Ask a Catholic

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Maybe they got if from the Babylonian Talmud.  It's full of it.

Passage please. Just one. Something tells me you are full of bullshit as always.

This will get you started.  It's some sick shit.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/niddah/niddah_45.html

[GrandizerII]

Passage please. Just one. Something tells me you are full of bullshit as always.

This will get you started.  It's some sick shit.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/niddah/niddah_45.html

Ok, thanks for the effort. I'll look into it now and make sure this is what the book is actually saying, and not from an antisemitic source.

[Athene]

Why is there so much confusion as to whether or not Catholics worship the Virgin Mother Mary?  I've even heard many Christians claim that Catholics worship a multitude of Saints as well, and that Catholics practice polytheism. I'm not clear on the distinction between worship and veneration and I was hoping you could offer some clarification. Thanks. 

[abaris]

Why is there so much confusion as to whether or not Catholics worship the Virgin Mother Mary?

In my opinion, and being brought up as a catholic, it's mainly semantics. Of course they neither do worship Mary nor the thousands of saints, since there's only one god. But it's only a pretext to not call it politheism. They don't pray to saints as they don't pray to Mary. But they do ask for favors by saints, to whisper in god's ear and all the shebang.

So it's a technicality. No, they don't worhsip, but since you're in god's neighbourhood, couldn't you ask him for a favor? John Paul II was famous for these mental acrobatics when it came to Mary.

[Athene]

Why is there so much confusion as to whether or not Catholics worship the Virgin Mother Mary?

In my opinion, and being brought up as a catholic, it's mainly semantics. Of course they neither do worship Mary nor the thousands of saints, since there's only one god. But it's only a pretext to not call it politheism. They don't pray to saints as they don't pray to Mary. But they do ask for favors by saints, to whisper in god's ear and all the shebang.

So it's a technicality. No, they don't worhsip, but since you're in god's neighbourhood, couldn't you ask him for a favor? John Paul II was famous for these mental acrobatics when it came to Mary.

Reverence for, adoration of, and prayer to the Virgin Mother seems akin to worship. Maybe not as God, but as idolatry, perhaps? At least, it seems to be the view of many Christian theists.  I'm hoping Randy can shed some light on this matter, but he's to been reluctant to address this misconception up to this point for some odd reason. I'm not sure why. He's claimed he's explained it to other theists, but goes out of his way to avoid doing so here. It makes wonder why he doesn't want it to be discussed. Weird, huh?

[Randy Carson]

This is one of those cases when a brief question requires a lengthy answer to do justice to the subject. These articles should answer any questions; if not, let me know:

Saint Worship?
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/saint-worship

Saints Preserve Us
Do Catholics Worship the Saints?
By: Anthony E. Clark
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/article...reserve-us

Is Prayer Synonymous With Worship?
Tim Staples
http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples...th-worship

[Athene]

I was hoping for your personal insight Randy, but I see that's not going to happen. It's a bit disappointing, though. You usually put much more effort into your posts. Maybe another day, when you have more time.

[Jenny A]

Seriously?

So let's answer a question with a question. What evidence do you have that Methusaleh lived at all? And let's take it from there.

Only indirect evidence from the scriptures.

However, I asked my question thinking that he might have something specific he wanted to discuss.

I think you need to look up the definitions of direct and indirect evidence.  There is no indirect or circumstantial evidence that I'm aware of that Methuselah lived 900 odd years or that he lived at all.  What there is, is Genesis which says he did.  That's direct evidence, just not very reliable direct evidence.  The problem being that we don't know who wrote Genesis but it clearly wasn't someone alive in Methuselah's day.  Hearsay, which is what Genesis is, isn't indirect, just not very reliable direct evidence.  

Indirect evidence of Methuselah living 900 years would be direct evidence of someone alive in say the year 1000 BC and direct evidence that someone named Methuselah was living in 100 BC together with perhaps evidence that Methuselah was an uncommon name or a name only used around 1000 BC but not after say 900 BC.

[Whateverist]

Is Prayer Synonymous With Worship?
Tim Staples
http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples...th-worship

Let me have a go at this one.  Understanding God as something onboard each one of us, something that supports and makes us possible the way I do, I'd say the only possible point of prayer is asking for guidance in what you should do.  The God portion of the brain is older and sometimes better at grocking complex situations - though usually that is our job to do consciously.

In so far as seeking guidance is an admittance of insufficiency and an overt valuing of the god portion of the mind, yes, prayer is worship.  The idea of handing out god biscuits to God is pretty whack.  If a bunch of ants lined up on a log and started doing the wave while sending out pheromone hosannahs to me, would I be appreciative?  Naw, I'd tell them to get on with their own business.  On-board god brain doesn't need any praise but it does appreciate being consulted and appreciated.

[Randy Carson]

Only indirect evidence from the scriptures.

However, I asked my question thinking that he might have something specific he wanted to discuss.

I think you need to look up the definitions of direct and indirect evidence. 

How do you feel about J. Warner Wallace's explanation? He explains:

“Evidence typically falls into two broad categories. Direct evidence is evidence that can prove something all by itself. In California, jurors are given the example of a witness who saw that it was raining outside the courthouse. Jurors are instructed, “If a witness testifies that he saw it raining outside before he came into the courthouse, that testimony is direct evidence that it was raining.” This testimony (if it is trustworthy) is enough, in and of itself, to prove that it is raining. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence (also known as indirect evidence) does not prove something on its own, but points us in the right direction by proving something rerlatd to the question at hand. This related piece of evidence can then be considered (along with additional pieces of circumstantial evidence) to figure out what happened. Jurors in California are instructed, “For example, if a witness testifies that he saw someone come inside wearing a raincoat covered with drops of water, that testimony is circumstantial evidence because it may support a conclusion that it was raining outside.” The more pieces of consistent circumstantial evidence, the more reasonable the conclusion. If we observed a number of people step outside of the courthouse for a second, then duck back inside, soaked with little spots of water on their clothing, or saw more people coming into the courthouse, carrying umbrellas, and dripping with water, we would have several additional pieces of evidence that could be used to make the case that it was raining. The more cumulative the circumstantial evidence, the better the conclusion.

“Most people tend to think that direct evidence is required in order to be certain about what happened in a given situation. But what about cases that have no direct evidence connecting the suspect to the crime scene? Can the truth be proved beyond a reasonable doubt when all the evidence we have is circumstantial? Absolutely.

“Jurors are instructed to make no qualitative distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence in a case. Judges tell jurors, “Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable types of evidence to prove or disprove elements of a charge, including intent and mental state and acts necessary to a conviction, and neither is necessarily more reliable than the other. Neither is entitle to any greater weight than the other.”

“Circumstantial evidence has been unfairly maligned over the years; it’s important to recognize that this form of evidence is not inferior in the eyes of the law. In fact, there are times when you can trust circumstantial evidence far more than you can trust direct evidence. Witnesses, for example, can lie or be mistaken about their observations; they must be evaluated before they can be trusted. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, cannot lie; it is what it is. You and I have the ability to assess and make inference from the circumstantial evidence using our own reasoning power to come to a conclusion. It’s not a coincidence that I was a non-believer before I learned anything about the nature of evidence. In those days, as I was evaluating the claims of Christianity, I demanded a form of evidence (direct evidence) that simply isn’t available to anyone who is studying historical events. I failed to see that rejecting (or devaluing) circumstantial evidence would prevent me from understanding anything about history (when eyewitnesses are unavailable for an interview). If I continued to reject (or devalue) circumstantial evidence, I would never have been able to successfully prosecute a single cold-case killer. All of us need to respect the power and nature of circumstantial evidence in determining the truth so that we can be open to the role that circumstantial evidence plays in making the case for Christianity.” (J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity, 54-55, 66-67)