User talk:HopeChrist

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

Living Stream Ministry

I see that you have been part of an edit war at the article Living Stream Ministry, where you and another user have been reverting the same content back and forth in and out of the article. This is useless because any user can use the history at any time to go back to an older version. Please read Wikipedia:Edit war to understand why it is ultimately a pointless exercise, and the problems that can come from engaging in it. You have tried to use the article talk page and the other user's talk page, but not successfully. There are other tacks that you can and should try before reverting repeatedly. Possibilities include requesting a third opinion (for 2 editor disputes), asking at a relevant wikiproject's talk page for additional eyes, or a request for comment. I've protected the article for a week, hopefully the two of you will come to an agreement sooner than that. GRBerry 21:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angrygirl

Brother, I've never heard of the person with this moniker, nor seen his/her work (sic). Yet, I will look out for him/her. We both know he/she needs Jesus Christ. Amen! Canihaveacookie (Talk) 23:15, June 9, 2008 (UTC)

Angrygirl follow-up

Brother, as far as being able to secure a permanent "freeze" or a "lock" on a particular article, I'm pretty new to Wikipedia myself. So, I'm not sure how to do that. However, I'm glad to see that one of the admins has put a temporary lock, at least, on the "The Living Stream Ministry" article that I'm sure you've taken care to write.

The interesting thing about your dilemma with "Angrygirl" is, however, that Wikipedia is open to anyone to edit, no matter how unskilled or angry that person is at the art and profession of writing. However, I do believe that you're right when you say you've seen some Wiki articles that can't be tampered with, because they are "locked." Yet, maybe that's only a privilege for the admins to have, because, if every Wiki editor had that priviledge, everyone good or bad who writes an article would lock it away from another potential editor's changes, whether corrective or futile. I know I would try it myself. Yet, not allowing any and all editors the freedom to edit any and all of the articles on the Wikipedia site goes directly against the mission of the site. This is also what makes editing on Wikipedia so challenging and frustrating. Canihaveacookie (Talk) 23:25 CDT, June 14, 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)

George H. 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 "George H. Lang" 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 "George H. Lang" 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 "George H. Lang" 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@yahoo.com

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

From Chicago?

To HopeChrist, No, I'm not from Chicago. Why would you print such a wild assumption? What facts do you have that would even lead you to believe I live there. That's information that I've never told to the general Wikipedia public.

One more thing: On my "Talk" page, you called me, "User:....," and the put had a bunch of numbers after the word, "User." Where did you get that sequence of numbers to identify that with me. Canihaveacookie (Talk) 00:52 CST, June 24, 2008 (UTC)