Supremecy: Scriptures or Sacred Church Tradition?
- Thread starter b23hqb
- Start date
Radiant1
Soul Probe
And there in lies your problem...no, it does not require one or the other. This is a stupid question based on a false premise that supremacy must be either/or.
My answer -- BOTH Sacred Tradition AND Scripture is the authority. The two go hand in hand and it is ideal.
By way of analogy, in an ideal world parenting is done with both mother and father. Not just one or the other, but both. If Mom says no dessert until dinner is done, Dad backs her up. If Dad says no TV until homework is done, Mom backs him up. Neither Mother or Father is superior to the other, and both are the authority to the children. Or, child says, "Mom said I couldn't have dessert until dinner is done but if I feed my food to the dog, then dinner is done." Dad is there to say, "That's not what she meant, eat your damn dinner". Or child says, "Dad said no TV until homework is done, but he didn't say I couldn't cheat to get it done". Mom is there to say, "Cheating is wrong, now do what your Dad told you." You see how this works? Not one is more superior to the other, but both are the authority.
b23hqb
Well-Known Member
I guess your catholic definition doesn't quite match the rest of the world:
supremacy
noun su·prem·a·cy \sə-ˈpre-mə-sē, sü- also -ˈprē-\
: the quality or state of having more power, authority, or status than anyone else : the state of being supreme
supreme
adjective su·preme \sə-ˈprēm, sü-\
: highest in rank or authority
: highest in degree or quality : greatest or highest possible
Full Definition of SUPREME
1
: highest in rank or authority <the supreme commander>
2
: highest in degree or quality <supreme endurance in war and in labour — R. W. Emerson>
3
: ultimate, final <the supreme sacrifice>
— su·preme·ly adverb
Radiant1
Soul Probe
Great, you can give a definition.
This in no way implies that such a status cannot be shared or that it is required to be an either/or proposition.
cheezgrits
Thought pirate
You assume everyone either attends a church or read a bible. So for me, neither is supreme, but equally important to the beholders of both.
I really wish there was more discussion about religious...ALL religious teachings in these forums. Sadly, Radiant spends so much of her time having to use reason, knowledge, and logic to tamp down wild eyed catholic haters.
Sheesh.
I really wish there was more discussion about religious...ALL religious teachings in these forums. Sadly, Radiant spends so much of her time having to use reason, knowledge, and logic to tamp down wild eyed catholic haters.
Sheesh.
ProximaCentauri
Member
Like the Qur'an and the Hadith. The two lay out the TRUTH quite nicely wouldn't you say? Interesting, isn't it, how people base their lives on primitive texts?
b23hqb
Well-Known Member
Great, you can give a definition.
The answer I expected in one form or another from you - supremacy can be shared.
That simply makes nothing supreme, nothing right, or wrong. Just catholic tradition. Man = God.
OK.
Radiant1
Soul Probe
Like the Qur'an and the Hadith. The two lay out the TRUTH quite nicely wouldn't you say? Interesting, isn't it, how people base their lives on primitive texts?
It could be worse, people could base their lives on modern texts such as Mein Kampf or The Communist Manifesto.
The answer I expected in one form or another from you - supremacy can be shared.
That simply makes nothing supreme, nothing right, or wrong. Just catholic tradition. Man = God.
OK.
I'm not sure why you insist on it being either/or. Your definition didn't prove your assertion. You laugh at my response, but you haven't given any other reason for us to believe differently.
As for the man = God thing, you need to just give that up; you look kind of foolish when you say it. The bible that you hold up as the sole and only supreme exhibitor of God's Word was written by men and compiled by men. Do you trust those men when they say they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write and that what they wrote was "God breathed"? How do you know for sure? Do you trust those men to have accurately chosen what books will or will not go into the New Testament? After all, according to you, they are just fallible men, right? In addition, the personal interpretation of scripture that you ascribe to where everyone is their own authority on scripture makes God's Word relative as opposed to absolute. Is Truth relative, b23?
Last edited:
b23hqb
Well-Known Member
Yes, to the most extent. Scriptures must be supreme, or there is no sense in having them in the first place. Everything a Christian does and believe must be looked at by the individual and compared in the mirror of the Bible. If one has "church traditions" that are not scriptural but are held as the same as scripture and worshiped as such, well, then what guideline does that person have to base their belief? Man? Certainly not God.
As far as the poll goes, to tell the truth, I am surprised at the results, both by the number of responses and the tally.
Last edited:
cheezgrits
Thought pirate
So nowhere can you even begin to try and see it from a perspective of the bible was written by man, edited by man, decided by man what would be in it and used primarily as a book of laws to govern the masses? Traditions are merely a way of passing down ways of doing things and values to generations. What do you think about ALL those Christians before us that couldn't read? What else were they supposed to do to understand what the ways were and what was being taught if not for passing down traditions.
Modern christians are very short sighted and honestly, self centered.
Radiant1
Soul Probe
And therein lies your other problem. Who interprets and determines what is or is not scriptural? You? Me? Suzy? Johnny? And what if we interpret that differently (which we obviously do)? How can scripture be the supreme authority on its own accord if it's open to interpretation? And if it's left to your or my personal interpretation then are we not making ourselves God for surely we can make it say what we want it to?
b23hqb
Well-Known Member
I have no problem with this. You have a problem with simple fact vs. your perception of personal interpretation. If you can read scripture, and be capable of comparing what it simply reads to your sacred church tradition, you will find many holes in those traditions that are simply not backed up by scripture. Not real hard to discern, right? You yourself said both are equal in your catholic mind, placing man as an equal to god. you obviously cannot digest and interpret what words mean. You, like your church in many instances, will simply tap around words and try to color it as having different meanings to fit your narrative. You just cannot admit those simple facts. Just fess up and say something like "Yes, Catholics believe their sacred church traditions carry the same weight as scriptures, even those many of those traditions are found nowhere in scripture" or something like that. So be it for you and yours.
You go, girl or whatever.
Maranatha, or Merry Christmas, which ever comes first.
TheLibertonian
New Member
Do you know what Theology is? Theology is the study of the nature of god and beliefs.
Allow me to share a story about a neo-pagan. Do you know who the pagans are? Thor, Odin, Tyr, Loki, Freya, etc. Old gods of the north. A pantheistic belief system that's interesting but the meat of which is unnecessary for this story.
Instead I want to talk about a specific point of the religion, which is human sacrifice. It was an important part of the religion, though why is to complex to get into for the purposes of this.
But recently, over the last five years or so, there's been a small but noticeable surge in what is called "neo-paganism", the worship and belief of said gods, but with a few bits missing, most importantly, the whole 'human sacrifice' thing, that being illegal nowadays.
I asked someone who I wouldn't call a friend but an acquaintance about that. Why, if you believe in this religion, have you suddenly cut out one of the most important parts? What is the THEOLOGICAL argument for no longer conducting human sacrifices to the gods?
Long story short I got a bunch of sputtering as a reply, and a whole lot of, well, your argument above, how the catholic church has changed over the years, and I said "well yes, you're right. They're theologians".
You see, being theologians, the catholic priesthood was largely meant to be able to argue theology, as in, why a certain thing might be allowable under the rules, and what might not be, and how scripture was for or against. The bible, being a complicated book, and contradictory in quite a few places, is a wonderful thing to study and argue over.
The other thing the church has done surprisingly well, all things considered, was keep historical records. Specifically, the arguments that were put forth for why this or that was good or bad or supported by or against scripture, for example. The Neo-pagans lack any sort of theological argument for the change of heart of their gods, nor any amount of scriptural reference as to why their gods would suddenly not demand the blood of human beings as a sealer of a rather complex contract between the mortals and their deities.
May I ask what denomination you are? Not what church you attend, of that I have no interest, but which denomination that church is a part of? There are a couple thousand denominations of christian, and I'd hate to list them all in hopes of guessing.
He is part of one of the thousand of strip mall churches that pop up and interpret scripture at will...
His actually went from strip mall to its own building and web page....
His denomination ....Fundamentalist, Evangelical, RCC hating wacko......JMHO
Radiant1
Soul Probe
Are you sure? You better think long and hard about that. If so, that means that you believe God is the author of confusion and disorder, which, ironically, goes directly against the scripture you espouse as the one and only authority (1Cor14 if you need the reference).
So you say, but I don't read it that way. Quite frankly, I think you're just not seeing it because you don't want to (eisegesis as opposed exegesis). Now what?
Apparently it is for Catholics take issue with Protestant doctrines and vice versa. Now what?
1) MEN wrote the bible. It didn't magically appear out of the sky, Jesus didn't write it Himself, nor did God stamp them on a stone tablet with a bolt of lightening. 2) Whether it be a person (you, me, Suzy, or Johnny) interpreting scripture or a body of chosen men (Sacred Tradition) interpreting scripture it's still MEN who are interpreting. Unless of course you want to claim yourself something other than a human being? (I told you that you need to stop this man=God crap because it makes you look stupid.)
Sure I can. You just don't like the meaning I find in them, nor I yours. Now what?
Yes Sacred Tradition holds the same weight as scripture and quite frankly it doesn't *have* to be found in scripture as even scripture says it doesn't contain everything (John 21 if you need a reference) but as I said, they go hand-in-hand; both are inspired by God. Just because you say differently means absolutely nothing to me or Suzy or Johnny. Jesus didn't leave us with a book, He left us with His Church. The Church Christ founded was and still is a teaching Church. Just because the bible was put together doesn't make the Church cease to exist. Interpretations are important. If it weren't you wouldn't have said what I bolded above and, frankly, I would accuse you of the same. So, now what? Where does your Bible Only doctrine leave you? I'll tell you, absolutely no where. You cannot rightly give everyone the right to interpret for themselves and then turn around and tell them they're interpreting wrong. Not only is it downright hilarious for not following your own espoused doctrine but it's the height of hypocrisy.
So....you go boy.
PsyOps
Pixelated
And, as I’ve asked before… who else would have written the bible?
TheLibertonian
New Member
The question is a false one because it assumes that one denies the other. You can have both. That's why "denominations" exist, rather then every single christian being a denomination unto themselves.
C
Chuckt
Guest
We're allowed to have differences just like there are different gospels, different representations in scripture and just like the nation of Israel had 12 tribes. They had twelve tribes because different people need different things.
C
Chuckt
Guest
The tabernacle was originally a tent so if God was in a tent then what is your problem with a strip mall?
Matthew 18:20 King James Version (KJV)
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18:20&version=KJV