Posted on 04/21/2014 3:55:23 PM PDT by TigerTown
“The crux of your three questions is so that you would no longer have doubt. Sorry. That is not how it works. You must have a possibility to doubt.”
If your truth claim is correct, it could be supported Biblically. It was not.
The only conclusion a believer can reach about your claim is that it is an opinion, separated from God’s revelation.
“It is not my job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I am only commanded to make a reasonable case, i.e. witness, and the rest is up to you.”
This you failed to do in any way.
“You are free to change the definition , but then we are talking about different things, and your argument will have no force.”
There is one definition of “saint”. It is defined by God’s use in the Bible.
“Call it un-Bibilical if you want. It was not meant to be “Biblical”. I am doing theology here, not Biblical studies.”
Theology that has no Biblical foundation is called opinion.
Who knows, but I wouldn’t want people paying to me and expecting me to intervene... Especially when it’s clear I can’t. Praying to saints was a way to have more than one god and not supported in the bible.
I’ve posted on this issue before but it was a while ago, so I don’t have the link readily available that shows the following to the the case. However I can probably find it again if needed. But in answer to your questions:
“What proof can you provide that:
1. The saint heard the prayer?
2. The saint prayed?
3. God acted because of the saint’s supposed prayer and not for a different reason?”
During investigations of miracles alleged to be due to the intercession of a Servant of God’s prayers, it is investigated as thoroughly as possible that no one involved in the miracle prayed to anyone else for the miracle (whatever it was), so, if this is found to be the case, and the miracle did indeed occur (no other explanation for the event) then it is concluded through reason, really, that it must have occurred via the intercession of the Servant of God. It goes something like this:
A group of people pray only to someone who they know led a holy life, someone they believe is in heaven, so that a little boy they know may be cured of some I curable disease. Let’s call this person they prayed to (asked for prayers from), Dave. Note, they aren’t worshipping Dave by praying to him, they are asking Dave to pray for them.
The little boy they knew is cured.
This case is offered as proof of Dave’s sainthood.
The case is investigated, and it is found that indeed, no one who knew the boy, at all, prayed to any other saint or to God himself. They only prayed to Dave (again, to ask Dave for his intercessory prayer).
So then now, Dave is recognized as Saint Dave. Assuming Dave has another miracle attributed to his intercession like this.
This is for two reasons:
One, because it is taught and believed by the Church that God only hears the prayers of people on Earth and in Heaven. He doesn’t hear those in Hell.
Two, God is not a deceiver.
Therefore, since God is not a deceiver, and he only hears the prayers of he righteous, he won’t cure some person if a prayer for such a cure is not directed ultimately towards him. That is, he’s not going to say, “ok I’ll cure this boy even though these cultish Catholics are going to use this as evidence of one of theirs in heaven. I’ll let people be deceived by my own cure”. He’s not going to do that.
But that’s the only thing anyone who believes these miracles did and do occur MUST believe about God, if they don’t believe the miracle is because of the intercession of a Saint. Because again it’s shown to be a fact that the people involved in known miracles only prayed to the (potential) saint in question. And God doesn’t hear “prayers” from Hell.
So if a person experiences a miracle, a miracle requested via only praying to a person who is deceased, then the deceased must be in Heaven.
Either that, or God is a deceiver. Someone who would rather people believe in a falsehood (that those in heaven pray for us and/or hear us), just because he wants to cure some little boy. Or a nun. Or some Italian woman with no pupils.
What kind of God is that? Going around curing people of disease but letting those afflicted believe a falsehood in the process?
It’s pointless. It’s evil. That’s not the God of Christianity.
So it’s known, as a fact, that the people we think are saints are indeed saints in heaven. It’s known as any fact is really known. Through reason.
Your apology is accepted.
:o]
After reading your post I am glad I found the Catholic church.
FourtySeven,
Thank you for taking time to try to answer the three questions. I appreciate your kindness.
Unfortunately, the three questions remain unanswered in your post. Here they are again:
“What proof can you provide that:
1. The saint heard the prayer? (This is assumed, based on nothing in Scripture)
2. The saint prayed? (This is assumed, with no evidence)
3. God acted because of the saint’s supposed prayer and not for a different reason?” (This is assumed with no evidence)
These three assumptions are put to the side and a committee investigates and decides.
St. John Paul II: The 20th Century’s Greatest Dissident
http://www.patheos.com | April 24, 2014 | Tod Worner
Posted on 4/24/2014 1:21:36 PM by NKP_Vet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3148182/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.