Talk:Living Church of God
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
This needs to be edited for objectivism. Things like this, "The Global Church of God became a refuge for those not able to bear with the apostasy of the Worldwide Church of God." show a particularly strong slant. (posted by 80.58.5.237 Mar 13, 2005; originally unsigned)
- I have spent quite a bit of time editing this article which appeared to be the work of a supporter. Hopefully the current NPOV end result and expanded article which includes a very brief, no names mentioned account of the recent shooting, is what you had in mind. MPLX/MH 01:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The user above had complained about the article before I had made my additions to it, so he was not objecting to naming the gunman. If you don't want to mention names, that's fine, but I've restored the source link you deleted and removed your implication that the gunman was acting because of "dissent" with the church's teachings; authorities have a variety of motives now that they're trying to work through. Cheers. --BaronLarf 05:15, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
I am a LCG supporter, and just 12/26/05 edited some information for readability, plus statistical accuracy. COGwriter.
This page is not objective. It sounds like an advertisement for the Living Church of God. Some simple Google searches on this church yield some controversial results. Wikipedia should at least be as good as a casual search through Google. This topic is not objective; not because of what it says, but, because of serious omissions. --71.111.130.210 04:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] This pages is an ad for a church - not objective - does not belong in an encyclopedia.
This page is religious advertising (propaganda for what supposedly is "the only true church"), and not objective in any way. It does not belong to an Encyclopedia.
- By all means, then, please help us improve it. This article is on my watchlist because of my interest in other Armstrong-based churches (Worldwide Church of God, United Church of God), but otherwise I don't know enough about the subject to edit the article at this time. That's why your edits would be most welcomed. -- SwissCelt 20:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Does not seem like an advertisment
I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be an on-line "encyclopedia". Is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to give the reader un-biased information on a subject, allowing them to form their own opinions, and draw their own conclusions free from the often bias opinions of others? That is exactly what this seems to be doing. It simply states the beliefs of this Church, (the information about it), and allows the reader to come to their own conclusions about it.ğ—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.216.204.84 (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Seems exactly like an advertisement
...because it omits other important information that an objective writer would include. The omission--or "deletion" since it was in an earlier version--of the Wisconsin shooting incident is like writing an article on Jim Jones and the People's Temple without mentioning Jonestown, or an article on the Catholic Church which did not mention its controversies. The listing of doctrinal summaries is pertinent, but there are no footnotes. We don't know if these are accurate statements or the writer's loose interpretation and possible distortion. The references need to be there for verification and further review. This reads more like a religious tract than an objective article on an organization. And isn't this group the THIRD largest Armstrong offshoot after Philadelphia and United, not the second largest? 130.132.83.44 17:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] References?
Almost nothing is substantiated. And a listing of their doctrinal statement? Anybody ever heard of a link? Wilburweber 16:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC) you are absolutely right- it is 3rd largest and does sound like an ad. I grew up in WWCG and currently subscribe to no organized religion. This was the only article I read about the different branches of WWCG that used Bible verses to defend itself- You don't have to defend an unbiased topic.
[edit] Edit conflict
Hey, slow down, will you? :-) You don't have to save every two minutes....--SarekOfVulcan 21:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
