Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
Published on December 6, 2005 By Dr Guy In Religion

I recently came across a remark that accused Catholics of Worshiping the Statue of Mary.  And before my brain engaged to stop my fingers from flying, I blasted that remark.  And yes, I acted in haste and repent in leisure.  So first, I would like to apologize to the target of my wrath.  I should not have posted that reply.

But it also gave me my third article in my series.  Praying to statues.  Or as some think, praying to someone other than God and Jesus.  Catholics do neither.

The statues we see in most Catholic churches are a part of a tradition started in the middle ages when Artisans, for want of a meal ticket, often worked for the Church.  So Michaelangelo painted the Sistine chapel, created the statue of David, along with many other works.  Because the Church paid.  And that tradition has been handed down through the centuries as other churches wanted some of the beautiful works in their buildings (or on their buildings) as well.  Today, many churches have no statues at all.  And those that do, the statues are there for decorations, pertaining to the religion.  They are not worshiped.  They are adored, both for their art sake, and for who they represent.  But no knowledgeable Catholic worships them! (As I have stated before, many Catholics dont even know about their own religion - so some may actually worship them).

But do we pray to them - what they represent?  Do we pray to Mary, the Mother of Jesus?  Do we pray to the Saints? I guess that is the bigger misconception.

Catholics do not pray to the saints or Mary or any other revered figure in the Church.  What we do practice is to ask that Mary or a saint or saints pray for us.  For the thought is that many voices are louder than one (remember "It's a Wonderful Life"? The opening scene where everyone is praying for George Bailey?).  And in that, we do ask for their intercession for our prayers.

And indeed that is not unique to Catholicism. For almost every Christian denomination has a request for prayers for other people.  So everyone does it.  But one of the key differences is that Catholics not only ask the living to pray for us, but also those who have died.  And that may (or may not) be unique.

Someone, and I forget who, said they would rather ask the living to pray for them, not the dead.  And that is fine.  But let me pose a question.  If you are a true Christian, then you must believe that when you die, your soul does not die, and if you have lead a good and holy life, your soul ascends to heaven.  So you are in God's home then, right?  And you are truly not dead, but have life everlasting, right?

So why would you not ask those you know to be in heaven to pray for you?  Makes sense that God is more likely to listen to one who is with him than for one who may or may not be a good person (you never know about the living).

But how do we KNOW that a person is in heaven?  I am sure we have all buried a relative or friend and hope they are in heaven.  Maybe we even know it with all our heart.  For Catholics it is easy to know who is in Heaven.  Not all of those in heaven, or course!  But we do have an impressive list of names to call upon for we know they are in Heaven.  For every Saint, and yes, Mary the Mother of Jesus is one (although we dont call  her Saint Mary usually), are in Heaven!  Now many people who have never been beatified, are undoubtedly in Heaven as well.  I know my Grandmother is.  But she will never be made a saint (just not famous enough as it is a very long process).

So I could just as easily ask my Grandmother to pray for me, as I can Saint Jude, or Joseph.  And some do that very thing (as I am sure many other Christians ask their beloved relatives to pray for them). But more often, we ask the known saints to pray for us, adding to our prayers in the hopes that they will add their voice to ours and create a Cacophony like that one heard in the opening scene of It's a Wonderful Life.

That is really all there is to it.  No great mystery, no violation of the first amendment.  Just asking others, living and ascended, to add their voices to ours so that our prayers carry greater weight.

Really simple when you understand it.


Comments (Page 4)
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6 
on Dec 09, 2005

Does this answer the contradiction? Any more?

No, because Jesus himself answered it as you quoted.  And as the New Covenant, things did change.  It is not a contradiction per se to change.  And I really dont see it as one here, except when taken in isolation.

So why could not the guy at work come up with that one?  I did not even have to look that one up, for it was plainly stated in Matthew.

on Dec 09, 2005
No? Soooooo I didn't answer you? Kinda confused....is it a contradiction or not? Not sure why the guy at work (Greg) didn't come back with that one either. It's the most common. Any others? Com'on....I'm up for it!!!

It's not so much that they changed but that they were fulfilled in Him. Like the Passover. The Jews were to keep it every year. Now if you look at the whole Passover Ritual you would see the foretelling of Christ. Like the instruction that the lamb was to have no blemish (be perfect) the legs were not to be broken,(Christ's legs were not broken on the cross) that the blood was not be be eaten (because it was for atonement) etc. It all pointed to Christ. The Sabbath was another. We changed from a Saturday Sabbath (OT) to the first day of the week, also called the Lord's Day (NT). Why? Cuz the Sabbath meant rest and it celebrated creation. The first day of the week celebrates the resurrection and Christ was the fulfillment of that Sabbath rest.

Remember he said..."Come to me all who are weary and need of rest"? He is that rest. We rest in HIM.

After Christ came and went the temple was destroyed. No more holy of holies. The Passover was fullfilled in Christ. He was our perfect Passover Lamb. There was no need for another. Until the next temple is built in Jerusalem (they are trying) they cannot truly celebrate the Passover like they did. So for 2000 years it has ceased. Scripture does say in Hebrews that there is no more sacrifice to be had. He was it. It's done.
on Dec 09, 2005

No? Soooooo I didn't answer you?

You did, but you did not.  Matthew provided all the answers in that Gospel.

on Dec 10, 2005
In the OT what you are referring to is "Breach for breach, eye for eye tooth for tooth as he has caused a blemish in a man so shall it be done to him again." Lev 24:20.

. . . Now Christ said in Matt 5:38: "You have it heard that it has been said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you that you resist not evil but whosoever shall smite you on your right cheek turn to him the other also........"

. . . Jesus did not alterate the true meaning of the law. He was merely explaining and affirming the law's true meaning and showing from a personal standpoint there is a better way.


KFC, that’s a good point. And it shows that the harsh Biblical teachings that we saw on the other thread, (i.e. verses about stoning people to death and slaughtering other people), can be superseded by Jesus’ message to “love your enemies, do good to those who hate you” etc.

I agree that such verses don’t contradict each other. From another angle, it could also be said that the old laws describe different phases of humanity’s spiritual growth. The laws of the OT were a reflection of where humanity was at - at the time, whilst the new laws reflect where we should be heading. (i.e. as we grow up as a race, we should know better than to treat others badly. It seems that the trend is directed toward principles of love and harmony - God’s true nature.)

And it works....I've tried this principle. A harsh tone or answer turns people off but even if you are in the right and being taken to task by another and you speak in a kind gentle tone ....has a calming effect on the other person. And that's what Jesus is saying....yes you have every right to retaliate but go further and be bigger than they and let it go.


Absolutely. Love is a practical law which can be applied to daily life. The fruits to be reaped by exercising it are great for the soul. But it’s not easy. If people treat you badly, or if they deliberately hurt you in some way, then it can take a lot of inner muscle to exercise forgiveness, humility or compassion.

In this sense, God has provided our souls with the perfect ‘gym’ for spiritual development and growth. On earth, we face challenges and trials which don’t exist in Heaven. Whilst the law of this world is ‘might is right’, and ‘survival of the fittest’, the law of Heaven is compassion, harmony and understanding etc. By adhering to these Heavenly laws whilst on earth, we align ourself closer to life’s purpose, and we can begin to cultivate true strength of character.

But I think that our ability to exercise godliness in such a way depends on our level of growth, and depends on how much spiritual wealth our soul possesses. We can get a good gauge of our own level of spiritual development by being aware of how much jealousy, conceit, insecurity, or fear we might experience throughout daily life. Whatever level we’re at – even if we think we’re a hopelessly insecure or angry person - it’s not a ‘bad’ thing. There’s simply room for growth, and God loves us regardless. I think the key to inner peace lies in finding complete self-acceptance, regardless of how bad we think we are. (As we learn to love ourself unconditionally, we naturally fulfil the law to love one another as ourself.)

I would venture to say that there are no contradictions found in scripture. God, is the God of order, not disorder and does not contradict himself. I actually was told this by a Guy at my work and he's gonna get back to me on this. I'm still waiting.......so maybe you can take his place and give me one or two.........?


I’m not convinced, KFC. Biblical contradictions can be as subtle as the discrepancy between 2 Kings 8.26 and 2 Chronicles 22.2; to differences in genealogies such as Matthew 1.6-17 and Luke 3.24-38.

If there are contradictions in the Bible, then this wouldn’t mean that God contradicts Himself. The fact that God has allowed the Bible to be the way it is is obviously significant. (I’m sure that it’s within God’s capacity to control the content of a book like the Bible.) The fallibility of Scripture must be deliberate, and for one it urges Christians to grow and explore. It's not always beneficial for us to be spoon fed.
on Dec 10, 2005


2 Kings 8.26 and 2 Chronicles 22.2; to differences in genealogies such as Matthew 1.6-17 and Luke 3.24-38.


Wel I'm off to check this out.....be back.........I love a challenge....and I will stick to my original point the bible has no contradictions. I want to show you to YOUR satisfaction that this statement is indeed true.

It's a myth perpertrated by the hounds of hell and their leader. Don't fall for it. Remember he's a thief, a liar and wants nothing more than to seek, search and destroy.

P.S. Andy....sorry I didn't get back to you on the other thread......got really busy for a while there.


on Dec 10, 2005
I would argue that many Protestant Christians are on shaky graound as far as the idol worship is concerned. Whether it be a cross, a dove, a painting of Christ, or the Christian flag (the latter being the most egregious example, as many of the churches that display this flag require their children to swear a vow of allegiance to it...but I digress), most Christians put physical icons above God in their worship.
on Dec 10, 2005
2 Kings 8.26 and 2 Chronicles 22.2; to differences in genealogies such as Matthew 1.6-17 and Luke 3.24-38.


Com'on Andy this is not a contradiction at all. In Kings you have the King's age at 22 when he started his reign and in Chronicles it says he was 42. What we have here is a copyist's error easily made due to the small stroke that differentiates between two Hebrew letters. I looked up in many references and they all say that the 22 years is correct and the 42 was a scribal error. Doesn't change the meaning of the passage at all. But I am impressed you knew that...... Pretty good!!!

As far as the genealogies it should be somewhat different..............one is Mary's and one is Joseph's. No contradiction there.

on Dec 10, 2005
I think that the Old Testament and New Testament really show two sides of our God. On one hand, our God is a God of justice, and vengence. On the other hand, our God is a God of love, "seventy times seven" second chances. I don't see them as "contradictions"...I see the NT as a "new way" to do things. People are made in God's imagine, so we're much the same way--we can be pissy and we can be kind. If we had just one "side" to us...we'd be pretty boring.

I would argue that many Protestant Christians are on shaky graound as far as the idol worship is concerned. Whether it be a cross, a dove, a painting of Christ, or the Christian flag (the latter being the most egregious example, as many of the churches that display this flag require their children to swear a vow of allegiance to it...but I digress), most Christians put physical icons above God in their worship.


That's interesting. I hadn't considered that before. So...you don't think churches should have a cross or anything in the front at all? You know how all of those paintings of Jesus look the same? When I pray, sometimes I imagine that kind of a face in my head. I don't think it's "idol worship"...I think it's kind of like here...having a picture to put with a name. Granted, I'm well aware of the fact that Jesus probably will not look ANYTHING like I imagine Him when I get to meet Him....
on Dec 10, 2005
Com'on Andy this is not a contradiction at all. In Kings you have the King's age at 22 when he started his reign and in Chronicles it says he was 42. What we have here is a copyist's error easily made due to the small stroke that differentiates between two Hebrew letters. I looked up in many references and they all say that the 22 years is correct and the 42 was a scribal error. Doesn't change the meaning of the passage at all.


Yes, I agree that it's cosmetic, which is why it doesn't make any difference to me. And it doesn't change the meaning of the passage. But it's true that there's a fair few cosmetic contradictions in the Bible, some of which are a bit bigger, (throughout the four gospels, for instance). I won't list them because I'll be getting too petty. If you're interested, there's a book called 'The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy' by C. Dennis McKinsey, which lists a multitude. I found McKinsey's style too biased, though - he's what I call a 'fundamentalist atheist' - as his book sets out to cause friction with Christians, so it won't be everyone's cup of tea. But I think that it's healthy to at least be aware of the kind of views that are out there. God wants the mettle of our faith to be tested as much as it can, I'm sure, because it promotes growth. We're infinitely secure in God, anyway.

As far as the genealogies it should be somewhat different..............one is Mary's and one is Joseph's. No contrtadiction there.


but both genealogies are rooted in "Jospeh". They don't actually mention Mary. Incidentally, Matthew 1.16 says Joseph's father is Jacob, while Luke 3.23 says it's Heli. That in itself seems to be a contradiction. But I don't want to get into an argument here babe, so I'm not going to push these views.

would argue that many Protestant Christians are on shaky graound as far as the idol worship is concerned. Whether it be a cross, a dove, a painting of Christ, or the Christian flag (the latter being the most egregious example, as many of the churches that display this flag require their children to swear a vow of allegiance to it...but I digress), most Christians put physical icons above God in their worship.


Yes, and the gold-laced palaces that the Pope resides in seems to run contrary to a humble spirituality and lack of worldly attachments, which Jesus promulgated. God bless the Catholics.
on Dec 10, 2005
but both genealogies are rooted in "Jospeh". They don't actually mention Mary. Incidentally, Matthew 1.16 says Joseph's father is Jacob, while Luke 3.23 says it's Heli. That in itself seems to be a contradiction


No Andy, one is definitely Mary's and the other Joseph's. Matthew's is Joseph and Luke is Mary's. It does mention Mary in Matt 1:16 as the wife of Joseph. This was his line. Notice in v7 that he came from the line of Solomon. This is David's Son. This is where the LEGAL title comes from.

Now go to Luke 3:31 and you can see Mary came from Nathan, also David's son (Solomon's brother). So they came from brothers and are cousins way back to David. Joseph couldn't have come from the line of Solomon and of Nathan now could he? Can you see this?

So Jesus gets his BLOOD title from Mary. He is legit both legally and by blood so there is no mistake. His heritage was never an issue; it was never disputed.

Joseph was Jacob's son by birth (Matt 1:16) and Heli's son by marriage.

think that the Old Testament and New Testament really show two sides of our God. On one hand, our God is a God of justice, and vengence. On the other hand, our God is a God of love, "seventy times seven" second chances. I don't see them as "contradictions"...


Yes, people only want to talk about the good side, the love of God and would rather not talk about the wrath of God. He did come the first time like a meek lamb for the slaughter and was called the "Lamb of God." But he is coming back as the "Lion of Judah" and when he does it's not going to be pretty.





on Dec 10, 2005
If you're interested, there's a book called 'The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy' by C. Dennis McKinsey, which lists a multitude. I found McKinsey's style too biased, though - he's what I call a 'fundamentalist atheist'


.....never heard of a fundamentalist atheist before.......but as soon as I saw the title knew he had an agenda because there isn't any errancy unless you count that scribal error. I know most of the "supposed" contradictions. But when you know the truth well enough...when a lie crops up you can spot it. When you shed light on it, the flaws show up big time.

If I told you 1+1=5 would you believe me? Even if I insisted it was right? That's why we need to be so familiar with the truth so we can spot the lie.
on Dec 10, 2005
Gid you have a very good point about Protestants and their "idols."

A friend gave me a gold cross to wear, and for a long time I wore it on a chain under my shirt right over my heart. Every time I felt it press against my skin it reminded me of Jesus and his sacrifice. It reminded me, I didn't pray to it, or kneel at it and pray to it....KWIM? But I do see your point, idols do have a way of sneaking in on ya if your not careful.

Once while in a military chapel for service I was mentally getting on my high horse. See, the chapel was used for several religious services. There was a Star of David behind one screen, and the Muslim thing behind another, the Catholic crucifix. Then the Cross of Christ. At each service they would cover the other religions icon (if you will) and proceed with services.

I was sitting there thinking, "Shesh. I can't even worship here with this symbol of Satan. (Thinking of the Muslim icon)." You wouldn't believe how uppity I was getting.

Then clarity struck with a resounding symbol in my head. "Do you think I am not here? Am I not in the deepest darkest prison? Will I not seek you in the very halls of Satan? Is there any place you think I can not go, will not go for one I call my own?"

Yeah. Reality check.

The truth is, while I love to see the empty cross at the front of the church (because that is what makes Jesus different than any other religion...HE ROSE from the dead and the empty cross reminds us of that) to remind me and help me focus, I can still do all things through Christ who strengthens me. I don't need icons, symbols, or even idols.

He's pretty cool that way.
on Dec 10, 2005

most Christians put physical icons above God in their worship.

I wont go that far, but I do agree with you.

on Dec 10, 2005

Gid you have a very good point about Protestants and their "idols."

Tova, let us read and enjoy!  This is getting good!

on Dec 11, 2005
I guess...my view of it is that many Catholic churches DO have statues of Mary. The new churches may not have them or as many, but every Catholic church I have been to has had statues of at least Jesus and Mary (and sometimes others)

The simple question is, why dont you pray directly to God who is the one in charge? I know you said that people ask others for prayer and yes this is true, to an extent. I might ask others around me to pray for me, so that I can be uplifted in their thoughts and that those people will be praying to God WITH me. These people show self sacrifice in ignoring their own personal situations and include me in their prayers, putting myself first above themselves in prayer asking God to comfort me and take care of me.

Mary...well, shes dead. Someone said this bluntly to me a few years back when I was talking about how I felt I was being watched from my grandparents who had passed on. They said "If Heaven is something we can't even imagine...if its that good and so holy and unbelieaveble where the streets are lined with gold and we get our own mansions to live in....if Heaven is so incredibly good, why would people want to take their eyes off of it and look down on us?"

I think God himself can see us down here because he is always watching over us, but to have those who have died look down on us and see the sins we are living in, that would taint Heaven.

In the end...Mary was holy to the extent that she was the mother of Jesus. She was a virgin, NOT sinless. When she entered Heaven, she was held accountable for her sins as we are.

Also...just because someone is called a Saint, that doesnt mean they are in Heaven, far from it. I have no way of knowing who is in Heaven more than anyone else. Saint is something that is applied to a person after they have died. God doesnt zip down here and say "yep...she's a saint", but there is a long and detailed (meaning...they tried to get as much info as they could about them) examination of that persons life...and if they managed to do x y and z, they are slapped the saint symbol. That doesnt raise them up higher in Heaven, NOR does Heaven recognize the status we placed on that person. Heaven isn't based on Good works, nor can you get into it based on what you do on earth (outside of handing your life over to Christ).

I don't need Saint Bob of Spam to pray for me. All I need is to pray to God, he is the one in charge, he is the one I ned to know and get familiar with, he is the one I give my life to, he is the one to whom I shall answer to when I die. God is God, he is everything and all that there is, he is all that I need...so I pray to him and nobody else because....whats the point?
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6