xoc

*sigh*
*sigh* is right!

No, sorry. Jesus was tempted by Satan, he was led into the desert by the Holy Spirit. There is a world of difference in that.

xoc

It depends on your definition of "right thing." You seem to be offering the claim that there is ONE right thing that God should do in every situation, there is one GOOD thing and the rest is not. As for asking and receiving, we assume that what we think we need is what we really need, and God should answer this prayer before it's asked. Could he not know what we want if we don't ask? No. But if we ask and He answers, He is glorified in response. If we wish upon a star for something, God will respect the wishes and let the star answer, if it can. Answered prayer is a way God's glory is manifest.
Again, we may ask for a "good thing", but how can it be defined as the right thing. It;s good for us, that does not make it the moral thing that God is obligated to do.
Well no, I'm not saying that completely. Prayer doesn't change "God" although it might engender response from God. Prayer is to change "people", but not only; petition is a form of prayer, it is just not the only form of prayer. PRayer embodies praise; thanksgiving; intercession; petition. That is how it appears in the Bible. Prayer is not just "gimme gimme God."

Mageth

Hmm. Prayer doesn't change god? How about Exodus 32, then:

Or this from 2 Kings:

calvaryson

He was lead by the Holy Spirit and guided by the Holy Spirit. Who won that one on one anyway?

HelenM

<Christian answer>Well, you can't just pull out a couple of passages like that and try to establish a doctrine based on them, can you?

You have to look at what the whole Bible says and what it says is that God never changes. So...how can prayer change God? It can't!</Christian answer>

love
Helen

ju'iblex

hang a sec, didnt god create evil??? <Isaiah 45:6,7> seems that the creation of evil would be the ultimate evil, but dont take my word, im a lowly human.

so, Jesus, who is also God was tempted by Satan. thus god was tempted by satan. god can be tempted???

xoc

God created disaster, providential evil(which is the 2nd half of the conflicting elements portrayed, "Shalom"=prosperity vs. what the KJV translates as "evil", which was understood in other contexts besides moral of Olde.

"God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. "

Did Satan tempt Jesus? Yes. Was Jesus tempted? No. Contradiction? No. It means that Jesus was not tempted "inside himself." That is to say, if I offer you a box of rock sandwhiches, I am "tempting you." That does not mean you are "tempted" (that you have any of the "lust" James mentioned for it).

Even without that obvious understanding, it is necessary to relate that Satan tried to tempt Jesus' human nature, which he had in equal existence with His divinity. He was fully God and fully Man.

ex-preacher

a_theist: It depends on your definition of "right thing." You seem to be offering the claim that there is ONE right thing that God should do in every situation, there is one GOOD thing and the rest is not.

Let me re-phrase. Instead of "right thing," let's call it "best possible outcome." In every situation there is one outcome that God knows (or should know) would be the best possible outcome in view of all the consequences which will arise from each possible alternative. Surely you would agree that such a thing exists.

So the dilemma still remains. He can't be both omniscient and omnibenevolent, so take your pick:
1. He knows what to do (the best possible outcome), but he won't do it unless enough people ask him nicely (he's omniscient, but cruel).
2. He wants to do the right thing (the best possible outcome), but he doesn't know what to do until people tell him (he's omnibenevolent, but ignorant).

I suppose a third alternative (making this a trilemma) would be:
3. He will do the best possible thing regardless of prayers (omniscient, kind, but prayer has absolutely no effect on him)

Let's use a specific example. Let us suppose that a group of terrorists have hijacked a commercial airliner and are planning to fly it into a skyscraper. On board the airplane are numerous people who have prayed and are praying more earnestly than ever that the plane will land safely and all will survive. So, which one of the following does God do?
1. He knows that the best outcome is for the plane to land safely, but he is unmoved by these prayers (he is omniscient, but cruel).
2. He would have brought about the best outcome, but the prayers did not reach him in time. (kind, but ignorant or weak)

or you might want to pick the third alternative:
3. Allowing the plane to crash into the building was indeed the best possible outcome. (god is omniscient, "kind" , but very mysterious. Maybe he was listening to Muslim prayers? Or he wanted to punish America?).
This is actually the position that many Christians hold, although few are as brave (or stupid) as Falwell or Robertson to say it out loud.
However, it raises new problems: One, what is the purpose of petitionary prayer if God has an outocme in mind regardless of the prayers? Two, what about all the scriptures in which followers are promised that all prayers will be granted? see John 14:14 "You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."


As for asking and receiving, we assume that what we think we need is what we really need, and God should answer this prayer before it's asked. Could he not know what we want if we don't ask? No. But if we ask and He answers, He is glorified in response. If we wish upon a star for something, God will respect the wishes and let the star answer, if it can. Answered prayer is a way God's glory is manifest.

I believe I have addressed this above. Is it your contention that God may change his mind and do something other than the best possible thing in order to grant an ignorant prayer? Or that he would keep from doing the best thing ("manifest his glory") because not enough people asked for it?


Again, we may ask for a "good thing", but how can it be defined as the right thing. It;s good for us, that does not make it the moral thing that God is obligated to do.

I hope I have answered this above. Now I'm starting to wonder if you think God even knows the best possible outcome?

Well no, I'm not saying that completely. Prayer doesn't change "God" although it might engender response from God.

Doublespeak. If "God" responds due to a prayer than he was changed (from a non-response). You can't have it both ways. This is why it is a dilemma. Either prayer is useless (everything is predetermined) or God is weak or evil.

Prayer is to change "people", but not only; petition is a form of prayer, it is just not the only form of prayer. PRayer embodies praise; thanksgiving; intercession; petition. That is how it appears in the Bible. Prayer is not just "gimme gimme God."

Thanks for the refresher course. I think I understand the various supposed functions of prayer. Our emphasis here is on the petitionary aspect and whether or not it brings about change and if so, how that can be reconciled with an omniscient and omnibenevolent god. I certainly understand your desire to "refocus" the subject.

ex-preacher

This is a separate issue, the Problem of Evil. Let's leave it alone for now, although I would love to come back to it later.

<strong> So what do you do with Hebrews 4:15? "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to symphathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are - yet without sin." Please explain.

Jesus was not being "tempted" with rock sandwiches, but with the notion of making rocks into fresh bread, this after 40 days of fasting. If he wasn't "tempted" by that I don't think he was 1% human, much less 100% human. He had no desire ("lust") for food?

You create a real problem when you assert that Jesus couldn't be tempted. If that's the case than it really was no big deal for him to live a sinless life. He wasn't human at all if he had no possibility of sin. Of course, there's another huge dilemma here (known as the question of impeccability). If Jesus could have sinned, then he wasn't really divine since God cannot sin. If Jesus could not have sinned, then he wasn't really human since the temptation to sin is at the heart of what it means to be human. IOTW, did Jesus have free will?

<strong> More doublespeak. So are you saying now he was tempted? Stick with one story. Perhaps he was fully tempted and was also fully not tempted. Ah yes, the power of cheese.

HelenM

For we do not have a high priest [Jesus] who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--Hebrews 4:15

I think what you mean is that Jesus did not 'receive' the temptation as in, he did not start to think "cool...yeah, what if I did do that" - he didn't entertain the idea of it. IOW he implemented 'just say no' right away...

But to say the temptation was not 'inside himself' - I think you are going beyond what we can know, because we don't even know how Satan tempted Jesus, do we?

love
Helen