User talk:Colemanwalterj

May 2025

Hello, I'm JParksT2023. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Oneness Pentecostalism seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. JParksT2023 (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JParksT2023, thanks for reaching out. However, I don’t agree that it wasn’t neutral if we take Jesus at His Word and allow Him to speak for Himself. The claims of this group that the Bible does not teach that these three not distinct is categorically false and misleads people. Colemanwalterj (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I checked your page and now I see what’s going on… Colemanwalterj (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how Wikipedia operates. Regardless of personal beliefs, Wikipedia is written from a neutral (not Trinitarian, anti-Trinitarian, or any other) viewpoint. See WP:IMPARTIAL for a clear explanation. Just as it would be against WP:NPOV for me to go into the article on the Trinity and "prove it wrong", likewise it is the same the other way around. JParksT2023 (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The oneness pentecostalism article therefore is not neutral, but is intentionally misleading and writes false information about the Bible. If anyone is being misleading it's you. The lie must come to an end, and it be common knowledge now what Jesus actually taught. You might be able to suppress me in this article, but you will never be able to suppress the Word of God. Party's over, the truth is coming out about the so called "apostolic faith." Colemanwalterj (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place for a theological debate. The page simply presents the viewpoint of Oneness Pentecostals, and that's all that Wikipedia is to be. If it is improperly advocating for the view rather than explaining it, then feel free to edit the page to remove any issues. However, "debunking" OP claims is what a theological debate is for, not a Wikipedia page. JParksT2023 (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is exactly the point of Wikipedia. There are blatant lies written on this page, and misleading statements about how OPs view the Bible. That needs to be corrected, and it must become common knowledge that OPs do not view the Bible as the infallible Word of God, but as a book full of good ideas with some bad that need not be taken literally. What you guys claim and what you guys actually believe (and what the Bible actually says) must become accessible to all. This is an extremely biased, propagandistic article. The lie that the Trinity is a "tradition of men" and not an explicit teaching of Jesus must become known to the world in this 21st century context. I spoke nothing in my first edit that wasn't true, and you know that. You want to burry the truth for... whatever reason. Not to glorify God, that's for sure. Colemanwalterj (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The Bible is the infallible Word of God and the authority for salvation and Christian living" UPCI. Whether or not you agree with how the understand the Bible, that's what they claim. Additionally, notice how the article states that Oneness Pentecostals believe that the Trinitarian doctrine is a "tradition of men" and also states that "Most mainstream Christian scholars have rejected these assertions". This is not propaganda, it's engagement with what they believe. JParksT2023 (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The UPCI needs to confess before the world that they don't "understand" it differently, they simply do not believe it. I guess that is a fair point if you want to say what they "believe," but no, that's simply not right of you to burry the truth. We don't have to share in your self-delusions. You can convince yourself you believe the Bible, but we can all objectively from the outside conclude that you do not. So it's accurate and honest to say they "claim" to believe the Bible, in practice that they do not believe it means what it says when it contradicts their orthodoxy. Colemanwalterj (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Trinity, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did cite my sources, I cited the Word of God and wrote specific verses to each of my points. You took down my response where I plainly wrote out specifically each of the teachings that are indeed the Bible? Seriously? Colemanwalterj (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSPSCRIPTURE: the Word of God does not amount to a WP:RS. Besides, many Trinitarian scholars (mainstream Bible professors) agree that the Trinity is never taught in the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well they're wrong, Jesus said otherwise in J 8:17-17;16:13-15. Let's allow Jesus to speak for Himself and take Him at His Word as a credible source. Colemanwalterj (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's just you own opinion, and Wikipedia does no go by your own opinions. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but what's Jesus' opinion? I'm going to fix that page so that honest people can see what Jesus opined on this topic. Please allow the Word to be seen and stop trying to burry inconvenient verses. If you take down my edits again, what are you taking down? The plain reading of Jesus? If you are a Christian, where do you think such a practice will land you? Colemanwalterj (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

POV-pushers get blocked from editing. If you want to get blocked you should push your own opinion as the unvarnished truth. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a false accusation, and you are the one pushing your own opinion. Reality does not owe it to non-trinitarians to validate you all in self-delusion. The Bible does say that those three are three distinct witnesses (persons). Just like the Quran says Muhammad is the prophet. If I were to claim otherwise, I'd be pushing my own opinion. I will file a complaint with Wikipedia of this blatantly unjust blocking if I do get blocked by dishonest people with obvious agendas. Colemanwalterj (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If they want a pulpit, I suggest here, not WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC) Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow people to see what the Bible says, and not lie by omission. Colemanwalterj (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Trinity. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add my own commentary, I added the Word of God plainly and allowed it to speak for itself. These are not fair accusations. Colemanwalterj (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Trinity, you may be blocked from editing. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to file a complaint against you. Colemanwalterj (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest. See WP:BOOMERANG. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only one not being neutral is you, so that warning is more applicable to you, as it turns out. Colemanwalterj (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Oneness Pentecostalism. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Belbury (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, then fair enough. I do not think Oneness Pentecostalism is being factually represented nor is the Trinity according to the plain reading of the Bible. Colemanwalterj (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article. Referring to ideas with which you disagree as "lies" is simply not acceptable. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough. I’d like to write things from a neutral policy then. Thank you. Colemanwalterj (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]