From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: AR, ANSWERING -------------> Sean II
Date: 21 Dec 92 01:03:07 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <aaBq02952fiy01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:

[...examples of my "abusmal" knowledge of Christian history deleted...]

>>> However, since the doctrines of the
>>> Roman Catholic Church do acknowledge and adhere to the "essentials",
>>> the are NOT considered apostate, or a cult.
>>
>>The "essentials" as defined by _your_ sect.  Come on...can you not see
>>how sectarian such a point of view is?
> 
> The essentials are NOT defined by my sect.  The essentials is what is held
> to ALL orthodox Christanity.  They have been defined by history.  Your
> grasp of the history of Christanity is abusmal.  

I think we are disagreeing about what "the essentials" of Christian
belief are. For example: for the first 300 years of the church, there was
NO general agreement as to whether or not the Trinity was a true doctrine
or not. Is this an "essential?"  Here's another one: baptism by immersion -
is it necessary?  Here's another: Is salvation by Faith alone, or also by
works? Or does one have to receive certain sacraments from someone
in the apostolic succession to be saved?  I'm sure you're well aware 
that for most of Christian history it was believed by the only
organized (official) body of Christians in western Europe said one
had to receive certain sacraments from an authorized priest in order to
be saved. Is this an "essential?"   How about canonicity of texts?
The Catholic church regards several books as canonical that you don't.
Is this an "essential?"    
  
My grasp of the history of Christianity comes from three
years university study of comparative religion at an accredited university
under the tutelage of the former editor of the main Canadian journal in
the field. I notice you quote Josh McDowell as one of your references
further on -- I'm sure you know that outside of fundamentalist Christian
circles, his reputation is truly "abusmal."  I'm not going to resort
to name calling, but either you are using "essential" in a very weird
way, or you've been relying on propagandists like McDowell too much. 
 
I've read a couple of McDowell's books. They're damn convincing -- until
you start checking up on him. He lies, misrepresents, twists, distorts.
He's a propagandist masquerading as a scholar. However, I don't want
to get into it about McDowell. If you want to, you can check up on his
false claims by checking out the newsgroup "alt.atheism" and asking
for a list of falsehoods in "Evidence that Demands a Verdict." Someone'll
have a copy of the list and will mail it to you. 

> You should check out your
> facts with Ante-Nicence Archive, P.O. Box 26248, San Jose, CA 95129.
> It is the LARGEST library in the United States dealing with the History
> of the church.  It contains over 10,000 volumes just dealing with the
> first 300 years of the church.

I don't know anything about this library...for all I know it might be
a fundamentalist library carrying books that are regarded as trash by the
scholarly world. Of course, it might not. Dalhousie University has a
reputable library, I'll continue to use it, for now. 

>>  Ask some of the sophisticated
>>Christians around here (Steve Adams, Charles Hedrick, Publius) if
>>Evangelical Christianity is 100% true to the "essential doctrines"
>>of Christianity. You can't find two sects who agree on what these are,
>>for Heaven's sake.
> 
> Wrong the essential doctrines are agreed on by all the major Christian
> sects.  If you would take the time to read their statments of faith
> you would see that.

You know, you have a real nasty tone to your posts.  As for your point,
I can only assume that you regard some kind of statement of faith
in Jesus Christ as the only "essential," if you want to group organizations
as diverse as the Quakers, the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist
Convention, the United Church of Canada, the Church of England, 
the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Mennonites, etc. as all agreeing
on the essentials. Why do you think there are thousands of sects
of Christianity? Because people disagree on what they think are the
"essentials." You are using YOUR definition of the "essentials,"
not theirs, obviously.  Besides, two widely divergent interpretations of
one doctrine makes two doctrines. 

>>Why don't you ask Mormons what it means instead of telling them what it
>>means? All the Mormons I know would go with the "legitimate, but not
>>complete" interpretation.
> 
> I don't _tell_ them what they believe.  I agree that sometimes some of the
> guys on this net have to be reminded of what they believe. It is amazing
> when I use one doctrine to make a point about another one, and instead
> of addressing the doctrine I am talking about, they deny the one I
> used to make the point.  It is real hard to discuss things when people
> outright deny what they believe.

Well, it's certainly not my intention to defend Mormon doctrine...I have 
little doubt that you are more knowledgable about it than I am.

Re: Abomination

> I have never heard one today use it either.  In fact, like you say, most
> of them today interpret it mildly.  I know that.  But Joseph Smith IS
> Mormonism, and from that and other quotes by authorities at the time,
> we can see the _real_ use that was meant by that term.  Like I said in
> my other post.  If they wanted to be mild about it, there are many
> other words they could have used instead.  Like the ones they use today.
> "Not quite all of the truth".  That isn't what Joseph meant!

I can see what you're getting at here. But the Mormon church teaches
that God continually reveals himself via their prophets -- if the latest
prophet says that the doctrine is to be interpreted mildly, than 
that is the way God ostensibly wants it to be interpreted now, eh?

>>One small point: ALL persecutors claim to be acting out of "love."
>>All persecutors have an ideology to justify their harshness. I concede,
>>though, that from your point of view, what you are doing is not
>>persecution.
> 
> Thanks for acknowledging it at least that way.  I couldn't really ask
> for more.  Thanks, sincerely.

No worries...but here's a tip -- don't be so nasty in your tone.
You often come across as quite arrogant and vicious. This does not aid
to the cause.

>>> Paul didn't preach a different gospel, Paul's
>>>letters testify of JESUS CHRIST.  There is not conflict, testifying Christ
>>> was the purpose of his letters.  Read some of them!
>>
>>I've read most, but not all, of Paul's letters. Paul sure thought he
>>was testifying of Jesus Christ, I agree. But was he? We have only
>>his word for that. We know, for example, that the other apostles thought
>>he was misrepresenting Jesus, and sent missionaries of their own after
>>Paul to undo his work.  We know, for example, that the early Christian
>>church was extremely diverse, and that Paul's teachings were just one
>>version of what Jesus was supposed to have been all about. Paul's
>>teachings survived and became dominant because his followers suppressed
>>the other smaller Christian groups and burned their books, etc.
> 
> I'd like the references to this hogwash. Please tell me where I can find
> such a source.  thnx

See? We're being nasty again. If I were a less mellow dude, I'd tell you
to F.O. for that kind of remark, and leave you to stew in your ignorance.
I really don't care if you harrass Mormons from now 'til Doomsday --
they can take care of themselves. Nasty ideologues have been after them since
day one, and they're still standing. 

But, on the off chance that you will look some of this stuff up, and on the
really off chance that you will chill out and become fit for civilized
company someday, here are a few references:

_A History of Christianity Part I_ by Kenneth Scott Latourette
_The Gnostic Gospels_ by Elaine Pagels
_Jesus the Jew_ by Geza Vermes
_Acts of the Apostles_ 

That should get you started.
 
>>>Christianity is based on each individual, not on an organization.  If you
>>> know the real Jesus in a personal relationship, you are a Christian:
>
>>Right...but only you and your sect get to decide who "the real Jesus"
>>is, eh?
> 
> If you would take as much time reading "statements of faith" as you do
> reading about the hogwash of Paul and the other Apostles that you
> regurgetated above, you would know that all the denominations agree on
> the essential doctrines of the Christian church.  Can you produce
> two different denominations "statements of faith" that contridict one
> another on essential doctrines?

What an S.O.B. you are...look it up yourself. If you can't see that
"essentials" is a relative term, and not an absolute, i.e. what THEY think
is essential is different from what YOU think is essential, if you can't
differentiate between stated doctrines and _understandings_ and 
_interpretations_  of those doctrines,  you are either just plain stupid,
or so totally misinformed that I don't have time or energy to try
to sort you out. Good luck on your quest to save the world from Mormonism.
If you decide you DO want to make the tiniest little effort to try to
see where someone else is coming from, instead of slandering them and
feeling righteous about it, let me know. There are lots of Christians
who CAN behave like human beings I'll talk to in the meantime. Have a good
one.  

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism