Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I believe that the book of Revelation was written as an indirect political critique of the Roman empire, but that's not necessarily an uncommon tradition.

Quote from: Janissary on May 10, 2009, 06:19:30 PM

Ok if you want to go that way.

Do you believe in the tradition that Jesus is God's Son? No, because then you wouldn't be 0% tradition. Face it, even if you say "bible-believing" your still in large amounts of traditional beleifs.

Maybe I am missing your point entirely, but it sounded to me like you just made the following argument:
Do you believe that Jesus is God's Son? If you do believe that, then you are following tradition.

I would like to add that this is a Scriptural belief, rather than traditional. Unless you mean that the Bible is a tradition in of itself, your argument naturally contradicts itself. (I mean nothing personal, but I just thought I would point that out.)

I am also non-denominational, and I personally have a hard time agreeing with non-scriptural traditions. Furthermore, since everyone is free to express their opinion, that is where I stand. I do not hold people that I disagree with in contempt over this matter, and feel obligated to say so.

And it's also Christian Tradition. I just want to point out that tradition is much more valuable than more people think, but they toss it out because they "aren't catholic" or are "bible believing". Newsflash: You can believe in both, as long as you know which one is superior in conflicts.

The Bible should be the sole source of religion. Tradition is typically just an interpretation of Biblical teachings, and if it is not, it should not be followed.

From a scholarly perspective, the Bible is the chronological foundation of an evolving tradition. Catechisms and works of theology have developed over the course of Christian history which would be very foolish to ignore.

Quote from: Janissary on May 10, 2009, 08:58:29 PM

Quote from: The Spy on May 10, 2009, 06:33:05 PM

Quote from: Janissary on May 10, 2009, 06:19:30 PM

Ok if you want to go that way.

Do you believe in the tradition that Jesus is God's Son? No, because then you wouldn't be 0% tradition. Face it, even if you say "bible-believing" your still in large amounts of traditional beleifs.

Maybe I am missing your point entirely, but it sounded to me like you just made the following argument:
Do you believe that Jesus is God's Son? If you do believe that, then you are following tradition.

I would like to add that this is a Scriptural belief, rather than traditional. Unless you mean that the Bible is a tradition in of itself, your argument naturally contradicts itself. (I mean nothing personal, but I just thought I would point that out.)

I am also non-denominational, and I personally have a hard time agreeing with non-scriptural traditions. Furthermore, since everyone is free to express their opinion, that is where I stand. I do not hold people that I disagree with in contempt over this matter, and feel obligated to say so.

And it's also Christian Tradition. I just want to point out that tradition is much more valuable than more people think, but they toss it out because they "aren't catholic" or are "bible believing". Newsflash: You can believe in both, as long as you know which one is superior in conflicts.

dude delete this! it totaly stops this topic cause you cant say anything without ofending someone.

I don't see how it is offensive at all.

I don't personally believe that the Bible supercedes tradition because the Bible itself IS a tradition. Tradition should be judged by the same standards that any historian or geneologist judges anything.

The Bible should be the sole source of religion. Tradition is typically just an interpretation of Biblical teachings, and if it is not, it should not be followed.

For once I can say, I completely agree with Colin.

Quote from: Janissary on May 10, 2009, 08:58:29 PM

Quote from: The Spy on May 10, 2009, 06:33:05 PM

Quote from: Janissary on May 10, 2009, 06:19:30 PM

Ok if you want to go that way.

Do you believe in the tradition that Jesus is God's Son? No, because then you wouldn't be 0% tradition. Face it, even if you say "bible-believing" your still in large amounts of traditional beleifs.

Maybe I am missing your point entirely, but it sounded to me like you just made the following argument:
Do you believe that Jesus is God's Son? If you do believe that, then you are following tradition.

I would like to add that this is a Scriptural belief, rather than traditional. Unless you mean that the Bible is a tradition in of itself, your argument naturally contradicts itself. (I mean nothing personal, but I just thought I would point that out.)

I am also non-denominational, and I personally have a hard time agreeing with non-scriptural traditions. Furthermore, since everyone is free to express their opinion, that is where I stand. I do not hold people that I disagree with in contempt over this matter, and feel obligated to say so.

And it's also Christian Tradition. I just want to point out that tradition is much more valuable than more people think, but they toss it out because they "aren't catholic" or are "bible believing". Newsflash: You can believe in both, as long as you know which one is superior in conflicts.

dude delete this! it totaly stops this topic cause you cant say anything without ofending someone.

DuDe TyPe BeTtEr! Seriously, I am entitled to question posts on the board within a reasonable extent and that is what I am doing. If I am offending you by saying you are wrong, then please remember that next time you try to witness and someone gets offended when you tell them they are wrong.

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 10, 2009, 09:05:40 PM

Quote from: BubbleBoy on May 10, 2009, 09:02:17 PM

The Bible should be the sole source of religion. Tradition is typically just an interpretation of Biblical teachings, and if it is not, it should not be followed.

From a scholarly perspective, the Bible is the chronological foundation of an evolving tradition. Catechisms and works of theology have developed over the course of Christian history which would be very foolish to ignore.

ah!... i agree ther is only one way to heaven and that is through the bible and other stuf. you cant get to heaven babtised as a baby cause you dont know what is happening. the only way to get to heaven is pray the prayer and when your saved get babtised! (and i lack this(the babtised part <.<)). ther is  no other way but through God.

And this one...lolz at misunderstnading of stuff.

1. You bring up baby baptism from nowhere, so I am ignoring.
2. There is no magic saving prayer
3. You randomly threw God in at the end.


Small tangent: This mad uneducation of doctrinal matter is precisely why I hate my nondenom church. This is what we get for not liking tradition.

Muzik Maker, everyone has a right to their own opinion.

And Colin is one of the smartest people I've ever met, you have no room to talk about someones education when you don't use any punctuation or grammar in your posts.

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 10, 2009, 09:12:43 PM

I personally think it's quite dangerous to deify the Bible

Could you define deify?

Quote

it plays absolutely no role in our salvation WHATSOEVER.

That is not true. I don't think God would have put it all together if it was entirely pointless. I'd just read Lord of the Rings if I want entertainment.

I meant that the Bible is not some kind of "deity".

I don't think God put it together, but for sake of argument I'll explain what I meant. The Bible does is not our redemption. It does not "save" you; Christ alone does that.

Quote from: lightningninja on May 10, 2009, 09:17:43 PM

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 10, 2009, 09:12:43 PM

I personally think it's quite dangerous to deify the Bible

Could you define deify?

Quote

it plays absolutely no role in our salvation WHATSOEVER.

That is not true. I don't think God would have put it all together if it was entirely pointless. I'd just read Lord of the Rings if I want entertainment.

I meant that the Bible is not some kind of "deity".

I don't think God put it together, but for sake of argument I'll explain what I meant. The Bible does is not our redemption. It does not "save" you; Christ alone does that.

Ah, okay well that I will agree with. It does not save you. However, so easily submitting the entire compilation of God's work on earth and all his promises that will to come as COMPLETELY meaningless to the Christian faith is a slippery slope.

Instead of getting cought up in all of the finger pointing, I will just respond to this:

Quote from: The Spy on May 10, 2009, 06:33:05 PM

Quote from: Janissary on May 10, 2009, 06:19:30 PM

Ok if you want to go that way.

Do you believe in the tradition that Jesus is God's Son? No, because then you wouldn't be 0% tradition. Face it, even if you say "bible-believing" your still in large amounts of traditional beleifs.

Maybe I am missing your point entirely, but it sounded to me like you just made the following argument:
Do you believe that Jesus is God's Son? If you do believe that, then you are following tradition.

I would like to add that this is a Scriptural belief, rather than traditional. Unless you mean that the Bible is a tradition in of itself, your argument naturally contradicts itself. (I mean nothing personal, but I just thought I would point that out.)

I am also non-denominational, and I personally have a hard time agreeing with non-scriptural traditions. Furthermore, since everyone is free to express their opinion, that is where I stand. I do not hold people that I disagree with in contempt over this matter, and feel obligated to say so.

And it's also Christian Tradition. I just want to point out that tradition is much more valuable than more people think, but they toss it out because they "aren't catholic" or are "bible believing". Newsflash: You can believe in both, as long as you know which one is superior in conflicts.

First, I would encourage you to use less sarcastic/abrasive speech. I am not ignorant of your opinion, and I respect it fully. However, I do disagree with it. I think the problem in this argument is widespread and that many people who have posted on this thread have mistaken tradition for interpretation. I would argue that the two are very different aspects of a faith, and should not be mistaken for one another. Furthermore, I didn't say that you can't believe in both traditions and the Bible, but I tend to have a very cynical view of mankind. I believe that if it is non-Biblical, then it is worthy of research and questioning. (Not that the Bible isn't, but I would regard the Bible as an authority rather than the traditions of man. In a world filled with doubt and contradictions, I prefer to wield the weapon that is sharper than a double-edged sword than any faulty words of man which I think are about as sharp as bubbles .)

Godbless,
~The Spy

So God stopped working after the Bible?

Where did I say that? God is still working absolutely. That is his work ON EARTH. Until the end times.

no i didnt  but if non of you have understood the bible verses i posted its telling us that ther is only one way through heaven and thats through christ alone.

Note one: First time you mentioned Christ.
Note two: Explain to me the exact way a person becomes saved so that I can understand you.

To Spy: You reading the bible is simply you putting your spin on it. AKA the spy's interpretations, AKA fallible. It makes no difference who is dong the interpreting if there is any at all, then it's all the same.

Quote

I don't think God put it together [the bible]...

In a sense he did, he just used Moses, Allah and a few other people to write it for him.

Allah?   

In a sense he did, he just used Moses, Allah and a few other people to write it for him.

I'm not aware of any book of the Bible that was written by some dude named Allah.

Does that mean that you are not Mormon also?