He'd be this really cool dude who looks a lot like Jerry Garcia. At least that's the way he looked on TV.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFEvyH2nS0"]Mr Deity and the Evil Season 1, Ep 1 - YouTube[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gnQz32c5EA"]Mr. Deity and the Skeptic - YouTube[/ame]
WOAH. As a Liturgical Minister I feel the need to clear this up. I am going to quote the litany directly: We ask God to have mercy on us, to do things. We do not worship the Saints, or the Blessed Mother. We ask them to pray for us.
I respect your belief, but Mary cannot hear you, nor pray for you. This is IMO only of course. I have never seen it in any Bible i've seen at least.
Have I read the original Hebrew text? No I haven't, but what we have is what we have. I understand that things tend to get a bit twisted over time... that's fine. Based on what I have read, learned and studied during the course of my life, i'm just saying that as it is written is how I believe.
I belong to a Protestant Church and it's one of the biggest worldwide and in our cannon of belief is one "That the Saints (living and righteous dead) are with us in community (they hold a special place in our hearts)". We do not ask Saints to interced for us though.
But surely the Bible wasn't written by God. Whether in Hebrew, Greek or English it is not an entirely accurate representation of what happened. Since Christians don't believe the creation of the Bible was similar to the creation of the Quran (Mohammed memorising a speech from Gabriel and then having it transcribed for him at a later date verbatim) that means that the Bible is made of human, and therefore fallible, descriptions, references, narratives etc. I have no problem with saying the writings are divinely inspired but you cannot say that the Bible is perfect even in the original, so we will always be slightly stumbling in the dark as to what is "right" in Christianity. And that is ignoring that the Bible was put together by humans as well, at the council of Nicaea, who left out books that they did not agree corresponded as best they could. Just like at a conclave of cardinals electing a Pope they do not claim their decision is God's decision but instead they claim it is a divinely inspired decision made by fallible men.
Which translation? You do know that many of these are translations of translations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Bible_translations
I tried to read the bible a few years back (didn't get very far because it's hellishly boring). I was struck by something in the first bit of it. God comes into the garden of eden and asks where Adam and Eve are. Now...what omnipotent, omnipresent or omniscient god needs to ask where the only two people he's created in the whole universe are? How can he lose them? And if he did lose them how can he not find them? Surely he's wherever they are too? How could he ever be "outside" the garden of eden? Surely he can't be the things that are ascribed to him (omni all that) and the bible be literally true? Now certainly many christian's will read the bible allegorically (god knew where adam and eve were but was asking a rheotorical question to highlight how they have turned from his way or whatever) but doesn't that sort of thing set up a paradox for the bible literalist?
I would be considered a protestant although I believe that Catholics are Christian. I respect the Catholic church for holding on to the light that has been passed down over hundreds of years. It has not all been perfect, but the church is not perfect it is run by man. Praying to saints I do not practice it but if it makes you feel good. Paul said that their is a great cloud of witnesses. We do not know if one who has passed on can hear us or not? Trivial things like this is what keeps the whole church catholic, protestant divided. I only stress salvation only comes through Jesus Christ not a saint.
There's an awful lot of rhetorical questions in the Bible as you go along. The Book of Genesis is credited to Moses, who also wasn't there at the time, so it could just be his interpretation of what happened according to what he was getting from the Lord. If you do try again, also go for the English Standard Version. I struggled for years until I picked up an ESV Bible, and it made the reading much more easier and understandable to me.
It's kind of like when I ask my daughters what they have been doing, even though sometimes (or rather often) I know exactly what was going on, but want to give them a chance to come clean on their own.
We don't pray to saints. Most prayers, the holy mary for an example, are a request to pray with us. People pray together all of the time. We don't pray for Mary to deliver us, but for Mary to pray for us. If asking Mary to pray with us or for us is wrong, then so is praying together in church or asking people to pray with us for a singular cause.
This whole thread is so funny. Matthew 18:20 Doesn't this answer the whole who is a Christian question rather clearly? BTW: Matthew 7:3 Maybe if y'all spent more time being like Jesus that fighting over who has the correct worship and liturgy. It's sad, a bunch a Christians being schooled by an atheist.
This is only part of the story, and I see no one latched on to the extremely brief post I made earlier in the thread. It ignores the idea of veneration, which is what protestants originally attacked as idolatry. Admittedly, the distinction between veneration and adoration is more subtle than the distinction between asking a saint to pray for you and "worship" (and people who continue to argue that asking for the prayers of saints is idolatry end up looking silly) although it is more than a mere technicality, as some people claim. We (Catholics) have three types of reverence that we give: dulia, hyperdulia, and latria. Dulia and hyperdulia are the reverence given to the saints and Mary, respectively, and latria is reserved for God alone. Notice the word "worship" isn't used as much in technical theological discourse in the Catholic church, since the use of "worship" in the colloquial sense is a more modern concept. In the past is was often used to describe worthiness, (e.g. "his worship, the Duke"), whereas dulia, hyperdulia and latria all have very precise theological meanings. Dulia: This is the recognition of the great qualities that God has given to the saints, in the same way that we might give homage to anyone who has accomplished great things. It gives honor to the saints for their accomplishments, with the acknowledgement that their accomplishments all come from God. Hypderdulia: The same as dulia, but to a greater extent. This is reserved for Mary, since she is the greatest of the saints. Latria: This is a synonym for adoration (in the theological sense) and is reserved for God alone. Not only is latria veneration to a greater extent than dulia and hyperdulia, with the recognition that God alone is the source of all greatness, including the great qualities in the saints, but it is sacrificial in nature. It not only involves giving over ourselves and everything we have to God, but also the recognition of our participation in the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.
My views on saints are, to put it kindly, very Protestant. That said, anyone who uses Catholic doctrine about intercession of saints to support the claim that Catholics aren't true Christians either (a) doesn't understand what saints are for or (b) is making up his own definition of Christianity to suit his argument. Catholics do not believe that saints are gods and they do not believe they are saved by saints.
