God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Philo Sofee]

Perhaps prayer in general, but certainly the Lord’s Prayer, can effectively live in several "worlds" (neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive)

There’s probably some residual Catholicism in my thinking(!). But I think you’ve presented a helpful way to describe how prayer can function for people. The collision of those functions, as interpreted through individual lenses, can make it hard to effectively communicate what prayer is supposed to be doing in a given case, or what would ever count as it not working.

Well, and, if I can add..... sometimes prayer isn't used to ask for help or direction either. Sometimes It's just communion, or communication too. So to my way of thinking on it, it is irrelevant if your Catholicism is coming through.......LET IT! It wouldn't matter if its a Mormonism or Baptist or 7th Day Adventist coming through either, it's prayer. Perhaps this is one issue Mormonism has sort of muddied the water instead of clarifying it? Is there such a thing as "Mormon prayer," cf.ed to "Catholic prayer"? Or is there just prayer? It's the organized religions that seek to "own" the exclusive rights on prayer, but these days, I just don't think that dog hunts for me anymore...... just musing is all......

[Philo Sofee]

Remember, in my original post I'm asking that we deal with a hypothetical creator God who would ultimately like to see the greatest good be the result of His efforts. Nothing else would seem to make sense. At least to me.

So I appreciate it if we can kind of, sort of, travel the course...for now...that there is a loving Creator (even if you have your doubts that this is so).

But I like the direction this thread has been going. Don't let me be a monkey wrench in the discussion. Kind of ignore me!

Regards,
MG

OK, I got this at lunchtime and have been thinking about it and making some notes all day now. I will post something later tonight. I honestly do believe Tolkien guides us into a fascinating path I have never before thought of. So, later tonight after I get it all down, I shall come back and post. I don't think this is going to go the way you are imagining it will, anymore than how I was hoping it would, but it is terribly instructive and worth pondering for theological angles and purposes. Tolkien was anything but shallow, so it takes time to see it. Be back in a while.

[Philo Sofee]

Ahhh - I'd completely forgotten that this topic was a game with rules.

Yes, the rules are don't follow the rules, learn instead......

[MG 2.0]

Ahhh - I'd completely forgotten that this topic was a game with rules.

Yes, the rules are don't follow the rules, learn instead......

Earlier I suggested that the hopscotch grid might end up going multidirectional. That in and of itself ought to tell you that the floor mike was open to any civil dialogue. My only suggestion was/is that we don't discount the possibility of a creator God de facto. In fact, suggesting that we conditionally operate from that hypothetical. Understandably this 'rule' might be a bridge too far for entering into a discussion that is centered around "God".

The other thing that I personally gave as an axiom for me is that God is love/loving. I don't know that this is asking too much.

I've learned a lot, shared a lot, and have benefitted from the discussion thus far. Sorry, fence sitter, that we haven't given an adequate or determinative definition of God. I didn't want to make that the whole thrust/point of the thread. I'm more interested in how the world works and why it works that way IF there is a creator God. Somehow He and His workings in the world would have to be explained so that we don't simply cast Him off and say, "God is Dead".

I went through all that public hoopla back in the 20th century. It's still a thing in some quarters although religiosity is making a comeback.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Mostly civil so far except for a few blips. Keep it going!

[malkie]

Ahhh - I'd completely forgotten that this topic was a game with rules.

Yes, the rules are don't follow the rules, learn instead......

Too much of my old Mormonism making an appearance. That and not wanting MG or anyone else to think that I'm breaking the rules either thoughtlessly or willfully - especially after what I took to be a mild though non-specific reproof.

[Limnor]

Remember, in my original post I'm asking that we deal with a hypothetical creator God who would ultimately like to see the greatest good be the result of His efforts. Nothing else would seem to make sense. At least to me.

So I appreciate it if we can kind of, sort of, travel the course...for now...that there is a loving Creator (even if you have your doubts that this is so).

But I like the direction this thread has been going. Don't let me be a monkey wrench in the discussion. Kind of ignore me!

Regards,
MG

OK, I got this at lunchtime and have been thinking about it and making some notes all day now. I will post something later tonight. I honestly do believe Tolkien guides us into a fascinating path I have never before thought of. So, later tonight after I get it all down, I shall come back and post. I don't think this is going to go the way you are imagining it will, anymore than how I was hoping it would, but it is terribly instructive and worth pondering for theological angles and purposes. Tolkien was anything but shallow, so it takes time to see it. Be back in a while.

I first read LOTR when I was 12, and the parts that really hit home then was the way I could “feel” the story.

Frodo pierced by the Morgul blade and the long ache that follows him into Rivendell—I felt that. The failed crossing of the mountains where strength faltered and Legolas walked lightly on the snow. The endless stairs in Moria. Boromir’s temptation and his redemption, horn cloven as he stands his ground. The three hunters running without rest after the Orcs. The application of the burning ointment to Pippin’s head wound. Merry and Pippin and the deep draughts that restore them. The slow barooombarum of Entish speech, and the Ents finally breaking Isengard. Sam carrying the Ring when all seems lost. The silence when Theoden is struck down.

When I read it at 12 I felt like I was with them. I’ve read it again a couple of times and the meaning has changed—the sorrow is what strikes me now. And the continued perseverance when all seemed lost.

Thanks Philo for the reminder of the depth the story.

[Limnor]

Yes, the rules are don't follow the rules, learn instead......

Too much of my old Mormonism making an appearance. That and not wanting MG or anyone else to think that I'm breaking the rules either thoughtlessly or willfully - especially after what I took to be a mild though non-specific reproof.

What rules?

[malkie]

Too much of my old Mormonism making an appearance. That and not wanting MG or anyone else to think that I'm breaking the rules either thoughtlessly or willfully - especially after what I took to be a mild though non-specific reproof.

What rules?

While playing this hopscotch game while commenting on whether God can write straight with crooked lines it might be useful to remember that where the Hoppy Taw is thrown might influence the game.

Also, remember (as I said in the original post) this is hypothetical. We are coming from the position that there is a creator God. If that's not something that your mind can play with, that's OK. Don't play!

Again, I'm a bystander. I want to listen and learn from great minds! (I'm serious about that).

Please stay on topic to the extent that we don't end up playing basketball...or rugby...rather than taking jumps on the hopscotch grid...if it is a grid. !

Linear vs. sort of.

And please don't derail by 'shooting the messenger'. This is supposed to be fun.

Regards,
MG

[my colouring]

It seemed/seems a bit too contrived for my taste.

[Limnor]

What rules?

While playing this hopscotch game while commenting on whether God can write straight with crooked lines it might be useful to remember that where the Hoppy Taw is thrown might influence the game.

Also, remember (as I said in the original post) this is hypothetical. We are coming from the position that there is a creator God. If that's not something that your mind can play with, that's OK. Don't play!

Again, I'm a bystander. I want to listen and learn from great minds! (I'm serious about that).

Please stay on topic to the extent that we don't end up playing basketball...or rugby...rather than taking jumps on the hopscotch grid...if it is a grid. !

Linear vs. sort of.

And please don't derail by 'shooting the messenger'. This is supposed to be fun.

Regards,
MG

[my colouring]

It seemed/seems a bit too contrived for my taste.

Agreed. The final satirical take will reflect the paradox of rules quite heavily.