Theology: Prayer

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Theophorus

 

Don't bother linking definitions, he doesn't care what they are as you can see from earlier in this thread.

In your own presentation of definitions as earlier on this thread, it's noticeable, that amongst the five of them, four relate to theology in general, and one to christian theology specifically.

Concerning 'truth' three of these definitions refer to 'religious truth', one to an unspecified 'god's' relation to the world and the definition on christian theology doesn't contain the word 'truth' at all.

If a high degree of semantic precision is intended, such definition-differences are of importance and must be considered before said definitions give (or can give) any meaning in the present direction of the thread.

Personally I find, that until further clarification is made, there's no need or justification for 'caring' about these definitions. You ofcourse have the option to make yourself more precise on this, by pointing out which and what you want to base further arguments on 'theology' on.

This also goes for 'religious truth' in this context, if you want to hang on to Theophorus' line of thoughts.

I on my part reserve a similar right to consider my interpretation and consequent use of such 'theology' definitions.

Originally posted by etherical waterwave
Within days, things will clearly be understood.

If you say so.

But in my experience 'prophets' usually express themselves so vaguely, that no matter what happens, they will be able to claim success.

But while we're at it, I will also give prophesy a try. I believe, that this thread will implode in a few days from an excess of imprecision, definitions of definitions and semantics on semantics.

reply to post by Theophorus

Originally posted by Theophorus
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Sorry wrong again. The definition is clear. 'Theology is the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth' -en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, and none of that is going on in this thread, unless you hadn't realized that. There was no rational thought or systematic outline of position, merely a specific Christian doctrinal position being preached as absolute truth. There is nothing anywhere near what your definition provides in this thread.

Also, it's not so clear. Typical posted several contradictory definitions, but bogomil already pointed that out.

your problem is is that you have no concept of what truth is, never mind religious truth.

Wow, that's just an outright insult. I actually do understand the nature of truth...well, so far as I understand the various philosophical positions on it. There doesn't seem to be a single concept of what truth is.

You clearly don't seem to understand the concept of argumentation. Making a statement saying I don't have a concept of truth doesn't mean jack-poop if you don't back it up. Walk the walk.

How can anyone ever have an intelligent conversation regarding religion if we have no clear concept of what truth is?

Again, stating that I don't have a concept of what truth is does nothing to prove your point, because you haven't proven that assertion.

Your arguments are pointless and quite drab.perhaps maybe you should take a rudimentary theology class before you embarrass yourself anymore

Wow, more insults. Clearly you either haven't read my posts or haven't understood them. I actually have about 8 years of study of theology under my belt, along with 6 years of philosophical study (3 of those being at university level).

Maybe you should take a rudimentary class in debate, as you clearly don't understand how to have a proper converstaion.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Typical posted several contradictory definitions, but bogomil already pointed that out.

For one thing, no one takes Bogomil's posts seriously, secondly all the definitions have to be slightly worded differently or they would be plagiarism. In all the linked definitions the words "the study of God and His nature" are clearly bolded/highlighted for all to see.

Which is what I've stated numerous times now. The definitions agree with what I've stated. Theology is the study of God and His nature.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You wrote:

["For one thing, no one takes Bogomil's posts seriously,..."]

It's not that I'm really hurt; I'm not here as part of a popularity contest, neither do I seek safety in numbers. Eventually I'm not even here to 'win' any argument.

So from a more amused academic perspective: How do you know that no one takes me seriously? Is this one of the cosmetically bettered 'statistics' you sometimes favour?

Quote: ["secondly all the definitions have to be slightly worded differently or they would be plagiarism."]

Where does it say that? And what do you mean by "slightly"?

Quote: [". In all the linked definitions the words "the study of God and His nature" are clearly bolded/highlighted for all to see."]

Only in two of the linked definitions do the words "God and his nature" appear. You mean it's IMPLIED in the definitions? Who are then the ring-master, who interpretates these implications? You? Why you?

I'm afraid, that your fascination with definition'ism and semantic excursions has backlashed. Though it wouldn't surprise me, if you now go into a third generation definition of definition of definition with you as the imagined ultimate referee.

Quote: [" Which is what I've stated numerous times now. The definitions agree with what I've stated. Theology is the study of God and His nature."]

Repeating statements doesn't necessarily make them true. Which is observable from the fact, that your statement has been repudiated an equal amount of times in counter-statements; so the false/true claims are still not settled.

A general comment:

This thread has given me a small personal amount of glee, as it better than anywhere else I'm aware of, demonstrates the extremist theist's endless entanglement in semantic knots.

We're at page 4 now, with only a few active contributors, and any common agreement on the meaning of THE FIRST word of the thread title has not been achieved yet.

When or if we ever get around to word two of the title, it'll be even more fun, as the word 'prayer' potentially covers more options than mere 'theology' does.

The OP itself will probably take years. Maybe later generations can inherit it for further nitpicking.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Typical posted several contradictory definitions, but bogomil already pointed that out.

For one thing, no one takes Bogomil's posts seriously,

Contradiction: I do.

Contradiction 2: Character attack!

secondly all the definitions have to be slightly worded differently or they would be plagiarism.

There's a difference between wording and meaning. The meanings contradict. "The study of god" and "the rational and systematic study etc" are two different and contradictory definitions.

Furthermore, you've not posted anything relating to a study, you've posted a declaration of truth. You're not examining, you're declaring. This is also known as preaching.

In all the linked definitions the words "the study of God and His nature" are clearly bolded/highlighted for all to see.

Except that would be an improper definition of theology. Why? Well, theology existed a while before Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Using the male capitalized pronoun and capitalized generic term are clear indications of the deity of those religions.

You said theology, you didn't include the word "Christian" in there. You didn't even bother with "monotheistic".

Which is what I've stated numerous times now. The definitions agree with what I've stated. Theology is the study of God and His nature.

Nope, you're wrong. Christian theology might involve that, but you didn't make this a Christian theology thread. Of course, you still haven't bothered to study, you've preached.

I'm not going to change the title.

Sorry you don't approve.

Anything else to add?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Well, technically you couldn't change the title. I'm not even asking for that, I'm just asking you to change the content of this thread to some actual theology, which you've clearly not even attempted.

Once more, how is the stating of doctrinal positions without so much as a supporting argument theological in nature?

madnessinmysoul,

I somehow get the understanding you really are in search for the nature of God. Keep on asking and you will find, keep on knocking and there will be opened for you. I sense a true hunger for the nature of God. God with you. There is possibility of a transformation of yourself. You still react sincere, you are doing great. Keep on going for it. Do you read me? Pray if you are in need and keep open the search for the spiritual. You keep on asking, I sense it. The transformation is very personal. Kick back when needed to. I pray for a good road. May the concept Jesus be your savior.

Amongst several options on how to find 'truth', 'reality', 'ultimate absolutes' (or however it's labelled), I will take a look at two methods/methodologies relevant to this thread (notice that I didn't say SYSTEMATIC methodologies, as this wouldn't include all 'truth-finding/seeking' methodologies).

In the present context mundane/trans-mundane perspectives are ofcourse important, though controversial, components, ranging from exclusive extremist positions (e.g. 'scientism'/absolute theism) to 'grey' zones where mundane/trans-mundane perspectives overlap.

a/ (without a b/ for now): A theist position, encompassing a specified trans-mundane deity (in the present case also being the 'origin' of mundane existence), eventually centering on the ineffable and mysterious ways of this deity; 'ways' which are beyond mundane comprehension. Nonetheless there is a need for SOME kind of 'explanation', selling-point or justification for this SPECIFIC deity, allegedly being THE deity. There will be sceptics on the whole idea of theism amongst non-theists, and there will be competing theistic models to meet.

So some kind of 'arguments' have developed as an 'explanation'. A reference to authoritative scripture, which at the end of the day by critics is considered a circle-argument. 'Experiental' arguments, such as 'gut-feelings', 'talking' with a manifestation of the 'divine' in one's heart etc, even anomalous perception of 'divine' beings such as 'voices', angels, demons, Jesus, 'satan'. Mundane oriented sceptics often call this 'delusions', while competing religionists say: "But we have this also".

"We have this also" including the 'faith' concept.

So what's left, when the alleged 'explanations' and the 'methodology' around them are exposed to mundane scepticism and competing religious models, trying to reduce the 'explanation' and its 'methdology' to being FICTIVE; just a tale.

It's my distinct impression, that christian evangelists in this situation resort to the maybe most self-defeating attitude of all: What's accused of being a fiction, a tale, is embellished with FURTHER fictions, eventually packaged in endless allegories of more or less convincing relevance and credibility or, what I see on this thread, efforts of adapting to mundane scepticism-requests by taking over parts of mundane methodology such as logic, reasoning, rational approaches, scientific methods/procedure and other more or less correctly named mundane methods.

To anyone familiar with the formally self-defined parameters of the methodologies of science/logic and e.g. general semantics, it doesn't function AT ALL. Such an adaption of 'rational', mundane methods always end with being evangelist embellishments in a new direction. When this is pointed out to evangelists, peculiar answers will add still another level to the already existing embellishments: "You may have a formal scientific education, and I may have none. But I still claim, that you have misunderstood your formal scientific education concerning its basic parameters, its procedure and the 'answers' from it". (I have been exposed to this myself on ATS on some occasions).

When pressed harder on this another addition can sometimes emerge: "I know this, because my own 'absolutes' are superior to anything you can produce". Thus back to square one. Or still plodding on in this direction: An embellishment of adopted science/logic methodology leading to semantic excesses, where language itself is used (allegorically) on a 'no rules' street-fight level (at its lowest level with character defamation used as a last measure).

When the evangelist position is threatened, no 'inductive category' sweeping generalizations are too broad. Alternatively a single word can be pursued into endless regressive 'definitions', where an egg ofcourse isn't a golf-ball, but where it's size, species-origin, colour and even the name of the hen producing it suddenly is of outmost importance in a situation, where evangelist use of 'truth', 'god' and 'theology' defintions SIMULTANEOUSLY float imprecisely around.

There should be a point b/ in this post, but it's too long and 'ivory-towered' already, so that'll be a bit later.

For those wanting to discard my stilted language in this post, its irrelevance to topic or whatever shortcomings my character have, I can un-egghead and compress the whole thing to: Hijacked science/logic, twisted semantics. And this little 'lecture' is necessary to understand the basics of this thread, boring as this post of mine appears to be (and probably is).

A possible later point b/ post will concentrate on the applied methodology of the rational approach on 'truth' and its sub-categories.