Talk:Amazing Facts

Edited to remove blatant advertising. Not appropriate even for a discussion page.

Anti-catholic views

Here is some text I just removed from the article. Anti-Catholic Issue:

Amazing Facts is also noted for it's extreme anti-Catholic perspective. Often their seminars are held away from Adventist churches and are given deceptive names. Unsuspecting visitors may not realize they are at an Adventist sponsored seminar. Their sources for information on the Catholic Church are often unofficial and questionable.

My reason for removing it is the bias inherent. I would be happy for somebody to attempt to clean it up. -Fermion 08:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't biased. It is absolutely true. Read their website. I will wait till you do before I replace it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cestusdei (talk • contribs) on 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)

If such a statement were true, it would still be biased. Words like "deceptive" and "unsuspecting" are examples of loaded language, with an inherent bias, just as Fermion said. It isn't as if they would put things like that on their website in any case. I have seen some of these presentations, and one of their sources is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Is that "unofficial and questionable"? The reason their seminars are sometimes held in other locations (aside from capacity considerations) and choose names which do not specifically refer to the Adventist denomination is because some people have had bad experiences with Adventists (there are bad people in every denomination on earth, and it is not fair to judge an entire denomination by a few bad examples, BTW) or simply do not want to listen to a message presented by another church, so AF avoids mentioning it so that these people will give the message a fair chance and not be hindered by prejudice or presuppositions. If the message is truth, what does it matter which denomination presents it? If the message is not truth, the listeners will reject it anyway. If someone asks, they will of course explain that the Adventist Church is behind it. I should point out that this is a choice of AF, and is not an official policy of the Adventist Church. AF is just trying to spread the gospel and avoid unfortunate prejudice. I'm also going to change the article to be a little less POV. --Cromwellt|Talk 03:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

To invite someone to a religious seminar and not tell them what religion is deceptive. I had to push hard to make them admit they were sda. I have seen the misuse the catechism by not giving full quotes. I have seen quotes mutilated to mean the exact opposite of the authors intent. I looked them up, pointed them out, and demanded they correct it. They refused. I guess lying for the Lord is okay then. Amazing Facts is part of the sda church. If the church doesn't want them to do these things they they should tell them to stop.Cestusdei 00:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

POV

Stop altering the text unless you can show that it is false. (unsigned by 70.108.49.31

If you have a problem mention it here and we can debate it. 70.108.49.31

First off, you should sign your posts if you want to be responded to. Secondly, if you can't cite sources, they will be reverted. Thirdly, this is an encyclopedia and you are clearly (as pointed out above) adding loaded sentences that are purly POV. --Maniwar (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Maniwar, an sda shill, said he wants "proof". I am sure he will still try to protect this group, but here it is:

From the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights: 5/31/94

Frederick, MD – Joe Crews, on a Seventh Day Adventist program, "Amazing Facts," telecast from Frederick, Maryland, preached that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, number 666, etc.. The program is regularly broadcast on over 100 stations nationwide.

June 2 In its newsletter, the Amazing Facts ministries, a part of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, accused the Catholic Church of doctrinal error and submission to papal authority. Of the funeral of Pope John Paul II, it said "It was very clear to anyone watching these events that all the world looks to the papacy as one of the planet's most powerful political and spiritual forces." The author claimed that he "kept hearing [an] echo of Revelation 13:3, 'And all the world wondered after the beast.'"

From the Catholic Civil Rights League in Canada:

Active CCRL members Patrick Hanlon and Caroline Barron recently succeeded in having anti-Catholic programming removed from Vision TV (Canada’s multi-faith religious network). In June they wrote to Vision TV president Bill Roberts about a program called “Amazing Facts.” This show propagated the absurd anti-Catholic accusations that the Catholic Church is the “Whore of Babylon” spoken of in the Book of Revelations, and that the Pope is the anti-Christ.

Here is from the amazing "facts" website: "When Satan failed to destroy the church by violence, he resorted to a new strategy – he would join the church himself, and corrupt it from within. This prove to be a far more successful plan. By the fourth century A.D. the Roman Empire had invested the growing church with its own wealth and a large degree of political power, thinking to extend its own domain. Unfortunately for the world, this blend of religious and temporal power was an intoxicating mix that forever changed those who tasted it. No longer the meek and harmless body of Christ, the church devoured the hand that fed her, and in 538 A.D. Emperor Justinian decreed that the Roman Church now ruled the world. Henceforth, its reign would be known as the "Holy Roman Empire." The world staggered under the oppression of the Roman Church during the dark ages that followed. In her thirst for ever greater power and domination, she absorbed all other religions into herself and adulterated the pure doctrine of Christ with an amalgam of superstitions and heresies."

You might agree with them, which would make you an ignorant bigot, but I think this is sufficient to prove they don't like Catholicism very much and that it is fair to note that in the article. (unsigned by 70.108.49.31)

One more personal attack and you will be blocked. Again, you state you want to discuss, but all you do is make accusations and attack. If you want to discuss, please learn how to and see your talk page. I've already posted this warning, but I'm also posting it here for your benefit. If you want to discuss this, there are a few things that must take place. 1) You must sign your name to your posts. 2) You must not attack me, or you will be banned. 3) Leave your POV out of it and cite sources to back up your statement(s). Rantings only show your POV stance and how you are stubborn and refuse to follow protocol. I see that you refuse to follow wikipedia thus far, which makes you more of a nuisance than a contributor. To have anyone consider that you have any sense or seriousness or concern, learn to follow wikipedia policy. --Maniwar (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that Maniwar is likewise guilty of POV. The poster has provided evidence to back up his claim. It looks like Maniwar is hiding behind protocol to avoid the relevant issue. I think the article should state that Amazing Facts is accused of bias against the Catholic Church and other Churches. That seems reasonable. What say you Maniwar? 136.242.180.140 14:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.180.140 (talk • contribs)

I'm totally suspecting that user 136.242.180.140 and user 70.108.49.31 are the same person. Both user's don't sign their signatures and both users are not equated with Wikipedia, and both users only are interested in this article. --Maniwar (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Maniwar, I would appreciate you sticking to the issue. Why are you objecting to this addition? I did have a signature. Please show why this should not appear in the article. JOHN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.180.140 (talk • contribs)

As I suspected. You two are the same person. Another no no for Wikipedia. Perhaps you should go and learn how to sign your signature, how to WP:Cite sources, and how to use wikipedia before asking this question. Cheers! --Maniwar (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Maniwar, I don't see the same IP and I signed my name. It is JOHN, use it. You are making this up as an excuse to avoid the first posters assertion. You demanded sources and he gave them. Now you pay no attention to them and harass me. I want mediation on this article. I do not believe you are non-pov. Thank you. John136.242.180.140 14:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)