Catholics Don't Exemplify Christianity...

[sealybobo]

Please don't use Catholicism as an example of Christianity..
Their doctrine is flawed.

You pray to GOD and JESUS not Mary.
Your sins are forgiven by GOD, not a Priest.

It's CRAP!

People say this is a Christian nation. How many Americans are real Christians? What other Christian sects are bs like Catholics? We know Mormonism is nuts so take out Utah. Utah isn't real Christianity its a knock off or spin off.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Ok. I will get to the bottom line. Catholics, like Mormons. have a top down church. All authority rests at the top. This is the way they structured their church, without any such authority from the Bible. I would never join a faith where I could not fire my priest.

Can football players fire their coach? Can an employee fire the boss? There are a lot of things in life we have little power over. That does not mean we have no power. In all the towns I have lived in throughout my life, there was only one town (who had a magnificent priest) where I haven't been able to choose which church and even which priests to whom I go.

Of all the reasons not be Catholic, it is my opinion you have chosen a rather lame one. The ironic thing about this: My best friend's father was a minister. A faction in the church where he was a pastor voted him out. The church dwindled quickly once he left, whereas the parish he went to next grew.

We are not talking about a football team. And, yes, every Protestant congregation I know of has the authority to fire their minister. How the catholics justify taking such power away from the congregation, is beyond me.

 

[Meriweather]

We are not talking about a football team. And, yes, every Protestant congregation I know of has the authority to fire their minister. How the catholics justify taking such power away from the congregation, is beyond me.

From what my Protestant friend told me, that "power" divided Protestant congregations more often than not. The Catholic way works well for us. All any individual has to do in the rare times s/he doesn't care for a priest priest is choose another nearby parish, or even go to a different Mass at the same Church.

Perhaps what you're not in agreement with is the Catholic practice of obedience. Christ taught obedience to the Father first and foremost and that tends to trickle down so what individual self wants and demands takes on a lower priority.

 

[TrinityPower]

Fundies.

Fundies believe in the fundamentals of the Bible...Joel says whatever people want to hear and profits off that. There is a difference.

Not really.

I never said fundies cant be ass holes & crooks. I just dont think birdman Joel is one. He tells people whatever they want to hear in a sappy sweet way...then collects.

Yep.

I didnt know Joel Olsteen was so rich and at one time thought he at least meant well.
Whats your point..all (media) Christian preachers are money grabbers?

Why is it ok for businessmen to have luxury and fine things but not someone who preaches? Not saying Joel is a preacher..he isn't. Joel is a motivational speaker who uses biblical stories to highlight his points but he is encouraging and gives a message of keep on keeping on. And did anyone consider that these people earn their living selling the products they have like books and CDs and people buy them?

 

[BluePhantom]

We have the letters of Peter, and we have the Gospel of Mark which many believe is as close to Peter's version of life with Christ as we can get. Christianity did not begin at the top of the Roman hierarchy. Like with the Jews, it began among the poor. It was grassroots and the hierarchy reacted in two ways. The first was to try to uproot it. When that didn't work, it figured out a way to leash it and use its power as its own.

Well, as you know well, the letters of Peter are widely considered pseudepigraphic and all of the gospels are anonymous. The attribution of those authors came later...I want to say the earliest attribution came from Athanasius although that doesn't sound right. He was in the late 3rd century /early 4th century and there were attributions prior to that I believe. I would have to look it up but it's not really that important. What's important is that the attributions came later by whoever it was and I am pretty sure you are aware of that

I agree that Christianity didn't start at the top of Roman hierarchy. I am arguing that that's where it ended up when it gained strength, legitimacy, and authority. I agree with your characterization, but after they leashed it, they altered it to suit their purposes and their goals. I simply don't see how anyone can deny that.

In an earlier post you said that Christianity had been Romanized, Germanized, Anglicanized, etc. You are preaching to the choir. My main point is to counter Dsir's claim that Catholicism was the earliest form of Christianity. I think that statement has clearly been established to be false on numerous fronts.

As far as granting national victories, I believe Peter, Matthew, Andrew, and Paul would point out that Gospel was not about countries getting along with other countries, it was about people getting along with other people. Jesus was not speaking to nations and rulers of nations, he was speaking of how we as individuals relate to God and to our neighbors.

I would respectfully disagree and here's why. The Messiah was thought to be a lot of things. As I know you are aware there was a lot of debate about the form in which the Messiah would come. But all of them had certain things in common and among them was that the royal line of David would be restored to the throne and foreign invaders would be kicked out of the Promised Land. Again, this was an apocalyptic belief system that was focused on God's good kingdom being established on Earth and Jews (it was a Jewish prophecy) would be free to worship God in communion with God and the Promised land would be restored. Surely you would agree that that's what the Messianic prophecies were largely about and that is what Jewish apocalypticism was unquestionably about.

So Peter, Matthew, Andrew, Philip...the whole lot of them...if they are claiming that Jesus was the Messiah, they are predicting the impending restoration of the Hebrew Empire not the Roman Empire. Not the empire of the occupiers of the Promised Land. And certainly not the anti-Semitic form of Catholicism that emerged under certain rulers, most notably Theodosius and Justinian. The whole point of the Messiah and apocalypticism was for Jews to be able to worship freely and what emerged as official Church doctrine was strongly anti-Semitic and at times extraordinarily oppressive.

I highly doubt even Paul would go that far and Paul was certainly more open to non-Jewish inclusion than the rest of them, at least according to his undisputed epistles. And according to those letters it took some arm twisting to get the rest of the disciples to agree. I think Paul certainly argued that Jesus came of behalf of all mankind, and the gospel of John certainly backs up that argument, but the rest....I am not at all convinced. I don't think the Synoptic Gospels say that (although you could "massage" them into to saying that in certain verses), I think Revelation is clear as crystal on the matter, and I think Paul's undisputed epistles....boy I think you would really have to bend and twist them to get them to support the idea that Jesus came to bring glory to Rome, which is eventually what was being argued by Constantine, Theodosius, Constantius, Justinian, etc.

I have to respectfully dissent from your position

 

[BluePhantom]

As far as I know, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that gives Catholic priests exclusive authority to perform any function in Christianity.

Where, specifically, are Catholic priests claiming exclusive authority?

Well now they don't. During the Middle Ages the Church claimed exclusive authority over just about everything. But that was also several centuries ago. It about time we cut Catholics some slack on that one.

 

[Meriweather]

In an earlier post you said that Christianity had been Romanized, Germanized, Anglicanized, etc. You are preaching to the choir. My main point is to counter Dsir's claim that Catholicism was the earliest form of Christianity. I think that statement has clearly been established to be false on numerous fronts.

Today, who do you believe practices the earliest form of Christianity?

 

[Meriweather]

I would respectfully disagree and here's why. The Messiah was thought to be a lot of things. As I know you are aware there was a lot of debate about the form in which the Messiah would come. But all of them had certain things in common and among them was that the royal line of David would be restored to the throne and foreign invaders would be kicked out of the Promised Land. Again, this was an apocalyptic belief system that was focused on God's good kingdom being established on Earth and Jews (it was a Jewish prophecy) would be free to worship God in communion with God and the Promised land would be restored. Surely you would agree that that's what the Messianic prophecies were largely about and that is what Jewish apocalypticism was unquestionably about.

So Peter, Matthew, Andrew, Philip...the whole lot of them...if they are claiming that Jesus was the Messiah, they are predicting the impending restoration of the Hebrew Empire not the Roman Empire. Not the empire of the occupiers of the Promised Land. And certainly not the anti-Semitic form of Catholicism that emerged under certain rulers, most notably Theodosius and Justinian. The whole point of the Messiah and apocalypticism was for Jews to be able to worship freely and what emerged as official Church doctrine was strongly anti-Semitic and at times extraordinarily oppressive.

I highly doubt even Paul would go that far and Paul was certainly more open to non-Jewish inclusion than the rest of them, at least according to his undisputed epistles. And according to those letters it took some arm twisting to get the rest of the disciples to agree. I think Paul certainly argued that Jesus came of behalf of all mankind, and the gospel of John certainly backs up that argument, but the rest....I am not at all convinced. I don't think the Synoptic Gospels say that (although you could "massage" them into to saying that in certain verses), I think Revelation is clear as crystal on the matter, and I think Paul's undisputed epistles....boy I think you would really have to bend and twist them to get them to support the idea that Jesus came to bring glory to Rome, which is eventually what was being argued by Constantine, Theodosius, Constantius, Justinian, etc.

I have to respectfully dissent from your position

I tend to think that the Early Church weren't thinking in terms of any empire--neither a Jewish empire nor a Roman one. I think they were thinking in terms of Jesus returning within their lifetimes with a new order.

 

[BluePhantom]

In an earlier post you said that Christianity had been Romanized, Germanized, Anglicanized, etc. You are preaching to the choir. My main point is to counter Dsir's claim that Catholicism was the earliest form of Christianity. I think that statement has clearly been established to be false on numerous fronts.

Today, who do you believe practices the earliest form of Christianity?

Well again, if we define the "earliest form of Christianity" as that which was taught by the first Christians (which seems reasonable) and we define a "Christian" as someone who believes that Jesus was the Messiah and believes in the physical resurrection of Jesus, then the first Christians were Mary Magdalene (in fact according to certain gospels she may have been the very first Christian), the disciples and their group of followers. Thus, what they taught would by definition be the earliest form of Christianity.

Who practices that today? Pfft...no one in its entirety. The Evangelicals certainly maintain the apocalyptic elements as do Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists, etc. But what the disciples taught would have been really Jewish not the ultra-conservative Christian viewpoints of the Evangelicals. I don't think any religion today practices the earliest form of Christianity.

 

[Vandalshandle]

We are not talking about a football team. And, yes, every Protestant congregation I know of has the authority to fire their minister. How the catholics justify taking such power away from the congregation, is beyond me.

From what my Protestant friend told me, that "power" divided Protestant congregations more often than not. The Catholic way works well for us. All any individual has to do in the rare times s/he doesn't care for a priest priest is choose another nearby parish, or even go to a different Mass at the same Church.

Perhaps what you're not in agreement with is the Catholic practice of obedience. Christ taught obedience to the Father first and foremost and that tends to trickle down so what individual self wants and demands takes on a lower priority.

Obedience to the Father has absolutely nothing to with the church, the Pope, or the priest.

 

[BluePhantom]

I would respectfully disagree and here's why. The Messiah was thought to be a lot of things. As I know you are aware there was a lot of debate about the form in which the Messiah would come. But all of them had certain things in common and among them was that the royal line of David would be restored to the throne and foreign invaders would be kicked out of the Promised Land. Again, this was an apocalyptic belief system that was focused on God's good kingdom being established on Earth and Jews (it was a Jewish prophecy) would be free to worship God in communion with God and the Promised land would be restored. Surely you would agree that that's what the Messianic prophecies were largely about and that is what Jewish apocalypticism was unquestionably about.

So Peter, Matthew, Andrew, Philip...the whole lot of them...if they are claiming that Jesus was the Messiah, they are predicting the impending restoration of the Hebrew Empire not the Roman Empire. Not the empire of the occupiers of the Promised Land. And certainly not the anti-Semitic form of Catholicism that emerged under certain rulers, most notably Theodosius and Justinian. The whole point of the Messiah and apocalypticism was for Jews to be able to worship freely and what emerged as official Church doctrine was strongly anti-Semitic and at times extraordinarily oppressive.

I highly doubt even Paul would go that far and Paul was certainly more open to non-Jewish inclusion than the rest of them, at least according to his undisputed epistles. And according to those letters it took some arm twisting to get the rest of the disciples to agree. I think Paul certainly argued that Jesus came of behalf of all mankind, and the gospel of John certainly backs up that argument, but the rest....I am not at all convinced. I don't think the Synoptic Gospels say that (although you could "massage" them into to saying that in certain verses), I think Revelation is clear as crystal on the matter, and I think Paul's undisputed epistles....boy I think you would really have to bend and twist them to get them to support the idea that Jesus came to bring glory to Rome, which is eventually what was being argued by Constantine, Theodosius, Constantius, Justinian, etc.

I have to respectfully dissent from your position

I tend to think that the Early Church weren't thinking in terms of any empire--neither a Jewish empire nor a Roman one. I think they were thinking in terms of Jesus returning within their lifetimes with a new order.

Well but that's apocalypticism. There wasn't pagan apocalypticism. It was a Jewish concept (although there are similar traditions in non-Jewish history but they are not the norm). I agree they thought Jesus was returning in their lifetime. I agree that they thought Jesus was bringing a new order back with Him. But I disagree strongly that they were not thinking in terms of a specific empire. The Messiah was specific to the Hebrews. Paul took it to the Gentiles and made it accessible to non-Jews, but Paul came later, we must remember. Paul wasn't one of those original Christians, and Paul's view differed from the rest of the disciples on that specific point....who was Jesus returning for. This is an absolutely vital thing to understand because Paul tells us in his letters that he had to convince Peter and the disciples to give him the authority to spread the message the non-Jews. In other words, the disciples were not thinking about non-Jews. According to them, Jesus was for Jews and Paul had to convince them otherwise.

 

[TrinityPower]

We are not talking about a football team. And, yes, every Protestant congregation I know of has the authority to fire their minister. How the catholics justify taking such power away from the congregation, is beyond me.

From what my Protestant friend told me, that "power" divided Protestant congregations more often than not. The Catholic way works well for us. All any individual has to do in the rare times s/he doesn't care for a priest priest is choose another nearby parish, or even go to a different Mass at the same Church.

Perhaps what you're not in agreement with is the Catholic practice of obedience. Christ taught obedience to the Father first and foremost and that tends to trickle down so what individual self wants and demands takes on a lower priority.

Obedience to the Father has absolutely nothing to with the church, the Pope, or the priest.

Well unless you happen to be the alter boy and the priest says your mom did say to obey your father, which by the way was a totally ok practice in Roman times...but that's a different topic of discussion

 

[Disir]

Constantine did a great deal for Christianity, but he did not put only Christians in power. That's total revisionism. He put a lot of Christians in power, but Constantine did not totally abandon, nor outlaw paganism. Some accounts suggest he only received baptism on his deathbed, long after the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. He still had Roman gods on coinage. He did grant tax breaks to Christians and allowed Christians to have legal cases heard by a bishop instead of a state appointed magistrate, so he certainly did a lot to advance Christianity, but he did not make it mandatory, nor was he oblivious to the fact that if he did so there would be massive riots and uprisings within the pagan community which still represented the vast majority of the Empire and the army. Had Constantine completely eradicated pagans from positions of power he would been killed.

No, it's not revisionism. These are intentional political moves. I said this from the get go. He is not the least bit interested in Christianity as a Christian. His alleged conversion is written later. He can't really wrap his mind around the issues. He put Christians in power only and stripped pagans of power. Meaning that you would still have duties but without power. It's called coercion. You can be a pagan but your life is going to be increasingly difficult until you convert. Tax breaks for Christians but taxes for pagans to build Constantinople. The panegyric for the Battle of the Milvian Bridge is simply that. The battle is real but the panegyric is not. We are talking about a man that had a vision where Jupiter said he would rule for thirty years. The man went on a rampage and gave directives to exterminate eunuch priests. Eunuchs were considered crafty but had been trusted. Eusebius is a Eunuch. It's got nothing to do with revisionism and more to do with analyzing people and events without rose colored glasses.

I am a little unsure of the point you are trying to make here. Did traders travel? Of course...that was their job, but they weren't peasants. Merchants travelled a lot. Roman elites travelled. Jewish peasants didn't go anywhere. They stayed where they were and clawed out a living. BTW.....wikipedia? Really? That's your source? You know if my students used wikipedia as a reference in their papers they automatically failed.

We can cut the shit on your being a history teacher. For all I can tell your name is Pam and you're a lonely, trolling transvestite trucker. You fall apart when sources are provided in any manner. Wiki was useful to gather the 3 explanations of why your nonexistent fishing village is not located near the water and a general overview of areas that are simply not worth it to expand on. It's also useful to point out Sepphoris without making a lengthy stop.

These little villages are located very close to cities so that they could acquire supplies as well as sell their wares or services. A forty-five minute walk isn't all that. Everyone traveled. There were several trade routes that people moving from one place to another for multiple purposes used (pilgrimages/medical/family/work). Peasants didn't have the luxury of being isolated. Contact.

said that the Romans didn't invest in Hebrew culture....as in their social culture. I never said they didn't build shit. I should have been more clear. What I meant was that they didn't go out of their way to bring Judeo-Roman beliefs, education, etc to Palestine. Did they build what was necessary to support trade, to support the movements of armies, to support health and welfare? Well absolutely. That would have been one of the governors primary jobs. But they did not go in there and start trying to tell the Jews what to believe, what gods to pray to, and how to live their lives in general. They didn't care. (see how easy that was?)

Herod's Temple wasn't destroyed in 70 CE. Got it.

Is that enough or do I need to go on?

Lack of literacy =/= lack of textuality.

As it were, John the illiterate fisherman writes extensively in the New Testament.
Strong s Greek 62. agrammatos -- without learning unlettered

That's just crazy talk.

So, let's recap. The gospels and Acts were first written in Greek. The language understood was Greek in the area that the alleged JC lived. The arguments and divisions were Greek. The Trinity Doctrine is Greek. And, frankly, early Christianity is Catholic.

 

[BluePhantom]

Just a thing for people here to think about. Constantine legitimized Christianity. Theodosius made Christianity the state religion and banned anything but a Nicean interpretation of Christianity. Theodosius was really the turning point between early Christianity and the Christianity of the Middle Ages in my mind. But it wasn't until Justinian that paganism was finally given the ultimate death blows. It's actually very interesting so see how paganism and Christianity reversed roles and how paganism went through the stages on it's way out that Christianity had gone through on its way in....but that's a different thread.

Now think about the strong oppression and anti-Semitism that the Church endorsed under those, and later leaders. I mean we are talking forced baptism of Jews. If they don't relent and convert willingly, just force them under water in the name of Jesus and they are now Christian whether they like it or not. And of course it just got worse from there as all of us are perfectly well aware. Would Jesus have endorsed that? Would Paul or Peter, or John, or Bartholomew? Boy....I have a hard time believing that those Jewish would find that in accordance with the teachings of Jesus.

At that time and under those Emperors, Jesus had come, they argued, to bring glory to Rome. THAT is what Catholicism had become under those emperors. THAT was the religion. Is Peter going to make that argument? Is Thomas going to argue that Jesus came to bring glory to the Roman Empire and embark on subsequent persecutions of Jews?

Come on, guys...this one is a no brainer. It has nothing to do with Neo-Platonism, Greco-Roman stoicism, blah, blah, blah which certain poster(s) have tried to use as a distraction from the point in order to bluff their way out of an indefensible position. All one needs to do is look at Catholicism under those emperors and ask "Would Peter have endorsed that? Would Simon the Zealot argue that Jesus came on behalf of Rome? He was a Jewish zealot!" This aint hard to figure out.

BUT..and I cannot emphasize this strongly enough. It does not mean that the hammering Catholicism has taken on this thread is justified. As Christians we should be supportive of all Christians (within reason...I think we can toss Westboro Baptist out of the conversation) while reserving the right to respectful disagreement and discourse. I would remind everyone that while modern Catholic doctrine is almost certainly not what the first Christians believes, neither is anyone else's.

So...let's knock off the "holier than thou crap", shall we, because the reality is that everyone hammering the Catholics probably aren't following the doctrine of original Christianity either.

 

[BluePhantom]

said that the Romans didn't invest in Hebrew culture....as in their social culture. I never said they didn't build shit. I should have been more clear. What I meant was that they didn't go out of their way to bring Judeo-Roman beliefs, education, etc to Palestine. Did they build what was necessary to support trade, to support the movements of armies, to support health and welfare? Well absolutely. That would have been one of the governors primary jobs. But they did not go in there and start trying to tell the Jews what to believe, what gods to pray to, and how to live their lives in general. They didn't care. (see how easy that was?)

Herod's Temple wasn't destroyed in 70 CE. Got it.

Ok hold on...I haven't even read the rest of your post yet, although I am looking forward to the entertainment value. The Temple was not destroyed in an effort to eradicate Judaism and establish paganism among the Jews. It was destroyed as a "fuck you" to the Jews for rebelling. As I said...the Roman's didn't give a fuck so long as the Jews paid their taxes and didn't start shit. Well guess what....they started shit, didn't they? And the Romans did what the Romans did best. They said "oh...you are going to get bitchy, well how do like THAT mother fucker?"

Regardless that has nothing to do with your statement that Catholicism was the early form of Christianity.

How many times are you going to try and throw out distractions from your ridiculous statement?

 

[BluePhantom]

Constantine did a great deal for Christianity, but he did not put only Christians in power. That's total revisionism. He put a lot of Christians in power, but Constantine did not totally abandon, nor outlaw paganism. Some accounts suggest he only received baptism on his deathbed, long after the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. He still had Roman gods on coinage. He did grant tax breaks to Christians and allowed Christians to have legal cases heard by a bishop instead of a state appointed magistrate, so he certainly did a lot to advance Christianity, but he did not make it mandatory, nor was he oblivious to the fact that if he did so there would be massive riots and uprisings within the pagan community which still represented the vast majority of the Empire and the army. Had Constantine completely eradicated pagans from positions of power he would been killed.

No, it's not revisionism. These are intentional political moves. I said this from the get go. He is not the least bit interested in Christianity as a Christian. His alleged conversion is written later. He can't really wrap his mind around the issues. He put Christians in power only and stripped pagans of power. Meaning that you would still have duties but without power. It's called coercion. You can be a pagan but your life is going to be increasingly difficult until you convert. Tax breaks for Christians but taxes for pagans to build Constantinople. The panegyric for the Battle of the Milvian Bridge is simply that. The battle is real but the panegyric is not. We are talking about a man that had a vision where Jupiter said he would rule for thirty years. The man went on a rampage and gave directives to exterminate eunuch priests. Eunuchs were considered crafty but had been trusted. Eusebius is a Eunuch. It's got nothing to do with revisionism and more to do with analyzing people and events without rose colored glasses.

It's total revisionism and you are the one wearing rose (Catholic) colored glasses, not me. Constantine stripped some power from the pagans, but not all of it. He couldn't have. The western empire was still highly pagan. The empire was unstable. He had just gone through years of civil war and the years preceding that were also filled with civil war. There was a time shortly before that where there were like five civil wars in four years. The empire was on a tipping point. The western army was HIGHLY pagan. It was made up of pagan mercenaries from Gaul, Germiania, Britannica....you think Constantine could strip very much pagan power without inciting yet another civil war? You think he is going to be able to fill the west with Christian officials when it's under a pagan army? Hell, man read your history. When later emperors such as Theodosius tried that what happened? The pagan army killed them and revolted. You think Constantine could pull it off when the empire was even more unstable?

Constantine issued coinage with pagan symbols (some Christian as well), he continued to worship Sol Invictus and Mars. He claimed to have had a vision of Apollo...all after legitimizing Christianity. (Harl, Kenneth [2011] The Fall of the Pagans: The Origins of Medieval Christianity, pg. 130-132). "A rampage" my ass. He played it cool and careful. He could not afford to piss off the pagans too much or he would be facing a nightmare of a war. Now if you want to talk about a guy who went on a rampage...talk about Justinian, not Constantine.

The rest of your drivel I will get to tomorrow. I have to go to work in the morning.

 

[BluePhantom]

Lack of literacy =/= lack of textuality.

I will respond to this tomorrow. I should be in bed already.

As it were, John the illiterate fisherman writes extensively in the New Testament.
Strong s Greek 62. agrammatos -- without learning unlettered

That's just crazy talk.

Most scholars don't believe John wrote anything in the New Testament. Read up on what is known as "pseudepigraphy" and learn about how the later Church decided on what books were considered authoritative. One was that it had to be apostolic. The Gospel of John and Revelation were almost certainly not written by John, son of Zebedee and the epistles of John almost certainly were not either. But to get them accepted as scripture, the Church decided they were anyhow even though some of them don't even claim to be.

You know you tell people to read history books and not the Bible and once again you don't even know that? Jesus H. Christ!

 

[TrinityPower]

This is a forum about Catholicism...didn't you really mean to say "Christ on a cracker"?

 

[zaangalewa]

Worshipping idols, icons and images violates the 2nd commandment.
- Catholics regularly bow down to idols, icons and images of Jesus, Mary and the apostles, kissing the feet of the statues and praying to them. The Bible teaches that WE ONLY PRAY TO DEITY and Christians considers it paganism and polytheism to pray to anyone EXCEPT the Father, Son or Holy Spirit. So while Catholics pray to Mary, they fail to comprehend that only deity is to be prayed to. The Bible clearly teaches that all dead humans, though conscious in the spirit world, are unable to know anything, much less hear prayers addressed to them. Bowing down to icons and kissing them etc. so closely resembles idol worship it is actually shocking that any Roman Catholic would attempt to defend the practice.

Bonzi? Technically all Christians break the second commandment which is: You shall have no other gods before Me.

The triune god is one god - like three directions are one space. And mother Mary is mother Mary. We love Mother Mary - everyone loves mother Mary. Neverthelels Mohammed - who was himselve one of the greatest admirer of mother Mary - was right when he said something like "Who believes in the triune god - God father, Jesus Christ and mother Mary - is not a Christian", because indeed the holy family is Joseph, Mary and Jesus and the triune god is god father, god son and the holy spirit.

I understand the justification. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

You understood my explanation - maybe. And what you justify or not is for me personally completly unimportant.

 

[Ravi]

Bottom line: When you can pray to God directly, makes no sense to pray to others.

It is not done in the Bible and it is not mentioned in the Bible. End of debate.

No one is praying to others. They are simply asking others to pray for them. Even fundies do that.

Why can't they pray themselves? Why do they need any intermediary?

They want to speak to god, speak to god. Don't ask someone else to speak for you

why pray at all, god can know your thoughts already

I can't answer that question. Just pointing out that Bonzi is either deluded or a liar.

No need to pray to others, no matter the reason

No one is praying to others. They are asking others to pray. Why do you keep lying about this?