Ten Commandments

[Midtowner]

So you pray to a shrine while not praying to a shrine? Interesting counceler.

Through, not to. Language matters.

[stile99]

Not raised Catholic, I've been INSIDE a Catholic church only maybe half a dozen times in my lifetime, and that was never for an actual service, but for a wedding or funeral. That said, call me all the names in the book you want, I really don't care, I'm FREELY ADMITTING my lack of knowledge. I am ignorant and asking for enlightenment.

That said, why does one have to pray to a saint to intercede on one's behalf? Everything I was always told, one prays to God directly, He hears the prayer. Is He just sitting around waiting until a saint or two comes up and says "hey, Bob asked us to ask You to help him find peace, he lost his job last week and the bills are really piling up" and then says "Oh hey, he asked Me that too, I guess if he also asked you guys he REALLY means it."? I'm asking a serious question, would appreciate a serious answer, but if one wants to attack instead, go for it.

Followup question, if this is indeed the case, is there a specific saint or number of saints one must petition before one's prayer is accepted?

Followup question number two, if this ISN'T the case, is it possible praying to (or through if you prefer to argue about a word rather than the point) a shrine instead of directly is possibly really annoying the dude that said specifically "pray to Me"? Psalm 6:9, Psalm 34:15 (and 17), Psalm 65:2, 2nd Chronicles 7:14-15. Moving from the Old Testament, Jesus (if anyone knows how to pray, it would be him, I imagine) responded to the question "How should we pray" by saying, in part, that one prays to 'your Father', and that it is 'your Father' that will reward you, and then he gave what is commonly called the 'model prayer', opening with 'our Father'.

I can't speak for Jerry, but I think MAYBE one thing he meant was you really don't need a statue or a string of beads to pray. On the contrary, there are specific warnings against such a thing.

[Midtowner]

Fair questions, all. The Church has the belief that you can pray directly to God, but when you pray, you can pray with a Saint or angels. I think this article does the concept a lot more justice than I can:

https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-i...-of-the-saints

As to the followup, generally speaking, if you're praying with/through a Saint, you'd probably select said Saint by what that particular Saint would be associated with.

Here's a handy list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...n_and_activity

So if you wanted to pray for your Uber driver, you might invoke St. Fiacre, the patron saint of taxi drivers.

The shrine isn't really important. It's a thing--a prop. It possesses no magical powers. Sometimes there is candle lighting or whatnot, but that is more just a custom/tradition than having any serious theological meaning. The Catholic Church is 2,000 years old and differs most significantly from Protestant churches in that it derives what it is and what it does from tradition as well as from the Bible.

[jerrywall]

Your ignorance on the subject is astounding and offensive. Fools should just keep their mouths shut.

So why don't you?

[stile99]

Thank you for that link, Midtowner, I honestly had never thought of it that way. But I can understand that just as we may pray together, humans and saints may also pray together. So it's not so much a "Hey, Saint of Distressed Souls, ask God to help me deal with the loss of my friend" but more of a the saint is your friend and also desires to see your pain lessened, so prays with you, just as an earthly friend would.

[Midtowner]

Thank you for that link, Midtowner, I honestly had never thought of it that way. But I can understand that just as we may pray together, humans and saints may also pray together. So it's not so much a "Hey, Saint of Distressed Souls, ask God to help me deal with the loss of my friend" but more of a the saint is your friend and also desires to see your pain lessened, so prays with you, just as an earthly friend would.

If you ever have any kind of question about what the basis for anything the Catholic Church does or believes, the Catechism of the Catholic Church can be found online and is completely searchable. There are also a great number of sites which have the answers. Probably the strangest thing for a lot of Protestants regarding the Catholic Church is that to be Catholic, there are very few tenants one MUST believe and even those, such as the Ecclesiastical Law stating those who procure or complete an abortion are automatically excommunicated are not really followed in the United States. Think of it as a franchise with a pretty loosey goosey home office. One aspect I really respect is that there are multiple well researched, well thought out answers (not always agreeing) for any question about Catholicism one might come up with. The rule book is a little more complicated than the Southern Baptist's.

[Martin]

Your ignorance on the subject is astounding and offensive. Fools should just keep their mouths shut.

this post adds nothing to the discussion. instead of simply attacking another poster, try discussing why you think their position is wrong.

[Martin]

there are very few tenants one MUST believe and...

i think you mean 'tenets.' language matters. ; )

[Rover]

this post adds nothing to the discussion. instead of simply attacking another poster, try discussing why you think their position is wrong.

Over and over repeating other persons' or other groups' beliefs without knowing them is ignorance. Fools keep repeating ignorance. Anyone following this thread knows the ignorance that is repeated regarding the Catholic Church's (and other Christian's) beliefs regarding the Ten Commandments, Idols, et al. Either they are willfully misrepresenting to further an agenda, or they are truly ignorant.

[jerrywall]

Feel free to put me on ignore Rover. I'm not in kindergarten. Bye.

[Stew]

Feel free to put me on ignore Rover. I'm not in kindergarten. Bye.

I must have you on sort of ignore because for the life of me I can't find anything you posted on this thread that is the least bit controversial. Shoot, me and my folks are the ones who should be upset. That's our thing that got hijacked and repurposed as some other group's pride. Eh, what can you do.

[Martin]

Over and over repeating other persons' or other groups' beliefs without knowing them is ignorance. Fools keep repeating ignorance. Anyone following this thread knows the ignorance that is repeated regarding the Catholic Church's (and other Christian's) beliefs regarding the Ten Commandments, Idols, et al. Either they are willfully misrepresenting to further an agenda, or they are truly ignorant.

alright... if somebody is misrepresenting a certain position, then let's discuss exactly what they're getting wrong instead of making generalized accusations of ignorance... i think other posters in this very thread have done just that. not sure why you can't do the same thing.

[Rover]

From Catholic.com:

"Despite appearances, we know Exodus 20 is not a prohibition against making “any likeness of anything” in a strict sense because we clearly see God either commanding or praising the making of images and statues in multiple biblical texts (see Exodus 25:18; Numbers 21:8-9; I Kings 6:23-28, 9:3). Just five chapters after this so-called prohibition against statues, for example, God commands Moses to make statues representing two angels to be placed over the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant:

And you shall make two cherubim of gold… The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another…. And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark… There I will meet with you (Ex. 25:18-22).

There are five key points to be made concerning this common misunderstanding among Protestants as well as many quasi-Christian sects.

1. Exodus 20:4 is part of the first commandment that begins in verse 3 and stretches through part of verse five:

You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.

Verses 3 and 5 make clear that this commandment is not simply condemning making statues; It is condemning making gods that you bow down to or serve. In a word, this first commandment forbids idolatry, i.e., the worship of anything or anyone other than God. The Catholic Church condemns this as well.

2. By lifting out part of the first commandment appearing to prohibit the making of “any likeness of anything,” not only do you have God contradicting himself in later commanding the making of statues, but you also end up making the first two commandments repetitive. They are both essentially condemning idolatry."

[jerrywall]

So it would appear I was right? Catholics and protestants would see no problem with a 10 Commandments monument? My first statement stands and nothing you've said contradicts that.

[Midtowner]

A lot of Catholics are going to have a problem with such a monument on a church/state basis--and the Catholics have much more of a historical frame of reference to draw from to tell you what happens when you start mixing church and state.

[stile99]

what happens when you start mixing church and state.

You get a billion dollar budget hole?

[Midtowner]

You get a billion dollar budget hole?

[Rover]

So it would appear I was right? Catholics and protestants would see no problem with a 10 Commandments monument? My first statement stands and nothing you've said contradicts that.

The problem is the lack of understanding of what separation of church and state means. Certain advocates use the issue more as a human issue to assert their own authority than to worship God. Any Real Christian should understand the evil in misusing religion. The Pharacies tried this and some people never learn, or else they are the agent of something else.

Oh, and while we are at it...since there are different translations/interpretations of the commandments, whose do you suggest the state push forward? Is the state the authority on this? Or, are you suggesting the state push one Church's translation over another's. What next issue does the state take a position of religion on .... the official prayer of schools... which churches prayers are the official state prayer? It is a slippery slope.

[jerrywall]

A lot of Catholics are going to have a problem with such a monument on a church/state basis--and the Catholics have much more of a historical frame of reference to draw from to tell you what happens when you start mixing church and state.

That wasn't the topic. The original assertion I was questioning was the belief that Christians wouldn't set up monuments or displays at their Church or on private property.

The whole church state thing is a different topic.

SMH. People are so eager to be argumentive they don't even read.

[stile99]

The problem is the lack of understanding of what separation of church and state means. ... Oh, and while we are at it...since there are different translations/interpretations of the commandments, whose do you suggest the state push forward? Is the state the authority on this? Or, are you suggesting the state push one Church's translation over another's. What next issue does the state take a position of religion on .... the official prayer of schools... which churches prayers are the official state prayer? It is a slippery slope.

Now wait just one cotton-pickin' minute here. Are you really crapping on another user for being 'ignorant', and then you post this? I guess you are correct in the first part, there's a lack of understanding on what separation of church and state means, because your second part is EXACTLY what it means. The state does not need to choose which version to endorse. The entire point of separation of church and state is they don't pick ANY to endorse. It's NOT just giving you the choice of which religion to follow or which church to attend, it means the state can't say "we recommend this one". That's what started this whole mess with the monument in the first place. Oklahoma put it there, then wasted money fighting the state constitution, then fought the federal constitution, then tried to make the state constitution override the federal and make it legal. Nobody is seeking which issue the state needs to take a position on next, because the ONLY position is "the state has no position".

Would it be too ironic to point out Matthew 7:5 at this time?

[Midtowner]

That wasn't the topic. The original assertion I was questioning was the belief that Christians wouldn't set up monuments or displays at their Church or on private property.

The whole church state thing is a different topic.

SMH. People are so eager to be argumentive they don't even read.

I don't think anyone cares what is done on private property so long as zoning is taken into account. And I know for a fact Catholics have set up a ton of 10 commandment statues which no one cares about. OCPAC has a nice 10 Commandments statue, again, which no one cares about (but maybe they should be a little concerned for the symbolism of the thing when arguably the most powerful Christian lobbying group is advocating one religious perspective above the others) but no one would argue it's illegal to do that.

[jerrywall]

Correct. And I was replying in disbelief to this - for which the typical over argumentative suspects attacked me directly...

Most churches believe it's a violation of the 3rd commandment to put up a 10 Commandments monument on their property, so it's hard for the mentally ill to find such a monument to destroy.

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image."

[Rover]

Now wait just one cotton-pickin' minute here. Are you really crapping on another user for being 'ignorant', and then you post this? I guess you are correct in the first part, there's a lack of understanding on what separation of church and state means, because your second part is EXACTLY what it means. The state does not need to choose which version to endorse. The entire point of separation of church and state is they don't pick ANY to endorse. It's NOT just giving you the choice of which religion to follow or which church to attend, it means the state can't say "we recommend this one". That's what started this whole mess with the monument in the first place. Oklahoma put it there, then wasted money fighting the state constitution, then fought the federal constitution, then tried to make the state constitution override the federal and make it legal. Nobody is seeking which issue the state needs to take a position on next, because the ONLY position is "the state has no position".

Would it be too ironic to point out Matthew 7:5 at this time?

Not sure your point. I am calling for separation. I know exactly what it means and why it is important. The state should not favor or endorse a particular religion or sect.