have a vast collection of Pasugo articles and INC lessons, including the lessons taught to ministerial students, but giving a footnote for every sentence would be a hard read. What is a good technique?

Welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope your unbiased view of INC will be a great help to both the INC and this encyclopedia. I'll send a welcome message to your personal discussion page (labeled "my talk" on the top of the page) which includes links to guides about how to edit, and what and what not to do. The way to cite your sources is written in detail at this page.
About the footnote in every sentence, I would say look for a source where you can get a good amount of content for the article (for example the Introducing the INC booklet which I'm using for the beliefs section), and use that as a major source. However, there'll be times where you'd probably have to source individual sentences. A good model for the style of the article (not content itself, but format) in my opinion is the Jehovah's Witnesses article.
If you like, we can order the doctrines section based on the order of the 25 lessons in the book used when teaching people who are joining the INC. For example, lessons 1-8 are the following: Bible, God, True Religion, INC, Apostasy, Catholic Church, INC in Phils., and Felix Manalo. I could give brief statements regarding the interesting contents of each lesson.

2) Why was the worship service section removed? Seemed ok to me.

Even though it seemed so, it was considered original research because it wasn't backed up by actual published information. The arbitration comittee suggested we scrap the info until we could get it cited. Because of that, I'll sadly need to remove your edits and move them to Iglesia ni Cristo/Workshop where I'm also working on the belief section.

3) I am new to this so I don't quite know how this Talk: stuff works, but I am curious about a comment I read regarding the 4 internal organizations-- do you mean the 3 Christian Family Organizations (Buklod, KADIWA and Binhi) and the CWS (Children's Worship Service)? '4 internal organizations' is not INC trminology.Guava wrench 22:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the best person here who could answer your question is Ironbrew. Since he's the only active contributer who says he's a member of INC. Besides me, you may also want to talk to User:Jondel and User:DJ Clayworth, who seem to be neutual editors. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 06:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I understand that the INC considers the Binhi, Kadiwa and Buklod to be the three official "Christian Family Organizations," but the CWS is an organization within the INC. We can move the CWS to its own section if need be.
Perhaps we can insert the CWS in the Membership section since the unbaptized offered members ages 4-12 are listed there.Guava wrench 15:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. But AFAIK, isn't the CWS open to the children of all visitors and members, regardless if they were offered or not? --Ironbrew 06:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Only offered children who have reached 4 years old are listed in the CWS. Other children can attend the worship service, but they are just visitors. If parents are expelled from the church, the children are also expelled unless they have another relative who is also INC and who will take responsibility for them.Guava wrench 05:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

References

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)

Basic Beliefs

While the basic beliefs section seems to have correct information, it is not presented the way the INC would present it. We should probably focus on the verses they focus on so people will get a feel for their doctrines.Guava wrench 22:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The Beliefs section from the workshop looks good . Presenting it the way INC would seems fine. Is it still a problem to cite, establish the source? Can't we put a 'Reference' section then indicate the pamphlet/source ?--Jondel 02:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The pamplet source is there, but it's commented out on the main article. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 05:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that would be the best option, since it is INC's belief. My only concern is copyright violation. I'm trying to summarize the beliefs without copying the pamplet word for word. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 05:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair usage laws allow citations for this kind of article so long as there is a citation. I revised the FYM part in the workshop and there are still a few more things that need to be revised. As for my footnotes, forgive me for the use of references in Filipino if you don't understand the language.Guava wrench 05:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, I suppose. You don't have to use the <ref> tag to make references. We're using the invisible notes format (that's the {{inote|DLTYMS}} template). This format still shows the actual citation in the referces section, but it's reference point is only viewable in the source code. Once the article is full again, I'll convert them into actual links similar to the Felix Manalo article. I noticed when you put the ref tag, it would show a non-functioning link which doesn't show the actual citation.
What I'd do is use type {{inote| then a short string to identify the citation. DLTYMS}} (DLTYMS is an abbriviation). Then I'd go edit the References section and copy that same code, and write the actual citation. Hopefully you got all that --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 06:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I will try to do a more comprehensive summary of INC doctrines this week and I will post it first on the workshop. It will all be from the 'pandoktrina' or the book they use in bible studies (Fundamental Teachings...). Maybe in later weeks I will post more in-depth explanations from other INC lessons for consideration.Guava wrench 06:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the groups within INC (CWS, Kadiwa, etc..) are mentioned in one of the lessons, however I think it should warrant its own section in the article, because it explains the structure of INC, more than a belief. Earlier versions of the article used to have a section called "Structure of the Iglesia ni Cristo" which explained the groups. Speaking of structure, can you verify this hierarchy infobox?

I included the part about 3 CFOs because they are mentioned in lesson 28/25. Nevertheless, they probably do belong in a different article. The hierarchy you listed might be outdated. Formerly the General Auditor and General Treasurer were the highest in the Finance Department, but now there is an overall administrator of the Finance Department. The highest ranking leaders at the district level are the District supervising minister, asst, Edification overseer, secretary, asst to the supervising min, auditor, treasurer (These are all ministers). The officers of the CFOs mentioned on the page aren't really on the same level, as they are just lay members. Perhaps the CFOs should have a serparate article from the ecclesiastical hierarchy.Guava wrench 16:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

Why are there no footnotes in the text? Readers can not see what is documented and what isn't. Perhaps we should follow the format of the Jehovah's Witnesses page that has many footnotes in the text that when clicked lead to the citation at the bottom of the page. The current bibliography style seems inadequate to me.Guava wrench 15:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

We're temporarily using the invisible notes format (that's the {{inote|DLTYMS}} template). This format still shows the actual citation in the referces section, but it's footnote is only viewable in the source code. Once the article has all its sections back, I'll convert them into actual links similar to what you see in the Felix Manalo article. I noticed when you put the ref tag, it would show a non-functioning link which doesn't show the actual citation. When we get the beliefs summary back up (See below about the two sections), I'll convert them into actual footnotes.
OK. Tnx. I guess I'm too lazy to read all the tutorials and Wikipedia documentation.Guava wrench 21:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Well I found out the ref link system's now working, so I converted them to that. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!>

Two beliefs sections

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)

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)
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)

Loss of NPOV

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)

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)
If you mean the addition by 72.235.6.184 (talk · contribs), 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)
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)
Your assistance was really moving this article forward. Please reconsider.--Ironbrew 06:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Membership section

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)

Somebody knows? Could we find the answer on The INC Insiders - Cliques? Coffeemaker 05:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I've voiced my opinion about the Insider's group above. I'd love to read your opinion about the matter. By the way, The first paragraph of the expulsion section shouldn't be deleted, since it is sourced by official INC lituature. However the paragraph about returning is unsourced (I assume), so I'll leave it out until it is. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 07:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Article in foreign languages

I my opinion the INC article in Spanish, French, Interlinga and Japanese were only created as an advocacy tool. Specially with the following sentence: Felix Manalo was deeply religious as a child and joined many religious organizations as a young adult, leaving each after finding teachings which he felt contradicted those in the Bible. I don't see how these articles will expand into something substantial when the english version does not even seems to be able to get a "Belief" section included. Futhermore when there is not even an official website of the INC in tagalog nor english why bother with these languages. I propose to delete these articles. Coffeemaker 05:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but I seriously doubt they were intended as an advocacy tool. Each language version is based on /summary, which in itself is based on an earlier version of this article. Its purpose it stated at the top of this talk page. If this article expands, so should the others. What about the Tagalog version? If you really want those articles deleted, you'll have to go through the process on each language's Wikipedia. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 07:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree on removing the part about Manalo, the article is about INC not so much the founder. Beliefs: I also agree, a section is needed to put things in black and white.
About deletion:1)Even if the INC does'nt have a site doesn't mean an INC article is not unencyclopedic. 2)If there pages for Mormonism, Adventists, and others etc why can't there be one for INC(?).3) It is a major (Filipino ) denomination. If a non-Filipino would like to know about Filipino society especially the religuous climate, it would be good to know about INC. INC, Jeepney, Ninoy, etc are a bit representative of Filipino psyche, society, culture, etc.--Jondel 06:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Foreign languages not an advocacy tool!:The reason I translated it is to give an idea to non -filipinos(foreigners) an idea about filipino society and culture. I am translating other articles which are representative such as jeepney, tagalog language, carabao,etc.--Jondel 10:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Worship Service section

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)

Semi-protected article

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)

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo/Archive_10&oldid=1136270614"