There is no health in us.

[Alien]

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.

You misunderstand. I was asked how I can know it was the proper explanation, not how can I explain it to ippy.

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.

Nope. ippy made a claim that Spud's explanation was that Spud had "made up whatever interpretation suited him as he went along". Let's be clear about this. ippy was claiming Spud's explanation was made up to suit him. ippy was the one who was now making the claim. If ippy had just said something like, "Spud, I don't see any justification for what you are claiming that would be another matter, but he didn't so it wasn't.

[Shaker]

You misunderstand. I was asked how I can know it was the proper explanation ...

That's right. Still waiting.

[Alien]

You misunderstand. I was asked how I can know it was the proper explanation ...

That's right. Still waiting.

Read the text in its context, read the Thirty-Nine Articles and read up on the history of the Church of England in that period.

[Shaker]

Will that establish a methodology by which I will be able to discern that Spud's "explanation" is the proper one?

[Alien]

Will that establish a methodology by which I will be able to discern that Spud's "explanation" is the proper one?

Yes. Let me know how you get on.

[Shaker]

Will it really? How does that methodology determine its validity just from a reading of the aforementioned texts?

[Alien]

Will it really? How does that methodology determine its validity just from a reading of the aforementioned texts?

You will get to see the context and the theology of the church at that time.

[Shaker]

I'd grasped as much already. I still don't see how "knowing the context" leads to one's being able to determine a methodology which would demonstrate Spud's explanation to be the proper one.

[Alien]

I'd grasped as much already. I still don't see how "knowing the context" leads to one's being able to determine a methodology which would demonstrate Spud's explanation to be the proper one.

That would probably be because you haven't read up on the theology of the Church of England at that time. If you had and had understood it, you wouldn't be asking such questions (if genuine). I've already explained about the "total depravity" concept.

[Shaker]

It seems to me that it's rather more to do with the fact that I'm asking a question you can't answer but don't want to admit as much. Saying that I don't know a specific point about a particularly obscure bit of theology is (1) not only a fine example of the Courtier's Reply (q.v.) but (2) merely kicks the self-same question back another step. What does this theology provide as a means of validating its own alleged accuracy?

[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 everyo

I've just had another look at this post: again why do you discuss your religious beliefs as though they are a part of reality when no such thing has been established unless it's something like the Sherlock Holms Society debating, at least they know they are on a fictional subject, unless of course someone can prove otherwise, which is as unlikely as your chosen subject of debate.

Unless we hear some world shattering news on all of the media outlets something like "Evidence of God Found at Last", why do you and others like you keep letting yourselves be taken in?

I can't think of any reason why I would want to discuss something that is so unlikely to exist? But have to admit it is fascinating to me how normally sensible people get sucked into this so obviously man made nonsense. 

ippy

[Alien]

It seems to me that it's rather more to do with the fact that I'm asking a question you can't answer but don't want to admit as much. Saying that I don't know a specific point about a particularly obscure bit of theology is (1) not only a fine example of the Courtier's Reply (q.v.) but (2) merely kicks the self-same question back another step. What does this theology provide as a means of validating its own alleged accuracy?

Nope, this incorrect. I have explained that the BCP, where this phrase comes from, is from a particular era when the C of E held a particular doctrine (more clearly than it tends to now). A quick look at "total depravity" in Wikipedia includes stuff like, 'The term "total depravity", as understood in colloquial English, obscures the theological issues involved. Reformed and Lutheran theologians have never considered humans to be absent of goodness or unable to do good outwardly as a result of the fall. People retain the imago Dei, though it has been distorted.' The C of E has always had its various wings, e.g. thoroughly Reformed and Catholic. The wing which sees sin having the greatest hold over human beings is (and always has been) the Reformed wing, yet, as Wikipedia points out the bit I have put in bold.

Such information is also available from other sources.

Oh, and it is not a "particularly obscure bit of theology". It is central.

[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 everyo... (snipped by ippy).

I've just had another look at this post: again why do you discuss your religious beliefs as though they are a part of reality when no such thing has been established unless it's something like the Sherlock Holms Society debating, at least they know they are on a fictional subject, unless of course someone can prove otherwise, which is as unlikely as your chosen subject of debate.

Unless we hear some world shattering news on all of the media outlets something like "Evidence of God Found at Last", why do you and others like you keep letting yourselves be taken in?

I can't think of any reason why I would want to discuss something that is so unlikely to exist? But have to admit it is fascinating to me how normally sensible people get sucked into this so obviously man made nonsense. 

ippy

Maybe I am wrong, but I thought the point of the OP was to discuss whether "there is no health in us" (as meant by the authors of the BCP) rather than prove the existence of God. Perhaps Rhiannon would comment.

[Shaker]

Maybe I am wrong, but I thought the point of the OP was to discuss whether "there is no health in us" (as meant by the authors of the BCP) rather than prove the existence of God. Perhaps Rhiannon would comment.

I don't see how the latter can be separated from the former given that the text in question in the OP is a Christian text (the word 'health' in this particular context is a specifically Christian one which is not going to be recognised by the average GP, for example), and Christians are I'm told given to believing in God for some reason.

[ippy]

Maybe I am wrong, but I thought the point of the OP was to discuss whether "there is no health in us" (as meant by the authors of the BCP) rather than prove the existence of God. Perhaps Rhiannon would comment.

I don't see how the latter can be separated from the former given that the text in question in the OP is a Christian text (the word 'health' in this particular context is a specifically Christian one which is not going to be recognised by the average GP, for example), and Christians are I'm told given to believing in God for some reason.

Thanks Shaker it's difficult to get through sometimes, well more often than not.

ippy

[Alien]

Maybe I am wrong, but I thought the point of the OP was to discuss whether "there is no health in us" (as meant by the authors of the BCP) rather than prove the existence of God. Perhaps Rhiannon would comment.

I don't see how the latter can be separated from the former given that the text in question in the OP is a Christian text (the word 'health' in this particular context is a specifically Christian one which is not going to be recognised by the average GP, for example), and Christians are I'm told given to believing in God for some reason.

So which questions about Christianity would not need us to first prove the existence of God?

[ippy]

Maybe I am wrong, but I thought the point of the OP was to discuss whether "there is no health in us" (as meant by the authors of the BCP) rather than prove the existence of God. Perhaps Rhiannon would comment.

I don't see how the latter can be separated from the former given that the text in question in the OP is a Christian text (the word 'health' in this particular context is a specifically Christian one which is not going to be recognised by the average GP, for example), and Christians are I'm told given to believing in God for some reason.

So which questions about Christianity would not need us to first prove the existence of God?

A bit like if you or anyone else might like to discuss the inns and outs of the Harry Potter books as though they are stories of real events that actually happened.

If it was the Harry Potter books that were asserted as actual events, you might expect to see some white coated figures hovering about in the background; had you proved the Harry Potter books, to be stories about actual events that had really happened the white coated figures wouldn't have any other choice than to quietly back away.

I think that illustrates how a lot of atheists might see what it is you're saying Ailen.

ippy   

[floo]

Maybe I am wrong, but I thought the point of the OP was to discuss whether "there is no health in us" (as meant by the authors of the BCP) rather than prove the existence of God. Perhaps Rhiannon would comment.

I don't see how the latter can be separated from the former given that the text in question in the OP is a Christian text (the word 'health' in this particular context is a specifically Christian one which is not going to be recognised by the average GP, for example), and Christians are I'm told given to believing in God for some reason.

So which questions about Christianity would not need us to first prove the existence of God?

A bit like if you or anyone else might like to discuss the inns and outs of the Harry Potter books as though they are stories of real events that actually happened.

If it was the Harry Potter books that were asserted as actual events, you might expect to see some white coated figures hovering about in the background; had you proved the Harry Potter books, to be stories about actual events that had really happened the white coated figures wouldn't have any other choice than to quietly back away.

I think that illustrates how a lot of atheists might see what it is you're saying Ailen.

ippy

Spot on!

[Alien]

Maybe I am wrong, but I thought the point of the OP was to discuss whether "there is no health in us" (as meant by the authors of the BCP) rather than prove the existence of God. Perhaps Rhiannon would comment.

I don't see how the latter can be separated from the former given that the text in question in the OP is a Christian text (the word 'health' in this particular context is a specifically Christian one which is not going to be recognised by the average GP, for example), and Christians are I'm told given to believing in God for some reason.

So which questions about Christianity would not need us to first prove the existence of God?

A bit like if you or anyone else might like to discuss the inns and outs of the Harry Potter books as though they are stories of real events that actually happened.

If it was the Harry Potter books that were asserted as actual events, you might expect to see some white coated figures hovering about in the background; had you proved the Harry Potter books, to be stories about actual events that had really happened the white coated figures wouldn't have any other choice than to quietly back away.

I think that illustrates how a lot of atheists might see what it is you're saying Ailen.

ippy

Please answer my question. Which questions about Christianity would not need us to first prove the existence of God?

[Alien]

Maybe I am wrong, but I thought the point of the OP was to discuss whether "there is no health in us" (as meant by the authors of the BCP) rather than prove the existence of God. Perhaps Rhiannon would comment.

I don't see how the latter can be separated from the former given that the text in question in the OP is a Christian text (the word 'health' in this particular context is a specifically Christian one which is not going to be recognised by the average GP, for example), and Christians are I'm told given to believing in God for some reason.

So which questions about Christianity would not need us to first prove the existence of God?

A bit like if you or anyone else might like to discuss the inns and outs of the Harry Potter books as though they are stories of real events that actually happened.

If it was the Harry Potter books that were asserted as actual events, you might expect to see some white coated figures hovering about in the background; had you proved the Harry Potter books, to be stories about actual events that had really happened the white coated figures wouldn't have any other choice than to quietly back away.

I think that illustrates how a lot of atheists might see what it is you're saying Ailen.

ippy

Spot on!

So what?

[floo]

Alien, you might be convincing yourself with your POV, but not others who don 't see it your way.

[ippy]

Maybe I am wrong, but I thought the point of the OP was to discuss whether "there is no health in us" (as meant by the authors of the BCP) rather than prove the existence of God. Perhaps Rhiannon would comment.

I don't see how the latter can be separated from the former given that the text in question in the OP is a Christian text (the word 'health' in this particular context is a specifically Christian one which is not going to be recognised by the average GP, for example), and Christians are I'm told given to believing in God for some reason.

So which questions about Christianity would not need us to first prove the existence of God?

A bit like if you or anyone else might like to discuss the inns and outs of the Harry Potter books as though they are stories of real events that actually happened.

If it was the Harry Potter books that were asserted as actual events, you might expect to see some white coated figures hovering about in the background; had you proved the Harry Potter books, to be stories about actual events that had really happened the white coated figures wouldn't have any other choice than to quietly back away.

I think that illustrates how a lot of atheists might see what it is you're saying Ailen.

ippy

Please answer my question. Which questions about Christianity would not need us to first prove the existence of God?

I have answered you Alien.

ippy

[Alien]

Alien, you might be convincing yourself with your POV, but not others who don 't see it your way.

So what?

[Dicky Underpants]

Maybe I am wrong, but I thought the point of the OP was to discuss whether "there is no health in us" (as meant by the authors of the BCP) rather than prove the existence of God. Perhaps Rhiannon would comment.

I don't see how the latter can be separated from the former given that the text in question in the OP is a Christian text (the word 'health' in this particular context is a specifically Christian one which is not going to be recognised by the average GP, for example), and Christians are I'm told given to believing in God for some reason.

So which questions about Christianity would not need us to first prove the existence of God?

A bit like if you or anyone else might like to discuss the inns and outs of the Harry Potter books as though they are stories of real events that actually happened.

If it was the Harry Potter books that were asserted as actual events, you might expect to see some white coated figures hovering about in the background; had you proved the Harry Potter books, to be stories about actual events that had really happened the white coated figures wouldn't have any other choice than to quietly back away.

I think that illustrates how a lot of atheists might see what it is you're saying Ailen.

ippy

Please answer my question. Which questions about Christianity would not need us to first prove the existence of God?

There are certainly some, such as establishing whether there was a historical Jesus at all, and ascertaining what he may reasonably supposed to have said and did if such as figure did exist (this is quite different from the point ippy appeared to be making, claiming an exact parallel between Jesus and Harry Potter - for as far as I'm aware, no one is arguing that Harry Potter ever existed).
Now a lot of Christians may insist that the historical existence of Jesus can in no way be separated from his supposed divinity, or his having performed miracles, or there being a spiritual dimension to life at all. I don't see why that has to be.
Conversely, atheists like ippy seem to accept the same view of the matter as some Christians - namely that the historical Jesus cannot be separated from supernatural claims he made or are made about him - which of course they do not believe in. I find such an approach inherently boring and repetitive, just as I find the former fantastical and totally unbelievable.

There is also the question of whether some of Jesus moral teaching has any true relevance for the present day, and that also can quite easily be separated from supernatural claims.

In other words - a plague on both your houses!

[Alien]

Maybe I am wrong, but I thought the point of the OP was to discuss whether "there is no health in us" (as meant by the authors of the BCP) rather than prove the existence of God. Perhaps Rhiannon would comment.

I don't see how the latter can be separated from the former given that the text in question in the OP is a Christian text (the word 'health' in this particular context is a specifically Christian one which is not going to be recognised by the average GP, for example), and Christians are I'm told given to believing in God for some reason.

So which questions about Christianity would not need us to first prove the existence of God?

A bit like if you or anyone else might like to discuss the inns and outs of the Harry Potter books as though they are stories of real events that actually happened.

If it was the Harry Potter books that were asserted as actual events, you might expect to see some white coated figures hovering about in the background; had you proved the Harry Potter books, to be stories about actual events that had really happened the white coated figures wouldn't have any other choice than to quietly back away.

I think that illustrates how a lot of atheists might see what it is you're saying Ailen.

ippy

Please answer my question. Which questions about Christianity would not need us to first prove the existence of God?

I have answered you Alien.

ippy

No, you have not. Which questions about Christianity would not need us to first prove the existence of God? Do I have to prove the existence of God to explain why the Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church split? Presumably not. Do I have to prove the existence of God to explain why Arminians have a different understanding of predestination to Calvinists? If not, why do I have to prove the existence of God to answer the OP? Does not the OP assume, for the sake of the OP, that God exists?