Thank you for your concern about doctrinal purity. Doctrinal purity is
of highest importance to Christians and to me personally.
The SWORD Project has a purpose statement. I feel this is as much a
*software project* needs.
Though I've enjoyed reading your views and enjoying your zeal, please
desist any further propogation of this thread.
-Troy.
Derek Neighbors wrote:
>>Doctrinal statements serve many purposes, not the least of which is to
>>define the acceptable boundaries within a group. Boundaries, by nature, are
>>exclusivistic. Having an official doctrinal statement, no matter how broad
>>it might be, would imply that "this is what we believe and if you do not
>>believe this and that, then you are not welcome to be included in our
>>endeavor." I do not believe anyone here wants to do that. Doing so would run
>>contrary to the "open" nature of the project IMHO. Even if we did, how would
>>we do it? The Sword Project does not even have an official membership, so I
>>am not sure how we would excommunicate someone even if we wanted to.
>
>
> I rarely speak on this list, but I will pipe up that the SWORD project
> to the best of my knowledge is a SOFTWARE PROJECT and not a 'group'. It
> is governed (last I checked though I know there was debate for change)
> by a license called the GNU GPL. That license specifically prohibits
> 'discrimination'. The minute the SWORD project starts to dictate
> doctrine and form 'groups' it starts as someone says here, a fostering
> of 'exclusion'. This very thing is contrary to 'free software' in
> general.
>
> I believe VERY strongly that doctrine is important. I like the idea of
> keeping 'questionable' texts listed as just that. I think if one must
> insist on a doctrine statement that it be from crosswire.org the parent
> 'organization' that works on SWORD. That is SWORD itself has no real
> business having a doctrine statement, but Crosswire an organization
> does.
>
> -Derek
