Does Praying to/through Mary Get more Results?

[D46]

You people are going to have a rude awakening come judgement day. Maybe you can get "Mother Mary" to give you some ice water before God consigns you to the flames. :-?

 

[Latin Rite Catholic]

You people are going to have a rude awakening come judgement day. Maybe you can get "Mother Mary" to give you some ice water before God consigns you to the flames.

The Lord Jesus Christ will judge me, not D46.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

]Man Mary did nothing, God takes care of the just and the unjust' so says the Bible. Proof many secular people have great jobs. Mary did nothing

I see. So here is a whole body of believers, praying to an unseen personage for intercession, and believing they are receiving answers to prayer when in fact they are not - the "answers" are just things that might have happened anyway?

 

[ttg]

You people are going to have a rude awakening come judgement day. Maybe you can get "Mother Mary" to give you some ice water before God consigns you to the flames. :-?

Do you honor your mother like the commandment demands? If so, why do you heckle the mother of our Savior? Yes, someone will be in for a rude awakening.

Show the proper respect.

 

[jgredline]

Re: prayer is not worship

The Revelation 19:10
"And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."


Prayer and worship are not the same;

If John had asked the Angel in that Scripture, to pray for him, how might have the Angel responded?

Do you ever pray for your fellowservants and bretheren?

I bet you don't worship them, I certainly wouldn't.

You won't find anything in The Holy Scripture forbidding us ask others for intercession.

Please try again..

Please.
You don't really believe that madness do you Latin?
The scriptural evidence for calling Mary a mediator or co-redemptrix is totally lacking. Even Roman Catholic authority Ludwig Ott confesses: “Express scriptural proofs are lacking.†He says merely that “theologians seek a biblical foundation†in a “mystical†interpretation of John 19:26. Such an interpretation is far removed from the actual meaning of the text and by virtue of its farfetched nature only weakens the case for the doctrine. Indeed, the clear meaning of many passages of sacred Scripture declare that there is only “one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human†(1 Tim. 2:5; cf. John 10:1–11; 14:6; Heb. 1:2–3; 10:12).
The Catholic claim that “one†(Gk: monos) in 1 Timothy 2:5 does not mean only one (eis) is a false disjunction. Obviously, Paul intended to convey here that there is (only) one God and (only) one mediator between God and man. And regardless of the fact that there are other human intercessors to God on earth (2:1–2), it is clear that there is only one mediator between humans and God. For if monos does not mean “only one,†then the apostle has left open the door for polytheism too. For the same term is used of God in this text.
Finally, there is an inherent dilemma in Catholic Mariology. On the one hand, Catholic theology admits that everything we need as believers we can get from Christ. On the other hand, many Catholic theologians have exalted the role of Mary as the dispenser of all grace. For them there is a hopeless dilemma. For either the role of Mary is rendered superfluous or else the all-sufficiency of Christ’s mediation is diminished. The only way out of the dilemma is to hold, as do Protestants, that Mary is not the dispenser of all grace. This is not to say that Mary, as the earthly mother of Jesus, was the channel through which God’s grace entered the world but only that Mary is not now, in heaven, the dispenser of God’s grace to us.
Response to Argument from Tradition
Catholic scholars also admit that “express testimonies†from the early Fathers are “few in number,†most being after the eighth century. O’Carroll explicitly admits that “the Fathers of the Church and early Christian writers did not so interpret the words of the dying Christ.†Here again, Roman Catholic scholars manifest a rather arbitrary use of the Fathers, citing them when they favor their dogma and ignoring them when they do not. In fact, the mediatorship of Mary has never been proclaimed as an infallible dogma by the church and, therefore, can be rejected by faithful Catholics without fear of being censored.

Try again :wink:

 

[Latin Rite Catholic]

Careful with the cut and paste

The scriptural evidence for calling Mary a mediator or co-redemptrix is totally lacking.

This document you drudged up has nothing to do with intercession of Mary in prayer. Mediator as is used here, doesn't imply intercessory prayer, this is talking about a completely different doctrine, do not be confused.


This is talking about Mary as Mediatrix of Graces and Co-Redemptrix. which is not Catholic Dogma. Those concepts are indeed subscribed to by many Catholics, but this is not a teaching Catholics are required to believe.

I myself do not believe Mary should be given these titles, nor do I necessarily believe the doctrines which lie behind them. Many Catholics agree with me on this, many do not.

Try again

 

[Lewis]

Re: Careful with the cut and paste

The scriptural evidence for calling Mary a mediator or co-redemptrix is totally lacking.

This document you drudged up has nothing to do with intercession of Mary in prayer. Mediator as is used here, doesn't imply intercessory prayer, this is talking about a completely different doctrine, do not be confused.


This is talking about Mary as Mediatrix of Graces and Co-Redemptrix. which is not Catholic Dogma. Those concepts are indeed subscribed to by many Catholics, but this is not a teaching Catholics are required to believe.

I myself do not believe Mary should be given these titles, nor do I necessarily believe the doctrines which lie behind them. Many Catholics agree with me on this, many do not.


[quote:497e3]Try again

[/quote:497e3]
Let me put it' this way' Mary has no power at all. Cut and dry.

 

[jgredline]

Latin
I hate to break it to you, but you do know that a mediator and intercessor in this context is the same thing right...

Here is another article I drudged up. Funny thing. These articles are all over the websites that expose cults.

Allow me to present here the versions of the Catholic doctrines about Mary compared to what the Bible says. The sources for this section are the Bible and the "Catechism of the Catholic Church," which has numbered paragraphs. For brevity's sake, I will use "Catechism" plus the number of the paragraph(s).

* ALL-HOLY - Mary, "the All-Holy," lived a perfectly sinless life (Catechism 411, 493).

Romans 3:23 says, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."

Revelation 15:4 says, "Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? For thou only art holy."

Romans 3:10 says, "There is none righteous, no, not one."

NOTE: In contrast, Mary said that God is her Savior (Luke 1:47). If God was her Savior, then Mary was not sinless. Sinless people do not need a Savior.

* CO-MEDIATOR - Mary is the co-mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions (Catechism 968-970, 2677).

There is only one mediator, and that is Jesus. 1 Timothy 2:5-6 says, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all men -- the testimony given in its proper time."

Hebrews 7:25 says, "Therefore He (Jesus) is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them."

Ephesians 3:12 says, "In Him and through faith in Him we may approach God with freedom and confidence."

NOTE: If Jesus is constantly interceding for us and He is able to save us "to the uttermost," then He doesn't need Mary's help. If we can approach God with "boldness" and "confidence" because of our faith in Jesus, then we don't need Mary's help either.

These are only two of many doctrines regarding the worship of Mary. There is not enough room to list all of them here.

On May 7, 1997, Pope John Paul II dedicated his general audience to "the Virgin Mary" and urged all Christians to accept her as their mother. He noted the words spoken by Jesus on the cross to Mary and John -- "Woman, behold thy son!" and "Behold thy mother!" (John 19:26, 27), and he claimed that in this statement, "It is possible to understand the authentic meaning in the worship of Mary in the ecclesial community. . .which furthermore is based on the will of Christ" (Vatican Information Service, May 7, 1997). He said "the history of Christian piety teaches that Mary is the path that leads to Christ, and that filial devotion to her does not at all diminish intimacy with Jesus, but rather, increases it and leads it to very high levels of perfection." He concluded by asking all Christians "to make room for Mary in their daily lives, acknowledging her providential role in the path of Salvation."

Your turn :wink:

http://www.allaboutreligion.org/worship-of-mary-faq.htm

 

[francisdesales]

* ALL-HOLY - Mary, "the All-Holy," lived a perfectly sinless life (Catechism 411, 493).

Romans 3:23 says, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."

Revelation 15:4 says, "Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? For thou only art holy."

Romans 3:10 says, "There is none righteous, no, not one."

Does this mean that Jesus sinned, since you define man's nature as sin?

Certainly, when Paul says "none is righteous", he is quoting the Psalms, not making a literal statement about all men sinning. The Bible itself calls many people righteous in the Old Testament! And what about the following:


There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife [was] of the daughters of Aaron, and her name [was] Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Luke 1:5-6

Unless you believe that Scriptures contradict, we will have to agree that Paul is not implying that every man is evil or unrighteous in God's sight - but that he is merely quoting Davidic Psalms to tell Judaizers that despite being Jews didn't make one automatically righteous in God's eyes...

NOTE: In contrast, Mary said that God is her Savior (Luke 1:47). If God was her Savior, then Mary was not sinless. Sinless people do not need a Savior.]

Mary needed a savior. Read the Catechism and it will tell you that God performed a singular act that saved Mary from sinning during her life. One is considered saved if they are prevented from falling, correct?

* CO-MEDIATOR - Mary is the co-mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions (Catechism 968-970, 2677).

There is only one mediator, and that is Jesus. 1 Timothy 2:5-6 says, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all men -- the testimony given in its proper time."


NOTE: If Jesus is constantly interceding for us and He is able to save us "to the uttermost," then He doesn't need Mary's help. If we can approach God with "boldness" and "confidence" because of our faith in Jesus, then we don't need Mary's help either.

Mary is called a co-mediator, not the ONE mediator. Mary shares in Christ's mediation, just as Christians who walk the earth continue to share in it. As part of the Body, we take part in this mediation. Thus, we share in the divine nature.

As to "not needing Mary's help", that is a total lack of knowledge of what love is. God doesn't "barely" save man. He goes to the depths of love by going beyond the 'necessary". Out of love, He allows us to share in His work that continues today.

For example:

I Paul am made a minister; Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: Col 1:23-24

These are only two of many doctrines regarding the worship of Mary. There is not enough room to list all of them here.

On May 7, 1997, Pope John Paul II dedicated his general audience to "the Virgin Mary" and urged all Christians to accept her as their mother. ...

Christians have been speaking poetically about Mary from the 2nd century. This is merely a recognition that God has highly praised Mary and all generations will call her blessed. God doesn't "need" Mary, but choose to allow her to participate in His saving plan, just like God didn't "need" Moses to bring the Old Covenant to the Jews.

Regards

 

[Atonement]

We all say and accept Christ is LORD. So Let us use His words to verify this debate...

Jhn 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

Jhn 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Jhn 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that] your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Jhn 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

LAST AND NOT THE LEAST

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

I think the Scripture proves it right here.. Pray to Mary, Hail to her, do whatever you like, but the truth is; She's no mediator to God..

 

[jgredline]

Atone
You took the words right out of my key board.
Thanks
Jg

 

[francisdesales]

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

I think the Scripture proves it right here.. Pray to Mary, Hail to her, do whatever you like, but the truth is; She's no mediator to God..

Yes, only the Word of God became flesh while retaining His divinity. In this manner, He is the ONLY Mediator. The Greek word used for "mediator" is not the same as that used for "intercessor" in the verses immediately preceding 1 Tim 2:5.

In 1 Tim 2:1, enteuxis is used, which means "to make a petition or supplication for" In 1 Tim 2:5, mesites is used, which means "one who intervenes between two, either in order to make or restore peace and friendship, or form a compact, or for ratifying a covenant". Obviously, Mary isn't the final point of contact between God and man, as it is CHRIST who restored peace through the New Covenant in His Blood.

Wouldn't it be odd that Paul says there is only one person who can pray for us, while the immediately preceding verses, Paul specifically asks for other Christians to pray for others???

To continue along this vein, what about:

"And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what [is] the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to [the will of] God." Romans 8:27

So if Jesus Christ is the "sole intercessor", than why does Scriptures tell us here (and in Hebrews) that there is ANOTHER intercessor?

We ask Mary to pray for us in the same way, but more effectively, as when we ask another Christian to pray for us. This does not avoid, but is based upon the sole Mediatorship of Jesus Christ, since we ARE PART OF THE BODY!

Regards

 

[BradtheImpaler]

You guys are so busy consigning one another to flames that you haven't noticed my real reason for posting this question, which was not to prompt yet another Catholic/Protestant streetfight, but to show that you take the same position on this issue as regards one another as skeptics do towards the issue of "answered prayer" in general.

Catholics pray that Mary will intercede for them, Protestants claim that Mary doesn't hear these prayers. Yet Catholics believe they get results, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. So Protestant fundies must believe that Catholics, who pray to/through Mary, are deceived about believing that their prayers are being heard/answered. Now bump it up a notch. Skeptics are not convinced that Catholics or Protestants are receiving real answers if prayer from an omnipotent deity. The whole thing is so subjective in nature. All praying people will rail against such an accusation, but we have just seen how that, in example, non-Catholic believers assume that the prayers Catholics offer to Mary are not being heard or answered, even if this means that a body of believers numbering in the millions are deceived about whether their prayers are really being answered.

Well, maybe you're all deceived about whether your prayers are really being answered, since whatever happens in this life is gonna happen, and sometimes it turns out to be what you were praying for, and sometimes it doesn't?

Now maybe you fundies can understand the skeptical viewpoint a little better, since you are taking the same viewpoint as regards prayers to Mary as skeptics do regarding prayer to anyone?

and yes...don't look now, but you have just been...

IMPALED!! :smt041

 

[francisdesales]

Catholics pray that Mary will intercede for them, Protestants claim that Mary doesn't hear these prayers. Yet Catholics believe they get results, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. So Protestant fundies must believe that Catholics, who pray to/through Mary, are deceived about believing that their prayers are being heard/answered. Now bump it up a notch. Skeptics are not convinced that Catholics or Protestants are receiving real answers if prayer from an omnipotent deity. The whole thing is so subjective in nature. All praying people will rail against such an accusation, but we have just seen how that, in example, non-Catholic believers assume that the prayers Catholics offer to Mary are not being heard or answered, even if this means that a body of believers numbering in the millions are deceived about whether their prayers are really being answered.

Well, maybe you're all deceived about whether your prayers are really being answered, since whatever happens in this life is gonna happen, and sometimes it turns out to be what you were praying for, and sometimes it doesn't?

Brad,

You are absolutely correct in your logic - which is why it is called faith. However, this faith is not totally subjective, but based on objective and historical teachings of the past. We come to believe that prayers 'answered' are NOT coincidence, although, in the end, it cannot be empirically proven - if it was, there would no longer be faith. Thus, our respective views are based on interpretation of Scriptures or the Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition that has gone before us. We hear the witness of another and we come to experience the transformation in our lives, attributing it to God. We become convinced that this is not wishful thinking. The skeptic needs to be open to the POSSIBILITY of God's action in his life, the possibility that events are guided by Him. This growth in the faith of God's action in our lives based on prayer is an experiential one.

Regards

 

[jgredline]

Catholics pray that Mary will intercede for them, Protestants claim that Mary doesn't hear these prayers. Yet Catholics believe they get results, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. So Protestant fundies must believe that Catholics, who pray to/through Mary, are deceived about believing that their prayers are being heard/answered. Now bump it up a notch. Skeptics are not convinced that Catholics or Protestants are receiving real answers if prayer from an omnipotent deity. The whole thing is so subjective in nature. All praying people will rail against such an accusation, but we have just seen how that, in example, non-Catholic believers assume that the prayers Catholics offer to Mary are not being heard or answered, even if this means that a body of believers numbering in the millions are deceived about whether their prayers are really being answered.

Well, maybe you're all deceived about whether your prayers are really being answered, since whatever happens in this life is gonna happen, and sometimes it turns out to be what you were praying for, and sometimes it doesn't?

Brad,

You are absolutely correct in your logic - which is why it is called faith. However, this faith is not totally subjective, but based on objective and historical teachings of the past. We come to believe that prayers 'answered' are NOT coincidence, although, in the end, it cannot be empirically proven - if it was, there would no longer be faith. Thus, our respective views are based on interpretation of Scriptures or the Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition that has gone before us. We hear the witness of another and we come to experience the transformation in our lives, attributing it to God. We become convinced that this is not wishful thinking. The skeptic needs to be open to the POSSIBILITY of God's action in his life, the possibility that events are guided by Him. This growth in the faith of God's action in our lives based on prayer is an experiential one.

Regards

francisdesales
Well done. Atleast we can agree on that. We do have differant view points, but your right.
I also new Brad was just here to stir up trouble. This is why I have said very little. I did not want it turn into another debate. There are enough of those already.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

You are absolutely correct in your logic - which is why it is called faith. However, this faith is not totally subjective, but based on objective and historical teachings of the past

Thank you for your cordial response. The historical teachings of the past (as in "scripture" I am supposing?) are unproven however. They simply constitute a claim. For example, Jesus said that his followers would do "greater works" than he himself did, and the context indicates he is talking about miracles. First one must believe that there really was a Jesus and, if so, that this scripture is an accurate quotation. So, right off the bat, there are at least 2 leaps of faith that must be taken even to get to the point of seeing whether or not this particular claim is true. These teachings are not objectively proven, but must also be accepted by faith.

We come to believe that prayers 'answered' are NOT coincidence, although, in the end, it cannot be empirically proven - if it was, there would no longer be faith. Thus, our respective views are based on interpretation of Scriptures or the Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition that has gone before us. We hear the witness of another and we come to experience the transformation in our lives, attributing it to God. We become convinced that this is not wishful thinking. The skeptic needs to be open to the POSSIBILITY of God's action in his life, the possibility that events are guided by Him. This growth in the faith of God's action in our lives based on prayer is an experiential one

I think many skeptics are open to the possibility that God answers prayer unless they have already been convinced it is not so by their own experience or by the experience of others. When I was an active Christian I prayed a lot. So did the brothers and sisters whose lives and prayer requests I had intimate knowledge of. After many years of experience, I came to the conclusion that I could not point out one single example of a truly miraculous answer to prayer among us and neither could I unbiasedly attribute any seeming answer to any prayer to the workings of an omnipotent deity as opposed to what might have just happened in the natural. That is to say, I saw no real evidence that a God was really answering our prayers. Every supposed "answer" was something that had a very realistic chance of happening apart from the intervention of a concerned deity. But it was my religious bias that kept me from seeing this for a long while.

For instance, you pray for a certain job. It is very possible you may get the job without praying. If you do get it, you praise the Lord that he answered. If you don't get it, then we would say, well, it wasn't his will. So, whatever happened, my faith had denied the possibility of saying that God doesn't answer prayer. That is, the situation was 'rigged" by what I had to accept by faith. If there was no God answering prayer I would have never known it, because maybe he was just saying "no", you see. I had accepted a 'formula" by which I could not question my Christian experience in any category because to doubt was lack of faith, if not sin. It was only when I began to be truly objective about all this that I realized I was living in a self-imposed "closed system" where the claims of scripture could not be objectively tested by one who was subjectively already accepting that those claims were true no matter what happened in his life that might seem to contradict it.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

I also new Brad was just here to stir up trouble. This is why I have said very little. I did not want it turn into another debate. There are enough of those already.

Hey, you guys don't need me to stir up trouble. Catholics and Protestants here were at each others throats long before I arrived. Getting Christians from different camps to fight is not much of a challenge as you're already doing it anyway :smt021

I wanted to point something out, and the posts here have proven my point. You cannot claim that God answers your prayers if you believe that Mary is not answering Catholic prayers, because they have as much "evidence" that their prayers (to/through Mary) are being answered as you do that your prayers directly to God (or through Jesus to God) are.

 

[thessalonian]

Just one of many examples.

I married my wife while she was still non-catholic. She had three boys from her previous marriage. She was converting to Catholicism and we had them going to classes. But they could not join without his permission and he was quite anti-catholic. I said the rosary daily and he was my main intention. Two days I did not say my rosary in that 3-4 months. On those days he called my wife up and railed about the Catholic Church. No other day did he make a peep about her joining. He didn't know the boys were taking classes. Well the day came when she had to tell him. She didn't think he would agree but he rolled over like a lamb.

Our prayers are not all equal. Some don't even have the faith of a mustard seed and some can move a moutain with their faith. The faith of those in heaven is perfected and so their prayers avail much. "The prayers of a righteous man (woman) avail much". So I am quite confident that Mary's intercession before the throne of God, asking for his grace in the situations that I find myself in will bring about results. I have other stories as well.

Those in heaven are in Christ and we are still united with them as nothing can separate anyone who is in Christ from the love of God. (acts 8:38).

You guys can say what you want. One thing you will not say is that you can show me in the Bible where anyone goes to something like an altar call and is not baptized. Yet you demand "where is that in the Bible" from us. I can show you implicit scriptures about this but you will not hear it. Such is apologetics.
Blessings

 

[francisdesales]

francisdesales
Well done. Atleast we can agree on that. We do have differant view points, but your right.
I also new Brad was just here to stir up trouble. This is why I have said very little. I did not want it turn into another debate. There are enough of those already.

We do have different view points, but whenever one speaks about God and how He "works" (theology, if you will), eventually, subjective evidence will be part of the equation. This goes along with the belief that we actually encounter God of the universe through our prayers and Scriptural readings (and the sacraments and Mass for us Catholics). I believe there are MANY things we Christians belief in together - it is just that the subject of Mary gets more "press" as Protestants question "why do you Catholics do that"??? (certainly a valid question in of itself).

Brad also asks a valid question - which I will address more when I return from Mass...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Thank you for your cordial response. The historical teachings of the past (as in "scripture" I am supposing?) are unproven however. They simply constitute a claim. For example, Jesus said that his followers would do "greater works" than he himself did, and the context indicates he is talking about miracles. First one must believe that there really was a Jesus and, if so, that this scripture is an accurate quotation. So, right off the bat, there are at least 2 leaps of faith that must be taken even to get to the point of seeing whether or not this particular claim is true. These teachings are not objectively proven, but must also be accepted by faith.

First, I would like to address your disdain for faith. Whether you realize it or not, your life DAILY operates under the assumptions of faith. Science is dependent upon experimentation of the past for its theories. They assume that the past work was done correctly. History is also absolutely dependent upon faith - we trust that a writer has related something that actually happened. The preponderance of evidence points to George Washington being the first president of the United States - based on faith that there has not been a huge scheme to fake the records. We have faith even in our everyday relationships - faith that our spouse loves us, faith that they will cook dinner like they said, and so forth. Much of our lives are built around our faith (or lack thereof). Thus, it is a mistake to request some sort of absolute empirical evidence for any sort of concept or idea that presents itself. Why is religious faith any different?

Now to the above comment. There is plenty of witnesses to the historical fact of a "Jesus of Nazareth". I don't think many historians today would doubt that He existed. That is the first mistake above. And secondly, there really is no motive for people to make up this Jesus of Nazareth, especially when hostile witnesses do not deny His existence. Thus, this whole line of thought is a poor approach to denial of Christian faith.

I think many skeptics are open to the possibility that God answers prayer unless they have already been convinced it is not so by their own experience or by the experience of others.

Frankly, being a skeptic once, I disagree. They place incredible demands of "proof" before accepting that possibility. Meanwhile, they without question accept the writings of the NY Times as "gospel"... Once people subject religious faith to the same scrutiny that they place upon other elements that require faith in their lives, then they become more open to this possibility. As I mention above, you are already siding with the very small minority of people who disbelieve even in Jesus' existence...

When I was an active Christian I prayed a lot. So did the brothers and sisters whose lives and prayer requests I had intimate knowledge of. After many years of experience, I came to the conclusion that I could not point out one single example of a truly miraculous answer to prayer among us and neither could I unbiasedly attribute any seeming answer to any prayer to the workings of an omnipotent deity as opposed to what might have just happened in the natural. That is to say, I saw no real evidence that a God was really answering our prayers. Every supposed "answer" was something that had a very realistic chance of happening apart from the intervention of a concerned deity. But it was my religious bias that kept me from seeing this for a long while.

We are conditioned by our society to a large degree. Many people buy into the crowning of human reasoning as the pinnacle of knowledge, the rule that all things must present themselves to (as your tagline notes...). This is a false belief fostered by the Enlightenment philosophers. Apparently, there are NUMEROUS things that man cannot explain - things even about HIMSELF! Things that ARE subject to empirical evidence! So how exactly can human reason study and have disdain for God's work in the world, based ONLY on human reason?

What happened in your case is that you were looking for the wildly miraculous, while the daily "miracles" that we take for granted passed by your notice. By subjecting every event in your lives to the rule of human reason ALONE, you ended up attributing everything to either random events or the human person himself. This ITSELF is based on faith! Faith that only things that we can measure exist...

God answers prayers - often in unexpected ways. As long as we roam the face of this earth, we will have no clue on HOW God has answered us. Sometimes, a prayer for patience ends up with me being stuck in traffic! Now, if I wasn't spiritually aware that God allows and desires such things to happen specifically to build up my patience, I would never notice that God was answering my prayer for patience by subjecting me to an opportunity to control my impatience. Once one becomes aware of the scope of how God answers prayers, we begin to realize that He is operative in our DAILY lives. This experience enables us to realize that we CAN ask God for help - which is merely a realization that we NEED God (since God already knows what we need before we ask).

God's desire for man to pray is not based on anything that God needs or letting God know what we want. It is the greatest means of man realizing that to come to our truest self, we must "die" to ourselves - we must learn to love others by giving of ourselves to others. It is in giving that we receive the most joy in life. By realizing that we rely on God, we more easily turn to others, rather than turning inward. Prayer is not about "getting things". Prayer is about changing from "it's all about me" to "it's all about you"...

That's love.

It was only when I began to be truly objective about all this that I realized I was living in a self-imposed "closed system" where the claims of scripture could not be objectively tested by one who was subjectively already accepting that those claims were true no matter what happened in his life that might seem to contradict it.

By ignoring historical evidence of Jesus Christ's existence, you are being objective? As to "testing" the claims of historical Scriptures, extra-biblical writings test them and find them to be historically accurate. The Scriptures are reliable pieces of evidence that one can turn to and trust when they say that the Bible is the Word of God. If we can trust that George Washington was the first president of the US based on the writings of dead men, why can't we trust that Jesus Christ walked the earth based on the writings of dead men (both Christian and non-Christian)? This is not an objective test, holding two subjects to different standards of testing, merely because one is of a religious subject...

Regards