@PaulVargas I actually have both contemporary and non cont. worship songs in my phone
But contemporary has a larger ratio :)
@svidgen What you need to realise is you butt in to a conversation and started explaining how you dont agree with this and that without actually being humble enough to ask whether the point ur saying is relevant to what i was referring to.
@svidgen Matt asked how I would combine the two services that I like and make an ultimate worship service for me. It's basically me saying "I don't know because I don't need a designated time or segment so I wouldn't know what to pick."
And then I went on to say there is a need for communal service so I don't know what the heck point you're trying to make by picking 4 words out of context. To me, its basically u saying u disagree with my experiences like whaaaat?
@MattGutting Which is why I still go even though I don't prefer to :)
@Zoe The conversation is public, and the point was relevant. I may have misunderstood how personally the question directed at you was intended to be. In either case, my original comment (not much longer than 4 words itself!) was intended as a quick point to speak to your last-stated concern -- that you don't know what the ideal worship service would be because "you don't need it."
Point was simply that, if you phrase it in terms of what you need out of it, you're missing the point, and you necessarily won't know what good communal worship is.
But, I didn't intend to put you on the defensive or cast judgement.
@Zoe Just takes practice :-) (I've been in choirs for close to 40 years so I've had plenty of practice. At the same time, there are plenty of bad choirs that completely mumble words.)
@MattGutting i like the second one, but its also hard to make out the words. Its cheery but doesnt sound like a praise or worship song (prob coz i cant make out the words) but the odd pace of the song is not one i would put on repeat :P
@El'endiaStarman In more ways than my tiny brain can imagine. But, at the very least, they pertain to what is. And particular things that "is" always indicate something about the essence of isitself.
Not always something you can wrap your rational brain around, mind you.
@AJHenderson Sure. There are gradients of directness and intentionality with respect to the "theologicalness" of a statement.
But ultimately, every statement indicates something you think about what is or is not. And by the most basic Christian understanding of God, you're talking theology :)
I'd disagree with that, you are not making a statement about theology, you are making a statement that can have something attributed to it that wasn't part of the intended communication
Yeah, same here. I wouldn't necessarily call every statement theological, but I could agree with saying that every statement is ultimately rooted in one or more theological statements.
@El'endiaStarman I think if you read the scripture with the assumption (or suspicion) that everything is theological, at least a small handful of Jesus' statements will make more sense.
Namely ... "pray without ceasing"
@MattGutting Minus the word "general." ... Granted, even if you utter gibberish, you're probably trying to communicate something, even if you speak words with no meaning!
And the meaning you intend to communicate is relevant as it pertains to Truth (God).
you can draw aspects of God out of all of creation because of the way things work and the way we behave, but I'd challenge that doesn't make it a theological statement so much as a statement made in a world bound by theological truths
@AJHenderson "a world bound by theological truths" I like that. Also brought to mind that if every statement is theological, then that doesn't really convey something useful, but that would be the same sort of argument that because everyone is special, no one is.
it's a one way street with many statements. I'd challenge that at a semantic level, a theological statement is generally understood to be one that is a 2 way street
because what it sounds like we are saying is that theology impacts what we say and do and thus that statement can be tracked back to why it was said and thus what it says about the theology of the speaker
because the theology impacts their statement and actions (just like any number of other influences that establish their world view)
but you could also make completely contradicting arguments about the same statement
It's really just this simple: Theology is the study of God, eh? God is the essence of existence -- the essence of Being, the essence of Truth, etc. And a statement is an attempt at communicating a truth. Every statement therefore indicates something about the essence of Truth/Being itself (God).
but now you are not talking about theology, you are talking about existence and reality, which can be theological or can be simply the study of reality. It is only theology if you believe that there is a creator God responsible for creation
fundamentally, you are arguing that statements that illustrate something about reality say something about God because God created reality, but if someone doesn't feel God created reality, then their statement about reality (not about god) is not theological
@AJHenderson Certainly it is. If they are arguing about reality, but reality is not created by God, then they are making a statement which follows from, or at any rate is logically consistent with, the non-existence of God.
@MattGutting yeah, basically, effectively that if they believed there was a god, their belief about that thing would not be altered. They simply think "things work this way, whether there was a god or not"
@AJHenderson That, however, is equivalent to a statement saying "God, if he exists, has no effect on this area of reality" - again, a theological statement.
@svidgen no, your view that reality is god is not everyone's view
if you believe that, then it makes it a theological statement for you, but if someone else doesn't have that view, it isn't a theological statement for them, unless you make a purely truism argument which could be made for anything at all, not just theology
@AJHenderson I'm not suggesting everyone's got theology in mind when they speak. Only that every statement, in and of itself, carries theological meaning.
you've built up a view of god in which, yes, every statement is arguably theological in some way
but if someone else doesn't have that view, then a statement about reality isn't theological (other than arguably that they don't think your view is accurate), but that's on the point of being a meaningless connection because you can build systems that say anything is important to everything
@MattGutting I understand what he is saying, what I am saying is that if someone else doesn't believe that, then not every statement is theological, but if they do, then it is
@AJHenderson No - if someone else doesn't believe that, then they don't believe every statement of theirs is theological. It doesn't follow that not every statement of theirs is theological.
you have to be able to link a path back to god for it to be theological. If they believe that god is responsible for all of reality, it is easy to do so because any statement will say something about reality, if they don't believe that, then it is not valid reasoning to say it is a statement about god when they make a statement about reality (unless they say that they don't think god is responsible for reality)
stating they don't think god is responsible is a theological statement
but stating the earth is round because it is isn't theological
I'll ask again, which situation are we talking about
are we talking about a) a statement implies something theological about the stance of the speaker, even indirectly or b) any statement can be shown to display something about Christian theology?
I disagree with the former, I agree with the later
because given that God is responsible for existence, then anything within existence must say something about God because existence can't be without God
now on point b) I would point out that there is also a lot of danger in trying to glean theology from such points rather than looking at how good theology is reflected in them
"Christian theology" is only relevant in that it defines God in a fundamental manner: God is Truth, God is Being ... etc. So, any statement by which truth or untruth can be gleaned say something small (or large) about Truth, the speakers understanding of Truth, and therefore the Christian God.
because what we can't escape is that our thoughts are impacted by our world view
but if god isn't critical to the world view, then it isn't critical to impact the world view
and you can argue that god not being significant to your world view is theological, but no more so than spagetti not being significant to your world view
@AJHenderson It seems to me you're saying, "If someone doesn't believe in God, then their statements aren't theological". I'd say something like "If someone doesn't believe in God, they don't believe that their statements are theological." But they are regardless.
@AJHenderson Well .. two things: Firstly, most folks who don't believe in God still believe in Truth (which they just refuse to identify with the Christian God). Secondly, even folks who downright reject absolute or transcendent Truth express something of their theological views in their statements. They reveal their "inner theology."
but if we are going on a definition of theology as statements about god or gods, if their world view doesn't involve gods, then their world view is not based in theology other than the single theological statement that there are not gods
and that is too tenuous to link their entire world view to that minor theological point
@MattGutting Well, the statement was general, but the last four words which rather scope in onto a belief in God, counter acts the point you're trying to make.
@AJHenderson Except that God is more important than spaghetti (or anything else you could set up) - that makes statements about God "something special"
TBH, we are talking about two groups of people, 1) Christians who believe in God and 2) People who have a certain knowledge of God yet do not ascribe anything to Him.
but if you don't have that as a given, then it is not objectively important
and that is the crux of the whole issue
@Zoe you can make false theological statements
only belief in A god is required and if that god is responsible for the conditions that setup your world view, then anything coming out of your world view says something about that god if they are creator
the distinction I'm trying to make is that if you don't believe in a creator god, then your world view is not subsantially formed based on that one singular belief and thus not all actions coming out of that world view are based on the view of god not existing, atleast not to a level beyond the impact of anything else on the world view
I do agree that, whether a statement is theological, or if we can catch a glimpse of theology in anyone's statement, we would have to believe in God.
I know, I've read the convo, that's why I took so long to reply Matt
But, that does not apply to everyone else. If someone does not believe in God, there is no theology behind their statement, unless they say something about God (i.e. I don't believe in God.)
I guess, just because I know 2 + 2 x 4 = 10 doesn't mean I know the mathematical law behind doing the multiplication first. I think it means I know how to use a calculator.
idk what I'm saying anymore. The convo about this topic was hard to follow. I think that, an atheist point of view about 99% of things is not rooted in "I don't believe in the Christian God." though so it wouldn't make their statements anymore theological than me knowing how to use a calculator making me conscious about mathematical laws.
@Zoe yeah, philosophically though, on a deeper level, the fact that that works says something about reality
the symbols just match up with concepts
but the fact those concepts work conceptually does tell us something about reality
and if you believe God created reality, it tells us something about God. It is a small amount, but it confirms things we know from major theological sources
@AJHenderson It could also mean I got lucky. But my belief would be, if I rejected mathematical law, things read from left to right, also because of my laziness, I punch them into a calculator to get the correct answer. Yet, to someone who accepts mathematical laws, they would assert that I based my answer on the mathematical laws yet that is not true.
@AJHenderson It seems to me you're saying, "If someone doesn't believe in God, then their statements aren't theological". I'd say something like "If someone doesn't believe in God, they don't believe that their statements are theological." But they are regardless.
@Zoe If you're looking for the what theological point that saying "2 + 2 x 4 = 10" is saying about you, it's saying you believe in at least some level of absolute truth.
@svidgen There you are thinking that the correct mathematical answer stems from me believing in a sort of mathematical truth even though I reject the mathematical law. There a bunch of reasons, the internet, my smart friend, a guess, my laziness leading me to the the previous 3.
@Zoe Sure. Anything I say about you comes with a degree of error. ... That's largely why my initial statement that every statement is ultimately theological was only loosely related to the speaker. More to the initial point, every statement carries theological value, despite the speaker.
That said, your hidden reasons for a statement are the "real statement." We don't have access to that.
That doesn't mean the "real statement" isn't theological or doesn't indicate something about your perception of reality; it just means I don't know what your "real statement" is with perfect accuracy.
@AJHenderson But I believe my pet dog (or any other gods) made gravity. I don't know about your God, never heard anything about your God. Would my statement still imply theology?
@Zoe well, I'm talking from the perspective of my earlier statement A that says that from a creator god world view, then the nature of creation says something about the creator
so your personal view is irrelevant in that case because we aren't talking about your beliefs, but rather how your statements and actions matter to demonstrating parts of a third party belief
@Zoe Two things. Firstly, what it implies to you (the speaker) is only loosely related to the discussion. Secondly, from the only loosely related personal perspective that you and AJ are fixated on, it implies that you're understanding of Being (the Christian God) is that your dog gets to define gravity.
@svidgen Yes. So what if God is God? We know what He means to us and that everything we do or say has and can imply a theological meaning. But that doesn't apply for everyone, it would ultimately only apply to those who believe.
Also, incidentally, why I shied away from tying the statement to the speaker. It's a much harder point to communicate. It's also a point I'm less confident in.
The point that's easier to make and in which I'm more confidence is that every statement, speaker aside, carries theological meaning. That is, every statement communicates a finite truth about the essence of Truth (the Christian God, by definition).
The harder to make point is that, even if the speaker is unfamiliar with or averse to the Christian God, that same speaker-independent value indicates something the speaker believes about existence.
And [Christian] theology is ultimately just about existence.
@svidgen But to the non-believer, there is no theological value. As he cannot see the value, it doesn't matter whether the value is there (to us), there is none, to him.
If I cannot see something, it doesn't matter to me whether it is or it is not there. To me, there is nothing.
@Zoe Sure. Value is not valuable to a person unless that person can extract it. The value is still there though -- that's my point.
But ... that's why it's important to stress that every statement is theological. Because if you're looking for it, you can extract value from everything.
If you want to start pushing relativism, we're done. I shouldn't be devoting as much time to this as I have already! Let alone an argument about relativism!
Just because you believe there is value, it doesn't mean there is :)
Theological symbolism can only be asserted if the speaker believes. You see, the reason why you say there is theological symbolism is because you believe. Same thing can be said for the other view.
So ... let me exit with this: You're starting down relativistic terrain. And, though I don't have time to engage you in that terrain, it's unstable terrain at best.
I'm sympathetic to the fact that not everyone believes. And that in general folks just don't see like each other. But, if the whole discussion hinges on how things are to me and to him with no attempt to understand on how things just are, why bother?
@AJHenderson This I disagree with. Your statements reveal your world view, and your world view says something about your belief in God regardless of whether you believe or not. That's true of ...
... spaghetti as well of course, to an extent; but theology/belief in God is objectively more important than beliefs about spaghetti.
hey Sean, i dunno why someone downvoted you. i canceled their downvote. most Christians on this site don't really "get it" and such is reflected on the nature of some of the questions (this question is a good one, though) and of most of the answers. folks like you and i will never be accepted because they will not like our answers. and, i question if Jesus Himself were to answer (anonymously or pseudonymously), that 90% of those who hang out here would accept anything He had to say, either. — robert bristow-johnson1 hour ago
I'm pretty sure Jesus would at least be able to follow plain and clear guidelines after having participated for several months.
@fredsbend You could write that in the comments :P
@fredsbend I do not want robert to fuel such an inadequate way of answering, so I have commented, in a way that I feel is more appropriate than I should.
@MattGutting This user has been pretty much nothing be difficult. He just finished a one month suspension for crappy posts, but apparently hasn't learned anything.
@Zoe Just take a look at his activity. Nothing but contention at every turn.
