Talk:David Bercot

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Anabaptist / Arminianism / Evangelical Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Anabaptist work group.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Arminianism (assessed as Low-importance).
	Evangelical Christianity portal This article is supported by WikiProject Evangelical Christianity (assessed as Low-importance).

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Wow, this isn't written from a Roman Catholic perspective or anything. I'm no anti-Catholic Fundamentalist, but the end of this article isn't even trying to be objective.

Strenghts and weaknesses section was probably written by a catholic.

I deleted the whole strengths and weaknesses section as contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines for a good article. They request objectivity, and there's nothing objective about giving your opinions about the strengths and weaknesses of his arguments.

Also, if someone could please help with proper formatting. I rewrote a lot of the early biography based on many conversations with David while I was helping him lead the Tyler Early Christian Fellowship. I think I wrote it all very unbiased, and even rather favorably, because I could have added that he told me part of the reason he left the Jehovah's Witnesses is because there were no more ladders to climb. He couldn't go any higher in their organization. He said there were three ways to go higher in the JW's. You can become a local elder, but the highest rank you can attain is head elder. There's nowhere up from there, and his congregation simply passed the head elder title from elder to elder every year. A second way is to become a pioneer, then special pioneer, and eventually climb all the way to the Watchtower in Brooklyn, but David wasn't successful enough (not enough conversions) as a pioneer to be allowed to become a special pioneer. The final way is to become a missionary, which can also lead all the way to the Watchtower (through working in their printing branch?), but David couldn't handle the JW missionary lifestyle. He was in a dormitory with many others, and it was too stressful to him. I left all that out, because it seemed unfavorable and suggests he left the JW's for more than doctrine. On the other hand, he did leave the JW's over more than doctrine. However, I didn't know how to put that in the article in a way I was comfortable with, so I didn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShammahRCV (talk • contribs) 12:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D. B. is a liar, a liar,...

DB

In my opinion anyone who thinks ill of david, hasn't read his books or listened to his teaching cd's. He is a seeking Christian who offers others the benefits of what he has learned as a Christian. He doesn't force his opinions on anyone. I find that it is always those who are opposed to what he has to say that are the most prideful opinionated jerks. and until they can rid themselves of their pride, it's not worth discussing with them anyways. God bless their souls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluhmbomber (talk • contribs) 02:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David: My name is Walter McIndoo. I worship with the Center Road church of Christ, Kokomo, IN, 46902, 765-457-5494. I served this church as an elder for ~40 years, until my wife's health caused me to resign. I am a graduate of Rose Poly Technical College in Electrical Engineering in 1956. I have been worshiping with the church of Christ all my life. I have been a student of the scriptures most of that time. I have attended Bible Lectureships at Freed Hardeman University, Henderson, TN for over thirty years. My pursuit of the truth and understanding of the scriptures has often led me to different understanding of God's Holy Word than I had been taught in my earlier years.

After listening to a few of your lessons, I was excited to find a teacher of the Bible who came closer to what I believe the scriptures are edifying us to what God intends for us to know and by faith in Him and His word, to obey sacrificially our all as His slaves. I currently am writing a commentary on the book to the saints in Rome. I have written a commentary on Revelations and several other books of the Bible. I am not published, because I am still learning and don't want to be tempted to defend something that I have written and changed my mind. An elder and I are preparing to teach Romans later this summer. I am currently teaching Romans to a small group as I compose my commentary. I am also teaching as many people the gospel of our Lord as I can fit into my busy life. I am retired from General Motors, having worked 36 years for them and being retired for 30 years this June.

I would consider it a great privilege to sharpen swords with you. Hopefully we both might grow face to face with our Lord, taking on His divine nature.

A servant and child of God:

Walter R. McIndoo 2601:803:4301:38C0:E842:AAFF:45C4:7C34 (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Critiques section

I removed one dead link, and another that was not directly related to this page. It would seem that the critique section should also go. Wikipedia is not really about debating whether an author's works are right or wrong. I suppose about any book has its objectors. I will give other editors a chance to respond. Mikeatnip (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]