[sword-devel] Doctrinal Statement

[Franklin Bratcher]

I would suggest a second eventual CD for non-orthodox texts. IE, if someone
wants it for comparative study they can request it, but clearly keeping such
texts distinct from those which the Sword Project considers "reliable"
material.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Troy A. Griffitts" <scribe@crosswire.org>
To: <sword-devel@crosswire.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 8:09 PM
Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Doctrinal Statement

<snip>
> o I'm not sure I would be against someone including a Book of Mormon
> module, or a New World Translation modules, as any length of research
> into these texts should produce their falicies.  Though I do understand
> the point about misunderstanding that they might be accepted as orthodox
> Christianity.  As stated before, my position is to not ship CDs that
> include material contrary to orthodox Christianity.  When there is such
> a module available, we can revisit the idea and see what people think.
> I personally think it might be fun to link some of our example bookmarks
> on Mormonism back to their sources in Doctrine and Covenants, showing
> professing Mormons what their church actually teaches.
>
> Comments? ;)
>
> -Troy.
>
>
>
> darwin@ichristian.com wrote:
> >
> > Gary Amirault writes:
> >
> > > I'm not a Christadelphian, but have you ever considered the fact that
> > > perhaps the largest "cult" going might be "mainstream Christianity?"
> > > Mainstream Judaism thought they were right in the flow of God and were
> > > rudely awakened in 70AD. Is a repeat performance possible?
> >
> > The labels are not as important as doctrinal consistency.
> >
> > I wouldn't expect a Jewish group to accept my view of theology, although
> > they should.  And I refuse to knowingly accept theological or scriptural
> > advice from persons who don't hold to the historic pillars of the
Christian
> > faith.
> >
> > The past breaks with doctrine were not taken lightly.  The death, burial
> > and resurrection of Christ was needed to break from Judaism, and the
> > theological thinking of Luther, Calvin and others during the reformation
> > era were not disguised as Roman Catholocism (at least not once Luther
> > discovered he couldn't change the church from within).
> >
> > The bottom line, in light of the past few messages, is that there should
be
> > a clear statement of the objectives of this project, and potentially a
> > statement of faith.
> >
> > I don't expect everyone on the project to be hard core Calvinists, but
we
> > should agree on the basics.  Unfortunately there are many that would
claim
> > to be Christians that add or detract from the truth, but if we at least
> > stay away from some that claim that the Christian theology is flawed,
then
> > we could avoid inadvertantly leading others astray.
> >
> > "Why can't we all just get along?" is great in the context of peace in
the
> > inner city, but theologically, it is the road to Hell.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-sword-devel@crosswire.org
> > > [mailto:owner-sword-devel@crosswire.org]On Behalf Of Dan Bertles
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 11:41 AM
> > > To: Sword Development
> > > Subject: [sword-devel] Doctrinal Statement
> > >
> > >
> > > Troy,
> > >
> > > Is there a doctrinal statement and/or standard set up for those who
> > > contribute to the Sword Project?  I always look at links mentioned on
the
> > > e-mail list.  One pointed directly to an orginization called the
> > > "Christadelphians" which is definitely a cult.  I would be
uncomfortable
> > > having someone contribute texts, etc. from someone who doesn't hold to
the
> > > standard tenants of mainstream Christianity.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts on this?
> > >
> > > In Christ,
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> >
> > --
> >    Darwin Gregory
> >
> >    Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.
> >    Evolution is a myth...
>