This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is an archived version of the talk page. Please see talk:Iglesia ni Cristo for the latest topics.
I would like to inform Glenn and Emico, that through my discussions with other Wikipedians, their posts regarding this topic, and in accordance with Wikipedia rules, that there is absolutely no formal concensus or law upholding the informal poll we took where we compromised on having the links 3/3.
I would also like to inform everyone that it was my idea to initiate the poll, because at the time, Glenn Cessor and I were engaged in a revert war and Glenn stated that he wanted the article to be written to "his conditions," which he found "reasonable." I initiated the poll to try and keep the uneasy peace we had at the time, and back then, the only member taking part who had no prior association with the INC was Rlquall. There were only five editors really involved with the article at the time, myself, LBMixPro, a former indoctrinee, and gcessor, Emico and Ealva, INC members, which made this a kangaroo election with the lack of any contributors not affiliated with the INC and the majority of voters being INC members.-- Onlytofind 18:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Macapagal website is not an official source published by the Macapagal family, but by one "liambautista@gmail.com," who is obviously an admirer or the Macapagals. And the quote included by Emico from the Inquirer, only speaks about the faith of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and not necessarily about her father.
On further analysis, it is not the actual words of Diosdado Macapagal, but composed through biographies by the site owner to make it look as if it is actually him speaking. In light of this information, I have omitted the quote, and have changed the sentence to the hopefully more-neutral: "Arroyo's father, Diosdado Macapagal, due to his religious and political views, refused INC's preferred support during his runs for Vice President in 1957" while keeping the source link at the end.-- Onlytofind 20:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As I try to edit this page, there's a sign that says "This page is 106 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." It's also harder to read through this long talk page. Who here feels we should separate the talk page into different sub-pages? For example, we can have a talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/links for the discussion of the links page, talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/politics for the politics section, etc. I've seen it work with other active talk pages.
Raygirvan has made the excellent suggestion to rewrite this article more along the lines of the Scientology article, with both the pro and con sides making their points in this article. I think it would be good for this article, as it would give more space to explain the church's doctrine and beliefs further, and a section explaining the issues some might have with their practices. This would truly be NPOV, because right now, there isn't any information on the origins of the INC in this article, the reason they believe why they do and further information on their practices. And a section focused on criticism would make all viewpoints heard, and make this article what I believe most everyone would want it to be: a place where one can hear all factual information about the INC and truly NPOV, in the vein of: "NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past."-- Onlytofind 02:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Emico has taken to changing my original title of "Origins of the Iglesia ni Cristo" to "Felix Manalo's Early Life." I tried to make my first edit sympathetic enough without being POV, and I believe that the revised title doesn't exactly give enough background, and I've changed it to "Early History of the Iglesia ni Cristo" which I hope is agreeable to everyone. I also deleted the obnoxious italicizing of the word "founded" by Emico. I understand that the INC believes that Felix Manalo reestablished the first Church founded by Jesus, but I'm sure we can agree that the INC (as an organization) has beginnings and I would think that implying "Felix Manalo established the Iglesia ni Cristo (after all if you reestablish something, you've established it again) which the INC believes is the reestablishment of the first Church founded by Jesus." would be neutral and sympathetic. What is everyone's opinion?-- Onlytofind 16:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've wondered this to the time back when I was an INC Member, but never got around to asking. If the officers make up the church administration, such as the deacons and ministers, do the choir members, financial officers and the secretariats make up the administration too, even though their positions are largely non-administrative?-- Onlytofind 16:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I made explicit the doctrine that Jesus is not God. This is necessary, since mainstream Christians also believe that Jesus is a man. DJ Clayworth 17:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I added a disclaimer to both Erano Manalo and Felix Manalo that "Some sources claim that Felix Manalo founded the Iglesia ni Cristo, but he did not claim to be its founder. The official stance of the INC maintains that Mr. Manalo was sent by God to reestablish the first Church established by Jesus and that the Iglesia ni Cristo is the direct descendant of that organization." I think my edit was NPOV to both sides, and Emico once again shows his complete lack of fairness and objectivity. He has also made an unfounded claim on the Eduardo Manalo page that the author of a book was biased against the INC which is totally baseless. Now that progress is going through on this page, I suggest that all who are watching this page watch those three also in order to protect them from Emico sneaking in baseless allegations and personal opinion.-- Onlytofind 20:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would also like to get a consensus whether reverting these pages from Emico's obviously biased edits would count as a revert from vandalism- because of the severe lack of objectivity.-- Onlytofind 20:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Emico graciously used some of his precious time to vandalize this article once again, deleting the phrase "Until 2000, the INC also distributed lists of supported candidates for elections in the United States." which he considered to be "POV." I already discussed this with Mr. Cessor, the only other member at the time, to my knowledge who is residing in the U.S and we both agreed that the last occurence of this occurring was 1998, and being there no elections in 1999, this statement is true.-- Onlytofind 04:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note to self: Continue ignoring the trolls. -- Emico 15:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Will the more exprerienced of the WP members explain to me what happened on this edit history page: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Iglesia_ni_Cristo&diff=15460839&oldid=15460363
The reason I ask is that it looks to me like Onlytofind added a line about a report about FYM stealing a turkey...and then the next edit on the edit history page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Iglesia_ni_Cristo&action=history) contains this quote by Onlytofind: "Emico, you are not the judge on factuality for this article. Why not let Ealva and Glenn take a look at this? Also removed turkey accusation for lack of proof and dubious necessity." gcessor 04:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Onlytofind removed the 'factual dispute' notice, which is what his talk message was about. Only, it does look as though you added rather than deleted the turkey line. Possibly it was a mistake? DJ Clayworth 05:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It seems a user who goes by the IP address of 203.190.89.130 added that turkey statement along with other unfounded statements. Judging from the edit history [1], he seems to be a member of Ang Dating Daan, another religious group in the Philippines who's at odds with the INC for quite some time. Ealva 06:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We've got a few vandals here:
Beware of their edits. Ealva 06:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A lot of new information added but no sources cited. -- Emico 13:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) 1. First time I heard of Mr Manalo's involvement with 'spiritist'. Please cite source. -- Emico 14:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Here's a question for Glenn and Ealva- We all know that Iglesianicristo.us is a spoof site, but the article here, it seems mostly factual and taken from the Pasugo (aside from the sneaked in POV). Would it be safe to use this as a reference for FYM's former religions? [ [6]]-- Onlytofind 21:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speaking of the inc.us site, is there any other source online which is similar to the page in question? If so, best use that. - LBMixPro (Speak on it!) 15:00, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
2. Please cite your source on being atheist. Google is not as helpful as only detractors pages say this. Thanks. Also, I'd appreciate it if you will post your response before removing the dispute tag. You added a lot of stuff and I'm still trying to go through it now. -- Emico 23:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. Please cite source for your claim and implication that Mr Manalo's had anti-colonialism ideals when he started his ministry. And prove your implication that his motivation are not purely religious. -- Emico 00:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. Background Info - most of this is new to me. The '3 days' part I heard about but not the many religions Mr Manalo studied. Please cite source. -- Emico 14:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. Politics - Please cite source on your claim that the INC gives out a list of candidates to vote for. -- Emico 14:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
5. Semantics?. origin vs. started his mission. I'll revisit this when I have time. -- Emico 15:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why don't you show your sources on the Bereans and Creationism? Oh, that's right, those were your own personal opinions.--Onlytofind 09:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Onlytofind, if you cannot cite a source other than your own experience that the INC Administration rendered guidance for elections after 1996, then it must be deleted IAW Wiki rules. I'm not trying to start a war here, but let's follow the rules for citations, please.-- gcessor 22:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So what's the problem with the descriptor " nontrinitarian"? It's accurate, isn't it? If we're really going to quibble, small-c "unitarian" appears to be a standard neutral outside descriptor: Encyclopaedia Britannica and the ''Encyclopedia of new religions both use it. RayGirvan 11:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Emico, your problem with Nontrinitarianism as a label is that it does not describe the complete doctrine of your church. Well of course it doesn't. Saying it is a nontrinitarian church just describes an aspect of its teachings. You seem to equate Nontrinitarianism with Christian. That is a POV but not one Wiki can adopt. Dejvid 28 June 2005 15:37 (UTC)
Emico, by your own logic we shouldn't be calling anyone a member of the INC. Because even if it's true, it doesn't completely describe them. In fact, of course, it's perfectly normal to give a group a label if it accurately describes them, even if it isn't a complete description (which it never is). DJ Clayworth 28 June 2005 18:17 (UTC)
DJ, that's a weak argument. Member in itself is a "complete" description. Of course you can qualify it, but by itself, it is enough. The article
nontrinitarian on the other hand presumes that the trinity doctrine preceded the One True God doctrine, which is false according to the bible.
I hope this does'nt develop into a religious discussion. I should really stop here. --
Emico 28 June 2005 18:32 (UTC)
My point is that "member of INC" does not completely describe a person. They might also be a father, six foot tall, one-legged or whatever. So "member of INC" is not a complete description. But it is true. And no-one, I repeat, denies that monotheism came before Trinitarianism. Like I said, Jews are non-trinitarian, and they came before Christians. DJ Clayworth 28 June 2005 19:29 (UTC)
Point taken. But the article in it's present form still do not describe a belief similar or resembling the beliefs of INC, sufficeient enough to be used as a label for the INC.-- Emico 28 June 2005 19:55 (UTC)
The article describes many different kinds of beliefs, all of which are 'nontrinitarian'. Some of these beliefs include: 1) that Jesus is God, but not different from God the Father - just a different representation of him. 2) That Jesus was not God, just a divine messenger 3) That Jesus is a God, separate from God the Father.
Obviously no-one holds all of these beliefs at the same time. However as far as I can tell 2) pretty much sums up the INC belief. It's a belief shared by several different organisations, who have different reasons for believing it. Isn't that so? DJ Clayworth 30 June 2005 13:31 (UTC)
I did'nt want to go into specifics but here we go, let's start from the top. The article says Nontrinitarianism or antitrinitarianism is the doctrinal description applied to rejection of the Trinitarian doctrine. Though it is true that the INC rejects the trinity, this statement does not completely describe INC doctrines. We agree, 2) Origins and Basis will be the place where description of the INC doctrine. As it is now, it does not have anything close to what the INC believe in. -- Emico 30 June 2005 14:31 (UTC)
Like I said, nontrinitarian is not a complete description of INC beliefs, but it is true. You don't seem to have any problem with Christian, which is not a complete description of INC beliefs, but is true. For other people nontrinitarian is helpful because it says a lot about what INC believes in one word. DJ Clayworth 30 June 2005 15:41 (UTC)
Well, at the very least the article says Christian means "belonging to Christ", which describes all religion that profess to follow Christ, which includes the INC. The article nontrinitarian on the other hand and as I said above, do not describe the INC enough for her to fit the label. It would be good to have the description in the first paragraph of 1). Right now it does not fit because: though the article says Jesus is a messenger, it should also say Jesus is the Only begotten Son of God. The INC did not come from the ebionites, nor are they a protestant sect, so unitarian is out. and a few more. -- Emico 30 June 2005 17:40 (UTC)
Actually that belief is mentioned. It is Arianism (see below) which believes exactly that - that Jesus was the begotten son of God, but is lesser than God himself. Maybe we'll continue this discussion in the section below. DJ Clayworth 30 June 2005 21:23 (UTC)
Some point to Arianism as a doctrine bourne out of disagreement with the Trinity. That may be so. But the doctrine of a One True God, which Arianism seem to be in agreement with, existed even in the first book of the bible. -- Emico 28 June 2005 16:18 (UTC) As I This may be so and had there never been churches that adopted the Trinity it would be pointless to have the concept of nontrinitarianism as is a negative. Given that the overwhelming majority of churches come from a Trinitairian tradition ( to what extent they still all believe in it is another matter) it is notable that the Iglesia ni Cristo unambiguously rejects the Trinity. It is however not unique in this. Dejvid 28 June 2005 16:32 (UTC)
The first to adopt the doctrine of the trinity was the catholic church. Before that, there was no concept of the doctrine. The triune god concept was practiced by pagans, not only in the Roman Empire, but elsewhere. Sects which separated from the catholic church carried with them this trinity doctrine.
But going back to the
nontrinitarian label, I guess later on when we(contributors) can incorporate some basic doctrine of the INC in a separate section, then the label may be appropriate. --
Emico 28 June 2005 16:48 (UTC)
I read in to what you are saying that were it to be in the sentence it would look as if it was qualifying the description of the church as christian implying that as Nontrinitarian they were not fully christian. As long as it does not appear in the first sentence then I don't think this is true. Dejvid 29 June 2005 22:50 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't get what you mean. Perhaps you can elaborated. But to further clarify my point: as I said, the current nontrinitarian article talks about other religions, who's faith is not the same as the INC. Therefore, to lump the INC with these religions is COMPLETELY wrong, which follows that using this article to label the INC is also wrong and not factual. As I suggested, if the nontrinitarian article can be updated to describe the INC, then the label will be appropriate to use.
I will be reluctant to start making the additions because I don't have time right now.--
Emico 30 June 2005 00:33 (UTC)
And yet you are happy to lump it in with other religions under the label Christian? The nontrinitarian page says at the beginning "Though modern nontrinitarian groups all reject the doctrine of the Trinity, their views still differ widely on the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit." That should be clear. Dejvid 30 June 2005 16:52 (UTC)
Well, the definition of Christian is followers of Christ. (We may have opened another discussion here.) I hope you're not trying to say that anyone not believing in the doctrine of the trinity is not Christian. Nowhere in the bible can you find Christ teaching the trinity. He actually preach about a One True God.-- Emico 30 June 2005 17:11 (UTC)
Dejvid. Can I asked you what you know about the INC and where you got your knowledge of the INC. I am currently being indoctrinated, and was a previous member. Thanks.-- Emico 30 June 2005 17:47 (UTC)
Entirely though Wiki, following up the references and the debate here. But you do not dispute that the INC is opposed to the Trinity hence the difference between us is not about facts. To be quite honest I'm not sure what your objection is to the link to the nontrinitarian link. If it really is that you don't like that page then do some editing there. If you don't have the time well I'm sorry that isn't a good reason for cutting a link that is logical. Dejvid 30 June 2005 19:58 (UTC)
You have to agree then that I know more of the INC and it's doctrine and history than you. Up to this time and all the discussions where I pointed out my reason for objecting to the label you still ask what my objections are? We're you even considering my point? Your only reason for labeling the INC is because it does'nt believe in the trinity? Labeling something that it is not is wrong. What you're doing is akin to labeling all Muslims as terrorist just because the last big terrorist act was by done by people who were muslims.
May I ask what religion you belong to? So I can better understand where you're coming from. --
Emico 30 June 2005 20:42 (UTC)
I understand what you're getting at Emico. You think that because the article nontrinitarianism doesn't describe precisely the doctrines of INC it shouldn't be called that. But our point is that nontrinitarian refers to all Christians who reject the Trinity; they come in many different kinds. The INC is one of those kinds. Saying 'nontrinitarian' is helpful to people who want to know about INC because it tells them something important about it in one word. It's not meant to be a 'label' in the sense you mean. DJ Clayworth 30 June 2005 21:23 (UTC)
(Incidentally, I found a history mistake above. The doctrine of the Trinity was not unknown before the Council of Nicea. Christendom was divided between Trinitarians and Arians in roughly equal numbers. The Trinitarians prevailed in the discussion. That was all. DJ Clayworth 30 June 2005 21:33 (UTC))
Nontrinitarian is a negative blanket term to cover all christian groups that reject the trinity. INC rejects the trinity and is Christian. Therefore it is covered by the label of nontrinitarian, I concede you know more about the INC but the logic of that follows from things you do not dispute. Indeed you have taken a lot of trouble to confirm that the church does reject the trinity Dejvid 30 June 2005 23:28 (UTC)
Although one may think the INC's belief about Jesus are somewhat similar or resembling that of Arianism, this is not enough to assume that these two faith's are the same. So lumping them together is wrong too. Even more so when we don't know exactly what Arianism is all about since records of their belief were burned.
I disagree. Labeling a group with something we know is not descriptive of the group is wrong. Is'nt this similar to stereotyping? If we want to use a helpful label, "...does not believe in the trinity" is more precise and true.
The trinity did not exist as a Christian doctrine in the time of Christ and the apostles, as far as the bible is concerned. I believe it arose after the death of the apostles. I do agree that the trinitarians prevailed over the Arians, and Emperor Constantine had something to do with it.
I will probably not object to the label if the current article would describe what the INC is. The current article, if applied now, would imply that the INC belong to the unitarians. The unitarians are protestant sects, which the INC is not. I removed the wiki description of christian and added footnote so that we may settle and agree with this matter. --
Emico 1 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)
Because it useful to draw attention to simularities that exist. It is useful to say that two flowers are yellow even where they may be different shades. No one who uses the term Arianism of modern Christian groups has in mind that there is any continuity with Arius or that any of the groups exactly follow Arius's teachings. They certainly do not imply anything about doctrine of such groups on matters other that the relation between the father and Christ. Were Arius alive today, I have no doubt that he would regard the INC as sound on that issue (tho he might have the odd quibble) but he would regard the evangelicals as heretics.
I see you are also are now objecting to the wiki link to Christian. I'm a bit gob-smacked to see that. Links are one of the key features of Wiki and you should really contribute to those pages if you don't like them rather than deleting links. If the INC defines itself as Christian, as it does, it is lumping itself together with lots of evangelicals, Catholics an the like. There's no getting away from that. Dejvid 2 July 2005 22:47 (UTC)
While, as you say, links are key features of wiki, it is a disservice to do so if one knows the link is not correct, applicable to the subject or totally untrue.
Using labels is also sometimes propagates a disinformation. When one hears the word Arianism, what do they think of? It's the doctrine that was defeated by Trinitarianism, therefore it is the false doctrine? Is it really? Who knows now. The complete text were burned by Trinitarians. --
Emico 4 July 2005 08:10 (UTC)
"But it is true. And no-one, I repeat, denies that monotheism came before Trinitarianism. Like I said, Jews are non-trinitarian, and they came before Christians. DJ Clayworth 28 June 2005 19:29 (UTC)". I thought this statement and point is worthy to have it's own subsection. This is important in understanding the where the INC are coming from. -- Emico 28 June 2005 20:02 (UTC)
I did a few redirect fix-ups for the Felix, Erano, and Eduardo Manalo articles:
I hope this cleaned up the articles a bit. Ealva 02:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I followed the 'Truthfinder' link in this article, and I found the following statement: "That The Lord Jesus Christ is The Only True Cod And That He Is The Father, The Sim, And The Holy Ghost According To The Bibte.". I'm not joking, I copied that exactly. I can only conclude that this site is in fact a joke site, or that it has such a low level of proofreading as to effectively call into question anything else it says. This is not the sort of site that Wikipedia should be linking to. DJ Clayworth 18:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A note on a current edit. Emico's edit - "examining the INC's view of Evangelical's - quoted selectively. The actual phrase is "The purpose of this paper is to explore the INC’s view of Evangelicals and to consider whether we need to reassess our apologetic and evangelistic approach to this group" - so "examine the relationship" is a reasonable summary. RayGirvan 19:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ealva 20:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Re RayGirvan's link, here's a few things that are not accurate (emphasis mine):
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is an archived version of the talk page. Please see talk:Iglesia ni Cristo for the latest topics.
I would like to inform Glenn and Emico, that through my discussions with other Wikipedians, their posts regarding this topic, and in accordance with Wikipedia rules, that there is absolutely no formal concensus or law upholding the informal poll we took where we compromised on having the links 3/3.
I would also like to inform everyone that it was my idea to initiate the poll, because at the time, Glenn Cessor and I were engaged in a revert war and Glenn stated that he wanted the article to be written to "his conditions," which he found "reasonable." I initiated the poll to try and keep the uneasy peace we had at the time, and back then, the only member taking part who had no prior association with the INC was Rlquall. There were only five editors really involved with the article at the time, myself, LBMixPro, a former indoctrinee, and gcessor, Emico and Ealva, INC members, which made this a kangaroo election with the lack of any contributors not affiliated with the INC and the majority of voters being INC members.-- Onlytofind 18:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Macapagal website is not an official source published by the Macapagal family, but by one "liambautista@gmail.com," who is obviously an admirer or the Macapagals. And the quote included by Emico from the Inquirer, only speaks about the faith of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and not necessarily about her father.
On further analysis, it is not the actual words of Diosdado Macapagal, but composed through biographies by the site owner to make it look as if it is actually him speaking. In light of this information, I have omitted the quote, and have changed the sentence to the hopefully more-neutral: "Arroyo's father, Diosdado Macapagal, due to his religious and political views, refused INC's preferred support during his runs for Vice President in 1957" while keeping the source link at the end.-- Onlytofind 20:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As I try to edit this page, there's a sign that says "This page is 106 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." It's also harder to read through this long talk page. Who here feels we should separate the talk page into different sub-pages? For example, we can have a talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/links for the discussion of the links page, talk:Iglesia ni Cristo/politics for the politics section, etc. I've seen it work with other active talk pages.
Raygirvan has made the excellent suggestion to rewrite this article more along the lines of the Scientology article, with both the pro and con sides making their points in this article. I think it would be good for this article, as it would give more space to explain the church's doctrine and beliefs further, and a section explaining the issues some might have with their practices. This would truly be NPOV, because right now, there isn't any information on the origins of the INC in this article, the reason they believe why they do and further information on their practices. And a section focused on criticism would make all viewpoints heard, and make this article what I believe most everyone would want it to be: a place where one can hear all factual information about the INC and truly NPOV, in the vein of: "NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past."-- Onlytofind 02:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Emico has taken to changing my original title of "Origins of the Iglesia ni Cristo" to "Felix Manalo's Early Life." I tried to make my first edit sympathetic enough without being POV, and I believe that the revised title doesn't exactly give enough background, and I've changed it to "Early History of the Iglesia ni Cristo" which I hope is agreeable to everyone. I also deleted the obnoxious italicizing of the word "founded" by Emico. I understand that the INC believes that Felix Manalo reestablished the first Church founded by Jesus, but I'm sure we can agree that the INC (as an organization) has beginnings and I would think that implying "Felix Manalo established the Iglesia ni Cristo (after all if you reestablish something, you've established it again) which the INC believes is the reestablishment of the first Church founded by Jesus." would be neutral and sympathetic. What is everyone's opinion?-- Onlytofind 16:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've wondered this to the time back when I was an INC Member, but never got around to asking. If the officers make up the church administration, such as the deacons and ministers, do the choir members, financial officers and the secretariats make up the administration too, even though their positions are largely non-administrative?-- Onlytofind 16:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I made explicit the doctrine that Jesus is not God. This is necessary, since mainstream Christians also believe that Jesus is a man. DJ Clayworth 17:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I added a disclaimer to both Erano Manalo and Felix Manalo that "Some sources claim that Felix Manalo founded the Iglesia ni Cristo, but he did not claim to be its founder. The official stance of the INC maintains that Mr. Manalo was sent by God to reestablish the first Church established by Jesus and that the Iglesia ni Cristo is the direct descendant of that organization." I think my edit was NPOV to both sides, and Emico once again shows his complete lack of fairness and objectivity. He has also made an unfounded claim on the Eduardo Manalo page that the author of a book was biased against the INC which is totally baseless. Now that progress is going through on this page, I suggest that all who are watching this page watch those three also in order to protect them from Emico sneaking in baseless allegations and personal opinion.-- Onlytofind 20:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would also like to get a consensus whether reverting these pages from Emico's obviously biased edits would count as a revert from vandalism- because of the severe lack of objectivity.-- Onlytofind 20:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Emico graciously used some of his precious time to vandalize this article once again, deleting the phrase "Until 2000, the INC also distributed lists of supported candidates for elections in the United States." which he considered to be "POV." I already discussed this with Mr. Cessor, the only other member at the time, to my knowledge who is residing in the U.S and we both agreed that the last occurence of this occurring was 1998, and being there no elections in 1999, this statement is true.-- Onlytofind 04:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note to self: Continue ignoring the trolls. -- Emico 15:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Will the more exprerienced of the WP members explain to me what happened on this edit history page: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Iglesia_ni_Cristo&diff=15460839&oldid=15460363
The reason I ask is that it looks to me like Onlytofind added a line about a report about FYM stealing a turkey...and then the next edit on the edit history page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Iglesia_ni_Cristo&action=history) contains this quote by Onlytofind: "Emico, you are not the judge on factuality for this article. Why not let Ealva and Glenn take a look at this? Also removed turkey accusation for lack of proof and dubious necessity." gcessor 04:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Onlytofind removed the 'factual dispute' notice, which is what his talk message was about. Only, it does look as though you added rather than deleted the turkey line. Possibly it was a mistake? DJ Clayworth 05:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It seems a user who goes by the IP address of 203.190.89.130 added that turkey statement along with other unfounded statements. Judging from the edit history [1], he seems to be a member of Ang Dating Daan, another religious group in the Philippines who's at odds with the INC for quite some time. Ealva 06:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We've got a few vandals here:
Beware of their edits. Ealva 06:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A lot of new information added but no sources cited. -- Emico 13:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) 1. First time I heard of Mr Manalo's involvement with 'spiritist'. Please cite source. -- Emico 14:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Here's a question for Glenn and Ealva- We all know that Iglesianicristo.us is a spoof site, but the article here, it seems mostly factual and taken from the Pasugo (aside from the sneaked in POV). Would it be safe to use this as a reference for FYM's former religions? [ [6]]-- Onlytofind 21:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speaking of the inc.us site, is there any other source online which is similar to the page in question? If so, best use that. - LBMixPro (Speak on it!) 15:00, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
2. Please cite your source on being atheist. Google is not as helpful as only detractors pages say this. Thanks. Also, I'd appreciate it if you will post your response before removing the dispute tag. You added a lot of stuff and I'm still trying to go through it now. -- Emico 23:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. Please cite source for your claim and implication that Mr Manalo's had anti-colonialism ideals when he started his ministry. And prove your implication that his motivation are not purely religious. -- Emico 00:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. Background Info - most of this is new to me. The '3 days' part I heard about but not the many religions Mr Manalo studied. Please cite source. -- Emico 14:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. Politics - Please cite source on your claim that the INC gives out a list of candidates to vote for. -- Emico 14:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
5. Semantics?. origin vs. started his mission. I'll revisit this when I have time. -- Emico 15:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why don't you show your sources on the Bereans and Creationism? Oh, that's right, those were your own personal opinions.--Onlytofind 09:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Onlytofind, if you cannot cite a source other than your own experience that the INC Administration rendered guidance for elections after 1996, then it must be deleted IAW Wiki rules. I'm not trying to start a war here, but let's follow the rules for citations, please.-- gcessor 22:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So what's the problem with the descriptor " nontrinitarian"? It's accurate, isn't it? If we're really going to quibble, small-c "unitarian" appears to be a standard neutral outside descriptor: Encyclopaedia Britannica and the ''Encyclopedia of new religions both use it. RayGirvan 11:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Emico, your problem with Nontrinitarianism as a label is that it does not describe the complete doctrine of your church. Well of course it doesn't. Saying it is a nontrinitarian church just describes an aspect of its teachings. You seem to equate Nontrinitarianism with Christian. That is a POV but not one Wiki can adopt. Dejvid 28 June 2005 15:37 (UTC)
Emico, by your own logic we shouldn't be calling anyone a member of the INC. Because even if it's true, it doesn't completely describe them. In fact, of course, it's perfectly normal to give a group a label if it accurately describes them, even if it isn't a complete description (which it never is). DJ Clayworth 28 June 2005 18:17 (UTC)
DJ, that's a weak argument. Member in itself is a "complete" description. Of course you can qualify it, but by itself, it is enough. The article
nontrinitarian on the other hand presumes that the trinity doctrine preceded the One True God doctrine, which is false according to the bible.
I hope this does'nt develop into a religious discussion. I should really stop here. --
Emico 28 June 2005 18:32 (UTC)
My point is that "member of INC" does not completely describe a person. They might also be a father, six foot tall, one-legged or whatever. So "member of INC" is not a complete description. But it is true. And no-one, I repeat, denies that monotheism came before Trinitarianism. Like I said, Jews are non-trinitarian, and they came before Christians. DJ Clayworth 28 June 2005 19:29 (UTC)
Point taken. But the article in it's present form still do not describe a belief similar or resembling the beliefs of INC, sufficeient enough to be used as a label for the INC.-- Emico 28 June 2005 19:55 (UTC)
The article describes many different kinds of beliefs, all of which are 'nontrinitarian'. Some of these beliefs include: 1) that Jesus is God, but not different from God the Father - just a different representation of him. 2) That Jesus was not God, just a divine messenger 3) That Jesus is a God, separate from God the Father.
Obviously no-one holds all of these beliefs at the same time. However as far as I can tell 2) pretty much sums up the INC belief. It's a belief shared by several different organisations, who have different reasons for believing it. Isn't that so? DJ Clayworth 30 June 2005 13:31 (UTC)
I did'nt want to go into specifics but here we go, let's start from the top. The article says Nontrinitarianism or antitrinitarianism is the doctrinal description applied to rejection of the Trinitarian doctrine. Though it is true that the INC rejects the trinity, this statement does not completely describe INC doctrines. We agree, 2) Origins and Basis will be the place where description of the INC doctrine. As it is now, it does not have anything close to what the INC believe in. -- Emico 30 June 2005 14:31 (UTC)
Like I said, nontrinitarian is not a complete description of INC beliefs, but it is true. You don't seem to have any problem with Christian, which is not a complete description of INC beliefs, but is true. For other people nontrinitarian is helpful because it says a lot about what INC believes in one word. DJ Clayworth 30 June 2005 15:41 (UTC)
Well, at the very least the article says Christian means "belonging to Christ", which describes all religion that profess to follow Christ, which includes the INC. The article nontrinitarian on the other hand and as I said above, do not describe the INC enough for her to fit the label. It would be good to have the description in the first paragraph of 1). Right now it does not fit because: though the article says Jesus is a messenger, it should also say Jesus is the Only begotten Son of God. The INC did not come from the ebionites, nor are they a protestant sect, so unitarian is out. and a few more. -- Emico 30 June 2005 17:40 (UTC)
Actually that belief is mentioned. It is Arianism (see below) which believes exactly that - that Jesus was the begotten son of God, but is lesser than God himself. Maybe we'll continue this discussion in the section below. DJ Clayworth 30 June 2005 21:23 (UTC)
Some point to Arianism as a doctrine bourne out of disagreement with the Trinity. That may be so. But the doctrine of a One True God, which Arianism seem to be in agreement with, existed even in the first book of the bible. -- Emico 28 June 2005 16:18 (UTC) As I This may be so and had there never been churches that adopted the Trinity it would be pointless to have the concept of nontrinitarianism as is a negative. Given that the overwhelming majority of churches come from a Trinitairian tradition ( to what extent they still all believe in it is another matter) it is notable that the Iglesia ni Cristo unambiguously rejects the Trinity. It is however not unique in this. Dejvid 28 June 2005 16:32 (UTC)
The first to adopt the doctrine of the trinity was the catholic church. Before that, there was no concept of the doctrine. The triune god concept was practiced by pagans, not only in the Roman Empire, but elsewhere. Sects which separated from the catholic church carried with them this trinity doctrine.
But going back to the
nontrinitarian label, I guess later on when we(contributors) can incorporate some basic doctrine of the INC in a separate section, then the label may be appropriate. --
Emico 28 June 2005 16:48 (UTC)
I read in to what you are saying that were it to be in the sentence it would look as if it was qualifying the description of the church as christian implying that as Nontrinitarian they were not fully christian. As long as it does not appear in the first sentence then I don't think this is true. Dejvid 29 June 2005 22:50 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't get what you mean. Perhaps you can elaborated. But to further clarify my point: as I said, the current nontrinitarian article talks about other religions, who's faith is not the same as the INC. Therefore, to lump the INC with these religions is COMPLETELY wrong, which follows that using this article to label the INC is also wrong and not factual. As I suggested, if the nontrinitarian article can be updated to describe the INC, then the label will be appropriate to use.
I will be reluctant to start making the additions because I don't have time right now.--
Emico 30 June 2005 00:33 (UTC)
And yet you are happy to lump it in with other religions under the label Christian? The nontrinitarian page says at the beginning "Though modern nontrinitarian groups all reject the doctrine of the Trinity, their views still differ widely on the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit." That should be clear. Dejvid 30 June 2005 16:52 (UTC)
Well, the definition of Christian is followers of Christ. (We may have opened another discussion here.) I hope you're not trying to say that anyone not believing in the doctrine of the trinity is not Christian. Nowhere in the bible can you find Christ teaching the trinity. He actually preach about a One True God.-- Emico 30 June 2005 17:11 (UTC)
Dejvid. Can I asked you what you know about the INC and where you got your knowledge of the INC. I am currently being indoctrinated, and was a previous member. Thanks.-- Emico 30 June 2005 17:47 (UTC)
Entirely though Wiki, following up the references and the debate here. But you do not dispute that the INC is opposed to the Trinity hence the difference between us is not about facts. To be quite honest I'm not sure what your objection is to the link to the nontrinitarian link. If it really is that you don't like that page then do some editing there. If you don't have the time well I'm sorry that isn't a good reason for cutting a link that is logical. Dejvid 30 June 2005 19:58 (UTC)
You have to agree then that I know more of the INC and it's doctrine and history than you. Up to this time and all the discussions where I pointed out my reason for objecting to the label you still ask what my objections are? We're you even considering my point? Your only reason for labeling the INC is because it does'nt believe in the trinity? Labeling something that it is not is wrong. What you're doing is akin to labeling all Muslims as terrorist just because the last big terrorist act was by done by people who were muslims.
May I ask what religion you belong to? So I can better understand where you're coming from. --
Emico 30 June 2005 20:42 (UTC)
I understand what you're getting at Emico. You think that because the article nontrinitarianism doesn't describe precisely the doctrines of INC it shouldn't be called that. But our point is that nontrinitarian refers to all Christians who reject the Trinity; they come in many different kinds. The INC is one of those kinds. Saying 'nontrinitarian' is helpful to people who want to know about INC because it tells them something important about it in one word. It's not meant to be a 'label' in the sense you mean. DJ Clayworth 30 June 2005 21:23 (UTC)
(Incidentally, I found a history mistake above. The doctrine of the Trinity was not unknown before the Council of Nicea. Christendom was divided between Trinitarians and Arians in roughly equal numbers. The Trinitarians prevailed in the discussion. That was all. DJ Clayworth 30 June 2005 21:33 (UTC))
Nontrinitarian is a negative blanket term to cover all christian groups that reject the trinity. INC rejects the trinity and is Christian. Therefore it is covered by the label of nontrinitarian, I concede you know more about the INC but the logic of that follows from things you do not dispute. Indeed you have taken a lot of trouble to confirm that the church does reject the trinity Dejvid 30 June 2005 23:28 (UTC)
Although one may think the INC's belief about Jesus are somewhat similar or resembling that of Arianism, this is not enough to assume that these two faith's are the same. So lumping them together is wrong too. Even more so when we don't know exactly what Arianism is all about since records of their belief were burned.
I disagree. Labeling a group with something we know is not descriptive of the group is wrong. Is'nt this similar to stereotyping? If we want to use a helpful label, "...does not believe in the trinity" is more precise and true.
The trinity did not exist as a Christian doctrine in the time of Christ and the apostles, as far as the bible is concerned. I believe it arose after the death of the apostles. I do agree that the trinitarians prevailed over the Arians, and Emperor Constantine had something to do with it.
I will probably not object to the label if the current article would describe what the INC is. The current article, if applied now, would imply that the INC belong to the unitarians. The unitarians are protestant sects, which the INC is not. I removed the wiki description of christian and added footnote so that we may settle and agree with this matter. --
Emico 1 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)
Because it useful to draw attention to simularities that exist. It is useful to say that two flowers are yellow even where they may be different shades. No one who uses the term Arianism of modern Christian groups has in mind that there is any continuity with Arius or that any of the groups exactly follow Arius's teachings. They certainly do not imply anything about doctrine of such groups on matters other that the relation between the father and Christ. Were Arius alive today, I have no doubt that he would regard the INC as sound on that issue (tho he might have the odd quibble) but he would regard the evangelicals as heretics.
I see you are also are now objecting to the wiki link to Christian. I'm a bit gob-smacked to see that. Links are one of the key features of Wiki and you should really contribute to those pages if you don't like them rather than deleting links. If the INC defines itself as Christian, as it does, it is lumping itself together with lots of evangelicals, Catholics an the like. There's no getting away from that. Dejvid 2 July 2005 22:47 (UTC)
While, as you say, links are key features of wiki, it is a disservice to do so if one knows the link is not correct, applicable to the subject or totally untrue.
Using labels is also sometimes propagates a disinformation. When one hears the word Arianism, what do they think of? It's the doctrine that was defeated by Trinitarianism, therefore it is the false doctrine? Is it really? Who knows now. The complete text were burned by Trinitarians. --
Emico 4 July 2005 08:10 (UTC)
"But it is true. And no-one, I repeat, denies that monotheism came before Trinitarianism. Like I said, Jews are non-trinitarian, and they came before Christians. DJ Clayworth 28 June 2005 19:29 (UTC)". I thought this statement and point is worthy to have it's own subsection. This is important in understanding the where the INC are coming from. -- Emico 28 June 2005 20:02 (UTC)
I did a few redirect fix-ups for the Felix, Erano, and Eduardo Manalo articles:
I hope this cleaned up the articles a bit. Ealva 02:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I followed the 'Truthfinder' link in this article, and I found the following statement: "That The Lord Jesus Christ is The Only True Cod And That He Is The Father, The Sim, And The Holy Ghost According To The Bibte.". I'm not joking, I copied that exactly. I can only conclude that this site is in fact a joke site, or that it has such a low level of proofreading as to effectively call into question anything else it says. This is not the sort of site that Wikipedia should be linking to. DJ Clayworth 18:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A note on a current edit. Emico's edit - "examining the INC's view of Evangelical's - quoted selectively. The actual phrase is "The purpose of this paper is to explore the INC’s view of Evangelicals and to consider whether we need to reassess our apologetic and evangelistic approach to this group" - so "examine the relationship" is a reasonable summary. RayGirvan 19:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ealva 20:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Re RayGirvan's link, here's a few things that are not accurate (emphasis mine):