• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Catholic Questions

Fireinfolding

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2006
27,285
4,084
The South
✟129,061.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Nope, and they all say the same thing: do not have any other gods before me.

People are taking the image/idol thing out of context. When the Bible speaks of those things, it is talking about images of animals that represent other deities, such as an ox, bird or fish. Pagan deities are loaded with symbolism that often involves nature (as are Native Americans deities). God's commandment was not to worship those idols and pagan gods, such as Moloch.

Nothing is mentioned about symbolism of God Himself.


I know this is an older post, however I just wanted to add in that images of both male and female were also mentioned In Duet 4:16.

Baal was considered the supreme male divinity of the Phoenicians and the bowing of the knee before his image is made mention of in Rom 11:4 also. There were females such as Ashtoreth and the goddess Diana who is mentioned in Acts 19:35 And we know of others such as Zeus and the rest of those gods (which all have appearances of mankind (two footed male and female types)

But it starts there

Duet 4:16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, (and this followed up by what is reflected in Romans 1:23 beast, fowl, or creepy thing) see the next couple of verses there.

Whereas here it also starts

Romans 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

That would include the two footed male and females given the fourfooted is mentioned after, along with other things (those with wings or creepy things).

Even as Romans mentions bowing to an image of Baal also.

Romans 11:4... I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

I just wanted to add that in.
 
Upvote 0

Xalith

Newbie
Apr 6, 2015
1,518
630
✟27,443.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I know this is an older post, however I just wanted to add in that images of both male and female were also mentioned In Duet 4:16.

Baal was considered the supreme male divinity of the Phoenicians and the bowing of the knee before his image is made mention of in Rom 11:4 also. There were females such as Ashtoreth and the goddess Diana who is mentioned in Acts 19:35 And we know of others such as Zeus and the rest of those gods (which all have appearances of mankind (two footed male and female types)

But it starts there

Duet 4:16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, (and this followed up by what is reflected in Romans 1:23 beast, fowl, or creepy thing) see the next couple of verses there.

Whereas here it also starts

Romans 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

That would include the two footed male and females given the fourfooted is mentioned after, along with other things (those with wings or creepy things).

Even as Romans mentions bowing to an image of Baal also.

Romans 11:4... I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

I just wanted to add that in.

Just wanted to add to that, even if Catholics aren't guilty of "worshipping" the Mary/Saint statues they have (it's a grey area), they do still pray to Mary and their saints, and absolutely nowhere in the Bible does it say that we should pray to anyone but God the Father.

Even Jesus Himself never once told us to pray to Him specifically, and He never instructed us to pray to the Holy Spirit... and the few sermons He did on prayer, He made it clear that we pray to the Father only, and gave us a model of a prayer we call the "Lord's Prayer", wherein He made it a point that all prayer should exalt and hallow the name of our Father, and that all prayer should be that His will be done in all things.

I really, really cannot see where praying to anybody but the Father is supported by Scripture. Now, I do believe that one can talk to Jesus in a prayer-like way (and very well that one should, for He is always with us), but it is of my personal belief that formal prayers and requests are reserved for the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Praying to Jesus is somewhat of a grey area, some say you can, some say you shouldn't...

But nowhere outside of Catholicism have I ever heard that one should pray to a normal human who had normal human parents. Outside of a simple blessing, Jesus not once ever placed any specific reverence on Mary or any of his apostles, in fact Paul makes it clear in his epistles that he's just a man himself, a man who struggles with sin just the same as we do, and nowhere in Acts do you see any apostle praying to Mary, or asking people to pray to them, and in their Epistles, they exhort that all power, everything comes from God.

If all power, and all of Creation came from God, is it not He alone that we should pray to?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWood
Upvote 0

stage five

Skeptic
Dec 22, 2015
515
286
USA
✟2,137.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Just wanted to add to that, even if Catholics aren't guilty of "worshipping" the Mary/Saint statues they have (it's a grey area), they do still pray to Mary and their saints, and absolutely nowhere in the Bible does it say that we should pray to anyone but God the Father.

That argument does not really make sense, "The bible doesn't say we should do it, therefore we shouldn't." That turns the bible into a book of commands for what we can do and any action not mentioned must be wrong. That's not feasible. It's like saying the bible does not mention playing guitars in Church or reading it electronically.

Even Jesus Himself never once told us to pray to Him specifically, and He never instructed us to pray to the Holy Spirit... and the few sermons He did on prayer, He made it clear that we pray to the Father only, and gave us a model of a prayer we call the "Lord's Prayer", wherein He made it a point that all prayer should exalt and hallow the name of our Father, and that all prayer should be that His will be done in all things.

Did people not pray to Jesus all the time? They came up to Him, asking Him for things, which He gave. He didn't say go pray to one person of the Trinity.

I really, really cannot see where praying to anybody but the Father is supported by Scripture. Now, I do believe that one can talk to Jesus in a prayer-like way (and very well that one should, for He is always with us), but it is of my personal belief that formal prayers and requests are reserved for the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Praying to Jesus is somewhat of a grey area, some say you can, some say you shouldn't...

Just as no where does scripture support praying only to God the Father. That makes no sense theologically speaking as far as I can tell.

But nowhere outside of Catholicism have I ever heard that one should pray to a normal human who had normal human parents. Outside of a simple blessing, Jesus not once ever placed any specific reverence on Mary or any of his apostles, in fact Paul makes it clear in his epistles that he's just a man himself, a man who struggles with sin just the same as we do, and nowhere in Acts do you see any apostle praying to Mary, or asking people to pray to them, and in their Epistles, they exhort that all power, everything comes from God.

If all power, and all of Creation came from God, is it not He alone that we should pray to?

Lots of non-Catholics pray to saints. The problem you have is that you do not understand prayer as petition and petition plus adoration. Anytime you ask someone for something, you are praying to them. You are asking them for something. Christians ask each other for prayers to God all the time. That itself is a prayer. When one asks of something from God, they are praying and adoring God - it becomes a form of worship. So when people "pray" to saints, they are simply asking for prayers to God.

When people pray to God, that are asking and worshiping. That is why you are confused.

This is part of the problem of the English language. The word "prayer" refers to both asking and asking and worship. Prayer in the sense of simply asking has lost use in English over time. People would say, "I pray you to..." and that means asking. However, with that lot sense, it becomes confusing for some people to understand "praying" to saints. It would be better if another word was used instead since "prayer" as asking only has lost usage and becomes confusing.
 
Upvote 0

Fireinfolding

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2006
27,285
4,084
The South
✟129,061.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Paul asked others for prayers for him

Romans 15:30 Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me

That they would strive together with Paul in their prayers to God for him, even Jesus said,

Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
 
Upvote 0

Xalith

Newbie
Apr 6, 2015
1,518
630
✟27,443.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Paul asked others for prayers for him

Romans 15:30 Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me

That they would strive together with Paul in their prayers to God for him, even Jesus said,

Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

There's a difference between praying FOR someone (which we are very much encouraged to do) and praying TO someone.

And obviously when I mention "prayer", I'm talking about spiritual requests/worship.

Praying to someone who has been dead for nearly 2,000 years seems a little weird to me. Okay, someone can use the argument "asking someone for something is technically prayer". Okay, fine.

Why are these people asking a woman who has left this world 2,000 years ago for anything? Do Catholics believe that Mary can answer said prayers? Do they believe she has the power to do anything at all? Just curious. I'm not attacking the religion, I am very curious as to their reasoning behind it.
 
Upvote 0

stage five

Skeptic
Dec 22, 2015
515
286
USA
✟2,137.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
There's a difference between praying FOR someone (which we are very much encouraged to do) and praying TO someone.

And obviously when I mention "prayer", I'm talking about spiritual requests/worship.

I am not sure why you responded to someone else and then addressed my post...
I would think "obviously" you do not seem to understand that the word "prayer" when used with saints is outdated. For you, that word means to ask and to worship. When speaking of "praying" to saints, the word only means "to ask." It's unfortunate that the outdated word continues to be used. However, that is pretty typical when it comes to religious things, the Lord's Prayer is very outdated in its wording.

Praying to someone who has been dead for nearly 2,000 years seems a little weird to me. Okay, someone can use the argument "asking someone for something is technically prayer". Okay, fine.

If you believe a saint is a Christian who is in Heaven, then they are part of your church. So you are asking, through the power of God, for a person to pray for you. Do you think the church in heaven is ignorant of what occurs on Earth?

Why are these people asking a woman who has left this world 2,000 years ago for anything? Do Catholics believe that Mary can answer said prayers? Do they believe she has the power to do anything at all? Just curious. I'm not attacking the religion, I am very curious as to their reasoning behind it.

No, people who pray to saints are asking people to pray for them to God. They don't believe that have any divine powers.
 
Upvote 0

Fireinfolding

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2006
27,285
4,084
The South
✟129,061.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There's a difference between praying FOR someone (which we are very much encouraged to do) and praying TO someone.

Yes I do know this, I would have thought the scriptures I posted made that clear.
 
Upvote 0

Xalith

Newbie
Apr 6, 2015
1,518
630
✟27,443.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I am not sure why you responded to someone else and then addressed my post...
I would think "obviously" you do not seem to understand that the word "prayer" when used with saints is outdated. For you, that word means to ask and to worship. When speaking of "praying" to saints, the word only means "to ask." It's unfortunate that the outdated word continues to be used. However, that is pretty typical when it comes to religious things, the Lord's Prayer is very outdated in its wording.



If you believe a saint is a Christian who is in Heaven, then they are part of your church. So you are asking, through the power of God, for a person to pray for you. Do you think the church in heaven is ignorant of what occurs on Earth?



No, people who pray to saints are asking people to pray for them to God. They don't believe that have any divine powers.

Hmm.

Very well then, I suppose that makes sense.

Again, I was not trying to attack the RCC, I was more looking for clarity of the issue.

Thanks for being the first person to actually shine a bit of light on that in a way that makes sense.
 
Upvote 0

Tina W

Well-Known Member
Dec 24, 2014
596
209
Arizona, USA
✟28,023.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Interesting thread. :) About the books of the Bible, wasn't Luther also trying to remove the book of Revelations from the Bible at some point? Thank goodness that didn't get removed. The history of Christianity is very interesting. :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Xalith

Newbie
Apr 6, 2015
1,518
630
✟27,443.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Interesting thread. :) About the books of the Bible, wasn't Luther also trying to remove the book of Revelations from the Bible at some point? Thank goodness that didn't get removed. The history of Christianity is very interesting. :)

The Book of Revelation is God's special gift unto Jesus, who also gave it to John. God wasn't about to allow it to get buried into obscurity; He had a special purpose for that book, so that all of the Elect would know how the End was to be.

There's no way God would have allowed anything to happen to that book.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tina W
Upvote 0

Tina W

Well-Known Member
Dec 24, 2014
596
209
Arizona, USA
✟28,023.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Does that bother anyone else?!

n response to your last post, It just seems that if they were supposed to be there, they should be there. I believe the Catholics say it's where they get purgatory and some of their other beliefs from.

Basically, are those seven books the Word of God and someone took them out or were they not the Word of God to begin with?

The same ones who decided all of the other books of the Bible that are accepted now were inspired by God, felt those books were inspired by God also. Those books were accepted as the word of God for 1500 years and were not removed till the 1800's.

Here is the issue I'm seeing. Some are saying all these books were there for 1500 years. Then, others are saying they were not accepted as scripture until later. The following site says the books are full of error:

Ankerberg Theological Research Institute - The John Ankerberg Show

So he's basically saying the Bible was wrong for 1500 years till those books were removed 200 years ago? I don't like the idea of removing books because of the simple fact of what is the difference between someone removing books 200 years ago and someone removing books they feel should not be there today? If someone tried that today to remove books they feel should not be there I think all Christians would have a fit. ;) But that's what happened 200 years ago. ;) So I don't like the idea either. Both Bibles are the word of God, I just don't like the idea of removing books that were put together in God's word. They also talked about removing the book of Revelations from the Bible but thank goodness that didn't happen. Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the Bible. I just looked it up. So no, I don't like the idea of removing books from the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Tina W

Well-Known Member
Dec 24, 2014
596
209
Arizona, USA
✟28,023.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
The Book of Revelation is God's special gift unto Jesus, who also gave it to John. God wasn't about to allow it to get buried into obscurity; He had a special purpose for that book, so that all of the Elect would know how the End was to be.

There's no way God would have allowed anything to happen to that book.

Yup, I agree. :)
 
Upvote 0

Job8

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2014
4,639
1,804
✟29,113.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No, people who pray to saints are asking people to pray for them to God. They don't believe that have any divine powers.
Really? The Catholic saint is one who has performed at least three miracles, and is exalted above all other Christians. If they are not treated as gods, perhaps as demi-gods.

Canonization in the Catholic Church is quite another thing. The Catholic Church canonizes or beatifies only those whose lives have been marked by the exercise of heroic virtue, and only after this has been proved by common repute for sanctity and by conclusive arguments. The chief difference, however, lies in the meaning of the term canonization, the Church seeing in the saints nothing more than friends and servants of God whose holy lives have made them worthy of His special love. She does not pretend to make gods (cf. Eusebius Emisenus, Serm. de S. Rom. M.; Augustine, City of God XXII.10; Cyrill. Alexandr., Contra Jul., lib. VI; Cyprian, De Exhortat. martyr.; Conc. Nic., II, act.3)... Towards the close of the eleventh century the popes found it necessary to restrict episcopal authority on this point, and decreed that the virtues and miracles of persons proposed for public veneration should be examined in councils, more particularly in general councils.

This is not the Bible's definition of a saint. All those who have been saved by grace are saints, since they have received the gift of the Holy Spirit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeStill&Know
Upvote 0

stage five

Skeptic
Dec 22, 2015
515
286
USA
✟2,137.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Really? The Catholic saint is one who has performed at least three miracles, and is exalted above all other Christians. If they are not treated as gods, perhaps as demi-gods.

No. You are judging hearts.

[qupte]This is not the Bible's definition of a saint. All those who have been saved by grace are saints, since they have received the gift of the Holy Spirit.[/QUOTE]

That's not contradictory - it's the difference between a canonical or recognized saint and all the saints - those in Heaven.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeStill&Know
Upvote 0