Talk:New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
~The initial author of the historical article can be reached at: tracts@juno.com
Wikipedia asked me to shorten this DISCUSSION PAGE to under 30 kilobytes.
Contents |
[edit] Mediation
Mediation page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/New_Testament_Christian_Churches_of_America%2C_Inc I'm not sure what happens next. Hanako 17:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] wording
The word "ingrown" has been used. Are we a toenail? How about a different word, maybe one that is used for businesses that get their talent from the inside? (A positive word is much more nuetral, at least, than a negative one.) And has anyone seen my thess-a-russ? Nevermind. There it is, embedded in a rock. ~a member
a member - your point is well taken, i will fix it right now. wwjd2009 20:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey guys, I was in NTCC during most of the 1980s and I know many ministers who were involved in and involved with NTCC during the 1960s and 1970s, and I am telling you that "ingrown" does indeed define the nature of NTCC's relationship to the larger Body of Christ! NTCC no longer relates to any ministry or church that is not under their direct authority.
Concerning divorce, the fact is that NTCC allows exceptions for both adultery and desertion (and they have broad definitions for both), but the Independent/Free Holiness allow neither one! NTCC may not like it because they are ultra conservative in many areas, but when it comes to divorce, the "liberal" word belongs there. The way wwjd has it worded, you can't tell whether NTCC went more conservative or more liberal on divorce, and I assure you it was the latter. --JGabbard 02:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
"Outreach and Recruiting" Churches have outreaches, so can we just use that word? Using "recruiting" for a church is like using "compound" instead of "campus." It gives a negative conotation. Do the three involved parties listed in the request for mediation agree to change this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.65 (talk • contribs). (~ a mem)
- I think that's reasonable. I'll change it and if anyone disagrees they can speak up. Hanako 01:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- I changed it to say "Outreach Ministry". Respond if you have concerns with that. Hanako 01:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The Free Holiness churches are just like the Mennonites and other Anabaptists: They do not make exceptions for either adultery or desertion, and some of them also hold that if you were divorced and remarried before you got in church that you have to go make an effort to return to your first love (spouse) as restitution, and that you are living in sin with your new spouse as long as any former mates remain yet alive. And definitely no preacher or deacon can be "double married," as they call it. So NTCC is poles apart in their divorce teachings, and this can rightly be called "much more liberal"!
[edit] Literary Purity
please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Pentecostal_Ho******_Church for a good article that i wouldn't mind reading in an encyclopedia that comes from a neutral point of view. i may not agree with all of their practices, but i wouldn't expect to read all of their faults (in my eyes) in an encyclopedia. this is a well written article, telling their history and the suchlike. daddylonglegs2050 20:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
i just logged back in. the site is looking much better now. i am glad we have been able to come to agreement on many items. i did read the link above and must agree, that is a good npov. wwjd2009 20:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
i just did some more research and read the following two web pages. i suggest that we all do the same to get a good idea of how others have come to agreement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latter_day_saints http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon i personally don't agree with their practices but at least it's a good decent article. notice they don't get into what i would view their questionable practices. it stays neutral. it doesn't talk about their holy underwear or secret temple practices, etc... it gives some history and other tidbits of info, even a doctrinal statement (article of faith) on one, etc... in reading their discussion page, they had numerous edits and 'arguments' for lack of a better word but came to a npov, a good consensus.wwjd2009 21:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Wwjd2009, the mormon article you read is only a page defining the meaning and origin of the word "mormon". Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints. This article is very good about talking about the Mormon church in plain language while still keeping a npov. It's good that we are trying to maintain a consensus. Great effort, everyone. Hanako 21:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Readability!
Uggh!
1.
I think the doctrinal statement is too long. Could we move it down with the article, (as originally published?) and refference/link to it under the doctrine heading? The link can even include "We Believe" and the bullet about salvation, then people can find the rest below. ~a member (please take no action until at least the first three parties can agree.)
Yes, I agree with you and so did several others. But members of the church fought us so hard to include the whole doctrinal statement that was agreed to it in order to get compromise on what we felt needed to be included, but yet they are fighting those items too. Unfair of them if you ask me. Glad to have your input "a member". Could you sign your comments by adding four ~'s (the squggly line) after them? It records the date and time you made them. You could even register for the name a member or somehting similar. :) Hanako 01:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
as Hanako stated, we've already discussed the doctrinal statement and came to an agreement. so let's leave it. we don't need to rehash that portion again. let's go on to the other topics. Wwjd2009 01:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC) wwjd2009
I don't want to remove it, either, just to move and downsize most of it, and it can be openned to full size, and this way we (Wikipedia contributers) could even copy it as we've (NTCC) published it. What do you each think of the idea, in and of itself? ~a member 207.200.116.65 02:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
hi a member. i don't agree. i like it where it is and i know one other contributor liked it that way also. let's go on to a different subject. this has already been discussed and agreed upon. there are other issues we have to deal with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wwjd2009 (talk • contribs).
You forgot to sign /\.~a mem 207.200.116.65 03:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Wwjd2009, any item can continue to be discussed even if you feel it's a closed case. "A Member" has a valid point, which is supported but at least three others that were trying to voice their opinion on the matter. I think the doctrinal statement should just be a link. It's huge on the page and not important to the article. I agreed to not argue about it's inclusion because I was trying to a little give-and-take from you. I thought maybe you'd thoughtfully consider a point (or two) that I might think should be included. I was unsuccessful. Given an inch, you take a mile. :) Hanako 04:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
But what do you think my new idea? Have the {SOD as published[1], but put most of it beside the News article,} and keep {only the words “Believed Among Us” and the bullet on salvation under the "Doctrine" heading,} as the link to that SOD attachment of the article? WWJD sais No. What do you say? ~a member 207.200.116.65 05:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
i think it looks more readable and more like an actual article if we have the doctrinal statement there. thank you to whomever is doing the links, it looks much better. Daddylonglegs2050 12:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)daddyloglegs2050
2.
Another question: Could we create a heading for "outreach" in the article and put the explanations about soul winning and the servicemen's works there, then come to an agreement as to how to word it? Maybe we should either do the same for the seminary, or make the heading "outreach and seminary." I know that these ministries are important parts of NTCC's history and should be discussed there, but that section seems to be getting too full of non history stuff, and there are very few other categories. And, honestly, I want the article about my Church to look nice! ~a member (who almost forgot to sign her own post) 207.200.116.65 04:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. Before we do anything, what do you each think?
by the way, a member, what ntcc do you actively go to right now? can you email my friend wwjd2009 at wwjd2009@hotmail.com. ? since you are a member, i am sure you would love to talk to a friend. looking forward to hearing from you. Daddylonglegs2050 12:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)daddylonglegs2050
I would just as soon remain anonymous here. ~ a mem 207.200.116.65 00:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hanako & Wwjd2009
Can you please go look at the article right now, and see that you have messed up the way it looks? Everything is over to the left, a ton of spaces inbetween everything, and when I fix the format you feel that I am changing content. Also, the portion about outward holiness is valid and documented by a major newspaper. If the reporter felt it was necessary to include it to explain the church to its readers then it's necessary to include here as well. The reporter had NPOV and so does this article. No difference. I think you're copying and pasting the entire article which is messing up the formating and text. Please make your edits within the form. Hanako 01:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
hi Hanoko. if it's already in the newspaper clipping then why have it again. if i am reading this article i am going to click on the newspaper article. so that would make me read it twice. the page is already long enough. that's my opinion. wwjd2009 01:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I read the Wikipedia pages you suggested. But they describe individual "terms" and not churches. Did you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints? Please do. It will help us come to an understanding. Hanako 01:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] government funds & seminary
this doesn't sound like a neutral statement. only reason i bring this out is, i don't know of any SEMINARY that can take govt funds. i seem to remember a seminary student (from another group) that went to court becz he wanted to use govt funds to go to a seminary and wasn't it denied, becz of separation of church & state. a seminary exists for one purpose, it's not a college but a place to train for the ministry only. so govt funds would not be accepted at any seminary. true?
As a vetern and a college student - you can only get government funding for school when it is an accredited school through a government recognized accrediting agengy. Therefore a college or seminary with the only purpose of training people only for their religous organization does not qualify.
[edit] Formatting
I think who ever has been working so diligently on this article should be commended. It looks great, and the format flows nicely. It also looks like the content has been a group effort. Good job! 2centsworth 22:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- It does look great! Now if we can just agree on the content. But we are making headway. Tyworld 23:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The "removal of false info"
The recent edit has been reverted because (1) the church is classified as Pentecostal in the newspaper article (scans of which are posted at the bottom of the page, and (2) the other statements are accounted for by a countless number of witnesses who have made statements on Factnet.org (link at bottom of article). Thank you. Hanako 01:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
you need to read wikipedia's founder's article. he said recently he felt that people such as you are making his site an unreliable source becz u have an agenda to fulfill. there was more than just 1 change i made. we can go down the list, if you would like. and a countless number of witnesses does not suffice. as an encyclopedia, you must name them. or i could say i have 15,000 witnesses that proves what i am saying is true. either way, i issue you a challenge. contact MC Kekel, the President and he will glady verify the truth of the matter.
in the future, prior to changing this page, plz verify your information with the ntcc headquarters, they are happy to oblige.
thank you.
wwjd2009.
- Okay, all i'm debating is the term "pentecostal". The News Tribune article provided refers to NTCC as such and therefore it is documented, as they interviewed the leaders directly in 1999. If NTCC has changed it's stance on Pentecostalism, please provide a new section detailing when this change took place. Thank you. Hanako 20:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
hi Hanako, let me get back with you on this. maybe we can put it back on. i just re-read the article, it's been a while. i know that current literature says Full Gospel Holiness, and there was much discussion on who or what ntcc would identify with. full gospel and pentecostal are similar in some ways but different in others. but it may be ok to put this back in, let me verify the current stance, and then we can go from there. thank you for working with this. give me until friday. thx. ~ wwjd2009
- Sure. About your most recent edit...getting free expired bread from Walmart and letting people take it home from church is hardly being a charity...in fact...Kekel himself stated that "a church is not a charity". I think it should be noted in the article that NTCC doesn't provide such services. At any rate, your addition sounds like an advertisement for NTCC, not an encyclopedia. I'm removing it. Hanako 00:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
dear hanako, once again, you are going by hearsay. prove it, name your persons that give you this verified information concerning food. and also, please don't only use one church to blanket what goes on in every church across the world. I know of several churches that provide such services currently within NTCC. you are making it more clear that you have an agenda to tear down this church that you don't attend anymore. how can you even know what goes on in 'every' church across the world for ntcc, if you don't even attend one, let alone attend several such as many of us. by the way, please note for everyone reading this, when was the last time you were in an NTCC church service? i think this is important for everyone to know since you outrank everyone on this site concerning the edits. who made you the 'webmaster' for this page? wwjd2009 02:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] clear of copyright?
The section "NTCC Official Doctrine" seems to be a direct copy from the website. (The heading is linked to it. By the way, can we change that somehow so it isn't the heading that is linked?) Do we have a release on this information to include it? One that is compatible with our GFDL? RJFJR 16:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- I personally don't think it should be included, but some other users argued for it and it stayed in. We don't have a copyright release. It should merely be included as a link. Hanako 11:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Have a thought
I have been reading the different exchanges between everyone. I must ask shouldn't the people that belong to the organization write the article? I don't understand why people who don't even go to that church want to write the article? I know when I look at wikipedia I come to see up to date information about subjects not outdated information. Sounds like NTCC has changed a lot since some of you attended. Maybe everyone should verify the facts through the organization headquarters so it can be accurate.
[edit] Stedfast, et al
According to Wikipedia, links must be about the subject of the article, in this case NTCC. If your personal blog is allowed to stay, by that logic my personal blog should be included and perhaps every other person associated or ever associated should add their own links. You are acting like this is a personal attack, but it isn't, it's just trying to keep the Wikipedia article on topic. Plus, your statement that ntccXposed defames NTCC - is not coming from a neutral point of view, which is a Wikipedia standard. Thanks for your understanding. Hanako 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hanako
What is wrong with "a blog written by a current member of NTCC"? why are you being picky about what the sites are about? TP blog is stated blog written by former ministers. Its not your blog leave it. Anyways do you even go to NTCC? What are your motives? Livingforgod 04:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Livingforgod
Livingforgod, Hanako is no longer a member of NTCC. She takes part in the ntccxposed site and is not for NTCC in any way, shape or form. By the way, thanks for making sure my blog says what I wrote it to say on the wikipedia page.
Now Hanako (Leah), can you just leave it stated the way it is and also leave the Words of Encouragement blog up? I have stopped playing the game and left the exNTCCrs up. But if you want me to come back and play, I will do this several times a day if need be and I will wipe it all the whole page over and over. You make the choice.
However I hope you will leave my edit there. Thanks.
Stedfast
[edit] Hanako
Isn't it time to grow up a little. Stedfast did something by mistake but you immediatly take it off of here by saying since its not for public viewing. Why would you take that off and not your own yahoo group? Which is not for public viewing. if you have a problem with a church organization take it to your yahoo group or factnet stop doing it here. I will pray for you so you can break free from the grudge you are holding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Livingforgod (talk • contribs).
- I didn't know it was unintentional. Thank you for your prayers and have a great day! :) Hanako 19:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
