Could God become man?

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by cavalier

Is that rhying name slang? If not, what does it mean?

Please don't ask that, it is the most offensive word in the English language (well the slang version of our language).


17th I am ashamed of you, you know where the naughty spot is so off you go - it's a full 20 minutes for that one.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

Appears Benedict is entrenched, I miss John Paul. (ps I guess across the pond they aren't aware that in the US Benedict is a slang for traitor.)

I prefer our one:
"Let them prefer nothing whatever to Christ.
And may He bring us all together to everlasting life!"
Rule of Benedict, ch. 72

Thomas

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Please don't ask that, it is the most offensive word in the English language (well the slang version of our language).


17th I am ashamed of you, you know where the naughty spot is so off you go - it's a full 20 minutes for that one.

What?!?! Why is it that offensive? lol... Sin bin 20 mins? I only get 10 for fighting.... 20 mins seems harsh I think maximum it should be like a 2min minor..... 5min tops!

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Regardless of how it came about, both Catholics and Protestants (well, most anyway) will agree that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. If we can establish this, then we have some common ground in which to discuss the issue of Tradition.

Agreed ... But it is tradition has declared the Bible as the inspired Word of God, that's how it came about. Not all the fathers were in agreement about which books should be included, but we follow their wisdom.

The Bible is the product of the Tradition, not the other way round.

Originally Posted by Dondi

... Jesus said in Matthew 6:7-8, "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." ... Now what are we Protestants suppose to think when Catholics go through the rosary, repeating the same prayers rotely over and over? Isn't that being a bit repetitious?

I think the emphasis is on 'vain' repetititions? A repetition of the Holy Name can never be vain ... the remembrance of God, and a dialogue with Him, is never a vain or wasted moment unless, as Jesus was suggesting, you're doing it to impress an audience.

Later in Matthew, Jesus talks of the Pharisee and the publican. They publican prays: " 'O God, be merciful to me a sinner'. I say to you, this man went down into his house justified rather than the other: because every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." ' Matthew 18:14

This is the foundation of the Prayer of Simplicity, or Prayer of the Heart: "Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner," a prayer which we are called to repeat always, often, if not constantly (which is what 'prayer of the heart' signifies). It can be shortened even more, and one form is the Greek 'Kyrie eleison' — 'Lord have mercy'.

There is a great benefit to repetition in prayer, it sets up a rhythm and continuity. Also, in going through the Rosary, Catholics recall the primary events of the Life of Christ in the recollection of the Mysteries; Sorrowful, Joyful, Glorious and Luminous.

Prior to this, and along with it, the constancy of prayer was from the Psalter ... so I would rather say not simply 'repetitious' but 'constant'.

+++

Originally Posted by Dondi

Why don't you understand that the "Our Father" prayer, which immediately follows this warning from Christ, is a model prayer and wasn't intended to be repeated verbatim over and over, but that the content of the prayer should reflect our attitude in approaching God.

Where does it say it should not be repeated?

And how often is too often? How soon is too soon? Once a year? Once a week, once a lifetime?

How often in prayer is too often? How often in the Presence of God is too often?

Originally Posted by Dondi

Can you honestly say that after saying the "Our Father" ten times it didn't get old and saying it was mere ritual, rather than a heartfelt prayer to God? Be honest now.

It depends how well you've trained yourself to concentrate in prayer ... that is what repetition does ... another term is meditation ... I find the more I pray, the better and longer I pray ... and the deeper I pray ... there is a belief that one should pray constantly until one prays without thinking ... how does that sit?

Who is the better man, the man who prays rarely, thinks about God rarely, but when he does, he makes a special effort, or the man who prays all the time, because he offers his every living moment to God, and seeks God in his every living moment?

Does my mind never wander ... yes, of course it does ... but that's no reason to stop trying, or to stop praying ... else I'm parading a weakness as a virtue ... it's like waiting for inspiration ... you end up sitting on your arse for ever, waiting. Inspired people tend to get off their arses and work at being inspired. Prayerful people get on their knees and work at praying. Prayer is spiritual exercise, and sometimes its hard work. A labour of love.

Originally Posted by Dondi

Of course, repetitious prayer can apply to Protestants also, for who hasn't said grace in the exact same manner of the last meal. When I catch myself doing that I try to change the words so it isn't just a mundane mantra to be said because I'm hungry and want to get the prayer over with and eat. You now what I mean? God is looking for prayer from the heart. He is looking for our own "Our Father" prayer.

I have to say I think you've missed the deeper meaning of mantra. And I honestly think you're not talking about prayer from the heart, but prayer from the head ... you seem to think that because someone says it often, they mean it less?

I think you will find that the deeper, more profound levels of prayer are accessible only through the work of praying ... all spiritual masters, of all traditions, talk about the deeper states attained through constancy ...

Originally Posted by Dondi

I'm not out to toss away tradition, but when tradition contradicts what I find in Scripture, I tend to be cautious and stand by the Book. I don't think this is trying to invent a "Jesus of our own invention". It's more like finding Jesus in the most basic form of information God has given us.

I could argue the opposite. I've known of serial killers who've justified their actions by what they read in Scripture, one can find a Jesus to justify anything one wants, so I don't think that stands.

Originally Posted by Dondi

Discovering who Jesus really is in the confines of Scripture.

The Jesus Seminar discovered a man who said things (not quite sure what), did things (not quite sure what), and got Himself killed (not quyite sure why) ... then again, they dumped tradition, in favour of the text.

Originally Posted by Dondi

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." - John 14:26

That was to the Apostles, and the Apostles taught their successors, and that is Tradition.

If you read the Acts of the Apostles ... they prayed all the time:

Acts 2:42. And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles and in the communication of the breaking of bread and in prayers.
Acts 6:4. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.
1 Thess 5:17. Pray without ceasing.
James 5:16. Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.

Thomas

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

A repetition of the Holy Name can never be vain.

You don't think God's name can be taken in vain? Even in prayer? I don't think the commandment was merely for though who curse God's name. But because that Name is Holy, it should be spoken as Holy and not with any mindless mantra. If you believe God is you Father, think of how you would approach our own father. Would you say the same thing over and over and over again when you meet him?

I'm not saying it shouldn't be repeated, in fact the phrase, "Give us this day our daily bread" suggests that we should come to God daily. But I wonder how many really break that prayer down to it's basic components and realize just what they are asking.

"Our Father..." - Recognition that there is a relationship established from a Creator to His creature that is deeper than any human relationship we can have in our own family relationships. And that He wants us to recognize this.

"Who art in Heaven" - And we are not, at least not yet. Yet He brings Heaven down to us through the Blood of Jesus Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

"Hallowed be Thy Name" - recognize that He is Holy, so we must come to Him on His terms, so that Holiness may be made a reality in us. "Be holy as I am Holy".

"Thy Kingdom Come" - What is the kingdom of God? What does He want for his children in that Kingdom? What kind of life does He bring?

"Thy Will be done" - Are we effecting His will in our lives? Or are we pretending to be religious on Sunday and live to ourselves the rest of the week? Are we being obedient to the commands of Love: for God and for our neighbor, even our enemies?

"On earth as it is in Heaven" - The kingdom is established in heaven already. How is it implemented here on earth? What role do we play in it?

"Give us this day our daily bread" - Is it just talking about our daily physical substance, or something more? "Man does not live on bread alone, but by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God"

"And forgive us our trespasses" - Interesting that our tendancy in prayer is to seek forgiveness first. But here Jesus lists it almost last. Hmmm...

"As we forgive those who trespass against us" - Methinks that we need to do this first before we come to God for our own forgiveness. Whatdya think?

"And lead us not into temptation" - Or allow ourselves to be led into temptation (James 1:13-15)

"But deliver us from evil" - Has He broken the sinful habits that we've developed over the years? Are we delivered from our vices, our pet sins, that we like to hold onto? Do we know the power of the Holy Spirit to break free from sin?

I wonder if the average Catholic contemplates this prayer in this manner as they repeat it over and over? Or do they hope by invoking this prayer that by osmosis it will make them Christlike or better Christians? (Same could be said of any Christian group who prayer the Lord's Prayer)

By the way, how does the "Our Father" play a role in confession? When a priest assigns the penitent one 10 "Our Fathers" for their sin, what is that supposed to do exactly? Does it work or is it like, "See ya next week!"?

[Thomas]

Hi Dondi —

Originally Posted by Dondi

You don't think God's name can be taken in vain?

Of course it can ... but that's not what I was saying, and I think you know that.

Originally Posted by Dondi

But because that Name is Holy, it should be spoken as Holy and not with any mindless mantra.

I don't think a 'mantra' is 'mindless' in the way you mean it.

Revelations 4:8
"And the four living creatures had each of them six wings: and round about and within they are full of eyes. And they rested not day and night, saying: 'Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come.' "
I don't think the above is mindless mantra.

Is Psalm 135 : A vain repetition, forbidden of God?
"Alleluia. Praise the Lord, for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.
Praise ye the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.
Praise ye the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.
Who alone doth great wonders: for his mercy endureth for ever.
Who made the heavens in understanding: for his mercy endureth for ever.
Who established the earth above the waters: for his mercy endureth for ever.
Who made the great lights: for his mercy endureth for ever.
The sun to rule the day: for his mercy endureth for ever.
The moon and the stars to rule the night: for his mercy endureth for ever.
Who smote Egypt with their firstborn: for his mercy endureth for ever.
Who brought out Israel from among them: for his mercy endureth for ever.
With a mighty hand and with a stretched out arm: for his mercy endureth for ever.
Who divided the Red Sea into parts: for his mercy endureth for ever.
And brought out Israel through the midst thereof: for his mercy endureth for ever.
And overthrew Pharao and his host in the Red Sea: for his mercy endureth for ever.
Who led his people through the desert: for his mercy endureth for ever.
Who smote great kings: for his mercy endureth for ever.
And slew strong kings: for his mercy endureth for ever.
Sehon king of the Amorrhites: for his mercy endureth for ever.
And Og king of Basan: for his mercy endureth for ever.
And he gave their land for an inheritance: for his mercy endureth for ever.
For an inheritance to his servant Israel: for his mercy endureth for ever.
For he was mindful of us in our affliction: for his mercy endureth for ever.
And he redeemed us from our enemies: for his mercy endureth for ever.
Who giveth food to all flesh: for his mercy endureth for ever.
Give glory to the God of heaven: for his mercy endureth for ever.
Give glory to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever."

Dan. 3:35-66 - the phrase "Bless the Lord" is similarly offered repeatedly ... this, in Scripture, gives the grounds both for repetitive prayer, and for the repetition of Litanies.

Originally Posted by Dondi

If you believe God is you Father, think of how you would approach our own father. Would you say the same thing over and over and over again when you meet him?

Let me come at it another way ... I tell my partner, and my kids, that I love them, and I say it often ... but I do not feel the need to find new or novel ways of saying it ... I mean it, so I say it ... the same when I talk to my Father ... I mean it, so I say it ... so when I say a certain prayer ... when I say kyrie eleison over and over, that does not mean I mean it any the less, nor that I am trying any less than to put everything I mean into that phrase.

Originally Posted by Dondi

I'm not saying it shouldn't be repeated, in fact the phrase, "Give us this day our daily bread" suggests that we should come to God daily. But I wonder how many really break that prayer down to it's basic components and realize just what they are asking.

So you have to be intelligent for your prayer to count?

I would say that the point is to say it, and believe in it, to mean it, not as the result of an intellectual exercise, but as the cry of the heart.

I stand by my belief that there is a difference between prayer of the heart, and prayer of the head, and you're describing prayer of the head.

Consider Matthew 26:39-44
"And going a little further, he fell upon his face, praying and saying: My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me. Nevertheless, not as I will but as thou wilt ... Again the second time, he went and prayed, saying: My Father, if this chalice may not pass away, but I must drink it, thy will be done ... he went again: and he prayed the third time, saying the selfsame word."

Not vain, I think, but repetition, without a doubt.

Originally Posted by Dondi

I wonder if the average Catholic contemplates this prayer in this manner as they repeat it over and over? Or do they hope by invoking this prayer that by osmosis it will make them Christlike or better Christians?

I wonder if one can get so involved in thinking about what one's praying about, one winds up talking to oneself, and not God at all.

Do you suppose the publican in the temple, who asked God's forgiveness over and over again, hoped that "by invoking this prayer that by osmosis" it will make him a better Jew?

Seems it was enough for Jesus to make a point of mentioning it, and if it's enough for the Son, and justifies man in the sight of the Father, it's enough for me.

Sorry Dondi, I think you've read that text too literally, and if you'd have had the commentary of tradition to hand, it would have stopped you from stumbling into a hole.

Thomas

[Dondi]

Psalms are songs (as is the song in Daniel). I can understand the repetitiveness of a song. I wonder how Psalm 135 was originally sung by David? But I bet that he didn't use the same Psalm week after week.

I guess, Thomas, I fail to understand Liturgy. I seems to me that it would get old after a while, running over the same old ground, the same squirrel cage. Wouldn't you get to a point where it's just words rumbling off your tongue? Or like the same repeated announcement over a PA system would tend to get ignored after the first 20 times?

[omner]

This discussion has gotten somewhat complicated. I was going to post a reply but noticed that Snoopy already posted basically what I was going to say:

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Indeed. The question supposes a separation between God and man. Should the two be considered in this dualistic manner? Is God “separate” from man and hence the universe? Or is God omnipresent? If God is omnipresent then is not God already in man and man already in God? Only when we personalise God into a separate entity are we able to ask a question such as "Could God become man?"


s.

The question sort of implies monotheism. I'd say that in non-monotheistic religions, there appear many instances of gods becoming humans. The whole idea of 'avatar'. Krishna/Vishnu, of course, but Lao Tzu, for example, also seen as an avatar of 'The Ultra Pure Pellucid One' also the three first emperors of China are seen as incarnations of deities, I forget the names and specifics now, most of what I know about that sort of stuff from books I read a long time ago.

Recently I've been thinking about: each life is just the result of a first assumption, which plays itself out in time until holding on to it becomes impossible -- death. We assume we are so and so, with such and such properties, a birth place, parents, a genetic code. Maybe we aren't a human but an intelligent computer or a fundamental particle or something else. But whatever we might become, eventually it is changed beyond recognition, the original assumptions destroyed or morphed beyond recognition, proved false by time. Each life I see as a microcosm of the universe, which also results from certain assumptions, which time acts upon to cause its eventual death. Each idea, each thing the same way.

What is the remainder when all that might be assumed about what we are and the world / universe that may exist has passed away?

Is it God? I don't like calling it that or 'universal mind' or the tao or anything else, but this is the language available.

Maybe it's language or the naming of things is the problem, the ascribing of properties, the separation of this from that.

[Thomas]

Hi Snoopy —

Originally Posted by Snoopy

The question supposes a separation between God and man.

The distinction in Abrahamic monotheism is there ... that God is uncreated, man is created, and all that such implies.

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Should the two be considered in this dualistic manner? Is God “separate” from man and hence the universe? Or is God omnipresent?

The one does not preclude the other ... again, the Abrahamic would say God is 'separate' from man and the universe because the universe is subject to temporality, whereas God is not ... that God can be omnipresent, or immanent in and through the created order, does not effect God's absolute otherness as such.

Originally Posted by Snoopy

If God is omnipresent then is not God already in man and man already in God?

It depends how one determines omnipresence. Is Divinity an aspect of human nature? No, in which case God is not 'in' man, and vice versa. Again, this does not preclude immanence. In the Abrahamic Tradition the idea of God 'in' man is often misunderstood — deity is not a property of human nature, but human nature exists and is sustained by the deity, so in that sense God 'underwrites' creation, but is not necessarily 'in' creation as a constituent of creation.

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Only when we personalise God into a separate entity are we able to ask a question such as "Could God become man?"

Such a statement is made on certain philosophic presuppositions, broadly monistic, in which a number of paradoxes need be resolved before such can be assumed. The other way round is asking "Is man a god?" — whatever we know, we know there is "I" and "thou" — it's how we bridge that distinction that is all important.

+++

Originally Posted by omner

The question sort of implies monotheism. I'd say that in non-monotheistic religions, there appear many instances of gods becoming humans.

One has to determine what qualities are ascribed to the gods. Plato, for example, was highly critical of the Greek Pantheon, on the basis that they were gods, but seemed to exhibit and be subject to the worst of human vices.

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, the gods send the flood to punish man for disturbing their peace. As a consequence the gods almost starve to death because they 'live' off the sacrficial offerings of the humans ... when the hero erects an altar and offers a sacrifice, the gods fall on the offering and devour it ravenously ...

Man began to refine his notion of what defines a god as such, and so we arrive at gods, demigods, heroes, etc.

[quote=omner;120657]
The whole idea of 'avatar'. Krishna/Vishnu, of course, but Lao Tzu, for example, also seen as an avatar of 'The Ultra Pure Pellucid One' also the three first emperors of China are seen as incarnations of deities, I forget the names and specifics now, most of what I know about that sort of stuff from books I read a long time ago.

Originally Posted by omner

Recently I've been thinking about: each life is just the result of a first assumption, which plays itself out in time until holding on to it becomes impossible -- death. We assume we are so and so, with such and such properties, a birth place, parents, a genetic code. Maybe we aren't a human but an intelligent computer or a fundamental particle or something else. But whatever we might become, eventually it is changed beyond recognition, the original assumptions destroyed or morphed beyond recognition, proved false by time. Each life I see as a microcosm of the universe, which also results from certain assumptions, which time acts upon to cause its eventual death. Each idea, each thing the same way.

Well that covers a lot of ground! If you were seriously proposing that, then like a new theorem, you'd have to go through line by line and sense-check the inherent reason and logic, as well as the relation of one to the next ...

Thomas

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

What?!?! Why is it that offensive? lol... Sin bin 20 mins? I only get 10 for fighting.... 20 mins seems harsh I think maximum it should be like a 2min minor..... 5min tops!

Okay 5 minutes for the rhyming slang and a further 5 for Timmy Mallet. Time starts now.