Originally posted by Icemoon:
Disagree.
I side with the Roman Catholics on this issue.
It is tradition first, then gospel. Protestants often give people the impression the bible was composed untainted, then some church leaders added "spice" to it and create questionable traditions and practices.
The New Testament is not the Qu'ran or Torah for christ's sake. God gave the Torah to Moses and the Qu'ran was dictated to the Prophet, but the New Testament was composed by anonymous people (gospels, Hebrews, Revelations etc .. who are the authors?) and chosen using some dubious criteria (4 gospels cos 4 corners etc.).
???? don't understand why you say this???
Just look around you today, different churches (both Catholics and Protestants) have to a certain degree, some difference Traditions and Practices (no matter how slight it is). These are evidence inferences from culturals, languages, localities, ideals, nationalities ..etc)
example:
difference in Ideals : practices/traditions in a Charismatic church and a Traditional church
difference in cultures : practices/traditions of Catholic church in China and that in Philippines
difference in language : practices/traditions of a Chinese church and a English church
...etc
These are the 'flavors' added I am talking about.
Anyway, even in through out church history, you think no flavors added meh? what is traditions, what is practices.. ? its about the people doing it, how they do it, how they think is the right way to do it (Face it, its human nature to want to improve, to add into the steps to make it better, more efficient, more acturate ...etc)
