Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo

Archived versions

• 05-30-2005

Con link removal vote (Closed)

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

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

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

Resolution

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

Discussion

I have to say that the Bereans link seemed to me the most informativ of the antis and I say that as someone not remotely sympathetic to the Bereans POVDejvid 10:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I have to say that you should read my vote carefully. I am saying the forums. Ealva 15:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the forums should stand, after all, they are places where people can discuss the INC, and I'm pretty sure people have enough sense to wade through some of the truly absurd posts from both sides there. --Onlytofind 20:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

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

• Although its not a site, it's still a link regardless. As a matter of fact, it's the best pro link on there, since the only best way to get accurate information about INC is to contact the INC themselves. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 20:48, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Then why not put it in a separate section - for it is not a 'pro' site in any real sense. It is an e-mail address and that's all. It belongs in a separate section.--gcessor 06:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Once again, although it's not a pro site, it is a pro link or in this case an external resource. It's a link which in essence is in favor of INC. It would be awesome if Manalo allows [1] to become active, so we can replace the email address. But at this point, it's the best thing we have to an actual site resource, since INC appearently doesn't allow unofficial sites from members. I thought at first if the email address was a good idea as a link, just like you are. But after some thought, I think it's good where it is. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 08:29, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, good explanation. I'll live with that.--gcessor 20:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

A different route to resolution

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

• agree --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 13:44, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

The how to talk to a Iglesia ni Cristo member makes it quickly clear that Iglesia ni Cristo is has an Arian view on the Trinity. That was far less clear on the other sitesDejvid 22:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The other sites plainly say that we do not believe that Jesus is God, the 'same' God as our Father. That should be quite enough to label us with 'Arianism' in your view without ever having to say the word.--gcessor71.32.86.239 14:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Arianism

The INC holds Arius in high regard in its lessons and has referred to him as the only one with the truth compared to the Nicean Council. Why are the INC members insulted by a mention of Arianism? I don't know though, whether the INC would agree with Arius' teachings regarding whether Jesus Christ was born with his powers or given to them after birth. --Onlytofind 02:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Give it up, Onlytofind. You lost the vote - and what you do not understand is that we're not insulted by the 'mention of Arianism'...it simply doesn't apply to us because Arian also believed at the time of the Nicean Council that the Catholic church was the true Church. And FYI, there was no belief in the 'trinity' at that time, for the Holy Spirit had not been 'officially' declared God by the Catholics until some 70 years later...and you are upholding this Catholic tradition.--gcessor71.32.86.239 13:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

But Arianism is normally applied to those who share the same view of the relationship between the father and the son. It doesn't normally imply sharing the same line as Arian as to which organization is the correct church. Has there been a vote to exclude the description of Arian or something? I really didn't know it was so controversial.Dejvid 15:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

It is only controversial to those who want to use 'Arianism' as a label, insinuating that it is not true 'Christianity'. As I said, 'Arianism' cannot apply to us because he also believed at the time of the Nicean Council that the Catholic church was the true Church. Because of that, Arian cannot be associated with the Church of Christ in any way. It is this difference that those who want to throw around the 'Arianism' label simply don't understand.--gcessor71.32.86.239 20:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this still related to one of the doctrines? I think we agreed some time ago not to get into detail with the doctrines, because it causes disputes. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 08:04, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my original statement which I placed in the article. I can say before the sight of God that Iglesia ni Cristo lessons have portrayed Arius (not Arian) in a favorable light, and the ministers have claimed him as an instrument of truth against the Nicean Council (paraphrased, but you get the gist). Do they or do they not? I'm not looking for a theological discussion, I want you to answer me, before everyone here and before God, am I telling the truth or not?--Onlytofind 21:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm don't know, did they actually mention Arius during bible studies? Do you think it's notable enough to be put on the article tho, since it looks like a comparison IMO. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 01:25, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Arian also believed that the RCC was the true Church, and so his system of belief cannot be applied to the INC. Also, please be aware that you don't have to state that all your declarations are in the sight of/before God, because everything we say and do is in the sight of/before God anyway.--gcessor 19:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Discussion Forums

• I would like to propose the restoration of the link to the Network54 forum 70210 which was recently deleted back to the discussion forum link section. I have seen topics posted there which were deleted on the INC member-moderated boards without explanation and is probably the most visited out of the INC forums, and although not moderated- allows for the most liberal and frank discussion of the INC. --Onlytofind 07:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that the 70213 forum is in the top three most-active forums, after the 84590 forum and the Bereans' forum...but it's full of crude insults and profanity because it is unmoderated. There is a real possibility that when people follow a link to that forum, they might realize that the majority of the profanity and insults come from the side of the detractors, which would help us--71.32.86.239 14:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Let's not forget about the reality distortion field surrounding the pro-INC crowd, such as ETE and friends. I think anyone interested in the INC would reconsider after reading their posts.--Onlytofind 02:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
      • And now we have a 'reality distortion field' surrounding us. That's three insults by you on this page I've found this morning - and I remember how you berated me for ONE comment that you took as an insult.--gcessor71.32.86.239 13:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Once again, here we go with the double standards. You're going to accuse the INC detractors of doing the majority of insults at the forums when it's mainly the pro-INC crowd behind all this bickering. I've already tried to maintain decorum in my debate, and even stood with you in that Discover fiasco. But it seems that you have to insult every INC detractor, along with your assistant Emico and think that you're justified in doing so since I'm the lone INC detractor who frequently edits this article. That's the entire reason I'm here- to prevent tyranny of the majority. --Onlytofind 04:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
          • I "have to insult every INC detractor"??? Better back that up with facts and references, for you have falsely accused me YET AGAIN. Go back to my posts on the Bereans forum or on the 84590 or 70213 forums, and try to Google insults I have made, even in the face of literally HUNDREDS of insults by detractors. Know what you'll find? Rebukes - light rebukes, strong rebukes (even against my own brethren) - but I think you'd find PERHAPS five insults, and you'd also find sincere apologies that followed them. Looks like we're going to have another long, LONG discussion here waiting for you to prove your accusation that I "insult every INC detractor". That's one reason I'm here - to ensure you back up your accusations with proof--gcessor 17:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Well, I dunno. I've seen the forum myself and a lot of it's either bickering. What percentage of that forum's posts are actually useful? --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 11:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • There are usually many useful and relevant discussions at that forum, which are unfortunately overpowered by some rotten apples (on both sides). I would like to add it back, because as it stands now, there are two forums moderated by INC members and one which is not. I think it would add balance to the discussion section.--Onlytofind 02:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • But do you feel anybody who reads this article would want to wade through the garbage posts? I'd rather have moderated forums. That's the point. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 08:04, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • You are mistaken, Onlytofind. The 84590 forum is moderated by Gordon Cancio, a Catholic and a longtime INC detractor. The Bereans' site is of course moderated by detractors, and the sole remaining Network54 forum listed is the only one moderated by an INC member, RS. --gcessor71.32.86.239 13:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Then why does the forum's description clearly state: "Lastly, I'm an INC." I don't doubt you that Cancio moderates that forum, but why? If that's the case, shouldn't you go and tell him to delete that? --Onlytofind 04:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Because the owner of the forum is an INC - but the owner is NOT the moderator. Perhaps you are unaware that there are those who are able to separate their faith from their professional duty. Gordon is one such man who is able to be fair, firm, and impartial - even when his fellow Catholics insult him and call him a 'false ecumenist'. Those of us who understand the concept of 'fair, firm, and impartial' (also known as 'professionalism') know it when we see it.--gcessor 17:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
          • And you wonder why this discussion page is as bad as it is?--Onlytofind 21:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• I also would like to add a link. I'm still in the process of creating it but what it will contain basically will be the same stuff you will see on the forum on Network54. I will, of course, not put my name on it but will be anonymous as the other forums. It will be a la thebereans.net. I'm thinking of calling it liarandthelyingliars.com.
  • You've gotta be kidding me. Just make your point before others try to figure out what it is.
    • What happened, emico? Was RabidINCFanboys.com already registered? You really need to get back on your medication before you hurt yourself or someone else.Onlytofind 02:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Onlytofind, didn't you accuse me of insulting you? I said that those with good reading comprehension could easily see how I had said we DID charge for the Pasugo at one time, but not now (after you had implied that I was posting a lie)...and you accused me of insulting you and calling you illiterate. And then you post the above.
        • I stand by my insults, while you beat around the bush and did everything short of outright insulting me and ran around stating that since you didn't outright try to insult me, it wasn't an insult at all. I take it that from your reply, you don't mind the insults on the Bereans or any other religions but when factual criticism is put up against the INC, you and emico make it seem like it's the world against the INC, who both of you think obviously do nothing wrong against people of other faiths while you believe that all INC detrators have to play by "your standards". Say what you want, the truth is obvious.Onlytofind 04:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
          • But an insult is still a personal attack. You know Wikipedia doesn't allow that. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 08:04, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
          • Insults on forums are a form of freedom of speech (and may be subject to moderation, of course), but insults on ENCYCLOPEDIAE are not acceptable. Please understand the difference. And FYI, I DO mind the insults. I DO take offense when someone posts perverted insults concerning my close family - but I will NOT allow myself to sink to the same level! There's a REASON why Jesus said to turn the other cheek, Onlytofind. It would help you to understand that God watches what you do, too. Lastly, the "rules" on this ENCYCLOPEDIA are set by the admins, and not by me or any other user, INC or not.--gcessor 17:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
            • Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I hope that you're not accusing me about insulting your family, because I have never done such a thing to you, and I sincerely hope that you're not trying to accuse me of being Discoverer again.--Onlytofind 21:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
              • I never said you insulted my family (the ones who did were squidd, Voiceinthewilderness, discoverer, and RSP) - I said that even though some detractors did so, I did not allow myself to sink to the same level and fire back insults in return. And if you'll remember, I gave a sincere apology for thinking you were 'discoverer'. You see, when I find I am wrong about something, I feel it's right to apologize - even if I don't like at all the one I'm apologizing to.--gcessor 19:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
                • FWIW, I love you, Ealva and Emico even though we find ourselves in heated disagreement, and I pray that God enlightens us all. (Matthew 5:46)--Onlytofind 20:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Have you noticed how someone from nowhere pops in here talking about arianism, and then right on cue, only to find adds arianism on the discussion? interesting. Emico 07:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I seen it too. Since there's no source backing up the Arianism claim, I would have reverted it as well. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 11:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Emico, I wish that I could reply to your comment, except that I can't understand your atrocious grammar.--Onlytofind 02:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Emico, I think Onlytofind's "strongly implying" that you are illiterate!--gcessor71.32.86.239 13:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Not another ridiculous "illiteracy" argument. For the good of this article, and everybody editing it. Please take it somewhere else. I'm begging you. It only causes needless purges. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 08:04, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
          • Sorry, LBMixPro - it's just that it bugs me when someone complains about what he believes is an insult, and then uses even stronger language insulting someone else.

--gcessor 17:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • • I see. But it still fills this place with useless bickering, which leads nowhere. Hopefully this article should help. Glenn, please don't bait the wikipedians.--LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 05:54, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Folks...

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

• Well said, Riquall (and to answer your question, AFAIK it doesn't matter). I would further point out that while those who insult are wrong, those who see those insults and use them as an excuse to hurl their own insults are equally wrong. It's not easy, but I remember being on the receiving end of insults for years on the 84590 forum - and such attacks included lies posted about my family. I finally left the forum when those who were attacking me began posting my personal information. What's the point? While I rebuked time after time after time those who insulted me, I did NOT lower myself to their level and start hurling insults of my own. Sometimes I made judgmental statements in those rebukes, but they were never meant as insults. What is important about this? If I can withstand hundreds and hundreds (no exaggeration!) of insults, perhaps those who complain about being insulted can say to themselves that they can achieve the same level of conduct. It ain't easy....--gcessor71.32.86.239 13:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Friendly reminder, Glenn- sign in before you perform any edits to the article so that your username can properly be accredited and that you can use the talk page to solve any disputes. I also request for you to read the comment posted by Rlquall at my talk page User_talk:Onlytofind. --Onlytofind 05:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Simply put, I heartily agree with the comment Rlquall left here, and from now on, I promise to only discuss matters relating to this article here in this section and refer all irrelevant discussion to Wikipedia sysops or personal user talkpages. I hope that the other major contributors to this article will join me in doing the same.--Onlytofind 05:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks Rquall. About your INC or InC question. I think we should name it to whatever is written on the signs of the locales. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 20:31, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• From the chapels I've seen, the name of the church is always written in all caps (IGLESIA NI CRISTO), but in the magazine, it is continuously referred to as the "Iglesia ni Cristo."--Onlytofind 05:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Well if that's what INC calls itself, then that's what it is. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 08:04, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it's Iglesia ni Cristo with a small n as it's used in God's Message. That usage better applies in articles, as opposed to IGLESIA NI CRISTO whose only usage is for the chapel signs. Iglesia ni Kristo with a K I've only seen in quite a few really old newspapers. Ealva 08:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • INC is the correct acronym. I have never seen "InC" used anywhere. Ealva 08:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

INC central office

Anybody care to merge the info from INC's central office article to the central office sub section here? I mean, that notice looks ugly on the page. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 08:04, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know how to merge information, but I've already integrated the information into that section. Would it be OK to delete the notice now, or is there something else to be done so that the Central Office page reverts to this article?--Onlytofind 21:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• • This task seems to have been done properly. Rlquall 23:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Why we can never reach consensus regarding this article

I quote from Rlquall left on my user talk page:

"Apparently I am the only admin (to date) with a great interest in the INC article. As previously stated, I am neither a member nor a former member of this group, but rather someone interested in learning truthful and objective facts about it and other Christian-related groups (and other religious bodies, for that matter). I think that our problem here results from some followers, whom I will give the benefit of the doubt as being well-meaning, whose world-view is so shaped by that of their church that they see it as The One True Path to Heaven, and feel that this viewpoint is no longer a point of faith but rather a matter of fact. From this perspective, everything about the church is good and any dissent or questioning is evil. (Of course I don't know because I don't know you, but assume that this attitude was at least part of the reason for your being a former member). We will continue to work on this as practicable, as time permits. Of course, I do have other interests besides Wikipedia (everyone should remember that we on the admin side are getting paid exactly what you are for your contributions) and also Wikipedia interests other than the INC article. That having been said, I'll see what I can do. If you can attract the interest of admins of higher status and longer standing than I, please involve them as well." Rlquall 11:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)--Onlytofind 21:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• I understand and respect the right of the Iglesia ni Cristo members to believe in the way they want, and I'm sure that the INC members know that I disagree with them, that is why until now, we severely disagree on the direction of this article. I propose that from now on, we keep this page relevant to edits and developments regarding this article and keep it focused on deciding if the information proposed by one user should be integrated into this article or not.--Onlytofind 21:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• We should also discuss anything in the article which anyone of us might not find NPOV so that we can take a further consensus in that we can find a compromise editing this article into a version which is acceptable to everyone and abiding under Wikipedia rules, so that all of us can stop spending so much time here :)--Onlytofind 21:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I see what you're recommending - and I see that the recommendation came six minutes after you insinuated wrongdoing by me again. I responded above, and kept it nice. I'll keep the rest of my reply for the other talk page.--gcessor 19:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
    • So we can start turning the wheel, I'll apologize for all actions on my behalf which are not befitting of the Wikipedia or Christianity and pledge to keep every action related to the article.--Onlytofind 21:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Assistance needed on the Felix Manalo, Erano Manalo and Eduardo Manalo Articles

I am asking for everyone to please take a look at those articles and see if we can improve them as well as protect them from Emico, who has been found in violation of the rules of the Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Emico.

Motivation and Intention

I question the motivation and intention of Onlytofind and lbmixpro with regards to their entries on the following articles Iglesia ni Cristo, Felix Manalo, Erano Manalo, Eduardo Manalo and Bereans. They colluded to get around Wikipedia rules. Emico 15:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Both claim to be former members of the INC but fought hard to keep a webpage link to this article which was critical of the INC. This particular article contained an issue in which all current and former INC can attest to not being factual. By this alone, it can be safely assumed that they have a biased opinion against the INC. Emico 21:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Give it up, buddy. Ever notice why nobody's taking you seriously?--Onlytofind 20:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• My motivation and intention of the INC article has always been the same. Just as I told the first person who felt I was biased against INC, e. lantaran, back in March: "No, I don't have any animosity against INC. All I want is this to be an informative, non biased article, and I've been trying to make it that over the past week or so." After a while, this same e. lantaran asked who was going to remove the "sect" reference from the article. Who was the one who did? If we can go even further back in time, back when I made my first edit to the article. I noticed a negative bias against INC. So I was the first to actually call out a point of view dispute and opened the talk page for the first time. I have nothing but good intentions for this article. That will not change, no matter what anybody thinks of me. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 07:16, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Can you please mention this "website link" in which you write of. We, the main editors of this article (Ealva, Glenn, Onlytofind, I, etc..) need to discuss this link, since the only conclusion about the links section was to limit each point of view to 3 links maximum. We haven't gone into detail about these links. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 07:16, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

No Verifiable source cited

No verifiable source for the contents of this article. The intention and motivation of the contributors is suspect. Beware of misinformation. Emico 16:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Verifiable by whom? What can be verified online has been verified. I think the main point you're post is conveying can be why INC doesn't allow its members to post information about INC online. But if you think something which hasn't been verified (sections other that Politics) is inaccurate. Don't be afraid to fix it. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 22:52, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• • Let me ask you. Why do you want sources for the Berean article and NOT for the INC article? What's good for the gander, etc. Emico 22:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • What does this have to do with the Berean article, Brother Emico? The bereans appearently have an official Website, the INC doesn't. Therefore, it's more difficult to get sources for the INC article. If you want, use the mailto link at the INC article, and ask them to verify the information here. But based on what I seen as a member of INC, I know CWS, Binhi, KADIWA and the Buklod exist. There are 28 doctorines, cuz I remember getting a card as an inductee which had 28 different fields for minsters to sign when I understood the lesson. Does "LOUD AND CLEAR AT THE SAME TIME!!" sound familiar? I know about the sports events and GEMs. My locale hosted a sports event when I was there, and one of my INC ministers convinced a pastor at a Southern Baptist church I was a member of to change some of his beliefs about Christmas. Your GEMs work. I know there's a magazine called "God's Message" which I recieved myself. Although I don't know the current state of that magazine. Just because I agree with 85% of INC's teachings, doesn't mean I want discredit INC for the other 15%. My point remaining I want more sources for the INC article.

If anybody who reads this is a member, can you try to get through to the administration to establish an official site? --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 23:30, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• The administration already owns the domain (inc.org.ph). There has been speculation as early as 1998 that the Iglesia ni Cristo would set up a website, but those plans were scuttled "as to prevent the spread of misinterpretation," according to an officer I was acquainted with. --Onlytofind 01:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)