Personal relationship with God

[devolved]

That subject tends to come up a lot when it comes to differentiating between "true belief" vs "mere religion" concepts. But, whenever this subject comes up there seems to be misunderstanding what we generally mean by word personal vs impersonal, and what religion is and how it is defined.

For example, if I say that I have a personal relationship with Michael Jordan, there are a few things are assumed.

It's assumed that I've actually met Michael Jordan in person. Not in spirit. Not by hearing or watching about MJ on TV. Not by pretending that MJ is really there in the room while I'm talking to him, and then reading MJ biography and gleaning some perceived answers and conversation from it.

It also is assumed that MJ is responding in some personal way. Not through a generic "Just do it" Nike ad. Not through his autobiography, again. Not through his publicist or PR person, etc.

We generally mean none of the above by concept of personal relationship.

So the obvious question would be, what exactly do you mean by the "personal relationship with God", if by that it's not implied that God is sitting across from you from a coffee table and having a friendly discussion?

What is personal about it?

 

[dysert]

I had these very thoughts for a long time! Back then, "personal" implied (to me) what it would be like to have a personal friend. We'd have coffee together, shake hands, hug, talk (audibly) with each other, see (visibly) each other, etc. That doesn't happen with God, so I struggled for years with what everyone meant by having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Then, out of the blue, I gained a different understanding. I came to realize that a "personal" relationship with Jesus was not about how we interacted with each other, but rather that He was there for me personally versus corporately. The Bible tells us that Jesus is the Head of the Church, but He's more than that -- He is Head of me, personally. I can lift my voice to Him personally instead of being part of a crowd that He pays attention to. No, He pays attention to me personally, too.

So that's my understanding now, and as long as I continue to think of it in that way it makes way more sense to say He is my *personal* Savior. I hope this makes sense to you.

 

[devolved]

Then, out of the blue, I gained a different understanding. I came to realize that a "personal" relationship with Jesus was not about how we interacted with each other, but rather that He was there for me personally versus corporately. The Bible tells us that Jesus is the Head of the Church, but He's more than that -- He is Head of me, personally. I can lift my voice to Him personally instead of being part of a crowd that He pays attention to. No, He pays attention to me personally, too.

My question though, if it's accurate to describe the above relationship as a "personal relationship" in such context? I'll give you a couple examples.

1) A teacher in a class

A teacher can pay attention to and address personal questions in front of the class personally, but that's hardly how we would describe a personal relationship. One wouldn't say "I have a personal relationship with my teacher" without context being something entirely different than what you are talking about above.

Hence, the question is whether the idea of "personal relationship" fits the description.

2) A government official

A government official, in a similar way, may address personal inquiries and may care about certain personal aspect of such inquiries... but describing such relationship as "personal" would be stretching the concept of a personal relationship, especially when a lot of Christian describe "intimate" personal relationship.


In both examples, you wouldn't describe either as a "personal relationship", although these have elements of communication that resemble a personal relationship. I guess my question is to whether such phrase is an accurate description such relationship?

I could relate to "paying personal attention to what I'm saying", but I think that the important aspect of personal relationship that's missing is personally talking back. If the listening part has to be imagined to be taking place, and the replying part has to be imagined to be taking place... then how different is it than having a "personal relationship" with an imaginary friend... or a celebrity like MJ in the OP?

 

[The Cadet]

My question though, if it's accurate to describe the above relationship as a "personal relationship" in such context? I'll give you a couple examples.

1) A teacher in a class

A teacher can pay attention to and address personal questions in front of the class personally, but that's hardly how we would describe a personal relationship. One wouldn't say "I have a personal relationship with my teacher" without context being something entirely different than what you are talking about above.

With the added benefit that there's no real dispute as to whether the teacher exists or whether you have any sort of relationship (personal or not) with that teacher.

 

[dysert]

I understand what you're saying. I'm just telling you how I now understand the term. If "personal relationship" is hanging you up, don't use it.

 

[The Cadet]

I understand what you're saying. I'm just telling you how I now understand the term. If "personal relationship" is hanging you up, don't use it.

Well how would you describe it if it was a person rather than a god you were talking to? What descriptor would you use? "Personal relationship" seems rather misleading to me.

 

[dysert]

Well how would you describe it if it was a person rather than a god you were talking to? What descriptor would you use? "Personal relationship" seems rather misleading to me.

I agree that the term is misleading. I tend not to use it myself, but lots of others do. Perhaps one of them will jump in here and explain what they mean by it.

 

[devolved]

I understand what you're saying. I'm just telling you how I now understand the term. If "personal relationship" is hanging you up, don't use it.

The problem is with consistent communication of concepts though when it comes to the language we use, especially in religious context.

When you say "but I have a personal relationship" and it means something entirely different than what it usually means, then it creates semantic confusion, because we are not talking about the same thing at all.

In fact, many theologians actually don't like the phrase for this very reason... it creates a very misleading dynamics of religious experience:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/le...al-jesus-is-language-of-personal.html?start=1

Again, my question is whether there should be a better description than a "relationship" in context of our understanding of what human relationship is... which we tend to use in friendly or romantic context... and it seems to me that's what many pastors are banking on when they make a rather emotional appeal to a relationship for people who may be feeling lonely, or who want some romantic expectations fulfilled.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Very good question.

Often the word "personal relationship" is just a sticker which is lightly put into what would otherwise pass as a "participating in religious habits". And that has greatly inflated the meaning of the term.

But I believe that sometimes in Christian mysticism and spirituality, there might actually be phenomenons when it is accurate to define what is happening as a personal relationship.

My description of a personal relationship, in spiritual context, would be:

1) it has actual two way communication.

2) it's possible to be practiced in a deserted island alone, no other humans needed (as opposed to being dependent of traditional settings)

3) there is an element of unpredictability with it. Like f.e. personal guidance. (as opposed to every rule being set in stone)

4) there is at least some element of personal thinking in defining the relationship. As opposed to confessing memorized dogmas.

 

[devolved]

1) it has actual two way communication.

2) it's possible to be practiced in a deserted island alone, no other humans needed (as opposed to being dependent of traditional settings)

So, it seems to be a relationship with a perceived God then? I'm not begging the question about existence of God. I'm merely asking about the dynamics of what it's like.

 

[Jack of Spades]

So, it seems to be a relationship with a perceived God then? I'm not begging the question about existence of God. I'm merely asking about the dynamics of what it's like.

Yes that is how I would define it, a relationship with perceived God (or with some other spiritual being, if we get more general). I claim that my 4-points are somewhat accurate description of my own spirituality, and I find it meaningful to describe it as personal relationship, because it's both personal (it takes place in my experience, and is not exact copy of someone elses) and a relationship (there is a perceived partner to communicate with in it).

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes that is how I would define it, a relationship with perceived God (or with some other spiritual being, if we get more general). I claim that my 4-points are somewhat accurate description of my own spirituality, and I find it meaningful to describe it as personal relationship, because it's both personal (it takes place in my experience, and is not exact copy of someone elses) and a relationship (there is a perceived partner to communicate with in it).

This sounds very similar to the experience I have sitting atop a hill, gazing out over the landscape and feeling a sense of unity with the circling kestrel, the heather at my feet, the rock beneath and the clouds above. It is definitely personal and there is perceived communication. The difference is that I apply Occam's razor and do not invoke a personal deity.

 

[Jack of Spades]

The difference is that I apply Occam's razor and do not invoke a personal deity.

I understand that it is a possibility that I am interpreting my experience wrong.

However, since I can't see the exact nature of your experience and you can't see mine, there is also a possibility that our experience is different in nature, and thus it's justifiable to make a different conclusions of them.

 

[Ophiolite]

I understand that it is a possibility that I am interpreting my experience wrong.

However, since I can't see the exact nature of your experience and you can't see mine, there is also a possibility that our experience is different in nature, and thus it's justifiable to make a different conclusions of them.

Absolutely correct, but when I have talked through the details of my experience with those who seem to have had experiences equivalent to yours, we have found no significant difference other than how we interpret it. This is strongly suggestive, but I agree it is not conclusive.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

A personal relationship with God means that one has his/her own unique experiences with God. Some people are called to serve this way. Other people are called to serve that way. The Bible speaks to one person this way. The Bible speaks to another person that way. Etc.

It is how it is possible for each believer to give his/her own testimony. This person met Jesus this way. That person met Jesus another way. This person got here by going through this trial. That person got here by going through that trial. Etc.

It means that Christianity is not a bunch of doctrine and dogma that people are indoctrinated into. It means that every individual's Christian walk is unique.

 

[DogmaHunter]

A personal relationship with God means that one has his/her own unique experiences with God. Some people are called to serve this way. Other people are called to serve that way. The Bible speaks to one person this way. The Bible speaks to another person that way. Etc.

It is how it is possible for each believer to give his/her own testimony.

It is also how one christian can say "that person is not a 'real' christian and this is what my religion, christianity, is really all about".

It's also how conflicting beliefs within a religion and between religions arise.
It's how denominations form.

Yes, it's a "personal" thing. I submit that it is this personal, because, in the end, it all plays out between people's ears - and not outside of it.

It means that every individual's Christian walk is unique.

So is every individual's imagination.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Yes, it's a "personal" thing. I submit that it is this personal, because, in the end, it all plays out between people's ears - and not outside of it.

So is every individual's imagination.

It's been shown that people's ideas of the moral stance of their God concept correlate closely with their own moral stance and will vary with it. For example, if you show someone a film of unpunished criminality their moral stance will harden, conversely if you show them a film of compassion and forgiveness it will soften, and their view of their God's moral stance also changes correspondingly, suggesting that their God's moral stance reflects their own rather than the reverse.

It's also been shown that it makes no significant difference to personal morality whether someone has a religious background or not. See Morals Don't Come From God.

 

[devolved]

It's been shown that people's ideas of the moral stance of their God concept correlate closely with their own moral stance and will vary with it. For example, if you show someone a film of unpunished criminality their moral stance will harden, conversely if you show them a film of compassion and forgiveness it will soften, and their view of their God's moral stance also changes correspondingly, suggesting that their God's moral stance reflects their own rather than the reverse.

It's also been shown that it makes no significant difference to personal morality whether someone has a religious background or not. See Morals Don't Come From God.

I think that a generic counter to it tends to be a "no true Scotsman" type of deal, where only those that have the true relationship with God would exhibit certain behavior. Hence, it seems to be a re-appropriation of the "best of the best" along with attaching the causes to the claims that one makes, and then circularly supporting the validity of the causes by attributing the best of the best type of effect of these causes.

It's very difficult to explain it to believers for some reason.

If we merely assume that the evidence of God in people is certain behavioral patterns, and that if they don't behave that way it means that God isn't in them... and then we use that as evidence for God to begin with. Most don't understand why it's a problem.

 

[Chriliman]

I think that a generic counter to it tends to be a "no true Scotsman" type of deal, where only those that have the true relationship with God would exhibit certain behavior. Hence, it seems to be a re-appropriation of the "best of the best" along with attaching the causes to the claims that one makes, and then circularly supporting the validity of the causes by attributing the best of the best type of effect of these causes.

It's very difficult to explain it to believers for some reason.

If we merely assume that the evidence of God in people is certain behavioral patterns, and that if they don't behave that way it means that God isn't in them... and then we use that as evidence for God to begin with. Most don't understand why it's a problem.

Evidence of God in someone else is not the same as evidence of God within yourself. I'm sure you can understand why there'd be a big difference.

None the less, continue thinking you've got it all figured out and that we 'believers' just don't get it.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

One can "believe" that abortion is wrong and not have a personal relationship with God. One can "believe" that abortion is not wrong and not have a personal relationship with God. One can "believe" that abortion is wrong and have a personal relationship with God. One can "believe" that abortion is not wrong and have a personal relationship with God.

It is the same with a literal interpretation of Genesis vs. a non-literal interpretation of Genesis. It is the same with liberal vs. conservative. It is the same with this denomination vs. that denomination. It is the same with a life of building personal wealth vs. a life of forgoing formal economic pursuits and focusing on serving others.

It is not about what one "believes". It is not about who one associates with.

It is about one's unique personal spiritual growth and development. It is about one's personal spiritual well-being.

It would not surprise me to find that the most effective religious organizations are ones that help people refocus or stay focused on their own personal spiritual lives.