Talk:House of Yahweh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Destructive cult

What merits it being listed under the category "Destructive cult"? No evidence within the article points toward this.132.162.211.68 03:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some other argument

Why don't you give it up already?! Look! If you have such an axe to grind against Yisrayl Hawkins, because it seems like that is who your real gripe is leveled toward, why don't you create your own web site instead of messing this one up? This is supposed to be an objective encyclopedia article. Your edits are emotionally charged and obviously beligerant. The site already concedes to the fact that there are MANY controversies about the HoY and even touches upon some of the major ones. It even goes so far as to direct readers to other sites that go into much more detail and site sources. Why don't you create your own page and then add a link from this one and leave it at that? Take the advice of Gemaliyl: Leave it alone. If this thing is not of Yahweh, it will come to naught, but if this thing IS from Yahweh, would you find yourself fighting against HIM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.10 (talk • contribs)

I for one am a big critic of Hawkins and his group. However, these repeated reverts are uncalled for and have no proof or evidence behind them. The previous poster is correct in his statement. Yahnatan 15:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening sentences, legitimacy.

"The House of Yahweh is an established non-profit religious organization based in Abilene, Texas and officially recognized by the United States, Canada and Israel as a legitimate religion." First is it an religious organization or a religion? Second, I don't know as much about Canada and Israel, but the US gov doesn't declare religions to be legitimate or illegitimate. So what the heck does any of this mean? JoshuaZ 04:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the US does have some sort of classification system to delineate between what is classified as a religion, and what as a cult... Though I'm not exactly sure where I saw that.. - pm_shef 21:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd be very surprised. That would seriously run afoul of the First Amendment. JoshuaZ 05:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Correct, the United States extends no official recognition to any groups as legitimate religions. Tax status is not official recognition, endorsement, or legitimisation by the Federal government. The government makes no findings of fact regarding religious legitimacy in granting 501(c)(3) status; the Church of the SubGenius has as much right to claim tax-exempt status as the Roman Catholic Church. 501(c)(3) status is a financial and political purposes test only. Accordingly, I have removed United States from the list of countries supposedly recognizing the legitmacy of the group.

[edit] Calling campaign?

I beleive I was called a few weeks back by this organization warning me about eminent doom on September 12. Did anyone else get a call? I can't find any information about a calling campaign that took place. (And yes, I did press one to save my friends and family).--PaxNobiscum 13:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha "yes, I did press one to save my friends and family"...thanks for the chuckle. Hanako 05:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You BELIEVE you were called?!! What? You don't KNOW?!! What does that say about YOU.

It says that when I was called, it was a recording predicting the end times. They never once identified themselves, so I got curious and did some independent reserch as to which local cult was calling my house. What the recording told me matched the bill for which the House of Yahweh had on their website, and considering that the HoY is based not far from my residence, I made the conclution that it was indeed the House of Yahweh who did me the courtesy. But, since the recording was too busy predicting my doom, I have nothing solid to pin it on 'em. Tell me, what does that say about me?PaxNobiscum 03:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doomsday

  • Certainly from all of the references over at House_of_Yahweh#Current_events, and the strict definition of Category:Destructive cults, this category would seem most appropriate. Smeelgova 05:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC).
  • Agree After reading their website, Category:Destructive cults or similar seems quite appropriate. It is obviously a cult, and attempting to categorize this single church/cult in mainstream christian categories seems to be counter to a neutral point of view WP:POV per policy. Pharmboy 22:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This is your POV - "obviously a cult" is based on your Original research. Sfacets 05:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Reverted. Using wikipedia's own definition, it is a cult. I'm not a member or a Christian, so I don't have a horse in this race. No "cult" calls themselves a cult. Using your reasoning, the word "cult" could not apply to any group. Their group's website is listed already on the page, there are no other affiliated churches, they are so small there are no 3rd party sources, their beliefs (as stated by their site) are very counter to mainstream christianity or other popular belief systems, which they state, and is the definition of cult by itself. The purpose of having the category is to have different movements listed. I am sure that most small religious movements, if not all, would disagree with placement within the category (which is POV itself). By any objective standard, they are a cult, which isn't implying anything bad about them. Not all cults are "Hale Bop" in nature. Pharmboy 12:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • As a side note, an Elder's recent arrest for sexually assaulting his 14 year old stepdaughter, to quote: "Both sources, who maintain close ties to the sect the affidavit said, had been told by current members of the House of Yahweh that Hawkins had molested the girl, whom he had begun preparing to marry." I think this reinforces the idea that this particular organization has viewpoints on morality that are far enough removed from all mainstream religion and on the other end of the spectrum, secular humanism. This seems to be as objective of a standard to be a "cult" as I can possibly see, and is consistant with other "cults" such as Branch Davidians, and others. Pharmboy 21:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you see any other group listed in Category:Cults? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfacets (talk • contribs) 08:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DON'T BE QUICK TO JUDGE

  • As far as mentioning Yedidiyah Hawkins and the ALLEGED sexual abuse of his step-daughter, first of all, I think that the whole purpose of this page is to identify the group and describe them, not act as a "tabloid" keeping gossip-mongers updated on a daily basis of the activities of individual members. After all, would the Wikipedia article dealing with Christianity mention such "respected" Christian leaders as Jim Bakker (confessed adulterer) or Jimmy Swaggart (confessed whore-monger)as part of the text?! ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Mainly because Christians like to gloss over such things as that which would taint the reputation of their faith, but also because the ALLEGED actions of a few of their members has NOTHING to do with the faith itself.

My second issue is this: These accusations are ALLEGED!! Has he been tried and convicted yet? Even with the accusations of the girl in question, how many times has a young girl in trouble "cried wolf" to cover-up their own actions. I am not saying this is the case here, but don't be so quick to lynch someone and ruin their reputation before the facts are all in.

My third issue is this: It is my understanding that The House of Yahweh teaches the keeping of Yahweh's laws, one of which says NOT TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH A WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER! NOW, IF this man is guilty of such a thing as he is accused of, he would NOT be acting in accordance with the teachings of this Faith and would instead be a maverick acting on his own understanding and will. On top of this, The House of Yahweh most certainly would NOT be approving a marriage between these two since it is against the Laws they claim to keep.

As a Christian I have seen other Christians so quick and eager to condemn others in the name of God and point the finger. Remember, as much as I am ashamed to admit it, it was Christians who marched across Europe in the name of God murdering, raping and plundering Muslims, Jews and yes, even other Christians during the Crusades. (Strange, I never knew RAPE was a righteous act). Should Christians be persecuted for these acts? Get the board of your own eye so you can see clearly how to remove the splinter in someone elses. It was Christian kings who practiced the Church sanctioned act of Prima Nocturne allowing the king (or other ruler) the "right" to be the one to take a womans virginity on the night of her marriage to her husband. It was Christians who closed a blind eye for YEARS while Hitler went about systematically exterminating over 6 MILLION Jews (a modest and greatly understated estimate). Christians ridicule and persecute ALL faiths which are not mainstream Christianity, MANY of which I am finding through my own studies have a much greater grasp of the truth and of the Scriptures than they do. Lay off of those you don't understand and don't spread gossip. At least find some other place to do it than Wikipedia. This is for intellectual articles, not a place to wield some axe you have to grind.

As someone stated above, leave it to Yahweh to root out the liars and hypocrites. Remember Gemalial's advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.166.19 (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually Wikipedia is for factual articles, not intellectual per se. And while I agree with the jist of what you are saying, the talk page isn't a soapbox either. Pharmboy (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I wish these people would register and sign their comments. Dude, don't be a drive-by.....it adversely affects your credibility.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 01:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Hoy botnb.jpg

Image:Hoy botnb.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Fair use rationale given with proper template, awaiting results. Pharmboy (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits done May 10th, 2008

In the face of some inquirers, whom I would refer to this page, it seemed good to clarify HoY's relationship to Sacred Name Groups, by means of some simple editing. From the beginning, HoY has distanced itself from the Scared Name Movement, and the feeling towards HoY is likewise coming from the other direction. In light of recent news reports, it seems all the more fitting to bake-in that distinction between HoY and other groups that also use the original Hebrew Names. Mbanak (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits done May 13th, 2008

In the section titled /* Beliefs */ : Changed "one true faith" to "only true faith". Amplified distance from other groups. Kept other content intact. Rearranged the presentation of said content. I admit to struggling just a little with this page. Contributors like me will desire to show distance between HoY and other groups, yet we have a responsibility to be objective reporters, and not use this resource as forum for reacting to all the ugly details of those differences. Mbanak (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] News of the weird

Just a note that this page was a featured link at News of the Weird's daily edition on 6-11-08. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)