jump to last post 1-18 of 18 discussions (74 posts)

Are Saints necessary to worship a God?

  1. dutchman1951 profile image61
    dutchman1951posted 6 years ago

    So who invented the idea of having Saints?
    When and where?

    just woundering..?

    1. Dave Mathews profile image61
      Dave Mathewsposted 6 years agoin reply to this



      The Lord Our God created "Saints" The first mention of them is in the book of DEUTERONOMY: 33: v 2; the fourth book of the old testament of the bible and one of the books of the Hebrew Torah.

      Saints hold no religious power though. All power is given to Jesus Christ and Him only.

    2. heavenbound5511 profile image76
      heavenbound5511posted 6 years agoin reply to this
  2. Stump Parrish profile image61
    Stump Parrishposted 6 years ago

    New Orleans and I believe it was in the 70's but I could be wrong about the decade.

    Sorry couldn't answer the question but couldn't keep my fingers still either.

  3. Stump Parrish profile image61
    Stump Parrishposted 6 years ago

    New Orleans and I believe it was in the 70's but I could be wrong about the decade.

    Sorry couldn't answer the question but couldn't keep my fingers still either.

  4. Stump Parrish profile image61
    Stump Parrishposted 6 years ago

    New Orleans and I believe it was in the 70's but I could be wrong about the decade.

    Sorry couldn't answer the question but couldn't keep my fingers still either.

    1. deblipp profile image58
      deblippposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Stump Parrish -- hiccups?

  5. profile image0
    Emile Rposted 6 years ago

    Great question. The need for all the saints in Catholicism has always fascinated me. And I never quite understood why they jumped through hoops to invent  Mary's ascension to heaven.

    1. profile image0
      Motown2Chitownposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      You may feel that this is a matter of semantics, Emile, but the Church teaches that Mary was Assumed into Heaven, not that she Ascended.  Christ Ascended (by virtue of the fact that He was God in human flesh).  Mary was "Assumed" into Heaven by God.  She didn't do it, God did.  Christ "Ascended" by His own power.

      1. profile image0
        Emile Rposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Ok. You seem to be in the know on this. When did they determine this happened and why? To be honest, I didn't realize that was Catholic belief until recently. I knew they considered Mary a saint, but not the rest.

        1. profile image0
          brotheryochananposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Its just another catholic misdoctrine. Mary is dead and buried just like everyone else and awaiting the resurrection as are others who were greater than mary, David, Abimelech, Zadok, Joshua. The bible never states that mary is in heaven, the holy see did and it is not scriptural.
          The male/female worship doctrine is pagan in origin and the God of the bible never intended this. It is akin to horus and osiris of the egyptians and they are false gods.

          1. profile image0
            Emile Rposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, and having read through these forums; I've noticed there are a lot of things you post that there is no evidence the Bible supports. All Christian sects make many parts up as they go and disagree with the other sects on almost everything.

            I'm curious to hear the explanation from a Catholic viewpoint. What is true to them is of no less value than what is true to you.

            1. profile image0
              Motown2Chitownposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Catholics do not worship saints or Mary.  We pay them honor and respect.  In Latin, the word is dulia.  Saints are given honor because they've lived virtuous lives in accord with Scripture, the teachings of Christ, and the teaching of the Church. 

              Mary is given high honor - hyper-dulia because she is the Mother of God (because Catholics believe in a Trinitarian God, therefore, Jesus is one of the three persons of the Godhead).

              In preparation to carry the Son of God in her womb, Mary was conceived sinless, i.e., without the stain of original sin.

              In the Gospel of Luke, Mary visits her cousin Elizabeth during her pregnancy.  Elizabeth feels her own baby leap in her womb, and recognizes Mary as the Mother of God - "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"

              Mary isn't just like any of the rest of us.  And, having been born free of the stain of original sin, she was not in need of redemption like the rest of us.

              Again, Catholics do not worship either Mary or the Saints.  We pay them honor and ask their intercession (NOT mediation), since they stand before God in Heaven already.

              1. profile image0
                Emile Rposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Thanks. That makes sense. I've always been fascinated  by the Catholic saints. I find it interesting that 'miracles' have only been documented within Catholicism. Makes you wonder what that means that there aren't any within the entire history of the Protestants.

                1. profile image0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  You know, Emile, I think the biggest reason is that outside of Lutheran/Anglican circles, the majority of Protestants do not believe as Catholics do about saints, so they don't pray for the intercession of holy men and women who have died before them.  Hence, they wouldn't attribute any miraculous happens to the intercession of those holy men and women, nor document them that way.  They may recognize them, but without the interest of promoting prayer to saints, it wouldn't be of need to keep record.  For most Protestants, I believe, the miracles recorded in Scripture are sufficient for faith.

                  Catholics believe that too, but miracles through the intercession of saints continue to be recorded as a means of recording God's continued presence and activity in the world.

                  That would be the simplest answer, I think.

              2. profile image0
                brotheryochananposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                This is why i've seen a painting, in the vatican, of mary on right hand of God and jesus on the left... and Jesus giving Mary his crown of thorns. Honor is one thing but the catholics go far beyond that, too far, in fact, as to have a fourth person in heaven, which actually, functions more importantly than Christ. Jesus takes a back seat to his mom and none of this is scriptural.
                The scriptures say that all are born in sin. This was because of adam.. Mary was not sinless, she was chosen as were others to fulfill a role and after that role, to return to the background like so many others and then to die, like so many others. John the baptist was chosen near the same time and who is to say that elizabeth was sinless. the sinless human doctrine is heretical.
                A reason that catholicism relies heavily on miracles is because once you have proclaimed yourself better than the word of God and above the bible, what else have you left? again unscriptural signs and wonders. Tricks! deceptions, falsehood and lies.
                1 Timothy 2:5   For there is one God, and one mediator (intercessor) between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

                1. lizzieBoo profile image66
                  lizzieBooposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  brotherychanan, we can all see you're a Protestant, the nature of which is to protest against the Catholic Church. It is to be expected that you would call it all tricks and lies. To be clear what you're dealing with though,  Mary is not more important than Jesus, but you could say that she was the most important human being there ever was, since she was the first Christian. It is her primary evidence and strength of faith which validates Christ as the son of God.
                  Also, Christ's coming was predicted in the OT, well in advance. Mary was not a random choice, she was even of the blood-line predicted. The demotion of Mary as Queen of Heaven, comes from the the Protestant preoccupation with the OT in which they see Eve as causing Adam to sin his first sin and therefore women being secondary to men. The Puritans, for example, queried whether women have souls even. You will still see the celebration of women and mothers particularly in Catholic countries, whereas in northern European countries, Britain and America, (the mostly protestant countries) we have patriarchal societies.
                  In terms of miracles, Catholicism is a living religion, alive with culture that varies in practice but not in meaning from country to country. It is a lifestyle in which everything points to God but not confined to the pages of the Holy book.
                  Talking of which, the Bible as you know and worship it, was compiled by the Catholic church. Of the 17 or so documents of Christ that were available, the Church chose the four that we have now as the true Gospels of Christ. The other documents did not match up to the truth as the Church saw it, but Matthew, Mark, Luke and John matched one another in truth and sentiment. The central liturgy of the Church, which is the Mass, is constructed around those Gospels.
                  I hope this enlightens you about Catholic tradition.

                  1. profile image0
                    brotheryochananposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    I am well aware of catholic traditions and how they counter Jesus teachings at every turn in the road, its acceptance and incorporation of pagan beliefs, its male female diety, not to mention the restriction of bible reading to the masses and that inquisition stuff. Yes a wonderful resume'.
                    There are a lot of important human beings who have served God, even moses does not rival the attention that mary has gotten from the catholic church. Her primary evidence and strength of faith is NOT which validates Christ as the son of God. God validates Christ, the cross validates Christ, his ascension validates Christ but certainly NOT mary.
                    When talking about bloodlines - joseph was not the father.  The levite lineage is not important, although, jesus was in an adopted state, which is legal for lineage, although, Jesus is a priest after the order of melchizedek - nothing to do with any lineage or geneology. All jesus needed to be was of the tribe of judah. So both parents are inconsequential to Christs divinity and priesthood.
                    Mary as Queen of Heaven is completely UNscriptural and heretical. Eve sinning has nothing to do with my opinion of mary. Mary is just mary a woman who believed in her sons teachings, present at many events and faithful to the end but an end she has along with everyone else, an end that finished in the grave, until the resurrection. If mary were a doctrine it would be contained in the scriptures, but it is not and by the Bible we are to consider mary as we do everyone else in the bible, except God and Jesus, which are the same.
                    I know the catholic church translated the bible. The bishops did the last revision to align the bible (by word only) with their wrong doctrines. Hell is simply the grave and not some place of torment forever and ever - just to cite one huge indiscretion.
                    If not for Luther we would all still be paying to get our dead out of purgatory.
                    May you also be enlightened

            2. profile image0
              brotheryochananposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              id like to read some evidence of what i post that has no biblical support and maybe i will just put all that into proper context for ya.

              1. profile image0
                Emile Rposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Well, I believe I have asked questions in the past, as to the nature of your interaction with people you are in disagreement with deviating widely from the teachings of the figure your religion is founded on. If I remember correctly, you made it clear that Yeshua's commandments were not pertinent.

                But, since you've asked, I may start paying attention to your posts again when I run across them, and point out  anything I might consider inconsistencies.  Of course, it would be an exercise in futility, since it is clear there is a great deal of disagreement among you as to what is scripturally relevant. It is quite possible to bounce around and develop any theology.

                1. profile image0
                  brotheryochananposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  yah i remember your query into my interaction and i told you christ rebuked people and so do i.
                  Thats the thing about scripture, it has many depths. It is classified into two categories - Milk and meat. If someone does not understand meat then it best they quietly move on instead of refuting the meat as the meat is over their head. If that person is at a milk stage, meat will be hard to digest, but again, needs not to be refuted.
                  Also if someone has not studied an area of scripture, it is again, best to do the study for themselves. Refuting scripture is not always a good practice until one has studied that area themselves. An open mind is the best position for Christians and non-christians to take as there are excellent christians in the world and they may have just run into one.
                  I always back up what i say and i also say your assumptions are not correctly founded.
                  good luck with this.

                  1. profile image0
                    Emile Rposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Honestly? The 'meat' you think you have consumed isn't meat. Which is quite obvious when reading your posts to your fellow Christians. I think, what you've consumed and might be spreading is better defined as an ingredient of compost. You know the one, the left overs after the digestive process.

                    As far as being open minded to  the prospect of running across a good Christian. I am, and have. And a few I would define that way here on Hub Pages. I don't see your name on that list.

            3. lizzieBoo profile image66
              lizzieBooposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              No Emile, not all Christians make thing up as they go along. Catholic traditions are absolutely steeped in hundreds of years of study. Have a look at Thomas Aquinas some time. Many many great minds have united over the centuries to reach solid conclusions about scripture. Every year there are Christian churches of another kind, forming new churches because the people in them have come up with a different interpretations of the Bible. Which is more divisive?

              1. profile image0
                Emile Rposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                It would be difficult to explain my opinion in the confines of this forum; but, the short story,  if there ever was a truth, I think it was buried at the Counsel of Nicaea. Politics formed a religion that single handedly held our world in the  dark grips of fear and war for almost twelve hundred years. There is very little that was 'godly' in the policies of Catholicism. It was power and politics.

                Protestants are simply another face, with the same goals. Power through fear. History testifies to this.

                I've read some of Aquinas. When I saw his name in your post, the first thing that came to mind was his words on heretics;

                With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death.

                What a fine example of Christian philosophy.

                1. lizzieBoo profile image66
                  lizzieBooposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I know I have said this before, but more recent historical studies have revised the idea that Christians prior to the reformation were in the grips of fear and ignorance. This former history largely was based on the protestant propaganda that was spread for over a hundred years after the reformation and claimed that the medieval people were basically stupid and miserable and probably grateful for change. Ofcourse it was important to support this idea else the likes of the Duke of Northumberland, who was rewarded the largest county in the kingdom for his support of Henry VIII, might have lost credibility somewhat.
                  According to many revisionist studies now available, most famously 'Stripping the Altars' by Eamon Duffy there is huge evidence of a Merry England prior to reformation: one that knew, understood and loved its faith.
                  What is true also is that there were reforms taking place already within the Catholic Church at the time of the reformation, and after. Thomas More was one such reformer. Henry VIII  upset the process.

                  1. profile image0
                    Emile Rposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Don't get me wrong. I don't believe all that is religion is evil. Any who don't believe Christianity has given some good things to the world are also turning a blind eye to history.

                    But, whatever our views on the past; that is what it is. It's in the past. I think this 'revisionist' history you have been talking about is simply am attempt to rewrite actual history and make the Catholic church feel better about itself.  The Protestants were not the victors. They didn't write history alone, without plenty of Catholic input.

  6. profile image0
    Motown2Chitownposted 6 years ago

    The Church has been canonizing saints since as early as the 13th century, if not before.  There is no actual need for them to worship God.  Most Catholics who choose to pray to saints do so for various personal reasons, i.e., that particular saint may have suffered through something similar in his/her lifetime and have been declared a patron saint for a specific person, place, or illness. 

    The Church refers to saints, and requests their intercession, on many high holy days, but they do so to recognize the constant and continued movement of God in the lives of His people throughout history.

    Interesting question.

    1. Dave Mathews profile image61
      Dave Mathewsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Every person who returns to almighty God in heaven, God recoginzes as a saint. The dictionary defines a "saint" as any born again Christian and follower of Jesus.

      The Catholic Church makes a big deal out of specific people and give them the title or designation of "saint" when in fact every Christian is a saint.

      Therefor it is totally wrong to revere or pray to any one saint. It is wrong to believe that any saint has any intercessory power with God. Only Jesus is intercessor for man.

      1. lizzieBoo profile image66
        lizzieBooposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        But surely you revere the men who wrote the Gospels. Why do we take the word of St. paul or Sts.. Matthew or Mark if they are no different from us?

    2. DoubleScorpion profile image84
      DoubleScorpionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Not to pick....But the Catholic Tradition sounds alot like Wiccan and other Pagan traditions.

    3. profile image0
      brotheryochananposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      The only intercessor is Christ Jesus. There is no mention of praying TO saints, praying FOR yes, but TO, no. Again another catholic misdoctrine. If you want to know what to do, just do the opposite of catholicism and you will be much closer to the truth.
      AS Bro Dave said, every person is a saint, a called out one, a follower of God born of the spirit (saved).
      The catholic church likes to make saints seem special just to pump the church up. Most saints have outrageous miracles attached to them. One saint i forget who, a female, spread her cloak out and it grew to phenomenal size to indicate the territory God would give her. LOL.

      1. profile image0
        Motown2Chitownposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        You and I will certainly have to agree to disagree.

        I am a practicing Catholic and feel quite insulted by what you've just said.  I have no questions whatsoever that the way I practice my CHRISTIAN faith is sufficient and free of error.  Before you choose to do the opposite of what Catholicism says, perhaps you should understand completely the teaching of the Church.

        And, if you're a "reformed" Catholic, don't say you went to Catholic school, blah, blah, blah....Lots of people spend years being taught and never learn.  As to there being no mention in scripture of praying to saints, there is also no mention of attending church in a preordained building and being pastored by only one man.  There are such things as traditions that have sprung up over 2000+ years, that may not be as objectionable to God as you believe they are.

        I'm sure we follow the same God.  That's all that concerns me.  You may choose to follow Him according to different doctrines, but you have no place to insult or to judge me because I may follow him differently.

        Peace in Christ (yes, Catholics still believe in Him)

        1. profile image0
          Emile Rposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Get'em Motown. smile

          The infighting between the sects of Christianity disturbs me. The arrogance of one to call another believer wrong is an ongoing mystery. How in the world could one know that?

          1. lizzieBoo profile image66
            lizzieBooposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I don't think you can really call this fighting. Arguing to find the real truth is a good thing, it shouldn't be disturbing.

            1. profile image0
              Emile Rposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Oh lizzieboo. I would disagree. It is in direct conflict with what I understand to be the words and will of Yeshua. We both know that the Catholic church saw Protestants as heretics for centuries. I don't even know what their stand is now, in regards to the salvation of those outside of the Catholic faith. The Protestants  simply chose to walk in the footsteps of their former master.

              It is simply sad to see that, instead of attempting to learn from the mistakes made by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church; many have chosen to go a similar route, and now proclaim all who don't agree with their theology to be heretics.

              1. lizzieBoo profile image66
                lizzieBooposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Heresy is a Greek word roughly meaning 'I choose', therefore protestants are heretics, yes. They chose to separate themselves from the body of the Church.

                1. profile image0
                  Emile Rposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I am aware that the root of the word is choice. And it is egotistical for any to call another heretic. By all the evidence, you are all either groping in the dark, or holding onto the coattails of someone else who has.

                  I'm a nonconformist. So, I find religion offensive because it insists on telling others what to think, with no proof to back up it's claim of authority.

                  1. lizzieBoo profile image66
                    lizzieBooposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    It's just a factual definition.
                    I don't find other people's views offensive, religion or no religion. brotherochanan had misunderstood Catholicism and I was telling him what we were really about. We can't all just accept not understanding one another like the tower of Babel.

          2. profile image0
            Motown2Chitownposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            One word, sister - AMEN!

        2. gshill profile image59
          gshillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.  Hebrews 10:25

          We are to be an encouragement to other believers, not just our denomination.  Man made denominations.  God did not.  God supplied the only necessary tool ~ Jesus Christ.

          1. profile image0
            Motown2Chitownposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            We are indeed to be an encouragement to other believers, which is why I don't feel it's right to berate, belittle, or insult them because of minor doctrinal differences - and also why I wished brotheryochanan Peace in the name of the Christ we both choose as our Lord.

  7. recommend1 profile image66
    recommend1posted 6 years ago

    A god does not require saints - but a political religion needs them to fill in the hierarchical gaps in its arguments

    1. lizzieBoo profile image66
      lizzieBooposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Oi I heard that!

  8. Lisa HW profile image80
    Lisa HWposted 6 years ago

    I don't mind the idea of there being saints. In the scheme of all religious beliefs of all religions, why not this one.  At least it's a kind of nice one, in that recognizes the lives of people who have "earned" their "saint status" in the church. Of all religious beliefs, this one's kind of a nice one (and one of the more harmless, as far as I'm concerned).   smile  Besides, for people who do believe in saints and/or who pray, I don't see any real harm in giving them someone else to send some prayers out to.  Better "the saints thing", than some of stuff religions tell people.  smile

    There are people who believe their dead relatives can put in some kind of word with God for them, so I see the saints thing as nothing more than an extension of that kind of belief.  I'm not saying any of it (the saints thing/the dead-relatives thing) is my personal belief, but I'm not knocking any of it either.  It all serves a purpose to those who want/need to pray.  Again - a lot less harmless than some of the hell-focused or believe-only-what-we-say-focused" stuff that comes from religions, and especially a lot less harmless than the thing "the devil" is actually a being.

  9. mariasial profile image67
    mariasialposted 6 years ago

    I agree God does not need saints, if you pray and beg with your God from the core of your heart; with honesty and purity; you don't need saints to forward your requests to GOD

    1. Lisa HW profile image80
      Lisa HWposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      As far as I've ever known, the people who pray to saints are praying in addition to their usual prayers "straight to God".   smile  Or, else, as in the case of St Anthony, maybe not bothering God with the more minor stuff.   smile  My local news did a piece on how people whose houses weren't selling took the advice of a real estate agent who suggested they bury an upside statue of (I think, if I recall correctly) St. Joseph on their front lawn.  A lot of the houses were sold shortly after.   hmm   So, the way I see it (and I'm not a "saint-prayer" type) - it's not hurting anyone, so why not if it's something someone believes...

      1. profile image0
        brotheryochananposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        1 Peter 5:7   Casting ALL your care upon him; for he cares for you.

        as if God hasn't got time for the minor stuff.
        Burying an idol does not bring forth the power of God into a situation to rectify it. This is superstition and substitution.
        It is hurting because the whole point, whole point of Christianity is God. God for this, God for that, God help, God heal, God give me strength... it is all God dependent. God centered, God, God, God.
        Personal relationship with God.
        Matthew 7:21   Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven.
        This leaves no room for saint josephs idol in their lawn.

  10. getitrite profile image79
    getitriteposted 6 years ago

    I think Greek Gods and Roman Catholic Saints are essentially the same.

    It seems that the  Catholics just could not get away from the concept  of Polytheism.

    1. profile image0
      brotheryochananposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      or did not want to

  11. aka-dj profile image77
    aka-djposted 6 years ago

    All believers are called saints in the Bible.

    The beautification by the RCC is irrelevant and unscriptural.

    Jesus taught us to pray to the Father, (in His name), and not through Mary, or any "saint/s".

    As if we need any other mediators.
    Hebrews tells us we have ONE mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ.
    The rest is error, as far as I'm concerned.

  12. Lisa HW profile image80
    Lisa HWposted 6 years ago

    Personally, I'm not a big fan of believing there's any "moderators" between man and any God he happens to believe in.  I'd say, "maybe that's just me," but I think it's far from "just me" who thinks that way.

    1. profile image0
      brotheryochananposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you.

  13. Trish_M profile image84
    Trish_Mposted 6 years ago

    Saints enable ancient polytheism to continue to exist in a monotheistic religion.

  14. profile image0
    JacksBlogsposted 6 years ago

    Write on to Trish_M - -yes Saints are another for a religion famously known as a religion of only one God in fact as so many Gods-like imagines that can be separately worshiped.  First the trinity, then Saints, and also the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.  The Pope's Easter message warned man not to play God but who else comes closer than the Pope himself. The Pope is supposed to be infallible.  He has the fancy costumes.  But the subject is Saints.  The irony is that some of the most horrible people in history are now Saints even approaching the reputation of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.  The "holy men" responsible for the inquisition became Saints.  It is also interesting to Google the amazing story behind the canonization of Mother Teresa. Her miracles are almost a joke but the Catholic Church needs an Albanian connection as a tool for conversion of Atheists after the fall of Communism. And remember, the only place where intellectual discourse is ignored is religion.

    1. lizzieBoo profile image66
      lizzieBooposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      "religion...the only place where intellectual discourse is ignored..." Except in the numerous universities and schools they've established. Oh dear, there goes your argument.

      1. profile image0
        JacksBlogsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Can I reply?  I'm not sure what the point is but - - thanks for the reply.  I love the discourse here, but I have to keep answers shorter.  Comments cut into my HUB writing time.  But ideas for future HUBs flow out of this like water thru a rapids. 

        As far as I'm concerned studying theology is not unlike studying astrology or the history of palm reading.  Universities are great places for intellectual discourse and rarely does that have anything to do with the foundation of a University in the distant past.  Everything else that a Christian founded university does - short of proselytizing - is done the same way as any other university or is done better with a secular point of view. 

        In the late 60s, when I was young and weak, my mother pushed me into an up tight Methodist college.  I wouldn't wish that on anyone with a brain in their head.  Boring!   But it helped make me the man I am today - an atheist.     - -  JACK

        1. lizzieBoo profile image66
          lizzieBooposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Respect to you for being an atheist. But it isn't necessary to justify your views by discrediting religion. If you don't believe then that is an argument in itself.

  15. Dreamchaser1212 profile image59
    Dreamchaser1212posted 6 years ago

    Miracles happen all the time.  I myself have been healed of a back injury.  I know people personally who have even been healed from cancer.  God doesn't belong to a particular denomination, nor is he limited by our small faith.

    1. profile image0
      JacksBlogsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Google the story of Mother Teresa's route to Sainthood.  Amazing stuff.   Mother Teresa's first "miracle" was to have a metal that she touched placed on the stomach of a woman who had a non-cancerous tumor.  Praise God, she was cured!  It was a miracle!  But wait a minute. Her doctors and her own husband (who were not Catholics) explained that the medicines she took did its job exactly as was expected.  Yet they were all badgered by Mother Teresa's supporters to agree that there was a miracle. 

      Maybe the medicine worked for your friends too, but they were very religious and wanted a religious based result.  I am pleased to hear your back is better, but why do you need a religious based answer?  I think doctors must be put off by all this miracle business since they never get credit for success, but always get the blame when people die. 

      Come on people, get a grip!  Religion remains the one facet of intellectual life where large numbers of people can ignore common sense and believe anything they wish.   Up to you.  But not for me!  And more people every day think you just sound silly.  But up to you.

      1. profile image0
        brotheryochananposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        "since they (He) never get credit for success, but always get the blame when people die".
        ....God gets treated the same way.

        Perhaps we would see a different outcome if Christians stopped using doctors so much and just relied on God.
        food for thought

        1. profile image0
          JacksBlogsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Good idea, over time it would resolve my concern - too many screwy people who for some reason base their lives around a first century mythology that has managed to ingratiate itself into our lives more than all the other ones that have faded away over time. 

          Let's take a vote:  When you get sick raise your right hand if you prefer to visit a doctor.  Or raise your left if you don't really want to get well.  Up to you. 

          Excuse me but we are also way to polite about religion.  When people hear silly talk we should say, "That's silly."   For example that stuff written after my reply.  That's silly talk!  There its started     - - JACK

  16. gshill profile image59
    gshillposted 6 years ago

    As my Holy Bible (KJV) teaches, there is and has only been one sinless person ever to walk on this earth ~ The Lord Jesus Christ.  I had never heard of Mary's assumption into heaven until reading here.  It is definitely not taught in the Bible so whether it really happened or was man-inspired, I definitely wouldn't dispute that.  All I can say is that God apparently didn't think it was worth mentioning (probably because some may look to her as an idol) or it would be in His Holy Word, the Book He wrote through mortal men.  There are many, many things not mentioned (I've always wondered about Jesus growing up.  Don't hear  much after He was found back in the temple until He started His ministry.  Can't wait to ask Him!) and an approximate 400 year gap between the books of Malachi and Matthew where nothing was recorded.  Of course, man has added his speculations through the years and some churches have picked it up as doctorine.

    Through my Bible studies, I have only learned of two people who have gone to heaven without a physical body death were Enoch and Elijah.  Though they walked very close to God, they, too, were not exempt of sin in their lives. 

    Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

    (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

    Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

    But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

    And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

    For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

    Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.  Romans 5:12-18

    It is only through the belief of the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ that we can partake of the wonderful free gift of eternity in heaven with Him.  Giving your heart and life to Jesus is the only way to be a part of His family.  He is the one defending us against satan's constant reminders of our sinful nature.  Praise God for His Mercy!

  17. TMMason profile image63
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    No. They are not.

  18. lone77star profile image89
    lone77starposted 6 years ago

    No, saints are not necessary.

    I don't know when "saints" began as a concept, and not being Catholic, I've never been too familiar with them.

    But it seems they are a term of respect for the humility, sacrifice and generosity of those people -- and especially their spirituality.

    They stand as an inspiration to us all. They are heroes in every sense of the word.

    Amongst Christian saints, Peter is perhaps the first. What a class act he was. I don't know of any other saints who walked on water, even if only for a moment.

    1. lizzieBoo profile image66
      lizzieBooposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      lones77star, I like your response. Saints are not necessary to worship God, but they are a helpful tool in understanding, example and prayer.

 
working