Talk:Daniel Sidney Warner
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
Hi, your Wesleyan link goes to the Wesleyan Disambig page, so I piped it to "Methodism." Feel free to pipe it to something else if I mis-interpreted the usage.
--Asbestos 01:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] General Organization
This article is not very organized yet. Perhaps we can work to clean it up a bit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tigerboy91 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] clean up
I agree that this page could use some reorganization. Some of the info could use some neutralizing, especially under the heading "The movement that followed". Remember, this is Wikipedia. I say this, not saying that I disagree with the conclusion, (because I actually do agree), but because unbiased searchers should find objective information on these pages, not personal opinions. Use the links section as a place to direct readers to for personal opinions, and please do not delete those links that disagree with yours. I added a link that I personally do not agree with, but it gives the reader a chance to "hear all sides" and form his own opinions. I may clean up the text on this page as time permits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.25 (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC). 67.142.130.25 16:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deleted Links
Hello all. I agree with the above. I will continue to delete the link which attacks the Church of God Restoration even though I do not fellowship or agree with some of their doctrines. This link is not informative or useful, it is only a way to slander the Church of God and the beliefs of D.S. Warner. Since Wikipedia has certain criteria that it uses to determine if information is valid I do not feel it would be equitable to the Restoration or to D.S. Warner to allow this information of which cannot be confirmed to be slanderously spread in a format like Wikipedia.
[edit] slander? or disagreement?
Please do not continue to deny the objective researcher access to viewpoints that may not match our own. Is the "Inside Look..." slander or disagreement? It is simply a research that brings out aspects that some may disagree with. All of the historical information in it was taken from the web and published articles and books. It touches areas that the author agrees with, and disagrees with. It is, admittedly, a different perspective than the "usual" in some points, but that is what research is all about. To bring out a point about another person or group one disagreees with, is not necesarily slander, or else D. S. Warner himself was a slanderer of the worst sort, as he continually spoke out against against what he deemed to be errors in other groups of Christians. And he (and I and everybody else) has the right to do that, if we do so in with a constructive spirit). The link and information about the COG (REstoration) definitely belongs on this page, whether we agree or disagree with it. It is not an insignificant group. 67.142.130.16 16:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disceptive Link
The Link concerning the Eldership by Dale Rude and others is being reported to have been taught by DS Warner and the Movement Ministry. This is deceitful to say the least. Please ask them if they can produce a book where Brother Warner of his fellow ministry ever taught such a doctrine.
Also they do not believe in the Doctrine of Sanctification as Bro. Warner taught it. Bro. Warner was expelled [1]from a fellowship for his definite stand on the doctrine of the Second Work of Grace [2]. So while they would like to piggy back on Brother Warner and the teachings of the Movement in 1880, it is safe to say that the brethren would not have fellowshipped with them because they teach and believe false doctrine. The term "False Doctrine" for the sake of Wikipedia is based upon a comparison of what they teach and believe in comparision to Brother D.S. Warner and the Movement of 1880-1910 taught.
Of course many divisions of the Church of God can be shown based upon the fact that some disagree and cannot fellowship with each other based upon differences of opinion of some scripture or another. We need the love of God to help us in this final operation to overcome these differences so that the world may know that God has a true church. The world is full of deception and untruths. This is the reason that the World cannot see Christ is because of False Christianity and False Religion. It is evident that the pagan and Muslim has no respect for "Christianity", and it is easy to see why! The world cannot see Christ because of those who profess Christ are nothing like him. The modern Hebrew Jew and the Muslim does not believe in Jesus as the Messiah because they can read the bible too and they can see what Jesus commanded for us to do concerning how we are to live Holy and pure before God and the World.
It is unbelievers like the proponents of Mr. Rude and his associates who are trying to change the truths of Gods word, especially those teachings and doctrines laid down as truth in the time frame from 1880-1910. However I cannot allow them to be decietful with the innocent sheep and individuals who read WIKIPEDIA. They do not believe what D.S. Warner taught was true. They do not teach or believe the Doctrines of the Reformation Movement of the Church of God, so therefore they are not in any way connected to the move that God started in 1880. Just be aware of this fact. Someone continues to delete a important webpage entitled The Church of God Library[3] which contains over 250 books of the Movement. These books prove beyond all doubt that most modern "Churches of God" should not even try to identify themselves with DS Warner and the Church of God of 1880.
To confuse the uninformed they try to confuse the babes in Christ with a "Church of God" family tree which appears to show many divisions of the Church of God. While this writer freely admits that there have been divisions within the Church of God, he believes that God has allowed this to happen during the Silence. But praise God, the Lamb is calling for Unity once again. Love will prevail and Unity, true Unity will abound in the hearts of all of the Saved. Babylon beware for you are going to fall. Only a 10th Part of Babylon fell in the 6th Seal, and in the final operation of God, the Judgements of God will fall on all who profess Christ yet do not have his spirit.
So if they continue to delete the writings of Brother Warner, just go to D.S. Warner Library[4] for correct information of the doctrines and teachings of the Church of God. Sincerely, Tom Wingate
[edit] RE:Disceptive Link
It was good to see that whoever posted the link changed the title to from DSWARNER to NEW TESATMENT TEACHINGS on Church government. I hope that this honest behavior continues for the benefit of all. Tom Wingate www.DSWARNERLIBRARY.COM[5]
[edit] Nuetral point of view
Please consider the following Wikipedia guidelines:
Religion
NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources.
Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They might prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which might be from a non-historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) Their point of view must be mentioned, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.43 (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Please Consider the Links of the Books written by D.S. Warner
For some reason someone insists on deleting links to books written by D.S. Warner. It could be that they do not believe in what he taught so they wish to put their own spin on his teachings instead of allowing the Wikipedia reader the opprotunity to find the books online so that they can read what he taught if they wish rather than a condensed view that has been spun as a clever politician spins the "truth" to his vantage point. An Encylopedia is a place to find out the truth or what is believed to be the truth. So D.S. Warner were alive, I believe it would be safe to say that he would like for his teachings and beliefs to be within a click of his article! That is a safe belief especially for a man who gave his life, his marriage, and his time, talents and his whole soul to the spread of what is contained in his writings. If you disagree with his teachings, that is fine. However, it is clear that this is an encylopledia, a place to learn. For those who desire to learn, go to [Http://WWW.DSWARNERLIBRARY.COM] for a complete library of his writings. T.W.
- I deleted them as I commented on your talk page. The main reason was you hit a few larger pages such as [Christian] and [Mennonite] and a bunch with your precious link. If you had stayed focussed, they wouldn't have looked so spammy. I reverted some of them, but not the one on the larger pages. A page as large as [Christian] can't have links to everyone who ever wrote about Christianity... Jebba 02:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Jebba, I understand why you feel the way that you do since you have probably only a basic knowledge of Christianity as a whole. I cannot understand however who should or even can for that matter make the determination of who should be in the larger pages such as Christian and Mennonite. The link has over 2000 years worth of writings from "Christian" and Mennonite writers, Methodist, Catholic, Anabaptist, Reformed Church of England, and Church of God. A unique collection of books so say the least. One of the titles is, [6]Is the Negro a Beast. A Christian book that was written in 1905 by a Church of God writer, a White man nontheless, who defended the rights and humanity of the Negro Race a long time before the Civil Rights Movement even existed. This book is unknown to most "Christian" authors and if you have your way, they will never know about it. It is signinficant in the History of America, the History of the American Black People, and Christian Church History. But since of course you would have no knowledge of this "ONE" book out of probably 300 other controversial books, you could not possibly make a proper judgement on if the WIKIPEDIA reader would like to know about this website. I understand that you are trying to do your job, however I also recogonize that no one individual, including myself, has all knowledge. It takes knowledge to make an informed decision. Why can't the Christian page have everyone who ever wrote about Christianity on it? Tom
