YAY!
And so, even the most common prayer to Mary is a request for prayer in itself.
You MIGHT say that the Catholic church-members are misunderstanding the meaning of Saints.
No, I would say that those who are unschooled might see things that way. Most devout Catholics will agree with what's written above de facto.
But, I got you! Why are we Christians told to abstain from food sacrificed to idols? After all, we KNOW that they are powerless, and that the idols have nothing. We know that the food is just plain old food. There is no doubt in my mind that if I ate food sacrificed to Buddha (I don't know if they sacrifice food to Buddha, but you get the point) it would do nothing to me; because Buddha is not God; he has no power. So, why should I abstain from it? WE HAVE AN ANSWER!!! If we KNOW it is not taking part in idol worship, and we are not eating it as such, then what is the problem? 1 Corinthians 10:28-29. Because we would lead other to sin, or lead them to question our devotion to God...that's why.
Same goes for praying to saints who have passed on to heaven.
You are referring to a sin called scandal. There is a lot that has been written about it and I suggest that you read some. I especially liked Aquinas' treatment. He speaks a lot more holistically than I. But I will be brief. Christ scandalized the Pharisees by saying that people did not have to wash. Paul scandalized the Judiazers when he said that people did not have to be circumcised. Most Catholics, if they are devout and are willing to listen to the Church, know the difference between conversing with the Saints and the superstition. As it is a spiritual good to speak with those in Heaven, should we avoid it simply because a small minority is confused? Do we not go to Church because one person is convinced that walking on Sunday is sinful? Do we refuse people drink because someone is a teetotaler? I think not.
I believe a better analogy is that of an adulterer who learns of a married couple having sex and then says, “But if sex is bad, we should not have sex. They are having sex, so sex must not be bad.” His first mistake is that he is an adulterer (or, as above, he is being superstitious). Next he claims that all sex is bad (I don’t know what this sin is called, but it is forbidden in the Bible and tradition). Now, in this situation, should the couple stop their nuptials because of this individual?
To make the matter even more directly to the point, I don’t know any person who believes that a prayer to a Saint will give someone exactly what that person wants. That… doesn’t make sense. I would pray for one million dollars every day in that case… No, this point about, “leading others to sin,” doesn’t work - how can you lead someone to sin if no one believes what you’re doing is wrong?
3) Speaking of Traditions....
Where is the evidence for purgatory?
2 Macc. 12.
4) The Bible as History
You did not disprove my point. Muddied the waters, yes. Disprove my point...I don't think so.
Which point? I need more context.
I think that Catholics also believe that while God does give His word to men (rather, gave His word to be written & then passed on to us, also written down), He does not erase the personality of the author. T/f, what is acceptable as historical writing will remain as acceptable historical writing, for the time it was written.
Yet, if the Jews did not consider these books to be histories, then how do you know if they are? If you do not understand the intensions of the author, how can you know how to read it?
Is it not possible that one of David's brothers died, and therefore the Chronicler did not consider that brother one of the family? That the Chronicler did not choose to include that brother because he was dead, or for some other reason.
NO. You are changing the obvious reading from the text. David has seven older brothers in one account, “Jesse made seven of his sons pass before Samuel... [and] there remained the youngest, David.” David is born seventh in Chronicles, “Jesse begat... David the seventh.” If one had died or had been omitted, then David would not have been seventh, he still would have been eighth. Otherwise it is (to use your earlier analogy) the same as saying that you went to church, then went to Burger King where you saw your friend, and then heard a sermon.
Yes, I know that I am arguing from silence, BUT SO WERE YOU!!!
Actually, I was arguing from facts. I gave you a number of cases where the Bible is not supported by archeology. You have yet to refute them.
But, there are writings of the ancient Samarians that speak of Sodom & Gamorah. And, a city destroyed by what seems to be fire was found where Sodom was believed to be. History, geography, spiritual truths...all in one!
You seem to have difficulty pegging my beliefs in this. I do not believe that the Bible is wholly inaccurate without historical representation at all. I believe that it is there. If said historical statements are all proven true through archeology (something which is impossible, by the way), then God bless it. I believe, however, that the historical truths are tertiary and unimportant as a whole. If it turns out that King David never danced half-dressed before the Ark of the Covenant, I really don't care. Giving me a proof that the Bible has some historical accuracy, therefore, does not further your point nor does it refute mine. I will also note that you have not cited your source which means that it is impossible for me to check on the accuracy of your quote.
I too wish that our beliefs will someday be closer together. However, it seems that we are both wishing for the same type of changes!
God Bless You,
Jeff
I would be satisfied with an acceptance of my beliefs as anything other than worthy of condemnation - which is your current view of them, if I'm not mistaken.
Type your cut contents here.