Recent Changes for "Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk" - Davis Wiki

Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

JasonAller — 2009-01-08 23:12:23

Differences for Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
- This page is for discussing the contents of ["Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations"].	+ This page is for ["Talk Pages" discussing] the contents of ["Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations"].

Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

JasonAller — 2008-07-26 20:20:41

link fixes

Differences for Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 11:	Line 11:
- * It's not relevant to the Davis Wiki because it has no authority on the subject. It certaintly doesn't need it's own page. And yes the Catholic Church is flawless so let's use the FBC as an example. Not to say they are wrong with their decisions but anyone with a screen name can vandalize their page and ruin their image. --["SteveOstrowski"]	+ * It's not relevant to the Davis Wiki because it has no authority on the subject. It certaintly doesn't need it's own page. And yes the Catholic Church is flawless so let's use the FBC as an example. Not to say they are wrong with their decisions but anyone with a screen name can vandalize their page and ruin their image. --["Users/SteveOstrowski"]

Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

JasonAller — 2008-07-10 12:47:34

link fixes

Differences for Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 7:	Line 7:
- * I agree with most, but these are generally specific anecdotes about a group in Davis. Were it general argument not related to Davis, I'd agree completely. --["JabberWokky" jw]	+ * I agree with most, but these are generally specific anecdotes about a group in Davis. Were it general argument not related to Davis, I'd agree completely. --["Users/JabberWokky" jw]
Line 9:	Line 9:
- The page is totally corrupt. Anyone could come in and slander the Catholic Church at great length and hide behind their computer screens. I could record emails that have no relation to anything and use it against a church. I could come up with Bible verses left and right defending or attacking any church. The Biblical stuff needs to be taken off or else any church could be targeted for any possible violation. The content is fine as comments, nothing more. --["SteveOstrowski"] - * The Catholic Church is flawless, so there is no chance of that happening. In regards to the e-mail, from the context it appears as if it was meant as advice given by an authority in a manner not intended to be private, so I believe it should stay. --["JosephBleckman"]	+ The page is totally corrupt. Anyone could come in and slander the Catholic Church at great length and hide behind their computer screens. I could record emails that have no relation to anything and use it against a church. I could come up with Bible verses left and right defending or attacking any church. The Biblical stuff needs to be taken off or else any church could be targeted for any possible violation. The content is fine as comments, nothing more. --["Users/SteveOstrowski"] + * The Catholic Church is flawless, so there is no chance of that happening. In regards to the e-mail, from the context it appears as if it was meant as advice given by an authority in a manner not intended to be private, so I believe it should stay. --["Users/JosephBleckman"]
Line 12:	Line 12:
- * ...and good editors will come along and fix it. Come over to the light side of the force... take a deep breath and realize that the immediate edit has no lasting power, but that careful editing over the long run can correct most problems. Also one hit wonder editors that come with a pseudonym and leave a negative comments lack credibility compared to those who clean up after them. --["JasonAller"]	+ * ...and good editors will come along and fix it. Come over to the light side of the force... take a deep breath and realize that the immediate edit has no lasting power, but that careful editing over the long run can correct most problems. Also one hit wonder editors that come with a pseudonym and leave a negative comments lack credibility compared to those who clean up after them. --["Users/JasonAller"]
Line 14:	Line 14:
- - I think the "biblical" references are highly relevant. Those who are looking up chuch organizations on the wiki who are not already affiliated with one are likely poking around to find a church they think might fit them, or at least I tihnk the primary goal of the wiki is to be a resource for people who want to do things like that. As such, such people will be very interested in how the practices and doctrines of the particular church at hand vary from others, and what the community there is like. The references under discussion suit those purposes. What the wiki is not is a COURT where evidence is quashed due to technicalities! -["KrisFricke"] - * Most of the bible quote are not used by Grace Valley, or even people talking specifically about Grace Valley, but rather about the generic biblical philosophy about the actions of Grace Valley (as opposed to GV citing bible quotes to support their actions). It's a fine distinction, but one where there is a level of distance a bit further than directly addressing the subject of the entry. To demonstrate, Kris, Deuteronomy 22:4 clearly says that you should assist Steve and try to lift him up to good editing practices. I've just quoted the bible, and it ''is'' on-topic to the discussion, but not to the subject. The problem is that several of those bible quotes fit nicely into the discussion, but aren't actually about Grace Valley itself. --["JabberWokky" jw] - * Well then, I trust the more experienced editors to fix such relevancy problems. It looks like the page has grown since I last took the time to read it, but what I remember about theological arguments about things such as the principal of Permanence, I think both Grace Valley arguments in favour and the arguments against (so that curious potential members aren't unduly swayed by the particular doctrines of Grace Valley without realizing other authorities in their same religion hold differing views, especially when vows are concerned. My comment was particularly in response to Ostrowski's above comment that the Daviswiki "lacked authority," which misinterpretes the nature of the wiki as something "with authority" to judge certain things, as opposed to its actual purpose which is to provide useful information, hence my above comment. -["KrisFricke"]	+ I think the "biblical" references are highly relevant. Those who are looking up chuch organizations on the wiki who are not already affiliated with one are likely poking around to find a church they think might fit them, or at least I tihnk the primary goal of the wiki is to be a resource for people who want to do things like that. As such, such people will be very interested in how the practices and doctrines of the particular church at hand vary from others, and what the community there is like. The references under discussion suit those purposes. What the wiki is not is a COURT where evidence is quashed due to technicalities! -["Users/KrisFricke"] + * Most of the bible quote are not used by Grace Valley, or even people talking specifically about Grace Valley, but rather about the generic biblical philosophy about the actions of Grace Valley (as opposed to GV citing bible quotes to support their actions). It's a fine distinction, but one where there is a level of distance a bit further than directly addressing the subject of the entry. To demonstrate, Kris, Deuteronomy 22:4 clearly says that you should assist Steve and try to lift him up to good editing practices. I've just quoted the bible, and it ''is'' on-topic to the discussion, but not to the subject. The problem is that several of those bible quotes fit nicely into the discussion, but aren't actually about Grace Valley itself. --["Users/JabberWokky" jw] + * Well then, I trust the more experienced editors to fix such relevancy problems. It looks like the page has grown since I last took the time to read it, but what I remember about theological arguments about things such as the principal of Permanence, I think both Grace Valley arguments in favour and the arguments against (so that curious potential members aren't unduly swayed by the particular doctrines of Grace Valley without realizing other authorities in their same religion hold differing views, especially when vows are concerned. My comment was particularly in response to Ostrowski's above comment that the Daviswiki "lacked authority," which misinterpretes the nature of the wiki as something "with authority" to judge certain things, as opposed to its actual purpose which is to provide useful information, hence my above comment. -["Users/KrisFricke"]

Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

TheoPaaske — 2007-12-21 12:53:48

removed my comment

Differences for Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 8:	Line 8:
- - * Since Grace Valley advertises itself as a biblical church, it makes sense for people to discuss it in biblical terms. If this were a secular organization (ie: the ["LGBTRC"]), biblical condemnations would be inappropriate. I think maybe you've got to attend this church for a few years to understand. This church abuses people. This page attempts to refute the church's biblical rationalizations of those abuses. This, and other pages, are important to those who attend or have attended this church. Just because someone comments from Portland doesn't mean they never attended this church. (I'm in Cupertino now.) Honestly, the daviswiki is the only place people can find out about the church without going there for a few years. The practices of this church are not immediately apparent. These pages have been created by those who attended the church, and are not and unjustified attack on a random church. --["TheoPaaske" Theo]

Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

JasonAller — 2007-07-16 00:22:16

Revert to version 10 (this page part of balancing for GVCC).

Differences for Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
- deleted	+ This page is for discussing the contents of ["Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations"]. + + I suggest removing content condemning the GVCC for so called "Biblical" violations. In other words there are a lot of Biblical verses being used against the church for their particular procedures and practices. As someone who has waged war on the Internet with selective verses, I know that any church could come under attack. I think that you should name the abuses in a secular fashion. After all, for every verse you give condemning the GVCC I can find another verse that will defend it and on top of that come up with more verses against the person that is making the accusation. This is not to say that truth is relative as I know all, but to say that within the Christian community there are a great many interpretations as to go about church business and as such it is not "abuse." I also see a problem with people anonymously making comments from as far as Portland Oregon. + + I motion to delete Binding Commitments to the Church due to it being only a theological argument. No such binding financial or otherwise contract is signed, as such it is not a secular abuse. + + * I agree with most, but these are generally specific anecdotes about a group in Davis. Were it general argument not related to Davis, I'd agree completely. --["JabberWokky" jw] + + * Since Grace Valley advertises itself as a biblical church, it makes sense for people to discuss it in biblical terms. If this were a secular organization (ie: the ["LGBTRC"]), biblical condemnations would be inappropriate. I think maybe you've got to attend this church for a few years to understand. This church abuses people. This page attempts to refute the church's biblical rationalizations of those abuses. This, and other pages, are important to those who attend or have attended this church. Just because someone comments from Portland doesn't mean they never attended this church. (I'm in Cupertino now.) Honestly, the daviswiki is the only place people can find out about the church without going there for a few years. The practices of this church are not immediately apparent. These pages have been created by those who attended the church, and are not and unjustified attack on a random church. --["TheoPaaske" Theo] + + The page is totally corrupt. Anyone could come in and slander the Catholic Church at great length and hide behind their computer screens. I could record emails that have no relation to anything and use it against a church. I could come up with Bible verses left and right defending or attacking any church. The Biblical stuff needs to be taken off or else any church could be targeted for any possible violation. The content is fine as comments, nothing more. --["SteveOstrowski"] + * The Catholic Church is flawless, so there is no chance of that happening. In regards to the e-mail, from the context it appears as if it was meant as advice given by an authority in a manner not intended to be private, so I believe it should stay. --["JosephBleckman"] + * It's not relevant to the Davis Wiki because it has no authority on the subject. It certaintly doesn't need it's own page. And yes the Catholic Church is flawless so let's use the FBC as an example. Not to say they are wrong with their decisions but anyone with a screen name can vandalize their page and ruin their image. --["SteveOstrowski"] + * ...and good editors will come along and fix it. Come over to the light side of the force... take a deep breath and realize that the immediate edit has no lasting power, but that careful editing over the long run can correct most problems. Also one hit wonder editors that come with a pseudonym and leave a negative comments lack credibility compared to those who clean up after them. --["JasonAller"] + + + I think the "biblical" references are highly relevant. Those who are looking up chuch organizations on the wiki who are not already affiliated with one are likely poking around to find a church they think might fit them, or at least I tihnk the primary goal of the wiki is to be a resource for people who want to do things like that. As such, such people will be very interested in how the practices and doctrines of the particular church at hand vary from others, and what the community there is like. The references under discussion suit those purposes. What the wiki is not is a COURT where evidence is quashed due to technicalities! -["KrisFricke"] + * Most of the bible quote are not used by Grace Valley, or even people talking specifically about Grace Valley, but rather about the generic biblical philosophy about the actions of Grace Valley (as opposed to GV citing bible quotes to support their actions). It's a fine distinction, but one where there is a level of distance a bit further than directly addressing the subject of the entry. To demonstrate, Kris, Deuteronomy 22:4 clearly says that you should assist Steve and try to lift him up to good editing practices. I've just quoted the bible, and it ''is'' on-topic to the discussion, but not to the subject. The problem is that several of those bible quotes fit nicely into the discussion, but aren't actually about Grace Valley itself. --["JabberWokky" jw] + * Well then, I trust the more experienced editors to fix such relevancy problems. It looks like the page has grown since I last took the time to read it, but what I remember about theological arguments about things such as the principal of Permanence, I think both Grace Valley arguments in favour and the arguments against (so that curious potential members aren't unduly swayed by the particular doctrines of Grace Valley without realizing other authorities in their same religion hold differing views, especially when vows are concerned. My comment was particularly in response to Ostrowski's above comment that the Daviswiki "lacked authority," which misinterpretes the nature of the wiki as something "with authority" to judge certain things, as opposed to its actual purpose which is to provide useful information, hence my above comment. -["KrisFricke"]

Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

SteveOstrowski — 2007-07-15 23:32:23

Page deleted (no comment)

Differences for Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
- This page is for discussing the contents of ["Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations"]. - - I suggest removing content condemning the GVCC for so called "Biblical" violations. In other words there are a lot of Biblical verses being used against the church for their particular procedures and practices. As someone who has waged war on the Internet with selective verses, I know that any church could come under attack. I think that you should name the abuses in a secular fashion. After all, for every verse you give condemning the GVCC I can find another verse that will defend it and on top of that come up with more verses against the person that is making the accusation. This is not to say that truth is relative as I know all, but to say that within the Christian community there are a great many interpretations as to go about church business and as such it is not "abuse." I also see a problem with people anonymously making comments from as far as Portland Oregon. - - I motion to delete Binding Commitments to the Church due to it being only a theological argument. No such binding financial or otherwise contract is signed, as such it is not a secular abuse. - - * I agree with most, but these are generally specific anecdotes about a group in Davis. Were it general argument not related to Davis, I'd agree completely. --["JabberWokky" jw] - - * Since Grace Valley advertises itself as a biblical church, it makes sense for people to discuss it in biblical terms. If this were a secular organization (ie: the ["LGBTRC"]), biblical condemnations would be inappropriate. I think maybe you've got to attend this church for a few years to understand. This church abuses people. This page attempts to refute the church's biblical rationalizations of those abuses. This, and other pages, are important to those who attend or have attended this church. Just because someone comments from Portland doesn't mean they never attended this church. (I'm in Cupertino now.) Honestly, the daviswiki is the only place people can find out about the church without going there for a few years. The practices of this church are not immediately apparent. These pages have been created by those who attended the church, and are not and unjustified attack on a random church. --["TheoPaaske" Theo] - - The page is totally corrupt. Anyone could come in and slander the Catholic Church at great length and hide behind their computer screens. I could record emails that have no relation to anything and use it against a church. I could come up with Bible verses left and right defending or attacking any church. The Biblical stuff needs to be taken off or else any church could be targeted for any possible violation. The content is fine as comments, nothing more. --["SteveOstrowski"] - * The Catholic Church is flawless, so there is no chance of that happening. In regards to the e-mail, from the context it appears as if it was meant as advice given by an authority in a manner not intended to be private, so I believe it should stay. --["JosephBleckman"] - * It's not relevant to the Davis Wiki because it has no authority on the subject. It certaintly doesn't need it's own page. And yes the Catholic Church is flawless so let's use the FBC as an example. Not to say they are wrong with their decisions but anyone with a screen name can vandalize their page and ruin their image. --["SteveOstrowski"] - * ...and good editors will come along and fix it. Come over to the light side of the force... take a deep breath and realize that the immediate edit has no lasting power, but that careful editing over the long run can correct most problems. Also one hit wonder editors that come with a pseudonym and leave a negative comments lack credibility compared to those who clean up after them. --["JasonAller"] - - - I think the "biblical" references are highly relevant. Those who are looking up chuch organizations on the wiki who are not already affiliated with one are likely poking around to find a church they think might fit them, or at least I tihnk the primary goal of the wiki is to be a resource for people who want to do things like that. As such, such people will be very interested in how the practices and doctrines of the particular church at hand vary from others, and what the community there is like. The references under discussion suit those purposes. What the wiki is not is a COURT where evidence is quashed due to technicalities! -["KrisFricke"] - * Most of the bible quote are not used by Grace Valley, or even people talking specifically about Grace Valley, but rather about the generic biblical philosophy about the actions of Grace Valley (as opposed to GV citing bible quotes to support their actions). It's a fine distinction, but one where there is a level of distance a bit further than directly addressing the subject of the entry. To demonstrate, Kris, Deuteronomy 22:4 clearly says that you should assist Steve and try to lift him up to good editing practices. I've just quoted the bible, and it ''is'' on-topic to the discussion, but not to the subject. The problem is that several of those bible quotes fit nicely into the discussion, but aren't actually about Grace Valley itself. --["JabberWokky" jw] - * Well then, I trust the more experienced editors to fix such relevancy problems. It looks like the page has grown since I last took the time to read it, but what I remember about theological arguments about things such as the principal of Permanence, I think both Grace Valley arguments in favour and the arguments against (so that curious potential members aren't unduly swayed by the particular doctrines of Grace Valley without realizing other authorities in their same religion hold differing views, especially when vows are concerned. My comment was particularly in response to Ostrowski's above comment that the Daviswiki "lacked authority," which misinterpretes the nature of the wiki as something "with authority" to judge certain things, as opposed to its actual purpose which is to provide useful information, hence my above comment. -["KrisFricke"]	+ deleted

Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

KrisFricke — 2007-03-15 15:59:57

response to Jabberwokky

Differences for Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 19:	Line 19:
	+ * Well then, I trust the more experienced editors to fix such relevancy problems. It looks like the page has grown since I last took the time to read it, but what I remember about theological arguments about things such as the principal of Permanence, I think both Grace Valley arguments in favour and the arguments against (so that curious potential members aren't unduly swayed by the particular doctrines of Grace Valley without realizing other authorities in their same religion hold differing views, especially when vows are concerned. My comment was particularly in response to Ostrowski's above comment that the Daviswiki "lacked authority," which misinterpretes the nature of the wiki as something "with authority" to judge certain things, as opposed to its actual purpose which is to provide useful information, hence my above comment. -["KrisFricke"]

Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

JabberWokky — 2007-03-15 07:01:18

Slightly contrarian viewpoint.

Differences for Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 18:	Line 18:
	+ * Most of the bible quote are not used by Grace Valley, or even people talking specifically about Grace Valley, but rather about the generic biblical philosophy about the actions of Grace Valley (as opposed to GV citing bible quotes to support their actions). It's a fine distinction, but one where there is a level of distance a bit further than directly addressing the subject of the entry. To demonstrate, Kris, Deuteronomy 22:4 clearly says that you should assist Steve and try to lift him up to good editing practices. I've just quoted the bible, and it ''is'' on-topic to the discussion, but not to the subject. The problem is that several of those bible quotes fit nicely into the discussion, but aren't actually about Grace Valley itself. --["JabberWokky" jw]

Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

TheoPaaske — 2007-03-14 20:38:23

page needs to stay

Differences for Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 9:	Line 9:
	+ * Since Grace Valley advertises itself as a biblical church, it makes sense for people to discuss it in biblical terms. If this were a secular organization (ie: the ["LGBTRC"]), biblical condemnations would be inappropriate. I think maybe you've got to attend this church for a few years to understand. This church abuses people. This page attempts to refute the church's biblical rationalizations of those abuses. This, and other pages, are important to those who attend or have attended this church. Just because someone comments from Portland doesn't mean they never attended this church. (I'm in Cupertino now.) Honestly, the daviswiki is the only place people can find out about the church without going there for a few years. The practices of this church are not immediately apparent. These pages have been created by those who attended the church, and are not and unjustified attack on a random church. --["TheoPaaske" Theo]

Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

KrisFricke — 2007-03-14 20:17:43

The Wiki is not a court. The information should stay.

Differences for Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 14:	Line 14:
	+ + + I think the "biblical" references are highly relevant. Those who are looking up chuch organizations on the wiki who are not already affiliated with one are likely poking around to find a church they think might fit them, or at least I tihnk the primary goal of the wiki is to be a resource for people who want to do things like that. As such, such people will be very interested in how the practices and doctrines of the particular church at hand vary from others, and what the community there is like. The references under discussion suit those purposes. What the wiki is not is a COURT where evidence is quashed due to technicalities! -["KrisFricke"]

Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

JasonAller — 2007-03-14 20:04:36

Come to the light side of the Force...

Differences for Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 13:	Line 13:
	+ * ...and good editors will come along and fix it. Come over to the light side of the force... take a deep breath and realize that the immediate edit has no lasting power, but that careful editing over the long run can correct most problems. Also one hit wonder editors that come with a pseudonym and leave a negative comments lack credibility compared to those who clean up after them. --["JasonAller"]

Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

SteveOstrowski — 2007-03-14 19:20:17

Differences for Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 12:	Line 12:
	+ * It's not relevant to the Davis Wiki because it has no authority on the subject. It certaintly doesn't need it's own page. And yes the Catholic Church is flawless so let's use the FBC as an example. Not to say they are wrong with their decisions but anyone with a screen name can vandalize their page and ruin their image. --["SteveOstrowski"]

Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

JosephBleckman — 2007-03-14 19:18:16

Differences for Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 11:	Line 11:
	+ * The Catholic Church is flawless, so there is no chance of that happening. In regards to the e-mail, from the context it appears as if it was meant as advice given by an authority in a manner not intended to be private, so I believe it should stay. --["JosephBleckman"]

Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

SteveOstrowski — 2007-03-14 19:12:14

Differences for Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 8:	Line 8:
	+ + + The page is totally corrupt. Anyone could come in and slander the Catholic Church at great length and hide behind their computer screens. I could record emails that have no relation to anything and use it against a church. I could come up with Bible verses left and right defending or attacking any church. The Biblical stuff needs to be taken off or else any church could be targeted for any possible violation. The content is fine as comments, nothing more. --["SteveOstrowski"]

Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

JabberWokky — 2007-03-14 17:51:49

Reply (good point in general, however)

Differences for Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 6:	Line 6:
	+ + * I agree with most, but these are generally specific anecdotes about a group in Davis. Were it general argument not related to Davis, I'd agree completely. --["JabberWokky" jw]

Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

SteveOstrowski — 2007-03-14 17:48:43

Differences for Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations/Talk

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+ This page is for discussing the contents of ["Grace Valley Christian Center/Allegations"]. + + I suggest removing content condemning the GVCC for so called "Biblical" violations. In other words there are a lot of Biblical verses being used against the church for their particular procedures and practices. As someone who has waged war on the Internet with selective verses, I know that any church could come under attack. I think that you should name the abuses in a secular fashion. After all, for every verse you give condemning the GVCC I can find another verse that will defend it and on top of that come up with more verses against the person that is making the accusation. This is not to say that truth is relative as I know all, but to say that within the Christian community there are a great many interpretations as to go about church business and as such it is not "abuse." I also see a problem with people anonymously making comments from as far as Portland Oregon. + + I motion to delete Binding Commitments to the Church due to it being only a theological argument. No such binding financial or otherwise contract is signed, as such it is not a secular abuse.