Talk:Philadelphia Church of God

Christianity Mid‑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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed work group

There is currently discussion regarding the creation of a work group specifically to deal with articles dealing with this subject, among others, here. Any parties interested in working in such a group are welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section

The controversy section has been wiped out. This is not entirely a bad thing as it was full of synthesis and middling sources. However I'd like to see the KOKH FOX 25 special reports but the links no longer work. Can anyone locate a new copy? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Via Google, I found a working landing page for the video titles, but I see no videos linked on the pages[1][2] - either these videos from 2008 are no longer on their servers, or the internal links on the TV station website are broken. As there's not even a transcript, and the only other mention I can find on the internet is a mirror of our article (no other news sites seem to have covered the material), I agree with the removal. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who needs controversy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.206.242 (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doctrine?

While the article gives readers brief info about the founding of the church, and current publications, what about their doctrine? What do they believe? Other than one mention about non-Trinitarianism, the article is bereft of any details of the church's creed. DesScorp (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Give your money... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.206.242 (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pov

"mainstream Orthodox Christian teachings, such as the trinity (the triune nature of God as 3 beings in 1 existence, which has its roots in ancient pagan faiths). Armstrong had rejected the trinity doctrine in favor of the biblically supported view, that God is not one but 2 distinct God beings (i.e. a family of Gods) into which family...." This a) misstates what Christianity teaches about the Trinity and b) is clearly partisan. I'll wait a few days and see if there is discussion here. IN the meantime I propose "mainstream Orthodox Christian teachings, such as the Trinity (the triune nature of God as 3 Persons in 1 being, which, according to Armstrong has its roots in ancient pagan faiths). Armstrong had rejected the trinity doctrine in favor of what he considered the biblically supported view, that God is not one but 2 distinct God beings (i.e. a family of Gods) into which family ...."--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This needs to be changed. --134.153.14.13 (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in informing readers

Fred C. The admin of this page has allowed a bias rendering of an encyclopedic reference. Gerald Flurry. The purpose of informing people is to provide them with info they can use in healthy and productive conversation and study. To blatantly cast someone or their work or claims as false makes you judge. You are no judge. Only an informer. Your job as well as mine is to provide honest and truthful information. Not a judgement and especially not claims and assertions from angry people upset with a certain character of reference such as you have done by quoting a fringe exit support network in relation to this reference Gerald Flurry. When anyone looks up a name on Google or any search engine and arrives on this landing page they should not be treated to a smear campaign but rather a bit of information that allows for them to make appropriate judgement and critique. 2603:8001:9800:9A:10A3:A126:CF84:BD3C (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues here. To the extent that the prophecies did not come true, it is reasonable to call them false. However, the deeper issue is the sourcing. It looks broadly like the sources come from two categories: primary sources (which are limited in value because of their connection to PCG) and Exit Support Network and the like (which may be challenged for their reliability). That said, if they're removed, we start to enter the territory where the question of whether the church meets WP:GNG is in question. —C.Fred (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Day 23 ;

....God.... 🤐 Fight club first rule. 174.240.191.130 (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentalism

Using the term "fundamentalist" as a descriptor in the lead is not only currently not cited, but it is problematic. It ultimately depends upon how the term is defined (which unfortunately has been a drift in recent decades). If it implies "Christian Fundamentalism" in terms of theology, which is usually what is implied when using the term in this way, then their views on trinitarianism would put them outside this definition. Armstrongism essentially teaches modalism, which Fundamentalists consider to be heretical (as do mainline Protestants). If it's used to mean "strict" then it applies. But because there are other, better descriptors already in place, it's probably best to remove this. There are a number of media sources that use the term to describe PCG, but I think those are predominantly editorial flourish by non-experts in the field (i.e. journalists, not theologians). I don't think there are any academic sources that would put PCG into the category of "Fundamentalist". If there are, I would relent. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

people from the church seem to be editing this article

Much of the new stuff I've seen since the last time I've read through the article (probably since June 2023) seems to have a lot of biased language as if someone from the church was editing and rewriting/adding info to the article in a very very "paid for" way. Lots of excessive citations and weirdly phrased stuff about Flurry...IP addresses seem to be from similar locations as well. Don't have many ideas about it at the moment but I assume that there are some people who can help. Aisterion (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aisterion: Since June 2023, the total diff[3] amounts to 3 word changes, a wikilink, and an added category. Most of the IP edits were reverted. I don't want to discount your concern and you should certainly watch for that kind of thing, but I also do see any recent evidence of it. Generally, if you have a specific concern, identifying it using specific diffs is helpful. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insight. I could have looked at the page a little more recently when there were more frequent IP edits going around and didn't edit out of fear (for whatever reason), but I have always thought that this type of editing isn't beneficial for the site in any way and feels a lot like advertising for the church. Reminds me of that McDonald's campaign that was going on last year for the Grimace Shake, they plowed down an entire Fandom wiki to promote it for a month Aisterion (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Working on tone and brevity

I'm new at editing so welcome input. I've been editing for tone and concision. Only as I got to the final sections I became aware of excessive citations and an absurd amount of self-promotion. The https://wrldrels.org/ is reliable but poorly organized and dated 2016. I am combing it for primary sources.

The article had WAY too many sources straight from PCG itself and from ExitSupport, which describes itself as support for ex-cult members but is too biased to be reliable. The article had become a platform for the latter to air its grievances with the former, and for both to promote their own opposing causes. "Prophecies" does not merit its own section or details; all were sourced to PCG primarily or secondarily by way of ExitSupport, meaning The same is true for the Legal Disputes section. The original final sections were lengthy discussions of all PCG's media platforms and "educational" programs. These do not have wikipedia articles, had zero or few wikilinks, are not notable, may be out of date, and were largely promotional. I suggest a brief list—if they are to be specified at all—of those organizations which may merit mention, e.g. the biblical "archaeology" programs.

Note: I was inadvertently using two accounts to edit. I will use this one exclusively in the future. The other account was Giambattista Vico III. Cobalt blur (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]