All Christians know, or should know........

[binbag]

.

.



All Christians know, or should know, that Jesus is the centre of our prayer life; "He" and only He, according to scriptures, is the only one who has the authority to take our prayers to God.





However, pope Benedict XVl decided earlier this year, to say a prayer to Mary to intercede for peace in the world.





John Paul II also prayed to Mary for intercedence, earlier this decade on the same subject. I think his was around 2001/03.



Can anyone, especially Roman Catholics, understand the teachings in the Bible that says "pray to Mary"?

NB, absolutely know offence intended to anyone regarding this post. bb

[yaaarrrgg]

The best explanation I've heard is that sometimes a person just feels more comfortable talking to a female. It's more psychological than scriptural, and goes to gender relationships. The idea of an angry male God with raging testosterone problems is not that enticing to converse with, for either gender.

Also, the notion of God was actually female in the original religions (mother earth). Christianity is what's added the new spin that God has a penis, and three heads. Depending on how far you go back, praying to a male deity may be the newer idea.

[fuzzywuzzy]

Umm this is the old arguements between the catholics and protestants. The Huegonauts were killed for it, and many others.

The only thing I can recall in the bible that even demonstrates anything to do with prayer at Miriam daughter of Heli. Is when Elisabeth greets her and says "blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb" (see 'hail mary' wording) You'll note that only Luke writes about Mary's pregnancy.

Basically all the wording of the ahil Mary is of those spoken to Mary ie the angel and lizzy.

Hils mary full of grace the lord is with thee. <----------angels words

blessed are thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb , jesus. <----------------elizabeths' words

Holy Mary mother of god pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death

amen. <-------------have no idea

Teh only time Mary is seen as anything more special again above the average joe was after the accension of Jesus where she and other diciples are in an 'upper chamber' praying as one.

You also have to know about what saints who have seen her say about the matter. I'm not sure if bernadette of lourdes is still alive but many stories have been told to the vatican over a few centuries all which have instructions .

[Ted]

It is not the least bit unusual for Christians to ask a friend to pray for them hence ask Mary, considered a friend. As fuzzywuzzy has noted though it is the same old same old. It is the same refusal to understand the nature of the faith re the use of statues and relics. This goes on and on. Fundamentalism is a modern invention of humans during the late 19th and early 20th centuries as is the literal reading of the Bible. The bible is of course not a history book and was never intended to be though it does contain some kernels of history spread throughout. A great deal is metaphorical in nature. The intention was to collect an open ended document that could and should be reinterpreted by each new generation as our history and fund of knowledge increased. In fact there is no one right interpretation of any part of the Bible. There can be and are multiple valid interpretations of any part.

Shalom

Ted

[fuzzywuzzy]

I'm not sure why you say that over and over again. "In fact there is no one right interpretation of any part of the Bible." Every single time you post on the bible you say this......and yet there's never any proof to back this up. And you always say it is "metaphorical"

Okay if this is your personal belief that's fine but you also always use the word "scholars" but very little is known about these "scholars" and you very rarely if at all mention their names. . And I don't think once you've mentioned your true religion.

If you want to teach the populace that the bible is metaphorical then I hope you can back it up . Because the people will want to know what is metaphorical about it. All you do is create confusion otherwise. Or is that your point ......leading people down the path of your own interpretation of a metaphorical writing?

[Ted]

fuzzywuzzy

If you don't like what I post don't read. I was assuming that Binbag was a relatively new poster as the info so indicates. As for my faith: I am a Christian pluralist.

As for scholars, if you really want a list I can post the names of some or many as you choose. Some of those names include the scholars I study under at the Vancouver school of theology. As far as never giving credit take a look back at my former posts if you care to.

As far as having others think as I do, I couldn't care less. One can either accept what I post or not.

Smile, God loves you.

Shalom

Ted

[Ahso!]

My mother would say that you pray to Mary because she too is a parent of Jesus, and if God wants to "get any again this again", he better let her in on the act (I'm paraphrasing and embellishing a little).

Jesus, like any good child (soldier) volunteered to be tortured and murdered for the good of the clan (he'll do his killing later when mom and dad get really pissed and let him get his mojo going).

Also, Mary and the saints get prayed to for the less significant stuff like finding jewelry, dying pets and when the car won't start.

[Ted]

Asho

I absolutely hate it when my car won't start.

Shalom

Ted

[fuzzywuzzy]

and when the car won't start.


nah they sacked St Cristophor.

[Ahso!]

Ted;1341695 wrote: Asho

I absolutely hate it when my car won't start.

Shalom

TedYou're probably praying to the wrong saint.

[Ted]

Than I call the garage. LOL

Shalom

Ted

[Ted]

Then I call the garage. LOL

Shalom

Ted

[Ted]

oops double post.

[koan]

Ted has posted many times a list of scholars connected to various statements and works. It's a lot easier to just write the condensed statement instead of repeating the names like a "who's who" list every time he wants to refer to the work. I vouch for him... he's got a legitimate list of scholars.

He also wouldn't be the first member on a forum to find himself repeating the same thing over and over. At least what he's saying is relevant to the topic. LOL

[binbag]

:DAhso!;1341694 wrote: and when the car won't start.


:DTed;1341695 wrote: Asho

I absolutely hate it when my car won't start.

Shalom

Ted


:Dfuzzywuzzy;1341696 wrote: nah they sacked St Cristophor.


:DAhso!;1341697 wrote: You're probably praying to the wrong saint.




koan;1341705 wrote: He also wouldn't be the first member on a forum to find himself repeating the same thing over and over. What was that you said koan? What was that you said koan?

:wah:




I'll be back

[koan]

binbag;1341754 wrote:

What was that you said koan? What was that you said koan?

:wah:



If I had to guess, I'd say "it's all the same ****in' thing"

[xyz]

The Bible nowhere says that prayer should be directed to anyone other than God. The response of those who pray via those now deceased is often justified by the practise of people asking each other to pray with them. The problem with that is that one does not know that the deceased are able even to 'hear' what is said or thought by people alive. Prayer to the dead may be purely imaginary. (Of course, there are those who will say that any prayer is imaginary, but perhaps we can for the moment assume that the Bible deity exists.)

[Ahso!]

xyz;1341810 wrote: The Bible nowhere says that prayer should be directed to anyone other than God. The response of those who pray via those now deceased is often justified by the practise of people asking each other to pray with them. The problem with that is that one does not know that the deceased are able even to 'hear' what is said or thought by people alive. Prayer to the dead may be purely imaginary. (Of course, there are those who will say that any prayer is imaginary, but perhaps we can for the moment assume that the Bible deity exists.)No thanks.

Perhaps we can accept that people who pray to dead people assume the dead people can hear their prayers, Jesus died. Whats the difference between what you want to assume and they want to assume? A storybook? Come now.

[Ted]

Actually when people pray for you they are praying to the Divine.

Shalom

Ted

[Lon]

Once in a while I say a little prayer to Guido. Sometime he responds and sometimes he doesn't.

[koan]

The first time I saw direct evidence of an answer to a prayer was when I prayed to Mary. I didn't think it out, I just really needed help and she was the intuitive spirit to appeal to. I'm a polytheist in some ways though. I believe in one source but that our appeals should be made to lesser beings who take special interest in the goings on of humans.

[binbag]

I'm quite intigrued with your replys and find this subject very interesting. I hope it can continue without malice and without resentment of what is and what is not Biblically based.

Here's just a few comments for now, posted with friendly intention.

ok, deep breath .......



Ted;1341691 wrote: It is not the least bit unusual for Christians to ask a friend to pray for them hence ask Mary, considered a friend. That’s true Ted, but not "dead" friends.

We must also remind ourselves there is but “one mediator between God and mankind, and that man is JC” (1 Timothy 2:5)

Conclusion, praying to Mary to intercede has to be a man made decision.



Ted;1341691 wrote: Fundamentalism is a modern invention of humans during the late 19th and early 20th centuries as is the literal reading of the Bible. You mean nobody, before the late 19th and early 20th centuries believed the basic facts of the Bible including putting JC and the Bible first and foremost?



Ted;1341691 wrote: The bible is of course not a history book
The Old Covenant was for evermore used as "historical" purposes once the New Covenant came into being.



Ted;1341691 wrote: The intention was to collect an open ended document that could and should be reinterpreted by each new generation as our history and fund of knowledge increased. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! Galatians 1:8 (a stern warning to be extremely cautious when dealing with the written "Word")



L8TR. bb

[recovering conservative]

binbag;1342050 wrote:

Here's just a few comments for now, posted with friendly intention.

ok, deep breath .......
Normally, I would just ignore this sort of thread and let Christians fight amongst themselves, but I recall that your thread opener began with:

"He" and only He, according to scriptures, is the only one who has the authority to take our prayers to God.



However, pope Benedict XVl decided earlier this year, to say a prayer to Mary to intercede for peace in the world.



John Paul II also prayed to Mary for intercedence, earlier this decade on the same subject. I think his was around 2001/03.

Can anyone, especially Roman Catholics, understand the teachings in the Bible that says "pray to Mary"?

NB, absolutely know offence intended to anyone regarding this post. bb

That advisory notice at the bottom caught my attention because the other fundie on this thread could care less if everyone else ends up roasting in hell -- but unless you are totally oblivious to Catholic dogma, you have to realize that you can't just negate a cornerstone belief of Catholics -- about Mary and the Saints interceding etc. etc., without getting at least some negative response from any Catholics that happen to be reading this.



That’s true Ted, but not "dead" friends.
From my pov Jesus is also a dead friend!

We must also remind ourselves there is but “one mediator between God and mankind, and that man is JC” (1 Timothy 2:5)

Conclusion, praying to Mary to intercede has to be a man made decision.


I have to ask you the same question that the other sola scriptura guy here won't answer: how can you trust what's written in your Bible about Jesus, if you can't trust the Catholic Church? Since they were the ones who created a Christian orthodoxy in the first place. If you ever read the historical accounts (ones that the Church didn't get a chance to burn) about the Christian churches around the Roman Empire during the 2nd and 3rd centuries, you will find great variance on doctrine. There were Gnostics, Arians, Marcionites, Ebionites, who all had radically different ideas about Jesus than the proto-orthodox church in Rome -- which later went on to decide what was proper doctrine and what books would be gathered in a canon as official scripture. Every Protestant faction that has broken off and proclaimed themselves to be the keepers of true Christian doctrine is faced with that dilemma that the organization they condemn as corrupt, were also the keepers of the flame!

[xyz]

recovering conservative;1342113 wrote: Since they were the ones who created a Christian orthodoxy in the first place.
The imperial 'church' created an 'orthodoxy' in the second place, or rather, in the umpteenth place, because the presence of false teachers presenting themselves and their teachings as genuine, outside the church and in it, are mentioned in the New Testament as already present as its authors wrote.

The action of 'the Thirteenth Apostle', as Constantine was called, was to unify teaching (though polity more strongly) in compliance with his own wishes and those of his successors as representatives of the patricians of the Empire. Because the Empire removed heresies does not mean that it was not heretical itself.

Orthodoxy is defined by the church, which may be among those who define Scripture as the Scripture of Jesus, with the Gospels, Luke's Acts and the apostolic letters. Prayer to anyone other than God is not mentioned in any of those works as accepted or practised by those regarded as orthodox therein.

[Ted]

With all due respect I stand by what I posted. I've spent some 50 years studying the Bible and its message and the history of the Bible as a book and the translation of both the Hebrew and the Greek. That in itself is a big task but one that is most enjoyable.

The Bible is primarily a religious book it is neither a history book nor a science book. It is made up of myth, legend, folk tale, fiction, short story, poetry and some I've probably missed. It also contains some small kernels of history. For Christians it becomes the "Word of God" by virtue of the fact that God speaks to us through the very human words of the Bible and not by virtue of its authorship. In fact a good deal of the Bible is metaphorical. The reason it is metaphorical because we humans do not have the language with which to speak of the Divine outside of metaphor.

This book, which I do take very seriously, has been put together in some places and especially the Torah (The first five books) from oral tradition. This part was composed and written down during the Babylonian exile. The Bible has been edited, redacted, added to and subtracted from over the centuries.

One might say that it claims to be the "Word of God" but so do most of the sacred writings of many of the other faiths.

To add to this there are some 22,000 Christian denominations around the world many believing that they and they alone have the only correct interpretation. But everyone knows that I have the only interpretation that is valid. LOL

Now if you choose to believe otherwise I have no problem but please be aware that there are many, many interpretations and views that can be equally as valid.

If you would like a list of scholars I can supply one, short or long.

Shalom

Ted

[xyz]

Ted;1342147 wrote: With all due respect I stand by what I posted. I've spent some 50 years studying the Bible and its message and the history of the Bible as a book and the translation of both the Hebrew and the Greek.
Then presumably after this time one has found a way in which prayer to dead persons can be reconciled with 1 Timothy 2:5. Others have studied the Hebrew and the Greek Testaments for 50 years and more, and have been unable to find that reconciliation. What is notable is that the practice of prayer to the dead became common during a prolonged time in which very few people indeed could read the Bible in any language. But for that state of affairs, it seems unlikely that this practice would be at all common today.

there are some 22,000 Christian denominations around the world many believing that they and they alone have the only correct interpretation.
The great majority of them do not believe that prayer can be made to anyone but God. They may differ on other things (though not nearly as many as most people suppose), but not on that.

If you would like a list of scholars I can supply one, short or long.
The purpose of scholarship is to provide factually supported, reasoned arguments. One who has read and understood valid scholarship will be able to support posts with these arguments.

[Bryn Mawr]

xyz;1342152 wrote: Then presumably after this time one has found a way in which prayer to dead persons can be reconciled with 1 Timothy 2:5. Others have studied the Hebrew and the Greek Testaments for 50 years and more, and have been unable to find that reconciliation. What is notable is that the practice of prayer to the dead became common during a prolonged time in which very few people indeed could read the Bible in any language. But for that state of affairs, it seems unlikely that this practice would be at all common today.


Given the great number of contradictions between passages of the Bible, can it be valid to select a single passage and ask for a refutation? Any possible answer must, surely, be addressed to the content of the Bible in its entirety.

The practice of praying for the intercession of Mary and the Saints was not invented by those who could not read the Bible but was encouraged by the Church itself. it is hardly "prayer to the dead" but rather a request to those who are said to sit at the right hand of God to add their voice to your prayer.

xyz;1342152 wrote: The great majority of them do not believe that prayer can be made to anyone but God. They may differ on other things (though not nearly as many as most people suppose), but not on that.


Could you point to a survey to that effect?

The main point is that the body which selected and created the Bible as we know it is the one which supports and encourages the belief you object to. As the body which carried the Apostolic Succession for most of the life of the Church it is for you to show that they are wrong.

xyz;1342152 wrote: The purpose of scholarship is to provide factually supported, reasoned arguments. One who has read and understood valid scholarship will be able to support posts with these arguments.


One does not back every statement one makes with detailed arguments - just those which are disputed. The purpose of scholarship is to provide structure and rationality to debate. I must say it is good to see that you are finally trying to debate those points you disagree with rather than use one line put downs that prove nothing but your disagreement.

[xyz]

If any think that #27 contains valid argument, such argument may be raised and receive reply.

[Bryn Mawr]

xyz;1342156 wrote: If any think that #27 contains valid argument, such argument may be raised and receive reply.


Oh well, back to the one liners again.

What does that mean and what is it that you disagree with?

Once we've determined that we might have a point of contact to use as a basis for discussion - as it is your post is meaningless.

[Ted]

xyz

If you are interested and willing to follow up I will list some scholars. If not then don't waste my time.

You ask for proof yet you make statement about praying to the dead and who does and does not. No offer of any scholarship or sources. I have stated that I can and will supply such a list.

Shalom

Ted

[xyz]

We see, then, that there is no Bible support for praying to any but God. We also do not know that those who pray to deceased people are heard by anyone at all- other than God of course, who presumably pays no attention to them. It is probably as well, as seems likely, if they are not heard, because communicating with the spirits of the dead is forbidden in the Bible, and the offence is serious:

'"Any man or woman who consults the spirits of the dead shall be stoned to death; any person who does this is responsible for his own death."' Lev 20:27 GNB

One might suppose that one does not know that one does not talk to demons by that route. But even communicating with the saints meets disapproval. We see that, when Saul attempted to speak to the deceased Samuel, and was successful, he was asked, "Why have you disturbed me? Why did you make me come back?" 1 Sa 28:15 GNB.

Because this sort of occurrence is by no means the normal experience of those who pray to the dead, it may reasonably be supposed that they are not actually communicating with anyone, and any apparent answers to this sort of prayer are either imaginary, contrived by ordinary human means, or provided by demonic powers.

[Boogalette]

Ahso!;1341694 wrote: My mother would say that you pray to Mary because she too is a parent of Jesus, and if God wants to "get any again this again", he better let her in on the act (I'm paraphrasing and embellishing a little).

Jesus, like any good child (soldier) volunteered to be tortured and murdered for the good of the clan (he'll do his killing later when mom and dad get really pissed and let him get his mojo going).

Also, Mary and the saints get prayed to for the less significant stuff like finding jewelry, dying pets and when the car won't start.


That last line is the best explaiantion I`ve read as to why people pray to saints. Basically, to use the secretaries for the little stuff instead of bothering the boss.

Nonetheless, I don`t subscribe to praying of saints, etc, as IMO it qualifies as idolatry. But if anyone else would like to, knock your socks off. whatever floats your boat I`ll never judge anyone for it.

[binbag]

Ted;1341693 wrote: As for my faith: I am a Christian pluralist.By that Ted, do you simply mean, in your heart you’re a Christian who studies other religions to discover and agree with their teachings, that are on par with the teachings of Christianity, but dismiss the rest of that religion's techings?



Ted;1341828 wrote: Actually when people pray for you they are praying to the Divine.

Shalom

TedCould you expand on that for me please.



Ahso!;1341815 wrote: No thanks.Perhaps we can accept that people who pray to dead people assume the dead people can hear their prayers, Jesus died. Whats the difference between what you want to assume and they want to assume? A storybook? Come now.Hmmm, other than people praying to Mary, I haven’t actually heard of people praying to the dead.

Praying to Jesus, yes, but praying to the dead, blimey, that gives me the heebie jeebies.



Lon;1341855 wrote: Once in a while I say a little prayer to Guido. Sometime he responds and sometimes he doesn't.Lon, you’re flogging a dead horse there. Prayer didn’t do much to help old Guido now did it.



koan;1341857 wrote: The first time I saw direct evidence of an answer to a prayer was when I prayed to Mary. I didn't think it out, I just really needed help and she was the intuitive spirit to appeal to. I'm a polytheist in some ways though. I believe in one source but that our appeals should be made to lesser beings who take special interest in the goings on of humans.I really do believe your heart’s in the right place koan.

[binbag]

NB, absolutely know offence intended to anyone regarding this post. bb




recovering conservative;1342113 wrote: Normally, I would just ignore this sort of thread and let Christians fight amongst themselves rc, I sincerely do hope this thread is the exception, and does not develop into to an unseemly fight.

Such a thing would be very sad and extremely disappointing. For my part all I’m searching for is friendly enlightenment, and the best way for me to do that is to ask questions without malice.

I hope everyone gets that and takes it on board when reading or replying to this thread.






recovering conservative;1342113 wrote: That advisory notice at the bottom caught my attention because the other fundie on this thread could care less if everyone else ends up roasting in hell Sorry I don’t quite understand your meaning, and what does the word fundie mean?



recovering conservative;1342113 wrote: but unless you are totally oblivious to Catholic dogma, you have to realize that you can't just negate a cornerstone belief of Catholics -- about Mary and the Saints interceding etc. etc.,
Oh, I’ve more interest than just Mary, and I didn’t bring up the subjects of “Saints” as you mention.

I’ve more questions I liked to ask, without malice and with the sincere hope of being answered in the same manner. As I said I find this thread to be intriguing.



recovering conservative;1342113 wrote: without getting at least some negative response from any Catholics that happen to be reading this. Why on earth would I receive negative responses for seeking genuine answers?



recovering conservative;1342113 wrote: how can you trust what's written in your Bible about Jesus, if you can't trust the Catholic Church? I don’t know where you’re getting your information from. I never mentioned anything about me not trusting the Catholic church.



recovering conservative;1342113 wrote: Every Protestant faction that has broken off and proclaimed themselves to be the keepers of true Christian doctrine is faced with that dilemma that the organization they condemn as corrupt, were also the keepers of the flame! rc, you’re getting confused, you must be referring to another post. I never mentioned anything about condemnation or corruption.

That’s how rumours start, some people will read your comments and take it as gospel (no pun intended) therefore judging my thread to be negative and anti RC.



NB, absolutely know offence intended to anyone regarding this post. bb

[Ted]

binbag

Yes I am a Christian pluralist and I have studied tenets of the other faiths. There is truth in all of the faiths. That I might disagree with some of their practices is not a reflection on them. I am entitled to my opinion as is everyone else here. All of the world's great faiths are ultimately based on two tenets: Justice and compassion and that includes Judaism and Christianity. ("The Great Transformation", Karen Armstrong, "One River Many Wells", by Christian theologian Matthew Fox and others).

As far as praying to dead people go I think that has been well explained elsewhere. post #27.

Shalom

Ted

[xyz]

Ted;1342233 wrote: As far as praying to dead people go I think that has been well explained elsewhere. post #27.
Why do you think that?

[spot]

I'm reluctant to add to the thread but I'll give it a go.

Christians pray solely to God. He is, as Koan's noting in her commentary on the Old Testament, rather insistent on that. And jealous.

A huge volume of vain repetition crept into Christian prayers by interpreting John 14 as a magical invocation worthy of The Golden Bough: "I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it". I don't think Jesus was offering His followers unlimited power over the Almighty but that seems to have been the sense in which most of the Church of England Service Book was designed, given the extent to which "In Jesus' Name" got scattered like confetti through it. Cranmer's English is very wonderful but he got stuck in a rut over those verses.

John expands on this notion in 1 John 5: "This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us - whatever we ask - we know that we have what we asked of him". That, at least, avoids dry formulaic invocation.

Invoking mediators of prayer, whether saintly or Mariolatrous, is just beating a dead horse. Piously adding formulae in the hope of forcing God's hand is much the same.

[binbag]

Spot, I hope you don't mind me picking up one point of your excellent reply that I feel is worthy of note....

1 John 5:14-15

14

This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us.

15 And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him.

"according to his will" are the operative words in this passage.

In my experience many genuine people become downhearted when they ask God for something in prayer, then, whatever it is they ask for does not materialize, they become disillusioned and feel God never answered them.



For that reason, I made up this little peace (I have it posted in BinbagCottage) with the hope it may offer others some encouragement….

-----------------------------

Here's A Promise For All Of Us.

"ALWAYS".


Every time we offer a prayer request up to God, He ALWAYS answers us.

He never forgets, He never neglects, and He never rejects a prayer request.

He ALWAYS answers us.

He may answer speedily, He may answer in due season, He may even answer us with a No.

But He ALWAYS ALWAYS answers us.

If God does answer with a "No", then it's a good idea to keep in mind, that later, perhaps hours, perhaps weeks, perhaps months, perhaps even years later, we will go through an experience in our lives that will make us look back, and if we're still in tune with God, we'll say, Ah, now I understand why God said "No".

And do you know what, we will actually thank him for that "No".

He never forgets, He never neglects,

And He never rejects a prayer request.

He ALWAYS ALWAYS answers us.

And that's a Promise for all of us.

"ALWAYS"


When we discovered that fact through all the many trials my wife and I endured from the begining of our married life, (long story) we clung on to those thoughts to help us through.

We've been married 42 years and those thoughts always came to mind whenever the next trial arose. They gave us strength, they gave us hope, they gave us courage.

They still do as a matter of fact.

I hope they give hope to others.

God bless.

bb

[recovering conservative]

binbag;1342201 wrote: NB, absolutely know offence intended to anyone regarding this post. bb


rc, I sincerely do hope this thread is the exception, and does not develop into to an unseemly fight.
It depends how much people think is riding on this issue! For instance, until relatively recent times, both Catholic and Protestant church leaders were teaching their followers that being right or being wrong on these sorts of issues was the difference between going to heaven....or going to hell.

If this is just a parlour game with nothing at stake, there's nothing to get excited about. But, if praying to saints and keeping the Rosary is blasphemy.....as this charming little groups claims then it doesn't seem reasonable to expect a nice little discussion over tea! It depends what the consequences are. What do you think the consequences are for Catholics who do not direct all of their prayers to Jesus, but instead say prayers to Mary and the Saints?

[xyz]

recovering conservative;1342492 wrote: It depends how much people think is riding on this issue! For instance, until relatively recent times, both Catholic and Protestant church leaders were teaching their followers that being right or being wrong on these sorts of issues was the difference between going to heaven....or going to hell.

If this is just a parlour game with nothing at stake, there's nothing to get excited about. But, if praying to saints and keeping the Rosary is blasphemy.....as this charming little groups claims then it doesn't seem reasonable to expect a nice little discussion over tea! It depends what the consequences are. What do you think the consequences are for Catholics who do not direct all of their prayers to Jesus, but instead say prayers to Mary and the Saints?
The answer to this is already given: the consequences are as stated in the thread- that those who claim to pray to the deceased, normally only imagine that they do so, but, merely by attempting to do so, are in breach of the Bible's command that no such attempts should be made, on pain of death. That earthly consequence no longer applies, of course, but it is very reasonable to suppose that the divine attitude to those who, despite knowing of the divine attitude, address prayer to any but the divinity, has the consequence that such people will be 'going to hell'. For those who are unaware that the Bible deity opposes this practice, and surely there are many of them, one cannot be sure what their fate will be; though it may not be any different.

[binbag]

recovering conservative;1342492 wrote: It depends how much people think is riding on this issue! For instance, until relatively recent times, both Catholic and Protestant church leaders were teaching their followers that being right or being wrong on these sorts of issues was the difference between going to heaven....or going to hell.

If this is just a parlour game with nothing at stake, there's nothing to get excited about. But, if praying to saints and keeping the Rosary is blasphemy.....as this charming little groups claims then it doesn't seem reasonable to expect a nice little discussion over tea! It depends what the consequences are. What do you think the consequences are for Catholics who do not direct all of their prayers to Jesus, but instead say prayers to Mary and the Saints?
rc, it come across that it is beyond your comprehension that someone is capable of making inquiries regarding a subject without having an ulterior motive.



recovering conservative;1342492 wrote: What do you think the consequences are for Catholics who do not direct all of their prayers to Jesus, but instead say prayers to Mary and the Saints?
We all have the freedom to make our own choices in our decisions concerning Christian/Biblical matters.

I do not have the authority to condemn (and condemn is what you actually want me to do) others for their choice of beliefs.

It would be entirely different if a genuine Christian was to say.... look, this is how I understand this particular verse and this is how I put it into practice, would you agree with me?

Now that, is not an open ended question like yours.



The example question I describe above is a direct question regarding a Biblical principle which can only be answered truthfully by reading the particular verse the person is referring to in order to determine whether the person is or isn’t correct in their understanding of it.



NB, absolutely know offence intended to anyone regarding this post. bb

[recovering conservative]

binbag;1342502 wrote: rc, it come across that it is beyond your comprehension that someone is capable of making inquiries regarding a subject without having an ulterior motive.
No need to be melodramatic here! The ulterior motive I am assuming, is the same one that I assume all Evangelicals have: win souls for Christ, and 'be all things to all people' if necessary to get the job done.

In debate, most people are very keen on convincing others that they are right, but being right is not usually a matter of determining one's existential fate. So, when it comes to religious doctrines, unless there is some presumption of universalism, it is going to get very serious, very fast.

We all have the freedom to make our own choices in our decisions concerning Christian/Biblical matters.
But, what I want to know is: does making the wrong choice, mean the person is going to burn?

I do not have the authority to condemn (and condemn is what you actually want me to do) others for their choice of beliefs.
But, does someone else have that authority to condemn, for holding wrong beliefs? The answer will tell me a lot about just how fair and benevolent the God you believe in, really is!

It would be entirely different if a genuine Christian was to say.... look, this is how I understand this particular verse and this is how I put it into practice, would you agree with me?
Yes, I could agree with that. But, I would still be interested in knowing if you believe that others are committing blasphemy for following that practice of praying to Mary or to saints. It is possible to believe that only prayers to Jesus are answered, and still not believe (like the fundamentalist site I linked previously) that Catholics will roast in hell for continuing this practice.

The example question I describe above is a direct question regarding a Biblical principle which can only be answered truthfully by reading the particular verse the person is referring to in order to determine whether the person is or isn’t correct in their understanding of it.

NB, absolutely know offence intended to anyone regarding this post. bb
But, different books of the Bible have conflicting statements.....which have created a huge complex business of Biblical apologetics to try to harmonize together. Catholics will respond that this verse doesn't negate intercessory prayer, and they claim that's what the Saints do. And, if the Saints, and Mary are dead, what happened to heaven? Sometimes I get the feeling (especially at funerals) that belief in an eternal afterlife is at best, a longing, and not something that people believe is actually real.

[xyz]

recovering conservative;1342521 wrote: No need to be melodramatic here! The ulterior motive I am assuming, is the same one that I assume all Evangelicals have: win souls for Christ, and 'be all things to all people' if necessary to get the job done.
So if evangelicals get irrational and preachy, they will damage their cause? Is that the desperate purpose of this inflammatory trolling? It's inexcusable to assume or accuse of ulterior motives. It would get an instant ban from any organised debate.

That the practice of praying to the dead is condemned by the Bible is embarrassing. It needs to be admitted, though, and not covered up.

[recovering conservative]

xyz;1342495 wrote: The answer to this is already given: the consequences are as stated in the thread- that those who claim to pray to the deceased, normally only imagine that they do so, but, merely by attempting to do so, are in breach of the Bible's command that no such attempts should be made, on pain of death. That earthly consequence no longer applies, of course, but it is very reasonable to suppose that the divine attitude to those who, despite knowing of the divine attitude, address prayer to any but the divinity, has the consequence that such people will be 'going to hell'. For those who are unaware that the Bible deity opposes this practice, and surely there are many of them, one cannot be sure what their fate will be; though it may not be any different.


Well, no one is going to accuse you of trying to sugarcoat the message!

The problem that I have with exclusivist salvation doctrines is

1. they are attempts to use a carrot and stick approach to get people to accept beliefs that they don't really like, but are motivated to just go along with, because the promised rewards and punishments are so outlandish.

2. how much respect can a true believer have for those who willfully reject their gospel message? (like me!)

When I was a young teenager, and my father got sucked into the Jehovah's Witness cult, we were stuck with that annoying habit of going around knocking on doors....something that very few Evangelicals practice, I might add! The JW's are outwardly a pacifist religion (just like the Amish), but we were taught that everyone who is still rejecting our salvation message will die and not be resurrected on a new Earth reserved only for the true believers. I mention all of this, because their version of God was actually slightly more humane than the one that most Evangelical Christians believe in! A person would only die once, and miss the Resurrection -- they didn't exist for eternity in some everlasting Abu Ghraib! Yet, many of the devout, longtime witnesses had a snide, callous attitude about the people who were hostile to us at the doors. I recall a few playing games like imagining in a nice suburban neighbourhood - which would be the nicest home to move in to, after Armageddon.

Now, this pales in comparison to burning witches or blowing up infidels; but it's worth noting at a time when we are heading in to hard times, that a lot of fundamentalists consider the lives of unbelievers as having no merit. This is part of the reason why fascist movements try to use the religious beliefs and values of the population that they are trying to appeal to. Exclusive salvation plays a small, but unmistakeable role in enabling fascist leaders to condemn outsiders of the in-group, and later to persecute them and carry out barbaric actions against them.

[recovering conservative]

xyz;1342522 wrote: So if evangelicals get irrational and preachy, they will damage their cause? Is that the desperate purpose of this inflammatory trolling? It's inexcusable to assume or accuse of ulterior motives. It would get an instant ban from any organised debate.

That those who practise praying to the dead is condemned by the Bible is embarrassing. It needs to be admitted, though, and not covered up.


If anyone should be banned here it would be you, for twisting and misrepresenting the words of others. That wasn't even a post directed to you in the first place; so let that person do the interpreting. Now go ahead and interpret the one I wrote to you in response in whatever twisted way you can come up with.

[xyz]

recovering conservative;1342523 wrote: The problem that I have with exclusivist salvation doctrines
The same exclusive doctrine that those have who pray to dead persons. Might it be that the rub here is the reason that those people pray to dead persons? Because their salvation doctrine contrasts mightily with the salvation doctrine of those who pray only to God. It's a constant source of irritation to atheist and skeptics, that difference- but it's not within the remit of the opening post.

No doubt it's a subject that could be given an airing, but it would not be very appropriate to this thread. The conclusion of this thread is that prayer to the dead is an 'unlawful' practice. End of legitimate debate.

[xyz]

recovering conservative;1342524 wrote: If anyone should be banned here it would be you, for twisting and misrepresenting the words of others.


Where is there misrepresentation?

[binbag]

.

.

.

binbag

binbag;1342201 wrote:

rc, I sincerely do hope this thread is the exception, and does not develop into to an unseemly fight.

Such a thing would be very sad and extremely disappointing.

For my part all I’m searching for is friendly enlightenment, and the best way for me to do that is to ask questions without malice.

I hope everyone gets that and takes it on board when reading or replying to this thread.




recovering conservative reply…

recovering conservative;1342492 wrote: It depends how much people think is riding on this issue! For instance, until relatively recent times, both Catholic and Protestant church leaders were teaching their followers that being right or being wrong on these sorts of issues was the difference between going to heaven....or going to hell.

If this is just a parlour game with nothing at stake, there's nothing to get excited about. But, if praying to saints and keeping the Rosary is blasphemy.....as this charming little groups claims then it doesn't seem reasonable to expect a nice little discussion over tea! It depends what the consequences are. What do you think the consequences are for Catholics who do not direct all of their prayers to Jesus, but instead say prayers to Mary and the Saints?What I was hoping would not happen, has happened. Sadly this thread has become rather negative and I’m afraid I’m going to blame you for instigating the negativity rc.

Your input is not really in keeping with my intentions of the thread. (see above)

So, in order to get this thread back on track, I politely ask you to consider opening another thread for your particular questions, where I (and I’m sure other members) would happily offer you answers.

NB, absolutely know offence intended to anyone regarding this post.


Best wishes,

bb

[recovering conservative]

binbag;1342597 wrote: .

.

.

binbag



recovering conservative reply…

What I was hoping would not happen, has happened. Sadly this thread has become rather negative and I’m afraid I’m going to blame you for instigating the negativity rc.

Your input is not really in keeping with my intentions of the thread. (see above)

So, in order to get this thread back on track, I politely ask you to consider opening another thread for your particular questions, where I (and I’m sure other members) would happily offer you answers.

NB, absolutely know offence intended to anyone regarding this post.


Best wishes,

bb


You didn't pull that quote from my latest post, and you have shown no interest in answering any questions from either post regardless. My conclusion is that there are two methods for those claiming to be following the exclusive revealed truth:

1. the 'you're going to hell' speech or

2. the soft sell approach -- which does not mention the consequences until the subject starts showing signs of agreement.

[Ted]

Actually this does get a bit funny. LOL.

First I will comment on the use of scripture. In many churches today there are three sources of authority (if you will): The bible (primary0, common sense and tradition. To accept the Bible as literally written is to lead people into all kinds of absurdities. No, I don't have to park my brain at the door when I enter. For Christians the Bible becomes the "Word of God" not by virtue of its authorship but by virtue of the belief that God speaks to us through the very human words of the Bible. Kung. The only part of the Bible that I am aware of that was considered law was the Pentateuch which was the early Hebrew law code. As far as reading the Bible in context goes that ought to include the Bible as a whole and not small parts. It should also include the context in which it was written and the context of the time of reading otherwise it becomes a dead book.

I was raised in a very fundamentalist church, which shall remain anonymous. I not only found it seriously wanting but it was downright evil. That was and is my experience. In addition consider the likes of Phelps, Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, the reconstructionists (deadly ultra right fundamentalism).

Shalom

Ted