User talk:HopeChrist

Please use the rationale parameter to explain why this user talk page should be deleted. (E.g., {{db-g7|rationale= }}.) Thanks!

Per the User page guidelines, user talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons; however, exceptions to this can be and are made on occasion for good reason (see right to vanish). In addition, nonpublic personal information and potentially libellous information posted to your talk page may be removed by making a request for oversight.

An Autobiography of a Person in the Spirit

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article An Autobiography of a Person in the Spirit, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no links to the deletion discussion - either active or resolved! IMO the article should be kept based on my initial perusal. It is definitely notable and quite salvageable. Please let me know if there is an active discussion about this. Slofstra (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Watchman Nee

Regarding your contributions to Wikipedia about books by Watchman Nee:

My reason for deleting them was not that they do not meet our criteria for notability. In fact, based on our article on Mr Nee, it would be most appropriate for us to have articles about his books. However, what you submitted were...

...this is difficult to say. Your submissions were not coherent. They were so far from our recommended style for articles about books that I felt they could not be salvaged, and that the best solution was to delete them and start over.

I strongly suggest that you spend some more time reading our articles on other books, so as to get a better feel for the recommended style. I apologize for any hurt feelings this may have caused, but since you respect Mr Nee so much, you should understand how to properly document his books. DS (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The Economy of God

Why did you add the inappropriate tone tag to this article that you have almost entirely written yourself? Could you explain it on the Talk:The Economy of God? Thanks.Brian0324 (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an article on the Economy of God, a book on major teaching of W Lee. I am asked by an another wiki editor (Brian0324) to explain why I have added the tone tag when I myself have created/started this article.

The justifications are: 1. The first tone tag was added by RussBot (an application wiki software) on 1 April. (See history) So later I edited this article further and removed the tone tag when I felt that the article sounds like wiki now.

2. Although I contribute heavily on wiki but still I am comparatively a new editor here so I am learning a lot about writing on wikipedia. (for example: on the wiki page we have on watchman nee -- I recently saw major edits/changes by an another editor Brian0324) I studies his edits and learned a lot of things about the POV. So, to make this page on Economy of God a perfect wiki article I decide to just restore the "tone tag", which I myself removed few days back. As the tag is present on this page -- it might attract the interest of other editors and thus our article will get better.

3. I am learning quite fast about the usages of "red-flags word" on the wiki articles .. for eg, words like much, beloved, best, never, always, self-less, renound, .. etc are quickly deleted/changed . These words come under the overtly POV thing, no matter whether that is true or not, or factual or not. So I want this article to be reviewed by other editors on wiki community to make it appropriate for all the readers of wikipedia.

4. Finally, I would say, lets make this article better for everyone.

HopeChrist (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just restored the tone tag and have also changed the tone of this article significantly ... if anyone of you feel that the tone is ok or fine for wiki (which I think it is with few minor edits) , then feel free to remove the tone tag. I don't want to remove it myself (this time) unless no one takes the interest. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

About Watchman Nee

Hello HopeChrist,

Thank you for the personal message. I attempted to respond to most of your points on the Talk:Watchman Nee page. I am not an expert on Nee, nor do my edits reflect anything other than an adherence to Wikipedia policy regarding neutrality. I did remove several things that you added to the article about Watchman Nee, but these were apparently un-sourced opinions about him. I did not add any of my own POV to the article, but your contributions must be sourced and attributed properly so that the subject that you are so interested in can be presented in a fair and reliable way.

I'm not sure if I understand everything that you wrote to me, but I respect your civility and openness. I do not assume that someone in the Local Church is a cultist & I make no assumptions about your character. As with everyone on Wikipedia, our contributions speak for themselves and I think that it is easy to recognize how our faith motivates our work in some way. But my goal is to present the story of Christianity in China in a reliable and verifiable way that can be appreciated by anyone. When I see articles that display a Christian bias, I do attempt to bring them into conformity with Wikipedia's standards of neutrality - so that they can be better understood by Christian and non-Christian alike. All the best.Brian0324 (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Indian Christianity Wikiproject/workgroup

Upon discussion and consensus ( see here) , The following changes and decisions were taken w.r.t to Indian Christianity workgroup :-

• The scope of workgroup will be limited to Indian region only for now.
• The workgroup will be renamed to Christianity in India instead of Indian Christianity.
• The changes will effect the project pages, Portal and the templates.
• The templetes will be replaced by a Indian map instead of Tricolor flag picture.

This is FYI - Tinucherian (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

HopeChrist

You are one of the very few sold-out Christians writing on this site. If you go to many of the other WikiChristianity editors' User pages, you'll find many self-proclaimed, "Christians," whose lifestyles all are wildly off the tracks (of the Holy Scriptures). So, I'll look forward to writing and editing with you. Canihaveacookie(talk)

No.2 Wow! Praise the Lord! I was doing something on Wikipedia, and your message to me showed up on my screen. I got it minutes after you'd sent it, though my computer clock time is five hours behind your time. I'd forgotten I'd written to you. Thanks for writing back. While my "expertise" on certain subjects of interest to Christians isn't as extensive as yours, my expertise is in research, writing and editing. In Christ, Canihaveacookie(talk) 19:55, April 29, 2008 (UTC)

No.3 Brother, watch out for the wolves in sheep's clothing on Wikipedia. They are the ones who may even say they're "Christians" after they've "edited" you, though they might only be religious. But, I think they are on our pages just to neuter the truth and the glorious Gospel. However, here's a good word of advice. Even if it takes you extra time and zaps your strength, please source and cite every idea you put into an article. That way nobody who has a clear conscience would speak against your work and say it's just your personal opinion you're writing, because in truth it would either be the author's view or a quotation/view from one of the author's subjects you would be referencing, not your own opinion. In Christ, Canihaveacookie(talk) 0:02, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

Christian Conventions - Trinity

Here is my take. I've never heard a worker in my 28 years claim Jesus was "only a Man". It is a difficult issue. One of the things about this movement is that you will see some differences of opinion in Biblical interpretation because, to be honest, the Bible is not always clear on every point we can ask about. Although it is clear on what we need to know, and the following is clear. So, yes, Jesus is God. Workers have said that. However, there is no specific teaching on the Trinity - even though the workers believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Are you interested in putting the question up on Truth Meeting Board (Google it) and see what develops? You'll get answers from people professing in the movement, also anti- movement types. If you like I'll post the question for you, but it can be done anonymously. Incidentally, that board is a zoo - do not be alarmed. Of course, so is wikipedia :) Slofstra (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding faith and Jesus

Dear brother Tor,

I have a question for you regarding the theological stand of the churches as mentioned in the article "Christian Convention", on the "deity of Christ". Does this movement believe that "Jesus" is (and was) God? Is it true that diffreent churches at diffrent places hold different views even on serious Biblical truths such as whether Jesus is God or not?

For example, Here in North Dakota, during this last month convention, one of the brother spoke that "Jesus was only a good man" (which is dead wrong and hurting to hear); and when I found that later from my notes (taken during the Convention), I went and asked this to some of the brothers and sisters. It seems to me that here in the North Dakota - Minnesota (or at-least in my area, Hunter, Fargo, Jamestown, and others), this group doesn't believe in the deity of Christ! Please reply on my talk page or here (doesn't matter); I am very hurt and distressed by this. But reply in honesty and truth. Jesus is the Lord and the very triune God. In Christ. HopeChrist (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear HopeChrist -

As far as a general consensus, I believe that most of the people who belong to the "Christian Conventions" faith group believe that Jesus existed in the eternal past - though unlike the Father, the Son had a specific "beginning" as the "first creation of God." They believe that the Son came to Earth and dwelt in the form (body) of a man. They believe in the conception by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin birth. However, there seems to be some variance as to whether they believe if Jesus had the Presence of God (the Holy Spirit) "in him" or "with him" until later in his life. Many seem to believe that he was mainly dependent on the guidance and influence of his family and his family's home atmosphere until he came to an age of reasoning or understanding, at which point he began to follow the direction of his heavenly Father (God). While this line of thought is sometimes taught, at the same time I have never known any to teach that Jesus was NOT the Son of God at any time during his life. The few scriptures that specifically refer to Jesus as "God" are usually explained away as meaning that Jesus was only "LIKE God (the Father) in every way." Some go as far as to state emphatically that "Jesus is NOT God." They say, "There is only one God, the Father. Jesus is the Son of God." But most in the church do not think to deeply on this subject, nor make a thorough study of the related scriptures. Eddie Tor (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

the Word fundamentalism

Dear Kevin, I saw that you removed the catg: Christian fundamentalism from the articles such as Local churches, Watchman Nee, and several others, based on the assumption that a "fundamentalism doped" article should contain at least one mention of the word fundamental or its derived. Well, I don't know much about the other groups and people, but I do think that the above three article I mentioned falls under the criteria C. F (appropriately, if you read them).

The another thing I wanted to say is that, Say, if I add a paragraph in these articles and use the word "fundamentalism" in some sense then the article becomes suitable under the cat: Christian Fundamentalism. How silly is this, Kevin!! Let's give a thought on this and reply me with what your understandings are regarding the inclusion of articles on wikipedia under the category "C. F".

Ya, I just want to discuss this (minor but important), otherwise I have no other reason writing on your page or some duty to put these articles on the catg: C. F. Please give it thought! Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Hello, HopeChrist. It is good to write to you.

After reading the articles, I agree that Local churches or Watchman Nee are fundamentalist in the sense of "affirming the fundamentals of the Christian faith". However, in the United States, "fundamentalism" has become a perjorative term. It still has the meaning of "affirming the fundamentals of the Christian faith", but this is secondary to the meaning of "an aggressive ... religious movement which, in coalition with ... political forces, seeks to combat what is regarded as the ... takeover of the state, family and church...." (quote from Fundamentalist Christianity#New fundamentalist)

I agree with you that it would be silly if the sole criteria of whether an article should be a part of Category:Christian fundamentalism is whether it has "fundamentalism" or "fundamentalist" in the body of the article. However, because of their perjorative meanings, "fundamentalism" or "fundamentalist" have become terms that require explanation. An article on Watchman Nee would have to answer the questions, "Is Watchman Nee a fundamentalist?" and "What type of fundamentalist is Watchman Nee? A theological fundamentalist? A political fundamentalist?" If I see an article in Category:Christian fundamentalism without this explanation, I assume (sometimes incorrectly) it is used in the perjorative sense and remove it.

These are my understandings about catg: C. F. What are your thoughts?

P.S.: I have put a copy of this on my talk page and your talk page. Because this discussion helps catg: C. F. and Wikipedia as a whole, I have also added this to the category's talk page. I will try to keep the three synchronized.

-- Kevinkor2 (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your Kind Words

Brother: Thanks for writing me. I just got your message. It's two minutes to midnight here. I must go to sleep. So, I'll write to you later. Pray for me. I have tests at a hospital tomorrow. Sorry, I deleted my "talk" page. I'll explain to you later. Canihaveacookie 23:58, June 4, 2008 (UTC)

As of today, I've relisted my "Talk" page link on the Wiki Christianity Members' page. However, I didn't realize that I hadn't really deleted the "Talk" page fully in the first place. Canihaveacookie (Talk) 18:57, June 5, 2008 (UTC)

Brother in Christ, The Lord Jesus Christ has seen to it that I need no further testing and that I need nothing beyond these tests to ensure my health and/or my life. I am from the continental United States. This means that I live on the continent of North America, versus living in Hawaii or in Alaska. Also, the person who is trying to say that God's Trinity is difficult to prove has never read about or forgotten about reading Jesus' baptism in the Jordan River. It was recorded that after the baptism God the Father spoke, and at least some onlookers heard it, and the Holy Spirit alighted on Jesus' shoulder in the form of a dove (Matt. 3:13-17). If that isn't a very clear narrative of God's Trinity, I don't know what else is. Canihaveacookie (Talk) 20:46 CDT, June 6, 2008 (UTC)

Talk page deletion

Brother, I told you that I would tell you why I removed my "Talk" page from Wikipedia. And, now you will understand. On Wikipedia, I have my "Angrygirls" too. And, I've begun to wonder how fruitful it is for a Christian to wrangle and fight with other editors all the time for what is essentially useless. Satan has this world in every sense. But, Jesus Christ has won the victory already. Christians all need to fight for what is right, no question, even on Wikipedia. But, Christians also need to pick their battles and limit their fighting. I have to think: Are the editing wars that I've been having worth the time of weeks and months or longer of my life? So to me, these wars just aren't worth that kind of time, even though they're definitely worth some fight - just not large blocks of never-ending, never-see-light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel time. Also, having a reputation as a Christian who squabbles and wrangles endlessly about, really, nothing is a reputation that I don't want to have. Plus, at the time of my troubles, I wasn't sure how to go about getting the help on Wikipedia that you seem to be getting for your troubles, Praise God! So, by the time an admin did contact me to ask me about my lack of participation, my desire to do much of anything on Wikipedia had ended. However, then, you contacted me again, and my desire to work on Wikipedia is cautiously returning. However, I think I'll be a much wiser and more prepared editor now. Canihaveacookie (Talk) 23:15 CDT, June 16, 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Lang

Brother, thanks so much for your kind words to me. Praise God! He has given me the ability to be clear and concise. I just want to let you know that I may actually be able to help you with the "Lang's" biography, of which I didn't think I'd be able to help much at first. However, for the last 18 months or so, I've been attending a Plymouth Brethren fellowship. An older brother in our fellowship, a psychiatrist by profession, just finished a series of four meetings on the history of the Brethren Movement. So, within the fellowship I attend, I believe there's quite a bit of knowledge of the Brethren history, either through teachers or through reading material. Yet, I personally know next to nothing about Mr. Lang to this point. I will have to do some studying for this. In Christ, Canihaveacookie (Talk) 16:50 CDT, June 17, 2008 (UTC)

Brother, I just came back from looking at your Lang's page. It's a good start. However, you need to cite your biographical sources. Unless what you're writing about Mr. Lang is common knowledge in the world, you need to tell any and all readers of your Lang's article where you got your information about him. That means, if your information is coming from a book, you need to reference the author, the book title, the page number(s) for the information and the year the book was published. Otherwise, anyone can say anything about anything or anyone on Wikipedia and there's no way to check or challenge an editor's claims, even if the claims are dubious or slanderous. Please go to Wikipedia's, "Isobel Kuhn" article. I wrote the majority of that article, though I wasn't the one who initiated the article. Yet, there is still work that has to be done on this article. But, look at how I sourced every idea and every single-word quote (unless some other editor changed something after me). For every corresponding number throughout the article, the entire reference must be written on the editing page. Then, the information about the book you cite, and every other source you cite, shows up in order if you add a "Notes" section at the bottom of your article, as is added to the "Isobel Kuhn" article. Brother, this must be done to every article you write to maintain your credibility on Wikipedia and to ultimately shut the mouths/stop the pens of all naysayers of your Wikipedia work, because if your sources are cited correctly nobody with a conscience can come against your work. In Christ, Canihaveacookie (Talk) 17:44 CDT, June 17, 2008 (UTC)

gijones - re: local church edits

Regarding local church controversies (Original Post)

Hi,

There are few things in my consideration to write to you specifically. I have noticed that you are one of those people who are not from the local church movement but are more factual than biased. I was thinking and praying at the same time to work on the article "local church controversies" with you. It would be good if you'll be available to monitor my work and edits and giving the article a NPOV. However, there are few things I would like to share/discuss with you, 1) Some of controversy items should be removed which are kind of outdated, defaming and attacking in nature, and irrelevant to the present local churches; and which has no application, importance, and place in today's local churches around the world. 2) The history of controversy section is a fully biased and laded with anti-local church them and therefore should be removed. If you think some of the things should be kept from there, plese write them in the form of paragraphs and then put back. 3) Few things about daystar issue, and witness lee's involvement in the lawsuits are not factual and are not true, so please be very careful and present everything with a citation and not just a citation form some critics website. Let all the citations should be either from press or published books with NPOV. Let me know what do you think and I will start editing this article soon. Thanks. - HopeChrist (May 2008)

Sorry, I have really busy and had no time over the past few months to check or edit any wiki article and just received your message from May. I have grown very tired of trying to keep any local church articles non-biased and accurate. Many or your edits are very biased, not necessarily with your words, but with your edits. You are guilty of often softening facts with words that may be easier for your ears to hear but are not nearly as accurate. Don't ask me to pull examples because that is more work than I care to do at this point, but it is something that I am very sure of. Mostly because the edits after you make them give the entry a greater "local church flavor." I can tell that you are a supporter of the local church purely on your edits.

I say that as a point, because, I am a former member who began editing these entries when I was a current member. I added the Daystar entry as a member and made numerous edits while being a member. At no time, has anyone accused my edits as pro or con local church (ok, once, but I was more than willing consider softening a word or two--even if they were accurate). I strive to be as objective as possible, recognizing that while claims of something like modalisim is not really true but is extremely valid as a concern or criticisim. Simply deleting or softening what I don't like is a violation of the spirit of wikipedia. I think many of your edits violate that spirit. Plus, your nature of hunt and peck edits make going back and sorting bias out a real mess, because you make so many small sequential edits that are difficult to adjust without undoing them all... even when large portions are quality additions or changes.

Ultimately, I found the attempt to reach an unbiased article futile and have abandoned any real effort to make it so. I will continue to contribute to discussions, but that seems futile as well, too many zealots edit without a sense of commitment to the community. Thanks for your request to work with you, having such a spirit of cooperation is admirable. You need to follow your convictions and serve your own conscience in this matter, I wish you the best with your effort. If you are concerned with bias and simply want someone to offer you feedback, feel free to contact me off wikipedia.

--Gijones (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Praise the LORD!!

Hi gijones,

You are both right and accurate regarding the local church related articles. I'll write this letter in brotherly love and fellowship. You are right in pointing that my edits can easily reflect that I am a pro-local church editor but the truth is I am NOT. Although my edits are reflecting that somehow (unfortunately), however I am only willing to speak and present the truths and facts. One can easily point out, that on the good side, I've added some of this so called "truths" and "facts", but on the bad side I have removed the somehow weaker facts and overtly biased lies. You can view this as a biasing but you tell me, until the bad part of the "controversy" is NOT presented in a balanced view, how can you call it an online encyclopedia? Controversy is a sensitive thing. It is NOT simply bad but more and much different than just bad.

I understand and can touch your spirit by reading your post on my talk page. Also, for any given topic, pro- writers will want to cast the group in as favorable light as possible. Con- writers will want to show the negative aspects of membership in the group, and the negative effects of the group and society in the world. Following Wikipedia guidelines helps to prevent topics from becoming pro- and con- battlegrounds. (So everything should be cited.) That means adding an in-line reference for each line being written, so that the fact is numbered, and a footnote made in the reference section. IMO, if it's not cited and it's in any way controversial you should not add the point at all.

An encyclopedia is informative in nature, essence, and content. The articles I edited in past few months was to make them more informative and factual and yes, as there are no other good faith editors willing to work on it, it might look "HopeChrist's POV", but brother, trust me, I have worked on these article's very carefully. It is NOT HopeChrist's POV but the neutral facts and an encyclopedic entry on local churches. If you find it NOT real neutral, let's work on it together. I have no pain in that rather I rejoice.

I am not afraid (or concerned) about any of the local church controversy or any such bad things (which you think I removed or made soft) as "the church is the church". A believer is a believer, and so is so. I am a believer and we believers make church. If you see this truths, you will easily appreciate the fact that an encyclopedia should be informative in nature and nothing more. Now, if there are issues with Daystar, or Mr. Philip Lee, how come that is related to hundred and thousands of believers meeting as local churches? How come Philip Lee or Daystar is so important and informative to put in the "local churches" article? Are they the local church or are they the events of local churches. No they are just believers in the church and the Daystar is an event and it is NOT a local church.

The whole article had a tone about the movement. I tried to make it on local churches and as well as on movement. But there are 1000 of events in this movement so why we pick up only the bad ones and leave other 998. Is this the true spirit? Is this the work of an encyclopedia? Is this what a man is looking for! If someone wants bad things on local church, let them do a Google search, and they will have their food. If someone wants good about and from local church let them go to "Christian website" [1] or "lsm's" website [2]. They too will have their diet. But are we to do the same on Wikipedia on the name of Neutral or balanced? Are we to definitely put some bad to make an article neutral or balanced or informative? Is that the spirit, brother!

Another example, there is a local church in my hometown, and none of us have ever seen or met Mr. Nee, Lee, Darby, Gyoune, Sparks, or Peter or Paul or James. None of us have ever heard of Mr Philip lee, Daystar or what happened with SCP. I am talking about my own hometown and this is a fact which can not be disputed. All we knew there was the common faith, Jesus Christ, the Bible, and the writings of Mr. Nee and Lee. That's all. And that is a local church.

And we meet as a local church. The Wikipedia now has an article on local church. Now, brother, you please tell me, how come this article is informative regrading "local church" by telling less about local church and local churches and more about Br. Lee's few mis-represented teachings, Daystar, SCP, and all sorts of non-informative things about local churches. We should better have a separate articles dedicated to Daystar, Philip Lee, etc. (That would serve the purpose much better and with honesty.) But the local churches are NOT brother Philip Lee, Witness Lee, Watchman Nee, Living Stream Ministry, Lawsuits, or Daystar. And some of them have their own separate articles. Local churches are simply local churches. This is my burden! When would we be purely on "local churches". Nevertheless, the few genuine controversies are the part of that and it should be specified if felt important and necessary. And I am 100% positive towards that and I am open to that.

And I can confirm you brother, most of these cries on wiki are just empty natural behavior of man and that is anti-peace, anti-love, and anti-logic, but self-glorification and self-publication. Everyone has a point of view. And most of these point of views have just one common source, "impatience" + "Satan".

Dear gijones, I need you help here. This is the summary of my spirit on Wikipedia: Trust me, I won't disappoint you and I am NOT biased. (And I want my edits to speak this!) Nor do I want to violets the spirit of the Wikipedia and NPOV. I am a believer, and I love the Lord Jesus, and yes, I do meet in local church but then these very things make my spirit even more sensitive and truthful toward all the issues you pointed in your reply on my talk page.

I am not running away from the truth and never will I, but I just want the truths and informative piece article on Wiki. If the Daystar issue happened, let it be told so (if that is really informative according to you). But please don't write for the sake of the writing. If the Headings says, "Local Church Controversies" then we have to write controversy anyhow! This is NOT a college exam or some test. This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia. Every words counts here. Also, If Moses killed an Egyptian, or if David committed the adultery, let it be so written and let it be told so. And so is our Bible. (Every words counts.) There is NO problem in that, however, ... to insert one's hostility into the "local churches" article's just because one doesn't like it -- is even more than worst. Watch for all things you stand for and stand against for, as whether are we helping the reader with information or making their mind a battle ground with bunch of "nonsensical things" and "meaningless past".

I don't wish that you read such a long email from me, that too, on the very first time. But then read it couple of times and watch the articles in the local church movement category and then reply me with your understanding and further concern. I wish and pray that you will "re-read" it with an open heart.

Yours faithfully,

HopeChrist (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

PS: If we (including myself here) see and live such a life when writing or presenting on Wikipedia or anywhere on anyone or event or topic, Christ will be glorified and informations (facts) will be served to all mankind. The Truth will live. HopeChrist (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Movement and church

Dear brother friend,

Both the words has its two sided definition. The Lord is moving (for example in Ezk. "the wheels"), so are HIS servants. So moving with the L-O-R-D makes/causes a "movement". The movement should be dynamic and forward. Once we were in the age of Moses, then the Gospel came; and now we are in the book of Revelation. Soon to the New Jerusalem. So there is a movement going on of God with man. This is the positive side of the term.

The negative side seems(/points to) the organizational, humanly effort of trying to achieve something; trying to do something. But then it all depends upon how we look on something and what are we? Are we the children of our Father God, living in the Spirit or are we the natural man of this world!

The same goes with the word "church" too. Any non-Christians reading the article will not see any difference; and any hater of the "church" (The Truth/The Way) will still feel the same.

But then we have two fold responsibilities today (even on Wiki): Be like the Son of God in life and our conduct and nature, and also being righteous, patience, calm, quite, silence, and "to the point" in our writing and speaking. The facts should be told unhindered and without reservations. So be calm brother friend. Look to Jesus Only!

Peace be to you brother friend, grace be multiplied:

In HIM,

Your little brother,

HopeChrist (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Humme, .. ya, that was right, that I am not "pin-pointing" anything here. I just thought of Christian fellowship. But anyhow, well, I thought of leaving a notice that when the "article" will be reviewed by the team of editors (in near future), it won't remain the same as it is now. Also, it might not present the things as you one or few people want, see, or understands!

I took back all my gender based remarks. I apologize! The opposite of "condescending" is friendly, so I thought let your "pov" it be so. Anyways, I have nothing much valuable to say. Happy editing! (Jesus is the L-O-R-D!) Thanks, HopeChrist (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Donama, Please don't take any of my comments in a negative aspect. I believe in the same church as mentioned in the article Christian Conventions. I see and find believers practicing, living, and enjoying the truth both in the local churches and The Way. Also, please don't bother yourself in replying to me each time. (I assume you are an older and matured Christian than I). Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, not older and not religious, but this has no bearing on the discussion anyway. Donama (talk) 03:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

==Lordoliver †

Brother in Christ,

I would like you to know I have added your name to my Heroe's list, you are such an inspiration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordoliver (talk • contribs) 19:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Brother,

I see God in you brother you are such an inspiration, I would love to keep in contact with you. Lordoliver † —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Notes for the New Users

• Wikipedia:Policy Library
• Wikipedia:Utilities
• Wikipedia:Cite your sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Conflict resolution
• Wikipedia:Brilliant prose
• Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
• Wikipedia:Peer review
• Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
• Wikipedia:Village pump
• Wikipedia:Boilerplate text
  • Wikipedia:Describing points of view

In-line templates

   * , for "actual quotations" which need citations to make them proper
   * , request a page number for an existing citation
   * Template:List fact, request a citation of a source which justifies inclusion of a given entry in a list
   * , request clarification of wording or interpretation

Verification

   * , flag a source as possibly being unreliable and/or unverifiable
   * , request that someone verify the cited source backs up the material in the passage
   * , source was checked, and did not contain the cited material
   * , request a direct quote from an inaccessible source, for verification purposes

Content

   * , flag something as suspected of being incorrect

*

, flag something as possibly containing original research

   * , dispute the neutrality of a passage

Article message box templates

*

, article/section has no sources/references/citations given at all *

, article/section has weak or incomplete sources/references/citations *

, article/section may have inappropriate or misinterpreted citations

Image:SALIL.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SALIL.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaK 22:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, OsamaK. I think it is okay for this picture to be deleted. HopeChrist (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

local churches

Yes, I did that-- but you comments are unclear.

Do you object to the idea that the Local Churches Movement is a "denomination" or object to the idea that it is related to the "Stone-Campbell movement"? --Carlaude ^(talk) 20:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually both! I do not understand how the Local Churches Movement is related to the "Stone-Campbell movement"; also it do not falls under the category of christian denominations as the entire movement is based on 'anti-denominational' interpretation of the Bible. What do you say? HopeChrist (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

About section of local churches (reply)

HopeChrist,

I believe your change of the about section is acceptable based on NPOV and probably better so that it matches the disambiguation page, though I see from that page's history that you had a hand in making that one, too. ;)

Just note: from a NPOV, the local churches fall on the border between a movement and organization, because it is very specific group of cooperating individuals but does not have the infrastructure of an organization, per se. Just don't be offended if someone changes both of them in the future, as both words do apply. Also, even though they are two different groups technically speaking, the local churches are very heavily associated with LSM, and removing that association would not have been appropriate if it were not already mentioned in the first sentence of the article. KhalfaniKhaldun 20:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Do agree with you. Thanks for the reply. HopeChrist (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

One question

I want to start new subproject in project Christianity. Can you help me?--Vojvodaeist 17:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Vojvodaen,

Glad to get your message. Its my pleasure to meet you. I am busy with work these days, however, I will be both willing and happy to help you with project Christianity and its sub-projects. I might not be able to do a lot of writing but I can definetely do the editing work and will give my timely feedback. Please let me know, when you start and let me know the articles you are working on or are planning to start, translate, et all...

Christ is Life, HopeChrist HopeChrist (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

PS: For more information, please visit my user-page.

What Can I Do?

Thank you for your apology for prejudging me. Here are some suggestions as to what you can do: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Localchurch (talk • contribs) 18:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

1) Realize that you do not have a NPOV when it comes to the local churches and Witness Lee and therefore not qualified to edit them without introducing a biased perspective.

that might be true.Ryoung122 07:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

2) Sell all you have give it to the poor and follow Jesus.

Wikipedia is NOT the place for evangelism, proselytyzing, apologism, or pushing POV...also, HopeChrist apparently already follows Jesus. The problem with "Localchurch" is that he thinks that only his version of Jesus is the "right" Jesus...but unless his material is published in reliable sources, putting it on Wikipedia is a violation of WP:RS policy.Ryoung122 07:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I know but HopeChrist asked "What Can I Do?" (see heading above) and so I offered my suggestions. Localchurch (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

3) Understand the Lord's words: "First take the log out of your own eye...." were intended to show you that you can't fix others because there will always be another log in there. So exercise righteousness on your self and mercy toward others until you find yourself in a place called "The New Jerusalem".

In my opinion, "HopeChrist" does NOT have a "log in his eye." Also, the Bible does NOT say that there is always another log...the words were directed to "hypocrites". Other scriptures tell brothers to admonish one another with spiritual love, something Localchurch knows nothing about.Ryoung122 07:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

We all have logs in our eyes. Localchurch (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

4) Judge yourself not by how much you think you are filled with the divine triune processed all-inclusive life-giving seven-fold intensified Spirit, but by how much you have helped those in need.

That's not what the Bible says.Ryoung122 07:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does say that, check out the book of James (or have your torn that book out?). Localchurch (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

5) Understand that no matter how many adjectives you give to the Spirit of God they are just meaningless words unless you do 2) above.

That's not what the Bible says.Ryoung122 07:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

6) Stop going to all those meetings passively listening and spend time helping others if you want to be spiritual (i.e. become a doctor and devote you life to healing the poor).

Learning is not "listening passively."Ryoung122 07:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It is just my opinion and this was our conversation, not Roberts. Localchurch (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

7) Repent from reading Witness Lee's footnotes and get back to the Bible only. Localchurch (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, proof that "Localchurch" is anti-Witness Lee and anti-local church. Lee's footnotes are useful, effective, and help make the Bible more meaningful, in part by bringing together similar verses in the Bible. It took 70 years for Lee to complete his work...that's a lifetime. "Localchurch" spends his time tearing down others, not building things up. Don't listen to him.Ryoung122 07:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I just think enough is enough. I know of local churches that "prayread the footnotes". Pretty soon the Bible is forgotten and colored. This is an appropriate comment to HopeChrist who told me to take off my colored glasses so I could see clearly. However, I think the same applies to HopeChrist. Localchurch (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear HopeChrist, you should have not apologized. "Localchurch" is NOT a "brother"...he is an opposer. He is an evil person whose mission is to spread lies. Look, I don't care if someone is Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, or whatever...as long as they can be trusted. But when it is their mission to deceive, that is not acceptable.

Ouch! Oh but I am a brother who holds to the common faith and was mysteriously born of the Spirit. Bzzzzzzt, wrong, but thank you for playing. That is not Christian of Robert to say that and reflects poorly on the local churches if that is their attitude, because they keep saying in print that they would never say that those who disagree with them are not brothers. Please assure me, HopeChrist, that this is not the view the local churches hold. Localchurch (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is NOT the place for theological debates, apologism, or any of the like. It is an ENCYCLOPEDIA and as such, the goal of Wikipedia is to be as objective and NPOV as possible...clearly this is NOT "Localchurch's" goal.

Now, come on Robert. I am trying to be objective and NPOV. I am trying very hard and writing edits that help Wikipedia to be more NPOV. I only am discussing this with HopeChrist because he asked me to. Localchurch (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ryoung122 07:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Still an Issue

I think that you were disengenuous in saying I was bringing up issues from 20 years ago. Researching the internet I find you guys are still dealing with the same issues: http://twoturmoils.com/ Where shall we summerize these things, Witness Lee or Local Churches? Appropo (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent Witness Lee and Local Church

I have reviewed the new way on Witness Lee and thought it appropriate to move the 2nd paragraph to the Local Church controversies page since it didn't have to do with Witness while alive. I reviewed as you suggested and felt that everything I wrote with a few minor edits was NPOV. If you think differnently please be specific. Please also if there is anything you feel is POV on the local church controversies page let me know or change it. Appropo (talk) 06:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I took a look at the oldest version of Witness Lee, and thought, unlike you that it was pretty good and that maybe we should use some of the material from back then. Here it is in its entirety:

Witness Lee (李常受 Pinyin: Lǐ Chángshòu) was born in Chefoo, Shandong Province, China in 1905. He became a Christian in 1925, and later came under the influence of the late Chinese Christian worker Watchman Nee. Witness Lee moved to Shanghai several years later to work with Nee. He became a full-time co-worker of Watchman Nee in 1933. In the late 1940's as the Communists were advancing on the mainland China, Witness Lee was sent by Watchman Nee to Taiwan, in order to continue Nee's ministry there. During the 1950's, he worked closely with T. Austin-Sparks who held conferences with Lee in Taiwan in 1955 and 1957.

In 1948, Lee extended his ministry from Taiwan to cities in Malaysia and Indonesia. In 1950 his ministry reached Manila, Japan in 1957, the United States in 1958, Brazil in 1959, Canada in 1963, South Korea in 1965, New Zealand and Australia in 1970, Germany and Nigeria in 1971, and Ghana in 1972.

According to Witness Lee and Watchman Nee, the Lord's recovery can be traced back at least to God's raising up of Martin Luther and the reformers, and continued in recovering lost biblical truths through others such as Madame Guyon, Count Zinzendorf, the Moravian Brethren, John Nelson Darby, the Plymouth Brethren, Watchman Nee, and himself. He believed that one of the primary items that God used him and Watchman Nee to recover was the oneness of all believers in Christ, and the practical expression of this oneness in the practice of the local churches.

Witness Lee visited the U.S. in 1958 and 1960. He began meeting with a number of Christian fellowships in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York. In 1962, Lee returned to the U.S. and established his residence and helped raise up the local church in Los Angeles. He established the Stream Publishers in 1965, which later became Living Stream Ministry in Anaheim, California, primarily as a publishing vehicle for his and Watchman Nee's spoken and recorded messages. He gave numerous conferences, mostly in the United States and Asia.

A Man Apart

Although Lee taught that Christians should be unified, he distanced himself and his movement from other Christian church groups and organizations. Lee believed that any church not organized on the foundational principle of one church per city (what he called "the local ground of unity") was apostate and that recognizing such churches by attending services in anything but a qualified stance was sinful.

Lee cared little for the acceptance and validation of contemporaries outside his movement. Believing that Christianity had become hopelessly corrupt, he followed his own unique theology, based on Nee's, which emphasized a deep, personal, ongoing encounter with God, and a practical, daily commitment to one's local church. Lee believed, as Nee did, that all Christian work was ultimately for the sake of the edifying of the church and that all other benefits were secondary. Since, in his view, all of Christianity was organized in a way that invalidated its stand as the proper church, there was nothing for him to do there. The totality of his work was done in his movement for his movement.

Some of the most foundational aspects of Lee's theology were the most controversial. Lee's model of the Trinity was condemned by some as modalistic, although he strongly denied this, warning his accusers that they acutally might be guilty of tritheism themselves.

Late in his life Lee revealed what he called the "crystalization" of all his teaching, including the declaration that God became man in Jesus so that man could become God in Christ. Although Lee qualified this teaching by saying that man does not become part of the Godhead, but rather only becomes God in "life and nature," the teaching was nonetheless taken by some as heretical.

Lee's teachings are recorded in tens of books, most of which are edited transcriptions of his spoken messages. His major work, The Life-Study of the Bible, comprising 32 volumes, is also an edited transcription.

Witness Lee died in June 1997 in Southern California.

Appropo (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of An Autobiography of a Person in the Spirit

I have nominated An Autobiography of a Person in the Spirit, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Autobiography of a Person in the Spirit. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. KhalfaniKhaldun 03:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - July 2009

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter

Archives  |  Tip Line  |  Editors The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter Issue X - July 2009 Project news The Christianity project and its related projects currently have 76 FAs, 8 FLs, and 148 GAs. We gained new recognized content in each field, with 4 FAs promoted, 2 FLs, and 3 GAs. Congratulations and a big thank you to all those who worked on these articles! Member news It was a big month for new members, with User:RandomNumberSee, User:Per Ardua, User:Muzhogg, User:Arlen22, User:Scotchorama, and User:Jaybird vt joining, bringing us up to 292 listed members. Thanks to you all, and a special welcome to our new members! Other news I am still working on the categorization matter. With any luck, we should have some results by the end of the month. There are also some discussions regarding project related activities at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum. One issue in particular that might be addressed is possible elections of new coordinators. Anyone interested in serving in such a capacity is more than welcome to indicate as much. Related projects news The WikiProject Films has recently created a new task force for Christian films. All interested parties are welcome to join and contribute. Member contest of the month The previous contests are still ongoing, because of the extreme amount of time the categorization is taking me. Anyone who can bring any of the few Stub class articles among the project's 1000 most often accessed articles by the end of July will get an award. Please see the details Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#Project challenge of the month. Christianity related news Pennsylvania Amish farmer jailed for outhouse violations Obama expands Bush's faith-based initiatives Relics of 39 saints found by British Museum From the Members Welcome to the Tenth issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do. It has been a long time since the last coordinators election. There is a lot for people to do, and I certainly would welcome seeing any individuals with an interest in such a position put themselves forward as candidates. I in particular would very much like to see some degree of "specialization" in the coordinators, so that, for instance, we might have someone knowledgable about some of the specific Christian faith traditions or other main subjects, like Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, Mormonism, the Jehovah's Witnesses, art, theology, and so on. If any parties who have experience with some of our faith- or- subject-based content would be interested in being candidates, I would love to see them do so. Please feel free to take part in the discussion regading what the minimum number of category items is, and how to deal with the non-qualifying categories, on the General Forum page. John Carter (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC) To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter is automatically delivered by ~~~~

John Carter (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed church article rename

Hi, I'm contacting you because you were involved in early discussions on the Wikipedia article name for the topic currently at Christian Conventions. It has been proposed to rename to Two by Twos. Please join in the discussion if you have an opinion on this at Talk:Christian Conventions#Requested move. Cheers Donama (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Christian terrorism

I noticed you contribute to WP:Chritianity, I'm calling for your urgent attention to matters discussed on Christian terrorism's talk page, thank you.Eli+ 20:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)