Does Praying to/through Mary Get more Results?

[BradtheImpaler]

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. Whave 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?

Because there is much more evidence for most of the things you mentioned and religion doesn't lend itself to be tested.

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

There are not plenty of witnesses to the historical Jesus outside of the bible. The clearest witness to a historical Jesus, other than the bible, is the Josephus quote, which evidence indicates is an interpolation. So unless you want to quote the bible to prove the bible (which many Christians constantly do) you have to accept that Jesus existed by faith to begin with - a LOT more faith than it takes to believe George Washington did.

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

Many "hostile witnesses" do question his historical existence. Besides, what you are doing is trying to switch the burden of proof. A faith based on supernatural claims needs to prove ITSELF. I do not need to supply evidence that the Jesus of the bible did not exist. Since that character is clearly depicted as supernatural in nature, the burden of proof resides on those who claim the supernatural. If I accept the miraculous accounts of Jesus without question, why should I not accept the miraculous accounts of many other supernatural characters of antiquity recorded in ancient texts other than the bible?

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...

What would you call an 'incredible" demand of proof? A claim of the supernatural requires REAL proof. Do you believe every hoax you come across? Would you not be somewhat skeptical if someone told you they had been abducted by aliens the night before? Would you not be skeptical if someone with a cabin in the woods told you they had breakfast with Bigfoot every morning? The New York Times is not in the habit of running headlines which claim the supernatural has occured. The supermarket tabloids, however, do print stories that are supernatural, though most people realize that. Do you place the same amount of faith in the claims of the supermarket tabloids as you do in the New York Times?

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?

Ah, you're playing the "human reasoning" card already? Aren't you "reasoning" with me in the first place?

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

If you call the events that (supposedly) happened in the bible "wildly miraculous" then, yes, that's what I was looking for, or at least I expected to see SOMETHING along those lines once in a while since Jesus promised his followers they WOULD see it. Besides, isn't "wildly miraculous" a bit of a redundancy? You're trying to make room for little miracles as a substitute for real miracles because you have a problem finding real ones. A miracle is, by definition, MIRACULOUS. It is "wild" stuff, not an occasional coincidence.

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

What's clear is since you are already commited to believing that God answers prayer and is leading you, etc, you interpret everything that happens or doesn't happen to you in that fashion. I could pray to Odin and believe he was leading me, if I wanted. Every time I met someone I could believe Odin had sent them to me for some reason. Every time I realized something new about life I would believe that Odin was teaching me a lesson, and so forth. You may be taking life the way it comes and interpreting everything that happens in a religious vein. How can we prove that is not the case? Well, get some REAL miracles, the kind that Odin couldn't grant me as his follower cause he's not really there.

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?

What historical evidence?

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

Historically accurate about what? What about the extra-biblical sources which find the scriptures are NOT historically accurate?

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...

If you believe there is as much historical evidence of the Jesus of the bible as there is of George Washington, you are incredibly naive. But I'll play your game a moment. If we can trust the writings of "dead men" about Jesus, why not trust the writings of dead men about Krishna, Hercules, Buddha, and all the others?

 

[francisdesales]

Brad,

Six years ago, I was also a skeptic. It would take way too much time to walk you through the evidence of Christ's existence, the Bible's historical veracity and the existence of miraculous events. This is not the place for such broad discussion. Suffice to say, it took me months of reading 6 plus hours a day to satisfy my own inner doubts. Even with all of that reading, I still didn't have it in my heart (faith), you know, the kind that tosses aside ourselves to the will of God. It was an intellectual belief, very weak, until I experienced God's presence in my life. I was absolutely convinced of it. However, such things are beyond empirical proofs, since it was an internal event. Is it subjective? Yes, but my experience is one shared by many people over the course of cultures and generations. It is based on objective reality.

I do not doubt the existence of Buddha. But to my knowledge, he never CLAIMED to be God. Either you believe that Christ was God, a liar, or a lunatic. I never had problems establishing that he lived. There is tons of secondary evidence, such as the volumes of Church writers from the turn of the first century who trusted that 50-100 years ago, a man so changed the life of their community, a man who claimed to be God - and these people experienced this transformation. It is beyond belief that this is a hoax, much the same as George Washington was the first president was some great hoax.

The reason why these first Christians believed the Gospel was because they trusted the messengers and witnessed the power of the Spirit. Consider the following:

"But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, patience, Persecutions, afflictions: such as came upon me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra: what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord delivered me. And all that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error. But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them" 2 Tim 3:10-14

Paul writes to Timothy, reminding him to hold faithful to what he was taught because Timothy KNEW from whom he learned it! People don't go through all of that because of a hoax or "good" feelings. The witnesses were utterly convinced that they had, as a group, witnessed, and continued to witness the Risen Lord. Resurrection from the dead, at the time, was certainly no more believable than now - so obviously, some shared experience convinced them of the truthfulness of this extreme notion...

What you need to do is set a standard that is fair regarding your testing. There is no reason why one should set a higher standard for the existence of Christ then the existence of Julius Ceasar or any other famous man of the ancient world. As for the Bible, subject it to the same non-religious standards to see if it lives up to other historical books of the time. You will find the Bible to be quite historical, when it wants to be (not giving us a parable, for example). Once we find that the Bible is a historically reliable document, one that the readers of the generation that it was written believed in, resistance collapses.

I am not aware of any "hostile witnesses" of Jesus' era questioning the existence of Jesus. You are no doubt speaking of modernist "historians" who prefer to deny His existence, setting the bar much higher than they would for other men of the era. The Jews in polemic writings NEVER said Jesus didn't exist! They call Him a magician, a demon, call His mother a harlot, acknowledge that He died on a cross. But a hostile witness never said He was a figment of people's imagination or an invention...

The supernatural existence HAS been scientifically shown through the existence of miracles, documented especially prolifically in the 20th century. Perhaps you are not aware of the miracles of Lourdes, where atheist doctors, upon examining the evidence, found they were utterly dumbfounded by the proof of miraculous happenings and cures. Some 70000 people witnessed the events of Fatima. The problem is that your set of standards are incredibly high. Basically, you are saying that God must come down to you in person and perform a show. That's not how faith works. The evidence points to the reality of our faith. Nothing by itself proves it, but the preponderance of evidence shows that our "Leap of Faith" is quite small.

I am sorry that you lost your faith in God despite your prayers. But the fact that you are here on this site is evidence that you are still looking and are intrigued by the concept of a loving God. You perhaps sense within you that only He can offer you fulfillment. To satisfy your mind (Catholics do not believe that faith and reason can contradict), I urge you to ask God to help you, and begin to explore the internet or books on the basic subjects. Begin with Jesus existence, move to the Bible as a historically reliable book. Do not begin with preconceived notions - but judge the evidence as you would any other subject.

I hope you find what you are looking for,

Regards

 

[Lewis]

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. :-?

:D :-D

 

[Spirit Driven]

LOL..... sorry Brad.... did somebody already take Vlad ?

 

[ttg]

The original question posed by Brad was "Does praying to/through Mary get more results?"

I was the first to answer in a positive light when I said I prayed to Mary asking her to intercede when I was in need of a new job. But I never said the new job came from Virgin Mary. She asked her Son for me. I can only pray so much. Who knows how much the power of pray carries when it comes from our Blessed Mother.

I believe the gift of a new job came from Jesus, because that is whom I was asking all along.

 

[Lewis]

The original question posed by Brad was "Does praying to/through Mary get more results?"

I was the first to answer in a positive light when I said I prayed to Mary asking her to intercede when I was in need of a new job. But I never said the new job came from Virgin Mary. She asked her Son for me. I can only pray so much. Who knows how much the power of pray carries when it comes from our Blessed Mother.

I believe the gift of a new job came from Jesus, because that is whom I was asking all along.

Do you have Biblical proof' that Mary can ask her son to grant you anything ? I'll tell you a secret there is none.

 

[francisdesales]

Do you have Biblical proof' that Mary can ask her son to grant you anything ? I'll tell you a secret there is none.

Do you have Biblical proof of what books belongs in the Bible to begin with?

I'll tell you a secret, there is none...

So how do you know you even HAVE the "Word of God"?


Regards

 

[golfjack]

reply

The Bible is a bloody Bible and the Bible is all about Jesus Christ.



May God bless, golfjack

 

[Lewis]

Do you have Biblical proof' that Mary can ask her son to grant you anything ? I'll tell you a secret there is none.

Do you have Biblical proof of what books belongs in the Bible to begin with?

I'll tell you a secret, there is none...

So how do you know you even HAVE the "Word of God"?


Regards

Are you calling the Holy Ghost a lie. Because the Holy Ghost inspired what we have in the Bible.

 

[francisdesales]

[quote="Lewis W":efdd3]Do you have Biblical proof' that Mary can ask her son to grant you anything ? I'll tell you a secret there is none.

Do you have Biblical proof of what books belongs in the Bible to begin with?

I'll tell you a secret, there is none...

So how do you know you even HAVE the "Word of God"?


Regards

Are you calling the Holy Ghost a lie. Because the Holy Ghost inspired what we have in the Bible.[/quote:efdd3]

Nice try, but you are dodging the question. Your circular argument won't do...

How do you know which books belong in the "inspired word of God"? The Holy Spirit doesn't reveal WHICH BOOKS belong in the Bible - through the Bible itself! Nowhere does the Bible list the inspired books - so your argument is hypocritical, as you yourself rely on something outside of the Bible, something VERY important - the CONTENT of the Scriptures...

Have a nice day...

 

[Lewis]

No man you have missed the mark not me. The 66 books that we have were inspired by the Holy Ghost man. Cut and dry' you can say what you want but I know better. God made sure that the books He wanted to be included in the Bible are in the Bible. And He did so by way of His Spirit.

 

[francisdesales]

No man you have missed the mark not me. The 66 books that we have were inspired by the Holy Ghost man. Cut and dry' you can say what you want but I know better. God made sure that the books He wanted to be included in the Bible are in the Bible. And He did so by way of His Spirit.

Ah, now you try to avoid the question by accusing me of missing the mark!!! Naturally, when you can't answer the question, you accuse the questioner of "missing the mark". "I know better".... That's your answer???

It's a simple question that you cannot answer without throwing up smoke screens. Quite simply, either you belong in the same category as a Mohemmedan (who believes that the Word of God fell out of heaven untouched by man) or you refuse to accept the obvious ---

NOWHERE does the bible tell us what books belong under the auspice of "the inspired Word of God"... Any other contention merely shows your ignorance on how the Canon came about, or your lack of admitting that YOU HOLD TO EXTRA-BIBLICAL TRADITIONS!

Gasp!!

As to the "66 books", that most unholy number, I find it ironic that Protestants hold to this "magic number" of inspired books - based on their own opinion of their self-designated popes, since Scripture doesn't tell us that there are 66 books in it...

You'd think Luther would have randomly selected some other number. But I have found that God works in mysterious ways.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Re: reply

The Bible is a bloody Bible and the Bible is all about Jesus Christ.

Golfjack,

What does that mean? I am not sure what you are trying to say.

Regards

 

[Lewis]

I gave you my answer, tell me something are you a Christian ? Because you sure do not sound like it. And sometimes I just refuse to get into debates with people who make comments like you. I avoided nothing I gave you my answer. Oh I see you are a statue kneeler' I should have known' that tells me a lot, no wonder you think like you do.

 

[D46]

francis is just trying to rattle your cage, Lewis. These guys think they have the corner market all all matters of religion from who and how the bible is intrepreted to man made doctrines fostered by the great imposters. Jesus called this kind "fools and blind" for they are certainly the blind leading the blind. Arrogance runs rampant in their files, Lewis...omniscience is a gift to them all, they suppose. Anyone who worships toes and skulls ain't got a lot going for them, from my perspective. I always like to answer a fool according to his folly. There's lots of things not in the bible...Mary's immaculate conception, her assumption, rosary beads, brown scapulars, and what was it Mary was suppose to have said at a Marian sighting..."we DEMAND a crucifix...". Give me a break! I'm sure Mary would have could have said that. More tricks of the devil. Consider the source I say.

 

[Atonement]

francisdesales,

Lets take the question you asked Lewis:

Do you have Biblical proof of what books belongs in the Bible to begin with?

Please share with all of us what wisdom God has given you, that you can prove what belongs in the Bible and what does'nt?? I think many of 'your' books were not added because they would contradict the 1611 version of the KJ. Example: Why do you call a priest father??

In the Words of our LORD:

Mat 23:9 And call no man father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Another question: Why do you kiss the pope's ring?? If that is not a form of idolism what is??

And why call him (the pope) "holy father"???? WE HAVE ONE HOLY FATHER. The pope is a sinner like any of us, throw a cup of hot coffee on him and see if he does not sin, example of this is that one day he will die and that is because of sin..

What do you use Holy Water for?? I'll answer this after you have

Why pray to a saint? Are we not Blessed better then the saints??

Jhn 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen me, and yet have believed.

As to the "66 books", that most unholy number

I believe that is 666, and if your simple math is wrong I'm SURE your logic for many other wrightings is also wrong

And it's 66/40 but you knew that with your wisdom I'm sure?? Why try to play math games here? Why play games at all??

 

[francisdesales]

I gave you my answer, tell me something are you a Christian ? Because you sure do not sound like it. And sometimes I just refuse to get into debates with people who make comments like you. I avoided nothing I gave you my answer. Oh I see you are a statue kneeler' I should have known' that tells me a lot, no wonder you think like you do.

I merely asked you "How do you know you have the Word of God"? "How do you know you have all of the books of sacred Scripture?" "Where in the Bible does the Bible tells us what IS the Bible"?

Your answer:

"I just know..."!!!

Sorry, that isn't very convincing. If I was an unbeliever, I would laugh at you. Profusely...

Are you aware of this Scripture:

"[be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:" 1 Peter 3:15

Your efforts to change the subject and blame me for "not getting it" is a sorry attempt to admit you have no answer for me. You can't back up WHY you have a reason of the hope that is in you, nor are you exactly being meek by your name-calling.

Sorry if I ruffled your feathers, that was not my intent. It was to get you to realize that we ALL hold to extra-biblical traditions, whether you want to admit it or not. It is faulty logic to say "Where is it in Scriptures" if you can't even TELL me (from Scriptures) what IS Scriptures...


Regards

 

[francisdesales]

francis is just trying to rattle your cage, Lewis. These guys think they have the corner market all all matters of religion from who and how the bible is intrepreted to man made doctrines fostered by the great imposters. Jesus called this kind "fools and blind" for they are certainly the blind leading the blind. Arrogance runs rampant in their files, Lewis...omniscience is a gift to them all, they suppose. Anyone who worships toes and skulls ain't got a lot going for them, from my perspective. I always like to answer a fool according to his folly. There's lots of things not in the bible...Mary's immaculate conception, her assumption, rosary beads, brown scapulars, and what was it Mary was suppose to have said at a Marian sighting..."we DEMAND a crucifix...". Give me a break! I'm sure Mary would have could have said that. More tricks of the devil. Consider the source I say.

And this rant somehow answers the LEGITIMATE QUESTION of...

"How do you know what books are the Word of God, from Scripture itself?"

I am unaware of any passage that lists the books that ARE Scripture. Can you point this Catholic to that particular verse, please???

Once you tell me that passage, I'll be satisfied and will thank you for correcting me. Until then, though, you may address the question and stop the name-calling, as it goes against the very book you claim is from God!

[be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: 1 Peter 3:15

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Lets take the question you asked Lewis:

Do you have Biblical proof of what books belongs in the Bible to begin with

Please share with all of us what wisdom God has given you, that you can prove what belongs in the Bible and what does'nt?? I think many of 'your' books were not added because they would contradict the 1611 version of the KJ. Example: Why do you call a priest father??

I asked the question first, so please don't try to sidetrack me. Since Catholics are quite regularly chastized on this forum for presenting "non-biblical" beliefs, why is it not allowed to point out a Protestant's faulty logic in the first place? Why can I not ask this legitimate question? I personally do not hold to a sola Scriptura viewpoint (as it is logically self-defeating and nowhere listed in the bible), so I DO NOT NEED for something to be written verbatim in the Bible to make it part of my faith.

Protestants, however, DO!

Thus, tell me, where IN THE BIBLE, is the list of inspired books? If I had 1000 scrolls laying in front of me, how would I know which were from God and which were not?

Even the answer, "The Holy Spirit told me" is a faulty answer, because that is OUTSIDE the Bible!

So rather than directing me on a wild goose chase off the subject, I ask you again, "where does the Bible tell me which scrolls are inspired by God".

A Protestant of good will should be able to see that even THEY hold to extra-biblical beliefs from this.

Regards

 

[thessalonian]

Lets take the question you asked Lewis:

Atonement, this is not a problem for us. I declare to you that I accept the books that are in my Catholic Bible on the authority that they were decreed as scripture by the Church which is the pillar and foundation of the truth and by the men put in authority by Jesus Christ himself and their successors. I don't know of ANYONE Protestant or Catholic, who decides individually what books belong in the Bible. The Bible itself NOWHERE explicitly tells us. The table of contents was not written by the inspired authors. In fact the titles of the books themselves were not placed on the books until over 100 years after they were written. The table of contents, the titles are traditions. Now tell by what authority did those who came up with the 1611 AV remove books. Why was their Holy Spirit better than those in the late 300's and early 400's, who by the way canonized the table of contents for the new testament, which you gladly accept. Oh, we will go round and round arguing about particulars of the Old Testament and why the seven books should or should not be in scripture but this is no different than the second guessing that is going on with The Davinci Code and the New Agers. Even Luther did some of this when he wanted James and Hebrews and Revelatoin Pulled out.

Please share with all of us what wisdom God has given you, that you can prove what belongs in the Bible and what does'nt??

Have you gone through each book individualy and done your own canonization process? Do all protestant do this? Once again we accept the canon that was passed on for 200 years. Not the one that was sliced apart by the so called reformers on some authority they claimed for themselves to know better than the Church that had been in the world for 1600 years before them.

I think many of 'your' books were not added because they would contradict the 1611 version of the KJ. Example: Why do you call a priest father??

This makes me wonder if you know what you are talking about "your books were not added". Added to what? The protestant Bible? That Bible did not exist before 1611. By the way, isn't it some form of idolatary to name God's Holy Word after a king?

In the Words of our LORD:

[quote:a0b4a]Mat 23:9 And call no man father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

[/quote:a0b4a]

So tell me, was Paul violating this command in 1 Cor 4:15 when he called himself a father. He also called Abraham father to JEW AND GENTILE. Was this a violation? Do we need to call our father's in our homes "dad"? No. You will make exceptions to the rule of the command in Matt 23 and so will I. As long as we recognize God as father above all and source of all it is not a violation of Jesus words in Matt 23. I am a father to my children but not above God the father in heaven. I am both a physical and spiritual father to them but not above God the father in heaven, but in his image and likeness, pointing to him. Your hyperliteralism does not match scripture which says "honor your FATHER and mother". Paul says he is spiritual father to the corinthians.

Another question: Why do you kiss the pope's ring?? If that is not a form of idolism what is??

Tell me is bowing before the Ark of the Covenant and praying idolatry? Joshua 7 tells us no. Is looking upon a bronze serpant idolatry? The healing that took place says it is not always. The destruction of it says that it can be. Kissing a ring idolatry? Not if I don't see the Pope as a God and I know of no Catholic who sees him as such so I would say no. Such questions are from ignorance and lack of thought and hyper legalistic biblical interpretations. Worship is a matter of the heart and that is something Protestants try to judge by externals but cannot. They would have damned the Jewish elders to hell for bowing before the ark of the Covenant. But God granted them victory the next day.

And why call him (the pope) "holy father"???? WE HAVE ONE HOLY FATHER. The pope is a sinner like any of us, throw a cup of hot coffee on him and see if he does not sin, example of this is that one day he will die and that is because of sin..

Well let's see, in the scriptures many things are called holy. There are holy nations, holy men and women, holy objects, holy ones, even the Holy ONE which was applied to Aaron. Same term given Christ at one point. Holy means dedicated to God so no, I don't see any problem with calling someone or something holy if the Bible doesn't have a problem with it. Do a search on the Old Testament. You will find it use alot. More hyperliteralistic legalism.

What do you use Holy Water for?? I'll answer this after you have

Well what did the Jews use it for.

Num.5
[17] and the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water.

It's biblical and so I think you have a problem if you deny it's existence. Do you really submit to the Bible? Doesn't seem so. In fact at this point I am even questioning if you read it.

Why pray to a saint? Are we not Blessed better then the saints??

Blessed better than those in heaven? Your kidding right? We ask them for prayers just as I could ask you for prayers. I don't see the problem.

I believe that is 666, and if your simple math is wrong I'm SURE your logic for many other wrightings is also wrong

Funny thing is men (symbolically 6) came up with 66 books. So their is your 666. :

And it's 66/40 but you knew that with your wisdom I'm sure?? Why try to play math games here? Why play games at all??

Why do protestants play math games. It's you guys that try to do numerology to make some pope or person the anti-christ. Vicarius Filli Die you will say. Oh and then their is the funny little math excercise protestants have tried to use on me to prove that the Catholic bible is by men. The find the middle verse of the Bible. I think it's Psalm 117 or something like that. Something about don't follow after men and then they say that is the middle of the Bible and so you shouldn't follow after Catholic priests. Funny thing is, it's the middle of the Protestant Bible and so could well be used to say that those who follow after the protestant bible are following after man. It's not us who started this numerology but we can play the game if you guys insist.