See, you do understand!
You cannot have a relationship, because you decided that you couldn’t. I decided that I could, so I do. Explanation is not a part of it. The same facts are true for having any relationship, by the way, not just a relationship with God. If you won’t, you don’t.
I cannot quote truth to you from scripture. Scripture can only bring you truth if you open your heart, and read it to seek truth for yourself.
Tris.
Tris, you are doing something almost every religious person does when questioned about their beliefs: You are becoming circular. You say “My personal relationship is based on my love, which is a personal relationship. I have decided it is so, and it is.” You understand, that does not allow for debate. Debate is ‘I’ll give you my reasons, you’ll give me yours, and we’ll see where we end up after some intelligent reasoning.’ You are more along the lines of ‘This is how I am, accept it or not. I can’t even explain why I am this way in terms we can talk about rationally.’ Religion really does not lend itself to rational debate because it is not founded on rational principles. It is founded on belief, which cannot be disproved, questioned, or even defined in terms of something other than itself. I really don’t see how much farther this debate can progress, other than bringing some people out of the woodwork to give opinions and their beliefs. In any case, have fun and keep this out of The Pit. It’d be a waste to see it end up there.
I have not intended to make any BBQ Pit insults to anyone. If you are offended, please accept my apology.
Yes, I was a bit brusque in my reply to the OP, because I found the pronouncement of limits on any and all points of view implicit in the title and first post to be narrow, and pejorative. I also find them incorrect. I could have a personal relationship with a sock puppet. It would be a tragic and unhealthy relationship, and probably based on delusional fixations. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a relationship, and it doesn’t mean it isn’t personal
On the subject of religion is never much amenable to logic. Logic is not a good tool for experiencing faith, nor is God much of a subject for study by means of reason. Of course, there was very little offered in the opening post that had much to do with logic, or reasonable discourse either. Perhaps I should have remained silent, but I felt it important to speak out, and did so. There are many that are much swayed by rhetoric, and I feel it serves us all that opposing views are aired. In this case, the opposite view is that the pronouncement that you cannot have a personal relationship with God is nothing other than a pronouncement by an individual, without much in the way of even reason and logic to back it up.
I do not expect to convince anyone. I think you find faith by seeking faith, not answers. I speak out often on that subject, and often simply point out that I cannot offer convincing argument, and I am unconvinced by the argument that I have heard. But I can, and will seek to point out that there are other things than logic and rational argument to consider. Those things are not easily debated, and are difficult to define. But love, and kindness, and compassion, and sacrifice, and altruism do exist, whether we are able to define them or not. I think God is where you find those things, and I do not care if it is logical. I think it is true.
If it gets me sent to the Pit, so be it, although I doubt much that that will happen. I might be a jerk, but I generally take a hint when I am given one.
Tris
Bucky
I’m not at my own computer (it’s out of town–or rather I am) which has a neat program to help me look up Bible verses, but I’ll do the best I can. So, God wants us to have a personal relationship with Him. (I’ll use the OT as well, if you don’t mind.)
Zephaniah 3:17 “The Lord your God is with you, He is mighty to save. He will take great delight in you, He will quiet you with His love, He will rejoice over you with singing.”
Psalm 137:7-10 “Where can I go from Your Spirit? Where can I flee from Your presence? If I go up to the heavens, You are there, if I make my bed in the depths, You are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there Your hand will guide me, Your right hand will hold me fast.”
Matthew 28:20b “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Darn it’s hard to find stuff in this concordance. Tell you what, let me tell you some examples offhand, and if you like I’ll send the references in a about a week.
Okay, the OT said that Moses talked with God “as friend talks to a friend.” At Pentecost in Acts the believers received the Holy Spirit, meaning that God, in some sense, came to live inside them, which is what Christians believe happens to every believer. Jesus tells them that when they are persecuted the Holy Spirit will give them words to speak, and Peter is told at some point in Acts by the Holy Spirit to run to a particular place and talk to a particular man, so we’re talking specific dialouge here. Jesus tells the crowd “Oh Jerusalem, how I have longed to gather you to me as a mother hen gathers her chicks, but you were not willing.” A NT verse tells us that there is one God and “One mediator between God and Man, Jesus Christ.” Another that we don’t know how to pray, but when we pray, the Holy Spirit “intercedes for us with groans words can’t express.” Jesus tells us not to worry about earthly things because “Your Father in heaven knows that you need them” and just as he takes care of nature, He will take care of us. 2 Peter 3:9 tells us that God wants every person to come to repentence (i.e., being able to have a relationship with a holy God.) Jesus told us repeatedly to make our requests known to God, and He would provide for us. James tells us in chapter 1 that anyone who lacks wisdom should ask God and it will be given to him. Like I said, references will be forthcoming if you want.
If all these expressions of love and help and closeness and listening to our prayers rejoicing over us and all that aren’t a “personal” relationship, I don’t know what is. If you disagree, that’s okay, but you also disagree with nearly every Bible scholar ever.
You asked.
I have a personal relationship with mycats
Too much information, Larry. Waaaaay too much information… :eek:
And does it strike anyone else as ironic, odd, sad even, perhaps, that so many struggle to get a handle on God and the meaning of life through shutting life and its experiences off as much as possible?
I don’t think The Creator set up this amazing experience we have the opportunity to seize every morning when we wake up so people could spend their days chanting, meditating, and fretting over their relationship with God.
Tripoverbiff, other than the Moses reference (not a direct citation, either), NONE of these speak to the idea that God is just another buddy who says “wassup” on the phone, gives you a jump when your car dies, tells you jokes, or does any of the things that are done in a PERSONAL relationship.
Biblical scholars? Aquinas, Kirkegaard, John Wesley, John Calvin, Martin Luther, and a host of others would not fit into the list of those who talk about a “personal relationship” with God. The Catholic model, for example, traditionally argues that priests are a needed intermediary between normal humans and God.
I don’t see any particular proof supporting your side.
Bucky
Geez - I’ve been away from this place too long! 
My first thought is that anyone who doesn’t believe in a “personal relationship” with God isn’t in one and has never been in one. Really, it’s something you don’t understand until you experience it. It has to do with two-way communication - you speaking to Him through prayer and He responding back in any number of various ways. When you are in tune to it, (takes that Holy Spirit dude) you can tell when and how He is speaking.
I’ll mull this one over some more and try and come back with a better responce with better backing than my personal feelings, though.
Peace.
In other words, this “personal relationship” is just a feeling, uncommunicable? How is this different from delusion?
Still waiting for the chapter and verse, Biblically, that justifies what would be considered heresy by many. Also still waiting for the explanantion of why I can’t know anything about God yet someone else can “know” that God loves us.
Ok, lets pretend for a minute that we are going to apply human logic to something that is superhuman. You are right, I cannot have a personal relationship with God. But that’s okay, I would much rather have a spiritual relationship with him anyway.
Derleth,
“I’m not religious, so I’m asking for information, not debate.”
I think here they are one in the same.
“And if you buy into the God is Love religions, doesn’t that make God a little cardboard as a person? All one thing, none of another? Again, I want information, not debate.”
If you want information I could quote the bible, but you’re not religious so what good would it do? Here is some information for you. Religions exist to comfort and provide purpose for the lives of their believers, how comforting would it be if you believed God is hate and fear. If there is a God then we truly do fall short of his glory and the only thing keeping him from smiting out sinning asses is love.
[hijack]
Hey, don’t flame me. It is just an opinion.
Objective Reality - Copyright © Tom Burnett, 1994, 2000
Knowledge is a conditioned response acquired through the process known as learning. Reality is the result of neural stimulation to sensory input. Essentially, it is the data stream produced by the unconscious minds frenzied attempt to control, sort and classify external sensory input into some prioritized form and present it at a variable frequency and magnitude just below the threshold of consciousness of the individual in order not to overwhelm the thought process during waking hours. The need for sleep is obviously the result of evolving on a rotating planet. Originally it provided energy conservation while allowing the body to provide heat to the vital organs during the night hours when humans were more likely to be prey than predator. In addition, sleep allows the conscious mind to relax and reset the activity level of the sensory input system to provide the optimum level of information for assimilation. This baseline is set by a closed system that monitors quiescent neural activity and adjusts for balance.
Since the vagaries of genetics trend toward mutation, each person is literally an individual. Thus each person maintains an independent perception of reality while (usually) maintaining a link of commonality via: (1) Knowledge, in a societal sense and (2) A tiny thread of DNA that, to cite one example, allows most people to uniformly sense a frequency of 6485 Angstroms as the color red.
Fortunately the conscious mind does not have access to raw sensory data that it would interpret as nonsense. The information content it does have access to, although edited, is not always presented uniformly. That variety can cause problems that are not even identifiable much less correctable. The logical brain wants consistency to recognize change when it occurs and initiate an appropriate behavioral response. But the information it receives, while fairly consistent, is not completely so. Which can cause unpredictable behavior because a median baseline of individual reality cannot be maintained. So "reality" moves into abstraction and violence or other aberrant behavior may surface without reason or warning. Conversely, it may be postulated that a great lateral leap of logic might be induced, much to the benefit of humanity. The subconscious methodology for management of this abstraction could, theoretically, beget genius or insanity in any given individual although the psycho- and sociological issues involved tend to promote exclusivity for the latter. A more likely explanation is genetic propensity.
Most people either have a stable information filtering system or are only able to tolerate the inconsistencies by manifesting them as mood swings. Even so, it is difficult for anyone to deal with these variations logically because they occur below the level of consciousness but affect the thought processes directly. A common experience is the vague feeling of being lost, unfulfilled or incomplete. This feeling, when combined with other factors such as the (successful) evolutionary trait of ascribing reason to all events whether or not they are understood by the observer; and a foreknowledge of the certainty and imminence of death creates the human affinity for religion. Religion exists both by desire and necessity. The desire for a purpose to our lives and the necessity of resolving feelings of being unfulfilled or somehow incomplete. But the universe and the reality of life within it exist for an individual only while that individual exists as a living entity within the universe. No organism that evolved on this planet can survive here indefinitely and those that metabolize oxygen cannot do so anywhere. There are no exceptions. Death is the vindication of life. Unfortunately, the idea of an afterlife seems incomprehensible when viewed as physical relativity. A 'spirit' or 'soul', having no sensory input, can have no sensory perception and is thus bereft of individuality and, therefore, individual reality. In this context existence is no longer possible.
I cannot disagree with those who argue that there must be a reason for everything. There are certainly cause and effect for everything we understand as well as everything we don't. That the explanations for those we don't may disagree is unimportant as they are conjectural in any case. That is not to say there is a PURPOSE for everything. Given the context in which the statement is commonly presented, it is highly unlikely, at least to me. But a persons’ subconscious will casually invent or disregard, as appropriate, any facts required to maintain his or her personal reality at a comfortable level. So if, for instance, you want God to be real, He is real. That's part of what reality is for you.
Your life really does have a great and wonderful purpose. It's for you to live and enjoy to the fullest. Always try to do that, despite what your personal beliefs may be.
Can you have a personal relationship with God? I dunno. The universe tells me things that save my life on occasion. Maybe that is your definition of God. But God can certainly have a personal relationship with you. At least he had one with Jesus’ mother, Mary, in violation of His own commandment not to commit adultry. But it WAS an immaculate conception after all. Mary and Joseph had never consummated the marriage.
[/hijack]
Flames or contrary opinion posts are not desired and will not be debated. I do not wish to defend any part of the above diatribe. I like it, but you don’t have to.
Thanks for your post. I have often wondered whether intensely religious people (e.g. monks) actually experience a deeper relationship with God (more so than anybody else). I recall seeing a TV show many years ago (hosted by Marshall Frady) which consisted of interviews with the monks in an abbey in MA. I was reall suprised (shocked) whwn one monk reported that he had had no personal revelation of God-seems to be a waste of time to spend so much time praying, chanting, denying yourself fun, etc., if you really don’t hear anything from the big guy upstairs!
Any ex-monks care to comment?
on the general topic, and for those who find unsatisfying our explanations such as “You can only understand a personal relationship with God if you have one.”
S. Kierkegaard, from The Sickness Unto Death:
“A believer is surely a lover, yea, of all lovers the most in love. With respect to enthusiasm a lover is after all only a stripling in comparison with a believer. Think now of a lover. He would be capable, would he not, day in and day out, as long as it was day and well into the night, of talking about his love. But dost thou believe it could occur to him, dost thou belive it would be possible for him, dost thou not believe that it would be an abomination to him to talk in such a way as to try to prove by three reasons that there is after all such a thing as being in love? … Is it not evident that that it could never occur to one who is really in love to want to prove it or defend it?”
ummm… that was “raising” not “raining” you one.
That has always been my understanding. I think many people are simply vain and have convinced themselves of a “relationship” which does not exist.
There is a Love that is alive.
In the New Testament, it is called “agape” (ah-GAH-pay). In the spiritual metaphysic, Love and Life are synonyms. Saying that God is Love is no different than saying that you are your brain. The materialist would say, “Yes, I have arms and legs and a beating heart, but my brain is my essence.”
Likewise, Love is the essence of God. Love is the Perfect Morality for a free moral agent. Love is the comprehension of everything that matters.
Hate to burst your bubble, but reason itself is a house of cards, standing on a tautology, namely, its self-referential assertion that it is a valid epistemology at all. Undefined terms are not the sole property of the faithful either. In every scientific discipline (especially mathematics and logic), certain terms remain forever undefined. Every mathematical proof begins with a statement of undefined terms. Peano, for example, in his famous proof that 1 + 1 = 2, left both “successor” and “natural number” undefined.
And when you do define your terms, you are using terms to define your terms. More circles. Definitions have terms, each with its own definition, each with its own terms, and so on.
Your axioms are assumptions without proof. You can create whole new comprehensions by merely changing your axioms. Postulate that parallel lines never intersect, and you have a flat-plane geometry; but postulate that they do, and you have a curved-plane geometry. The angles of a triangle on a flat plane can never sum to more than 180 degrees, but the angles of a triangle on a sphere always do.
Then, all your premises follow from these assumptions and arbitrary terms, on a tenuous trail of implication, hoisting its own self in the air, like a perpetual motion machine. Reason begs the question of its own validity as an epistemology.
Faith is not inferior to reason a priori. It is, in fact, the very basis of reason. You take all your undefined terms and axioms on faith. Those of us who believe in God accept His existence as axiomatic, the same as we do our own. We do not do this irrationally, but based on our empirical observations, i.e., our experience (or relationship) with God. You might think we’re crazy, but you do the same thing. Science is not unlike faith in this regard: you evaluate as best you can, you weigh the evidence, you make a decision using your best judgement based on what you are willing to believe. We have done the same.
If you refuse to postulate that God exists, then do not expect to comprehend Him. It’s no different than if you refuse to postulate that parallel lines interesect, don’t expect to comprehend a curved plane.
Not uncommunicable contextlessly, but uncommunicable to anyone without a shared frame of reference. I understand perfectly what he means. Delusion is a subjective concept, as you will see if you attempt to prove your own existence. Try it, and you’ll see.
By the way, you may not postulate your existence, because your existence is what you intend to prove. There’s that circular reasoning again. The problem is that before you can prove that you exist, you must first exist. How can that which does not exist prove that it does exist? That makes your existence axiomatic. But your hypothesis (that you exist) matches your postulate (that you exist). And on that classic tautology, Humpty Dumpty Reason falls down.
Heresy? To what are you referring?
As to who knows Whom, while you cannot apprehend God with your brain, you can (and many do) comprehend Him with your heart (your essence). God is the Love Everlasting. You can’t find Him with your brain.
The brain is for making motor decisions; the heart is for making moral ones.