Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Iglesia ni Cristo was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 11, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
October 15, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted
August 20, 2014 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Delisted good article

To Jytdog Re. Deleting membership figures[edit]

(1) First of all, the information that is currently there about its membership size is incorrect. The data I provided came from the official Philippine government's decadal census of 1990, 2000, and 2010 per 1990 Philippine National Census of Population and Housing. Table 5. Household Population by Religious Affiliation, Sex and Region 1990. p.22 and The Philippines in Figures 2014 p. 27 (https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/2014%20PIF.pdf).

Yes, my book is a criticism of the INC religion, but the data I provided is valid and the membership size is based on historical trends of where they were in 2010 by pushing it forward with the natural growth rate of the nation of 1.9%/year per http://www.popcom.gov.ph/population-statistics to the end of 2015.

I cited my book because it contained the data and analytical table. 2.76 million ±5% is the most accurate number. Not three million, and especially not ten million (which I already heard in 1989, before the 1990 census showed the real number was just 1.4 million). The page already cited the fact the INC is 2.45% of the Philippine population during the 2010 census--what do you think 2.45% of the 2010 census comes out to? Do the calculations yourself: 2.45% of 92.34 million is 2.26 million. So, according to the pre-existing data, the INC was 2.26 million in the 2010 census. Furthermore, the same statistical data showed the Philippines' natural growth rate in 2010 was 1.9%. So, on the assumption that rate stayed consistent for five years, the INC in the Philippines would be 2.49 million by the end of 2015 before the 7% addition due to net converts. I explicitly cited 2.5 million in my edit. Wikipedia couldn't ask for a more accurate estimate. Why then delete it while keeping the completely unsupportable 3-10 million?

You will note that I did NOT criticize their theology or practices. You kept Karl Keating's Catholic Answers figures despite that data is pulled out of the sky. If someone who bought my book posted my information and not myself, would it have been acceptable?

Consequently, please restore my edit because my figures are the best available.

(2) Furthermore, the ethnic composition, while anecdotal from my personal observation when I attended several INC worship services, can easily be verified by just going to one of their churches during services and looking around. AFAIK, there are no formal studies done on their ethnic compositions but it hardly seems necessary since it is axiomatic the largest concentration of foreign INC members would be in countries outside the Philippines. That's just common sense. Given that there are around 10.5 million overseas Filipinos and the emigration and the OFW phenomena is not religion-specific, this then means no more than 2.45% of the 10.5 million would be INC. Again, let's calculate: 2.45% of 10.5 million is 257,000. So, quarter of a million overseas INC is the maximum amount. We're now at 2.747 million INC. How many foreign INC would there be in overseas congregations and who are they? I used 5% in my calculations despite I estimated the maximum number in my visits to different congregations to be no more than 3%. So, 5% of 257,000 is 12,850 foreign INC members, resulting in 2.76 million INC (2,747,000+12,850), or 99.5% Filipino by ethnicity or place of origin. If we're ultra ambitious and say 10% of foreign congregations is comprised of foreigners, this then puts non-Filipino INC at 25,700 out of 2.77 million (2,747,000+25,700), or just 0.93% of total INC membership. Again, with the calculator: 1.00 - 0.93 = 99% Filipino.

Consequently, please restore my edit because my figures are the best available.

(3) Lastly, what I said about fear by outsiders is absolutely true - just ask non-INC Filipinos, especially Philippine-based publishers. Just google "Iglesia ni Cristo" and "violence" - I've personally experienced attempted intimidation and others I've spoken to, told me stories of how it was with the forced conversions during the Marcos era when I asked (in 1990) why there was a massive INC chapel in Conception Tarlac that could seat 2000 people when there were only around 300 people attending. The people I spoke to informed me that they were scared into joining because the minister would walk around with bodyguards armed with M-16s, but when Marcos was overthrown and Aquino became the new president, that the power of the INC over them was broken and they mass defected back to Catholicism. There are enough affidavits that can be tracked down of people filing complaints against the church and its leaders, but that wasn't my intent. I did state "real or imagined" in my edit.

One thing that is absolutely true is my book is the first systematic refutation of the INC, and since the section was entitled, "Reception from other religions," why wouldn't my edit be valid? If someone who bought my book posted the same thing, would it have also been deleted?

Would it be more acceptable for me to detail how they distort the Bible?

Consequently, please restore my edit.

Thanks! EdwardKWatson (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)EdwardKWatson

Your book is not a reliable source, per WP:SPS. Please also address the issues raised at COIN before we go any further here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Iglesia ni Cristo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

States and Territories[edit]

In a recent evangelical visit in Rome, Italy, our Executive Minister said that the INC has reached 134 countries and territories. Mind if you add that up? Also, soon he said, Poland and Hungary will be added to the list. Making it 136 countries and territories. Please add it on the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaSC082903 (talkcontribs) 02:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

That isn't how Wikipedia works. Articles are based on reliable sources, preferably independent ones. Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Cult accusation in opening paragraph?[edit]

Really?

The Catholic Church, the LDS Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, among others, are also accused by many as a cult, yet their opening paragraph doesn't have such statements.

It appears that such accusations should be placed where it belongs: in the criticism/reception section, not in the very first sentence of the very first paragraph.

I can't be the only one seeing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.43.223 (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree.

The opening is tendentious in other ways as well - it might call itself a Christian church, but does anyone else agree? It looks to me like it is rather a Filipino version of the Jehovah's Witnesses. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)