Is there meaning in the Lord's Prayer?

[marco]

We are told that Jesus recommended a format of address to God. If we examine it carefully, what do we find?

The prayer is composed of direct commands:
Give us! Forgive us! Lead us not! Deliver us!

and commands in the subjunctive mood:


"Let your name be holy; let your kingdom come; let your will be done."


The direct commands mean very little: we get from life what life gives, regardless of whether we address God or not. It is highly unlikely that reciters of the prayer ever find themselves " delivered from evil". They prayed in war time and war continued.

The appeals for God's name to be holy, and for his will to be done as conscientiously on Earth as it is in heaven - are pretty pieces of meaningless poetry.

The same results would have been achieved had Jesus simply offered:

Dear God, I love you a lot. Thanks.

Does the prayer turn folk into reciters of empty words?

If we believe in God, is there a better way of addressing him?

[JehovahsWitness]

I'm simply saying that God's name does not need to be mentioned all the time.

Well if that is all you are saying why insinuate that "calling God by his name" is "dishonerable", "unnecessary" and (yet to be confirmed) possibly "rude" for a child of God? If all you are saying is "God's name does not need to be mentioned all the time" then I would agree.

However it seems to me your statements are implying a lot more than that one does not have to use the name "all the time" . Your seem to be implying that there is something negative in the use of God's name in certain circumstances ( it has proved difficult to pin you down as to what you mean by "address God" ie if you mean "pray to God" or what those circumstances would be) but nonetheless the implication is there, evasive as its application might be.

....because those that actually address God by his name prove they are placing themselves {quote} ..." outside of His home.".

That's true.

But I will do you the service of taking you at your word, you are throwing words like "dishonorable" and "rude" around and refering to human culture and manmade rules but in fact you are simply saying

... that God's name does not need to be mentioned all the time.

I agree. If that's your point, we have no issue.


It's been enlightening, have a most excellent week,



JW

[marco]

Who cares about your grammatical functions. Last I saw, this is the "Debating Christianity" forum and the subforum is "Theology, Doctrine and Dogma". Not Grammar.

Grammar arose because you were anxious about my grammatical inadequacies. Many of the verbs in the Lord's Prayer are placed in the imperative. It can be deduced, then, that Christ is suggesting we talk to God in this imperative form: Give us! Feed us! Help us! And occasionally a more polite subjunctive form is used.

Who cares about the grammar. The meaning of the sentence is clear. It is a plea God keep us safe from temptation and sin. It is based on the Doctrine that we look upon God as our guide to righteousness and salvation.

If people extract some doctrine from a format of words, it is useful to be able to analyse that format of words. Stating what one would like to believe is insufficient. Grammar is often a useful companion in theological arguments.

Especially since the words you are trying to interpret have already been interpreted by men who have a much better grasp on both the language, culture and doctrines they are expressing.

We are all of us, as Socrates observed, rather simple in our understanding of the great world but it's not beyond our abilities to read a passage, put in English, and assess its meaning. Linguistic skills rather than prayerful good intentions are prerequisites.


Lost in the grammatical considerations on which you challenged me is the original question about the meaningfulness of the prayer. If, as you seem to be saying, it is simply a statement of praise: "Hello God, you are awfully nice and good, keep us safe from getting into trouble with you," then it's a rather weak form of words. Wishing that God's name be holy is not the cleverest of wishes. The effectiveness of the collection of words can surely be deduced from seeing its results. Has God demonstrably delivered the penitent from evil? In what sense does the invisible being act as "father"? The prayer is a mere expression of pointless artificiality.

[Elijah John]

Are you now suggesting calling God by his name is "rude"?

Are you suggesting that calling God by his name is "unnecessary",

Correct.

even "dishonorable"? Is that the point you are making?

Yes. {snip}

If that is the case, then King David was rude and dishonorable all throughout the Psalms, as were all of the prophets all thoughout the Hebrew Bible. They all addressed God as YHVH, with reverence.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 39 by JehovahsWitness]


Given that you seem to saying one can indeed

I think you've proven your bad faith by refusing to answer any of my questions. This is not an interrogation. Until you answer my questions, I will no longer answer yours.
.

Moderator Intervention

The exchanges are getting a tad uncivil and a bit testy. If a person is frustrated by what they see as unanswered questions, they do not need to announce that they will reply (or not reply) in kind.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[PinSeeker]

The prayer is a mere expression of pointless artificiality.

To you. In your opinion. I think we all knew that long ago.

[PinSeeker]

Lost in the grammatical considerations on which you challenged me is the original question about the meaningfulness of the prayer. If, as you seem to be saying, it is simply a statement of praise: "Hello God, you are awfully nice and good, keep us safe from getting into trouble with you," then it's a rather weak form of words.

I think your issue with this, Marco, is that you are underestimating what praise is, albeit unintentionally. It's not merely a "you're awesome," but an acknowledgement of absolute belief in all His promises and even a calling of Him on those promises according to His perfect will.

Wishing that God's name be holy is not the cleverest of wishes.

No need for that. God's name is holy regardless whether one "wishes it" or not. But acknowledging God's holiness, and acknowledging our place before a holy God is of utmost importance. We not only acknowledge His holiness and glory, we even glory in it.

The effectiveness of the collection of words can surely be deduced from seeing its results.

For sure, but the results may not be nearly as immediate as we would like. This does nothing to reduce their effectiveness or impact.

Has God demonstrably delivered the penitent from evil?

Maybe not immediately, or as quickly as we would like, but this too, is for our good, as He works all things together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.

In what sense does the invisible being act as "father"?

In His time, He will finally and ultimately deliver us. In the meantime, He is with us, saving, helping, loving, and keeping us in the midst of it. This is what He -- the perfect Father -- does.

[marco]

[Replying to post 55 by PinSeeker]

Thank you PinSeeker for your views on the practice of prayer and the proper expectations of its being answered. There are more beautiful paeans to the Almighty than the Lord's Prayer: the Te Deum for example. The excuse that unanswered prayers require a waiting time, like that in hospital waiting rooms, since God is like a busy doctor …. is a human defence; it may not wipe away disappointed tears, but it does not erase hope completely. And man lives on hope.


My reading of the Lord's Prayer is like this:


Hello God - we know you're in heaven - let's hope your name continues to be holy - and it would be nice if your imperium extended itself universally, so we could view it - also nice would be if we could act like angels - some sustenance to see us through the odd tsunami or earthquake would be appreciated - and cast a blind eye on our misdemeanours in the way we do here on earth - do your best to keep us in your good books, whatever that means and - pointless though it is to ask, keep us relatively safe.


I see no difference between the piety expressed here than hymns to Jupiter.


But of course we must follow what our minds tell us is the truth. Go well.

[PinSeeker]

There are more beautiful paeans to the Almighty than the Lord's Prayer: the Te Deum for example.

I agree that the Te Deum is beautiful. Since it contains selected verses from the Psalms, that makes it even more so. But still, that depends on the eye of the beholder, does it not? The Word of God, however, is beautiful above all things on its own merit. And beyond that, the depth contained in the Lord's prayer, limitless as they are, make it infinitely more beautiful. Yes, the Te Deum is beautiful, but aesthetics only go so far; the beauty you speak of is only skin deep. Not so with the Lord's prayer.

The excuse that unanswered prayers require a waiting time...

Whoops. There is no such thing as unanswered prayers. They may not be answered like we want them to be from time to time, but that does not mean they are unanswered. "Require a waiting time..." That's quite funny in a dark sort of way.

...like that in hospital waiting rooms, since God is like a busy doctor …. is a human defence...

So this is a non-sequitur. No "defense" necessary. Whatever God ordains -- whenever He ordains it -- is right.

...it may not wipe away disappointed tears, but it does not erase hope completely. And man lives on hope.

Well, as Jesus said, man lives on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Aside from that, Marco, what is your definition of 'hope'? Biblical hope is not a wish.

My reading of the Lord's Prayer is like this:

Hello God - we know you're in heaven - let's hope your name continues to be holy - and it would be nice if your imperium extended itself universally, so we could view it - also nice would be if we could act like angels - some sustenance to see us through the odd tsunami or earthquake would be appreciated - and cast a blind eye on our misdemeanours in the way we do here on earth - do your best to keep us in your good books, whatever that means and - pointless though it is to ask, keep us relatively safe.

Yeah, that's too bad. And, not to exalt myself or anything, but I would think you intelligent enough -- and I know you are, even moreso than myself -- to read through my explanation of the Lord's prayer and come to the realization that what you propagate here (not you, per se, but merely what you propagate) is, in comparison, exceedingly shallow. Perhaps humility is the obstacle.

I see no difference between the piety expressed here than hymns to Jupiter.

I'm sure that's true. Again, too bad.

But of course we must follow what our minds tell us is the truth.

Sure. But as I have said several times, the mind follows the heart. It always, sooner or later, follows the heart.

Go well.

To you the same. Grace and peace to you.

[De Maria]

Who cares about your grammatical functions. Last I saw, this is the "Debating Christianity" forum and the subforum is "Theology, Doctrine and Dogma". Not Grammar.

Grammar arose because you were anxious about my grammatical inadequacies.

Grammar arose because you keep calling these petitions, commands. Thus, you brought up the grammar.

Many of the verbs in the Lord's Prayer are placed in the imperative. It can be deduced, then, that Christ is suggesting we talk to God in this imperative form: Give us! Feed us! Help us! And occasionally a more polite subjunctive form is used.

That's your interpretation. I see no exclamation points in the Scripture text.

If people extract some doctrine from a format of words, it is useful to be able to analyse that format of words. Stating what one would like to believe is insufficient. Grammar is often a useful companion in theological arguments.

You are not studying the existing grammar. You are reading into it imperatives and commands that simply are not there. No theologian has ever taught that Christ was teaching His disciples that they should demand anything of the Father. That is a doctrine which you have read into the prayer.

We are all of us, as Socrates observed, rather simple in our understanding of the great world but it's not beyond our abilities to read a passage, put in English, and assess its meaning. Linguistic skills rather than prayerful good intentions are prerequisites.

Actually, Socrates is a very intelligent sort. Here is what he said about written lessons.

Socrates: Writing, Phaedrus, has this strange quality, and is very like painting; for the creatures of painting stand like living beings, but if one asks them a question, they preserve a solemn silence. And so it is with written words; you might think they spoke as if they had intelligence, but if you question them, wishing to know about their sayings, they always say only one and the same thing. And every word, when once it is written, is bandied about, alike among those who understand and those who have no interest in it, and it knows not to whom to speak or not to speak; when ill-treated or unjustly reviled it always needs its father to help it; for it has no power to protect or help itself.

In other words, the written word is misunderstood by those who have no prior knowledge of it.

Socrates: The word which is written with intelligence in the mind of the learner, which is able to defend itself and knows to whom it should speak, and before whom to be silent.

But the person who has learned the subject matter can defend the written word.

In other words, you are going to the word without any apparent knowledge of what the intent of the author was who wrote it. As a result, you're coming up with wild inventions that were never considered by the one who wrote the message.

Lost in the grammatical considerations on which you challenged me is the original question about the meaningfulness of the prayer.

I didn't challenge you. I instructed you. Your grammatical considerations are completely misplaced and incorrect. For all your supposed studies of grammar, you have not been able to identify the difference between praise, petition and command.

Nowhere in that prayer is there anything that can come close to be considered as someone commanding God to do this or that.

If, as you seem to be saying, it is simply a statement of praise: "Hello God, you are awfully nice and good, keep us safe from getting into trouble with you," then it's a rather weak form of words.

In your opinion. And, you are misrepresenting the message. Where does it say, "hello"? In this prayer, Jesus is Teaching something that would be shocking to the Jewish community. The idea that they could address God intimately, as Father.

Wishing that God's name be holy is not the cleverest of wishes.

It's not a wish. It's a petition that God pour His grace on the world and the world will respond in thanksgiving by proclaiming Him Holy.

The effectiveness of the collection of words can surely be deduced from seeing its results.

I've seen it's results. If you haven't, its because you don't practice it. Or if you practice it, you don't do it with faith.

Has God demonstrably delivered the penitent from evil?

All the time.

In what sense does the invisible being act as "father"?

In every sense. In fact, He is the perfect Father to which all other fathers are compared and fall short.

The prayer is a mere expression of pointless artificiality.

To you. And that leads back to the idea that you are somehow disappointed by God. Otherwise, why are you complaining, if you don't believe that the "invisible being" exists, what do you care about a prayer that is addressed to Him, grammatical or not?

[marco]

But still, that depends on the eye of the beholder, does it not? The Word of God, however, is beautiful above all things on its own merit. And beyond that, the depth contained in the Lord's prayer, limitless as they are, make it infinitely more beautiful. Yes, the Te Deum is beautiful, but aesthetics only go so far; the beauty you speak of is only skin deep. Not so with the Lord's prayer.

I respect your view and perhaps there is reward in faithfulness, in praising the Lord for he is kind. And maybe blindness is its own curse. People can raise the worthless to pearls of great price. It seems ludicrous, almost as horrible as lusting before a Golden Calf, to take bits of string, a bed, flies...and call them high art, worth millions while millions starve. The ability to glorify, to raise the humble to high places, is not confined to the sad world of modern art.


We take a poppy and through its poetic magic we raise money for good causes. The red flower is nothing more than a symbol and to be inspired we do not need to have read the lovely poem:

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.


The red garments of Jesus or his beaten body on a cross act as a similar symbol and I know they have inspired a wealth of good deeds.

Behind the words of the Lord's Prayer is a nice intention. You have found in the words what I can find, if I were so disposed. When Byron says: "She walks in beauty like the night" he is already in a world that is not ours. To a lesser extent Christ's composition is a worthy attempt to bridge the human-divine divide. I don't think it succeeds, but I concede that for many it has achieved its purpose. However, I suspect that from a different singer the song would attract little praise. It has been made majestic by the symbolic force of its alleged author.

But as I have said several times, the mind follows the heart. It always, sooner or later, follows the heart.

I don't know if that brings comfort. Winter is a terrible time for the mind to conceede to the frailty of the heart. Thank you for your indulgence; go well.