[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by tomndebb *
**tclouieMangetout JThunder tclouie appears to accept the Apocrypha. All further discussion on this point will be colored by one’s acceptance or rejection of that point.
Thank you for putting words in my mouth, and trying to frame the debate in your own terms.
The “apocrypha,” as you call it, is accepted by Catholics as part of the Bible. (Another irritating thing about fundamentalists is when they call themselves “Christians,” intentionally implying that Catholics are not Christians.)
I haven’t been Catholic since infancy, so here’s some New Testament stuff (accepted by Protestants too!) which shows the practice of prayer for the dead:
1 Corinthians 15:29
“Now, what about those people who are baptized for the dead? If it is true, as some claim, that the dead are not raised to life, why are those people being baptized for the dead?”
2 Timothy 1:16-18
“May the Lord show mercy to the family of Onesiphorus, because he cheered me up many times. He was not ashamed that I am in prison, but as soon as he arrived in Rome, he started looking for me until he found me. May the Lord grant him his mercy on that Day! And you know very well how much he did for me in Ephesus.”
These may be indirect references, but, in the absence of any explicit prohibition on prayer for the dead, they acquire more probative power. Please show me an explicit prohibition if one exists.
One of my points in the OP was to denounce the fundies’ denial of mercy after death. It is ironic that many fundamentalists admire C. S. Lewis, yet Lewis’ allegory “The Great Divorce” portrays salvation after death.
For the record, Kirkland is a former member there, banned for having called out a moderator because he saw her as having endorsed some hateful stances against gay people. (In point of fact, she was linking and sometimes copying news stories, including those from the Religious Right that did take those stances, without any endorsement, just reportage of the news.) I was involved in the initial decision-making process, trying to mediate between his POV and hers, then had to withdraw from active moderation before the hammer fell. (As a side note, I’m quite aware that there is a sincere effort on the part of the administration there to seek Kirk out and make peace between him and them, and want to go on open record as encouraging him to rethink – not his stance on the questions he’s upset about, but his stance as regards that board’s attitude. I know for a fact that they are not opposed to him nor to his being upset about those stories – only about his flaming the moderator in question for something that she maintains was not her intent.)
And I think I’m in somewhat hot water over there right now for criticizing strongly the Family Research Institute’s condemnation of educating children towards tolerance and acceptance. (At least several posters, including two moderators, are taking a strong stance against my POV.)
So if Kirk feels moved to vent against them for what they did towards him, I cannot find it in my heart to criticize his stance. However, as I’m sure he’ll admit, there are a few of us over there who are arguing largely from his POV.
End of apologia for the Pizza Parlor, and I hope Kirk is not offended by my standing for (a) it as a place where issues are argued and (b) him as somebody who was, I think, unfairly treated. (If you are, Kirk, please e-mail any moderator here, who can edit out this post and has my permission so to do at your request.)
mmmm, Well, I am Catholic and I accept Maccabees as Scripture. (I also consider myself Christian.) However, JThunder is not Catholic and does not accept the Apocrypha/Deutero-Canonical books and I am pretty sure that Mangetout is not and does not, as well.
Regarding praying for those who have died, Philemon is pretty much irrelevant. 1 Corinthians 15:29 is more problematic–but it is problematic. It is not at all clear that it refers to specific prayers for the dead.
My only point in providing the Maccabees citation (with the comments regarding the Apocrypha) was to head off any confusion regarding perspectives.
To link to them without posting an opinion of them indicates agreement with the belief linked to. The fact that the person doing the linking was a drooling moron doesn’t help matters either. Neither does the cultish attitude of “protect our own!” the moderators take… they’ll do anything they want and can do no wrong, and to hell with anyone who contradicts the Holy Moderators.
**
I’ll “rethink” when they publically repudiate and chastize the dolt who they protected, vow off her anti-gay propaganda and delete all such posts from their site, permanetnly. Until then, they are spreading anti-gay filth, and deserve to be treated like the merchange of evil they are.
Those who allow propaganda like that to be published on their board are guilty of spreading the hate and lies contained therein.
**
Not as many as there once were. They’ve done a good job of driving all the decent people away.
Wait a minute. You specifically asked why “fundamentalists” do not follow the alleged Biblical commands “that call for us to pray for the dead.” It seems to me that the burden of proof therefore rests on you to prove that these passages do refer to praying for the deceased. The onus should not be on your opponents to prove otherwise.
Besides, even if we grant that these passages do refer to such a practice, that hardly constitutes any sort of command. The passages which you mentioned are clearly descriptive in nature, not prescriptive.
Sure I’ve heard of it. But if a person is an idiot, there’s nothing wrong with pointing that out, as far as I’m concerned. I don’t listen to the opinions of the stupid, and have no qualms about pointing out that a person might not have the ability to understand the issue they’re discussing.
Not around here. In fact, where I to call a fellow poster an idiot in any forum but the Pit, I’d be sternly reprimanded by a mod. If I kept on doing so, I’d be banned.
Actually, the “drooling moron” is not a poster here (unless I just don’t know her username here) but rather at the Parlor. I don’t agree with Kirk’s assessment of said person’s intelligence or his attribution of malice to her in the providing of the news stories she links to. However, I have to point out that he wasn’t insulting a Doper, but a Parlorite.
Moderator’s Note: As I already said, this thread is not the place to discuss the shortcomings or virtues of the Pizza Parlor message board. Please cease from doing so.
However, for people who are seeking rational, well-reasoned debate, the use of abusive ad hominem argumentation is a serious no-no. Students of logic know that saying “So-and-so is a moron!” does nothing to render one’s case more logical, or more thoroughly well-reasoned. This is why ad hominem argumentation is considered a fallacy, i.e. a mark of careless and illogical thinking.
I invite the readers to read these quotes again. They both involve apostles (Paul and Timothy) either approving of something (i.e., a sacrament for the dead), or actually DOING it (i.e., praying for Onesiphorus, a dead person). And, hey, an apostle is an apostle! And there’s no indication of these apostles making a mistake or retracting these particular quotes, like Peter feeling sorry about denying Jesus.
So if an apostle says it, seems to me they’re prescriptive quotes.
So a Christian who strictly follows the canonical scriptures should feel OK about praying for mercy for someone who has died.
Hey, isn’t anyone going to say anything about C. S. Lewis??? I thought I made a good point about him!
Please don’t move this to the Pit, just when we’re getting all nice and intellectual and citing sources and everything. Please.
I’m not a Catholic (except in the sense of the Apostles Creed 'Holy Catholic Church ), but I have no firm views on the set of writings collectively known as the Apocrypha; hitherto I have only given them/it the most cursory of examinations - My request to tclouie for cites was just that and should not be seen as agressive.
It would therefore be foolish for me to try to contribute to this discussion on the subject of praying for the dead, but I’ll be watching this thread with interest.
tclouie is right anyway; Fundamentalism does not generally seem to nurture independent critical thought and I have come into contact with a quite a few fundamentalists simply parroted the views and sayings of their favourite preacher.
We had a thread about this before the board crashed, but alas it is gone; The passage in Matthew 6 (in my reading of it anyway) repeatedly talks about motives; don’t do things ‘to be honored by men’; I don’t believe it forbids public prayer or Church services, it is an instruction to individuals to focus on the real purpose of prayer. Now there are televangelists etc. to whom this passage could be rightly applied though…
If someone says “We did this,” then the statement is descriptive. If he says “You must do this!” then it becomes prescriptive. The difference is crisp and clear.
And it should be immediately obvious that the two passages you cited do not support your case. Saying “May the Lord grant him (Onesiphorous) mercy on that day!” is not the same thing as praying for that man. And since when did baptism for the dead (a practice which Paul did NOT specifically endorse) mean the same thing as praying for the undead?
'S OK, Mangetout, I haven’t taken anything in this thread personally.
I can’t really argue with JThunder about those quotes, because everything seems to hinge on one’s totally subjective interpretation of the author’s intent. Everyone will just have to read them and decide for themselves. YMMV.
Never? Really? Boy, you seem awfully quick to draw absolutist conclusions based on a limited set of experiences.
Try browsing through an evangelical bookstore someday. There are plenty of “fundamentalist” books about all four gospels – not just John. In fact, my own church recently completed an entire series on the Gospel According to Luke. As for the Sermon on the Mount, entire books have been written about those passages.
Sorry, but there is a conspicuous error in your very first statement. “Fundamentalists” teach that you are saved by grace through faith, not by faith itself. As for these other statements by Jesus, can you provide us with the exact text in question? Let us examine them in their context, as any true scholar should.
Which would prove nothing, as one could simply surmise that the New American translation got it wrong.
FTR, fundamentalists quote that passage fairly often, so it’s clear to me that you’re levelling a hasty accusation. As for whether it’s denotes a camel or a rope… well, different scholars have different views. Either way, it’s speaks of a difficult act, made possible only through God.
Other have already addressed your objection quite well. The passage does NOT forbing public prayer or displays of piety. That should be immediately obvious. This is one point on which both Catholics and Protestants agree.
Okay, there are several obvious fallacies in that statement.
First of all, there is NO indication that Paul and Timothy approved of baptism for the dead. In fact, the text quotes them as asking, “Why are THOSE people being baptized for the dead?” (emphasis mine). The suggests that that this baptism was one which Paul and Timothy did not necessarily practice.
Second, even if they did, we all know that baptism is not the same thing as prayer. This fact alone is palpably obvious. So even if baptism for the dead is something which should be practiced, that doesn’t mean that praying for them should be done as well.
Third, there is nothing which indicates that Paul and company prayed to Onesiphorous. While Paul did say “May the Lord grant him his mercy on that Day!” that is obviously a far cry from actually praying for him.
I think that’s an illogical conclusion. It’s one thing to say “Peter did <fill-in-the-blank>.” It’s another thing to say “Peter commanded us to do <fill-in-the-blank>.”
Remember, louie, you said that the Bible commands us to pray for the dead. To support that claim, you must produce a clear instance wherein this command is actually given as a command. Saying “Well, some of the Apostles performed that practice” – even if it could be proven – doesn’t quite cut it.
And yet in the OP, you said that the Bible clearly commands us to pray for the dead, and castigated fundamentalists for not reading this alleged (and hitherto unsunbstantiated) command. You seemed to think that the authors’ intent was objectively clear, at least when it comes time to bash the fundies.
), but I have no firm views on the set of writings collectively known as the Apocrypha; hitherto I have only given them/it the most cursory of examinations - My request to tclouie for cites was just that and should not be seen as agressive.