[Apologetics] My "fan" club

[Stephen Korsman]

Hi

I suspect that they do allow historical evidence, but only that that serves their belief system.  Anything else, as you say, is tainted by the evil Catholic organisation.  So the early Christians, by definition, aren't permissible evidence, while Samuele Bacchiocchi's 1975 thesis with it's Imprimi Potest (not Imprimatur) from the rector of Gregorian University is the historical evidence that IS permitted.  Or so it would seem from the e-mails he has sent.

God bless,
Stephen
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Stuart D. Gathman 
  To: Stephen Korsman 
  Cc: Apologetics Group 
  Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 8:12 PM
  Subject: Re: [Apologetics] My "fan" club


  On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Stephen Korsman wrote:

  > "Catholics have drunk and are unable to see this false religion as it really
  > is, one of the instruments of Satan to dishonor the name of God on earth."
  > 
  > If you take a look at the first (bottom) post, you'll see some strict
  > criteria for my answers to his questions - such as a maximum of one (1)
  > citation from the Bible for each answer.  And historical evidence is
  > excluded.

  I must be drinking from the same well.  (Reference to an Assembly of God
  pop singer Carman song about getting "drunk in the Spirit".)

  When people ask me how they can know Christianity is true, I tell them
  that it is based on history - with the Bible being a divinely inspired and
  preserved historical document.  God's instructed Israel and the Church
  to create memorials to preserve the memory of His visible actions.

  Excluding historical evidence puts any discussion on a purely metaphysical
  level.  I'm not a strict logical positivist, but I don't put much stock
  in pure metaphysics either.

  If they truly reject all historical evidence, I'd say this group is right up
  there with the church in my area that proclaims "all creeds are an abomination"
  on their "statement of faith".

  It is possible, that they are open to historical evidence - as long as
  it isn't "tainted" by that evil Catholic organization.  The blog, however,
  uses the phrase "Church Fathers" to refer to the rejected evidence.
  The difficulty is, the argument is over the actual practice of early
  Christians.  The early Christians are by definition "Church Fathers".
  Since they already admit that the Bible does not address the issue,
  that pretty much rejects all possible evidence in the matter.  Unless,
  that is, Mr. Reis is claiming that all of Christianity, not just 
  the Catholic Church is the "false religion".

  -- 
        Stuart D. Gathman <stuart at bmsi.com>
      Business Management Systems Inc.  Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
  "Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
  a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gathman.org/pipermail/apologetics/attachments/20070625/e72f2737/attachment.html>