There is no health in us.

[Nearly Sane]

So much of any set of beliefs are dependent on finding them consistent with the rest of our beliefs and internally consistent, that I think people underestimate that what might be thought as 'understandable' in context becomes meaningless outside it.
When Rhiannon writes that one day all of that was gone for her, it means as all of it looses the meaning, it becomes internally inconsistent and the differences with other parts of your experience become crystal clear. To one who still believes though it will seem as if that person has suffered a sudden lack of light, rather than seeing things more clearly as it will seem to that person.

Note I am not commenting on who is 'right' here but picking up on the echo in this thread from Shaker's post on Searching for God about almost visceral rejection of claims of some 'philosophies'
 There is an element of the dwarfs at the end of the Last Battle complaining about how dreadful is when every else sees richness; the problem is that each side sees the other as the dwarfs.

[Rhiannon]

It's very difficult if you are a believer and you hear about loss of faith. Because your own faith brings joy and consolation, you want that for others. It's unsettling to think that God isn't big enough to hang onto one of his children. So they must be to blame. I used to take an Alan Burns line - be patient, keep asking, God will come eventually. Others prefer the 'no true Christian to start with' argument.

Neither acknowledges the pain, so kudos to Alan/Alien/Black Dwarf for the sympathy he's shown me without offering either blame or glib answers.

[Shaker]

Bit of history: baptised as a baby, confirmed as an adult, Communicant within the CofE for ten years. Studied with the diocesan bishop, took monthly day retreats, took a foundation degree in theology with a Methodist college attached to Oxford Brookes. Served on the PCC and deanery synod. Had articles on prayer and spirituality published in Christian media. Served as parish visitor. Went forward for selection to the priesthood but withdrew when I discovered I was pregnant. Founded and ran inter-denominational services for under-fives and their parents and carers.

Then - poof - all gone.

Yes, fine, but I still don't think you were really a Christian.

[/sarcasm]

[Rhiannon]

Bit of history: baptised as a baby, confirmed as an adult, Communicant within the CofE for ten years. Studied with the diocesan bishop, took monthly day retreats, took a foundation degree in theology with a Methodist college attached to Oxford Brookes. Served on the PCC and deanery synod. Had articles on prayer and spirituality published in Christian media. Served as parish visitor. Went forward for selection to the priesthood but withdrew when I discovered I was pregnant. Founded and ran inter-denominational services for under-fives and their parents and carers.

Then - poof - all gone.

Yes, fine, but I still don't think you were really a Christian.

[/sarcasm]

I believed in universal salvation, so obviously not.

[Shaker]

So much of any set of beliefs are dependent on finding them consistent with the rest of our beliefs and internally consistent, that I think people underestimate that what might be thought as 'understandable' in context becomes meaningless outside it.

Yes, that's it - that resonates very strongly with me.

I think - I like to think - that the beliefs I hold about the world are cut from the same cloth and are a unified whole where said beliefs are both internally consistent and consistent with each other, whereas - it seems to me, as I hinted yesterday in the 'Searching for God' thread - I would imagine (I can only imagine as I've never been a believer) that to be a theist of any kind is to have a foot in two very different camps. But as I say, not having entertained such beliefs that's the only way I can picture it, and may be wrong.

[Shaker]

I believed in universal salvation, so obviously not.

They always say that kind people believe in a kind God.

[Nearly Sane]

I think that there will be internal consistency for many theists in how they view the world, though my take is the more reasoned the approach the less it seems to work. The old saw 'God works in mysterious ways' probably works better than any set of rationalizations. That said I think the same applies for most atheists in that I think you have to accept that given the inability to derive an ought from an is, that man also works in mysterious ways.

[Nearly Sane]

One of the things I think is missed by a lot of atheists in their evaluation of the logic and consistency of many theist positions is that it depends on whether you find the question 'why' as regards existence as meaningful. Not inky, does it seem to me, that many theists find it meaningful but almost the base of any other question.

[Shaker]

One of the things I think is missed by a lot of atheists in their evaluation of the logic and consistency of many theist positions is that it depends on whether you find the question 'why' as regards existence as meaningful. Not inky, does it seem to me, that many theists find it meaningful but almost the base of any other question.

There's always an answer to the 'why' question, but the atheist's answer is a proximate answer (because my parents created me; evolution by natural selection etc.) and the theist believes their answer to be an ultimate, discussion-ending, no-further-questions-necessary answer.

[Nearly Sane]

I think that's an answer to 'how' rather than 'why'. The why is purposive to the theist.

[Rhiannon]

One of the things I think is missed by a lot of atheists in their evaluation of the logic and consistency of many theist positions is that it depends on whether you find the question 'why' as regards existence as meaningful. Not inky, does it seem to me, that many theists find it meaningful but almost the base of any other question.

There's always an answer to the 'why' question, but the atheist's answer is a proximate answer (because my parents created me; evolution by natural selection etc.) and the theist believes their answer to be an ultimate, discussion-ending, no-further-questions-necessary answer.

Depends on the theist.

[Sassy]

Bit of history: baptised as a baby, confirmed as an adult, Communicant within the CofE for ten years. Studied with the diocesan bishop, took monthly day retreats, took a foundation degree in theology with a Methodist college attached to Oxford Brookes. Served on the PCC and deanery synod. Had articles on prayer and spirituality published in Christian media. Served as parish visitor. Went forward for selection to the priesthood but withdrew when I discovered I was pregnant. Founded and ran inter-denominational services for under-fives and their parents and carers.

Then - poof - all gone.

Ditto, baptised as a baby, confirmed and became a chorister.
Was Served on the PCC and deanery synod. Also an official of the Bishop.
Went to the Monthly one day meetings as well as the annual meeting with the Bishop.
The vicars son and I, along with another friend use to visit some of the older members in our community... In the mid seventies our vicar was probably the first or one of the first to set up the interdenominational meetings of the churches within our area of different religions. Organising a Church  Creche for children  5 and under allowing the parents to attend the services on Sundays... We met up for prayer meetings, shared church services and even holidays...

But that has NOTHING to do with belief and knowing God.
In the betweens I had a relationship with God from Childhood. He had always guided my life. Religion is a word but faith and knowing God is an experience which comes through believing Christ to be saviour and son of God.

I still have my first official invitation to the very first meeting I was invited to attend with the Bishop.

A keep sake but of times gone by. Christ is for everyday.
Our lives are not made up of positions but in the body of Christ it is about living our life and it being of service to others in Christ.

We are not special just in the place where God needs us...

[Rhiannon]

You are right, Sass, in that position does not equate relationship. But first you'd have to question why someone was taking those positions - in my case it was because of my relationship with God and a desire to serve him. Like you I'd felt that since childhood, which is why it was so strange when it ended - and ended very abruptly. I was happily a mum of two, feeding my younger daughter in my nursing chair when I realised God just wasn't there. Because I'd also had animist experiences as a child, and these didn't change, this is what I now go with.

[Alan Burns]

Bit of history: baptised as a baby, confirmed as an adult, Communicant within the CofE for ten years. Studied with the diocesan bishop, took monthly day retreats, took a foundation degree in theology with a Methodist college attached to Oxford Brookes. Served on the PCC and deanery synod. Had articles on prayer and spirituality published in Christian media. Served as parish visitor. Went forward for selection to the priesthood but withdrew when I discovered I was pregnant. Founded and ran inter-denominational services for under-fives and their parents and carers.

Then - poof - all gone.

Never give up hope.

I once knew a young priest who felt that he had lost his faith and decided to give up his priesthood.  He was touring through France with a friend in a sports car when they noticed a sign for Taize.  The priest had heard about this place, and out of curiosity he had a look inside the Church of Reconcilliation.  Inside the church he felt God's real presence for the first time in his life, and he broke down in tears.  God lead him to start a retreat centre in Skipton for teenagers, and he can relate an amazing series of events which enabled him to set up this centre with all the resources he needed.  He was then able to help many young people feel God's presence for the first time in their lives - it was a very special place where God's presence was really tangible.

(Apologies if I have repeated this story - I may have related it on another thread some time ago)

[Shaker]

God lead him to start a retreat centre in Skipton for teenagers, and he can relate an amazing series of events

Hmmmmm, I bet he can 

[Leonard James]

Never give up hope.

I once knew a young priest who felt that he had lost his faith and decided to give up his priesthood.  He was touring through France with a friend in a sports car when they noticed a sign for Taize.  The priest had heard about this place, and out of curiosity he had a look inside the Church of Reconcilliation.  Inside the church he felt God's real presence for the first time in his life, and he broke down in tears.  God lead him to start a retreat centre in Skipton for teenagers, and he can relate an amazing series of events which enabled him to set up this centre with all the resources he needed.  He was then able to help many young people feel God's presence for the first time in their lives - it was a very special place where God's presence was really tangible.

The delusion that it was all the work of "God" was the natural outcome of his previous indoctrination ... but all the resources for him to start the retreat centre came from people, not "God".

I assume you are now going to tell us that the people were inspired to give help by "God".

There's no way to get you people to see reason! 

[ippy]

Never give up hope.

I once knew a young priest who felt that he had lost his faith and decided to give up his priesthood.  He was touring through France with a friend in a sports car when they noticed a sign for Taize.  The priest had heard about this place, and out of curiosity he had a look inside the Church of Reconcilliation.  Inside the church he felt God's real presence for the first time in his life, and he broke down in tears.  God lead him to start a retreat centre in Skipton for teenagers, and he can relate an amazing series of events which enabled him to set up this centre with all the resources he needed.  He was then able to help many young people feel God's presence for the first time in their lives - it was a very special place where God's presence was really tangible.

The delusion that it was all the work of "God" was the natural outcome of his previous indoctrination ... but all the resources for him to start the retreat centre came from people, not "God".

I assume you are now going to tell us that the people were inspired to give help by "God".

There's no way to get you people to see reason! 

Just when you think they can't get much more daft than this, then guess what happens?

ippy

[Leonard James]

Just when you think they can't get much more daft than this, then guess what happens?

ippy

They do!  Do I get a prize for the right answer? 

[Spud]

Rhiannon,

I think that phrase (there is no health in us) needs to be understood. We can be physically healthy, and yet, any sin cuts us off from God, and good deeds cannot bring us back to him. By analogy, if you take someone's life you can never give it back to them. So yes, in the sense that we are cut off from God, there is no health in us. Fortunately God still loves us and has made it possible to restore that relationship.

[ippy]

Rhiannon,

I think that phrase (there is no health in us) needs to be understood. We can be physically healthy, and yet, any sin cuts us off from God, and good deeds cannot bring us back to him. By analogy, if you take someone's life you can never give it back to them. So yes, in the sense that we are cut off from God, there is no health in us. Fortunately God still loves us and has made it possible to restore that relationship.

What's the point of having this belief if you can make up whatever interpretation that suits you as you go along, can't say that's very impressive or credible in addition to that it doesn't project a good impression of your rational and you're supposed to be one of the well educated posters on this forum, so much for being well educated.

There is a shorter version of the above but I thought I would try polite.

ippy

[Alien]

Rhiannon,

I think that phrase (there is no health in us) needs to be understood. We can be physically healthy, and yet, any sin cuts us off from God, and good deeds cannot bring us back to him. By analogy, if you take someone's life you can never give it back to them. So yes, in the sense that we are cut off from God, there is no health in us. Fortunately God still loves us and has made it possible to restore that relationship.

What's the point of having this belief if you can make up whatever interpretation that suits you as you go along, can't say that's very impressive or credible in addition to that it doesn't project a good impression of your rational and you're supposed to be one of the well educated posters on this forum, so much for being well educated.

There is a shorter version of the above but I thought I would try polite.

ippy

A more relevant post might be to query why on earth you bother to take part in discussions when you ignore proper explanations. Do you accept wigginhall's explanation about God's grace "preventing us"? If so, why his explanation and not Spud's? The Reformers spoke about humanity being "totally depraved". By that they did not mean that everyone was/is as bad as we can possibly get, but that sin affects every part of our life. Are you OK with that explanation or would that be another example of "whatever interpretation that suits you as you go along"?

[Shaker]

How do you know it's a "proper explanation"?

[ippy]

Rhiannon,

I think that phrase (there is no health in us) needs to be understood. We can be physically healthy, and yet, any sin cuts us off from God, and good deeds cannot bring us back to him. By analogy, if you take someone's life you can never give it back to them. So yes, in the sense that we are cut off from God, there is no health in us. Fortunately God still loves us and has made it possible to restore that relationship.

What's the point of having this belief if you can make up whatever interpretation that suits you as you go along, can't say that's very impressive or credible in addition to that it doesn't project a good impression of your rational and you're supposed to be one of the well educated posters on this forum, so much for being well educated.

There is a shorter version of the above but I thought I would try polite.

ippy

A more relevant post might be to query why on earth you bother to take part in discussions when you ignore proper explanations. Do you accept wigginhall's explanation about God's grace "preventing us"? If so, why his explanation and not Spud's? The Reformers spoke about humanity being "totally depraved". By that they did not mean that everyone was/is as bad as we can possibly get, but that sin affects every part of our life. Are you OK with that explanation or would that be another example of "whatever interpretation that suits you as you go along"?

Why do you keep prattling on about things that have no established factual element to their superstitious magical and mythical content, why not debate when you can.

Your posts might be more relevant when you establish some facts.

ippy

[Alien]

How do you know it's a "proper explanation"?

1) Because I am an Anglican and we sometimes use funny language to mean stuff people can say better in normal English. The English language has changed quite a bit since the time the BCP was written, so that doesn't help. See wigginhall's "prevention" point earlier. It is one good reason for not using the BCP much (apart from a new monthly service we have just introduced at to which 40 people unexpectedly came).
2) I understand the theology behind the BCP fairly well.

How do you know it is not a proper explanation, but rather a case of making up "whatever interpretation that suits you as you go along"?

[Shaker]

1) Because I am an Anglican and we sometimes use funny language to mean stuff people can say better in normal English. The English language has changed quite a bit since the time the BCP was written, so that doesn't help. See wigginhall's "prevention" point earlier. It is one good reason for not using the BCP much (apart from a new monthly service we have just introduced at to which 40 people unexpectedly came).

That's nice, but doesn't actually explain how you can know that it was the proper explanation, that's to say, what methodology you're using in order to ascertain that this explanation and not some other is the proper one.

How do you know it is not a proper explanation, but rather a case of making up "whatever interpretation that suits you as you go along"?

I'm sure even you realise that this is just an attempt to shift the burden of proof by an appeal to ignorance/the negative proof fallacy.