Theology: Prayer

God holds a higher esteem for His Word than he does even for His own name.

“For You have magnified Your word above all Your name” ~ Psalm 138:2

Because the Word became flesh and the eternal Word of God took on humanity. And died for us. God loves His Word and cherishes it so much, and it's a great intimacy and positive prayer life by reciting it back to Him. Jesus is coming soon, pray daily for His Kingdom come, and will is done. The Holy Spirit recalls memorized verses and God will "speak" back to you. Prayer life is great when you allow the Spirit to minister back to you through a right on Word for that need.

God Bless.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Come on, it's not a long passage, give the whole bit. Also, why aren't you using the KJV? I thought you were one of those "For some reason I take the 1500+ years removed translation of the texts into a language removed by many hundred years and a few linguistic lineages over all else" groups.

This is what the KJV says:
Psalm 138:2

I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Also, in this passage David is talking about the Torah. He's not talking about any other religious texts, just the 5 books of "Moses".

Furthermore, this thread is improperly titled. This is not theological, this is doctrinal. Do not confuse statement of religious belief with theology.

In fact, you didn't even bother with theology as you didn't examine any positions, you merely asserted a single doctrinal tradition on prayer, one typical of Anglo-American fundamentalist Christianity. Theology is one of the areas where religion attempts to be honest with itself and highlights that there are disagreements. Were you practicing any sort of theology, you'd at least mention that there are several doctrinal positions on prayer. There are some that neglect the use of the Bible in prayer, instead asserting the importance of meditative prayer, direct communion. Others emphasize glossolalia.

This is not theology, this is preaching. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I just prefer people labeling things correctly. You have every right to preach, just don't call a wax sculpture an apple.

I speak in tongues, doesn't everyone? I think about that Romans 15:4, whatever was written aforetime, before what? The Old Testament is the aforetime, we can learn and understand, but to take prayers out of it? Speaking in tongues should be one of the ways the body prays?

reply to post by newnature


My gifts don't include tongues. My two gifts are prophecy and giving. Sometimes I wish I had the gift of tongues, but I trust the Holy Spirit knew which gifts I'd excel with the best.

That gift teaching has caused a lot of people to miss out, trippe what those creeds of man do?

Originally posted by newnature
That gift teaching has caused a lot of people to miss out, trippe what those creeds of man do?

Huh? Clarify your post.

I agree with you, one can do one or two of those manifest of the power from on high. But for one to say I do not have the gift, that one was taught wrong; another way to control people, "You do not have the gift!" or "That died with the apostles!" It is sad to see people getting cheated, all one has to do is move one's mouth and speak?

Well, I guess being ignored means one of (at least) two things:

Either there is a genuine ignorance as to the practice of theology and quite a few Christians think that preaching = theology.

or

There is a lack of honesty in the title that is not being addressed. Odd...oh, it says against thy neighbour, sorry, I thought it applied to people's whole lives. Well, you're not bearing any witness against anyone, let alone a neighbour, so I guess I should just leave that quote be.


Anyway, I don't get this thing with certain Christians, these hit-and-run tactics. Why do you refuse to respond when I question something? It is quite an honest question, as I'll phrase it directly:

How in the name of all that I hold dear is this theology?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Come on, it's not a long passage, give the whole bit.

I only wanted to highlight the last part. Secondly, who cares? The Chapter and verse breakdown was done in the 14th century to make memorization and finding a particular verse easier.

Also, why aren't you using the KJV?

It doesn't matter for Psalm 138:2, I could have, just picked the first that showed up on my Google.

I thought you were one of those "For some reason I take the 1500+ years removed translation of the texts into a language removed by many hundred years and a few linguistic lineages over all else" groups.

Patronizing? Really? You're better than that.

Also, in this passage David is talking about the Torah. He's not talking about any other religious texts, just the 5 books of "Moses".

David only held the "pen", the author is the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, this thread is improperly titled. This is not theological, this is doctrinal. Do not confuse statement of religious belief with theology.

Theology is the study of God and His nature. This thread is about God and what is most important to Him.

In fact, you didn't even bother with theology as you didn't examine any positions, you merely asserted a single doctrinal tradition on prayer, one typical of Anglo-American fundamentalist Christianity. Theology is one of the areas where religion attempts to be honest with itself and highlights that there are disagreements. Were you practicing any sort of theology, you'd at least mention that there are several doctrinal positions on prayer. There are some that neglect the use of the Bible in prayer, instead asserting the importance of meditative prayer, direct communion. Others emphasize glossolalia.

Look up a few definitions of Theology or "theology proper". The word itself should tell you what it attempts to study.. "Theo".

This is not theology, this is preaching. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I just prefer people labeling things correctly. You have every right to preach, just don't call a wax sculpture an apple.

Theology is the study of God and His nature.

Originally posted by newnature
I agree with you, one can do one or two of those manifest of the power from on high. But for one to say I do not have the gift, that one was taught wrong; another way to control people, "You do not have the gift!" or "That died with the apostles!" It is sad to see people getting cheated, all one has to do is move one's mouth and speak?

The Bible even declares that Christians do not all have the same gifts. Which is fine, God loves variety.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Well, I guess being ignored means one of (at least) two things:

Either there is a genuine ignorance as to the practice of theology and quite a few Christians think that preaching = theology.

or

There is a lack of honesty in the title that is not being addressed. Odd...oh, it says against thy neighbour, sorry, I thought it applied to people's whole lives. Well, you're not bearing any witness against anyone, let alone a neighbour, so I guess I should just leave that quote be.


Anyway, I don't get this thing with certain Christians, these hit-and-run tactics. Why do you refuse to respond when I question something? It is quite an honest question, as I'll phrase it directly:

How in the name of all that I hold dear is this theology?

Or C: "It's painfully time consuming to do anything more than a 1 or two line post with my Droid cell phone."

Sorry Madness, I can't really do much more than that from work.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Come on, it's not a long passage, give the whole bit.

I only wanted to highlight the last part. Secondly, who cares? The Chapter and verse breakdown was done in the 14th century to make memorization and finding a particular verse easier.

Well, I'd have added more because it's context. This is clearly with regards to the work of the Torah and nothing else.

Also, why aren't you using the KJV?

It doesn't matter for Psalm 138:2, I could have, just picked the first that showed up on my Google.

Ah, so you're inconsistent.

I thought you were one of those "For some reason I take the 1500+ years removed translation of the texts into a language removed by many hundred years and a few linguistic lineages over all else" groups.

Patronizing? Really? You're better than that.

Not patronizing, highlighting how insane the idea is.

Also, in this passage David is talking about the Torah. He's not talking about any other religious texts, just the 5 books of "Moses".

David only held the "pen", the author is the Holy Spirit.

[citation needed]

Last time I checked, the concept of the Holy Spirit wasn't around yet. Also, honestly, I'm quite sure an omniscient being could do better in terms of literary rigor.

Also, why do you keep holding to this idea that a divine being wrote this book when it included nothing that actually helped save human life? I mean, something as simple as...I don't know...germ theory. Not that insane a concept to grasp, incredibly helpful. Maybe crop rotation would have helped to.

But nope, your deity prefers to use humans as tools to write works glorifying itself.

Furthermore, this thread is improperly titled. This is not theological, this is doctrinal. Do not confuse statement of religious belief with theology.

Theology is the study of God and His nature. This thread is about God and what is most important to Him.

No, this thread is about you specific doctrinal beliefs as stated without explanation or backing or refutation of the many existing positions which contradict it.

Again, this is preaching, not theology. You're not studying, you're preaching.

In fact, you didn't even bother with theology as you didn't examine any positions, you merely asserted a single doctrinal tradition on prayer, one typical of Anglo-American fundamentalist Christianity. Theology is one of the areas where religion attempts to be honest with itself and highlights that there are disagreements. Were you practicing any sort of theology, you'd at least mention that there are several doctrinal positions on prayer. There are some that neglect the use of the Bible in prayer, instead asserting the importance of meditative prayer, direct communion. Others emphasize glossolalia.

Look up a few definitions of Theology or "theology proper". The word itself should tell you what it attempts to study.. "Theo".

Patronizing dismissal? Wow.

Again, you're not doing theology. This is theology. So is this.

You're preaching, please just fess up to it.

This is not theology, this is preaching. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I just prefer people labeling things correctly. You have every right to preach, just don't call a wax sculpture an apple.

Theology is the study of God and His nature.

And how are you studying? You are preaching a specific doctrinal point without explaining how it is true over others.

Please, demonstrate your study. Please, show me your rigor.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


So impatience is your excuse? You know, you could have said "more to come" or just titled this "Thoughts: Prayer". Or, crazy thought, waited till you had access to a proper keyboard so you could write out a lengthy post. Don't you bother to read your own book? Paul describes your deity as one of patience.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Well, I'd have added more because it's context. This is clearly with regards to the work of the Torah and nothing else.

I'll keep this short before the topic is completely obliterated on the first page alone...

Great, you would have added more, I'll keep that tidbit of useful information in the back of my head for the next time I'm on Jeopardy and the topic "What Would Madness Do?" pops up.

Ah, so you're inconsistent.

If you say so. Just because I prefer a version doesn't by default mean I cannot read another version. For the passage quoted the versions don't matter, they carry the exact same meaning.

Not patronizing, highlighting how insane the idea is.

No, you presented a complete fabrication of the position I hold to, tried to pass it off here as something I believe. I've never said that, and furthermore, you categorically ignored anything I said previously about the different Bible versions. You did this in a blatant condescending manner towards me, and after your reply above you've done so now twice.

[citation needed]

You're a Biblical scholar Madness, you tell me where it says the entire scripture is inspired by the Spirit of God.

Last time I checked, the concept of the Holy Spirit wasn't around yet. Also, honestly, I'm quite sure an omniscient being could do better in terms of literary rigor.

The "Spirit" of God is presented in Genesis 1.

Also, why do you keep holding to this idea that a divine being wrote this book when it included nothing that actually helped save human life?

LOL!!!! I hope you're joking. Technology and the Bible

No, this thread is about you specific doctrinal beliefs as stated without explanation or backing or refutation of the many existing positions which contradict it.

Again, this is preaching, not theology. You're not studying, you're preaching.

Theology

Patronizing dismissal? Wow.

hardly, I wasn't condescending. merely told you to take a few random web definitions of "Theology".

It's the study of God and His nature.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So impatience is your excuse? You know, you could have said "more to come" or just titled this "Thoughts: Prayer". Or, crazy thought, waited till you had access to a proper keyboard so you could write out a lengthy post. Don't you bother to read your own book? Paul describes your deity as one of patience.

Why are you adamant I respond to you in a swift and concise manner for one thing? There are several things I have presented to you and heard crickets so far from. But am I crying about that? Nope.

Secondly, if I'm at work which is quite hectic and busy I can't really spend time on a lengthy response, those are better left to sitting at home on my PC, not on my cell phone. I may log on and read replies, but other than posting a simple one line reply is kinda not easily done while I'm at work.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So impatience is your excuse? You know, you could have said "more to come" or just titled this "Thoughts: Prayer". Or, crazy thought, waited till you had access to a proper keyboard so you could write out a lengthy post. Don't you bother to read your own book? Paul describes your deity as one of patience.

Why are you adamant I respond to you in a swift and concise manner for one thing?

Not really adamant about it. Didn't really bother to complain about them, I just sort of found it odd that the only objection was the post that wasn't addressed.

There are several things I have presented to you and heard crickets so far from. But am I crying about that? Nope.

Bullying technique in the finest of the American tradition, classy. Heard more than enough of that in High School, and I'm happy to be free from such idiocy, so please don't bring back such idiotic attacks. Complaints aren't equivalent to the shedding of tears, act like an adult and don't equate complaining with weakness.

Secondly, if I'm at work which is quite hectic and busy I can't really spend time on a lengthy response, those are better left to sitting at home on my PC, not on my cell phone. I may log on and read replies, but other than posting a simple one line reply is kinda not easily done while I'm at work.

Which is exactly why I said: "Or, crazy thought, waited till you had access to a proper keyboard so you could write out a lengthy post. Don't you bother to read your own book? Paul describes your deity as one of patience." which you quoted above. Why are you responding to something when you clearly haven't read the material you're quoting?

I'm talking about patience. Patience, for one thing, involves waiting.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Well, I'd have added more because it's context. This is clearly with regards to the work of the Torah and nothing else.

I'll keep this short before the topic is completely obliterated on the first page alone...

Well, I guess I have a tendency to obliterate dishonesty then.

Great, you would have added more, I'll keep that tidbit of useful information in the back of my head for the next time I'm on Jeopardy and the topic "What Would Madness Do?" pops up.

Hey, look, it's more of that bullying that I talked about up there ^^^^^

Ah, so you're inconsistent.

If you say so. Just because I prefer a version doesn't by default mean I cannot read another version. For the passage quoted the versions don't matter, they carry the exact same meaning.

Yet somehow the meaning is different in other passages and yet you still choose one version over the other instead of thinking "Hey, maybe English separated 2500ish years from the writing of the text might be the wrong language to read this in!"

Not patronizing, highlighting how insane the idea is.

No, you presented a complete fabrication of the position I hold to, tried to pass it off here as something I believe.

Fabrication? You've said the the KJV Bible is the version that supersedes all other version of it.

I've never said that, and furthermore, you categorically ignored anything I said previously about the different Bible versions. You did this in a blatant condescending manner towards me, and after your reply above you've done so now twice.

And you've actively bullied me, grow up. Trust me, condescension is beyond what the sort of absence of honesty in this thread deserves.

Preaching is preaching.
Theology is theology.
The two do not overlap.

[citation needed]

You're a Biblical scholar Madness, you tell me where it says the entire scripture is inspired by the Spirit of God.

I'm not espousing the position, and I already know why the argument is flawed.
Why?

Because the Bible is a horrible more guide. In various places it is demonstrably immoral, demonstrably inconsistent (of course, you prefer to set up literal Rube-Goldberg scenarios to reconcile these inconsistencies), demonstrably false, and/or demonstrably illogical.

Last time I checked, the concept of the Holy Spirit wasn't around yet. Also, honestly, I'm quite sure an omniscient being could do better in terms of literary rigor.

The "Spirit" of God is presented in Genesis 1.

The word means breath or wind. The idea that it means 'spirit' in the Christian sense only came about...after Christians. It's clear from the context that 'spirit' here means 'presence' in some form that lacks physical presence rather than as a separate item from the deity.

Also, why do you keep holding to this idea that a divine being wrote this book when it included nothing that actually helped save human life?

LOL!!!! I hope you're joking. Technology and the Bible

Sorry, that's not how this works. Give me one example from that video. The best one. Why? Well, aside from it being stupid to get into a video war, there are actually people on this website that cannot view videos.

Name the best example of technology in the Bible. Is it the brilliant revelation that pi = 3?

Or is it hand-washing under running water? You know, the ritual of hand washing before sacrifice which is the only place where it's mentioned to wash your hands under running water...

The trebuchet? I like trebuchets, great for distributing force over long distance for whatever reason.

Antibiotics? You know, the sort of thing that would have saved billions of lives?

Modern farming techniques?

No, this thread is about you specific doctrinal beliefs as stated without explanation or backing or refutation of the many existing positions which contradict it.

Again, this is preaching, not theology. You're not studying, you're preaching.

Theology

So...I posted the Harvard Theology Review with examples of actual theological works...and you're posting something that doesn't actual define theology?

You do realize that 'theology' is something that existed before your religion, right? Using a Christian scripture to define theology is pants on head moronic. Actual, theology existed at a time you don't think ever existed...

Patronizing dismissal? Wow.

hardly, I wasn't condescending. merely told you to take a few random web definitions of "Theology".

And I decided to provide some actual theological works.

It's the study of God and His nature.

And you're not doing any studying, you just outright stated a doctrinal position without defense. That is not theology, that is preaching.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Running response to the video. I'd add more, but honestly, he starts with the most tenuous of grasps...



Anticipated? So they weren't invented on the basis of the Bible before the advent of modern science?

This is what is called a post-hoc rationalization. You take something in retrospect and make it fit in with the facts that are now present. Where is the evidence of these discoveries being made prior to the practice of modern science solely on the basis of the Bible?

Circumcision? Seriously? Of ALL the things you're going to highlight, you're going to highlight barbaric genital mutilation? Circumcision is the removal of functioning penile tissue. It contains the vast majority of fine-touch nerve receptors, it has a protective function, and the practice of circumcision is, even in our far more advanced civilization, more dangerous than its worth.

Wow, meterology and oceanography, I already know where this is going....

Electronic funds transfer and television?

Earth being round? You're right, they did think it was round...a round disc. That had four corners....wait, what? No evidence of it being an oblong spheroid though.

Weapons of mass destruction. Matthew 24? Jesus saying that the second coming would come within the lifetime of his living disciples? I'm sorry, bad place to start Mister Misler.

...so because the Earth gets wiped out in a Biblical apocalypse, it predicts weapons of mass destruction? I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. People already knew about massively destructive forces. The idea here was the killing off of humanity, which was quite easy for us to do back then, there were a hell of a lot less people around. There also was far less knowledge about the full distribution of humanity, as an entire half of the world was entirely unknown to the people at that time and they knew little about the rest. Honestly, killing lots and lots of people back then is feasible. The third Punic war is a great example. It was the single largest scale atrocity in history prior to the Holocaust.

It doesn't imply a technology statement. We could have wiped out all flesh back then, it would just take a lot longer and involved some generous distribution of fire.

Oh, and a lot of flesh could be saved in the event of thermonuclear war...well, a lot of non-human flesh. Nuclear war? Earth will recover. Humans probably won't.

Another specific example? I'm sorry, is he high? He just made an incredibly vague and thin connection, there wasn't anything specific at all.

Magog? Uh....
So...this passage "And they that dwell in the cities of Israel shall go forth, and shall set on fire and burn the weapons, both the shields and the bucklers, the bows and the arrows, and the handstaves, and the spears, and they shall burn them with fire seven years:" = nuclear power? What the hell?

It's fire from burning weapons made of wood. The whole point is that there's a lot of wood, not that it's magic energy.

Hey, Chuck, there was a weapon's technology back then that could provide energy too: the pointy stick and its varients.

And really, again, Chuck how does:

"Yea, all the people of the land shall bury [them]; and it shall be to them a renown the day that I shall be glorified, saith the Lord GOD." = professionals clearing the battlefield? Oh, you mean later. So for some reason non-professionals can handle the bodies...

And how does: "And seven months shall the house of Israel be burying of them, that they may cleanse the land." have anything to do with waiting? They're burying people for seven months, there are a lot of bodies.

Also, notice that the number 7 recurs for a reason, it's classic, cut and dry, Hebrew numerology. 7 = God.

And obviously they bury the dead downwind, dead people stink.


I'm sorry, but I want a piece of information from the Bible that led to tangible human benefit prior to its discovery via empirical science, not post-hoc rationalizations.

madnessinmysoul is praying in secret.

Originally posted by etherical waterwave
madnessinmysoul is praying in secret.

I'm going to purposely put "Theology" in the title of any future threads I make that are about God.