Talk:Brother Yun

Untitled

his name is Liu Zhenying. it says it in the book

The article says he's been accused of heterodox. Someone probably should cite a reference there.

The claim of going without food and water for 74 days cannot possibly be factual - human being need water much sooner than that!

Having read his book, he did not say that he went 74 days without water, only without food. And of course humans need food much sooner than that as well, he clearly admits this. He claims it was a miracle. Obviously whether one believes that or not depends on if one comes from a modernist or supernaturalist point of view. It would be, of course, perfectly fair to say that people don't accept this statement as being true – that is, if you can find notable instances of people openly disputing it. There have been notable complaints against Yun from a Chineese man working under the pseudonym of Titus Pan... you could probably look there. Thanatosimii 22:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I realized today part was wrong. The rest stands though. Titus Pan is the most notable road road to go down. Thanatosimii 22:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but what's with all the "citation needed" tags? Isn't it clear that that is what his book claims? Simply cite the book then! On the claim of fasting for 74 days: (not to be biting now but) it doesn't matter if you think its factual or not. That's what Yun's book says. Wikipedia is only here to give a summary of what other sources of information say (i think). -HannesJvV- (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It is what the book about Yun claims. Still, a citation showing this as the only source for this dramatic claim needs to be added per WP:V for the burden of evidence of verifiability.Brian0324 (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

POV on Christian Orthodoxy

In the Controversy section:

"Yun comes from the so-called ‘Born Again’ movement which is widely regarded by many house-church leaders in China as extreme, if not a heretical departure from Christian orthodoxy."

Is the Chinese Born Again movement different from the mainstream thinking on the words 'born again' which is accepted as orthodoxy in most churches? Churches define it differently, some as a lifelong process, others as a single definitive moment in life and some others as a defined period in which th person crosses the line from unbeliever to believer.

Isn't the above sentence in the article POV? Moreover it does nto cite any references. I suggest removing this.

Wayfaringstranger1976 (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

See Born Again Movement (China) for a clearer presentation of the difference between this Chinese movement and the common Evangelical understanding of "born-again". I have also provided a source for this assertion by many Chinese house church leaders.Brian0324 (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"Claims" is a problematic word

From my reading, the word "claim" is used 5 times in this very short article. While I have read some of Brother Yun's accounts, and some of the accounts do seem unbelievable, the burden of proof that these accounts are false lies with any detractors. Using his autobiography as a reference source is not an acceptable substantiation of these accounts. However, presenting the accounts as facts is acceptable. We don't use the word "claims" in articles that are pure myth, but present the mythic material as fact.

While I agree with the comments about his 74 day fast in the comment below being impossible, I also would refuse to deny that "impossible" things can occur. We certainly have not seen all things that can occur, and have not listed things that can not occur.

Furthermore, Brother Yun has substantiated his accounts with testimony of several of his prison mates, so miraculous or myth, I believe we owe it to the subject to present his material as fact until the detractors compile their case.

"Claims" is a problematic word

From my reading, the word "claim" is used 5 times in this very short article. While I have read some of Brother Yun's accounts, and some of the accounts do seem unbelievable, the burden of proof that these accounts are false lies with any detractors. Using his autobiography as a reference source is not an acceptable substantiation of these accounts. However, presenting the accounts as facts is acceptable. We don't use the word "claims" in articles that are pure myth, but present the mythic material as fact.

While I agree with the comments about his 74 day fast in the comment below being impossible, I also would refuse to deny that "impossible" things can occur. We certainly have not seen all things that can occur, and have not listed things that can not occur.

Furthermore, Brother Yun has substantiated his accounts with testimony of several of his prison mates, so miraculous or myth, I believe we owe it to the subject to present his material as fact until the detractors compile their case. 71.208.92.201 (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• The burden of proof is with Liu Zhenying. Reliable sources should be established before presenting the autobiographical claims of one man as fact.Brian0324 (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)