I’ll work on starting any new topics (i.e. only one a week, as per forum directive) on Sundays. As you may know, prayers for the dead are found in both Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. But they are a bit more pronounced in the Roman Catholic Church. But if folks claim to be Protestant and embrace Universalism, then prayers for the dead seem to be both useful and necessary. What do you say and why?
Well my replies are already found in this topic, which as pretty extensive discussion, in which I think I expressed my thoughts on the matter at length (probably to everyone’s despair, particularly with my dyslexia 
), and doubt I’ll add to much to it.
Anyway they are here: Robin Parry: On praying for the damned
I couldn’t find a prayers for the dead topic. But I did see prayers for the dammed. Is this the same topic? If so, I will delete this one. Or an admin can delete this one - if I can’t. But I have learned a lesson today. Do a topic search first before starting a new thread. That’s assuming I have used the same or similar keywords.
I wouldn’t worry about it, I think it became larger because it touched on the larger issues and theological differences and so on. There is no reason you can’t continue the discussion here with a more larger focus, I just linked in what my response would be since I started answering the larger question (and indeed we started to debate that one there) and that link is there, so there is no reason why you can’t spring-board off it. If the admins think it is identical I’m sure they can merge the topics.
So don’t worry about it, continue here 
Hi, Randy
Yes, there was a recent thread on this same topic. I think you’ll get more response to your question if you carry on the discussion at NightRevan’s link, but I’m personally okay with your leaving this up – not speaking for anyone but myself. If you want to use your topic for the week to do something different though, let me know and I’ll zap it for you.
Blessings, Cindy
Hi Randy
I’m not sure I follow your logic here. Personally, I don’t think we have any evidence to suggest that prayers for the dead are either efficacious or necessary. On the contrary I find the lack of NT evidence on praying for the dead to be quite compelling (also the lack from the early church - the earliest being a possible reference at 373CE). I would be interested in any scriptural argument from the ‘protestant’ canon (this has been asked for previously and none given save the Judas Maccabeus text from the apocryphal works). I believe that the Lord’s Prayer also has relevance “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” IMO implies that we are to pray that God’s will be done on earth just as it already IS being done in the heavenly realm without any need for our assistance.
I respect those brothers of Orthodox persuasion who wish to encourage us to pray for the dead but still await any sound basis and also note that they, of course, would want us to go further and pray** TO** the dead as mediators, despite my interpretation of the text “there is one mediator between God and man”. Having looked into this different approach from my orthodox friends here, I have come to the conclusion that our opinions differ because of the foundation on which our opinions are built and to understand each other, we really need to respect these different foundations.
For the Orthodox, “Holy Tradition” is the** sole **criterion for truth. As for myself, and many other under the western wing, I believe that truth is more likely to be comprehended using the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (for want of a better title), namely, the consideration of: scripture, tradition, reason and experience.
God bless
John
I think I used the word “seem”, which would imply an assumption - not a logical conclusion. A dictionary definition of seem from is.gd/41j7oA says in part,“used with it to make a statement about what appears to be true based on what is known.” Or an online thesaurus at is.gd/g614mA substitutes the words, 'imply and suggest".
I also think the orthodox would say that both holy tradition and holy scripture are avenues for truth. At least, this is my understanding of Orthodoxy, from all my years of a friendship with a female member of the Greek Orthodox church. In fact, as a sampling from the Orthodox site is.gd/aILzMs, it says “Sacred Tradition is understood as God’s foundation for Scripture and not as an independent source of religious truth.” Or another Orthodox sampling at is.gd/OOBn3II says, “The roots and the foundations of this sacred tradition can be found in the Scriptures. For it is only in the Scriptures that we can see and live the presence of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” So they would be committing philosophical logical fallacies to rely only on sacred tradition, when the roots are found in Holy Scripture, along with things like the Trinity.
I think Roman Catholics would say they ask the saints to pray for them. This would still mean that Christ is the one mediator between God and man. But they are just asking someone, who is apparently more righteous, to intercede via prayer. In a Catholic site at is.gd/GXCpmK, it responds to this objection, under the headline “one mediator”.
Randy, the orthodox site you quote from says
.
The orthodox site I obtained my knowledge from clearly states that Holy Tradition (and nothing else) is THE criterion for truth.
orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/ph_holytrad.aspx
That said, I do not see any real attempt in your reply to engage with the points I have made and I am not as interested in semantics as you clearly are. I do not think there is anything positive to be gained by discussing things further with you in this thread (we can argue over the meaning of ‘mediator’ until blue in the face but it will not be very profitable), so I’ll leave you and wish you God’s blessings.
I’m sure I can find many Orthodox sites that say BOTH holy scripture and holy tradition are both sources of truth. That is also my personal understanding, from years of friendship with my Greek Orthodox friend Dora (who knows Koine and contemporary Greek very well, and has a PhD in Biblical archeology from Oxford). My purpose is NOT to argue or to engage in semantics. Let folks go to Wiki at is.gd/H2R0W9 and read. This is a common online encyclopedia. They can read for themselves and see what the Orthodox say - outside an Orthodox site (i.e. category Bible). I’m just one injecting some brief rebuttals, to statements made - in order to show a contrary point of view. It’s up to others to judge for themselves, what they prefer to believe - or not to believe. If folks really want to know what they say, let them call or visit an Orthodox and/or Catholic priest or bishop. Let them say for themselves, how they view holy tradition and sacred scripture. Or one mediator and prayer requests to saints.
Is there reason to believe that people didn’t pray for the dead? If you love someone, why would you stop talking to God about them, just because they’ve died? I admit to having always prayed for the dead, both saved and unsaved. 
Sonia
I did a bit of reflection on alternative viewpoints - even within something like universalism. In another thread, I mentioned something about the movie God is Not Dead. The movie presents a philosophy professor, who insists folks take his viewpoint in class. Yet my experience in philosophy classes, is they are open to multiple viewpoints. And sometimes it’s good to argue a viewpoint that’s not your own. I remember taking a business ethics class at the College of DuPage. The professor has some projects for us to work on, in conjunction with a partner. My partner and I found the one on the porn industry fascinating. Then I went on to defend the position of a porn producer and my partner took the position of a TV interviewer. The professor said he can envision me as a porn producer - something that would go against every ethical grain in my fiber.
Then I reflected on two other things:
I was asking an Indian friend about something the Muslims believe, as he was married to a Muslim wife. But he was a scientific type and an agnostic. He told me that western university scholars had the best understanding, what the Muslims believe and practice.
Then I read a story about a holy person or saint in India. Some of this students asked what a certain popular figure’s position on something was. He told them to pick up the telephone - call them - and ask them.
So I do like both these pieces of advice. Go and see what the western academic scholars say - who don’t belong to that group. Or pick up the telephone and ask them.
I also thought about a story from a popular health and prosperity gospel minister - Larry Ollison. He had a dream in which God taught him all the secrets of the universe. He remembered that everything was very simple. Yet he couldn’t remember the details.
Then I remember emailing a Baptist minister, who had a PhD in theology from a Catholic university. He taught church history at the College of DuPage. I asked him if there was a rational way to tell which Christian group is right. He got mad at me and discussed the topic the next day in class. But he didn’t mention me by name. He said there is no rational way and it end up being a matter of belief.
I’m not so hard pressed on positions and it’s good to see alternatives - at least, be aware of them. I can appreciate reading a great work of literature like Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Yet I am opposed to her atheistic and self-centered philosophy. In the article (i.e. from Dr. Mark E. Ross - associate dean and associate professor of systematic theology at the Columbia campus of Erskine Theological Seminary in South Carolina) at is.gd/flhPQT it says, “How, then, can we be one in Christ and demonstrate the communion of saints? It would seem that either we must ignore our doctrinal differences and treat them as inconsequential, or we must remain permanently divided and in opposition to one another until Christ returns. Is there not a more excellent way? (1 Cor. 12:31).”
Perhaps when things finally end in time - we might find things as simple as the dream of Larry Ollison.
I came up with an analogy called the chicken and the egg. Let me use this analogy and try not be be disrespectful of anything sacred The egg (holy scripture) is what produced the chicken (holy tradition), Yet the chicken can now lay another egg (holy scripture). The DNA code of the fertilized egg was what had the chicken grow (i.e. holy scripture contains the info that there are other things not taught - sacred tradition). The egg and the chicken are inseparable. So both myself and the other commentator are correct. You can say something is a chicken, which contains an egg inside it. Or you can say something is an egg, that contains the DNA pattern of the chicken. Both positions are correct and both elements are inseparable.
Also, the great Anglican theologian and writer C.S. Lewis said this: “Of course I pray for the dead. The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter me. And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden. At our age, the majority of those we love best are dead. What sort of intercourse with God could I have if what I love best were unmentionable to him?”