quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The human part is rather easy. The god part rather hard.

I have devolved to 'showing us principles to live by' and am willing for the supernatural aspects. Willing does mean belief nor disbelief nor caring nor not caring. More like a suspension of criticality and judgement. I might liken it to watching a movie or reading a book. When 'magical realism'* comes up, I have to choose rejection of it as impossible or decide to accept for the time being because it is worth doing. The reason for this acceptance temporarily is to enjoy, feel comforted, have my consciousness expanded. .

---

I really like this
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.'

That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.

You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”


― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... but you still have to explain how and why Jesus could be more 'full of God' than anyone else has been before or since ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But you've got no way of demonstrating that, Boogie.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I believe what the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed says about him, as it has been interpreted and applied down the centuries by the Orthodox Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Most of us here are likely to have doubts of various sorts. My faith is frankly puny.

However, one problem I have with demoting Jesus from the Godhead, as it were, is that it makes normal Christian (or at least Protestant) worship somewhat blasphemous, to say the least. Why sing all these songs about how divine and wonderful Jesus is? Why address prayers to him, if he's not God? Shouldn't God alone have the glory?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:

I can go to church week on week,(not that I do now), sing the hymns, recite the Creed and yet not feel fraudulent or blasphemous. Maybe there was a time when a clergy person would not welcome me while holding alternative views, not likely with today's shrinking attendance.

Whilst not being consciously aware of it, Jesus could actually be mentally evolving and promoted to a spiritual Godhead in the part of my mind that accommodates such matters. It's not something that can be forced, and trying to pin a person down and get them to declare -- Jesus, Son of God or not?-- can't be the way ahead for 21st Century Christianity TMM.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.'

That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.

You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”


― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well of course it doesn't hold every drop of water - but it's arguing from the point of view of what Jesus actually said:

He was either a liar - i.e. he knew it wasn't true.
Or he was a lunatic - i.e. he thought it was true.
Or he was Lord - i.e. it really was true!

I don't know what else he might have been thinking as a fourth option.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well of course it doesn't hold every drop of water - but it's arguing from the point of view of what Jesus actually said:

He was either a liar - i.e. he knew it wasn't true.
Or he was a lunatic - i.e. he thought it was true.
Or he was Lord - i.e. it really was true!

I don't know what else he might have been thinking as a fourth option.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
A fifth option is that Jesus has been misquoted in the NT and/or that the accounts of his resurrection were the invention/mass delusion of a fanatical group of followers. Lewis' argument assumes the complete validity of the biblical text. I agree with him, but again, the argument won't work for anyone not already inclined to believe Jesus is Lord and that the NT is a reliable witness to his life and teachings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
A fifth option is that Jesus has been misquoted in the NT and/or that the accounts of his resurrection were the invention/mass delusion of a fanatical group of followers. Lewis' argument assumes the complete validity of the biblical text. I agree with him, but again, the argument won't work for anyone not already inclined to believe Jesus is Lord and that the NT is a reliable witness to his life and teachings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:

In short humans don't need to be fanatical or dishonest to get all sorts of things wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
But there is nothing wrong (in the moral sense) with what we read about Jesus. I simply don't (can't) believe the supernatural stuff any more.

But, in my view, that doesn't matter. Nothing is gained by believing the supernatural stuff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I simply don't (can't) believe the supernatural stuff any more.

But, in my view, that doesn't matter. Nothing is gained by believing the supernatural stuff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I simply don't (can't) believe the supernatural stuff any more.

But, in my view, that doesn't matter. Nothing is gained by believing the supernatural stuff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
But there is nothing wrong (in the moral sense) with what we read about Jesus. I simply don't (can't) believe the supernatural stuff any more.

But, in my view, that doesn't matter. Nothing is gained by believing the supernatural stuff.

---

I know we agree on this Boogie. However it seems quite clear that many people do gain something by the supernatural beliefs. I have located this in the fear of a final death and promise of being in heaven forever, which is the carrot. The stick, which seems to be going out of fashion, is hell and pain etc Am I wrong in this assumption: that it is fear of a final death that motivates the supernatural beliefs? The end of personal existence is unpalatable?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
In the thread 'God does not go where he is not wanted' various people, like SusanDoris, Boogie, Macrina, and rolyn have expressed views that are not what you might call received Christian belief. There are doubtless others, like me, who have nodded, and said 'that's just what I think' and not posted anything.

Could I ask you all, where do you put Jesus in your beliefs? Was/is he divine, a prophet, a made-up story, or one in the long line of theologically-minded men, within every belief system man has ever devised?

---

When I was old enough to think for myself, God was a truth and Jesus was called the ‘Son of God’, but was an ordinary good person with sensible ideas on how to live – do as you would be done by, etc. Virgin birth, resurrection, supposed miracles - were obviously not possible, actual happenings but illustrative stories - from the two-volume World of Wonder I learnt and assimilated up-to-date facts of history, evolution, astronomy and space. The idea of fulfilling prophercies and the effects of political situations in Jesus' time did not come into discussions within the family, the Church or anywhere else. The idea of heaven (not hell – there was obviously no such thing), God moving in mysterious ways, God helping those who help themselves, were aphorisms that were part of the background of life, unchallenged because it was the height of bad manners to raise the subject of religion. The word 'divine'? Well, everyone knew what it meant, but it had no prominence that I recall, except in connection with film drama!
As I tend to mention here and there ,it is a very long time since the last vestiges of my belief in God evaporated.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I am not clear on universal salvation making it different. It's still about having something after the current life, life after death.

Must there be salvation of any kind? Is Jesus is only worth it if there is some form of salvation?

My take is that there might or might not be, and it is not necessary to know right now. It is enough to follow.
 

---

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
I'm a bit like Martin60 (eek!) in that I sort of fall into both camps.

If I think about Jesus then it's pretty much exclusively in terms that wouldn't ruffle feathers in any MOR UK Evangelical setting: Son of God, fully human, saviour of the world, virgin birth, crucified, resurrected, living etc. I genuinely struggle to think of Jesus in any other terms. I can't buy into the just-a-wise-teacher or a-convenient-fiction or created-by-the-Romans-to-encourage-forelock-tugging theories. They seem flawed, hollow, and also (weirdly) less supported by the 'evidence'* than just going with a conventional Christian understanding.

---

quote:

---

] at the same time as holding that view of Jesus, I also often struggle to get behind the whole concept of God, and struggle massively with a lot of what now seems to me to be overly simplistic (or even just wishful thinking) theology that's taken as axiomatic and self-evident within a lot of the church (local and wider). So you read an article, or listen to a sermon, or talk with a friend and what's being said is pretty conventional fare but my internal (and sometimes external) reaction is "Yeah, but that's bollocks, isn't it? Surely you don't really think that?".

---

quote:

---

But if it's all bollocks then where does that leave Jesus? Because if it's all bollocks then clearly he isn't the Son of God etc. etc. So for me, my central and (it seems) tenaciously resilient view of who Jesus is keeps me hanging on in there and navigating new (to me) routes through the stuff that's clearly hooey in order to have some kind of nod at a coherent theology/faith. Or at least, a desire for one!

(Not sure if that helps at all. Probably not).


*I appreciate evidence can be a loaded term here, but it's the best word I can find for indicative but not incontrovertible 'stuff'

---

Where does that leave Jesus? As the human who like all others died and stayed dead.Okay, death is not a fun thing to look forward to, and for me it's getting closer by the year, but holding on to an illusion that there is something rather than nothing afterwards wastes precious minutes! Of course, discussions here and learning of others' opinions and ideas is an interesting and intelligent way of using a lot of that time. (Tap dancing is taking a summer break!)
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
But there is nothing wrong (in the moral sense) with what we read about Jesus. I simply don't (can't) believe the supernatural stuff any more.

But, in my view, that doesn't matter. Nothing is gained by believing the supernatural stuff.

---

I know we agree on this Boogie. However it seems quite clear that many people do gain something by the supernatural beliefs. I have located this in the fear of a final death and promise of being in heaven forever, which is the carrot. The stick, which seems to be going out of fashion, is hell and pain etc Am I wrong in this assumption: that it is fear of a final death that motivates the supernatural beliefs? The end of personal existence is unpalatable?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

I don't love Jesus, trust him, follow him, seek him out, because I think he's going to raise me from the dead (though he will do that some day). I do it because (shuffles feet, coughs), I'm, er, in love with him. [Lutheran blushes and breaks for the door, muttering something about having to powder my nose]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm sorry.

---

Not your fault
 

---

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It can't be forced, certainly. But it does suggest that what we do in church, the liturgies we recite and the words we sing, are largely about a shared culture and familiarity, and don't tie in closely with our faith as such.

Maybe all religion (or is it just Christianity?) turns into this sooner or later, but it partly explains why evangelism is so difficult in our age. If our religious rites no longer fit in with what we believe - or even what we wish we believed - then a lack of coherence will become apparent, in some people's minds. Not everyone will be at ease with this.

It'll definitely be interesting to see if and how our churches deal with this issue in the decades to come.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Boogie

He was divine in the sense that he was so full of God's spirit (all that is good) as to do no wrong. He was the first and only person to be sinless and perfect in every way. Not because he was God but because he was full of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Tthere is nothing wrong (in the moral sense) with what we read about Jesus. I simply don't (can't) believe the supernatural stuff any more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

I don't love Jesus, trust him, follow him, seek him out, because I think he's going to raise me from the dead (though he will do that some day). I do it because (shuffles feet, coughs), I'm, er, in love with him. [Lutheran blushes and breaks for the door, muttering something about having to powder my nose]

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I am not clear on universal salvation making it different. It's still about having something after the current life, life after death.

Must there be salvation of any kind? Is Jesus is only worth it if there is some form of salvation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

I don't love Jesus, trust him, follow him, seek him out, because I think he's going to raise me from the dead (though he will do that some day). I do it because (shuffles feet, coughs), I'm, er, in love with him. [Lutheran blushes and breaks for the door, muttering something about having to powder my nose]

---

---

I really have no idea what this means. I spent more than 25 years trying to think, act and speak like this but in the end it felt like I was just trying very hard to convince myself.

Can you explain this a bit more? Is this related to spiritual experience(s)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
What about the idea of pursuing social justice, kindness, the sacrifice of privilege, serving, protecting, defending, encouraging the weak WITHOUT putting a bomb under the car of the powerful? Because He showed us, was, is the way like no other, ever, by a country mile? Because it's right? It's its own reward? The dream of heaven will take care of itself along with all the other nonsense (of atonement, the trinity, the church) we make up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
I'm a bit like Martin60 (eek!) in that I sort of fall into both camps.

If I think about Jesus then it's pretty much exclusively in terms that wouldn't ruffle feathers in any MOR UK Evangelical setting. >SNIP!<

---

I really like your post, but I wonder how do you set that against all the knowledge about birth, life and death of living creatures?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

But if it's all bollocks then where does that leave Jesus? Because if it's all bollocks then clearly he isn't the Son of God etc. etc. So for me, my central and (it seems) tenaciously resilient view of who Jesus is keeps me hanging on in there and navigating new (to me) routes through the stuff that's clearly hooey in order to have some kind of nod at a coherent theology/faith. Or at least, a desire for one! >SNIP!<

---

Where does that leave Jesus? As the human who like all others died and stayed dead.Okay, death is not a fun thing to look forward to, and for me it's getting closer by the year, but holding on to an illusion that there is something rather than nothing afterwards wastes precious minutes! Of course, discussions here and learning of others' opinions and ideas is an interesting and intelligent way of using a lot of that time. (Tap dancing is taking a summer break!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
What about the idea of pursuing social justice, kindness, the sacrifice of privilege, serving, protecting, defending, encouraging the weak WITHOUT putting a bomb under the car of the powerful? Because He showed us, was, is the way like no other, ever, by a country mile? Because it's right? It's its own reward? The dream of heaven will take care of itself along with all the other nonsense (of atonement, the trinity, the church) we make up.

---

That's all very good, but that's not Christianity, that's simply being a decent human being. There's been no shortage of people advising on how to be moral. That approach also fails to take into account at for many people, ethics and moral behaviour needs to have some kind of metaphysical underpinning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
What about the idea of pursuing social justice, kindness, the sacrifice of privilege, serving, protecting, defending, encouraging the weak WITHOUT putting a bomb under the car of the powerful? Because He showed us, was, is the way like no other, ever, by a country mile? Because it's right? It's its own reward? The dream of heaven will take care of itself along with all the other nonsense (of atonement, the trinity, the church) we make up.

---

That's all very good, but that's not Christianity, that's simply being a decent human being. There's been no shortage of people advising on how to be moral. That approach also fails to take into account at for many people, ethics and moral behaviour needs to have some kind of metaphysical underpinning.

---

It would be at least moderately helpful if Christians stopped telling each other who is and is not a Christian. The only safe answers I've come up with (beyond none of your damn business) when someone asks me 'are you a Christian?' is that 'it is unlikely I believe exactly as you do'.

In addition, who says metaphysical underpinning is required? and to what degree? Must it be a fully developed church-organized system of thought, some creedal formula, or acceptance of something specific? Why? Why not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The permeation of [Christianity] throughout the culture shows no sign of waning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Young people especially take the Golden Rule, democracy, the legal system, etc. for granted. They feel no particular impulse to see these things as 'Christian'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Young people especially take the Golden Rule, democracy, the legal system, etc. for granted. They feel no particular impulse to see these things as 'Christian'.

---

This is what I'm talking about. These things are foundation to society and founded upon Christianity, whether recognized or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
I'm a bit like Martin60 (eek!) in that I sort of fall into both camps.

If I think about Jesus then it's pretty much exclusively in terms that wouldn't ruffle feathers in any MOR UK Evangelical setting. >SNIP!<

---

I really like your post, but I wonder how do you set that against all the knowledge about birth, life and death of living creatures?

---

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
I think the concept of 'loving' Jesus means different things to different people, depending on their personalities, experiences of love as children and/or adults, and probably their age!

---

quote:

---

I would like to have that sort of sense, almost of belonging, I think. But like Jack o' the green, nothing much resonates with me. I suppose this could be due to age, depression or whatever, but somehow, unless I can sort the God bit out in my mind, and find that the Christian God is totally compatible with what I read and understand in the scientific journals, then who Jesus is is irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

But then, in the back of my mind, there is a little niggle that he is not really irrelevant. He matters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
My apologies. I don't know if this is any clearer but:

Well, if you think of Jesus in any terms at all other than as a real, wholly human person, who was one in un unbroken sequence of evolving, living creatures who lived and, in 100% of cases, died, if you think his 'spirit' still 'lives', if you think that he or his
'spirit' have any way of acting, then you are saying that you prefer such ideas to scientific facts. I wondered how you find it possible to believe both that and the scientific reality.

Hmmm... that's not much better, is it?!

---

Well, I think of him as wholly human and wholly divine - hence the bit about not ruffling any conventional Christian feathers.

I don't see the same irreconcilable dichotomy between "scientific fact" and having a belief about the numinous that you, presumably, do. Contrary to the popular view in some quarters, "science" isn't a trump card with all the answers, as far as I can see. I have no problem accepting that God and science can and do (indeed must, if there is a God) co-exist quite happily. After all, science would essentially proceed from God anyway in that scenario

All that probably means is that I have a different set of ideas and pre-conceptions to you around the ideas (or realities) of God, Jesus, 'belief', 'faith', and science. To me your question is effectively a non-question, as it appears to be based on axioms or assumptions that I don't share.

So I find accepting a historical Jesus who was both human and divine, lived, died, resurrected and ascended to be as reasonable as anything else. I struggle somewhat more with other areas of the Bible - or at least, with certain understandings of them. I struggle a whole lot more than that with "the church" in many ways, and with the language and mode of expression of Christian belief across the spectrum. But ultimately all of that is tied up in the paradox of our humanity, so whilst to a tidy mind it's deeply unsatisfying that everything doesn't come tied up with a bow, and that we seem to have an unending capacity to screw up and miss the point, it's also somewhat inevitable.

And that probably doesn't answer your question either
 

---

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags
that probably doesn't answer your question either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
But the Christology, of necessity, goes downhill at each stage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Well, if you think of Jesus in any terms at all other than as a real, wholly humanperson, who was one in un unbroken sequence of evolving, living creatures who lived and, in 100% of cases, died, if you think his 'spirit' still 'lives', if you think that he or his 'spirit' have any way of acting, then you are saying that you prefer such ideas to scientific facts.

---

quote:

---

I wondered how you find it possible to believe both that and the scientific reality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
I would like to have that sort of sense, almost of belonging, I think. But like Jack o' the green, nothing much resonates with me. I suppose this could be due to age, depression or whatever, but somehow, unless I can sort the God bit out in my mind, and find that the Christian God is totally compatible with what I read and understand in the scientific journals, then who Jesus is is irrelevant.

But then, in the back of my mind, there is a little niggle that he is not really irrelevant. He matters.

I just can't fit all the puzzle together. or make sense of anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by H Wyatt:
Could you elaborate? I don't understand why that would have to be true so I'd like to know more about what you're thinking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by H Wyatt:
Could you elaborate? I don't understand why that would have to be true so I'd like to know more about what you're thinking.

---

If you believe that Jesus is God and that the only way to salvation is by acknowledging that as a fact, then you will have the highest Christology. If you believe that following His selfless love is the way to salvation, it isn't necessary to believe He was God, so you will have a much lower Christology. If you believe that he was just one of many good men and virtuous teachers, then you don't need any Christology. Does that explain it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Against this background I can't do "exclusive" Christianity. It has nauseated me since at least 1969 when I was a teenager. I believe that Jesus was some sort of icon of divine mercy. I believe He was relatively sinless and that following Him, as opposed to just believing in Him can be salvific, if I had any idea what we need to be saved from. But I also accept the possibility that men and women in other cultures could, by their life and teaching, lead people away from the slavery of self-interest to the promised land of universal love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
So this comes down to:
Can I trust what the gospels say?

---

quote:

---

Can I trust what He says?

---

quote:

---

Do I actually believe that he was resurrected?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If you believe that Jesus is God and that the only way to salvation is by acknowledging that as a fact, then you will have the highest Christology. If you believe that following His selfless love is the way to salvation, it isn't necessary to believe He was God, so you will have a much lower Christology. If you believe that he was just one of many good men and virtuous teachers, then you don't need any Christology. Does that explain it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
SusanDoris - my parents are atheists, I am young enough for that to not be uncommon. Yet I fell in love with God, and therefore (according to my beliefs) in love with Jesus too. I have relatives in my extendryed family who are religious but they never took me to church or involved me in their own personal faith. I went to normal secular English state schools, primary school having more God and secondary school none at all as seems to be quite normal. Yet my sense of the numinous was always there in varying degrees.

I am not very good at describing my feelings about Jesus since they are almost too much and too overwhelming to describe - with regards to the basics I uphold the Nicene creed and believe it literally. My love for Jesus is both the rational stiff upper lip 30s vicar stuff and the frankly embarrassing Jesus is my boyfriend stuff, along with mawkish Victorian statues of Jesus overdoing the blusher stuff. For me Jesus is God in human form so we can draw near to God through Him.

I always feel too conservative/small-o orthodox for liberals (ie half of my Christian friends) and too liberal for conservatives (ie the other half of my Christian friends!).

Regarding salvation...it's important but I don't think I could really explain why it's important or what happens. I do believe in eternal life, dunno about Hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Jesus is part of our collective unconscious. The Jungian soup in which our brains simmer. What he taught is near to instinct for us. What is bred in our bones will out in the flesh, as the saying goes. We cannot escape the religion, we cannot escape the perennial wisdom that is thousands of years in our cultural epigenesis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Well, if you think of Jesus in any terms at all other than as a real, wholly humanperson, who was one in un unbroken sequence of evolving, living creatures who lived and, in 100% of cases, died, if you think his 'spirit' still 'lives', if you think that he or his 'spirit' have any way of acting, then you are saying that you prefer such ideas to scientific facts.

---

Sorry to butt in, I know this wasn't addressed to me, but which scientific facts are you saying are in contradiction to Jesus' spirit still living? What are these scientific facts that I must perforce be rejecting?

---

quote:

---

[QB

quote:

---

]I wondered how you find it possible to believe both that and the scientific reality.

---

Than what part of scientific reality? That the sun is a mass of incandescent plasma? That dropped objects accelerate toward the earth at 9.8 meters per second squared? "Scientific reality" is hopelessly vague. See my previous paragraph; what exactly is it about science that you think contradicts with Jesus still being "alive" in some sense? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by H Wyatt:
Could you elaborate? I don't understand why that would have to be true so I'd like to know more about what you're thinking.

---

If you believe that Jesus is God and that the only way to salvation is by acknowledging that as a fact, then you will have the highest Christology. If you believe that following His selfless love is the way to salvation, it isn't necessary to believe He was God, so you will have a much lower Christology. If you believe that he was just one of many good men and virtuous teachers, then you don't need any Christology. Does that explain it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Sorry to butt in, I know this wasn't addressed to me, but which scientific facts are you saying are in contradiction to Jesus' spirit still living? What are these scientific facts that I must perforce be rejecting?

---

That sounds a bit like the 'prove the negative' I think. Give me one true fact that has zero scientific backing, whether containing lots of 'don't know yets' or not.

---

quote:

---

I wondered how you find it possible to believe both that and the scientific reality.

quote:

---

Than what part of scientific reality? That the sun is a mass of incandescent plasma? That dropped objects accelerate toward the earth at 9.8 meters per second squared? "Scientific reality" is hopelessly vague. See my previous paragraph; what exactly is it about science that you think contradicts with Jesus still being "alive" in some sense?

---

Of course Science is vague here and there,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
So this comes down to:
Can I trust what the gospels say?

---

The Gospels say only what the later leaders of the Church wanted them to say! Some of it is good advice, good stories, perhaps actual history.

quote:

---

Can I trust what He says?

---

I believe I am right in saying that there are absolutely no extant writings of Jesus, that's if he wrote any in the first place.

quote:

---

Do I actually believe that he was resurrected?

---

I find it quite sad and disappointing that after so many years of increasing understanding of the biology of living creatures that anyone can suspend their disbelief and say that such a thing as resurrection could be, in any way at all, possible or true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I find it quite sad and disappointing that after so many years of increasing understanding of the biology of living creatures that anyone can suspend their disbelief and say that such a thing as resurrection could be, in any way at all, possible or true.

---

quote:

---

Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

I don't love Jesus, trust him, follow him, seek him out, because I think he's going to raise me from the dead (though he will do that some day). I do it because (shuffles feet, coughs), I'm, er, in love with him. [Lutheran blushes and breaks for the door, muttering something about having to powder my nose]

---

---

I really have no idea what this means. I spent more than 25 years trying to think, act and speak like this but in the end it felt like I was just trying very hard to convince myself.

Can you explain this a bit more? Is this related to spiritual experience(s)?

---

Okay, I'm going to try. No guarantees about coherency or anything else.

There is a huge intellectual component to my faith, as I'm sure I've bored you all with ad infinitum, and this is no surprise, because I am by nature (though not practice) an ivory tower academician.

But there's an equally big emotional component ("loving respect" yes, Nicodemia, thank you, great expression!). And I think it's appropriate to have that element because what I have going on is a relationship with a person (okay, persons).

Short pause to deflect flames: I am NOT saying that everyone else, or even anybody else, has to have "a personal relationship with Jesus" or however you want to phrase it. God deals with individuals in individual ways. I'm only telling you about mine because I was asked. And this is all very but fortunately you can't see me blush through the Internet.

Anyway.

I became a Christian without realizing it during a very traumatic time in my life, pretty much by reading the Bible alone in isolation from any Christian church or influence. (I used to lock myself in the toilet so as not to get caught.) In fact, it was through the Old Testament, which I read starting at Genesis. I started reading the book as if it were any of the zillions of novels I was also reading, but at some point that attitude changed without me noticing. I was a believer long before ever I reached the New--heck, before I reached the Psalms. And being desperate, I basically grabbed on to this God with both arms and legs, so to speak. Actually, I think it was him picking me up and not the other way around. He is the reason I survived my teens and did not suicide.

My experiences had led me to a very, very deep distrust of anything I couldn't prove to be true myself. I was used to being lied to, I suspected everyone, and that suspicion naturally showed up in my faith as well. It's the main reason I studied Greek and Hebrew in college--I wanted to be sure the translators weren't distorting stuff or making it up wholesale. It's the reason I put my pastor through interrogation hell (when I eventually got one, poor guy). I just didn't trust anybody. I still don't. I'm frankly astonished I manage to trust Christ, as there's nobody else in my world or life that I ever totally relax with. I've been lied to and betrayed too many times. And I literally puke at the fear of being betrayed this way once again.

So in my teens until today, I've been hammering away at Christianity, particularly the source text, the Bible, making damn sure nobody's pulling the wool over my eyes. I read every bloody news item that comes along in terms of archaeology, etc. I read atheist articles. I expose myself to other religions. I do things like going to Muslim rallies--okay, that was once, but it was very interesting! In short, my friendships, my reading matter, and so forth are precisely the kind of thing that would horrify the more sheltered members of my faith--because if Christianity won't stand up to the heat, I want to know now. I can't take being lied to.

And that is maybe the foundation of my relationship with Christ. I can honestly say that I have never, ever, EVER found him to ring hollow. He tells me the truth. It's often a truth I don't want to hear (for example, all the ouchy stuff in the sermon on the mount, or the statements about what happens to anyone who really tries to follow him). But I've always seen it work out to be true in practice. Whenever I've stuck my neck out and actually done what he says, I've found it to hold true. (and when I've done the opposite, I've found it to hold true too. )

Christ does not lie to me. He doesn't flatter me, and he doesn't put up with my bullshit. He pulls me up pretty sharply at times. But he deeply cares about me, and he forgives--unlike most people I know. Yeah, this is spiritual experience. And some of it is touchy-feely, I suppose. But my whole life with him isn't touchy-feely. A lot of it is learning to walk by faith--that is, to go on doing what I'm supposed to be doing regardless of what my feelings have to say at the moment.

There are plenty of times when I feel spiritually dry--that is, when God seems to be distant or even absent altogether. Some of those periods go on for quite a while--I think the longest was about three years in my twenties. I think these spiritual deserts are normal and healthy. Without them I would never have learned endurance.

The other good thing these periods have taught me is the difference between feeling and fact. It makes sense to base your life on tested, thought-through, solid positions, and to re-evaluate those positions if and when new facts turn up. It does not make sense to abandon those positions, whatever they may be, when a mood or emotional storm overtakes me. Knowing the difference is so important. And not just in terms of my faith. Being able to make this distinction allowed me to navigate several hellish family crises and health crises without losing my shit altogether. It's like what some people call "keeping your eye on the ball."

But back to Christ. At this point in time I have known him for about forty years. (still shocked I've lived this long, which is largely due to him)

At this point in time the relationship is still both intellectual and emotional. The intellectual is mainly seen in my reading and writing. The emotional--well...

I talk to him, on and off, during the day. Much of this is complaints, poor Lord! A fair amount is confession or petition, most of it about the things I deal with daily, big or small (e.g. cancer, a very demanding new puppy, a loved one's mental illness, a stomach upset). As you can see, this is not high-minded stuff at all. I pray like a child. I spend far less time than I ought in praise or adoration or prayers for the world, etc. and far more time than I ought on minor issues and things that probably have him rolling his eyes. And I know that. But I want to tell him the truth-- I don't want to hide from him, or try to manage my reputation in his eyes, you know the way people do with each other? Christ is the one person who's allowed to see me in my emotional ratty underwear. I have to have one person I can tell the total truth to. (which also leads to interesting lessons in humility, but I'm coming to really like the freedom.) He's the one I can say "shit" to, if the circumstances I'm praying about warrant it. He's the one with whom I can regress all the way to infancy if necessary, and ask him to stay with me while I sleep (ignoring for the moment all the adult philosophy about omnipresence and etc.).

And I have to say, occasionally I get--feedback?--that isn't what I was expecting at all. Call these numinous experiences, if you like, but they are usually just very quick moments out of an ordinary day. In one case it was no more than the startling-to-me assurance that he was actually paying attention--intent attention!--to the mundane but uncomfortable position I was in at work. In another I was being a total bitch on wheels to my entire family (and knew it, but couldn't/wouldn't stop) and most astonishingly had the sense that he'd come up and put his arms around me. Given my family history, will it surprise you when i say that my first startled impulse was to jump back? My second was to think that this was a really inappropriate way for him to respond to an asshole like I'd been all day. My third was to say to myself, shut up! If a divine hug is on offer, I'm taking it regardless of my deserts. Finally, a little later, I realized why he'd chosen that--my bitchery was directly though unconsciously related to grief over the recent death of my grandmother.

So this is what my life with Christ is like on a daily basis. Lots of ordinary daily daily stuff--chores to do, people to call, screw-ups and mistakes. Family prayers at bedtime. Bible reading, a chapter a day (hopefully--I miss this out sometimes). Right now I'm in Ezekiel. Worship with communion on Sunday, thank God. A fair amount of "stuff to do" in terms of mission service, like calling hospital financial offices for people, taking cancer patients to the doctor, writing sermons and devos, filling out endless paperwork, typesetting Vietnamese. Any amount of personal stuff like household chores and computer classes (with accompanying prayers of desperation, as in "please help me remember this stuff, is it a char or a string?").

I'm sorry this post has been so long. I'm trying to give you some flavor of what my life is like.
 

---

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :
 
Thank you for that. Both for the time it must have taken and the honesty involved. It is very much appreciated.

 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I find it quite sad and disappointing that after so many years of increasing understanding of the biology of living creatures that anyone can suspend their disbelief and say that such a thing as resurrection could be, in any way at all, possible or true.

---

quote:

---

"[T]he laws [of science] will tell you how a billiard ball will travel on a smooth surface if you hit it in a particular way -- but only provided that no one interferes. If, after it's already in motion, someone snatches up a cue and gives it a biff on one side -- why, then, you won't get what the scientist predicted."

"No, of course not. He can't allow for monkey-tricks like that."

"Quite, and in the same way, if there was anything outside Nature, and if it interfered -- then the events which the scientist expected wouldn't follow.... The laws tell you what will happen if nothing interferes. They can't tell you whether something is going to interfere."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
This is rather the definition of a miracle - God doing something "impossible".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The miracle and numinous / presence of Jesus are interesting. And I have to say "but". Apparently for the numinous experiences only some people get these things and they are often, it seems, the banal, non urgent types of situation. The life threatening and crisis ones not so much.

Re the miracles in the bible, I think the people who accepted them and documented them were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, within a completely different cultural and linguistic context that fully justifies the way they documented them. The gospels are for me mythology designed to convince of something, but truth in stories such as these is entirely different than truth of the intent. A mild version of this is seen when someone tells a story of their youth and how hard it was, or of the good old days. In all of this, we see well-meant distortions, not lying, but stories told for explanatory purposes, sometimes for humour, sometimes to make a definite point, to influence. The motive can be pure. Can the Jesus of Christianity survive the jettisoning of the miraculous? I think so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The miracle and numinous / presence of Jesus are interesting. And I have to say "but". Apparently for the numinous experiences only some people get these things and they are often, it seems, the banal, non urgent types of situation. The life threatening and crisis ones not so much.

---

This may well not be addressed to me, but I hope you don't mind if I respond.

Banal. Well, I suppose so. Certainly the two instances I mentioned were minor. (done on purpose, actually, since I was attempting to show everyday ordinary life with Christ, not the crisis stuff)

But then... what of my suicidalness, which went on for years and occasionally returns even today? I am apparently genetically doomed to deep, deep depression--and no, God hasn't miraculously winkled it away. Nor did he prevent my childhood from being ... problematic, let's call it. And yet. And yet, I am still here. And I know very well it has nothing to do with any emotional strength or resilience of my own.

What of [deep deep crisis I can't even discuss anonymously on the Internet because it goes to the core of another person's privacy]? Nobody, family or professionals, expected a good outcome for that. Yet here I am.

What of the storm I survived at my previous church, the one that gave rise to my name? To all outward appearances we lost. And yet. Yet, here we are. Those who sought to destroy us failed. We are alive and still standing--even living and working in the same community. Our marriage is fine. Our work continues. Judging by the series of similar storms that hit other groups in the community at about the same time, none of this should be true. We were the only survivors I know of. The rest lost their positions, were driven out of the state, had their relationships destroyed.

I'm sorry I can't go into details on the Internet, though if I ever see you at a Shipmeet, I'll be happy to tell you more. But I should say that those who DO know us in real life are pretty freaked out by our survival.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
But he wouldn't/couldn't bother about the 6 year old boy murdered by the 9 year old as reported in our news a while back? He wanted to make someone feel numinous instead?

Without discussing too much personal myself, he didn't care about the prayer for protection on the morning someone dear to me was nearly murdered randomly? But he decided to make the sun shine for someone else's wedding that day?

He didn't listen to prayers for deliverance from the daily beatings when I was at boarding school? Nope, I had to get violent myself.

This sort of thing must result in a rejection of such anything supernatural, or a judgement that these things are whims or fancy from a incomprehensible divine being. I can accept the supernatural at the expense of rejecting God.

Frankly, I think, if there is a divine purpose, I'm being led to debunk the numinous and miraculous as wishful, but not on.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
This is rather the definition of a miracle - God doing something "impossible".

---

I reject that definition. In any case, 'with God nothing is impossible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It seems to me that the only answer God has seen fit to provide to my "Why, why, why?" is Jesus himself, saving, dying, rising, calling.

That is answer enough for me. Though doubtless not for everybody.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:

So my problems are:
1. He has never seen fit to give me a single spiritual experience in my life - perhaps he just has favourites.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
This is rather the definition of a miracle - God doing something "impossible".

---

I reject that definition. In any case, 'with God nothing is impossible.

---

I think what is at play here is two definitions of "impossible." LC is using "not in accordance with the laws of nature" and leo is using "not thinkable" or (circularly) "not doable by God."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think I'd like to know what sort of experience you would classify as spiritual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:

So my problems are:
1. He has never seen fit to give me a single spiritual experience in my life - perhaps he just has favourites.

---

So you've never been affected by a sense of awe? Holding a newborn, looking at and listening to Niagara Falls, seeing a shoal of flying fish do their stuff etc etc?

I think the awe precedes the rational explanation - at least it does for me. People use phrases to describe it e.g. awareness of the numinous. The thing is, although the experiences are very variable the sense of awe is the same.

In conversation with loads of folks of all faiths and none, I gain the impression that virtually all of them know the experience of being awestruck. Of course you can argue that such an experience isn't really spiritual, but in that case, I think I'd like to know what sort of experience you would classify as spiritual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
Thanks for the detailed response Lamb Chopped. It obviously took you some time.

It still feels like you are talking a totally foreign language to me. There are the obvious problems I have, the ones that no prophet mention - you know why does he spend so much time giving people like you spiritual experiences whilst ignoring the really big problems in life.

So my problems are:
1. He has never seen fit to give me a single spiritual experience in my life - perhaps he just has favourites.

[snipped--going to get the rest in another post]

Perhaps God only wants people like you in heaven. Which I guess is lucky for you.

---

quote:

---

Luigi: Yes I have quite often feel a sense of marvel, awe or wonder. However, I've never picked up a baby and thought: there definitely is a God; or now I know I am in love with Jesus. I also never had a sense of my prayers being listened to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
I think present-day Christianity is not at ease with itself.
*snip*
For me the real real strength of Christainity isn't in buildings nor theology, but in the fact that the spiritual Jesus cannot die. And the God to whom He alighted is the God of the here and the now.
.....O dear that's beginning to sound like a faith, maybe I'll have to go plant a church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:

So my problems are:
...

2. A significant number of those who have insisted to me that their experience is totally convincing have in later years lost their faith. Which suggests that there was some exaggeration going on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
3. You constantly talk as if you get angry with God about seemingly gross injustice. This baffles me - when there comes to a choice between 'God is being a part time jerk' and 'he might not exist', you always go for the former. When the obvious one to me is the second.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
4. You talk as if reading the OT convinced you. When I read the OT I just kept coming across passages that if I came across anywhere else I would regard as monstrous. You seem to have an almost supernatural gift for dismissing the negatives of faith whilst constantly focussing on the positives. (Is faith an area where you think we shouldn't check for confirmation bias?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
Jesus still fascinates me - couldn't say I love him - I've never met him! But I find him inspirational in many ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
Well, I think of him as wholly human and wholly divine - hence the bit about not ruffling any conventional Christian feathers.
****

I don't see the same irreconcilable dichotomy between "scientific fact" and having a belief about the numinous that you, presumably, do. Contrary to the popular view in some quarters, "science" isn't a trump card with all the answers, as far as I can see.

---

No, but the scientific method is more reliable than, e.g., prayer,I think!

quote:

---

So I find accepting a historical Jesus who was both human and divine, lived, died, resurrected and ascended to be as reasonable as anything else.
***
And that probably doesn't answer your question either

---

But the best thing is having plenty of interesting views to think about.
 

---

Posted by windsofchange (# 13000) on :
 
Who do I think Jesus is? Well - perhaps this is because I've been watching too many seasons of "Doctor Who" in too short a time period (have already gone from Christopher Eccleston to Matt Smith this summer ) - but for me, a whole lot of what I think about Jesus is tied up with the utter weirdness of His supposed resurrection.

Not so much that He rose from the dead. After all, given the premise that He's the incarnation of God, it seems quite reasonable that something like that would have to happen.

But how about the fact that NO ONE seems to have recognized Him after His resurrection, until He started talking to them and proving his identity to them?

Mary Magdalene thought He was the gardener, till He addressed her by name.

The apostles, who'd been with him for 3 years, had to check out the wounds in His hands and side, and see Him walk through a wall, before they were sure.

The couple on the road to Emmaus didn't really know it was Him till after He'd broken the bread and disappeared, and even then they had to consult each other's notes.

Assuming Jesus was a real person - i.e., that He actually existed, as opposed to being the most brilliant fictional character of all time (a possibility I've also considered) - this all just strikes me as deeply weird, and a pretty good reason to at least consider the possibility that Jesus was, to say the least, a very interesting human being.

Which is why I keep coming back to Him - I just can't seem to abandon Him, or ignore Him, or figure Him out to the point where I can dismiss Him.

And there aren't really any other human beings I can think of that affect me that way.

[ 20. August 2015, 14:48: Message edited by: windsofchange ]
 

---

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Susan Doris:
Interesting post ... a couple of questions if I may , well three actually!: you use the word 'divine' how do you define it? Also, the 'promised land' - do you think there actually is such a thing?
Would you say that you simply take the existence of God for granted, as many here do?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
You're setting up a false opposition though. Plenty of scientists with faith don't treat "God did it" as the end of the investigation, but instead as the start "... ...

---

Can you cite an example here?
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Many of these responses are excellent and detailed, and provide a strong case from experience and have convinced those experiencing them. Except I am absolutely not getting that these God awareness or presence situation come in these quiet and meditative times, and don't in the crisis times? I find the Mother Theresa story of her strong sense of absence of God resonates much better. While I disagree with some of her ideas, I find affinity in her description of God feeling absent for many years in her life (did she say 70 years?) but continuing her Christian life any way.

LC - re your reference to candy. I think I need some Jesus insulin and lollipop overdose.
 

---

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Luigi: Yes I have quite often feel a sense of marvel, awe or wonder. However, I've never picked up a baby and thought: there definitely is a God; or now I know I am in love with Jesus. I also never had a sense of my prayers being listened to.

---

What are you expecting?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:

What I am trying to express is that the most commonly stated trump card for all doubts (that I have heard throughout my Christian life) is a variation on 'my relationship with / my experience of God is THE reason why I don't doubt.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
You're setting up a false opposition though. Plenty of scientists with faith don't treat "God did it" as the end of the investigation, but instead as the start "... ...

---

Can you cite an example here?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Tell me what the contradiction is. Or your claim is hollow and your question "how can you believe both" is meaningless. It's like asking how I can believe two unrelated things. In order for there to even be a question of how I can believe two things, they have to be in opposition in some way. Show me in what way they are in opposition.

---

Thank you for your post, which I've read several times;I’ve had a good think but I'm afraid I've decided on a rather tangential response!
1. If someone says they believe something, then it can be tested that the brain is active whether or not the belief itself can be empirically tested. Neither God nor the spirit of Jesus can be tested.
2. Suppose you had a group of children, say, about 11 years old and had to give them information about God/god/s and a historical person named Jesus. Would you at any point tell them that God and the spirit of Jesus were true, and that they can believe that they are true? If so, how could they verify that?

I am well aware that I do not have a set of facts and figures at my fingertips in order to respond forcefully ... and of course I know there is no such thing as reincarnation in order to come back as a scientist!

[ 20. August 2015, 15:31: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
 

---

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
Thank you for that. Both for the time it must have taken and the honesty involved. It is very much appreciated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
1. He has never seen fit to give me a single spiritual experience in my life - perhaps he just has favourites.

---

quote:

---

2. A significant number of those who have insisted to me that their experience is totally convincing have in later years lost their faith. Which suggests that there was some exaggeration going on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
We don't know enough about the 'laws of nature' to know what an incarnate deity can do in accordance with them e.g. walking on water.

---

quote:

---

C. S. Lewis (not someone i usually like to quote) suggested that the changing of water into wine was some thing that happened naturally but, In John 2, was speeded up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Look, if he's playing favorites (as if!) you don't want to be one of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
No, but the scientific method is more reliable than, e.g., prayer,I think!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:
You're setting up a false opposition though. Plenty of scientists with faith don't treat "God did it" as the end of the investigation, but instead as the start "... ...

---

Can you cite an example here?

---

quote:

---

but I'm afraid I've decided on a rather tangential response!

---

quote:

---

1. If someone says they believe something, then it can be tested that the brain is active whether or not the belief itself can be empirically tested. Neither God nor the spirit of Jesus can be tested.

---

quote:

---

2. Suppose you had a group of children, say, about 11 years old and had to give them information about God/god/s and a historical person named Jesus. Would you at any point tell them that God and the spirit of Jesus were true, and that they can believe that they are true?

---

quote:

---

If so, how could they verify that?

---

quote:

---

I am well aware that I do not have a set of facts and figures at my fingertips in order to respond forcefully ... and of course I know there is no such thing as reincarnation in order to come back as a scientist!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Many of these responses are excellent and detailed, and provide a strong case from experience and have convinced those experiencing them. Except I am absolutely not getting that these God awareness or presence situation come in these quiet and meditative times, and don't in the crisis times? I find the Mother Theresa story of her strong sense of absence of God resonates much better. While I disagree with some of her ideas, I find affinity in her description of God feeling absent for many years in her life (did she say 70 years?) but continuing her Christian life any way.

LC - re your reference to candy. I think I need some Jesus insulin and lollipop overdose.

---

Yeah, the Mother Theresa thing that so many people used to try to discredit her, was to me the one thing that convinced me she was the real deal. Because IMHO that is something that happens to every Christian if they live in the faith long enough--though God forbid it be for decades, as it was apparently for her. Such a person is a hero of the faith, and I shall go off and contemplate my wimpishness.

I do occasionally get these things in time of crisis--but never, as far as I can remember, in times of MY personal crisis. If they come, they come for the sake of others. For example, there was the one time I got booted down to the hospital to comfort a dying man (though none of us knew he was dying until the next day, when I found out I'd been the last to see him.) I wasn't told either, just "Go down there, and take the hymnbook with you" (necessary because my Vietnamese is not up to anything much better than reading and singing pre-prepared words) Not that I realized what was going to be asked of me anyway.

But this sort of thing turns up in Acts a lot, doesn't it? I mean, Ananias gets interrupted by God to go to a particular address and deal with the Very Scary persecutor Saul--and he does, and then we never hear of him again. Philip gets told to take a long desert walk in order to meet up with a single foreign guy (the Ethiopian), and isn't given any info ahead of time on what the meeting is going to involve. (Note that it's also not what you'd call cost-effective to send a disciple all that distance to talk to a single guy leaving the country, when he could have stayed and preached to dozens or hundreds in the public square. God is apparently not into being sensible or explaining himself either.)

The case where we got sent to schlepp the guy to the hospital was for his benefit, not ours. (and why didn't God send us 10 minutes earlier, or even better, a cop with a gun?) The few times we've seen miracles, they've been for Somebody Else. Bar one, and you could argue about that one, too.

In short, God never seems to send them at the time when any normal person would think them most useful. It's at those times I have to rely on the Bible and on prayer and on the Lord's Supper, and maybe most of all, on fellow Christians. Why? I don't know. Maybe because those sources of grace are stronger or more reliable? Maybe because giving me a sp. experience during crisis would be pretty much guaranteed to tempt me into making it an idol?
 

---

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:

So my problems are:
1. He has never seen fit to give me a single spiritual experience in my life - perhaps he just has favourites.

---

So you've never been affected by a sense of awe? Holding a newborn, looking at and listening to Niagara Falls, seeing a shoal of flying fish do their stuff etc etc?

---

quote:

---

I think the awe precedes the rational explanation - at least it does for me. People use phrases to describe it e.g. awareness of the numinous. The thing is, although the experiences are very variable the sense of awe is the same.

---

quote:

---

In conversation with loads of folks of all faiths and none, I gain the impression that virtually all of them know the experience of being awestruck. Of course you can argue that such an experience isn't really spiritual, but in that case, I think I'd like to know what sort of experience you would classify as spiritual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Do I know if this is real or a figment of my imagination? The answer is no, but I remember the words of the anonymous Cloud of Unknowing, which says of God, "By love may he be gotten and holden, but by thought never."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:

What I am trying to express is that the most commonly stated trump card for all doubts (that I have heard throughout my Christian life) is a variation on 'my relationship with / my experience of God is THE reason why I don't doubt.'

---

I have heard several people here site their experience of Jesus as the reason they continue to be faithful followers/Christians despite their concurrent experiences of doubt and/or cognitive dissonance. I haven't seen anyone suggest that they don't don't doubt. I would question the seriousness of anyone who made such a claim.

---

As far as I know, everybody gets tempted to doubt. Unless you get baptized, walk out the church door and get run over by a truck immediately.

But being tempted is not the same thing as giving in to the temptation. When my husband comes home six hours late and says there was a surprise meeting, do I get unworthy urges to cross-examine him--to look at his phone--to do shit like that? Sure I do. But I don't do it, because I've known him 30 years and he deserves better of me.

And the primary way that I know God is through the Scriptures. It's not through random spiritual experiences, however great. It's certainly not because my parents brought me up Christian (they didn't) or because I've spent my life in a Christian environment (I haven't). I got to know his character through reading the Bible. Anybody who wants the same can do likewise. It's not a closed secret society by any means.

And then I started talking to the God I found in the Bible. Awkward? Sure. It wasn't as if I'd been brought up to do that. But there's plenty of places where he urges people in trouble to call on him. There are also plenty of places where people yell at him, even though they are clearly in a long term relationship with him and have no intention of divorcing. I followed those examples. And it sort of grew from there.

I think I first told somebody I was a believer about two or three years after I became one.

You folks who are interested--if you want to try for yourself, pick up the Bible in an accessible translation of your choice and give it a go. I'd start with the Prophets (Isaiah etc.)--the Law and the Histories are tough going for anyone not of that culture. Then the Gospels. See what kind of a God this is. And getting back to the OP, see what kind of a man Jesus is.

But it's going to take more than reading secondary sources (no books about the Bible, please). And it's going to take more than a chapter here or there, dipping in only to certain bits. And an open mind never hurts.

You may not come to the conclusions I came to. You don't have to. I'm just saying this is how it went for me.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Yeah, the Mother Theresa thing that so many people used to try to discredit her, was to me the one thing that convinced me she was the real deal. Bmuch guaranteed to tempt me into making it an idol?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The most obvious one is probably Francis Collins, ...[/QUOTE[]QUOTE]Originally posted by mousethief:
Isaac Newton.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The most obvious one is probably Francis Collins, ...[/QUOTE[]QUOTE]Originally posted by mousethief:
Isaac Newton.

---

However, the scientific information they produced, stands as fact, challengeable and verifiable, independently of any belief in God. Those facts would be the same whether those scientists believed that God exists or not. So that the belief is irrelevant, isn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:

What I am trying to express is that the most commonly stated trump card for all doubts (that I have heard throughout my Christian life) is a variation on 'my relationship with / my experience of God is THE reason why I don't doubt.'

---

I have heard several people here site their experience of Jesus as the reason they continue to be faithful followers/Christians despite their concurrent experiences of doubt and/or cognitive dissonance. I haven't seen anyone suggest that they don't don't doubt. I would question the seriousness of anyone who made such a claim.


*As an aside, let me mention that Lamb's eloquent posts here are yet another reason why I wanna be her when I grow up.*

---

quote:

---

Luigi: What I am trying to express is that the most commonly stated trump card for all doubts (that I have heard throughout my Christian life) is a variation on 'my relationship with / my experience of God is THE reason why I don't doubt.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:

What I am trying to express is that the most commonly stated trump card for all doubts (that I have heard throughout my Christian life) is a variation on 'my relationship with / my experience of God is THE reason why I don't doubt.'

---

I have heard several people here site their experience of Jesus as the reason they continue to be faithful followers/Christians despite their concurrent experiences of doubt and/or cognitive dissonance. I haven't seen anyone suggest that they don't don't doubt. I would question the seriousness of anyone who made such a claim.


*As an aside, let me mention that Lamb's eloquent posts here are yet another reason why I wanna be her when I grow up.*

---

I agree that those who never doubt are a small minority. However, there do seem to be a fair number for whom experience invariably trumps their doubt. They presumably have a reason for their confidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Luigi: What I am trying to express is that the most commonly stated trump card for all doubts (that I have heard throughout my Christian life) is a variation on 'my relationship with / my experience of God is THE reason why I don't doubt.'

---

It isn't for me. I don't have a trump card for overcoming all doubts. I'm not even sure if having such a trump card would be a good thing, at least not for me.

When I look at nature, awe is all I feel, just like you. Yes, to me God is present in that awe, but I don't think that's because my feeling is different from yours. It's not like Jesus is whispering in my ear or something.

I like this awe, so I try to spend a lot of time in nature. But I don't think the function of this is to prevent me from doubting.

If you're looking for an experience that will take away all your doubts so that you can start believing, I'm not sure if that's the right way to go about it.

---

LeRoc - your position whilst not being identical to mine is at least one I can understand and relate to.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
cliffdweller
Apologies - I'll be back tomorrow to try to set the goalposts back in the right place!

---

Sounds good!

 

---

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:


Wesley talks about "experimental religion" or "faith confirmed by experience"-- i.e. experience can never be the "stuff" of faith. You can't build a faith on these elusive, non-transferrable, non-empirical affective experiences. Our faith is built on other things. But experience is an important component of confirming those beliefs that are built on more solid and lasting things like Scripture, tradition, reason, and community.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:

Now I know that all that just puts a question mark next to mainstream takes on Christianity not on the possibility that there is a God. The sense of alienation comes from others treating me as if it is wrong to even ask those questions.

---

This. Probably one of the most short-sighted things we do as Christians-- and then we'll complain about how church-goers don't want to engage deeply on theological issues!


 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
The question I put to myself ongoing is: Can it not be enough that this sort of life is better than that sort of life without it?

I find my answer is yes, and that I need to stop wanting something addition in terms of the relationship that LC talks of, and to avoid the affective experience CD nicely summarizes. I do experience what I term aesthetic beauty and truth, and find great meaning in some art, music and most reliably, the natural world, and these help provide something ineffable beyond words, ideas, thought and reason, but there is nothing personal in them. Liturgy has fitted into this, though I've had some significant struggles with some phraseology in these recent years that promotes the personal relationship. The association with people who are trying the same path is also worthy.
 

---

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 

quote:

---

Lamb Chopped said:


Now as far as my overall relationship with God:

There are basically two periods in a relationship like that. The first is when you aren't committed to anything yet. You are investigating all your options, gathering data, making judgements, doing your best to be evenhanded and neutral. This stage is a bit like scientific or judicial inquiry. You aren't signed up to anything, and at least in theory, you are open to anything. It all depends on where the evidence leads.

This is entirely proper and right, and I'd encourage this attitude in anyone investigating Christianity.

The second stage, though, is where you have to shit or get off the pot. This starts when you decide you have enough evidence to convince you, and now the question at hand is, "What am I personally going to do about this?"

This is where science and human relationships (including the relationship with God) part ways. In science, you may not ever reach the point where you feel you have to do something personally about your field. You may just stay in stage one forever, doing pure science and doing it well. Even if you do go into stage two (for example, deciding to become a political activist about global warming), you are still not dealing with a human relationship, so it is possible (not easy) to do an about-face later if your data starts looking wrong. In fact, it is a matter of pride to keep your options open.

But in the field of human relationships, things are different. When you get to the stage of personal commitment, the rules change. After that point, you should NOT be keeping your options open--you should be practicing faithfulness and loyalty. Which is why it's so very, very important to do stage one thoroughly, so as not to make a mistake at stage two.

The usual analogy is that of marriage. Before you marry, you may carefully investigate the person you're considering marrying. You may (and probably should!) talk to her* family, friends, acquaintances, to get a better handle on what kind of person she is. (*I'm making gender etc assumptions here to avoid screwed up syntax, no intent to offend) You may even go so far as to run a credit report, search Casenet (a judicial records site), and Google her. You will certainly spend a heck of a lot of time together with her, talking, listening, finding out what kind of a person she is. And if at any point you find out something that just turns you off, you can be gone--zhoop! like the wind, baby.

But things change once you commit. The minute you enter stage two, it is no longer a right or honorable thing to do, to "keep your options open." We despise the man or woman who breaks a marriage when a "better option" comes along. And we expect spouses to give each other the benefit of the doubt in doubtful cases, instead of snooping through wallets and phones, hiring detectives, etc. That kind of breach of trust is only justifiable when it turns out to be true, and the other person has already broken faith first.

Now a relationship with God is like any other stage two human relationship. Faithfulness and loyalty are valued. Having once made that commitment, it's time to keep it. (Which is why it's so important to make it correctly in the first place.)

You know from your own life that it's impossible to keep up a good close relationship in an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion. The time for that is past. If my husband comes home late, it is decent of me to assume he had car trouble or some work emergency--to do otherwise is to insult him. I know his character, and it will take a great deal to convince me that he has changed. It takes very strong evidence indeed to overthrow that kind of commitment.

---

quote:

---

Martin60: Luigi, you, me, LeRoc, npfiss... don't do transpersonal psychology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The most obvious one is probably Francis Collins, ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Isaac Newton.

---

However, the scientific information they produced, stands as fact, challengeable and verifiable, independently of any belief in God. Those facts would be the same whether those scientists believed that God exists or not. So that the belief is irrelevant, isn't it?

---

Not in the least. The belief engendered the research that produced the scientific information. How can that be irrelevant? Renaissance/Modern science was started by men (yes, it was almost entirely men in the early days) who believed the world was uniform and predictable and investigate-able because it was made by a steadfast, non-capricious god. This is not irrelevant. This is very possibly a sine qua non for the beginning of the scientific revolution of Galileo/Kepler/Newton et al.

A person who had no reason to believe the world was uniform enough to investigate patterns and "laws" would have no reason to undertake scientific investigation. There's a reason that what we call the scientific method was invented by Christians and Muslims. Scientific atheism owes its life-breath to scientific theism.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I find it hard to believe that you believe anything other than that only you are thinking and feeling what you think and feel, alone, in your head, that no one is making you, doing it for you. Psychology 101. Omnipathy and omniscience are passive. As is omnipotence.

But ... His Spirit is here And not just in the ripples from the Incarnation.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:

quote:

---

Lamb Chopped said:


Now as far as my overall relationship with God:

There are basically two periods in a relationship like that. The first is when you aren't committed to anything yet. ...

---

Lamb Chopped - according to your analogy I either didn't do stag and suspiciously. In short acting in a despicable way. Is there any other way of reading this?

Your language reflects just how low your view of those who behave in a certain way having committed to the Christian faith actually is. I have highlighted them so that it is easy to see.

Perhaps that will help you to understand why I find your analogy so unhelpful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Not sure stages are always helpful. I think people have their own paths many times. Are there enough on this thread to provide models? I'm coming to the conclusion that everyone must muddle through to a large degree mainly on their own; my current position is a rejection of some of the 'more advanced' stuff I formerly had.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
No, but the scientific method is more reliable than, e.g., prayer,I think!

---

These two things have such different purposes that this comparison is nonsensical. It's like saying that hammers are superior to potatoes because they're better at pounding in nails.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

but I'm afraid I've decided on a rather tangential response!

---

As I might have predicted. Science cannot disprove the supernatural, and there is no actual conflict between any scientific finding and my believe in Jesus.

---

quote:

---

The conflict is with your metascientific belief that science can discover all truth. More on which anon.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

1. If someone says they believe something, then it can be tested that the brain is active whether or not the belief itself can be empirically tested. Neither God nor the spirit of Jesus can be tested.

---

Scientifically, no. Experientially, yes, as many have testified to. On this thread even.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:

But in the field of human relationships, things are different. When you get to the stage of personal commitment, the rules change. After that point, [b]you should NOT be keeping your options open--you should be practicing faithfulness and loyalty. Which is why it's so very, very important to do stage one thoroughly, so as not to make a mistake at stage two.[

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Jesus was once human.....But now he has no flesh to touch

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

2. Suppose you had a group of children, say, about 11 years old and had to give them information about God/god/s and a historical person named Jesus. Would you at any point tell them that God and the spirit of Jesus were true, and that they can believe that they are true?

---

Of course!

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

If so, how could they verify that?

---

You are mashing up scientific truth with other types of relationship to the world.

---

quote:

---

… As if scientific truth were the only kind. Which, as I have repeatedly said, is not a result of scientific investigation, but an unprovable axiom.

---

quote:

---

In short, you take the position of science -- that nothing not scientifically verifiable is known -- on faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

Oh, and human relationships? If there's at least one human involved (and there is, if it's me or (I think) anybody else on this Ship, then it's a human relationship. I can have one with my dog. I can also have one with God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Could I ask for some help, please? There was a post, referring to Francis Collins, which I said I'd come back to ... but I can't find it, so I would be grateful if someone could tell me where it is. thank you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Okay, but what verifiable, testable, objective facts would you cite to back up this claim?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Sheesh. If you guys are hung up on "stage," try "period" or "time" or "aspect" or something. We can even call it pre-commitment and post-commitment if you like. Anything that stops freaking you out thinking you're being given a test.

Oh, and human relationships? If there's at least one human involved (and there is, if it's me or (I think) anybody else on this Ship, then it's a human relationship. I can have one with my dog. I can also have one with God. All the more so as he never gave up his human citizenship, and retains his body and soul to this day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SusanDoris:
[qb] No, but the scientific method is more reliable than, e.g., prayer,I think!

---

These two things have such different purposes that this comparison is nonsensical. It's like saying that hammers are superior to potatoes because they're better at pounding in nails.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

Oh, and human relationships? If there's at least one human involved (and there is, if it's me or (I think) anybody else on this Ship, then it's a human relationship. I can have one with my dog. I can also have one with God.

---

I much prefer my dog to God - she's far less numinous, and she loves me dearly (yes, it's cupboard love - but at least it's real!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

there is no actual conflict between any scientific finding and my believe in Jesus.

---

There is if you believe that Jesus’s spirit lives or is in heaven, or listening to you, or something, since in this case you have the positive belief and it is up to you to prove you are correct.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

quote:

---

2. Suppose you had a group of children, say, about 11 years old and had to give them information about God/god/s and a historical person named Jesus. Would you at any point tell them that God and the spirit of Jesus were true, and that they can believe that they are true?

---

Of course!

---

Okay, but what verifiable, testable, objective facts would you cite to back up this claim?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You are mashing up scientific truth with other types of relationship to the world.

---

What types of relationships can there be which have not evolved and developed naturally? Why is it necessary to bring in a ‘relationship’ with something that is an idea only?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Except that God's numinousness (numinosity?) and immanence are both equally important and equally there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I think you're changing the goalposts-- or I've misunderstood where the goalposts are. You asked for examples of scientists for whom their faith was the starting point, not the ending point.

---

quote:

---

I gave you that. Now you seem to want something entirely different?

---

quote:

---

I'm not really sure even what you are asking for. If I gave you an example of a scientist who allowed his faith to skew his research (and there are some) you would rightly show how unscientific his/her methodology would be. So I give an example of a scientist who is profoundly religious, but maintains his scientific integrity, and you call his faith "irrelevant". So what exactly are you looking for?

---

quote:

---

I believe faith is quite relevant to Collins (as much as anyone can say w/o knowing the man personally)-- it informs his daily life, his professional ethics. It doesn't change the scientific method-- nor should it. But he appears to see the fruits of his labor as something that only enhances his sense of awe in the Creator of the universe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Except that God's numinousness (numinosity?) and immanence are both equally important and equally there.

---

What I am trying to say is that we only seem to experience God when we make all the effort.

I don't have that problem with my dog, she bounds up to me every morning and wants to spend all her time with me. I appreciate her presence and I don't have to work for it.

Of course, there are those who would say the 'work' of feeling close to God is worth it - I would have said the same a few years ago.

Jesus is the best ever role model for self-giving love but (apart from fuzzy feelings, which have to be worked for) exactly how is he helping people here and now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Not in the least. The belief engendered the research that produced the scientific information.

---

quote:

---

There's a reason that what we call the scientific method was invented by Christians and Muslims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Not in the least. The belief engendered the research that produced the scientific information.

---

I'd say it was innate, evolved, human curiosity.

quote:

---

There's a reason that what we call the scientific method was invented by Christians and Muslims.

---

Apart from, as I mention, innate human curiosity, what do you think this was?

---

quote:

---

Luigi: He cannot be observed with a single of the known senses. I've tried trying. I've tried really trying. I've tried trying even harder. I've tried pretending I'm not trying. I've tried being non-chalant - perhaps he doesn't like people who are too needy! And nothing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Okay, but what verifiable, testable, objective facts would you cite to back up this claim?

---

I can't prove the existence of God and/or the divinity of Jesus in an objective way like that. You seem to be looking for some kind of everyday God-magic that we can turn on at the push of the button - the universe proceeds according to the physics that we know, then a priest waves his hands and the universe changes in some magical, "impossible" but verifiable and reproducible way.

---

quote:

---

It doesn't happen and it won't happen. God isn't some kind of parlour trick that you can pull out to impress your friends.

---

quote:

---

I believe Jesus Christ is God. As a consequence, I believe that God exists. I can't prove that to your objective satisfaction. I think I can make a reasonable circumstantial case that the disciples of Jesus believed him, rather than being some knowing part of a grand scam, but I can't objectively prove that they weren't all deluded.
I can also make a reasonable case that the NT contains a fairly accurate historical record of the things that people were saying about Jesus and his disciples shortly after his death.

That's where my faith starts. I believe Jesus Christ is God, I believe he died, was buried, and rose again. I teach this to my children as truth.
But I can't prove it in the scientific sense. With my oldest, I discuss the difference between statements that I make about Christ and those that I make about proton decay (the younger ones aren't ready for that yet).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
What I am trying to say is that we only seem to experience God when we make all the effort.

I don't have that problem with my dog, she bounds up to me every morning and wants to spend all her time with me. I appreciate her presence and I don't have to work for it.

Of course, there are those who would say the 'work' of feeling close to God is worth it - I would have said the same a few years ago.

Jesus is the best ever role model for self-giving love but (apart from fuzzy feelings, which have to be worked for) exactly how is he helping people here and now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

God is there all of the time, it's just that we don't always invest the time in drawing near to God that we invest in drawing near to a dog.

---

Yes, that's true in my case.

Bored with God
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
And what happens when he never responds at all. When over 25+ years we invest more enormous effort and time into pursuing him and he never frigging responds.

He cannot be observed with a single of the known senses. I've tried trying. I've tried really trying. I've tried trying even harder. I've tried pretending I'm not trying. I've tried being non-chalant - perhaps he doesn't like people who are too needy! And nothing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:

This whole 'he is as real as my dog' and 'of course everyone has doubts' doesn't make any sense to me. The two are clearly in conflict.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
Can't those who are so confident that there is a Christian interventionist God, at least start to admit that there are significant differences between knowing that your dog exists and knowing that this God exists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

You are still labouring under the impression that being productive/efficient/useful all the time is the best way to be. It's not - even science has shown daydreaming and other areas of unproductivity, including prayer, as being beneficial for both physical and mental health. So even if prayer doesn't do anything, it is still beneficial - for instance someone feeling comforted is beneficial, even if there is no actual tangible comfort there.

The idea that we have to be productive all the time is literally killing modern Western workforces - see Amazon for example - and is totally contrary to modern scientific thinking. This is a way in which religion and science are very much in agreement (but apparently not you) - most religions that I can think of emphasise taking time out in some way, that work is not the most important thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
(Boogie - this isn't aimed at you more a general comment obviously.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

Bored with God

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

Bored with God

---

Hope you don't mind me asking, but are you still able to go to Church and take part in worship?

(Just curious, don't answer if it sounds invasive)

---

Yes, I go every week. I'm not bored with the people I meet at Church and have known for nearly 40 years, just God. Worship, not really 'tho its continuity is sometimes comforting - but I have my Guide Dog puppy with me so training her keeps me busy

I have told my minister how I feel and I still do lots of work for her as I like her.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Maybe you should train your minister too?
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
And what happens when he never responds at all. When over 25+ years we invest more enormous effort and time into pursuing him and he never frigging responds.

He cannot be observed with a single of the known senses. I've tried trying. I've tried really trying. I've tried trying even harder. I've tried pretending I'm not trying. I've tried being non-chalant - perhaps he doesn't like people who are too needy! And nothing.

This whole 'he is as real as my dog' and 'of course everyone has doubts' doesn't make any sense to me. The two are clearly in conflict. Can't those who are so confident that there is a Christian interventionist God, at least start to admit that there are significant differences between knowing that your dog exists and knowing that this God exists.

(Boogie - this isn't aimed at you more a general comment obviously.)

---

quote:

---

Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him….
Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.” (John 14:21, 23)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm going to echo Cliffdweller--stop trying. Trying doesn't get you anywhere. It never got me anywhere either. About the best you can do is to ask, and then wait. And in the meantime, get on with living your life in the best possible way according to the light you have now.

What follows is me speaking for myself and not anybody else....

...Then experience. This started when I was desperate and started talking/crying out to the God I saw pictured in the Bible. It became a two-way conversation OF SORTS (trying to prevent all the rabbit-holes I can see the thread going down right now). I received responses OF SORTS. No, I did not have the heavens open and Christ come down in visible form. No, I did not hear an audible-to-the-ears voice. So what was it, then? (Cliffdwellter, Raptor Eye, etc. help me out here--this is like trying to describe sex to a virgin)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

...I want to know-really know—God, and be known by him. And so I treasure* Jesus’ words and commands, and that includes living them out (with many screw-ups, it’s true). And yes—he has come to me, and made his home with me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Aye, it comes with age.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Except that God's numinousness (numinosity?) and immanence are both equally important and equally there.

---

What I am trying to say is that we only seem to experience God when we make all the effort.

I don't have that problem with my dog, she bounds up to me every morning and wants to spend all her time with me. I appreciate her presence and I don't have to work for it.

Of course, there are those who would say the 'work' of feeling close to God is worth it - I would have said the same a few years ago.

Jesus is the best ever role model for self-giving love but (apart from fuzzy feelings, which have to be worked for) exactly how is he helping people here and now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Except that God's numinousness (numinosity?) and immanence are both equally important and equally there.

---

What I am trying to say is that we only seem to experience God when we make all the effort.

I don't have that problem with my dog, she bounds up to me every morning and wants to spend all her time with me. I appreciate her presence and I don't have to work for it.

Of course, there are those who would say the 'work' of feeling close to God is worth it - I would have said the same a few years ago.

Jesus is the best ever role model for self-giving love but (apart from fuzzy feelings, which have to be worked for) exactly how is he helping people here and now?

---

And what happens when he never responds at all. When over 25+ years we invest more enormous effort and time into pursuing him and he never frigging responds.

He cannot be observed with a single of the known senses. I've tried trying. I've tried really trying. I've tried trying even harder. I've tried pretending I'm not trying. I've tried being non-chalant - perhaps he doesn't like people who are too needy! And nothing.

This whole 'he is as real as my dog' and 'of course everyone has doubts' doesn't make any sense to me. The two are clearly in conflict. Can't those who are so confident that there is a Christian interventionist God, at least start to admit that there are significant differences between knowing that your dog exists and knowing that this God exists.

(Boogie - this isn't aimed at you more a general comment obviously.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

God is there all of the time, it's just that we don't always invest the time in drawing near to God that we invest in drawing near to a dog.

---

Yes, that's true in my case.

Bored with God

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

You are still labouring under the impression that being productive/efficient/useful all the time is the best way to be. It's not - even science has shown daydreaming and other areas of unproductivity, including prayer, as being beneficial for both physical and mental health. So even if prayer doesn't do anything, it is still beneficial - for instance someone feeling comforted is beneficial, even if there is no actual tangible comfort there.

The idea that we have to be productive all the time is literally killing modern Western workforces - see Amazon for example - and is totally contrary to modern scientific thinking. This is a way in which religion and science are very much in agreement (but apparently not you) - most religions that I can think of emphasise taking time out in some way, that work is not the most important thing.

---

Yes, I do understand that, but it is very many years since I have been involved in useful and constructive thinking; I do my best to keep as fit as I can so that I can remain self-sufficient, and fully understand how much of my time is spent on useless thinking! It would be great to store up all the time I've spent over the years waiting for trains, buses, medical appointments, and - increasingly nowadays - for a real live person on the other end of the phone! - etc and then add that time onto the end of my life, although I'm not quite sure what I'd do with it - probably trying to think of suitable words for my last posts on forums! Obviously, there will be no praying!

---

You continue to miss the point entirely. It is not good to be constantly useful and constructive, or to think only useful and constructive thoughts. Why would you want to not have any useless thinking? Useless thinking is what gives us daydreams and inspiration and eureka moments. So many discoveries and creations, including scientific ones, would be lost without useless thinking.
 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Also sorry - limited laptop access means I have to respond all at once, and so I missed LC and cliffdweller's responses. to both.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

Jesus is my saviour, not my role model in a human sense - he helps people here and now with salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Luigi: I've tried really trying. I've tried trying even harder. I've tried pretending I'm not trying. I've tried being non-chalant - perhaps he doesn't like people who are too needy! And nothing.

---

I'm sorry, but I still think you're going about this the wrong way. Stop trying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
And what happens when he never responds at all. When over 25+ years we invest more enormous effort and time into pursuing him and he never frigging responds.

I've tried trying. I've tried pretending I'm not trying. I've tried being non-chalant - perhaps he doesn't like people who are too needy! And nothing.

---

It is more than frustrating-- it is heartbreaking. The one thing I think you can learn from this is that it is not about our effort. But why it is so elusive? Why it appears to be so easy and effortless to some and so remote and impossible for others? No answers. And yet, we seem created to yearn for it and to feel the absence profoundly, as your post seems to express.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:

This whole 'he is as real as my dog' and 'of course everyone has doubts' doesn't make any sense to me. The two are clearly in conflict.

---

Not really in conflict, actually.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

Although we ALL feel that He does. We all feel that the numinous comes from elsewhere.

It can't.

It feels transpersonal.

It isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

Although we ALL feel that He does. We all feel that the numinous comes from elsewhere.

It can't.

It feels transpersonal.

It isn't.

---

And there you have encapsulated the problem, the question.

Is all this relationship with God/Jesus from God/Jesus or just in the person's mind?

We'll never know this side of death. And right there lies total frustration or total trust or something in between.

On that continuum I am now very close to the total frustration end. I have some hope that I may be able to slide the other way. But that seems to take effort - much as folk say 'stop trying'. To be fair, I stopped trying months ago.

---

Well said Boogie - I know what you mean.

And hat tip to Martin. I often wish I understood what you were saying just that little more - you can be almost as elusive as God!

However, the bits I do understand are sometimes spot on.
 

---

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
And there you have encapsulated the problem, the question.

Is all this relationship with God/Jesus from God/Jesus or just in the person's mind?

We'll never know this side of death. And right there lies total frustration or total trust or something in between.

On that continuum I am now very close to the total frustration end. I have some hope that I may be able to slide the other way. But that seems to take effort - much as folk say 'stop trying'. To be fair, I stopped trying months ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I understand your frustration, and readiness to give up. If I had not become convinced that God is real and is other than me, I would have remained as a non-believer.

---

quote:

---

The 'stop trying' advice applies when we have a pre-conceived idea of what we want God to do. We do need to draw near to God, however, (through prayer, meditation on the scriptures, and action as in following the example and teaching of Jesus) if we would like God to draw near to us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
And there you have encapsulated the problem, the question.

Is all this relationship with God/Jesus from God/Jesus or just in the person's mind?

We'll never know this side of death. And right there lies total frustration or total trust or something in between.

On that continuum I am now very close to the total frustration end. I have some hope that I may be able to slide the other way. But that seems to take effort - much as folk say 'stop trying'. To be fair, I stopped trying months ago.

---

I understand your frustration, and readiness to give up. If I had not become convinced that God is real and is other than me, I would have remained as a non-believer.

Now I am sure that I connect with God and God with me in relationship, and that the one God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit is both outside of me and dwells within me. No way am I imagining this relationship, it is affirmed time and again, not only through feelings (often in prayer) but through thoughts and words, usually those of other people. I do not think that this makes me special, rather it humbles me and charges me with sharing what I am given, with a lifetime of service.

The 'stop trying' advice applies when we have a pre-conceived idea of what we want God to do. We do need to draw near to God, however, (through prayer, meditation on the scriptures, and action as in following the example and teaching of Jesus) if we would like God to draw near to us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

Jesus is my saviour, not my role model in a human sense - he helps people here and now with salvation.

---

What does he save people here and now from?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I like NT Wright's take on it, "saved from a fruitless way of life." Saved from trying to be "good enough" on our own, saved from striving and grasping, saved from the vicious cycle of violence and oppression that stems from our hardened hearts. Saved from that fruitless way of life, saved FOR the life of the Kingdom-- a life empowered by the Spirit, equipped to love and serve. Saved FOR the only life that really matters.

---

I see many lifelong atheists who have all of those qualities (except a belief in God/Jesus/spirit obviously)
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
It's ALL, only, ever in our head. There is nowhere else. There are no other heads in my head.

I know you have a head, just like mine. Utterly unique. Utterly alone. That's all I know. Apart from, that I am in God's head. Completely autonomous. He is no more in my head than my wife is. And I am in relationship with Him LESS. No matter how I feel.

I feel as good about Him and in Him and with Him as ever if not more today. This thread is helping that. This week has been a good week. So it can only get worse A stroke or something. It's been good because I identified where my shame comes from. From my God story. Which doesn't come from God. It comes from the Bible and yet other peoples' stories on those stories. I knew my shame is just a story and that it isn't true although it's real. Now whenever some foul intrusion pops up I can actually ignore it. Not all the time. But I know that God does not bat an eyelid at it. Or the helpless lust. I knew that anyway, but I know just this week that it's JUST a story.

Like EVERYTHING else. That I'm making it up. In response to His actual intrusion 2000 years ago.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I am very uncomfortable with "experiential" forms of religion and the "relationship with God" language. Probably just me then.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I like NT Wright's take on it, "saved from a fruitless way of life." Saved from trying to be "good enough" on our own, saved from striving and grasping, saved from the vicious cycle of violence and oppression that stems from our hardened hearts. Saved from that fruitless way of life, saved FOR the life of the Kingdom-- a life empowered by the Spirit, equipped to love and serve. Saved FOR the only life that really matters.

---

I see many lifelong atheists who have all of those qualities (except a belief in God/Jesus/spirit obviously)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

I feel as good about Him and in Him and with Him as ever if not more today. This thread is helping that. This week has been a good week. So it can only get worse A stroke or something. It's been good because I identified where my shame comes from. From my God story. Which doesn't come from God. It comes from the Bible and yet other peoples' stories on those stories. I knew my shame is just a story and that it isn't true although it's real. Now whenever some foul intrusion pops up I can actually ignore it. Not all the time. But I know that God does not bat an eyelid at it. Or the helpless lust. I knew that anyway, but I know just this week that it's JUST a story.
.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
But where did that conviction come from? The same question remains - we don't know and never will know whether it's from an internal or external source.

---

quote:

---

As people get older they tend to value their time more. What if all that prayer and meditation is wasted time? (Susan Doris touched on this question) Would it not be better spent on other things than (possibly) connecting with Jesus?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
Raptor - from your conversations with others, what proportion of Christians you know would you guess are as certain as you that they are not... no scrap that... could not be, imagining it. 1 in 100, 1 in 20, 1 in 5?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I see many lifelong atheists who have all of those qualities (except a belief in God/Jesus/spirit obviously)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
But where did that conviction come from? The same question remains - we don't know and never will know whether it's from an internal or external source.

---

Yes, we can know. There comes evidence of sorts, as LC said, but evidence nevertheless, that we can be sure is not from us, is from other than us - in this life. If we don't receive it personally, then it is our decision whether we believe what others tell us is their experience, in this generation or previous generations back to Jesus himself, or further; continue to seek in the hope that we will find; or allow other interests to take precedence over God in our lives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
How about those who have had this experience, this sure knowledge (knowing Jesus) and now realise it was more than likely a form of wishful thinking/group psychology/false hope/mistaken belief/delusion? Those who were thoroughly converted but now think otherwise?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I am very uncomfortable with "experiential" forms of religion and the "relationship with God" language. Probably just me then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
Raptor - from your conversations with others, what proportion of Christians you know would you guess are as certain as you that they are not... no scrap that... could not be, imagining it. 1 in 100, 1 in 20, 1 in 5?

---

As I speak mostly to committed Christians, some of whom have experienced a calling from God, I would say it is more than 9 out of 10. This does not mean that doubts don't loom occasionally, in 'desert' experiences which we must endure for a while - at those times we may well wonder whether it was imagination all along - but somehow this is important to our faith. Nobody said it would be easy. Certainly Jesus didn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I am very uncomfortable with "experiential" forms of religion and the "relationship with God" language. Probably just me then.

---

I can't see how 'Love God with all of your heart, soul, mind and strength, and love other people as yourself' can mean any other than relationship and experience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
I can't see how that means God takes over any of our minds. Any more than anyone else I am in relationship with. Not that I experience Him in any way apart from hearing about Him of course. I therefore experience Him less than I experience my wife, runners on the tow-path in the rain this afternoon, or my friends and kids by text. I talk to Him directly of course, think in Him. But He doesn't, CANNOT, think in me. Any more than He did in Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I am very uncomfortable with "experiential" forms of religion and the "relationship with God" language. Probably just me then.

---

I can't see how 'Love God with all of your heart, soul, mind and strength, and love other people as yourself' can mean any other than relationship and experience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
Blimey we move in very different circles. In the past I've come across / known quite a few people who speak with your confidence. However when they are pushed hard they become a whole lot more 'yes of course these experiences could be explained other ways'. Or 'yes personal experience can be highly misleading.'

Just recently a guy I know reasonably well and who has many Christian friends on facebook, asked just how confident they were of their faith. The vast majority were fairly confident but nowhere near as confident as you have said you are. A few were very confident but they were definitely in the minority. It reflected my conversations over the years.

If you are right then I and those who struggle with believing are in a pretty small minority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Given the tiny number of Hebrew men who entered the holy-of-holies, I think it is very hard to suggest that the Jewish law was interpreted to mean relationship and experience.

---

quote:

---

Raptor Eye said:

quote:

---

And so I'm not surprised that committed Christians agree that there are alternative explanations people look for, of course there are, especially if they don't really want to embrace faith, like me. In the end we make the genuine personal conviction and commitment for ourselves, or continue to put experience down to fantasy.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Think what? You admit that there is no element of possession, no transpersonal psychology, that what I think is my thoughts, that what I feel is my feelings. That there is NO literal fulfilment of Jesus' entirely figurative sayings in any way. So what's left?

And Luigi baby, nearly ALL of my fellowshipping of the past 36 years, including today, has involved people with no doubts whatsoever that God heals, changes people's leg lengths, makes them feel and believe and experience and know everything by magic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
Oh believe me many of those I am talking about most certainly want to and have embraced faith.

I'll try to be really clear here. I am not saying these people lack commitment. Or that they think the alternative to 'I believe without (meaningful) doubts' is 'it must all be fantasy.'

I am saying that quite a few I knew / know accept that their experience might not be 100% reliable. If you make it a binary position - either total belief or virtually total scepticism - you would not be understanding their position accurately.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
Oh believe me many of those I am talking about most certainly want to and have embraced faith.

I'll try to be really clear here. I am not saying these people lack commitment. Or that they think the alternative to 'I believe without (meaningful) doubts' is 'it must all be fantasy.'

I am saying that quite a few I knew / know accept that their experience might not be 100% reliable. If you make it a binary position - either total belief or virtually total scepticism - you would not be understanding their position accurately.

---

We either take the step of faith and move forward, or remain where we are. At that point only if we have become convinced can we take the step, surely. After that, if we fall away, we are denying the reality of what convinced us in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Given the tiny number of Hebrew men who entered the holy-of-holies, I think it is very hard to suggest that the Jewish law was interpreted to mean relationship and experience.

---

Love was the whole teaching of Jesus, in word and action, which summed up the law and the prophets. If you have read the stories in the OT, you will know that it wasn't only the few who were allowed into the inner sanctuary who had any kind of relationship with God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

And, twisting the knife, you believe some very weird stuff a la Greg Boyd, did God give the nod to that on one of your cliff-dweller walks?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I like NT Wright's take on it, "saved from a fruitless way of life." Saved from trying to be "good enough" on our own, saved from striving and grasping, saved from the vicious cycle of violence and oppression that stems from our hardened hearts. Saved from that fruitless way of life, saved FOR the life of the Kingdom-- a life empowered by the Spirit, equipped to love and serve. Saved FOR the only life that really matters.

---

I see many lifelong atheists who have all of those qualities (except a belief in God/Jesus/spirit obviously)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well other than King David, who exactly had this mythical "relationship with God" in the OT?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

Feelings are unreliable and religious experiences are usually (if not always) faked.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Given the tiny number of Hebrew men who entered the holy-of-holies, I think it is very hard to suggest that the Jewish law was interpreted to mean relationship and experience.

---

Love was the whole teaching of Jesus, in word and action, which summed up the law and the prophets. If you have read the stories in the OT, you will know that it wasn't only the few who were allowed into the inner sanctuary who had any kind of relationship with God.

---

Well other than King David, who exactly had this mythical "relationship with God" in the OT? What actually do you think it involved?

Love was indeed the message if Jesus Christ, but it us a relatively recent manifestation of Christian religion that maintains this means authentic Christianity is all about experiencing intimacy with God in the same way as a human experiences intimacy with another human.

ISTM that your lack of understanding how Christianity could possibly exist outwith of experienced intimacy says a lot about the depth of a certain kind of charismatic and/or evangelical Christianity.

Feelings are unreliable and religious experiences are usually (if not always) faked.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well other than King David, who exactly had this mythical "relationship with God" in the OT?

---

Adam. Abraham. Isaiah. Moses. Joseph. Ezekiel. Daniel. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Samuel. Elijah. Um, probably others but this should do.

---

Eve. Hagar. Sarah. Leah. Naomi. Hannah. Deborah. Miriam. Huldah.

 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
But where did that conviction come from? The same question remains - we don't know and never will know whether it's from an internal or external source.

---

Yes, we can know. There comes evidence of sorts, as LC said, but evidence nevertheless, that we can be sure is not from us, is from other than us - in this life. If we don't receive it personally, then it is our decision whether we believe what others tell us is their experience, in this generation or previous generations back to Jesus himself, or further; continue to seek in the hope that we will find; or allow other interests to take precedence over God in our lives.

---

How about those who have had this experience, this sure knowledge (knowing Jesus) and now realise it was more than likely a form of wishful thinking/group psychology/false hope/mistaken belief/delusion? Those who were thoroughly converted but now think otherwise?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well other than King David, who exactly had this mythical "relationship with God" in the OT?

---

Adam. Abraham. Isaiah. Moses. Joseph. Ezekiel. Daniel. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Samuel. Elijah. Um, probably others but this should do.

---

Eve. Hagar. Sarah. Leah. Naomi. Hannah. Deborah. Miriam. Huldah.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
However if it is - true conversion comes from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is not just about 'knowing Jesus'. Demons know who Jesus is (not saying these people are demons), it's more than that. I do not believe that the Holy Spirit somehow leaves people, so I would say that these are not true conversions.

---

This is problematic because it means nobody can ever really be sure they're truly converted -- because people who have believed themselves to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit have years later fallen away. Proving, by your logic, they were never converted in the first place. From which it follows that no amount of feeling like you're indwelt is enough to prove you're actually indwelt, and you could be a faithful churchgoing tongue-speaker for 50 years and then by falling away prove you never were a real Christian.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Yay for girl cooties. (oh, and who's the doofus who forgot Mary? slaps head)

Anyway--

Actually there's a large large segment of the Christian church at large which does not believe in "once saved, always saved"--we do in fact believe (with trembling) that it is possible for someone to lose the Holy Spirit and faith together. Though this is a drastic thing and NOT the result of the daily slips into sin we all have, and also not something to be confused with the ordinary dry spells Christians go through.

It is true that the Holy Spirit alone works faith, and that human beings can't manufacture it. But it is also true that faith is not the same thing as felt religious experience. There are any number of people who are faithful Christians without "spiritual experiences" of the sort we've been discussing--and there are doubtless any number of people who will get to the Last Day trusting in their spiritual experiences only to hear "I never knew you" from Christ. It's possible to be self-deluded.

Which is all to say that if someone isn't having "spiritual experiences," that doesn't mean a thing about whether they have the Holy Spirit or true faith. Or whether they'll be saved in the end.

[ 24. August 2015, 01:00: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Yay for girl cooties. (oh, and who's the doofus who forgot Mary? slaps head)

---

quote:

---

Which is all to say that if someone isn't having "spiritual experiences," that doesn't mean a thing about whether they have the Holy Spirit or true faith. Or whether they'll be saved in the end.

---

Which is to say, you (generic you) cannot know whether or not you're saved.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Actually not so. (to the second)

To the first, . She bridges OT and NT, as do Elizabeth and Anna and ... Unless we're speaking purely in terms of "where do we find these people in the text?" But her upbringing was pure OT.

On the second--

Re Lutherans, we do hold that you can have assurance of your status before God--not based on personal spiritual experiences or some kind of decision, but rather based on the divine promises associated with baptism, the Lord's Supper, and so forth. These remove uncertainty of the "am I really a believer, I don't feel like a believer, what if?" type, because the promises don't rest on our feelings but on God's promise. They also work against the "what if something overcomes me and pulls me away from God" stuff, because we're told nothing can do that. It's been very effective for me, particularly when I am in the spiritual/emotional state known technically as "feeling like shit."

About the only thing that isn't put out of reach is a free-will choice to leave God--whether that consists in a single big leap or a lot of little choices that add up. And that's pretty scary, at least to me. It's an issue that brings people into the pastor's study every so often. As I understand it, the usual diagnostic is "Are you worried about it? Does the thought of losing Christ bother you?" Followed by, "If it does, you're in no danger."
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Hagar.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
She bridges OT and NT, as do Elizabeth and Anna and ... Unless we're speaking purely in terms of "where do we find these people in the text?" But her upbringing was pure OT.

---

quote:

---

Lutherans ... hold that you can have assurance of your status before God--not based on personal spiritual experiences or some kind of decision, but rather based on the divine promises associated with baptism, the Lord's Supper, and so forth. These remove uncertainty of the "am I really a believer, I don't feel like a believer, what if?" type, because the promises don't rest on our feelings but on God's promise. They also work against the "what if something overcomes me and pulls me away from God" stuff, because we're told nothing can do that. It's been very effective for me, particularly when I am in the spiritual/emotional state known technically as "feeling like shit."

About the only thing that isn't put out of reach is a free-will choice to leave God--whether that consists in a single big leap or a lot of little choices that add up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Christianity certainly depends on such people to a degree. I imagine that many of them are converts, and converts are often dynamic, productive believers, and especially effective at evangelism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I have much doubt, if our relationship with God takes Hagar from the list, that we're doing it the right way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
And what happens when he never responds at all. When over 25+ years we invest more enormous effort and time into pursuing him and he never frigging responds.

He cannot be observed with a single of the known senses. I've tried trying. I've tried really trying. I've tried trying even harder. I've tried pretending I'm not trying. I've tried being non-chalant - perhaps he doesn't like people who are too needy! And nothing.

---

I'm going to echo Cliffdweller--stop trying. Trying doesn't get you anywhere. It never got me anywhere either. About the best you can do is to ask, and then wait. And in the meantime, get on with living your life in the best possible way according to the light you have now.

What follows is me speaking for myself and not anybody else. My faith is founded on the Bible first and foremost and reinforced by experience. It was born out of major exposure to the Bible and pretty much nothing else (see story upthread). Of course I didn't take that uncritically--my language learning and textual studies are the result of triple-checking my source. Without going into a libraryful of data here, I'll just say I was satisfied it was trustworthy.

---

quote:

---

Then experience. This started when I was desperate and started talking/crying out to the God I saw pictured in the Bible. It became a two-way conversation OF SORTS (trying to prevent all the rabbit-holes I can see the thread going down right now). I received responses OF SORTS. No, I did not have the heavens open and Christ come down in visible form. No, I did not hear an audible-to-the-ears voice. So what was it, then? (Cliffdwellter, Raptor Eye, etc. help me out here--this is like trying to describe sex to a virgin)

Okay, remember that Bible reading? Sometimes one of those stories or sentences would come flashing up out of my memory and turn out to have a particularly apt connection to whatever I was facing at the time. Not because I was casting around for it in my memory, mind. It just came.

---

quote:

---

And these--impressions? tended to come at certain times and not at others. There were long dry spells, even deserts when everything seemed to have dried up and blown away altogether. Boredom, complete and unceasing. Frustration. And a choice--to go on, or not? To continue even though every trace of God seemed to have vanished, and he had withdrawn himself, and was gone?

---

quote:

---

I think I’m forgetting one huge and major component of faith, and that’s action. My faith would be worth nothing if I never allowed it to flow into real-world action—if I never paid the price for acting on what I say I believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Many years ago, I attended a service led by the leaders of Soul Survivor in a Cathedral. In common with several of my contemporary friends, this involved several charismatic "manifestations of the Spirit", which in my case included falling over and bouncing off a stone pew side.

Based on this and similar experiences, I'd say that these things can be produced with a combination of expectation, mass hysteria (in the sense of being in a large group expecting something to happen), language, repetitive music and so on. In reflecting on what happened to me over the years, I'd put it down to a form of hypnosis. Experiences I read about religious ecstasy experienced by whirling Dervishes, Hindu mystics, and other forms of Christian mystics sound very similar to me.

[Tangentially, I find it quite fascinating that some non-charismatic evangelicals deplore this, and yet many will still use the same kinds of language about relationship with the divine. Which suggests to me that the charismatic/non-charismatic divide in Evangelicalism is really two sides of the same coin]

I have come to believe that religious experiences and emotional "trips" are not to be trusted. Even the infamous "warm fuzzies" can be self-generated.

I am less clear about whether all of these things are faked (and by that I am not questioning the genuinely held beliefs of many participants, just that they are mistaking the things which trigger the bodily response for God) or whether it is just very very unusual.

Mostly, however, I have to say that I'm not inclined to believe in a God who does that to people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
As long as we continue to seek the truth, we are on the right course toward finding it. If in our past we have fallen into either of the traps above, we may need to recognise the truth of the past and clear its debris before we can be free to seek the truth in the present.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Let's just take Hagar from that list. We are told that she believed God saw her. That doesnt sound like the same thing as Christians today describe when they talk about being in relationship with God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
ISTM that a plain reading of almost all the OT characters reveals an experience of the divine which happened at very sporadic intervals in their lives, sometimes when they least expected it. It does not seem to me to compare with the language of daily experience of the divine and emotion that some insist should be the core of Christian life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

I do not ignore the experience of the mystics - however these kinds of religious lives exist in many religions, notably Islam. That they exist and ate documented is not, in and of itself, an indication that it should be normative daily experience for every Christian.

In fact, I believe that these lives were always rare in Christianity for a very large proportion of history and the language of relationship and experience of the divine only became common currency with the rise of mass mystical and charismatic movements since the reformation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

In the west, this was also very influenced by philosophical movements which emphasised the individual and the individual experience - even though these are largely unacknowledged as Christian influences today. These had many positives, but I think one of the main outputs within certain kinds of Church was that:

1. God loves and cares about you, singular
2. God wants to be in a relationship with you and interact with you on a constant individual basis
3. You will know that it is God because you will experience and feel him in special ways.

Which, in turn, led to types of religious movements which sought and venerated mass experiences, which are easily faked.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well of course it doesn't hold every drop of water - but it's arguing from the point of view of what Jesus actually said:

He was either a liar - i.e. he knew it wasn't true.
Or he was a lunatic - i.e. he thought it was true.
Or he was Lord - i.e. it really was true!

I don't know what else he might have been thinking as a fourth option.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I like NT Wright's take on it, "saved from a fruitless way of life." Saved from trying to be "good enough" on our own, saved from striving and grasping, saved from the vicious cycle of violence and oppression that stems from our hardened hearts. Saved from that fruitless way of life, saved FOR the life of the Kingdom-- a life empowered by the Spirit, equipped to love and serve. Saved FOR the only life that really matters.

---

I see many lifelong atheists who have all of those qualities (except a belief in God/Jesus/spirit obviously)

---

Absolutely. And I believe (in a way I acknowledge they may or may not find infuriating) that that is a sign of the presence and power of God working in them, even if they don't know or perceive it. One can be "saved" w/o really knowing it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
As long as we continue to seek the truth, we are on the right course toward finding it. If in our past we have fallen into either of the traps above, we may need to recognise the truth of the past and clear its debris before we can be free to seek the truth in the present.

---

My question remains - is it worth the time and effort involved?

Upthread it was acknowledged that God works through atheists just as well as through committed Christians.

Can he not work just as well through those who don't bother trying to get this balance right and recognise the 'truth'?

Why not simply take Jesus as our role model and work to the best of our ability for the good others. But stop making the effort to 'know' him or have any kind of contact/relationship with him. Or worry about whether he rose from the dead or not. Alongside the worry of falling into traps or being convinced by the clever words of others. Simply scrap all that.

Thus saving precious time and energy for the real work of making the world a better place in our small corner, would it not?

---

quote:

---

mr cheesy: LeRoc, I see what you mean, but I still have a problem with the idea that belief in God is somehow a transaction which on your side provides you with energy in return for faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If it wasn't worth the time and effort to seek out the truth, no-one would struggle with doubts, re-think past decisions, or post on this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
cliffdweller, as you know I have no problem with Open Theism where it isn't weird. It's where it is that I do. As you can't not know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
I felt more positive about this post and I appreciated the time you took to write it. Sorry this is pretty long but I have tried to do justice to what your wrote.

Two things here, I guess you are in a better place on both the Bible and experience. The Bible – something I looked to as I have never had a non-desert time experientially – has increasingly been a source of doubt rather than affirmation for quite a long time. It really is riddled with problems for me. I have mentioned the OT problems already – which I am amazed don’t cause you more problems. It is not as if there are just a couple of short passages that are problematic.

As to the Bible being trustworthy, when I read a couple of conservative OT commentaries, I found them very unconvincing, reasoning based on far too many non-sequiturs. I was used to reading stuff that was much more rigorous academically in my professional academic studies.

I have also read anthropology and cognitive psychology both of which I would suggest young Christians avoid if they want to hold on to the sort of faith you describe. (I didn’t read these early in my Christian life, but I am curious by nature and I thought if there is real substance to Christianity then such areas should be neutral or support faith – point to God in some way – rather than strongly undermine it.)

I have no idea what you read but certainly the more I read the less I could believe in the conservative take on the Bible I was brought up with.

... [snip]...

quote:

---

I think I’m forgetting one huge and major component of faith, and that’s action. My faith would be worth nothing if I never allowed it to flow into real-world action—if I never paid the price for acting on what I say I believe.

---

Now this I can actually relate to and agree with strongly. I guess I stuck with Christianity because living out what you believe makes sense to me and I find it life affirming, for those around me and for myself. So at least on this issue it feels as if we live in the same universe!

---

Luigi, I'm obviously not going to argue you out of your perspective into mine, and I won't try either, being a) not a fool, and b) having quite a bit of respect for you. I'll just answer some of what you're wondering about.

As for cognitive psychology, I know as much as is necessary to get a master's degree in professional counseling. I can't claim to have read widely apart from that. I have gone through cognitive psych-based counseling as well, so I've seen it from the counselee's viewpoint. It is the one form of psych that I am most impressed by and find most congenial.

All that said, I'm struggling to see why you find it incompatible with Christian faith? I've found it really helpful, with its techniques for getting through bullshit, etc.

As for anthropology, it was my minor field in college, and I've continued reading in it over the years since graduation. No surprise, since I live cross-culturally and love to figure out what makes things tick. Again, this field has been a real help to me, particularly in studying the Bible (since that clearly comes out of a very different culture) and also in how I relate to the community I married into and serve within.

My other areas of reading and study include history, science (mainly biology and medicine, with excursions into astronomy, chemistry and psychology), language and writing/rhetoric, and textual studies. I've probably forgotten something, I'm sorry.

As for the Bible--I'm not going to derail the thread and start defending the Bible here (that would doubtless take a raft of threads to discuss properly anyway). I'll just say that with all my background I've not found insuperable problems. As for the conservative commentaries you mention, without knowing which they are (or having read them, probably) I couldn't say whether they are crap or not. If you think they are crap, they probably are. Quite a few are, on both conservative AND liberal sides. I read commentaries with a huge dose of salt, having been tangentially involved in the making of a few, and having respect for the authors ranging from "awesome" to "why in the hell did they ask THAT person?"

Generally speaking, if there's an area of the Bible I'm interested in/focused on/concerned about, I go dig in every commentary that comes to hand, I Google (surprising what you find in other seemingly-unrelated disciplines), and most of all, I do word/phrase/concept studies. Kittel is useful. So is a program like Accordance, which allows you to search for a particular Greek or Hebrew word across Scripture in various forms (I think you can specify LXX too if you like). The word study/cross referencing thing is the main way I cope with troubling passages and troubling interpretations of passages--the BS quotient is a lot lower (since you're doing primary research yourself) and it often opens my eyes to ideas I hadn't considered before.

But of course, this mode of study is going to be most useful and fruitful to someone who is as biblically literate, humble, and open-minded as possible. Which are all areas I'm working on.

 

---

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
cliffdweller, as you know I have no problem with Open Theism where it isn't weird. It's where it is that I do. As you can't not know.

---

But, just as with experiencing God, one person's "weird" is another person's "makes so much sense!" Obviously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I 'brought many people to Christ'.

I wasn't faking it, it was real to me.

But I now know it was psychological, not spiritual. If I had gone into politics I would have had the same extreme, charismatic type of fervour.

Ho hum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

I have come to believe that religious experiences and emotional "trips" are not to be trusted. Even the infamous "warm fuzzies" can be self-generated.

I am less clear about whether all of these things are faked (and by that I am not questioning the genuinely held beliefs of many participants, just that they are mistaking the things which trigger the bodily response for God) or whether it is just very very unusual.

Mostly, however, I have to say that I'm not inclined to believe in a God who does that to people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm not a charismatic (most of us on this thread aren't) and don't feel I have a particularly intense spiritual connection. But I'm interested in the implications of what you're saying for Christianity as a whole.

Do you feel that Christianity would have been much better off if the Pentecostal movement hadn't appeared on the scene in 1906? Or even without the granddaddy of Pentecostalism - the emotional Methodist movement of the 1700s?

---

quote:

---

Would a more cerebral, restrained form of the Christian faith have a greater hold on modern Western loyalties if the laity had been strenuously discouraged from hankering after a 'personal relationship with Jesus'?

---

quote:

---

SvitlanaV2: Would a more cerebral, restrained form of the Christian faith have a greater hold on modern Western loyalties if the laity had been strenuously discouraged from hankering after a 'personal relationship with Jesus'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Martin, I'm not sure you are in a great position to identify weirdness in others. Or if you are, you have an extreme form of written Coprolalia which obscures it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to say this in Purg [...]

---

Start a Styx thread if you want to discuss where the line is.

If you are merely concerned about not crossing it, keep your comments focussed on ideas and arguments, rather than other shipmates.

Eliab
Purgatory host
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
In other words SvitlanaV2 is God working with and through, by means of, delusion. With His psychology?
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I tend to feel that delusion is the natural human state, so how can God not work through it, if he works through everything else?

If I'm lucky, God has worked and is working through my own confusion and errors. This could just be wishful thinking, though.


 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Mine too.

Don't let me discourage you. Let's work this out.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

It would be interesting to see if charismatic church leaders could urge their congregations not to seek such a relationship with Jesus and still remain charismatic. Or still hold on to their congregations! I suspect that in most cases, it's just a question of time. Practice and expectations gradually drift towards a less intense form of spiritual connection. Today's charismatics will probably stop using that kind of language eventually. But newer Christian movements may arise that continue to do so.

Let's be clear, though: as we see from the comments on this thread, you don't need to be charismatic or go to a 'lively' church to believe that it's possible to have a deep sense of God's presence in your life. So perhaps we need to establish more clearly what we're talking about here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
There may be very lively churches that refuse to use the language or emphasis of 'personal relationship with Jesus'. LeRoc's church in the Netherlands may be one such church. But I suggest that such churches are in the minority. IME, traditional, 'restrained' worship - yes, often led by rather 'cerebral' clergy - tends to be the context that deliberately avoids such terminology and theology.

It would be interesting to see if charismatic church leaders could urge their congregations not to seek such a relationship with Jesus and still remain charismatic. Or still hold on to their congregations! I suspect that in most cases, it's just a question of time. Practice and expectations gradually drift towards a less intense form of spiritual connection. Today's charismatics will probably stop using that kind of language eventually. But newer Christian movements may arise that continue to do so.

Let's be clear, though: as we see from the comments on this thread, you don't need to be charismatic or go to a 'lively' church to believe that it's possible to have a deep sense of God's presence in your life. So perhaps we need to establish more clearly what we're talking about here.

---

• Mainstream denominations are in line with the dominant culture, Evangelical / Pentecostal denominations are in tension with it.
• Mainstream denominations are restrained, Evangelical / Pentecostal denominations are unrestrained
• Etc., I've seen more of these.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
My own very cerebral restrained denomination (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod--we force our pastors through minimum eight years of tertiary education, with Greek, with Hebrew) is jam packed with INTJs and stiff upper lip folks. And yet if you get us into small, trusted groups, the relationship talk and the spiritual experience stuff comes pouring--well, not pouring, the only thing we pour is beer--but let's say it's extremely thick on the ground. And we sure as heck aren't getting it from the sermons!* Nor has it gone away in 500 years and counting.

---

quote:

---

Lambchop said

quote:

---

As for cognitive psychology, I know as much as is necessary to get a master's degree in professional counseling.
[snip]
All that said, I'm struggling to see why you find it incompatible with Christian faith? I've found it really helpful, with its techniques for getting through bullshit, etc.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
But I simply don't see how you can judge whole denominations in a single stroke like that. This kind of generalisations is likely to press some buttons, and I can see that this is potentially unhelpful for the discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
My own very cerebral restrained denomination (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod--we force our pastors through minimum eight years of tertiary education, with Greek, with Hebrew) is jam packed with INTJs and stiff upper lip folks. And yet if you get us into small, trusted groups, the relationship talk and the spiritual experience stuff comes pouring--well, not pouring, the only thing we pour is beer--but let's say it's extremely thick on the ground. And we sure as heck aren't getting it from the sermons!* Nor has it gone away in 500 years and counting.

---

Why do you think that is?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
My own very cerebral restrained denomination (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod--we force our pastors through minimum eight years of tertiary education, with Greek, with Hebrew) is jam packed with INTJs and stiff upper lip folks. And yet if you get us into small, trusted groups, the relationship talk and the spiritual experience stuff comes pouring--well, not pouring, the only thing we pour is beer--but let's say it's extremely thick on the ground. And we sure as heck aren't getting it from the sermons!* Nor has it gone away in 500 years and counting.

---

Why do you think that is?

---

Well, here we enter the realm of speculation, but I suspect it is because this is one of the ways God has dealt with some human beings throughout history. And a generally shy, cerebral church culture isn't enough to overcome it.

---

That's a good spiritual answer!

I was wondering, though, about the theological reasons, or perhaps the sociological ones.

Or to put in another way, is there anything that other 'shy, cerebral' churches or denominations could learn from the Lutheran Missouri Synod? For a start, you've clearly kept hold of (or rediscovered) the importance of small groups, whereas the United Methodists, so I understand, mostly gave up on class meetings long ago, and I don't know what they replaced them with.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
You flatter us! Actually I was thinking of groups like my adult Bible study which meets during the Sunday school hour. Or a group of church friends chatting over coffee or beer.

We don't have a denomination-wide small group program, we just have Christian education available for all ages--and it's usually in the form of a small group or class working through a topic or book of the Bible. A lot depends on the church, I suppose, but the ones I've been in are very participatory and opinionated--my group works through the weekly lectionary, and tends to fluster our group leader (usually some poor hapless first year seminarian who gets peppered with questions about the Greek and why does verse X appear to conflict with what it says in Deuteronomy whatsit). It's a lot of fun.

But as for theological and sociological reasons for relationship talk emerging when the whole tone of the church culture is against it--I can only suppose it's because we're human (yes, really ), and God is still God, and still does what he wants to do regardless of church culture. And when you get a bunch of humans together over coffee or beer, you start hearing about some of that stuff, as long as they are among friends.

ETA: Thinking further, I can't help but notice the strong correlation between focus on the Scriptures and the kind of relationship stuff we've been talking about. It comes out most often and most naturally in those contexts. I don't know how LCMS types stack up against other denominations in terms of engaging with the Bible, but I suspect it's pretty high given the sola Scriptura emphasis.

[ 25. August 2015, 12:55: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
As long as we continue to seek the truth, we are on the right course toward finding it. If in our past we have fallen into either of the traps above, we may need to recognise the truth of the past and clear its debris before we can be free to seek the truth in the present.

---

My question remains - is it worth the time and effort involved?

Upthread it was acknowledged that God works through atheists just as well as through committed Christians.

Can he not work just as well through those who don't bother trying to get this balance right and recognise the 'truth'?

Why not simply take Jesus as our role model and work to the best of our ability for the good others. But stop making the effort to 'know' him or have any kind of contact/relationship with him. Or worry about whether he rose from the dead or not. Alongside the worry of falling into traps or being convinced by the clever words of others. Simply scrap all that.

Thus saving precious time and energy for the real work of making the world a better place in our small corner, would it not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

We don't have a denomination-wide small group program, we just have Christian education available for all ages--and it's usually in the form of a small group or class working through a topic or book of the Bible. A lot depends on the church, I suppose, but the ones I've been in are very participatory and opinionated--my group works through the weekly lectionary, and tends to fluster our group leader (usually some poor hapless first year seminarian who gets peppered with questions about the Greek and why does verse X appear to conflict with what it says in Deuteronomy whatsit). It's a lot of fun.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:


ETA: Thinking further, I can't help but notice the strong correlation between focus on the Scriptures and the kind of relationship stuff we've been talking about. It comes out most often and most naturally in those contexts. I don't know how LCMS types stack up against other denominations in terms of engaging with the Bible, but I suspect it's pretty high given the sola Scriptura emphasis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:


ETA: Thinking further, I can't help but notice the strong correlation between focus on the Scriptures and the kind of relationship stuff we've been talking about. It comes out most often and most naturally in those contexts. I don't know how LCMS types stack up against other denominations in terms of engaging with the Bible, but I suspect it's pretty high given the sola Scriptura emphasis.

---

Of course, you are all entitled to think what you like, but to me that's utter self-grandising, over-spiritualised hogwash.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
For a start it perpetuates the fiction that if one reads the bible enough, you'll get a close relationship with God - the unanswered question being "how much is enough"?

Ignoring, of course, the fact that due to wide illiteracy, nobody other than clerics read the bible for themselves for centuries.

Second it suggests that those who do not feel this "relationship" are not trying hard enough.

I think these are both nonsense. For a start, you have absolutely no idea how much bible reading I've done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:


ETA: Thinking further, I can't help but notice the strong correlation between focus on the Scriptures and the kind of relationship stuff we've been talking about. It comes out most often and most naturally in those contexts. I don't know how LCMS types stack up against other denominations in terms of engaging with the Bible, but I suspect it's pretty high given the sola Scriptura emphasis.

---

Of course, you are all entitled to think what you like, but to me that's utter self-grandising, over-spiritualised hogwash.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
The group aspect is important - I agree with them that it happens in a group in a way it doesn't alone. That's not to say reading the Bible alone isn't important, but there is something different about a Bible study group in terms of how the relationships and community help the Spirit to flourish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Because I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking the ideas you've put forward: I think they're hogwash.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
The group aspect is important - I agree with them that it happens in a group in a way it doesn't alone. That's not to say reading the Bible alone isn't important, but there is something different about a Bible study group in terms of how the relationships and community help the Spirit to flourish.

---

I don't call it brainwashing because it isn't, but there is a lot of group reinforcement going on and the questions tend to be within a worldview rather than questioning it.

My SIL sees it very much as brainwashing. She went to a Cathedral service and was appalled at what she saw the choirboys having to listen to and sing day in day out.

---

You have no idea what Bible studies I have attended - many if not most have been between people of very different worldviews. There is zero group reinforcement going on - that's not to say that other groups won't have it. But it's not right or fair to accuse everyone of it.

Also your SIL is talking nonsense - aside from there being nothing wrong with what the choristers sing and listen to, it is utterly wrong to call it brainwashing and is an insult to the victims of real brainwashing. Many choristers don't have a faith themselves and that has no impact on their singing - it is a job. Brainwashing is a specific act of abuse against another person deployed in cults and other abusive situations, and comparing singing in a choir to it is shameful.
 

---

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't call it brainwashing because it isn't, but there is a lot of group reinforcement going on and the questions tend to be within a worldview rather than questioning it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The scriptures have been collected and passed on because they are holy, ie the living God may be seen in them. Some, like you, can't understand that. Nor did I, once, but now I love going to Bible study groups.

Learning, and growing spiritually, i.e. becoming more conscious of God, is not hogwash.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:


You have no idea what Bible studies I have attended - many if not most have been between people of very different worldviews. There is zero group reinforcement going on - that's not to say that other groups won't have it. But it's not right or fair to accuse everyone of it.

---

quote:

---

Also your SIL is talking nonsense - aside from there being nothing wrong with what the choristers sing and listen to, it is utterly wrong to call it brainwashing and is an insult to the victims of real brainwashing. Many choristers don't have a faith themselves and that has no impact on their singing - it is a job.

---

quote:

---

Brainwashing is a specific act of abuse against another person deployed in cults and other abusive situations, and comparing singing in a choir to it is shameful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Luigi, thanks for the clarification, and the sources for cognitive psychology. Who were you reading on ancient religions? Sounds fascinating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:


ETA: Thinking further, I can't help but notice the strong correlation between focus on the Scriptures and the kind of relationship stuff we've been talking about. It comes out most often and most naturally in those contexts. I don't know how LCMS types stack up against other denominations in terms of engaging with the Bible, but I suspect it's pretty high given the sola Scriptura emphasis.

---

Of course, you are all entitled to think what you like, but to me that's utter self-grandising, over-spiritualised hogwash.

---

Thank you, Mr. Cheesy, your respect for other posters and your kind way of putting things knows no bounds. Why don't you just call me to Hell instead of sniping from the bushes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Bullshit. Tell me what about the term "self-grandising" isn't personal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Bullshit. Tell me what about the term "self-grandising" isn't personal.

---

Explain to me how I can express disagreement with your statement - and the nature of the idea expressed - without you taking it as a personal attack.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Because I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking the ideas you've put forward: I think they're hogwash.

---

The scriptures have been collected and passed on because they are holy, ie the living God may be seen in them. Some, like you, can't understand that. Nor did I, once, but now I love going to Bible study groups.

Learning, and growing spiritually, i.e. becoming more conscious of God, is not hogwash.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
For a start it perpetuates the fiction that if one reads the bible enough, you'll get a close relationship with God - the unanswered question being "how much is enough"?

Ignoring, of course, the fact that due to wide illiteracy, nobody other than clerics read the bible for themselves for centuries.

Second it suggests that those who do not feel this "relationship" are not trying hard enough.

I think these are both nonsense. For a start, you have absolutely no idea how much bible reading I've done.

---

LC is free to correct me, but I don't think this is what they are saying. To me it's that Bible studies in groups help build the community that leads relationships horizontally and vertically (ie with each other and with God) to grow. The group aspect is important - I agree with them that it happens in a group in a way it doesn't alone. That's not to say reading the Bible alone isn't important, but there is something different about a Bible study group in terms of how the relationships and community help the Spirit to flourish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:


I hope you don't mind me asking, but which Christian denomination, movement or perhaps theologian do you think gets it more or less right when it comes to making Christians think in less personal terms about Jesus? Have any of them impressed you as far as this is concerned?

This is relevant because your criticisms seem to go beyond the usual suspects - charismatic evangelicals - and imply that much broader swathe of Christians have got this wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The implication of this form of language is quite stark, I believe.

1. If you do the right things God will like you and come "into relationship with you".
2. If you are in "relationship with God" and provided you pray enough (in the right way) then good things will happen to you and bad things will not happen to you.
3. In fact, bad things not happening and good things happening is evidence that a) God loves you and b) you are in right relationship with you.

---

quote:

---

And this malaise extends so far that the natural end point is to suggest that those who are not wealthy, not in stable employment, not healed when sick and so on are not spiritual enough.

---

quote:

---

This is all part of the package that is being spread in many low evangelical churches of many different denominational labels - because, I believe, of the thoroughly wrong idea of a "relationship with God".

I don't believe that this language is part of any of the doctrines of the mainline protestant churches, reflects over-individual forms of religion which have developed as a response to secularisation and have very little to do with the faith we're supposed to be believing in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
This is where I would part company with you, as I don't think that this is necessarily a natural progression.

---

quote:

---

I disagree strongly here. After all, there were medieval mystics - and even St. Paul! - who talked in very personal ways about God, long before secularisation was ever thought of.

---

quote:

---

And I am sure that there are many "liberal" religionists who would still use personal - but different - language to talk about faith. I don't think that one has to drive a wedge between personal expressions of faith and religion as a transforming power for society. Indeed the one may provide the impetus to work towards the other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:


More seriously, though, I see this as a thoroughly modern, Western thought-pattern which infects much of the church. It is easiest to see in the Charismatic protestant churches, but I maintain that it is something which is widely spread and not confined to those churches.

In some ways, I believe it is a weakened version of the "prosperity gospel". If you observe what we (in low evangelical churches of all kinds, charismatic and non-charismatic) actually articulate in our church prayers - they are frequently thanks and supplication for health, employment, safety and wealth-related issues.

The implication of this form of language is quite stark, I believe.

1. If you do the right things God will like you and come "into relationship with you".
2. If you are in "relationship with God" and provided you pray enough (in the right way) then good things will happen to you and bad things will not happen to you.
3. In fact, bad things not happening and good things happening is evidence that a) God loves you and b) you are in right relationship with you.

And this malaise extends so far that the natural end point is to suggest that those who are not wealthy, not in stable employment, not healed when sick and so on are not spiritual enough.

This is all part of the package that is being spread in many low evangelical churches of many different denominational labels - because, I believe, of the thoroughly wrong idea of a "relationship with God".

I don't believe that this language is part of any of the doctrines of the mainline protestant churches, reflects over-individual forms of religion which have developed as a response to secularisation and have very little to do with the faith we're supposed to be believing in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

More seriously, though, I see this as a thoroughly modern, Western thought-pattern which infects much of the church. It is easiest to see in the Charismatic protestant churches, but I maintain that it is something which is widely spread and not confined to those churches.

In some ways, I believe it is a weakened version of the "prosperity gospel". If you observe what we (in low evangelical churches of all kinds, charismatic and non-charismatic) actually articulate in our church prayers - they are frequently thanks and supplication for health, employment, safety and wealth-related issues.

The implication of this form of language is quite stark, I believe.

1. If you do the right things God will like you and come "into relationship with you".
2. If you are in "relationship with God" and provided you pray enough (in the right way) then good things will happen to you and bad things will not happen to you.
3. In fact, bad things not happening and good things happening is evidence that a) God loves you and b) you are in right relationship with you.

And this malaise extends so far that the natural end point is to suggest that those who are not wealthy, not in stable employment, not healed when sick and so on are not spiritual enough.

This is all part of the package that is being spread in many low evangelical churches of many different denominational labels - because, I believe, of the thoroughly wrong idea of a "relationship with God".

I don't believe that this language is part of any of the doctrines of the mainline protestant churches, reflects over-individual forms of religion which have developed as a response to secularisation and have very little to do with the faith we're supposed to be believing in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I share your disdain for prosperity gospel, and think you are spot on in noting the insidious way it works it way into our theology & practice. I think your connection of prosperity gospel with Western individualism is apt-- certainly the two pair well, which only makes the heretical prosperity gospel all the more insidious-- it feels right because it so correlates with a dominant theme of our cultural worldview.

But... prosperity gospel is not correlated only with individualistic cultures. Quite the contrary, it is even more dominant now in Africa than it is in the West (I told my students in Central African seminary it was our worst export), even though African culture is far more communal/less individualistic than Western (particularly American) culture.

---

quote:

---

And, again, I think you are just wrong in your assessment that "relationship" language is unique to charismatic/evangelical Christianity. It is a theme found in quite a few of the mystics and contemplatives from the liturgical wing of Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Relationship language is found throughout Christianity, including the NT itself which is steeped in familial metaphors-- beginning with the use of "father" as the primary metaphor for God.

---

quote:

---

I suspect you are sensitive to the relationship language found in other Christian traditions simply because it isn't native to your tribe (and yes, we charismatics/evangelicals can push it over the top into the schmaltzy range), but immune to the relationship language in your own tradition simply because it is so familiar-- you don't notice it. A version of confirmation bias.

---

quote:

---

IMHO you have identified some real concerns with the subversive interplay of individualism and prosperity gospel, but have misidentified the causation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That's true, but a different point: the prosperity gospel serves another purpose in different countries. My point in referring to it was not to imply that the tendency I'm describing to identify oneself with blessings from God and/or a relationship with God uniquely with it, but to try to point out similarities to it.

But I take your point: it is different to the way prosperity gospel is expressed in other parts of the world.

quote:

---

IMHO you have identified some real concerns with the subversive interplay of individualism and prosperity gospel, but have misidentified the causation.

---

I don't understand this conclusion from what you said above. What do you think the causation is then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

I am discussing the phenomena in Evangelical and Evangelical Charismatic churches, because these are the churches I am familiar with. I've little knowledge about how this language is used outside.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yesss, it is, but I still don't think this has been used for most of the history of Christianity in the way we use it (at least in the churches I know about) today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think this would be interesting to discuss - because I don't think others talk of being in a relationship with God in the same way as contemporary Evangelicals. I've already agreed that mystics and others used similar ideas (although I'm still interesting to hear whether any actually used this kind of language - I suspect that George Fox and Wesley did not, for example) but I think there is a difference about the way this is expected to be normative for all Christians today compared to rare examples of it in the past. I've already made these points above.

... Yesss, it is, but I still don't think this has been used for most of the history of Christianity in the way we use it (at least in the churches I know about) today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Clearly there is a wide disparity between believing in a Creator God who stands aloof from humanity and just observes disinterestedly from a distance, and the God who knows me so well that he knows where I left my keys. I'm saying that too much of the language implies that true Christianity is at one extreme, and I don't think that is right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
There is zero group reinforcement going on - that's not to say that other groups won't have it. But it's not right or fair to accuse everyone of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well you see I've done a fair amount of reading about philosophy and theology, but that has always been from the perspective of Charismatic and Evangelical Christianity (I've been in both, from various traditions, for a long time until very recently).

I absolutely don't know if it is a problematic thing in other traditions, but I suspect it is not. I am fairly sure that it is not a historical form of language in terms of the influences of Protestantism from the reformation and probably further back.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

In a sense, I don't think it really matters if one believes that God helps with keys and car spaces (although I really don't believe he does), to me the real problem is how those in the churches which use this language view others - particularly those who do not have employment, do not get healed from sickness and so on.

I think this is a major problem. I accept that others do not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As I think I have shown (perhaps tediously) relationship language has been a part of Christianity at all stages, including as a significant theme in the NT. The precise language you are talking about ("having a relationship w/ Jesus") may not be a part of every tradition, but seeing God as "father", the Spirit as "guide", etc. clearly is, and those are very much relational images. Some of the mystics will go so far as to talk about God "wooing" them (and even vice-versa) in an almost sexual way so I don't think it's just evangelicals who can go over the top with the relationship thing. And yes, the mystics can be every bit as individualistic in their relationship with God as evangelicals. Not all of them, of course, but the same is true of evangelicals. I think your argument is, quite simply, false.

---

quote:

---

I don't think there is anyone here who doesn't share your disdain with prosperity gospel-- in large part because of that every problem you have identified. Our objection is the link you are making between "relationship language" and prosperity gospel. I think it is a correlation, not a causation.

---

quote:

---

Will prosperity gospel preachers exploit the "relationship language" to unfold their heretical false gospel? Of course, just as they will twist Scripture. But you're going to find every bit as much relationship language among evangelicals and non-evangelicals who are preaching a far different message.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
For example, one can imagine a person who sees their primary relation with God to be submission - such as a Muslim - might well describe the deity as father

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As I think I have shown (perhaps tediously) relationship language has been a part of Christianity at all stages, including as a significant theme in the NT. The precise language you are talking about ("having a relationship w/ Jesus") may not be a part of every tradition, but seeing God as "father", the Spirit as "guide", etc. clearly is, and those are very much relational images. Some of the mystics will go so far as to talk about God "wooing" them (and even vice-versa) in an almost sexual way so I don't think it's just evangelicals who can go over the top with the relationship thing. And yes, the mystics can be every bit as individualistic in their relationship with God as evangelicals. Not all of them, of course, but the same is true of evangelicals. I think your argument is, quite simply, false.

---

Sorry, I don't see those two things as remotely the same. As I have expressed in this thread many times. If you think they're the same - fine. I don't. You're not adding anything by just saying the same thing again.

---

quote:

---

The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob.

Not of the philosophers and intellectuals.

Certitude, certitude, feeling, joy, peace.

The God of Jesus Christ.

---

quote:

---

This is eternal life, that they know you the one true God

and J.C. whom you have sent.

Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ.

I have separated myself from him. I have run away from him, renounced him, crucified him.

May I never be separated from him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Ok, fair 'nuff. But I'm not sure how I can explain that two things are the same-- the task would be to describe how they are different. Could you clarify how you think they are different? How is the image of God as Father, for example, anything other than relationship language? How is the use of that image, e.g. in the parable of the Prodigal Son, significantly different in "relationalism" from the evangelical language of "having a relationship with God"?

---

quote:

---

I don't have access to my library at moment, perhaps another shippie can find some of the quotes I'm thinking of from Julian of Norwich or other of the mystics from outside the evangelical tradition who speak in very individual terms about their relationship with God?

---

quote:

---

Oh, night that guided me, Oh, night more lovely than the dawn,
Oh, night that joined Beloved with lover, Lover transformed in the Beloved!
Upon my flowery breast, Kept wholly for himself alone,
There he stayed sleeping, and I caressed him, And the fanning of the cedars made a breeze.
The breeze blew from the turret As I parted his locks;
With his gentle hand he wounded my neck And caused all my senses to be suspended.
I remained, lost in oblivion; My face I reclined on the Beloved.
All ceased and I abandoned myself, Leaving my cares forgotten among the lilies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:


The problem that ensues when people take myth and reify it (make it real and treat it as if it were actual fact) is that they distort it beyond its intent. The bible, creeds, appeal to the saintly and doctors of the church etc, is of limited or no help in understanding what and who Jesus is, seeing as it is composed of selected writings written down by people who didn't actually know him, people who never met him, and were several or many generations removed from him. The appeal to the authority and scripture fails for most of the post-Christian population. As soon as claims for magic and miracles are made, people look to more believable magic, and things that actually give answers. Christianity is losing people when it insists on the incredible as the acid test of a Christian and doesn't allow those who want to understand beauty and truth as mythological ideas, symbolic, not needing and not required to be true to have meaning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul.:
I was somewhat surprised at first to realise that the book is basically a commentary on a poem and that the beginning of the poem at least is written in very florid, not to say pseudo-erotic, language about the relationship between believer and Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Jesus is not my boyfriend
He's my God and my king
And to him my praise I'll sing
But are we closer than a flea is to a rat?
Gerald is the one I love like that

Oh Gerald is the one that I will snuggle
He's the one I'll sing a love song to
Jesus is the one that I will worship
So let’s not confuse the two

---

[And that is the second chestnut I have dug up from the SOF Quotes File in the past 24 hours. Note to self: Get a life.]
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
What language shall I borrow
to thank thee dearest Friend,
For this thy dying sorrow,
Thy pity without end?
O make me thine for ever!
And should I fainting be,
Lord, let me never, never
Outlive my love to thee.

Paulus Gerhardt (from Bernard of Clairvaux)
trs James Wadell Alexander.
The Song Book of The Salvation Army


Jesus, the very thought of thee
With sweetness fills my breast;
But sweeter far thy face to see,
And in thy presence rest.

Attr to Bernard of Clairvaux
Trs Edward Caswall
The Song Book of The Salvation Army


What's your problem?
Don't you ever talk to Jesus?
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I remember that nugget too, and it's great. But there is a very long tradition of Song of Songs-style mysticism, and that works for some people. In which case, more power to them.

Some of the sources linked to re Pascal suggest he never told anybody much/anything at all about that "night of fire." I can totally see that happening, given the extremely personal nature of that kind of experience.

Even Paul gets a bit shy with his dance around "I knew a man who was caught up to the third heaven... this man... about a man such as that..." It's like he brings it up and then instantly buries it again, and refuses to admit it was himself even though that's what pretty much all the commentators seem to think.

It reminds me of my son trying to talk about his first major crush. He starts, stutters, and gives up. And then changes the subject.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:


I hope you don't mind me asking, but which Christian denomination, movement or perhaps theologian do you think gets it more or less right when it comes to making Christians think in less personal terms about Jesus? Have any of them impressed you as far as this is concerned?

---

From what I read, I'm quite impressed by the Sandemanian/Glasites.

More seriously, though, I see this as a thoroughly modern, Western thought-pattern which infects much of the church. It is easiest to see in the Charismatic protestant churches, but I maintain that it is something which is widely spread and not confined to those churches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Sounds a lot like the Song of Songs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
This song sums it up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OcoDIrbMtY

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
It's not so bad if you leave the 'personal' bit out, and just say that you have a 'relationship with God/Jesus'. I think nearly all Christians would claim to have relationship with the divine.

Of course, it's not quite the same thing as a personal relationship with God and/or Jesus, but I think it's good enough for most of us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
For myself I start from the position that God is Spirit. (not a spirit). I go on to work on the basis that God is personal -- as opposed to being a person. Those two starting points shift the emphasis in the language we use which is always analogous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
This thread has caused me to think! That in itself is a welcome change.

****
Confused? Only seemingly. My committment is relational but in a way beyond anythng expressed in terms of Jesus as my friend. I experience the latter insofar as the Church is the Body of Christ in the world and I encounter Jesus as friend in the friendships I have with others.

---

quote:

---

Gamaliel: In answer to SusanDoris, though, I can't see how acknowledging a sense of the divine or the existence of God takes any 'credit' away from human beings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

As we are creaturely creatures it strikes me that any 'conversion' experience or shift in perception or thinking is going to involve experiential or 'psychological' elements - that's just how we're wired.

So, any sense of awareness of the divine or the numinous is likely to be accompanied by some kind of 'effects' or 'religious affections' as they'd have called it back in the 17th and 18th centuries.

The presence or absence of such 'conscious' affections does not, in and of itself, tell us a great deal. It's a bit like the old T S Eliot thing, 'We had the experience but missed the meaning.'

Some forms of spirituality are more prone to evoke 'feelings' than others - and not only charismatic styles of worship - but also popular forms of RC piety or the kind of language we encounter in Wesleyan hymns or Salvationist songs.

There's nothing 'wrong' with that - the problems only start when:

- We focus over-much on the 'affections' and overdose on a kind of icky and sentimental approach.

- We consider such experiences or feelings to be normative and prescriptive and become suspicious of anyone who doesn't share them.

- We are guided and 'led' by these impulses and feelings rather than less dramatic or exotic 'means of grace'.

I suspect what we are seeing at the moment is something of a reaction to the overly personal, overly individualistic 'Me and Jesus' approach popularised by revivalist or popular evangelical spirituality.

FWIW my take would be that there's nothing wrong with the latter, provided it's contextualised within the broader 'grand tradition' and grounded with a certain amount of asceticism, a real-world grounding (ie. involvement in the wider society in some way) and the classic spiritual disciplines.

But that's an aside.

---

Well done, and helpful


I would add as well that there's nothing wrong with this more experiential type of spirituality as long as it's

-not used as a source of not used as a source of new doctrine

Wesley's famous addition of "experience" as a source of authority along side Scripture, tradition, and reason was very nuanced. Experience is a way of confirming the spiritual truths-- the things we've learned thru the other 3 sources of authority. And in such it can be enormously helpful. If something we learn about thru Scripture, tradition or reason is true then we should indeed expect to see signs of that truth impacting the world as we experience it. And by taking note of those experiences our faith is deepened and empowered in meaningful ways that help us know God and live out our faith in practical ways. That's heady stuff. But precisely because it's heady stuff, we can be tempted to skip the more boring but essential step of deriving doctrine from Scripture, reason, and tradition and jump right to extrapolating wild-eyed doctrines from the experience itself. That rarely ends well.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
There's nothing wrong with it providing one realises it's me and me. That all I'm experiencing is me reacting to stories and other physical external stimuli. Numinous are us.

And in answer to SusanDoris, we can't take credit for the Incarnation.
 

---

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I hope Holy Smoke doesn't mind me importing this quote from Hell...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
There's nothing wrong with it providing one realises it's me and me. That all I'm experiencing is me reacting to stories and other physical external stimuli. Numinous are us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
There's nothing wrong with it providing one realises it's me and me. That all I'm experiencing is me reacting to stories and other physical external stimuli. Numinous are us.

---

This is not the case, you are talking yourself into it. If God is a subjective projection of our longings he is not God, we are. If in fact you default to that then you dismiss countless historical faith stories as self delusion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
his is not the case, you are talking yourself into it. If God is a subjective projection of our longings he is not God, we are. If in fact you default to that then you dismiss countless historical faith stories as self delusion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Jesus was fully divine. And His connection to the divine was fully human. He made it up like all of us. So of course we should be in relationship with the divine as much as WE can.

Less poetic enough for ya?

---