HelenM

There ya go. I think you're getting the idea now!

ohwilleke

The Lord's Prayer should be informed by Jewish cosmology. Jewish doctrine shows the devil as an agent of God whose job is to tempt people so that they are forced to choice between moral and immoral paths and have an opportunity to make good choices and show themselves to be good, not an evil demigod who is the Ying to God's good Yang . . . that dualism comes from Zoroastrianism rather than Judiasm. Since God is out there tempting people through his agent Satan, it is natural for a person to ask that the temptation not be too great so that the person praying will be up to the task of exercising free will to avoid evil. It is a humble recognition of the imperfection of the person saying the prayer and a request for understanding in light of that imperfection.

Bottom line, Jewish cosmology is not as hung up on the idea of a perfectly good God as Christianity is.

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: ohwilleke ]</p>

xoc

Such a thing exists in relation to who? God or man? And which "man?" are we talking about here? And what is done in one situation always will affect, change and even "create" the next so I don't think it's possible to discuss the "best possible outcome" because you'd have to have the eyes of eternity to make true judgments on such things.

It's only in relation to the desires or likes of sentient creatures that "best possible outcome" has meaning and to try and make it an objective thing, it just becomes a democratic vote. That is no closer to an actual "best possible outcome." As for God, He neither has need nor "want" of anything, so what is the best possible outcome for Him?
Well I have a lot more doubts about "omnibenevolent", whatever that is supposed to mean exactly(hence the doubts) than omniscient. Prayer is affirmation of God's personal nature, which is where communion with God comes in. Whether God does one thing or the other, He doesn't change. Our situations change, that's the difference. Prayer changes things, not God (as the old saying goes)

Mageth

As for God, He neither has need nor "want" of anything

Prayer embodies praise; thanksgiving; intercession; petition.

Why do we need to praise and thank god, then, if he doesn't need or "want" anything?

Prayer changes things, not God (as the old saying goes)

I didn't know "old sayings" counted as a basis for theology.

What about those two OT references I posted above, BTW?

xoc

Because that's one of our reasons for being created in the first place.
Because doing one thing or the other thing alternatively does not mean one's essence has changed, or that one has changed in "nature."

Mageth

Is it just me, or did a_theistnotatheis not answer either of my questions? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Ernest Sparks

Why do we need to praise and thank god, then, if he doesn't need or "want" anything?

Because WE need it. Our well-being depends on a regular love and trust of our Creator and Savior, a partnership.

And it is good. I remember hearing a jewish guy once say that one can even argue and swear at God. The only really bad thing for us is totally ignoring God.

just trolling Ernie

xoc

1. We exist to worship God- that is (to an extent) why God made us so it is fitting. (and what Ernie said too- )
2. Prayer does not change God's nature, which is not dependent or decided on whether He "moves" in this way or that way- prayer does not change God as I said before.

critical thinking made ez

Although you almost had it here, you just came up short.

The Lord's Prayer is a chant that gets man into a mindframe (brainwashing) that the cult leaders want him to be in.

Let a simple minded man repeat something over and over and soon they believe it and are willing to die for it. This is why the army etc have little sayings like Fight or Die etc. Here are some old Christian sayings still stuck in my simple brain from over 30 years ago.

Give to the lord and it shall be given back to you 100 fold.
Forgive and you shall be forgiven.
Turn the other cheek.

I have had to fight to get all that bad advice out of my personality. If you follow any of that crap... people (especially christians) will walk all over you. It can be done in a balanced way... but that is the part that isn't in the brainwashing mantras of the Church.

Here are some better prayer/chants/brainwashing clips...

Save 10% of my paycheck in the bank.
Don't eat until you feel full.
Exercise every day at least 15 minutes.
Don't take shit from stangers if you don't take it from family.
You can't ever earn too much money.
Don't take shit from Family if you don't take it from stangers.
Don't give a dollar to the bum who will work for food. He will just come back tomorrow.
Telling people how to live and who to pray to will get your ass kicked.
If you like or hang around someone who is Gay it doesn't mean YOU'RE Gay.
If you are still reading this you should stop now and go communicate with a real person.

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: critical thinking made ez ]</p>

Jon

This scenario spurred a tangential thought. First if we look at the definition of 'tempt' in Merriam-Webster it says, 'to entice to do wrong by promise of pleasure or gain'. This would entail considering the action without actually going through with it. Satan as the perpetrator would entice Jesus with the thought of food, and Jesus would be tempted by the bread but not actually go through with the action of turning stone into bread thereby giving into the temptation.

So using Jesus' example, being enticed is okay as long as the temptation doesn't lead to the action of sin (Of course there's the question of why feeding yourself after starving for 40 days is a sin).

This led me to think about Jesus' admonishment in Matt. 5:28, 'But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.'

If I am enticed (tempted) by a woman enough to think about having sex with her, but not enough to go through with actually committing the act, then couldn't it be said that I have resisted temptation?

So when looking at these two scenarios, Jesus pondered 'sinning', but did not go through with it, and he remained 'sinless'.

But we are told in Matt. 5:28 that to consider 'sin' even if we do not go through with it, is still sin.

Does anyone else see a double standard?

[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: Jon ]</p>