[Mad Dawg]

Okay, I'm getting a concept that, from your POV (and that of some of the cheering peanut gallery), the motivation is not what I would call a discussion seeking understanding, but a proclamation among the heathen of the truth, "and let God sort them out."

So, in support of this conjecture: When I go after an argument, I am tend to be looking for errors in fact (It is said we teach "A", while my understanding is that we do not) or logic (Since some pray to saints, therefore they must think the NEED to pray to saints), among which are internal contradictions or absurdities (no examples come to mind). You on the other hand will consider the mission mostly accomplished merely by clearly articulating the "correct" doctrine.

We're trying to do two different things. So when you mount an assault on our notions of the intercessions of the Saints, any related criticism is relevant. So that if you raise the question of "Why not go straight to Jesus?" and I answer that Protestants also ask for the prayers of others, you think it germane to bring up, say, the "prayers to the dead" criticism, because the goal is to stomp into the dirt the whole idea of intercession of the saints. While for me, the manner of stomping, the truth, reasonableness, and efficacy of it is what needs examining, and since we're not done looking at the question of intercession generally, the bringing up of the 'dead' question is a just changing the subject and looks evasive.

So when your side is done mentioning this or that point and hauling out this or that piece of Scripture or Calvin, you all Amen and generally high-five each other. And we're thinking and sometimes saying, "Wow, how unreasonable and perseverative they are!" We are seeking to discuss, while you are seeking to proclaim and denounce. I am not HERE saying which is better. I'm just pointing out that a lot of the problem is that we are doing two very different things with different goals.

To you all, the raising of a contradictory fact or the pointing out of a logical anomaly is an interference with your divine mission of denunciation and proclamation, so it must be driven out somehow -- anyhow. To us the repetition and piling up of citations just looks like throwing one rock after another and not stopping to see if they were well-aimed.

This can lead to a certain level of animosity. And, indeed, if my take is right, then I see no point in "engaging" with you all, except possibly socially and, maybe, in prayer sometimes.

[HarleyD]

Okay, I'm getting a concept that, from your POV...is not what I would call a discussion seeking understanding, but a proclamation among the heathen of the truth, "and let God sort them out."

Nope. It is a discussion of understanding. The problem is what we base that understanding on. I say that understanding is based upon the word of God. Catholics would say that understanding is based upon what they are told by the Church.

You on the other hand will consider the mission mostly accomplished merely by clearly articulating the "correct" doctrine.

1Cr 2:1-2 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

To be perfectly honest, the gospel message is rather simple. All I CAN do is read and repeat what the text says.

If the text says, "You did not chose me but I have choosen you.", then personally I think that is rather clear. I can understand Christians saying, "Hmmmm...that is rather interesting and I'll have to study it." or "I believe it is stating ----this---- for ----these---- reasons." There shouldn't be a "Yes, but...".

So that if you raise the question of "Why not go straight to Jesus?" and I answer that Protestants also ask for the prayers of others, you think it germane to bring up, say, the "prayers to the dead" criticism,

If you look above you never answered the question. You simply deflected the question with another question. Scripture tells us we are to pray to our heavenly Father. Scripture tells us we are to pray for others. Scripture does not say we are to pray to the dead.

So when your side is done...you all Amen and generally high-five each other. And we're thinking and sometimes saying, "Wow, how unreasonable and perseverative they are!" We are seeking to discuss, while you are seeking to proclaim and denounce.

That isn't a fair or accurate statement. Shall I point you to some Catholic comments that "high-five" other Catholic comments? I can assure you they are not hard to find. Personally, there is nothing wrong with a good hearty "Amen" in the right spot because it is an indication that you are correct in your understanding. "Amen" simply means "truly".

That being put aside, I will say that I'm not here to win battles, pick fights, prove a point or anything else but to learn and grow. I will add there are some things I find simply astounding that Christians would believe. Never in all my born-again days would I have thought Christians believed some of these things, and I have socialized with all sorts of Christians. In these cases I can't keep my big mouth shut-or my big keyboard.

To you all, the raising of a contradictory fact or the pointing out of a logical anomaly is an interference with your divine mission of denunciation and proclamation, so it must be driven out somehow -- anyhow.

Christianity has no contradictory facts. To me a contradictory fact or a logical anomaly is a false teaching-pure and simple. It is our responsibility as Christians to point each other in the right direction. It is fair for you to ask me how do I know that I am heading in the right direction just as it is fair for me to ask you. We can both refer to the word of God and verify.

This can lead to a certain level of animosity. And, indeed, if my take is right, then I see no point in "engaging" with you all, except possibly socially and, maybe, in prayer sometimes.

That is your decision and that is where we'll leave it.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

since we're not done looking at the question of intercession generally, the bringing up of the 'dead' question is a just changing the subject and looks evasive.

The "bringing up of the dead question" is central to the error of praying to anyone other than the Triune God.

The RCC believes in purgatory and that the prayers of the living can effect the eventual destination of the dead.

Bible-believing Christians know that at the moment of our death, we will either reside blameless in heaven with God or condemned by our sins in hell.

Therefore, for those already dead, our praying to other dead people is pointless.

And for the living, praying to dead people takes our eyes off the only mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus, who is "is before all things," and by whom "all things consist."

"Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." -- Matthew 4:10

I'm just pointing out that a lot of the problem is that we are doing two very different things with different goals.

The "goal" should always be to understand God's word and will. If we don't find a belief in the Scriptures, if we find a particular belief expressly denounced in the Scriptures, what is the prudent man to do? Keep searching for reasons to believe what Scripture denies? Where's the logic in that?

I see no point in "engaging" with you all

It's human nature to withdraw when our defense is weak. There is an alternative.

"As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him." -- Psalm 18:30