Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Yeah but in all due honesty, you said you don't even play the game..

Sorry, yours and Drrek's names are so similar I confused my address, although having been around 2/3 as long as I have, you should remember how quickly things get done when we're being patient and nice.

If the Bible explicitly says something is or is not and Redemption contradicts it, unless there is some vaguery or nuance somewhere, the Bible is more authoritative.

Pol, Redemption is a game. As a game it draws inspiration from Scripture, but Scripture is not binding on the game.

To Xonathon's original question, it is worth noting that wearing a linen ephod does not make one a priest.

Now David was clothed in a robe of fine linen, as were all the Levites who were carrying the ark, and as were the musicians, and Kenaniah, who was in charge of the singing of the choirs. David also wore a linen ephod.

Well guys I talked to my mom and she says David is a priest king, but not a priest. Moses is not a priest. Samuel is not a priest. Sorry to shatter hopes and dreams lol

How was david a priest, but not a priest?

To quote Bryon:

"Captured characters" are not characters.  Don't treat them as such.

Also, road apples are not apples, cow pies are not pies, and peanuts are not nuts (botanically, anyway).

It seems that the definition of a priest in Redemption in the REG may just need to be more specific. According to Exodus 19:6, 1 Peter 2:9, Revelation 1:6, Revelation 5:10, and Revelation 20:6, all of God's covenant people are priests - but this of course is in the sense of how we are intermediaries (ministers/bridges/ambassadors/peacemakers/etc) between God and people (which Jesus is in the fullest as the great High Priest), which is what the priestly function was and is all about.

Of course, although we have the card Priests of Christ to represent this, in Redemption priests are (almost exclusively) intended to be people who were from the tribe of Levi and whose full-time (life) occupation was as a priest (offering sacrifices and performing other priestly duties) at a tabernacle or temple. I say almost exclusively because Melchizedek in Genesis 14 we clearly regard as a priest but he lived before any tabernacle or temple. As Hebrews 7-10 details, he was a prophetic picture of Jesus in being High Priest, King (of Salem, the precursor of Jerusalem, no less!!) and acting as God (receiving a tithe from Abraham) to show the Messiah would be all of these (how awesome!).

Given all of this, I'm not sure what the best definition would be- I'm sure the elders will figure it out though as they are very capable! If it's just that a person is referred to as a priest then Samuel and Moses would have to be included, although they weren't really priests in the sense of the tabernacle and temple priests. They were priests in the sense of being an intermediary between God and man. As a boy, Samuel was raised in the tabernacle by Eli the priest and so if there was a card just for him as a child then maybe it could be a priest card, but when he was an adult his time was primarily occupied by being a prophet and judge of the nation. He traveled in a circuit around Israel doing this, instead of remaining in the tabernacle as a full-time priest would.

And if a priest is just someone who acted as a priest, then you would have to include guys who offered a priestly sacrifice but weren't supposed to like King Saul and King Uzziah, as well as King David, who wore the linen ephod and lived a life of prayer & intercession as the priests did out of his devotion for God. But these guys were kings primarily - not priests primarily in terms of their "job" (David certainly was a priest in the spiritual sense as Moses and Melchizedek were).

It seems pretty difficult to get a definition down, even though we all know for the most part what is meant by someone being a priest!!

Samuel was a Levite through his father, a descendant of Korah. He did make  fequent sacrifices and even built  an altar in his home so he can make them close by. While a lot of emphasis seems to be place on him being judge of Israel, he never stopped being a priest or doing priestly duties in doing so. Samuel is just so very unique in that he fulfills so may roles and I think that it should be respected that him being a priest is one of them.

I tried to find respected sources outside the bible to confirm what Im saying. Encyclopedia.com confirms the he took over as High Priest and judge after Eli. Jewishencyclopedia.com also states that he was a priest in the bible and confirmed in rabbinical writings. There are numerous blogs and church websites that all say he was a priest and in fact I haven't come across a single website that says otherwise.

If the arguement is that Redemption doesn't have to adhere to the Bible in all decisions that is okay but Redemption doesn't define who people were in the Bible either.

Knowledge of sentence structure is important. It actually does explicitly say Samuel was a Priest, just not in a way recognizable in English to someone who only knows English. Fortunately, Samuel being a Priest or not is not central to the message of salvation and redemption, as is always the case when you find things in the bible that need more-than-surface knowledge to understand.

I mention a specific scenario over and over again, people say it won't happen, it happens, I point out that I had been talking about it all along, and now I'm condescending.

Pretty much, unless they want to learn about it on their own. You're free to find out why, the keyword is "Hebrew and Greek parallel structure." My philosophy is, if you don't want to learn about it, don't be mad at me for talking about it or expect me to take the time to explain it to you when you won't believe that anyway.

As Gabe mentioned yesterday the present ruling is that Samuel and Moses are not considered "Priests" in the game of Redemption.

Could this change? Absolutely. Are we going to make a snap decision? No. Myself and at least one other Elder (that I know of, there could be others) have already done some research (using articles and commentaries) and we will be sharing our findings to make a well-reasoned decision as a team.

We both appreciate and encourage people to ask questions and point things out as Xonathan did in the OP. But please understand that we prefer to vet these things as a team. I understand Pol's comments about how things took a long time to resolve in the past--many times discussions were held but no resolution came about--and that was a failure on our part. That being said, we have greatly improved our communication and processes, and the only reason we would put off discussing a change is because we all agree it would not be immediately implemented even if a change did occur. Many times it is not just a potential change that needs to be considered but also the timing of the potential change.

As for this thread, we welcome any additional resources or insights people wish to provide on this topic.

Would you have preferred I told you it meant something else, as I have learned?