Thread: Purgatory: Personal Relationship with Christ? Huh? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000535

---

Posted by St. Sebastian (# 312) on :
 
What are people talking about when they say you have to have a personal relationship with Christ? What are they talking about when they say they have one and how much strength and comfort they get from it? I honestly don't understand (thereby betraying that I don't have one, I suppose). I'm not comfortable with the "me and my 'ol pal, Jeeze" attitude. I can't really see God as a "pal" or even a friend. I'm in a very disconnected place right now, but even when I'm "connected" (meaning attending church regularly, praying regularly)I'm not sure I could say I have a personal relationship with Christ. Does that just mean feeling His Presence sometimes? I invariably feel joy when I receive the Holy Mysteries (sometimes for a second, sometimes for a few minutes, sometimes longer, but, so far, I never receive without feeling something). Does that count? I don't know if I have a personal relationship or not, because I don't know what people mean by the phrase. I gather that many or most consider it essential to salvation, which is a bit worrisome. Do you have one? How do you know? What do YOU mean by that?

[edited thread title for archiving]

[ 10. January 2006, 04:43: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 

---

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
I don't understand it either, especially if I try to understand it

A minister once told me that a personal relationship with Jesus is just like any other personal relationship, which puzzled me: Jesus doesn't have coffee or share pizza with me like my other personal friends (honestly not meaning to be trivial).

I know I have thought that I had a "personal relationship with Jesus", but when I stopped to think about it, any meaning seemed to centre on the emotional responses I felt, and which were largely open to manipulation and invention given access to appropriate music and other material. So I stopped even thinking about the term, and try to get on with being a Christian (whatever that might seem to mean from time to time).
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
I guess I usually mean that a personal relationship with the Christ -- as in, being redeemed by Him as elder brother/firstborn/kinsman-redeemer --

Having made a personal, conscious surrender to His Lordship --

Is a bit different from having a connection, however comforting, however involved, with the institution known as His church.

The latter can mean many wonderful things -- but you can lay claim to it and enjoy it and get a lot out of it, without ever having personally, yourself, fallen at His feet and submitted to His right to claim you.

Sure, some people sound like they're talking about their Handy Dandy Pocket Jesus with the Special Clip-On Sin-Eraser --

It's just that we've digested what we can of Scripture, and have come to realize the intimate, individual, personal claim on our hearts from the Messiah. We don't mean it to sound all trite and sound-bitey. Sorry if it does.
 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 

quote:

---

Does that just mean feeling His Presence sometimes? I invariably feel joy when I receive the Holy Mysteries (sometimes for a second, sometimes for a few minutes, sometimes longer, but, so far, I never receive without feeling something). Does that count?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
If you read the lives of the great saints of the Church, you will note that they had what might be called a personal relationship with Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
If you read the lives of the great saints of the Church, you will note that they had what might be called a personal relationship with Christ.

---

And this is why they are great saints, and I'm merely a mediocre sinner.

---

Work on it a bit and you can be a great sinner, like me.

I like what Ian's Orthodox speaker said about the difference between a personal relationship and an individual relationship. I feel like I have a personal relationship with Jesus, but he's not All Mine and I don't think I would have that relationship if the church had not shown the way.
 

---

Posted by whitelaughter (# 10611) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Sebastian:
What are people talking about when they say you have to have a personal relationship with Christ? What are they talking about when they say they have one and how much strength and comfort they get from it? I honestly don't understand (thereby betraying that I don't have one, I suppose). [snip] I invariably feel joy when I receive the Holy Mysteries (sometimes for a second, sometimes for a few minutes, sometimes longer, but, so far, I never receive without feeling something). Does that count?

---

quote:

---

If you read the lives of the great saints of the Church, you will note that they had what might be called a personal relationship with Christ.

---

quote:

---

15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."
(John 14:15-21, NIV)

---

quote:

---

16I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, 18may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.
Ephesians 3:16-19 (NIV)

---

quote:

---

I invariably feel joy when I receive the Holy Mysteries (sometimes for a second, sometimes for a few minutes, sometimes longer, but, so far, I never receive without feeling something). Does that count?

---

quote:

---

And this is why they are great saints, and I'm merely a mediocre sinner.

---

I strongly think its utter bollocks that the 'personalness' of ones relationship with Jesus is a measure of sanctity. I do experience it as personal but I am in no way more holy than any newbie Christian. Actually I would say that sometimes (often) people who are given more obvious evidence of his action and presence in their lives have it because we are the doubting Thomases and we need it.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Mudfrog; in my evangelical charismatic days I tried to have, and desperately wanted, what you describe.

It never happened, and I have to conclude it's not for everyone.
 

---

Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on :
 
Personal relationship?

I would say I have a personal relationship with Jesus and that I've felt his active care many times - just to get that out of the way first.

But what do I mean by "personal relationship".

Here's an example of a non-personal relationship. In the UK, there is a personal allowance of £4,000 plus. That means I can earn this much every year and not be taxed. Very generous. But I don't feel a personal relationship with Tony Blair. I don't feel that he has individually picked me out of the crowd and handed this gift to me. No, I just get it because I a UK taxpayer - one of the millions.

With Jesus, I feel that he has forgiven me all of my sins. I feel like I am part of the body of Christ and receive that forgiveness as one member of the body. But much more than this, I feel he has individually singled me out as well - that he has taken the trouble to get to know me for who I am and has forgiven my individual sins as well as the corporate sin of mankind.

Incidentally, I am always impressed with my kid's teachers who do this. The ones that don't just teach the class (though of course they do this as well) but teach the individuals. Come to think of it, that could stand for almost every profession.

Love,

Evo1

[ETA - almost forgot, if people tell you that you must feel you have a personal relationship to be saved, ask them how on earth they think they are helping you by saying that. FWIW I don't believe it.)

[ 10. November 2005, 09:02: Message edited by: Evo1 ]
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PerkyEars:
For me a 'personal relationship' means a perceptable interactivity between me and a non-theoretical God who is a) really out there and b) actually interested in me.

---

quote:

---

Personal relationship with Jesus means exactly 'what it says on the tin'.

It means that you have a communion with him, a conversation in prayer, that you have the promise of his presence and his love within your heart.
It means that in a profound way, he knows your name and you walk with him in faith.

As far as the personal bit goes, it means that it's something that is real to you, experienced at first hand rather than because you joined in with the crowd. It's a way of expressing a relationship with God that you yourself have accepted as opposed to assuming you have a faith because your family/culture/religious habits are Christian.

---

quote:

---

Mudfrog; in my evangelical charismatic days I tried to have, and desperately wanted, what you describe.

It never happened, and I have to conclude it's not for everyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Eucharist? Personal, yes. Relationship, yes. But not personal relationship. Somehow that phrase has connotations that are more than the sum of its parts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's personal, because it's addressed to me. It represents that there is a relationship between me and the King - monarch and subject. But it doesn't mean I have a personal relationship with the King.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:

Karl LB said

quote:

---

Mudfrog; in my evangelical charismatic days I tried to have, and desperately wanted, what you describe.

It never happened, and I have to conclude it's not for everyone.

---

I'm with you all the way there, Karl! I tried, in my fundie days, oh! how I tried, to imagine Jesus beside me, holding my hand, whispering in my ear, whatever, and just couldn't! If I expressed this to anyone they accused me of not being "baptised in the Spirit", or even of not being a "proper Christian" because I couldn't have "made a proper committment to Jesus".

I don't think the "warm fuzzies" are for everyone. Not that it's wrong if that's your thing - just that some of us are different.

---

quote:

---

For me a 'personal relationship' means a perceptable interactivity between me and a non-theoretical God who is a) really out there and b) actually interested in me.

---

Yes; exactly. And I believe I have that; in fact, after several years of active hostility toward Christianity, this "perceptable interactivity" with a definitely non-theoretical God who was out there, interested in me and in fact not about to give up on me was what got me to say, one restless evening, "All right -- you win. You win!" (And then I said, to myself, "Oh, shit " -- kind of a C.S. Lewis, most-reluctant-convert-in-Christedom moment. But it got better. )

So I've had, and have, the experience of Christ made present to us in the context of the Church, in Word and Sacrament and in other people "being Christ for me"; and I've had that more intimate experience of close interaction with God through prayer and meditation. And from my perspective, the former is not only as important but more important than the latter; just as in a life partnership, it's the working out of one's relationship every day, which isn't always an easy or pleasant or romantic thing, is more important than "peak experiences." I cherish my little treasure of peak experiences with God, but if I had to depend on them to bolster my faith, I wouldn't be here.

And, finally, just to touch on something Ian said several posts ago -- Mark Allen Powell puts it this way: "Our relationship with Jesus always has a personal element, but it's never private."
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
Is there a difference between a 'personal relationship with God' and a 'personal relationship with Christ'?

---

quote:

---

Is there a difference between a 'personal relationship with God' and a 'personal relationship with Christ'?

---

Only in as far as I simply cannot even begin to imagine a relationship with an almighty, omniscient,creator etc. etc. God, who is huge, but can't be measured, etc., whereas Jesus was incarnate, and ate, slept and otherwise functioned as a normal human being. I can, just, imagine, being there with him 2000 years ago, (always thought I was the Martha sort ) but having the same sort of relationship now, with someone who "isn't there", can't touch me, maybe listens, but doesn't reply in a voice I can hear, by letter, phone or email, well, no.

Like I said, we are all different.
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
Demas asked

quote:

---

Is there a difference between a 'personal relationship with God' and a 'personal relationship with Christ'?

---

Only in as far as I simply cannot even begin to imagine a relationship with an almighty, omniscient,creator etc. etc. God, who is huge, but can't be measured, etc., whereas Jesus was incarnate, and ate, slept and otherwise functioned as a normal human being. I can, just, imagine, being there with him 2000 years ago, (always thought I was the Martha sort ) but having the same sort of relationship now, with someone who "isn't there", can't touch me, maybe listens, but doesn't reply in a voice I can hear, by letter, phone or email, well, no.

Like I said, we are all different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's personal, because it's addressed to me. It represents that there is a relationship between me and the King - monarch and subject. But it doesn't mean I have a personal relationship with the King.

---

Good analogy, let's tale it a little further. Is that even if the King took to writing to you every week and you were regularly chatting with him?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Is there a difference between a 'personal relationship with God' and a 'personal relationship with Christ'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
And do people speak of a personal relationship with Mary, or Gregory of Nyssa?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's personal, because it's addressed to me. It represents that there is a relationship between me and the King - monarch and subject. But it doesn't mean I have a personal relationship with the King.

---

Good analogy, let's tale it a little further. Is that even if the King took to writing to you every week and you were regularly chatting with him?

Love,

Evo1

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That would start to be a personal relationship. However, since God doesn't write to me every week, and we don't have chats (at least not two-way ones), the point is moot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That would start to be a personal relationship. However, since God doesn't write to me every week, and we don't have chats (at least not two-way ones), the point is moot.

---

Sorry, I was being analogous - as I thought you were - you were originally talking about the Eucharist I think. (I added the bit about chatting (prayer)) So would you like to further the analogy on this basis? It was yours after all.

Love,

Evo1

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I did not link the telegram from the King directly with the Eucharist.

Lessee...

My payslip. I get one every month, and it's personal. But I do not have a personal relationship with the payroll department.

---

Right, your example of the King was not analogous to the Eucharist. Are you suggesting that the pay slip scenario is? I'll hang fire with my response to a yes here since I just got burned with the King one.

If not, would you like to give me something you think is analogous so that I might understand what you are getting at when you deny that the personal and relationship elements of the Eucharist are indeed a "personal relationship?"
 

---

Posted by Real Ale Methodist (# 7390) on :
 
I'm a little concerned about how quickly people throw aside the idea of God having Pizza with us. Surely the point is that God IS there when I'm having pizza, and he IS there when I go for coffee. Where-ever we go Jesus comes with us, whther we acknowledge His presence or not.

Having accepted the fact that he's there then one can recognise what I would call my personal relationship with God. Which is the quiet support and confidence I gain when thinking about Him at hard times, or its the joy I feel when I see Him in the world around me. As for a direct relationship on the usual terms, I experience that every time the Holy Spirit works through both friends and strangers; its what i feel every time I know I am not alone. In this it is a really mundane everyday faith. I don't for a second believe it is essential for salvation, but I wouldn't go without it for a second.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I did not link the telegram from the King directly with the Eucharist.

Lessee...

My payslip. I get one every month, and it's personal. But I do not have a personal relationship with the payroll department.

---

Right, your example of the King was not analogous to the Eucharist. Are you suggesting that the pay slip scenario is? I'll hang fire with my response to a yes here since I just got burned with the King one.

If not, would you like to give me something you think is analogous so that I might understand what you are getting at when you deny that the personal and relationship elements of the Eucharist are indeed a "personal relationship?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I've picked up on a kind of reluctance on the part of some to dare to believe that Jesus Christ -- the Cosmic Christ of that great hymn in Colossians, "for whom and through whom all things were made" -- takes a personal interest in them, or is accessible to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The payslip is a closer analogy. Are you going now to try to prove that I have a personal relationship with the payroll department? I can assure you I don't,

---

Rest easy Karl, I promised I'd keep my mouth shut didn't I - you can rely on me for that

As an employee of the company, I might easily say that you have a personal relationship with the company - why else would it buy you a gold watch after 50 years service?

But that aint a good analogy either I'd say. A better analogy with the Eucharist might be my mum, who every Sunday, with her own hand, used to slave over a hot oven and gave me and my brood a meal. Not because I had worked for it, or because I was entitled to it by right/law/anything else you might want to add, but because of her love for me.

Now that was personal and there was a relationship there. I can understand that analogy with the Eucharist. But the fly in the ointment is that it is also a "personal relationship". But then, what else really could the Eucharist be? If it wasn't, why accept it?
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Suddenly the veil falls from my eyes.

I found out a few years ago that I have AS. 'nuff said.
 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
A PRWC isn't the same as having Christ at my beck and call: "I feel bad, Lord -- come and cheer me up." "I'm in trouble! Fix it!" I've had very low times in my life where I do believe that Christ made self present to me in a very "up front and personal way"...but by the same token I've had similarly sad or traumatic experiences where I had to "walk by faith and not by feel." But was Christ absent from me in those times? No. I believe he always stands by us, no matter what. And recall that he too felt alone and abandoned by God. Why would I think that I'm somehow entitled to an easier time of it on earth than Jesus Christ?

I'm really getting a little troubled, not so much by people's doubts about Christ's immediate presence in their lives, but by what sounds like outright hostility to the idea. Ever read the Book of Job? -- is it your job to dictate God's rules of engagement to God?
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Evo - go back and read what Josephine posted. It sums it up very well. Especially her last two paragraphs.
 

---

Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
eta. - Evo, if you're going to play silly buggers with semantics to prove that my own words imply I do have a PRWG, then forget it. I don't see the point in you persuading me that what I don't call a PRWG is one. The fact is that whatever relationship I exist in towards God, which you might call a PRWG, and I don't, does not seem like one to me, nor is it the satisfying thing other people on this thread describe it as.

It doesn't look like a duck, doesn't quack like a duck, so I'm not inclined to say it is a duck.

---

Methinks the gentleman doth...
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
LC - Christ may well be present in my day to day life. The point here is that PRWG implies to me that I'd be conscious of it, not just accepting that it is true by faith. I'm not, hence I do not identify with the concept of PRWG.

Again, read Josephine. She knows. We aspies don't work emotionally like other people do. Relationships are quite concrete things for us. We really need graspable conversations, touch, words.
 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
The really delicious irony of this dialogue, for me, is the fact that because I'm a Lutheran who takes my Lutheran theology seriously I have been lectured, more times than I can count, by some of my more evangelical brethren and sistren online, that I can't possibly have a Personal Relationship With Christ. How odd that I've now been called, apparently, to defend that concept.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
eta. - Evo, if you're going to play silly buggers with semantics to prove that my own words imply I do have a PRWG, then forget it. I don't see the point in you persuading me that what I don't call a PRWG is one. The fact is that whatever relationship I exist in towards God, which you might call a PRWG, and I don't, does not seem like one to me, nor is it the satisfying thing other people on this thread describe it as.

It doesn't look like a duck, doesn't quack like a duck, so I'm not inclined to say it is a duck.

---

Methinks the gentleman doth...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Karl is right -- "personal relationship" means far more than "a relationship with a person." I have a relationship with the janitor at work, but it's not a personal relationship. Personal relationship implies intimacy, closeness, warmth -- things that I don't have in my relationship with the janitor, and that some people aren't ever going to feel in their relationship with God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Karl is right -- "personal relationship" means far more than "a relationship with a person." I have a relationship with the janitor at work, but it's not a personal relationship. Personal relationship implies intimacy, closeness, warmth -- things that I don't have in my relationship with the janitor, and that some people aren't ever going to feel in their relationship with God.

---

I think this is narrowing the phrase somewhat. I can have a personal relationship without having any of these things. You seem to be talking about a close personal relationship.

I'd say you do know the janitor personally and hence that you have a personal relationship with him of sorts. Pinning the meaning onto what you believe is "implied" by the words does not mean everyone else has to abide by them.

The youngest son of ten who gets to talk to his dad, say about as much as you talk to the janitor has a personal relationship with his dad - just not a very close one.

Love,

Evo1

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:
I think this is narrowing the phrase somewhat. I can have a personal relationship without having any of these things. You seem to be talking about a close personal relationship.

I'd say you do know the janitor personally and hence that you have a personal relationship with him of sorts. Pinning the meaning onto what you believe is "implied" by the words does not mean everyone else has to abide by them.

The youngest son of ten who gets to talk to his dad, say about as much as you talk to the janitor has a personal relationship with his dad - just not a very close one.

---

This strikes me as too cute by half. Does anyone honestly believe that all those people exhorting us to have a personal relationship with Christ mean that we should have a distant personal relationship? That we should know Jesus in the same casual way that we know the doorman of a high-rise? Much of the misgivings that those who are squeemish about this phrase have is based on a true perception that there is a strong emotional element in this kind of religous experience.

John Wesley and the early Methodists were accuesed of "enthusiasm" (a word that delights me) because the feeling was that their faith was based too much on emotion. This is not a new dichotomy among faithful people. Having a personal relationship with Christ isn't necessarily the way that all Christians would choose to mainfest their faith. There is nothing wrong with that. Allowing other people other ways to experience and express their faith seems to me to be a sign of Christian maturity. Similarly, acknowledging that the thing that makes them uncomfortable is, indeed, a significant part of one's own faith expression is equally appropriate.

--Tom Clune
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Seriously starting to wonder if I have Asperger's myself now ... Not only do I not have a clue what people are on about when they talk about their personal relationship with Christ, I also don't have a clue what they might possibly mean.

For myself, if it isn't (in Mousethief's terms) a pizza* and an arm round the shoulder, it's not what I'd call a personal relationship.


* OK, the pizza's negotiable.
 

---

Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Evo, you're this close to a call to Hell here, not because of what you're posting in and of itself, but because of your refusal to listen.

To us aspies, what you call a "close personal relationship" is what a personal relationship is. If it's not close - if we can't see, physically touch and talk to the other person, then the relationship is purely academic. Without the physical aspect, it's not a personal relationship. Please, before I call you to Hell and test some new swear words on you, just accept that this how we are wired.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
This strikes me as too cute by half. Does anyone honestly believe that all those people exhorting us to have a personal relationship with Christ mean that we should have a distant personal relationship? That we should know Jesus in the same casual way that we know the doorman of a high-rise? Much of the misgivings that those who are squeemish about this phrase have is based on a true perception that there is a strong emotional element in this kind of religous experience.

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure that a personal relationship necessarily means that you have a personal experience of that relationship.

---

quote:

---

I think you can know that a relationship is there, by faith, for example by knowing intellectually that God cares for you, without necessarily having an emotional experience of that relationship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And I'm saying that I cannot for the life of me see why I would describe the relationship between me and an untouchable, invisible, undetectable God as a "personal relationship", without, as you appear to have proposed, completely severing the phrase from all the connotations it has in my lexicon. What's the point of redefining a term to mean something totally different to what I normally take it to mean so that I can say I have one? It doesn't change the actual relationship I do have, does it?

The reason I'm wound up about this is that for feckin' years I believed my Christianity was desperately lacking, sub-standard, and possibly completely spurious because I didn't have this PRWG that everyone else raved about. Now I finally understand that the easiest thing to do is simply reject the concept for myself, because what it is possible to have with a non-tangible deity can never have anything to do with "personal relationship", with all the connotations that "personal relationship" has.

---

Please don't feel that I am implying in any way that your faith is lacking - we all work out our own salvation - but I sort of feel you are shouting about not having something when actually you do!

This 'personal relationship' stuff is not really the fuzzy, warm, hand in hand thing you assume some evos to be talking about.

Of course it's true that diety is intangible, etc.
Of course it's true that normal personal relationships involve eyes and ears and hands and all the other sensory stuff that makes for interpersonal relationships.

But I'm not sure that realy that's what we are saying.

When we talk about 'personal' we are talking about you, not Jesus. Personal means your 'experience'; I guess it's a phrase that was invented as an answer to the nominal church goer who had no inward faith, rather a mere outward, cultural conformity. Personal faith, relationship, religion simply means a faith that has been internalised.

As far as the relationship bit is concerned, well, that has more to do with 'standing' than anything else. Our relationship with God has little to do with feelings and a lot to do with redemption and acceptance.

The PRWG is therefore a phrase that basically speaks of appropriating the work of redemption for oneself rather than mere mental assent to the doctrine.

The only thing I can think of Christian doctrine is the Methodist doctrine of assurance where the redeemed can 'know' within himself that he is indeed forgiven and accepted by God. Wesley spoke about how he felt his heart 'strangely warmed' when he realised that he was indeed a redeemed man.

Please be encouraged by this.
I am sure there are times when you do feel 'blessed' and full of faith. Many people do; but other times their faith is just a quiet assurance that God is present.

That to me is a PRWG.
Blessings...
 

---

Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And I'm saying that I cannot for the life of me see why I would describe the relationship between me and an untouchable, invisible, undetectable God as a "personal relationship", without, as you appear to have proposed, completely severing the phrase from all the connotations it has in my lexicon. What's the point of redefining a term to mean something totally different to what I normally take it to mean so that I can say I have one? It doesn't change the actual relationship I do have, does it?

---

quote:

---

The reason I'm wound up about this is that for feckin' years I believed my Christianity was desperately lacking, sub-standard, and possibly completely spurious because I didn't have this PRWG that everyone else raved about. Now I finally understand that the easiest thing to do is simply reject the concept for myself, because what it is possible to have with a non-tangible deity can never have anything to do with "personal relationship", with all the connotations that "personal relationship" has.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
"Nah, MF, I'm shouting about Evo insisting that I take what you described and describe it as a PRWG, when I can't for the life of me think why I'd want to use what is for me, with my linguistic lexicon, and for others, going by their posts here, a completely misleading phrase."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
"Nah, MF, I'm shouting about Evo insisting that I take what you described and describe it as a PRWG, when I can't for the life of me think why I'd want to use what is for me, with my linguistic lexicon, and for others, going by their posts here, a completely misleading phrase."

---

You're being a bit naughty there Karl, can you lead me to where I did that?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Karl is right -- "personal relationship" means far more than "a relationship with a person." I have a relationship with the janitor at work, but it's not a personal relationship. Personal relationship implies intimacy, closeness, warmth -- things that I don't have in my relationship with the janitor, and that some people aren't ever going to feel in their relationship with God.

---

I think this is narrowing the phrase somewhat. I can have a personal relationship without having any of these things.

---

quote:

---

That's simply not what I call a personal relationship. It's a faith position, an axiom, even. Not a personal relationship. It's intellectual, as you say. Relationship is emotional.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So, insist is a bit strong. Sue me.

---

quote:

---

I can't. That's the point, really.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Just read the post about the experience of faith not beinmg emotional. Karl, is that what you are looking for? An emotional experience with God?

---

quote:

---

Actually I guess it isn't because you seem to believe there isn't one available.

---

quote:

---

All I would say is that we all have different personality types and any 'emotional' relationship someone might have with God is merely their emotional response to the quiet assurance the Holy Spirit gives.

---

quote:

---

If we are talking about feeling assured that God is present, some people respond emotionally, some don't. That is not to say that only the emotional people have a PRWG. Some very stoical and practical people have a vital and strong faith - it just doesn't affect them emotionally.

---

quote:

---

If we look for emotion as the benchmark for Christian experience I guess we will be disappointed. Feelings might come as a response, but they don't make or prove the relationship with God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:
I can't let the delicious irony go here. We have never met, you have never heard me speak, you've never touched my hand. We have never shared intimacy, closeness or warmth. And yet you have been so moved by our exchanges that you were on the verge of calling me to Hell. From your side of the fence, I'd say this has to be a personal relationship we are enjoying here. QED.

Love,

Evo1 [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Like I said, we clearly have a very different understanding of "personal relationship". I'm also angered sometimes by what governments in countries I know little of do, but I don't have a personal relationship with Robert Mugabe. God forbid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Like I said, we clearly have a very different understanding of "personal relationship". I'm also angered sometimes by what governments in countries I know little of do, but I don't have a personal relationship with Robert Mugabe. God forbid.

---

Let's go over the terminology again.

Robert Mugabe & Karl
Personal: No
Relationship: suppose might just get there.

Evo & Karl
Personal: apparently very
Relationship: shipmate:shipmate
Personal Relationship? I'd say has to be by definition but for personal reasons and associated connotations, you seem reluctant to admit this.

Love,

Evo1

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Can I get a witness?

---

LutheranChik, the word witness is pregnant with connotations so I'll second you instead.

Love,

Evo1
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
LC - I'm afraid that for me this stretches the meaning of "personal relationship" well beyond breaking point.

I should add, for Evo's benefit, that the relationship generated by our exchanges here, whilst a long, long way from being a "personal relationship", is a darned sight closer than what I have with God, who tends not to reply to my points.
 

---

Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Hell is looking close, again, boyo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Hell is looking close, again, boyo.

---

Well I am kind of bored now,

You just made yet another erroneous (imho of course) analogy (that's the Mugabe one), you can't blame me for pointing it out (but perhaps you do)

Love,

Evo1

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Read for comprehension. It's your implication that I'm refusing to "admit" that this exchange constitutes a personal relationship that's pissing me off.

---

That would be fun, a Hell thread which says, "He says we are having a personal relationship and it is just making me so annoyed. I would really like to see that.

Oh, I just looked up Personal Relationship on WordReference.com and it apparently means: "a relation between persons". Seems to make sense to me.

I'll leave you alone. Hope I haven't annoyed you too much,

Love,

Evo1
 

---

Posted by Spiffy da Wonder Sheep (# 5267) on :
 
I don't have Aspergers, but I am a kinesthetic learner (which means I learn best by doing and get right mixed up if you give me too many verbal and/or written directions, figure out your learning style here). For someone who's kinesthetic, relationships are all about what you do: how many phone calls, how many emails, how many gifts, how long you talked at dinner, et cetera.

One of the reasons I'm in a liturgical church is because there are tangible, physical actions that connect me again and again to God. I don't do it for the daily warm fuzzies, though. I score very low on interpersonal on that learning style test, though.

I have had a few powerful experiences of the love of God, but those were during periods of my life that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy's dog. What was said way back at the beginning of the thread about personal vs. individual relationship really struck home for me.

Also, a tangent that was brought up earlier: if you read a lot of the more flowery, fruity, fluffy Rosary sites on the Internet, you get people discussing the BVM in similar terms that a lot of evangelicals discuss their 'personal relationship with Jesus'.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Interesting link; I scored highly on musical, but actually I'm not a great musician; I'm too physically unco-ordinated (interestingly there's a strong co-morbidity between AS and dyspraxia; it seems that when we're kids the universe wants to ensure that if we can't irritate the hell out of our schoolmates with the AS they can beat the shit out of us for being crap at sports instead)

I always find it difficult to distinguish between a statement I'd like to be true and one that is on these tests
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Linguistic: 8

Logical-Mathematical: 6

Spatial: 6

Bodily-Kinesthetic: 7

Musical: 11

Interpersonal: 5

Intrapersonal: 9

I was crap at sports and bullied at school too
 

---

Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :
 
Sorry, but where's the link?
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
The "here" in the second line of Spiffy's post
 

---

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
In Spiffy da Wonder Sheep's post a few posts up, first paragraph, "here" of "figure out your learning style here)."

(Haven't replicated the link in this post 'cause I'm heading out and fear muddling up the UBB.)

[cross-posted with Matt Black!]

[ 10. November 2005, 16:23: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
 

---

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Sorry, but where's the link?

---

In Spiffy's first paragraph of her last post to this thread.

Linguistic: 9

Logical-Mathematical: 2

Spatial: 4

Bodily-Kinesthetic: 3

Musical: 12

Interpersonal: 8

Intrapersonal: 5

Not sure how accurate that is....

(Crossposted with lots of people)

[ 10. November 2005, 16:26: Message edited by: Papio. ]
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Given that I've posted recently on this thread, I ought not to host. Posting as a shipmate, therefore, can I suggest that if people want to compare their results on Spiffy's survey they do so in the circus. Obviously a discussion about the relationship between learning styles and styles of faith is entirely within the remit of Purgatory.

Doubtless an uncompromised host will reiterate this advice formally, should the need arise!
 

---

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I always find it difficult to distinguish between a statement I'd like to be true and one that is on these tests

---

The key to happiness is to decide that there is no difference, and live accordingly.

--Tom Clune
 

---

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :
 
Well I'm one of those Baptist types that LutheranChik referred to earlier. At churches and youth groups when I was growing up there was quite an (over)emphasis on the PWRG. Looking back on it I do think it was overplayed, and there wasn't enough talk about corporate aspects of faith. Incidentally, when discussing PWRG it was never really in relation to a warm fuzzy feeling, but the churches I went to didn't really do Jesus is my BF type songs either.

My take on PWRG: God has acted to save the world, yes, but also and in a very real way to save me personally. I know that some people see that as a bit 'I'centric but i do believe it to be true nevertheless.
 

---

Posted by St. Sebastian (# 312) on :
 
I don't mean to interrupt the impending outbreak of hostilities, but I interrupted my labors in the bowels of hell to see where the thread was going (and boy is it going!) and want to post while I'm able to keep my mind wrapped around it a little.

I'm with the the people who have a hard time with relationship with Someone who doesn't have skin. During the Eucharist, I feel His Presence. But it's sort of like having someone I respect a great deal, have heard a lot about (and who has heard about me, say via mutual friends) notice me in a crowd and stop briefly to give me a smile and a quick hug as he bustles by. The rest of the time, my "relationship" is pretty much intellectual and a faith-choice. Life would be a shrieking obscenity without God and the promises of Christianity (to me, of course). But, as others have said, I've always felt my faith deficient to the point of not being valid because I don't seem to have what others do in their PRWG. Nor do I understand how they derive so much help and comfort from it. Is it just the comfort of knowing God's in control and all shall be well? That doesn't work well for me because (a)I'm afraid I'll bollocks up His best-laid plans for me and (b)I still have to wade through the shit. This isn't the attitude I see in the PRWG contingent, and many of them have all but said I'm not a Christian because of it. I just can't see how that works (not that I begrudge them that it works for them). Maybe I just haven't gotten from my head to my heart, and that's what you have to do for a PRWG.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PerkyEars:
For me a 'personal relationship' means a perceptable interactivity between me and a non-theoretical God who is a) really out there and b) actually interested in me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cocktailgirl:
Mousethief, why do you keep on doing it then? (I don't mean that in a confrontational way; I'm interested in why you keep on with God when you don't perceive God 'doing a lot back').

---

Faith.
 

---

Posted by PerkyEars (# 9577) on :
 
This thread is starting to depress me!

I think the PRWC is leaned on far too heavily by evangelical theology, and I think the reason is this. Christians like to have some way to provisionally sort out the 'properly' converted from the 'need preaching to'. With sacramental styles its easy enough, once they sign up to the rituals you can relax and let God sort em out from there. But if you don't believe in sacramental initiation, then you need to measure something else, and evangelicals have ended up trying to label the inner states of people coming to faith. To understand why evangelicals get so het up when you challenge the idea that the PRWC is neccessary, you have to understand that they don't have anything else with which to tell if someone is in or out. If you can be ok with God 'without' certain subjective experiences, then where do you draw the line? Are people who seem to enjoy the ritual but not appear so emotionally commited 'real Christians'? Are the people who seem to vaguely think it's a good idea 'real Christians'? The scarey idea that God is ok with a 'much' broader set of people than you like to think he is soon raises it's head. I can see why Evo1 doesn't want to let it go, because I'm afraid I've experienced feeling defensive, deflated and dissilusioned at finding out that some of my experiences are not some sort of blueprint for how it should be. I can also imagine how infuriating it must be for people who genuinely don't feel these things to be told they are not proper Christians.

I enjoy my evangelical church because I am pretty emotional about it and understand where people are coming from when they talk about definite conversion experiences and so on - it's nice to be among people who don't think I'm nuts. But I really worry about nailing my colours to the mast as an 'evangelical' in the long run - because I see this preaching of the 'neccessary' PRWC is alienating many people in the long run.

quote:

---

Can I get an agreement from the others here assembled that by PRWG we, here in this conversation about our own faith walks, do not mean My Boyfriend/My Buddy/My Pal Jesus, "under the blanket with a flashlight"? That our relationship with Jesus is something much more complex and not exclusively or even primarily referencing warm and fuzzy feelings about the Lord and Savior? Right? Can I get a witness?

---

I think we're on the same page LC.

But what *is* this 'Jesus is my boyfriend' mentality people all refer to?? I don't think I've ever come across it. Could I be an unwitting sufferer! I find the phrase icky in the extreme, but I definately have a lot of warm fuzzy feelings and I'm getting paranoid *I'm* doing it wrong and enjoying myself too much.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PerkyEars:
I can also imagine how infuriating it must be for people who genuinely don't feel these things to be told they are not proper Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PerkyEars:
But what *is* this 'Jesus is my boyfriend' mentality people all refer to?? I don't think I've ever come across it. Could I be an unwitting sufferer! I find the phrase icky in the extreme, but I definately have a lot of warm fuzzy feelings and I'm getting paranoid *I'm* doing it wrong and enjoying myself too much.

---

quote:

---

What are ....to have a personal....relationship etc etc

---

quote:

---

If "Jesus" will save, He will do so on the basis of my actions and not whether I felt distant or woozy.

---

Actually, Jesus has already saved you independently of any presumed "good conduct points" on your part. The question is whether you're yet aware of that.

[tangent alert off] Carry on!
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cocktailgirl:
Mousethief, why do you keep on doing it then? (I don't mean that in a confrontational way; I'm interested in why you keep on with God when you don't perceive God 'doing a lot back').

---

Faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adamant azzy:
Or could it be that the styling preferances might change next year and the whole idea looks old fashioned and crappy, just like the Corvette of '65 vintage, and so passe, and therefore not to worry but to just wait it out.

---

quote:

---

OP'd by Lutheranchick...Jesus has already saved you independently of any presumed.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
We seem to have got into a circular discussion here about faith feeling different to different people. I don't think that's any biggy.

---

quote:

---

OP'd by Callan... I think personal commitment might be a better expression

---

quote:

---

But what *is* this 'Jesus is my boyfriend' mentality people all refer to?? I don't think I've ever come across it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
I think that kind of language drives people out of the Church and away from God. Not everyone, of course. But those who don't naturally have and can't manufacture the feelings that everyone else seems to have. I think it's both hurtful and harmful. In short, I think it is a big deal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
I have faith that the police department will respond if I dial 911 but I wouldn't call that a personal relationship, even though every officer on the force is a person. You're bending the definition of "personal relationship" beyond all reasonable limits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
So if some churches want to insist on "personal relationship with Christ," it's hard to argue solely on "hurtful and harmful" grounds that they shouldn't; it might be as important to them as closed communion is to the ecclesiology of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.

---

quote:

---

primary goal in being the Church is to proclaim the very good news of God's unconditional, no-strings-attached Yes! to a loving relationship

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Granted. But we don't usually dismiss the objections of those who are hurt by our closed communion by saying, "It's no biggie."

---

quote:

---

OP'd by Josephine.... I know that the people who find religious language puzzling or off-putting also have a responsibility to understand what is meant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Josephine, I apologise as you obviously found this offensive.

It is no biggy to me that people's emotional experiences of faith are different. Honestly.

But I did not mean to dismiss your objections as no big deal so I apologise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
the Orthodox answer to "Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus?" is "Yes!" However, we do not have an "individual" relationship with Jesus: at least in Orthodox eyes, we meet him through the church (which Mousethief made reference to).

I think "personal" has now taken on the connotation of "individual" -- me and Jesus and we're alright. I don't subscribe to that interpretation; I am called to a relationship with the thrice-blessed Trinity however, and in that sense I see it as personal.

---

quote:

---

OP'd by Luteranchick..... worship and devotional styles in churches that may affirm the historic creeds in theory but who don't say them or talk about them or teach people what they mean......

---

quote:

---

OP'd by Lutheranchick..... Want to send other people to The Bad Place......

---

quote:

---

OP'd by Alogon..... I think "personal" has now taken on the connotation of "individual

---

quote:

---

I believe that the historic fathers of religion realised that we could easily fall into the trap of conceiving of an impersonal, cold God out there who merely judged and punished. A remote and fearful creature. They emphasized the personal in him as a way to emphasize his closeness to human affairs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cocktailgirl:
Mousethief, why do you keep on doing it then? (I don't mean that in a confrontational way; I'm interested in why you keep on with God when you don't perceive God 'doing a lot back').

---

Faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adamant azzy:

quote:

---

OP'd by Lutheranchick..... Want to send other people to The Bad Place......

---

But if your daughter was raped and killed by a fiend you would not want the same? Right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But the nature of faith in God is different from that in the fire department surely?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:
But then I've heard hurtful comments on here about my having a "personal relationship" as I recall, this was before I'd even declared the fact - it was just assumed of me. What's the difference?

Words are words. The political correctness I mentioned earlier seems to be coming out here. I am getting the feeling that some would prefer us not to use the term "personal relationship" because of the abuse of a minority.

[as an aside, I may have felt affronted at the comments against me had it not been for the fact that the person was suggesting that this was a new phenomenon and that members of Jesus' family would not have had a personal relationship with him - that was just too rib tickling an argument to get upset with]

Love,

Evo1

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:

quote:

---

If "Jesus" will save, He will do so on the basis of my actions and not whether I felt distant or woozy.

---

Actually, Jesus has already saved you independently of any presumed "good conduct points" on your part. The question is whether you're yet aware of that.

[tangent alert off] Carry on!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Frankly, I don't want to be with a god that doesn't offer me a choice whether to be with him in eternity or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
... I was given a couple of papers to fill out about "my faith in Christ" or something like that. I think the first question was "When did you start having a personal relationship with Jesus and were born again?" It took me a month to figure out that question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AdamPater:
<oh-I'm-clever-tangent>Some years ago, while looking for a church in a new town, I was left unable to respond when I was asked over coffee "So, Mr Pater, when did you come to know the Lord?" It was only the next day that I figured out that my response should have been "Brother, the Psalmist suggests to me that the good Lord knew me in my mother's womb, and I've found our acquaintance has grown from there."</oh-I'm-clever-tangent>

---

 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
I just find the idea that God will save me without considering my choice flat out arrogant and disrespectful. Frankly, I don't want to be with a god that doesn't offer me a choice whether to be with him in eternity or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

Better yet, if you ever happen to be unconscious, should I attempt to get your permission before attempting CPR? If you don't respond, should I leave you under the argument that I did not want to arrogantly violate your sense of free will, and therefore left you there to die?
...
-Digory

---

quote:

---

Don't be put off. The Lutheran God isn't the only one on the market.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
... One lot are saying: I am a person, God is a person, I have faith in God, ergo I have a personal relationship with God...

---

quote:

---

... Another lot are saying personal relationship implies a degree of affective closeness that cannot really exist in this situation...

---

quote:

---

I think personal commitment might be a better expression because it signals something relational...

---

quote:

---

... inasmuch as it implies that this stuff matters but doesn't have the affective baggage of PRWG.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by adamant azzy:

quote:

---

OP'd by Lutheranchick..... Want to send other people to The Bad Place......

---

But if your daughter was raped and killed by a fiend you would not want the same? Right?

---

Yes but that is because of the hardness of my heart and my own inability to forgive. God supposedly has no such inability.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whitelaughter:
The people who hate child molestors the most aren't the victims, nor their relatives, but the poor counsellors who love enough to devote themselves to healing the victims. "God loves you" gets screamed at us from every quarter, but somehow people like to forget the idea that God loves our victims, loves more than we can imagine. You'll regularly hear people saying "I don't believe in a God who sends people to Hell", but only from those who've never got their finger out to help others; a few years trying to help a rape victim, or being there for some poor sap going through heroin withdrawalm, will grind that belief out of anyone.
Of course, the complainers will never do so, they're having to much fun being smug to care about the broken ones around them.

---

quote:

---

You'll regularly hear people saying "I don't believe in a God who sends people to Hell", but only from those who've never got their finger out to help others; a few years trying to help a rape victim, or being there for some poor sap going through heroin withdrawalm, will grind that belief out of anyone.

---

Well, I’m not at all sure about the ontological status of Hell but I have “got my finger out” to help those who have experienced your examples and have myself been a “victim” of them and it has not ground out belief, oddly, but has led me to seek God more. So what’s that about I wonder?

Also from whitelaughter

Well, we're gathered in His name, so He's online. Whether you sense His presence or not, He's here, so make sure that you're happy with the idea of his having to wade through your posts.


What a very excellent point. I’ve had leanings towards a particular denomination/expression of faith for many years yet it’s only since my active participation on these boards that I’ve made a move to do what is necessary to fulfil this. Thanks. There’s a thread somewhere asking “which poster is the Queen of England?” Maybe we should ask “which poster is Jesus?” And maybe, in a body-of-Christ, Spartacus sort of way, we would all have to reply “I am” and totally flood the boards and crash the server
 

---

Posted by Dobbo (# 5850) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
REAL two-way conversation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Professor Kirke,

I think this is a great tangent. Should we start another thread about it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Professor Kirke,

I think this is a great tangent. Should we start another thread about it?

---

I'd love to, but I'd be worried that it may be DH stuff. Callan (or other hosts), what do you think?

-Digory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
It's ironic to think that people are trying to force their personal understandings of a phrase onto others, explaining to them that their relationships are indeed very personal even if they don't admit it.

The Eucharist is not a personal relationship. I don't even know what that would mean.
One and only criteria for having a personal relationship with Christ: saying so.

If someone says they don't, they don't. And neither statement ("I do" or "I don't") should carry any implications from others. (Hahahahaha yeah right I know.)

-Digory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
[qb]explaining to them that their relationships are indeed very personal even if they don't admit it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
[qb]explaining to them that their relationships are indeed very personal even if they don't admit it.

---

One last thing, where you referring to someone other than me when you said this or was it just your exagerative style? I say this since I don't remember accusing anyone of having a "very personal relationship".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
Is there a difference between a 'personal relationship with God' and a 'personal relationship with Christ'?

---

This is one thing that always worried me slightly, looking back, at my life B.P. [before the Plot ™ ]. Perhaps it's projection, perhaps it was just me, but God equalled Jesus alone in my mind, and perhaps this is what gets my back up when I hear the term 'personal relationship with Christ'. Whenever I thought of God, Jesus was it -- the Father and the Holy Spirit were very much in the background.

For those who have and rejoice in a personal relationship with Christ as is being described by Evo, LutheranChik and others..., is this relationship different to your relationship with the other members of the Trinity? Can one have a personal relationship with the Father? with the Holy Spirit? Or does the incarnation of the the Son of God allow a different form of relationship?

[I hope you can understand what I'm asking!]

Thanks,
Ian.

[ 11. November 2005, 10:41: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 

---

Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
For those who have and rejoice in a personal relationship with Christ as is being described by Evo, LutheranChik and others..., is this relationship different to your relationship with the other members of the Trinity? Can one have a personal relationship with the Father? with the Holy Spirit? Or does the incarnation of the the Son of God allow a different form of relationship?

[I hope you can understand what I'm asking!]

Thanks,
Ian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:
Well, can I do the evo thing and answer this in Jesus' words when one of his disciples said something like, "OK, we know you, you are one of us, but can you introduce us to the father so that we can know Him in the same way?" Here's what he said: [ Jn 14:9-11]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
Evo1, do you pray to Jesus, or to the father as Jesus instructed the disciples to?

---

I sense a trap here (but not in a supernatural way )

I pray really as I feel led to. Sometimes to the Father, sometimes to Jesus, very very rarely to the Holy Spirit alone though sometimes to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I presume you refer to the Lord's prayer though I stand to be corrected. A good prayer I'd say, but this was again before Pentecost. We read in the epistles that Jesus is our mediator before God and that he will be with us, I don't really see any problem with taking him at his word.

Who do you pray to Demas?

Love,

Evo1
 

---

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
Evo1, do you pray to Jesus, or to the father as Jesus instructed the disciples to?

---

I sense a trap here (but not in a supernatural way

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
No trap - I'm just assuming that one aspect of a personal relationship with God would be who you prayed to. Since you say that you pray to all the persons of the trinity: would you say you have a personal relationship with each of them? Are they different personal relationships?

---

quote:

---

Though I am sorely tempted to start a Purg thread on your comment that the Lord's prayer became less relevant or important at Pentecost!

---

quote:

---

(I would tend to pray to God as God rather than to any particular person of the trinity.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:
To straighten out your misunderstandings of my exchanges with Karl, it was him that called the Eucharist personal and a relationship - I'm not sure I agree (though you seem to assume I did). I was simply trying to get him to explain how given he said this, he didn't feel it was a personal relationship. With his own example he seemed to agree that repeated "letters from the king" may constitute a personal relationship but let's not get back into that.

I never made any assertion of whether he had a PRWG - you will see he seemed to think I did but when I asked him to explain why, he couldn't.

I find your idea that if someone says they don't have a personal relationship then tht's it they don't pretty thin. Bill Clinton and David Blunkett would just love to live by your rules I'm sure. If I'm playing chess with someone and casually ask, "How long have you been playing chess" and they say, "Oh, I never play chess, I've never heard of it" I've a right to be a little bemused.

As for your dig about a personal relationship with Christ, I have never made any such assertion. All I have done is say once and repeat it - and now repeat it a sceond time - that I don't think a personal relationship with Christ is necessary for salvation - perhaps you never read that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
To ease Duo's mind, I never intended for this to be any kind of fight with you, Evo. We've been over things before, and I think we both know that we argue differently, and you know that I'd like you to take it a little easy because your style can be a bit abrasive.

---

quote:

---

My point wasn't specifically for you. It was a general one, though inspired by some of your comments. But I hardly think that you were the only one who agreed with what you said--so my comments were for anyone who silently assented to your position along the way, as well.

---

quote:

---

The point boils down to this: if you and I were playing chess, and I said I never play chess, you could be "bemused" if you like, but even in that case, there'd be no reason to try to prove to me that I do in fact play chess. If I say I don't, then that's only affecting me, right?

---

But you see from your choice of words, you seem to be accusing me of trying to prove something when I was really only trying to exercise a couple of examples/scenarios/analogies to a conclusion. Next time we are playing chess, I promise not even to mention it .

quote:

---

But a BETTER analogy, as we like to find, wouldn't be about the playing of chess. If, while we played, a man came up to me several times and whispered something into my ear, and each time I whispered something back, and then he left. Afterwards, you'd ask me "Is that a close friend of yours?" I might reply, "No, he's not a close friend of mine at all. He's close, because he whispers in my ear, and he's a friend, because I've known him for a little while, but I wouldn't consider him to be a close friend of mine."

---

quote:

---

The conversation could and probably should end there. But what I see is that people want to go further, and suggest to me, "Well he's come up to you several times now, and he's whispering in your ear. Usually only close friends do that, so I'd say he's probably your close friend. How can you say he's 'close,' and he's a 'friend,' and yet not be a close friend? It doesn't make sense. You should refer to him as your close friend. That's what you're really saying, I think."

---

quote:

---

It's just not necessary. I don't really know if I consider myself to have a personal relationship with God/Christ. I certainly don't need anyone telling me that I do or that I don't, though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:
That's kind of the problem, what did I say? When did I assert that anyone must have a PRWG? A quick reference would be very helpful cos I just don't think it's the case.

---

quote:

---

...you seem to be accusing me of trying to prove something when I was really only trying to exercise a couple of examples/scenarios/analogies to a conclusion.

---

quote:

---

Firstly, you firstly seem to be using the twin meaning of the word close (in proximity, in emotional terms) I would say we can't really do this for this analogy on the basis that it is not consistent with what we are talking about.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I don't really know if I consider myself to have a personal relationship with God/Christ. I certainly don't need anyone telling me that I do or that I don't, though.

---

You know how defensive I can be. Just to be sure, that's not what you are saying I am doing is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
But the scenarios you lay out, you do so in ways that you are implying that the other person should come to a conclusion that you think flows from your scenario. Which is a lot like presenting evidence to someone in hopes that they will come to a conclusion, which is a lot like trying to prove something. I know that may not be your intent, but it's how it is coming across, not just to me, but to all of the people who seem to keep "misunderstanding" you and your posts.

---

quote:

---

I guess it's awfully hard to rise above one's own limitations on these things, and realize that other people may have a deep and abiding faith life that simply manifests itself differently from mine...

---

Amen and amen I think a corollary is that the ones doing the scoffing and judging would be better served by wondering about those fingers pointing back at oneself.

from josephine:

quote:

---

For people to insist that this is the only, or the best, or the right way to have a relationship with God are excluding autistic people from having a relationship with God by defining it in a way that they may never experience. You're placing a heavy burden on them by expecting them to be just like you.

---

quote:

---

Evo1, I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I don't dislike the term primarily because of the way Aspies feel about it; I dislike the term because it is inaccurate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Sebastian:
What are people talking about when they say you have to have a personal relationship with Christ? What are they talking about when they say they have one and how much strength and comfort they get from it? I honestly don't understand (thereby betraying that I don't have one, I suppose). I'm not comfortable with the "me and my 'ol pal, Jeeze" attitude. I can't really see God as a "pal" or even a friend. I'm in a very disconnected place right now, but even when I'm "connected" (meaning attending church regularly, praying regularly)I'm not sure I could say I have a personal relationship with Christ. Does that just mean feeling His Presence sometimes? I invariably feel joy when I receive the Holy Mysteries (sometimes for a second, sometimes for a few minutes, sometimes longer, but, so far, I never receive without feeling something). Does that count? I don't know if I have a personal relationship or not, because I don't know what people mean by the phrase. I gather that many or most consider it essential to salvation, which is a bit worrisome. Do you have one? How do you know? What do YOU mean by that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
Mudfrog posted:

quote:

---

Personal relationship with Jesus means exactly 'what it says on the tin'.

It means that you have a communion with him, a conversation in prayer, that you have the promise of his presence and his love within your heart.
It means that in a profound way, he knows your name and you walk with him in faith.

As far as the personal bit goes, it means that it's something that is real to you, experienced at first hand rather than because you joined in with the crowd...

---

And then Karl LB said

quote:

---

Mudfrog; in my evangelical charismatic days I tried to have, and desperately wanted, what you describe.

It never happened, and I have to conclude it's not for everyone.

---

I'm with you all the way there, Karl! I tried, in my fundie days, oh! how I tried, to imagine Jesus beside me, holding my hand, whispering in my ear, whatever, and just couldn't! If I expressed this to anyone they accused me of not being "baptised in the Spirit", or even of not being a "proper Christian" because I couldn't have "made a proper committment to Jesus".

I don't think the "warm fuzzies" are for everyone. Not that it's wrong if that's your thing - just that some of us are different.

So now I do what Jesus told us to do - pray to God the Father, thank him for his Son, do my best to follow the teaching of Jesus (which best is not good enough), and hope there really is a life after death.

If that isn't enough - tough!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:
Now you are doing it, you say a relationship that happens to be personal is not a personal relationship? Please, give me one example of this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:
How long do you reckon we can keep this going?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by o00o:
I grew up in a conservative evangelical church and have never really felt whatever it is everyone else seemed to feel that caused them to shut their eyes, raise their arms in the air and look ernest. In my blackest moments I have thought that the whole lot was a fraud and just psychological manipulation of guilable people in an emotional environment.

I think it is dangerous to insist that a 'personal relationship with God' is essential for salvation. As a result of hearing this week in week out all the good Christian disciplines I built in to my life (quiet times, church twice on a Sunday and once in the middle of the week, etc etc) were driven by guilt, and desperate attempts to get whatever this elusive personal telephone to Jesus was, rather than anything positive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Sebastian:
What are people talking about when they say you have to have a personal relationship with Christ? What are they talking about when they say they have one and how much strength and comfort they get from it? I honestly don't understand (thereby betraying that I don't have one, I suppose). I'm not comfortable with the "me and my 'ol pal, Jeeze" attitude. I can't really see God as a "pal" or even a friend. I'm in a very disconnected place right now, but even when I'm "connected" (meaning attending church regularly, praying regularly)I'm not sure I could say I have a personal relationship with Christ. Does that just mean feeling His Presence sometimes? I invariably feel joy when I receive the Holy Mysteries (sometimes for a second, sometimes for a few minutes, sometimes longer, but, so far, I never receive without feeling something). Does that count? I don't know if I have a personal relationship or not, because I don't know what people mean by the phrase. I gather that many or most consider it essential to salvation, which is a bit worrisome. Do you have one? How do you know? What do YOU mean by that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

I think you can know that a relationship is there, by faith, for example by knowing intellectually that God cares for you, without necessarily having an emotional experience of that relationship.

---

That's simply not what I call a personal relationship. It's a faith position, an axiom, even. Not a personal relationship. It's intellectual, as you say. Relationship is emotional.

---

quote:

---

IMHO I think it has much to do with what you take to the table rather than what you take from it.
You can look at it rather like a marriage, if you want to get married because you want that person to always be with you, then there is a question as to whether you truly love that person. On the other hand if you want to get married in order to make that person happy then you will be willing to make the personal sacrifices necessary to do so.
Of course there's nothing wrong in wanting both of these things but it generally takes time for one's true priorities to show through. If you want to make the marriage work long term you have to be willing to compromise your own will, for their sake.
If you want to have a relationship with God, you have to be willing to do some serious soul-searching. Ask yourself, what of my own attitudes and comforts am I willing to sacrifice in order to do what I percieve His will to be?

---

Can I get this quite clear, 12uthy? Are you saying that because I don't have a warm, fuzzy, friendly, personal relationship with Jesus it is because I haven't sacrificed enough/prayed enough/done enough soul searching/am not willing???

Because if you are, then I am calling you to Hell.

I thought this thread had at least established that we are all different and experience God in different, equally valid, ways?

(Even though at one time it looked like deteriorating into another Prof Kirke v Evo1 show! }

Perhaps, 12uthy, you would care to revise what you wrote?
 

---

Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The reason I'm wound up about this is that for feckin' years I believed my Christianity was desperately lacking, sub-standard, and possibly completely spurious because I didn't have this PRWG that everyone else raved about. Now I finally understand that the easiest thing to do is simply reject the concept for myself, because what it is possible to have with a non-tangible deity can never have anything to do with "personal relationship", with all the connotations that "personal relationship" has.

---

You know, I'd actually argue the opposite - not that your Christianity was substandard or lacking, but rather that your Christianity requires that you walk it out in a very pure form of faith, without the encouragement and consolation that some of us get from the "emotional experience" type of PRWG being discussed here. It's one thing for me to walk an obstacle course in the daylight and quite another for me to do it in the dark.
 

---

Posted by St. Sebastian (# 312) on :
 
Just want to thank everyone for the discussion. It's been very helpful to me. I was equating "personal relationship" with "emotionally charged" or "emotionally fulfulling" relationship. I'm reassured that it doesn't have to be either (not that there's anything wrong with that)and whatever characterizes it for any individual won't necessarily be a consistent characteristic, though it may be predominant.

Thanks for your post, 12Ruthy. I didn't read it the way Nicomedia did, and it gives me something to think about (unless you meant it the way she read it )
 

---

Posted by adamant azzy (# 10636) on :
 
Well.
No body has asked if the party of the second part wants to have this PRWHim. In any personal relationship something has to come from both sides. Mayhaps, is it possibls that one believes he has a PRWG but it is only his imagination as TPOTOP is not really a willing party?? Imagine a sinner like me claiming his personal attention. He will surely attend to me on the day of judgement. And it will only take a moment ( Thus a one moment long PRWG) for Him to send me to where I belong.

 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
I do wonder, Karl, how is it possible to be so sure that God doesn't talk back to you? (I think that was you) - Isn't it possible that the Aspergers impacts that, too...? just wondering.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Maybe God does talk to Karl, but if Karl doesn't hear it, then it's just the same as God not talking to Karl, isn't it? Are you blaming Karl for not hearing God? That's kinda harsh, isn't it?

---

quote:

---

But my experience is that God has often spoken plainly to me and I have just not heard Him.

---

Isn't that rather like saying you've experienced not having an experience of God talking to you? Not nit-picking here, but this seems to fall in an area that gives me big problems with this kind of language.
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
Sometimes you find out later that you missed what was His voice.

Maybe you finally settle a problem after a long, hard struggle, only to find that you could have gotten through it much less tattered and torn --

If only you'd listened to that little nudging voice inside, telling you to do XYZ about it.

But nooooo, XYZ seemed too simplistic or embarrassing to do, you dismissed XYZ and went with your more logical-seeming option.

Sometimes, down the line, looking back with 20/20 hindsight, that XYZ option has a God-golden aura about it.
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
I'm really surprised that nobody's mentioned Martin Buber here yet...
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
I am going to HAVE to print this thread off.

And PRAY over it. Terribly sorry. A bit 'religious' I know!

I love you lot, I really do. I've been all of you so far I reckon. But it's getting better! It couldn't have got any worse!! Not with me managing to put one foot in front of another or ... breathe. I KNOW it will get bleak again, soon, it certainly has been a handful of days ago (uh OH! Loony alert.).

I've gotten VERY personal with God recently. Let the light expose every thing and acknowledge it. Every rotten, sick, squalid, evil thing. And now I'm perfect. HA! No, but now I DO have God the Psychoanalyst! A type of counsellor, no? I am AMAZED what temptation one can confront. Amazed.

And Karl, you are most poignant I gotta say it. Most. (And the Lady of the balcony - AWESOME, thank you, my dear unknown sister). INVOKE Him, Them Karl. It doesn't matter how you FEEL. Invoke Him. TELL Him. Them. The Persons of God. Jesus. Your BROTHER. TELL HIM.

You CAN'T do that in Church.

Yeah, yeah, I'm going thru a rebirth AGAIN, but I have NEVER been here before. This is a new, different, BETTER Heraclitean loop. The BEST yet. The best ever so far. I'm old and my marriage is in ruins and my mind is a plastic duck in a cess pit on the Somme during the Big Push so this is all probably a bi-polar episode BUT ... it's not Karl

Is this cringingly personal enough?

(It certainly feels better than my grim Mr. Hyde persona on the Islamic threads.)

Start again Karl - get thee to an Alpha course or Taiz'e. Get down to a Christian bookshop and get an ABC book like 'What Do I Do Now?' by Harris & Pollard. PM me.

I'll take my medication now.

[ 12. November 2005, 18:48: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
 

---

Posted by BanneR LadY (# 10505) on :
 
Do I have a personal relationship with each member of the Trinity? Who do I pray to? It really helped me to discover that the Hebrew word of address "Ädonai" translates into "My Lords" plural, rather than "My Lord" singular. And no, I don't have a 'buddy' relationship with God. He is my teacher, my redeemer and my hope - I just enjoy spending every day in His university. But I DO know (totally without doubt) that He loves me. And I do my best, in a half-arsed human way, to reciprocate that love.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
BannerLady ... you don't KNOW how spooky that is.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Bin a bit 'previous', me, Karl, my apologies. You're obviously NOT (after reading ALL the pages) as remote from God as I feared. Here comes the bi-polar downswing ... sigh. 'sorlright, I'm not bipolar ... much (I can be a tad enthusiastic and a tad grim) but I too have had AS recently ascribed to me. With some justification ...

[ 12. November 2005, 19:07: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
 

---

Posted by Fauja (# 2054) on :
 
I've come in late on this discussion and I can't really be bothered to read all of this thread so far, though I'm sure some of it is kosher. Anyway, some thoughts entered my mind as I was scanning through. The first was a verse of scripture, "We know that we have come to know him (Jesus Christ) if we obey his commands." (1 John 2:3). The second was a memory of a preacher saying something along the lines of... "as with all relationships, communication is important to maintaining a healthy relationship. If you were married but didn't talk to your husband/wife for over a week and when you did, it was a pre-prepared script, it wouldn't take a marriage counsellor to figure out that you had a relationship problem".

I think there is some truth in both thoughts but I do think that the term 'Personal Relationship' can seem a bit strong or could imply something deeper and more intimate than is actually going on in the life of the person who claims to have one.
 

---

Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Maybe God does talk to Karl, but if Karl doesn't hear it, then it's just the same as God not talking to Karl, isn't it? Are you blaming Karl for not hearing God? That's kinda harsh, isn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adamant azzy:
Well. No body has asked if the party of the second part wants to have this PRWHim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
Can I get this quite clear, 12uthy? Are you saying that because I don't have a warm, fuzzy, friendly, personal relationship with Jesus it is because I haven't sacrificed enough/prayed enough/done enough soul searching/am not willing???

Because if you are, then I am calling you to Hell.

I thought this thread had at least established that we are all different and experience God in different, equally valid, ways?

(Even though at one time it looked like deteriorating into another Prof Kirke v Evo1 show! }

Perhaps, 12uthy, you would care to revise what you wrote?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
Look. I've spoken to my mailman. She is a person. I am a person. I have a relationship with her because we relate in that she brings my mail, and I say hello sometimes if I happen to see her. Relationship that is personal. Here, personal means "involving a person or persons". I do NOT, however, have a "personal relationship" with her. If someone asked me "Do you have a personal relationship with your mail carrier?" they would not be asking if my mail carrier is a person, and if I relate to her occasionally. They would be asking if I have a close, well-known relationship with her or not. Personal means close and intimate on some level.

---

It so happens I have exactly this relationship with my postman, I would say I did have a peronal relationship with him. If someone asked me if I had a personal relationship with him, I'd give them the courtesy of not assuming they meant a close personal relationship, I'd probably suspect they were asking if I dealt directly with them or had one of my staff collect the mail.

You seem to be trying to tell me that I do not have a personal relationship with my postman here - something you had recently promised to defend me against?

I think what we have here is the "boyfriend" dilemma. I say to my daughter, "didn't one of your boy friends give you that birthday card?" to which she replies, "he's not my boyfriend". "But he's a boy and he's your friend?" "Yes".

By now, although I'd say not off the point, but going around in circles so I'll leave you to it.
 

---

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :
 
12uthy posted

quote:

---

If we really want a personal relationship with God, he is right there for us, but we all (including me) have to shed our own demands of what we want out of him in order to see through the PR image. That takes time and effort on our part. It requires incessant prayer in faith.

---

quote:

---

He's the one who initiated the relationship, Azzy, and He doesn't

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:
The fact is that religion often gets between man and his creator. This is because religion sees itself as a kind of PR firm representing God, and the image that they put forward for God is not always a very accurate one. Often they try to lop off the bits that they see as unattractive, because it's not good for the image they want portray.
But God is still God.
The question is do we really want to see him for what he really is or do we want to buy into the image, because that's what we want God to be like.
If we really want a personal relationship with God, he is right there for us, but we all (including me) have to shed our own demands of what we want out of him in order to see through the PR image. That takes time and effort on our part. It requires incessant prayer in faith.

Some people don't have a relationship with God because they haven't yet seen behind their preconceived concepts of who he is, some prefer to have a relationship with the "religion" they can see and feel while others don't want to get to know him personally, because they only want a God when things are going wrong for them.
If all they want is for him to be there for them when they need to feel loved, then they'd better get a dog!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
12uthy posted

quote:

---

If we really want a personal relationship with God, he is right there for us, but we all (including me) have to shed our own demands of what we want out of him in order to see through the PR image. That takes time and effort on our part. It requires incessant prayer in faith.

---

I still think you are saying its MY fault I don't have this "personal relationship" thing; that I haven't taken enough time or effort or prayed enough. But I can't be bothered to call you to Hell about it.

I've had all this said to me time and again by my Charismatic/fundie friends, but nothing I do, or don't do helps. Maybe its an inherent fault in my psychological make-up. Maybe its something to do with the fact I just cannot believe God loves me, as an individual. As a member of humanity, yes, as me, no.

So I'll leave it at that. I'll worship him, pray to him, sing, dance and whatever in his honour, thank him constantly, and one day, perhaps, just maybe, I'll get what you are all on about!!

---

quote:

---

29 Do not two sparrows sell for a coin of small value? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground without YOUR Father’s [knowledge].

---

quote:

---

. . .Therefore, that I might not feel overly exalted, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, an angel of Satan, to keep slapping me, that I might not be overly exalted. 8 In this behalf I three times entreated the Lord that it might depart from me; 9 and yet he really said to me: “My undeserved kindness is sufficient for you; for [my] power is being made perfect in weakness. . .

---

quote:

---

3 If errors were what you watch, O Jah, O Jehovah, who could stand? 4 For there is the [true] forgiveness with you, In order that you may be feared.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:
It so happens I have exactly this relationship with my postman, I would say I did have a peronal relationship with him. If someone asked me if I had a personal relationship with him, I'd give them the courtesy of not assuming they meant a close personal relationship, I'd probably suspect they were asking if I dealt directly with them or had one of my staff collect the mail.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Just coming back to this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demas:
Is there a difference between a 'personal relationship with God' and a 'personal relationship with Christ'?

---

This is one thing that always worried me slightly, looking back, at my life B.P. [before the Plot ™ ]. Perhaps it's projection, perhaps it was just me, but God equalled Jesus alone in my mind, and perhaps this is what gets my back up when I hear the term 'personal relationship with Christ'. Whenever I thought of God, Jesus was it -- the Father and the Holy Spirit were very much in the background.

For those who have and rejoice in a personal relationship with Christ as is being described by Evo, LutheranChik and others..., is this relationship different to your relationship with the other members of the Trinity? Can one have a personal relationship with the Father? with the Holy Spirit? Or does the incarnation of the the Son of God allow a different form of relationship?

[I hope you can understand what I'm asking!]

Thanks,
Ian.

---

quote:

---

Quote by Teufelchen
{Jesus} although he be God and man: yet he is not two, but is one Christ: One, however, not by conversion of Godhead into flesh: but by taking manhood into God

---

quote:

---

These are people who sound a little surprised that their good works to the least of Jesus' brethren were accounted as done unto Jesus; that sense of surprise gives me a hint of people who have been faithfully doing the right thing, whether they "felt" it or not. Nothing wrong with feeling it - but that can't be the basis on which we do it. These people were definitely SAVED.

---

quote:

---

...religion often gets between man and his creator. This is because religion sees itself as a kind of PR firm representing God, and the image that they put forward for God is not always a very accurate one. Often they try to lop off the bits that they see as unattractive, because it's not good for the image they want portray.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by (gracia):
...I believe some who do have a PRWJ, see themselves as doubting Thomases, not taking much on faith, needing to touch, see, experience before they believe. And Jesus said to Thomas, "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed". (A bit of chastisement to the doubters and experience-learners, to be sure).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

I think the point of this thread, or at least where the point has been driven, is that PRWJ in this sense is somewhat meaningless. I do believe that many who are living in God's will may not have any generally associated feelings to go along with it.

---

quote:

---

Someone asked how many friends you have that you don't consider to be "personal relationships." I think we would all answer, "none." But how many friends do you have that never talk to you or respond to you? What if I told you that some guy named Jim Bubkins has been talking to you for years, and trying to respond to all of your questions, but you've just never noticed him--would you consider him to be a personal friend then, after I told you and assured you that he was? I'd think probably not.

That, in my estimation, is the problem with the concept of personal relationship. It's, well, personal.

-Digory [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adamant azzy:
If this so called PWRG was so real there would no thread arguing at length the reality or otherwise of its existance. No thread to be seen any where re: " ...if you touch a pan of boiling water it burns your fingers.. or it doesn't.."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:
I think what we have here is the "boyfriend" dilemma. I say to my daughter, "didn't one of your boy friends give you that birthday card?" to which she replies, "he's not my boyfriend". "But he's a boy and he's your friend?" "Yes".

---

quote:

---

Assume that the majority of people were colour blind, but enough people could see colours for us to have the words for the different colours. Now, the colour blind people could argue with good reason that colours weren't 'real' - for starters, they can't see them; more tellingly, specific words are used for each colour despite there being no boundaries in the light waves. Would you argue in those circumstances that colours weren't 'real'? If so, you're being consistent in your use of language, so fair enough in saying PRWG isn't real. If you would say that colours were real, what do you see as being the difference?

---

It's a good analogy. What is 'real' is that although there are no boundaries in light waves, there are wavelength differences! To see a difference in color between two things is to have a subjective experience that does correspond to some objective feature of the external world.

I think to use 'unreal' to discribe any subjective experience regardless of what external reality has caused it is not a practical use of 'real'. If I trip over something I think the pain in my toe is very real, thank you very much.

If by 'unreal' you mean generated by ones own nervous system rather than an external reality then of course there are many who 'rationally' think all religious experience falls into this category as a matter of course, and I dissagree with them.

CS Lewis said that Christianity was a bit like sex - and I think that's a much better analogy than colours. People do have quite a wide individual experience of sensations, and the sensations have no bearing on the fertility. As CSL said:

quote:

---

And of course the presence of God is not the same as the sense of the presence of God. The latter may be due to imagination... ...It is the actual presence, not the sensation of the presence of the Holy Ghost which begets Christ in us. The sense of the presence is a super-added gift for which we give thanks when it comes and that's about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:
It looks obvious to me that you are trying to heavy handedly tell me what I should and should not understand of something which to me seems like plain English.

Sorry, I'm bored of this.

Love,

Evo1

---

I'm suggesting that you should perhaps allow your understanding of English words to be guided by the way everybody else in the speech community uses them. For example "boyfriend" does not mean a boy who is a friend; it means a male person (not necessarily a boy, but often a grown man) with whom someone is having a romantic relationship with a greater or lesser level of emotional commitment.

As well you know. You are beginning to sound like Humpty Dumpty.
 

---

Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on :
 


Love,

Evo1

[Digory, you did promise to help me out here?]
 

---

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :
 

quote:

---

Unless I've missed something, nobody has yet made the point that to speak of a "personal relationship with God/Jesus" is a uniquely modern thing to say. Modern, that is, in the sense (roughly speaking) of the period after Descartes and before Wittgenstein. Now, I'm not saying that the phrase would have been greeted with utter incomprehension before Descartes, but it would certainly have meant something very different from what I think is being put forward here.

I think to the Western medieval mind, the relationship with God was analogous to the relationship between a serf and his lord: God was to the world what the lord of the manor was to the village. The individual owed God loyalty and obedience (the Middle English meanings of "belief") and God, in return, gave protection. And I think it's important to note that this was not a one-to-one or "personal" relationship - it was the village community that owed allegiance to its lord, so it was the Church that had a relationship with God. This should be clear from the "rights" that lords had to punish whole communities for the transgressions of individuals.

Similarly, after Wittgenstein, the first question that has to arise is, what language game (in the technical sense) are you playing when you claim friendship (or some other personal relationship) with a "person" who has no physical existence? How is it, for instance, that I can use the same language to describe my "relationships" with someone who is my tennis partner; Mr Spanners, my imaginary friend; and God?

The point is that talk of personal relationships is far from unproblematic either theologically, philosophically, or semantically. And simply to dismiss these problems with the answer that Jesus makes me feel all warm inside, just won't do.

---

Adeodatus, you speak a lot of sense here, and its understandable too!!

I must have a medieval mindset, because the idea of an analogy between the Lord of the manor and God explains what I feel - I am a member of a church, God loves me as a member of the church and humanity, and my relationship with him is one of awe, worship, gratitude, loyalty, and fear. No 'personal' relationship - I am a mere serf; no warm 'buddy' feelings, I wouldn't dare to presume; no warm love fuzzies - who do I think I am??

I'll get a clean wimple out.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Karl, Karl, Karl ... may be, just MAY BE, you an' me ain't the ONLY ASsers here?!
 

---

Posted by adamant azzy (# 10636) on :
 

quote:

---

OP'd by White laughter........ Assume that the majority of people were colour blind, but enough people could see colours for us to have the words for the different colours. Now, the colour blind people could argue with good reason that colours weren't 'real' - for starters, they can't see them; more tellingly, specific words are used for each colour despite there being no boundaries in the light waves. Would you argue in those circumstances that colours weren't 'real'? If so, you're being consistent in your use of language, so fair enough in saying PRWG isn't real. If you would say that colours were real, what do you see as being the difference

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by me:
The fact that most people would consider "personal relationship" to mean "close" already, especially when referring to God, is a side argument.

-Digory

---

quote:

---

Adeodatus wrote:

I think to the Western medieval mind, the relationship with God was analogous to the relationship between a serf and his lord: God was to the world what the lord of the manor was to the village.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Unless I've missed something, nobody has yet made the point that to speak of a "personal relationship with God/Jesus" is a uniquely modern thing to say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adamant azzy:

It always surprises me that religious people have this naive desire to show that they can "prove" the existance of .... any number of things whatever... If one day I revert from atheism to some religion, I would simply say "thanks but no thanks" to any attempt at getting me to argue the veracity of my beleif.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
To be honest, though, I think the terminology is better off junked, not least because the model of 'personal relationships' which seems to be operative most of the time in its use strikes me as pretty unhealthy.

---

Yes, but you make this remark without having the experience all the lovey-dovey feelings of those believe that they a "personal relationship" with God.

So, unless you know what they are feeling and how they are communing with God - your observations remain incomplete from a lack of personal experience.

I'm just posing as the devil's <hem> I mean God's advocate.

I personally cannot call what is between me and God a "personal relationship" - it would feel too (to be honest) daft and a bit stiffling. God is God. I kind of like Him/Her. I don't know what to call that yet.
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
I personally cannot call what is between me and God a "personal relationship" - it would feel too (to be honest) daft and a bit stiffling. God is God. I kind of like Him/Her. I don't know what to call that yet.

---

"Unknowingness" is of great value; don't be too quick to shed it.

It's this kind of honesty and personal identity that should be uplifted in this thread, in my opinion. What you say about your relationship with God is the most true thing that can be said about it, and no one else can tell you otherwise.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by Superslug (# 7024) on :
 
Digory,

I like that.

Whilst I would use the term personal relationship, it is one which still thirsts for a deeper understanding, a deeper knowledge and a deeper '........'* of God.

As the deer pants etc.


SS

* I couldnt think of the word I needed there, it has something to do with dependancy or love or something. But I guess its that sort of unutterable mystery we are talking about eh?
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:


So, unless you know what they are feeling and how they are communing with God - your observations remain incomplete from a lack of personal experience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
One of the key things about human interpersonal relationships is that they involve bodies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I can sit and talk to a wall for a whole month, but that doesn't mean I have a Personal Relationship with it...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adamant azzy:
If only a few people could see (a/any) color they could very easily demonstrate by simple, understandable and repeatable experiments that they had this facility.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
I retain my right to disbelieve people who say they have had an experience they cannot in any way make intelligible to me...

I'm also a little uncomfortable about the 'experience fundamentalism' in some parts of the Church. In the same way that a proof text trumps all argument for a 'real' fundamentalist, for these people an appeal to 'my experience' means my favoured assertions are immune from scrutiny. Almost as if Marx, Freud and a large number of 20th century philosophers had never put pen to paper, it is assumed that our experience cannot deceive us, that we don't come to 'our experience' with prejudices and that we are transparent to ourselves.

---

quote:

---

Also could we clarify what we're talking about on this thread. Are we talking about a personal relationship with 'God'? Or with Jesus qua human being? I have even more problems with the idea of having a personal relationship with God, as such, than I do with having one with Jesus. God is not a person, in the everyday sense of the word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
Perhaps the wall is trying to talk to you, Marvin, and you just simply cannot hear it. After all, a person made that wall, and you're a person, and you are sitting in relation to the wall, so you have a relationship with it.

I think you have a personal relationship with the wall, and you just don't realize it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I can sit and talk to a wall for a whole month, but that doesn't mean I have a Personal Relationship with it...

---

Perhaps the wall is trying to talk to you, Marvin, and you just simply cannot hear it. After all, a person made that wall, and you're a person, and you are sitting in relation to the wall, so you have a relationship with it.

I think you have a personal relationship with the wall, and you just don't realize it.

-Digory

---

quote:

---

Are you really likening prayer to talking to a wall - thats to PK and Martin?

If so, I assume neither of you do engage in prayer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
However I seem to remember a whole stream of Psalms which complain that God isn't listening, so maybe it's not just me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:
I find this line of thought fairly disrespetful actually.

Are you really likening prayer to talking to a wall - thats to PK and Martin?

If so, I assume neither of you do engage in prayer.

If not, what on earth is this about?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
I suspect Martin is not talking about *prayer* so much as the lack of feedback which makes him reluctant to call it a PRWG

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I can sit and talk to a wall for a whole month, but that doesn't mean I have a Personal Relationship with it...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps the wall is trying to talk to you, Marvin, and you just simply cannot hear it. After all, a person made that wall, and you're a person, and you are sitting in relation to the wall, so you have a relationship with it.

I think you have a personal relationship with the wall, and you just don't realize it.

-Digory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find this line of thought fairly disrespetful actually.

Are you really likening prayer to talking to a wall - thats to PK and Martin?

If so, I assume neither of you do engage in prayer.

If not, what on earth is this about?

---

Professor Kirke -

Evo1 - talking to a wall is exactly what prayer feels like for me most of the time. Doesn't mean to say I don't do it, though. I'm hoping one day the wall will fall down and All Will Be Revealed.

Could you just try to understand that we are not all the same, and those of us that are different are not necessarily deficient?
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
You can hear it from me. Prayer is exactly like talking to a wall, except that I [i]know[/]i the wall doesn't hear me. I can hope that God can. But there's no more feedback than there is from a wall, not really.
 

---

Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You can hear it from me. Prayer is exactly like talking to a wall, except that I [i]know[/]i the wall doesn't hear me. I can hope that God can. But there's no more feedback than there is from a wall, not really.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
Could you just try to understand that we are not all the same, and those of us that are different are not necessarily deficient?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You can hear it from me. Prayer is exactly like talking to a wall, except that I know the wall doesn't hear me. I can hope that God can. But there's no more feedback than there is from a wall, not really.

---

I know we seem to struggle with common English definitions but jst to point out that in my world, if something is exactly like something else, there are no exceptions. Though I do accept we are all different.

---

Let me say it then. Prayer is exactly like talking to a wall in every way except one. The one way that it is not like talking to a wall is that I can hope that perhaps somebody is listening when I pray.

Then again, I suppose I can hope that someone is listening when talking to the wall...

Maybe I do have a PRWW...hmm...

-Digory

[ 16. November 2005, 12:48: Message edited by: professorkirke ]
 

---

Posted by Superslug (# 7024) on :
 
Digory,

Here you go, some liturgy for you all the other wall worshippers out there.

Our Wall which art out back
Hallowed be thy brick
Thy back yard come
Thy repointing done
In cement as it is next door
Give us today our daily shade
Forgive us our climbing over
As we forgive those who trespass in our yard
Lead us not to kick footballs against you
But deliver us from fences
Yours be the flower box and the boundary line
For ever and ever Amen


SS
 

---

Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on :
 
Very droll



 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Superslug:
Digory,

Here you go, some liturgy for you all the other wall worshippers out there.

Our Wall which art out back
Hallowed be thy brick
Thy back yard come
Thy repointing done
In cement as it is next door
Give us today our daily shade
Forgive us our climbing over
As we forgive those who trespass in our yard
Lead us not to kick footballs against you
But deliver us from fences
Yours be the flower box and the boundary line
For ever and ever Amen


SS

---

That's going straight into my personal catechism.
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
Could you just try to understand that we are not all the same, and those of us that are different are not necessarily deficient?

---

I get tired of saying this, I have only ever said the opposite of what you are accusing me of. My posts are all here, perhaps you'd like top point me out saying what you are unfairly acusing me of.

Thanks,

Evo1

---

quote:

---

Are you really likening prayer to talking to a wall - thats to PK and Martin?

If so, I assume neither of you do engage in prayer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
Evo1 - talking to a wall is exactly what prayer feels like for me most of the time. Doesn't mean to say I don't do it, though. I'm hoping one day the wall will fall down and All Will Be Revealed.

Could you just try to understand that we are not all the same, and those of us that are different are not necessarily deficient?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
The leap from: "Prayer for me is like talking to a wall" to: "Aha! It's clear you don't pray" is not an obvious one to me.

---

Same here. Like you, I found this to be not a little condescending and in the "you must have experiences like mine to be a genuine Christian" vein.
 

---

Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Same here. Like you, I found this to be not a little condescending and in the "you must have experiences like mine to be a genuine Christian" vein.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:
Saying that prayer can be like talking to a wall - yes, I've experienced this too - is a far cry from saying that it is actually talking to a wall. That's what I found insulting. (Since most have actually agreed that it is not exactly like talking to a wall, I think I can validly assume that this is not what people posting believe).

---

quote:

---

Are you really likening prayer to talking to a wall - thats to PK and Martin?

If so, I assume neither of you do engage in prayer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:
(Digory's especially which was just poking fun at the idea that anyone might actually be listening.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:
(Digory's especially which was just poking fun at the idea that anyone might actually be listening.

---

I thought Digory was poking fun at the semantic discussion about "personal," "relationship," and "personal relationship." And not making any comment about whether in prayer to God anyone is listening or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
I suspect Martin is not talking about *prayer* so much as the lack of feedback which makes him reluctant to call it a PRWG

---

I'd rather hear it from them all the same.

---

That's exactly what I meant. Without any response, there is no Personal Relationship. However many times someone assures me that there's someone on the other side of the wall who's listening and who cares, for all I can tell there is only me and the wall.

I kept speaking to the wall for a long time, hoping to hear a sign of life on the other side. I'm still hoping that someone's there. Maybe they've walked away to do something else. Maybe they're just listening without answer. But I came to the realisation that all I was achieving by staying with the wall was to get more and more frustrated, and more and more angry with whoever was (hopefully!) on the other side.

So for the sake of my sanity - and any potential relationship with the unknown person who might be on the other side - I walked away. I made sure to tell the wall that I was walking away (and why), just in case someone else was there. I didn't want them to wonder what had happened to me.

I still pop back to the wall occasionally, just to shout a greeting over it. My visits are getting more and more sporadic every year, because I've stopped expecting to hear a reply, but the hope remains. The hope that one day I'll stroll up, say "Hi, anyone there?", and hear "Hi there Marv, how are you?" come floating back.

I have no idea what I'll do if and when that day comes. Die of shock in all likelihood. But it'll probably be one of the happiest days of my goddamn life.

And until it happens I don't have a Personal Relationship. All I have is myself, the wall, and a tiny bit of hope that just won't go away.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Oh, and would it kill ya to stop calling me Martin?

[ 17. November 2005, 12:05: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Same here. Like you, I found this to be not a little condescending and in the "you must have experiences like mine to be a genuine Christian" vein.

---

Then you must be fairly proficient at the words in mouths thingy that goes on so often here.

Saying that prayer can be like talking to a wall - yes, I've experienced this too - is a far cry from saying that it is actually talking to a wall. That's what I found insulting. (Since most have actually agreed that it is not exactly like talking to a wall, I think I can validly assume that this is not what people posting believe).

Whether it be due to a PWRG or just a belief that someone/thing may be listening.

I was insulted by the tone of the post (Digory's especially which was just poking fun at the idea that anyone might actually be listening.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Me:

To clarify, I would not suggest that by definition you cannot have a personal relationship with a wall - hence why I took exception to the suggestion.

---

quote:

---

To those who have suggested that I accused Marvin and Digory of not praying and such like, I'm sure it's obvious that I never did that.

---

quote:

---

Are you really likening prayer to talking to a wall - thats to PK and Martin?

If so, I assume neither of you do engage in prayer.

---

quote:

---

I am open to the idea that not everybody experiences God in the same way and I have seen evidence of this. Most of the time, even if I don't share the experience, I can understand it. It is this last step that I find myself unable to make with respect to this particular understanding of a PRWG.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Back-to-front, whatever misunderstandings there have been along the way I think we can agree that no two people are identical, we all experience God in different ways, and it is dangerous to insist on any type of experience as being essential for all. At its best this thread has been a useful reminder of diversity.

---

Precisely, which is why it's really irritating when people do what soemone did in response to me some time ago. I posted that I don't consider myself to have a "personal relationship with God", and someone quoted me and posted, simply using the smiley.

The arrogance of this was unbelievable.
 

---

Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
I posted that I don't consider myself to have a "personal relationship with God", and someone quoted me and posted, simply using the smiley.

The arrogance of this was unbelievable.

---

Excellent, I shall store that up in my arsenal!

[Oh, I'm only kidding ]

[ 19. November 2005, 15:03: Message edited by: Evo1 ]
 

---

Posted by Weed (# 4402) on :
 
I am fascinated by the current work on neuroscience and religion. Through the work of people such as Andrew Newberg we now know something of what is happening during the brain during religious experiences and it appears that several different parts of the brain are implicated.

There's a quick introduction to his work on the Questions and Answers page on his website. Even more useful if you have time to listen is a lecture he gave on this area. To see/hear it, go to the Meta-Library, click on Psychology and Neuroscience and then on A Neuropsychological Analysis of Relgious Experience where the audio-visual lecture will load and begin to play.

The significance of such work is that we are talking about people having different experiences not because of wilfulness or personal preference but because their brains work differently. Asperger's Syndrome has already mentioned but it's tempting for those of us who don't have it to think that that's very much an exception. What we see from Dr Newberg's work is that whilst some people may have subjective personal experiences of God, to others liturgy is the way that they make the connection and that that is determined by the way their brain is wired.

This, it seems to me, has enormous implications for the way different groups of Christians regard each other that they haven't even begun to grasp yet, as this thread has shown. It's all very well making statements as to the superiority of one form of experience, whether it is corporate ritual or a PRWG, but if being born with an inclination to one or the other is what determines our experience then the objective superiority that some claim for their own subjective experience may need to be questioned.

I would raise a further issue. Perhaps the reason that church attendance is so low in western Europe at the moment stems from the same neurological roots. Maybe there is only ever going to be a small percentage of the population whose brains are capable of experiencing a PRWG, or who will meet him through ritual, or through meditation or prayer. I have a sneaking suspicion that St Paul's illustrations of the different parts of the body making up a whole, or many gifts but one spirit, need looking at in a new light. Maybe there are some people who will never have a direct experience of the divine because their brains don't work that way and who will only ever connect with God through doing things for other people, and maybe, sheep and goats, that is just as pleasing to God.
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Is this the idea that religious experience is caused by frontal lobe epilepsy? I don't know much about it, but it's very popular in these parts.
 

---

Posted by Weed (# 4402) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Is this the idea that religious experience is caused by frontal lobe epilepsy? I don't know much about it, but it's very popular in these parts.

---

quote:

---

breeze-block wall behind the communion table and the lectionary

---

I meant lectern...
 

---

Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fauja:
I wonder, do we pursue an understanding of Christ in order to become more Christ-like or do we become Christ-like in order to understand Christ more? What is the main purpose of a relationship with God anyway?

---

quote:

---

Newberg said:
Our research indicates that our only way of comprehending God, asking questions about God, and experiencing God is through the brain. But whether or not God exists "out there" is something that neuroscience cannot answer. For example, if we take a brain image of a person when she is looking at a picture, we will see various parts of the brain being activated, such as the visual cortex. But the brain image cannot tell us whether or not there actually is a picture “out there” or whether the person is creating the picture in her own mind. To a certain degree, we all create our own sense of reality. Getting at what is really real is the tricky part.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fauja:
I wonder, do we pursue an understanding of Christ in order to become more Christ-like or do we become Christ-like in order to understand Christ more? What is the main purpose of a relationship with God anyway?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
I don't claim to have a PRWG. But as a follower of Christ, because I've been mesmerized by the beauty and love of Jesus/God - I both seek to be like Him/Her and to get to discover more of what and who God is. I'm totally curious, when I look at the stars at night, when I think about the processes and phenomenal forces of the universe or even the beauty of entropy and variation in creation - man, I'm like freaking out. It so amazing. From dinosaurs to fluffy bunnies. So, yeah I'm kind of curious as to what kind of Being thought of it and made weird laws like gravity and spun the universe into existence.

---

quote:

---

He also used to see evidence of creation in the fact that ice floats... technically, water shouldn't do that and ice ought to be down there at the bottom of the pond

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[tangent]

quote:

---

He also used to see evidence of creation in the fact that ice floats... technically, water shouldn't do that and ice ought to be down there at the bottom of the pond

---

Technically, ice should float, and it does. It's intrinsic in the shape and polarity of the water molecule that ice will be less dense than cold water.
[/tangent]

---

Water is densest at 4 degrees C. (As I'm sure you know, Karl.) This 'ice shouldn't float' thing sounds a bit like 'science says bumblebees can't fly'. Science teaches us to make observations. So we observe ice floating, and bumblebees flying, and we say 'Hm. Bit of a problem with any theory that contradicts this, really.'

I observe Christians (including myself) saying they don't experience a personal relationship with Jesus in the usual sense, and other saying they do. So I'd have a problem with any theory that says such a thing is necessary to Christianity, or that belief in it is somehow wrong for Christians.

T.
 

---

Posted by corvette (# 9436) on :
 
Of course ice floats! it's a concession to polar bears, who can swim, but need a rest now and then. It also ensures your lemonade goes to the bottom of the glass where the straw can reach it.

Apparently if ice sank, the sea would go on freezing as more and more water met the cold polar air. Keeping the warm stuff deeper down and putting the insulation layer (ice) at the top, helps the fish to stay alive in winter. And that's good for the polar bears too.

Ain't creation wonderful?? God obviously has a heart for polar bears

{..after a sermon we had recently about creation, where Tim explained the difference between science which answers why /through what cause/ [the world was created], as against religion which answers why /for what purpose/. }
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
I observe Christians (including myself) saying they don't experience a personal relationship with Jesus in the usual sense, and other saying they do. So I'd have a problem with any theory that says such a thing is necessary to Christianity, or that belief in it is somehow wrong for Christians.

---

quote:

---

How many adult INTPs remain in ecclesial groups for whom "a personal relationship with Jesus" etc. is a sine qua non? Aren't these groups, in effect, consigning certain personality types to hell?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[tangent]
Technically, ice should float, and it does. It's intrinsic in the shape and polarity of the water molecule that ice will be less dense than cold water.
[/tangent]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
...We're also inner-directed and regard suggestibility as a weakness. So if someone starts "sharing" what Jesus told her, I'm tempted to ask, "Did He speak to you in English?" People who describe hearing voices that others around them can't hear are probably mentally ill. But if Jesus doesn't speak in English, how can the person be so certain of the message?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[tangent]
Technically, ice should float, and it does. It's intrinsic in the shape and polarity of the water molecule that ice will be less dense than cold water.
[/tangent]

---

YES, but why? Why does *water* behave that way, have an adiabatic reaction and expand its molecules at a certain temperature? I think the "why does it do that?" question (and lack of an adequate *purely scientific* answer) was what delighted him, in that situation.

---

Because it's a polar molecule, and as the temperature decreases the stability of the hydrogen bonds increases to the point where they form a regular expanded lattice.

I just don't see anything in that that says "Hey, look, there's a God!". There's a perfectly good answer to "why" within physics.
 

---

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :
 
I'm a very strong INTJ - which I am sure goes a long way to explain why I don't have a PRWG/J.

Now, if we could just get those touchy-feely types to realise that they may hog most of the spectrum, but there is a little corner that is us, and that's OK by God, then we could all be happy!!!

Sorry, you will have to go back a page to see what I am on about - floating ice pushed in!!!
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
INTP registering in here. What a surprise, eh?

I've changed since last I did it, though. I'm only moderately expressed I, strongly N, and moderate P. I used to be strongly I, and only weakly expressed on the others, which would sometimes vary.
 

---

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 
Can I stick my head above the parapet and say I don't believe in Myers-Briggs categories? Y'all can put me in a box when I'm dead, but not before.



T.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Feel free. When they're a box, becoming prescriptive rather than descriptive, they're not helpful.
 

---

Posted by Astro (# 84) on :
 
Having just come back from a communion service I am aware that one of the times when I am most aware of my personal relationship with Christ is when I meet, eat and drink (with) him at his table.

I accept that for some people there is nothing personal about Communion but for me it is very personal.
 

---

Posted by Dobbo (# 5850) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
The leap from: "Prayer for me is like talking to a wall" to: "Aha! It's clear you don't pray" is not an obvious one to me.

---

Same here. Like you, I found this to be not a little condescending and in the "you must have experiences like mine to be a genuine Christian" vein.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Can I stick my head above the parapet and say I don't believe in Myers-Briggs categories? Y'all can put me in a box when I'm dead, but not before.



T.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Because it's a polar molecule, and as the temperature decreases the stability of the hydrogen bonds increases to the point where they form a regular expanded lattice.

I just don't see anything in that that says "Hey, look, there's a God!". There's a perfectly good answer to "why" within physics.

---

quote:

---

posted by ken:
Its crap. Its crap because there are no distinct personality types. And because their categories are a rather bad taxonomy of the actual variation in personalities. And because its all based on odd tech Jungian ideas of mental development. But its persuasive crap because the potted descriptions look true because they are your own self-descriptions reformatted and sent back to you.

And because everyone likes talking about themselves.

At least us ENFPs do.

---

GUFFAWING! *bwahahahahaha* indeed. I've known people who found astrology very helpful (I'm not talking simple sunsigns here, but full on charts) and others who argued against it for the same reasons as above (well, not the Jungian thing) - but I find *astrology* gets lumped into that whole divination thing in the OT, so after being seriously burned I learned to avoid it (I am sometimes slow but I am teachable...). Myers-Briggs, however, isn't divination. Unless you use it to decide who to marry. Or what job to take. or... hmmmm...
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
I dislike Myers Briggs because it end up saying there are 16 types of humans - which isn't nearly subtle enough for the range of people who exist. On that basis astrology is preferable. When done properly it goes beyond the 12 signs of the zodiac and factors in where the sun, moon and planets were at the time and place of your birth. As a system it is far more flexible and less deterministic than dear old MB.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Misuse of MB says there are 16 types of humans. When you factor in the degree to which each preference is expressed, there is a massive spectrum of personality types where one bleeds into another.

Using it as "I am an INTP therefore I can't be a company director" is misuse.

"I am an INTP and therefore I am more likely to work best on my own contributions rather than pushing everything forward as a group" gives a valid basis for discovering how one can be most effective and work in the way that gives least stress - as long as you test that the MB prediction really does work for you - it might not.

I have to disagree with Ken. I've found that the MB type indicator does accurately describe aspects of my personality and way of working which are not directly asked in the questions.
 

---

Posted by kempis3 (# 9792) on :
 
If this thread was about personal relationship with Christ, it might have got lost a little on the way.
I also do not understand what we mean by having a personal relationship with Christ. It all sounds a bit like an Us-and-Them exercise in non-communication. Dogma I find is not a useful thing in a religious life -- much better is to see who in your church is a loving and accepting person to anyone, especially those the rest of us think as unlovable. Then to say, "I wish I was like that. I will try to be more like that."
Maybe this is similar to having a "personal relationship with Christ" which may be only a piece of jargon.
 

---

Posted by whitelaughter (# 10611) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
I'm a very strong INTJ - which I am sure goes a long way to explain why I don't have a PRWG/J.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
I'm a very strong INTJ - which I am sure goes a long way to explain why I don't have a PRWG/J.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is my being an INTP supposed to explain why I do?

Good to see fellow NTs bagging the many weaknesses of Myer-Briggs. That said, if you haven't looked at the stuff it's based on (your Primary/Secondary/tertiary/Inferior)I'd recommend doing so - you may still think it's rubbish, but it's more interesting (and more useful) rubbish.

---

Whitelaughter - I think its the TJ combination which is supposed to be so "non-feely" and therefore likely NOT to have a PRWJ!

And yes, I have gone into all the nuamces and strengths of the various aspects of MB - fascinating, and I must say, enormously helpful to me at the time I did it.

It may be rubbish (though I don't think so!) but if it is, its very entertaining rubbish!
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Ken:

quote:

---

But its persuasive crap because the potted descriptions look true because they are your own self-descriptions reformatted and sent back to you.

---

quote:

---

Its crap because there are no distinct personality types

---

is intriguing. Care to expand?
 

---

Posted by kempis3 (# 9792) on :
 
Thank you, St. Sebastian for asking a very important question. What I'm trying to say is that how you behave (kindly) is much better than what you say. What you believe is only valuable if it motivates you to be kindly to all, especially the marginalised.
"Having a relationship with Christ" is meaningless jargon if it comes from a tyrant. On a personal level, I wish I was kindly to all and I will work towards this end.
I've read this thread and it's a pity that we have moved away from St.Sebastian's important question.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
A noble effort, kempis, but in my experience once the Myers-Briggs lot take over a thread there's no going back.

Shame, really. I was enjoying reading it as well...
 

---

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Because it's a polar molecule, and as the temperature decreases the stability of the hydrogen bonds increases to the point where they form a regular expanded lattice.

I just don't see anything in that that says "Hey, look, there's a God!". There's a perfectly good answer to "why" within physics.

---

works for you - but for him, he did see God in it - clearly, "ymmv"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kempis3:
Thank you, St. Sebastian for asking a very important question. What I'm trying to say is that how you behave (kindly) is much better than what you say. What you believe is only valuable if it motivates you to be kindly to all, especially the marginalised.
"Having a relationship with Christ" is meaningless jargon if it comes from a tyrant. On a personal level, I wish I was kindly to all and I will work towards this end.
I've read this thread and it's a pity that we have moved away from St.Sebastian's important question.

---

quote:

---

I think God meets us where we are, and God relates to us in the way that God can best reach us. And that relationship is going to look different for each person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist:
Lutheranchik wrote: (back on p3)

quote:

---

I think God meets us where we are, and God relates to us in the way that God can best reach us. And that relationship is going to look different for each person.

---

I'm not convinced by this view. I am sure God could reach me better by other ways. But for some reason he chooses not to do so. It's a mystery, but since it's not just a mystery to me I'm finding some comfort in the way I can be a comfort to others by being real about my struggles.

---

quote:

---

The real determining factor in whether we perceive God or not is what God wants to do. <snip>
I think part of God being 'a person' is that He choses whether He's interacted with or not. As soon as we locate the reasons for people's different experiences 'entirely' in their own makeup, we are downgrading God to a sort of force, that some people are better at picking up on than others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kempis3:
Thank you, St. Sebastian for asking a very important question. What I'm trying to say is that how you behave (kindly) is much better than what you say. What you believe is only valuable if it motivates you to be kindly to all, especially the marginalised.
"Having a relationship with Christ" is meaningless jargon if it comes from a tyrant. On a personal level, I wish I was kindly to all and I will work towards this end.
I've read this thread and it's a pity that we have moved away from St.Sebastian's important question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Just for the record ...

Another INTP (borderline P/J, which adds no end of confusion) who doesn't get the whole "personal relationship with <enter deity of choice>" thing.

You're right, Myers-Briggs is nonsense. So all these INTx folk saying they don't know what's going on is just a coincidence. Or a conspiracy.

---

Well, I'm another strong INT (with borderline J/P). I work as a systems analyst/programmer (and occasional consultant statistician), and majored in philosophy (Kant, Hegel, Marx, Buber - love that German NT culture, much more than the British and American ST culture).

And I confess to sometimes speaking in tongues (although I wouldn't describe it as central to my faith or a big part of my life). And contemplative prayer (as in "infused contemplation" or the "Prayer of Quiet") - which is a more significant feature of my life. I went through stridently fundamentalist Protestant and charismatic phases in my youth and early twenties, and also Anglo-Catholicism, Catholicism (e.g. Jean Vanier came to my fellowship once and mentioned us in one of his books). As a result I developed more ecumenical leanings, and recanted all the fundamentalism (stuff like "Isaiah the book must have been written entirely by the prophet Isaiah", "Job was a real person, not a character in a book of fiction", "The first chapters of Genesis are talking about science", etc - I am sure I once believed all that, but I don't now).

I tend to think of God as more than personal (C S Lewis spelt out this idea once: as a cube is more than a square, so the divine person is more than than the finite person). But God stoops down and becomes personal for our sakes. That gives him a lot of leeway for deciding exactly how to do it, how much, etc.

There are times when I do feel like there has been a very personal ("this is for you") moment between God and me, and other times when it is a long dry haul. Sometimes it may be related to how much (or little) I am putting into the relationship, and other times I suspect God is weaning me off needing so much "consolation" (warm fuzzy times). The point is, INTs aren't all the same.

I don't identify with "revival tent", "deep sighs of repentance" spirituality - nor does much of the emotional displays in charismatic churches attract me (give me solid classic liturgical worship!). I didn't become a Christian because I felt particularly sinful, I became a Christian because I (then an agnostic) felt God's presence (a definite sense of being addressed, and by a voice - not audibly, but felt - which was definitely not me: the Other). So I definitely identify with the mystical and "super-sensory" aspect of Christianity ... while still allowing for some considerable skepticism about "God told me....". I don't find God giving me personal messages everyday, but have found it happening at some major events in my life (e.g. marriage, big career changes).

So, I wouldn't be surpised to hear that many INTs veer to a more philosophical, rational and objective kind of spirituality, but I wouldn't rule out other varieties of spirituality either. Preference, upbringing, opportunity, experiences, luck will all play a role.
 

---

Posted by kempis3 (# 9792) on :
 
I've been looking up this Myers-Briggs stuff (I was totally ignorant about it) and found that I'm INTJ. I don't think it means much, but most people here seem to be INT if they have difficult with the PRWC -- or perhaps I'm talking nonsense.
An earlier post -- by Alogon, I think -- suggested that some churches were sending some types of personality to Hell. That seemed to make some sense.
Or perhaps my earlier thoughts that trying to lead a more kindly life was a better idea than PRWC/G whatever that means.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
The M-B test says I'm an INTJ, and I have a personal relationship with God. Go figure. The M-B test might be a reasonable predictor for what kind of church (if any) you might prefer, since it asks all those questions about how you like to deal with people, things and ideas, but God is something else altogether, and I don't see how it can predict how you might like to approach God. From my memory of the questions, I'd say it doesn't seem to try to learn about how people approach the numinous.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I am an INTP who used to be an INTJ*. I don't recognize myself as having a PRWG. But IMHO, YMMV as to whether a PRWG is possible for an INTP. OTOH, AFAIK, no INTP is really firmly sold on anything. But in the EOC I can both be grounded in something larger than myself, and yet not have to sacrifice my mind on the altar of conformity. Which WFM. YMMV. Not sold separately.

*more doubts and less cocksurety than in my younger days (believe it or not)
 

---

Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :
 

 

---

Posted by kempis3 (# 9792) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
I am an INTP who used to be an INTJ*. I don't recognize myself as having a PRWG. But IMHO, YMMV as to whether a PRWG is possible for an INTP. OTOH, AFAIK, no INTP is really firmly sold on anything. But in the EOC I can both be grounded in something larger than myself, and yet not have to sacrifice my mind on the altar of conformity. Which WFM. YMMV. Not sold separately.

*more doubts and less cocksurety than in my younger days (believe it or not)

---

I like it!
Biggest laugh of the day!
Laugh 'til I cried!

 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
MT, that's priceless!
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
And THAT is why the Ship wouldn't be the Ship without Mousethief. (For me, anyway.) Hahahahaha.
 

---

Posted by Caz... (# 3026) on :
 
v good MT
 

---

Posted by universalist (# 10318) on :
 
How can we ever have a loving, feeling, connected relationship with Jesus until we grieve through all our anger for Him? I think that's what all that "weeping and gnashing of teeth" business is: people finally getting in touch with their God-anger, experiencing it and finally coming to "acceptance" that they may experience God in deeper ways.

What anger at God, you ask? That would be our "denial" stage. We also like to "bargain" with God and we feel "depression" over Him as well. After all, we live in a world full of evil and all its awful effects. God is fully sovereign over all, allowed evil to be here in the first place and is therefore ultimately somewhat responsible for it.

Jack Miles (A Crisis in the Life of God) sees the Cross as the answer to our God anger.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
For me, as I've discovered since falling in to the abyss two months ago, I'm afraid there is NO substitute, no alternative, but to grabbing hold of Jesus all too personally. There again, only the sick need Yahweh Rapheka - that doctor.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
This is a copy of a comment I've just made on the Ranking Perversion thread.

Just an hour or so ago I realised for the first time that when we invoke the blood of Christ for our sins, no matter how depraved, how abnormal, paraphilic, sick, how vile and hurtful of others and self to this moment with seared, ashamed, obsessional, looping guilt, the flames still feeding on our still cooking, decomposing mental tissue, fanned by the oxygen of legally CORRECT Satanic accusation, though they be 'repented' of decades ago, He takes FULL responsibility for our sins.

Jesus TAKES our sins upon himself. He bought and paid for our SIN. Our lives without Him are nothing but SIN.

It's as if - and my head reels with this - He did them. Does them. The punishment for ALL sin and ALL of its consequences were meted out FULLY on Jesus, on God, within God by Himself to fulfill His absolute, pure, righteousness.

So how can we possibly NOT have a Personal Relationship With God? The God in Jesus who takes FULL responsibility for OUR sins?

Some sins are more objectively dysfunctional than others, more personally and socially destructive, marring.

Again, He was MARRED more than any other human for those sins and all others. For paedophilia, bestiality and everything 'less'. Some of us have done a LOT less.

I'm going to take the liberty of adding this to the PRWG thread.

So here it is.
 

---

Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's as if - and my head reels with this - He did them.

---

Right on Evo0. I couldn't agree more, and conversely, as if we didn't. - So we appear (and are) washed as white as snow.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Hey Martin PC

What a wonderful insight into the nature of the gospel and into God himself.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Thank you Gordon, I thank God for it, it has been stunning me ever since. It came back anew as I walked back from town just now in the bracing evening air, having just bought Meltdown (Making Sense of a Culture in Crisis) by Marcus Honeysett and been distracted by all sorts. I'd mentioned it to my friend who runs the Christian bookshop. He layered it with a reinforcement of the concept I'd read recently of being found rightfully guilty in court and then the judge pays the fine. In fact He serves the sentence. For all my crimes past, present and future. Hence mercy is a matter of justice.

It came back just now as, 'Come to me all you who are heavy laden and I will give you rest.'.

I have NEVER before felt the sense, the impact of those word of Jesus that way before, that my scarlet sins and their ongoing consequences for others that I can do NOTHING about are His responsibility now.

I have never been so free.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Well that is wonderful. I have read many of your posts with interest and concern, and prayed for you as well. That is a glorious discovery and release to have experienced.

[Hosts—normally I would PM stuff like this but I don't seem to be able to in Martin's case]
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Fine by me Gordon - thank you very much. If we can't share each others burdens, testify and praise here in public it would be a sad thing.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Fair enough Martin. It seems to me that past the Bible's teaching that it is possible to be related to God as sons are related to their Father, the personal testimony of those so convicted is very powerful.

I know that for the most part, I don't reflect a lot one way or another on my personal experience of God because "now we see in a glass darkly, then we shall see face to face" (1 Cor 13:12). But I am always helped when people are kind enough to share their experience with me, and it makes me thankful to God for what he has done for us in Christ.
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So how can we possibly NOT have a Personal Relationship With God? The God in Jesus who takes FULL responsibility for OUR sins?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
I don't see the connection between "taking full responsibility for sins" and a necessary "personal relationship".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
But every time you tried to get in touch with the person, you never could--you never heard back from him, you never could actually see him face to face. You might have one rather lengthy letter sitting at home from him, but you've never really heard his voice.

That's not much of a personal relationship, is it?

---

quote:

---

Well, think of it this way, Martin. What if someone found out that you were in big trouble, and so they paid your bail, etc,etc...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by (gracia):
from professorkirke

quote:

---

Well, think of it this way, Martin. What if someone found out that you were in big trouble, and so they paid your bail, etc,etc...

---

professor, there is a very clear difference between this scenario, and how God responds,IME.

God waits for us to call on him; he's knocking, but He doesn't open the door all by Himself. We are an active party in the relationship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
I don't see the connection between "taking full responsibility for sins" and a necessary "personal relationship".

---

I've not read all of this thread, but as someone who does think of his relationship with God in personal terms I think the "necessary" bit is being blown out of all proportion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
I don't see why a "personal relationship" necessarily follows from the fact that someone has "taken full responsibility for my sins".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Who's "We" Digory? I know my debt. Just the gut slicing edge of it I must admit. But I know it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
I don't see why a "personal relationship" necessarily follows from the fact that someone has "taken full responsibility for my sins".

---

Thanks for restating this, but I think my point is still valid.

You seem to be thinking that a PRWG must involve something like hearing voices. I'm suggesting that "personal" is broader than that, that the psychological processes we use to manage our relationships are (for some of us anyway) more flexible. In particular, inputs and outputs for those processes don't have to be limited to the ones we normally use for our inter-human-person relationships.

I am not a psychologist or anything like, but how we imagine our relationship with God has to be an individual thing. So if you think of it as a creator/created thing and separate out how you receive information from God (Bible, human love, beauty in nature, for example) from the relationship itself, that's one way of seeing it. If I include the same information as simply another relationship input, the end result is the same. It seems to me this is only a different way of thinking about what's going on in our heads.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
But Dave, if we wouldn't consider the "input" as a personal relationship with another human being, why should we consider it a personal relationship when it's from God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Walking and talking (driving and working) with my invisible Friends is the natural intended state of man. Worship.

---

quote:

---

Professor Kirke wrote:
As Mousethief has already somewhat pointed out, the situation is less personal than even the one I'd originally described. God may be waiting for us to call on him, but most of us never hear him knock. We don't know much about our debt except what other various people tell us. We have to trust a lot of things about this person whom we've never communicated directly with.

We are certainly an active party. Some of us feel like we are the only active party.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Because God never seems to connect back...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Because God never seems to connect back...

---

And there's me thinking that my whole experience of life is God talking back.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martin:
For you it may well be. That experience is nowhere near universal, though, and I doubt that MT meant to imply that it is...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Damn your goggly eyes, Digory, but there's nowt wrong wi' yer 'most of us', it's yer 'we'. But there again, yer 'we' = 'most of us' logically and isn't a universal 'we' including me, I just dimmly realize.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
How come he gets a face-to-face relationship with his mother? A whole series of factors: 1. he wanted it, 2. his mother told him she'd be back to get him and he was expecting her, 3. he didn't stuff cake in his ears, 4. he doesn't have a congenital hearing problem, 5. he hasn't had injuries or illnesses which caused hearing problems, 6. he hasn't been running around and playing so hard that he forget to listen, 7. he wasn't satisfied with having a tea party, playing cops & robbers, etc.

---

This is a great illustration, Lynn, and I've been thinking about it a lot. Large scope. Good stuff.

I think that all of your reasons can't really be looked at as the fault of the child. Any mother who drops his kid off at a party yet doesn't expect him/her to play, shove some cake in his ears, get lost in a game or two, etc. is fooling herself. Those kids all make it home from their parties, too.

I mean, can you see the newspaper article?

____________________________________________________
LOCAL BOY'S 4th BIRTHDAY PARTY ENDS IN TRAGEDY

Newly 4-year old Jimmy Jenkins' birthday party ended in the late afternoon on Saturday, but with a twist few could have expected.

Several of the children had managed to jam a fair amount of cake in their ears, others were sick with ear infections, and still others were "playing much too hard to hear properly," said one mother who remained anonymous.

The mothers arrived to pick up their children at precisely 2:30 pm, and waited on the porch while knocking lightly on the door. After two hours of knocking with no response, the mothers left confused and returned to their homes.

After the mothers had left, the children left at the party were dragged to the basement, where they are being kept for all of eternity. There, they will be tortured with no chance of ever seeing their mothers again.

One child, Lisa Loland, happened to be sitting near the door at the time of her mother's arrival, and managed to make her way home after the party.

"The other mothers were knocking clearly," said Mrs. Loland. "It's a shame the children didn't hear them knock, but they really have no excuse. The mothers gave them a chance to come home."

"I'm not sure why my child didn't come to the door," asks one of the unlucky mothers. "I know he has a hearing impairment and can't hear, but I wrote him a note when he was 1 year old and stuck it in his dresser drawer, telling him that whenever he's at a party he should listen because I will come for him. I don't know why he didn't remember."
_________________________________________________


If this is the case, then, wouldn't we expect a personal, caring God to burst through the doors of the house and make himself known in some other way if we do not hear him knocking at the door? Perhaps this is not how your view of God works, but then I have trouble thinking of him as being "personal" or indeed "caring."

-Digory

PS Sorry for the lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng post.
 

---

Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :
 
Basically this thread is like this:

1: Wahoo, me n' Jesus are buddies! Everyone should be buddies with Jesus and have sleepovers!

2: I'm not buddies with Jesus. You must be making that up.

1: No, really. I'm not making that up. There must be something wrong with you. Why don't you luuurve Jesus the way I do?

2: Huh? Are you on crack or are you deaf? I don't relate to Jesus like he's my buddy. What don't you understand about that?

1: Ah. I get it now. You've clearly been traumatised in your past relationships and so have a defunct image of God that doesn't allow you to have warm feelings and closeness like me <sigh> (I know I'm special 'cause Jesus loooves me so).

2: Why are you psycho-analysing me? Don't you know I have XXXX personality type that flies in the face of your analysis? See, I don't feel close to God.

1: Aha, now I really get it this time. It is because you don't hear him knocking on the door of heart. Quiet now...shhh...wait for it...wait for it...see? Can't you hear him knocking just waiting to be close to you?

2: So, now its my fault I can't hear him. Who made me deaf in the first place, huh? What type of God is this? Clearly you are wrong.

1: .....

2: .....

[And the conversation goes on ad naseum ... will Harry and Janice ever be re-united? Will this conversation ever reach some sort of reconciliation? Stay tune...]
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
You forgot about the part where Person 2 tells a hilarious story about children at a party.

I mean, ridiculously hilarious.
 

---

Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :
 
Well, I'm not perfect you know. It's hard to edit 8 long pages into a few sentences. I gave it my best effort. Not that your news article wasn't absolutely hilarious andclever, though.
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
Don't beat yourself up about it. We all make mistakes.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Not all of us are absolute freaking geniuses, though, and on that note, Joyfulsoul, you just made my list of Important People To Watch.

[ 29. November 2005, 03:48: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 

---

Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
"I'm not sure why my child didn't come to the door," asks one of the unlucky mothers. "I know he has a hearing impairment and can't hear, but I wrote him a note when he was 1 year old and stuck it in his dresser drawer, telling him that whenever he's at a party he should listen because I will come for him. I don't know why he didn't remember."

---

I haven't laughed this hard for a week - very good! I'm not actually trying to come up with an equivalence - I don't think there IS an equivalence. But various angles from which to view the conundrum. At the end of the day, I do not have *any* answer as to why God deigns to allow me to have a "personal relationship" with Him - I just know He does. I don't think it makes me any "better" than anybody else and I don't attribute it to anything that other people don't also report doing (i.e., being accessible, spending time in the Bible, in prayer, in worship, listening) - the only thing that *might* apply, which marks the "kicking into high gear" point in this relationship, was my state of profound brokenness - but it's not something you can work yourself into (and you wouldn't want to, if you could--). I dunno, maybe God literally took pity on me, in my pain.

To follow the analogy (as flawed and ridiculous as it is), when the child doesn't respond to the knock at the door, the mom walks up the garden path and knocks on the window and the hostess says, "ah, Sue! you're here to pick up little Billy!" and the outcome is very different than the being tormented for eternity in the basement. Likewise, none of the people in this discussion are going to hell for not having what they would call a "personal" relationship with Christ; they're following Jesus the best they are able, even though it sometimes feels like a wall, and exercising tremendous faith, imho (the little boy whose mother is last to arrive and collect him may get nervous but rarely does he stop believing his mother will, in fact, come). Like the beggar Lazarus, at their death the angels will come and escort them to meet this Jesus, finally making the relationshp truly personal in heaven.
 

---

Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :
 
Kelly Aves, you make me blush. And you were always on my Important People to Watch list.
 

---

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :
 
Joyfulsoul and ProfK - thank you!!!




 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
...they're following Jesus the best they are able, even though it sometimes feels like a wall, and exercising tremendous faith, imho (the little boy whose mother is last to arrive and collect him may get nervous but rarely does he stop believing his mother will, in fact, come). Like the beggar Lazarus, at their death the angels will come and escort them to meet this Jesus, finally making the relationshp truly personal in heaven.

---

AMEN! Excellently said.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
I wondered, Digory, when you wrote your newspaper article, did you maybe have compartment rupture between this topic and "God allowing hell" topic? I don't think anybody had raised the possibility of hell as the result of lacking a PRWG until the basement... ?? Just wondering...
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
I wondered, Digory, when you wrote your newspaper article, did you maybe have compartment rupture between this topic and "God allowing hell" topic? I don't think anybody had raised the possibility of hell as the result of lacking a PRWG until the basement... ?? Just wondering...

---

Yes, I think sometimes the threads run together in my mind...

But I do think there are many here that believe that if you NEVER achieve a PRWG, that you've never fully been saved. Otherwise, they wouldn't nag so hard about how important it is. (Not you, of course, Lynn... )

-Digory
 

---

Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
Yes, I think sometimes the threads run together in my mind...

But I do think there are many here that believe that if you NEVER achieve a PRWG, that you've never fully been saved. Otherwise, they wouldn't nag so hard about how important it is. (Not you, of course, Lynn... )

---

I hope I'm not nagging! I'm sharing my own experience and trying to understand something which is *hard* for me to understand (it would be much easier if I could say, "ah, THOSE people are deficient in some way!" - but I have learned through the years that is not the case)... on the other hand, I do know that my "tone" is often misunderstood. I'm intense, but playful. Kind of like an enormous puppy...
 

---

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
I've stayed off this thread because I don't have a problem with the PRWG as a concept - it's one I can relate to. But I do get very annoyed with the evangellymould idea of salvation that often goes along with it.

At a church meeting last night, we were told to give each other our testimonies. Now, there was a lot of talk about how each one is individual, and how your story is unique, etc etc. But we were told the heart of the message is the difference that Jesus has made to your life.

Well, I don't have a standard before/after testimony. I've always known God was there. I've always known He loved me (in the same way as I know my parents love me - not just intellectual consent but heart knowledge). My life has been a long, gradual process of learning more of God. So the 'difference' concept is irrelevant to me. You might as well ask me what difference being female/Welsh/left-handed has made to my life. I could talk about what being any of those things means to me. I could talk about the impact those things have on my life. But 'difference' just doesn't compute.

The well-meaning person next to me said I needed more about the 'difference' aspect in my testimony - that it didn't stress how I felt forgiven, cleansed, etc. Well, that's why it's my testimony and not yours, sorry. If those things had felt major aspects of my story, I'd have put them in.

We finished up with a 'bridge to life' four-step 'come to Jesus' thingy. It was stressed that it isn't a formula, and it's just one way of looking at things. So far, so good. But I realised that, though they may be helpful for many, such things are deeply painful for me. Since the age of 11, friends have been using them to beat me over the head (in love, of course) and say that 'if you haven't done this, you're probably not a Christian'.

So, though I'm still happy to count myself a hand-raising, Jesus-cuddling charismatic with a PRWG, I hope you don't mind if I sit with you guys for a while.

It's no wonder us Elder Brothers get a bit snarky sometimes, when those who are recovering from the Pigswill Diet think theirs is the only way.

(Yes, I confess, I was thinking of the SoF Quotes File thread when I wrote that last sentence. Well, either that, or I was channelling Martin ...)
 

---

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :
 
There are one or two here who have come very close to saying "If you haven't had a PRWJ then you are not saved, or not a 'proper' Christian".

But I have had that said to me IRL. Several times. And it hurts, offends and everything else you can think of.


 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
Yes, I think sometimes the threads run together in my mind...

But I do think there are many here that believe that if you NEVER achieve a PRWG, that you've never fully been saved. Otherwise, they wouldn't nag so hard about how important it is. (Not you, of course, Lynn... )

---

I hope I'm not nagging!

---

No no no I honestly meant "not you"! I realize now that it probably sounded sarcastic, but it wasn't. You go to great lengths to make sure you're not misunderstood as being nasty. You're all good.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gill H:
So, though I'm still happy to count myself a hand-raising, Jesus-cuddling charismatic with a PRWG, I hope you don't mind if I sit with you guys for a while.

---

Hey, we're all in this together. That's what can be so great about it. (And it's why I don't think is Rook is all right when he rants about the completely negative effects of religion, either...)

Thanks for sharing, Gill.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
There are one or two here who have come very close to saying "If you haven't had a PRWJ then you are not saved, or not a 'proper' Christian".

But I have had that said to me IRL. Several times. And it hurts, offends and everything else you can think of.

---

Nicodemia, you are totally right that such statements hurt and offend - like watching a violent movie where they shoot someone and then *press* on the wound to get the person to talk - ugh. Not okay. I don't know if I'm oblivious (sometimes I am) to the comments made that implied as much, but I'd like to assure you I do not believe it for a moment, and if I have in any way erroneously expressed such a p.o.v., that was wrong and I apologize. As for the IRL stuff, it's kind of scary how much we can hurt other and still "mean well"...

Gill, yup. One-size-fits-all Christianity. In my early twenties as I got serious about my faith, I also got VERY offended by the "Let's put God in THIS box!" lopping off all the bits that don't fit approach to Christianity... grrrrrr. I am more tolerant now because I recognize the limitations under which such people operate - but yeah, it still bugs me (and I'll nag them, given the chance!).

And thanks for reassuring me, Digory (!!) - I'm not "all good" by any means but, like the puppy, the big messes I make are unintentional...
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
There are one or two here who have come very close to saying "If you haven't had a PRWJ then you are not saved, or not a 'proper' Christian".

But I have had that said to me IRL. Several times. And it hurts, offends and everything else you can think of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
There are one or two here who have come very close to saying "If you haven't had a PRWJ then you are not saved, or not a 'proper' Christian".

But I have had that said to me IRL. Several times. And it hurts, offends and everything else you can think of.

---

If you are "saved" -- redeemed, reconciled with God, however you want to put it -- you do have a very personal relationship indeed with the Christ.

---

No I do not. But we're back where we started, aren't we?

I have a PRWJ when He:

Meets me down the pub
Talks to me
Plays RPGs with me
Jams with me on His bass guitar
Makes me dinner
Sleeps with me (scratch that one; I'm straight)

Get the picture. These are the sort of things that make a personal relationship.
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
Geez, He bled blood for you. I'm so sorry that ain't personal enough.
 

---

Posted by PerkyEars (# 9577) on :
 

quote:

---

Plays RPGs with me

---

He'd be an interesting GM.
 

---

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PerkyEars:

quote:

---

Plays RPGs with me

---

He'd be an interesting GM.

---

It'd have to be Amber or something. He doesn't play dice.



T.
 

---

Posted by PerkyEars (# 9577) on :
 

quote:

---

It'd have to be Amber or something. He doesn't play dice.

---

 

---

Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's the biggest Heraclitean loop of re-discovery ever Gordon. Hopefully I've been broken out of stepping in to the same stream twice and more, which is what Heraclitus said one can't do. And he was right. I have re-discovered Jesus, as Malcolm Muggeridge did a generation and more ago, I have discovered that my appalling, truly appalling sins and their appalling ongoing consequences are Jesus' FULL responsibility.

---

I'll join Gordon in unpurgatorial praises too.

Freedom makes you feel so free eh Martin,

Sounds like this thread may have achieved something after all

Warmest Regards,

Evo1
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
Geez, He bled blood for you. I'm so sorry that ain't personal enough.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Let's put it this way. One of the most noticeable features of people I have personal relationships with is that I have interactions with them that put their objective existence beyond any reasonable doubt. I do not have such interactions with God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What bugs me is her effectively insisting that I go by her definition and say I've got a PRWJ.

---

quote:

---

I think you need a PRWG to be a Christian. Unashamedly. Entrusting your eternity to someone constitutes both personal and a relationship. However, I am not for one minute saying that a PR with the divine Trinity works exactly like those with non infinite physical beings. People who do that, frankly scare me.

---

quote:

---

Entrusting your eternity to someone constitutes both personal and a relationship

---

. This phrasing seems to me to take no account of interaction, which I think we would both consider to be an important part of our PRWG. The point that Karl et al are making (not wanting to put words in their mouth) is that this type of relationship is not within their experience, to the extent that the language is not useful to them at all. Yet clearly they are Christians, probably much better ones than me. Would it not be better, then, to jettison the language, which isn't particularly biblical anyway, much as evangelicalism has, on the whole, jettisoned the much more scriptural "born-again"; because it has become so tainted in popular useage that it now confuses rather than clarifies. Because if you don't, it is highly likely that a considerable number of your brothers and sisters will follow the line of argument that goes
1) Lep says that I must have a PRWG to be a Christian.
2) I don't have anything that I could meaningfully call a PRWJ (ie my faith isn't that experiential)
3) Therefore, Lep thinks I'm not a Christian.

Now clearly they would be wrong in making that third deduction, but it would hardly be an accusation conjoured out of thin air.

That isn't to say that I haven't used such language in the past, as it's an easy shorthand to stress the difference between someone who is a Christian through committment to the person of Christ, and someone who may have been born in a "Christian" country, but who cares nothing for the things of God. However, this thread has convinced me that it's not a term I should really be using.
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
Thanks, Jolly. You, as usual, voiced almost everything I wanted to say but in a much better and more gracious manner.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think you need a PRWG to be a Christian.

<snip>

(I never had personal relationships with the people I played RPGs with. that really would have been a frightening thought)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
Geez, He bled blood for you. I'm so sorry that ain't personal enough.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

That isn't to say that I haven't used such language in the past, as it's an easy shorthand to stress the difference between someone who is a Christian through committment to the person of Christ, and someone who may have been born in a "Christian" country, but who cares nothing for the things of God. However, this thread has convinced me that it's not a term I should really be using.

---

quote:

---

I don't see any earthly reason why anyone should have a problem with someone saying "as I understand it, you have a personal relationship with God."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But objectively speaking, Christianity is both personal and relational. So I am perfectly happy to bear with those who like the phrase. I don't see any earthly reason why anyone should have a problem with someone saying "as I understand it, you have a personal relationship with God."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

That isn't to say that I haven't used such language in the past, as it's an easy shorthand to stress the difference between someone who is a Christian through committment to the person of Christ, and someone who may have been born in a "Christian" country, but who cares nothing for the things of God. However, this thread has convinced me that it's not a term I should really be using.

---

I really don't understand this.

As it happens, PRWG, is not a phrase I use much. "Know God for yourself" is one I am much more likely to use.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But objectively speaking, Christianity is both personal and relational. So I am perfectly happy to bear with those who like the phrase. I don't see any earthly reason why anyone should have a problem with someone saying "as I understand it, you have a personal relationship with God."

---

I have a problem with it. It's like telling someone who believes her husband doesn't love her, "Of course your husband loves you. He comes home every night. He doesn't drink too much. He pays his share of the bills. He even sends you flowers on Valentine's day. That's what it means for a husband to love his wife. How could you possibly think your husband doesn't love you?"

And maybe her husband does still love her, and she just can't see it. Or maybe she's right and he doesn't. Neither one is the point. The point is that it is rude beyond words for someone else to tell her that she has a loving relationship with her husband when she doesn't feel that way about it. It is a mind-boggling level of presumption. The simple fact is, it's her relationship, not yours. She's the only one who can say whether it is a loving relationship or not.

Likewise, it is mind-bogglingly presumptuous to tell someone "you have a personal relationship with Christ" when that person doesn't see it that way. And it is hurtful and harmful to say that one must have a PRWJ to be a Christian -- there is nothing in Scripture or Tradition that would support that assertion, and much in the life of Christians that I know to show it to be false.

To say "one must have a PRWG to be a Christian" and then to assert that you are not saying that those who feel that their relationship with God is not personal are not Christians, because, of course, you know that they really do have a PRWG, even if they don't see it, honestly doesn't make things any better. How could it?

---

Sometimes you amaze me, Josephine. Glad you posted on this issue before me, so as not to give me a chance to say something like what you just said but in a much less effective way.
 

---

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :
 
Jossephine

You put things so much better than I can!!
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
I have a problem with it. It's like telling someone who believes her husband doesn't love her, "Of course your husband loves you. He comes home every night. He doesn't drink too much. He pays his share of the bills. He even sends you flowers on Valentine's day. That's what it means for a husband to love his wife. How could you possibly think your husband doesn't love you?"

---

quote:

---

The point is that it is rude beyond words for someone else to tell her that she has a loving relationship with her husband when she doesn't feel that way about it. It is a mind-boggling level of presumption. The simple fact is, it's her relationship, not yours. She's the only one who can say whether it is a loving relationship or not.

---

quote:

---

To say "one must have a PRWG to be a Christian" and then to assert that you are not saying that those who feel that their relationship with God is not personal are not Christians, because, of course, you know that they really do have a PRWG, even if they don't see it, honestly doesn't make things any better. How could it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
How could it? Because most of the anti-PWRG people here seem to be saying that the reason they don't know they have such a thing is because they don't feel a certain way, or enjoy a certain type of worship, or get on with Christians who use the PWRG language. I haven't yet seen a single advocate of the PWRG position who is trying to say that is the essence of a personal relationship with God. If you accept Jesus as Lord of your life, the most basic confession of Christianity, it is my understanding that you are personally relating to Him. I'm sorry if that offends you but I stand by it.

---

quote:

---

If you accept Jesus as Lord of your life, the most basic confession of Christianity, it is my understanding that you are personally relating to Him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Josephine, it is nothing like this. Those in the PWRG camp and those without are broadly agreed on the character of God. The issue is, surely, how we relate to that character, and whether that way of relating is "personal" or not. Bringing in similes that make it sound like I am trying to get you to imagine that God is loving and kind when he isn't at all, just muddies the issue.

---

quote:

---

If you accept Jesus as Lord of your life, the most basic confession of Christianity, it is my understanding that you are personally relating to Him. I'm sorry if that offends you but I stand by it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PerkyEars:

quote:

---

Plays RPGs with me

---

He'd be an interesting GM.

---

It'd have to be Amber or something. He doesn't play dice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
It's like telling someone who believes her husband doesn't love her, "Of course your husband loves you. He comes home every night. He doesn't drink too much. He pays his share of the bills. He even sends you flowers on Valentine's day. That's what it means for a husband to love his wife. How could you possibly think your husband doesn't love you?"

---

quote:

---

posted by Autenried Road:
So it's useful to me that Lynn and Karl have described their experience. And I guess in general anytime someone uses the phrase I should ask what they mean, since it seems to be quite a nebulous phrase!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Me? I know I'll be lucky if I get a chance to mop the dust from the streets of gold. If I do, it won't be because of my personal relationship with God. Instead, it will be because of the intercessions of the saints, the prayers of my godfather, the goodness and holiness of those who love me far more than I love God. The fathers tell us that no one is ever saved alone. I don't need my relationship with God to be personal. In fact, I'm quite sure that if I depend on my personal relationship with God for my salvation, I ain't gonna make it. I need my relationship with God to be communal. I need to relate to him in the company of the saints, guarded and guided and upheld by them and by the angels. That's the only way I'm going to be saved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
... I know I'll be lucky if I get a chance to mop the dust from the streets of gold.

---

quote:

---

If I do, it won't be because of my personal relationship with God. Instead, it will be because of the intercessions of the saints...

---

quote:

---

... the prayers of my godfather...

---

quote:

---

the goodness and holiness of those who love me far more than I love God...

---

quote:

---

... The fathers tell us that no one is ever saved alone...

---

quote:

---

... I don't need my relationship with God to be personal. In fact, I'm quite sure that if I depend on my personal relationship with God for my salvation, I ain't gonna make it.

---

quote:

---

I need my relationship with God to be communal. I need to relate to him in the company of the saints, guarded and guided and upheld by them and by the angels.

---

quote:

---

That's the only way I'm going to be saved.

---

quote:

---

Or you either, for that matter.

---

Very true. I contend, though, that because of the personal relationship with the Messiah -- say "individual" if "personal" is too... personal ... and try "connection" for "relationship"...

Because of that interconnectedness with the Redeemer, if you are His you are saved. Now. And it's a matter of rejecting Him to escape so great a salvation.

quote:

---

I'm sorry if that offends you, but I stand by it.

---

I doubt anyone was offended -- I hope you're not offended by my interest in using your well-put-together explanation of your POV to try to contrast my own. As I accidentally read Nicodemia's post -- "Josephine, you put things so much better than I can't!"

Oh, and Mousethief -- I know people need to define terms-in-common if they're gonna have a meaningful discussion. I know lots of folks don't operate with the same definitions.

I simply think mine are better.
 

---

Posted by (gracia) (# 1812) on :
 
from josephine:

quote:

---

It isn't the faith of the desert fathers, of the martyrs...)

Josephine, are you quite sure about that? If so, what do you base that belief on?

It's a modern innovation, designed for people who want their own individual, private, personal God, something that makes them feel like they have an important place in the Kingdom of God.

---

quote:

---

It isn't the faith of the desert fathers, of the martyrs...)

---

quote:

---

It's a modern innovation, designed for people who want their own individual, private, personal God, something that makes them feel like they have an important place in the Kingdom of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
I think your unstated "first cause" is, in fact, the atonement made for us on the cross, yes? I mean, there is no "communion of the saints" without Jesus making saints in the first place. I'm just clarifying because it seems the confusion on this thread is often based on our unspoken assumptions...? Thanks - pax!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
If I do, it won't be because of my personal relationship with God. Instead, it will be because of the intercessions of the saints...

---

The live saints or the dead ones?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

the goodness and holiness of those who love me far more than I love God...

---

Those, who? The goodness of other people is credited to you?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I need my relationship with God to be communal. I need to relate to him in the company of the saints, guarded and guided and upheld by them and by the angels.

---

Those saints would be the dead ones, then?

---

quote:

---

How nice that you believe you have so much insight into those who experience their faith differently from you. I find it rather presumptuous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
The fathers tell us that no one is ever saved alone.
<snip>
I need my relationship with God to be communal.
<snip>
I need to relate to him in the company of the saints, guarded and guided and upheld by them and by the angels. That's the only way I'm going to be saved.

---

quote:

---

He told us how he had seen an angel appear in his house and say, 'Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.'

Acts 11:13-14

---

quote:

---

They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household." Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house.

Acts 16:31-32

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:
Now my question is simply this, do you love God (as best you can) in this way (again, something I would regard as synonymous with Christianity (at least to try) and if you do, how can this be achieved without being personal?

Just interested to know how you guys square this circle is all I'm after, not making any judgements.

Though I fear I will be misinterpreted once more.

Evo1

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
It's a fair question, Evo. I think it's just a matter of how some of us experience (or don't) the return contact. If my grandfather was dead, I would not stop loving him very much. My relationship with him, however, would cease being personal, because though I may call out to him, he won't answer in a way I can hear. (Unless, of course, we are in a Disney movie.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
It's a fair question, Evo. I think it's just a matter of how some of us experience (or don't) the return contact. If my grandfather was dead, I would not stop loving him very much. My relationship with him, however, would cease being personal, because though I may call out to him, he won't answer in a way I can hear. (Unless, of course, we are in a Disney movie.)

---

But I imagine that you are not here saying that God is dead? How about if your grandfather had gone to the moon and you couldn't communicate with him, what then? You love him very much, he loves you very much.

---

Yeah, you're moon analogy is better, as long as we assume there is no telephone/radio/satellite contact at all between us. In that case, I would still feel like I had lost the personal aspect of my relationship with my grandfather since I couldn't see him in person or hear his voice out loud. So that would be my own take on that situation.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
Michaelangelo - Sistine Chapel, in Rome. Gorgeous.
 

---

Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on :
 
Cheers Lynn
 

---

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :
 
From Josephine:

quote:

---

Oh, and (gracia)?


quote:

How nice that you believe you have so much insight into those who experience their faith differently from you. I find it rather presumptuous.


You're exactly right. I was rather hoping folks might notice that the shoe pinched when it was on the other foot.

---

Exactly!

Josephine - I am bowled over again this morning how well you express all that I feel!

And :

quote:

---

Me? I know I'll be lucky if I get a chance to mop the dust from the streets of gold.

---

quote:

---

I think maybe in the West, we have erred so much on the side of individualism that we have missed out on the beauty of community. We forget that is not just a "me 'n Jesus" - but a gathering and company of saints - we who make up his body...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:


Or suppose I told my friendly neighborhood Southern Baptist that, as I understand it, when they take Communion, they are eating God's flesh and drinking His blood, and if they are not doing that, then what they are doing isn't really Communion. Do you think they'd be mollified by my saying "as I understand it"? I don't. They would quite rightly respond by telling me that they are not bound by my understanding of Communion.

---

quote:

---

It's not historic Christianity. It's not orthodox (note the small o) Christianity.

---

quote:

---

It's a modern innovation, designed for people who want their own individual, private, personal God, something that makes them feel like they have an important place in the Kingdom of God.

---

quote:

---

Me? I know I'll be lucky if I get a chance to mop the dust from the streets of gold. If I do, it won't be because of my personal relationship with God. Instead, it will be because of the intercessions of the saints, the prayers of my godfather, the goodness and holiness of those who love me far more than I love God. The fathers tell us that no one is ever saved alone. I don't need my relationship with God to be personal. In fact, I'm quite sure that if I depend on my personal relationship with God for my salvation, I ain't gonna make it. I need my relationship with God to be communal. I need to relate to him in the company of the saints, guarded and guided and upheld by them and by the angels. That's the only way I'm going to be saved.

Or you either, for that matter. I'm sorry if that offends you, but I stand by it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Lep, let me make it totally clear why I have a problem with the language, and think that people who relate to it should be bloody careful how they use it.

..snip..

So feel free to encourage people to use the language, and watch those for whom it doesn't work leave the church, their faith defeated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evo1:
There are two sides to this story aren't there? What about people whose lives have been entirely changed around through this very aspect, mine included?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Presumably because that's what it was.

---