Posted: Mar 28, 2011 12:34 pm
Thankyou for your reply, willhud9, and with respect, all I can see is that you are quoting the 'Party Line'.
I contend that there is no 'proper' way to pray since the 'way to pray' cannot be defined and is as diverse as there are humans on this planet. But, there are 'proper' ways to meditate and they are well defined. The difference being is that meditation is internalised and relies upon the structure of the brains 'thought pathways' which is common to all, and prayer is externalised - 'praying to a god' - the visulisation of which is different from one person to the next.
This suggestion that 'addressing God' (and the way you interpret the manner of addressing), implies that this 'God' is external which is flatly contradicted by Jesus in Luke 17:20-21. If, as Jesus said, 'the Kingdom of God is inside you' and that the Kingdom of God cannot be seen (or reached) by external observation, then what is the point of externalised prayer? (Again, Luke 17:20-21). One really cannot treat Matt. 6 & Luke 17 as separate items just because one would appear to deny the other.
I think quotations from the OT are irrelevant to the 'God' Jesus was teaching about. The OT 'god' was a genocidal control freak whereas the Jesus 'God' couldn't be more different, an internalised 'mind-state' (I would suggest - through meditation) that would allow each person to 'take control' of their own lives.
There again, the person praying in this manner is treating 'God' as an external 'God' that can do things in the external world. How can 'God's Kingdom come to Earth' if it is already inside you?
I do not see this section as supplication but what one can expect when meditating to reach the 'Kingdom of God'. Refer to Luke 17:20-21 once more.
There again these two lines, to me, are statements by Jesus on what happens when reaching this 'Kingdom of God'. They cannot be supplicative in nature and intent.
Very neat. Fits quite nicely into theological doctrine - a doctrine that has nothing to do with Jesus. 'Party Line' stuff once more.
I think that the path to the 'Kingdom of God' that Jesus was teaching (the internal 'Kingdom of God') was an ascetic path of meditation which obviously is not for everyone. This would entail seclusion and isolation from family and friends, that is, 'bringing a sword' - splitting apart.
But all these terrible things that happened in later centuries to those who chose not to 'follow Jesus' was the result of doctrinal imposition built upon Pauline teachings by the Church Fathers in the early centuries of the Christian church. That 'poor sod' Jesus would be 'turning in his grave' if he could see what has been done in his name and how his teachings had been twisted to suit political gain and control.
willhud9 wrote:First of all, much to Catholic's chagrin, the Lord's Prayer is not necessarily a prayer of "holy importance" and is not a revered prayer. The context in which Jesus gave the Lord's prayer was to instruct the people that were gathered around him during his sermon on the mount on the proper way to pray.
I contend that there is no 'proper' way to pray since the 'way to pray' cannot be defined and is as diverse as there are humans on this planet. But, there are 'proper' ways to meditate and they are well defined. The difference being is that meditation is internalised and relies upon the structure of the brains 'thought pathways' which is common to all, and prayer is externalised - 'praying to a god' - the visulisation of which is different from one person to the next.
willhud9 wrote:‘Our Father in heaven[a], hallowed be your name[b],
Part I in prayer is the [a] addressing of God. "Dear Heavenly Father" "Dear God" "Dear Lord" all of these and more are suitable ways to address God, as long as it is followed by a statement of praise [b]. For example, "Dear Heavenly Father, you are the God who provides..." is a perfectly fine substitute for Part I of the Lord's Prayer.
As an aside: the usage of "hallowed" should be considered "holy." Remember for the people the Lord's name was a holy name. Holy enough that there was a 3rd Commandment stated that commanded people to "not take the Lord's name in vain."
This suggestion that 'addressing God' (and the way you interpret the manner of addressing), implies that this 'God' is external which is flatly contradicted by Jesus in Luke 17:20-21. If, as Jesus said, 'the Kingdom of God is inside you' and that the Kingdom of God cannot be seen (or reached) by external observation, then what is the point of externalised prayer? (Again, Luke 17:20-21). One really cannot treat Matt. 6 & Luke 17 as separate items just because one would appear to deny the other.
I think quotations from the OT are irrelevant to the 'God' Jesus was teaching about. The OT 'god' was a genocidal control freak whereas the Jesus 'God' couldn't be more different, an internalised 'mind-state' (I would suggest - through meditation) that would allow each person to 'take control' of their own lives.
willhud9 wrote:your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
Part II is a positively affirming of the address. After addressing God with praise, the Christian makes a positive statement about God. In this case he is talking about God's kingdom coming to earth and God assuming mantle of King of Kings and that God's desires would become the desires of the world. The believer makes the claim that God will come down to earth and His will become the desire of the world. It is not the believer asking God, but rather making a statement about what God will inevitably do or has done. For example, I can substitute(following the pattern from my first example) with "your generosity and grace abounds in my life." It is a positive affirmation about God.
There again, the person praying in this manner is treating 'God' as an external 'God' that can do things in the external world. How can 'God's Kingdom come to Earth' if it is already inside you?
willhud9 wrote:Give us today our daily bread.
Part III is in fact supplication. This is the part in which the believer asks God to directly assist him or her with a need or want. Instead of "daily bread" it can be substituted for nearly anything and in any amount the believer believes is needed in the prayer.
I do not see this section as supplication but what one can expect when meditating to reach the 'Kingdom of God'. Refer to Luke 17:20-21 once more.
willhud9 wrote:And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
Part IV is seeking forgiveness otherwise known as confession. This is where the believer goes to God and lays all the "sin" that he or she may have done and asks the Lord to forgive, which means abstain from punishing. The OED says that forgiveness is " to grant free pardon and to give up all claim on account of an offense or debt" which is what the believer is asking God to do. In fact, one could say, "Please forgive me Lord for my sins just as I have forgiven those who sinned against me"
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
Part V is the believer asking for deliverance. In a sense, it is not just deliverance from sin, but as well, it is an acknowledgement of the believer that God is in control. This does not have to be as broad either. I can easily substitute this phrase with something along the lines of "And help me overcome my desire of covetousness and place me on the path of righteousness."
There again these two lines, to me, are statements by Jesus on what happens when reaching this 'Kingdom of God'. They cannot be supplicative in nature and intent.
willhud9 wrote:So summing up the points we have
I. Address
II. Affirmation
III. Supplication
IV. Confession
V. Deliverance
So the Lord's Prayer can be repeated when the believer is at a loss of what to prayer, but it is a model prayer in which the believer bases his or her prayers off of.
Very neat. Fits quite nicely into theological doctrine - a doctrine that has nothing to do with Jesus. 'Party Line' stuff once more.
willhud9 wrote:This gives meaning to Jesus’ statement: “…I have not come to bring peace but a sword…” - meaning to split apart. The ‘sword’, as a metaphor for 'splitting apart', could well be understood by the peoples of that time under the yoke of Roman occupation. (Mat:34-36).
Not quite. In that fact, Jesus is talking about causing division, but in that fact that families will be divided upon the belief in Jesus. That there will be families disowning children because they chose to follow Christ or in retrospect the opposite families disowning children because they chose to not follow Christ.
I think that the path to the 'Kingdom of God' that Jesus was teaching (the internal 'Kingdom of God') was an ascetic path of meditation which obviously is not for everyone. This would entail seclusion and isolation from family and friends, that is, 'bringing a sword' - splitting apart.
But all these terrible things that happened in later centuries to those who chose not to 'follow Jesus' was the result of doctrinal imposition built upon Pauline teachings by the Church Fathers in the early centuries of the Christian church. That 'poor sod' Jesus would be 'turning in his grave' if he could see what has been done in his name and how his teachings had been twisted to suit political gain and control.