What Is A Personal Relationship With Christ?

[BuddyFerris]

...

Here is a quote from Robert M. Price's book "The Reason Driven Life" dealing with a "Personal Relationship with Christ'. I love it..

 

... In fact, this kind of sentimental "person savior" piety is no older than the eighteenth- century Lutheran Pietist movement from Germany, from whence it was passed into Methodism.And yet, to born again Christians, this particular mind game is the be-all and end-all of Christainty. ... "

 

Comments

 

Professor Price perhaps exaggerates a bit and misses the mark a bit as a historian. The concept of a personal relationship with Christ is ancient; only the phrasing is (relatively) modern.

Buddy

[Deva]

Professor Price perhaps exaggerates a bit and misses the mark a bit as a historian. The concept of a personal relationship with Christ is ancient; only the phrasing is (relatively) modern.

Buddy

 

Hey Buddy - since Price is wrong, would you like to give us your definition on what a "personal relationship with Christ" is? What was it called before its modern phrasing?

[BuddyFerris]

Professor Price perhaps exaggerates a bit and misses the mark a bit as a historian. The concept of a personal relationship with Christ is ancient; only the phrasing is (relatively) modern.

Buddy

 

Hey Buddy - since Price is wrong, would you like to give us your definition on what a "personal relationship with Christ" is? What was it called before its modern phrasing?

Sure, pal. Second question first - earliest references include Paul's, "... that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection", and John's "...because you know Him who has been from the beginning." Earlier still, Jesus, "...if you knew Me, you would know My Father as well." It seems to have been an accepted concept from the earliest days without being assigned a particular name.

 

First question last; I probably would if you were to persuade me that doing so would bring some benefit. Game?

 

Buddy

[Deva]

Sure, pal. Second question first - earliest references include Paul's, "... that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection", and John's "...because you know Him who has been from the beginning." Earlier still, Jesus, "...if you knew Me, you would know My Father as well." It seems to have been an accepted concept from the earliest days without being assigned a particular name.

 

First question last; I probably would if you were to persuade me that doing so would bring some benefit. Game?

 

Buddy

 

I say Paul had a mystic type vision and was describing it. John wrote in a poetic language. Jesus was also a mystic if you want to know my take on it. I don't think any of these descriptions apply to the modern understanding of "MY personal savior" as generally used.

 

As for your last comment, what do you mean by benefit? You certainly aren't going to persuade or convert me to anything. There is probably no benefit to be had from my point of view because its been proven beyond doubt in the past that you won't give a straight answer to any question. So it is a game for you, no doubt.

 

And "pal" is no way to address a lady. At least I called you by your screen name.

[BuddyFerris]

I say Paul had a mystic type vision and was describing it. John wrote in a poetic language. Jesus was also a mystic if you want to know my take on it. I don't think any of these descriptions apply to the modern understanding of "MY personal savior" as generally used.

 

As for your last comment, what do you mean by benefit? You certainly aren't going to persuade or convert me to anything. There is probably no benefit to be had from my point of view because its been proven beyond doubt in the past that you won't give a straight answer to any question. So it is a game for you, no doubt.

 

And "pal" is no way to address a lady. At least I called you by your screen name.

My humblest apologies, dear lady; I hadn't actually identified a gender to go with the name. DevaLight, BudLight, PorchLight; it didn't strike me until your reply that there was a specific reference in the name. I should have remembered from last year, I'm sure, but I'm old and forgetful.

 

You're welcome to your preferences in scriptural interpretation, of course, and you've chosen positions which are perhaps defensible. As to the straight answer stuff, well that's what that was regarding the baseline Christian concept of 'knowing him'. Without being too picky about it, I'm inclined to lean toward the things Jesus said as being adequate.

 

Now you do raise an interesting point with the " "MY personal savior" as generally used". It's a harsh one, if I understand the way folks here seem to respond to the issue. As generally used, at least the way I hear it in the F/E mainstream, it's not well developed and perhaps somewhat shallow. It seems to have the exclusionist's taint to it in the fundamentalist's use, and a formulaic flavor among the Evangelicals. Or maybe it's the other way around, but it seems to perhaps be wielded in such a fashion that most hearers would be a little nervous that they didn't qualify somehow. Not a healthy environment, if you ask me.

 

Does stupid teaching invalidate the concept? Perhaps one might ignore the deluge that passes for pulpit teaching on the subject and just address the question which underlies it all; is there a God whom you can know personally?

 

Buddy

[Guest end3]

Hello Buddy Ferris,

 

In your words, without citing scripture, what is it to know Christ?

[Deva]

I'm inclined to lean toward the things Jesus said as being adequate.

 

Well that is really no answer since the things Jesus said have to be interpreted too.

 

Now you do raise an interesting point with the " "MY personal savior" as generally used". It's a harsh one, if I understand the way folks here seem to respond to the issue. As generally used, at least the way I hear it in the F/E mainstream, it's not well developed and perhaps somewhat shallow. It seems to have the exclusionist's taint to it in the fundamentalist's use, and a formulaic flavor among the Evangelicals. Or maybe it's the other way around, but it seems to perhaps be wielded in such a fashion that most hearers would be a little nervous that they didn't qualify somehow. Not a healthy environment, if you ask me.

 

Can you make this clearer? You say all the time phrases like "It seems to", "maybe" "perhaps" "didn't qualify somehow" your usual qualifed answers that don't tell me much. It is an exclusivist claim to a relationship. Agree or not? How can it be otherwise?

 

Does stupid teaching invalidate the concept?

 

Are you then admitting that the teaching of the exclusivist "personal relationship with Christ" is stupid? And if the teaching is stupid, why not the concept also?

 

is there a God whom you can know personally?

 

I say no to that question, but I am sure you will try to supply some proof for it, no matter how obscure. That is, unless you decide to change the subject suddenly.

[Antlerman]

Perhaps one might ignore the deluge that passes for pulpit teaching on the subject and just address the question which underlies it all; is there a God whom you can know personally?

That's a two-pronged question. One that a god exists, and two, one that can be related to personally. If the first point fails, the second one is a moot question. If the first point is validated, then you have to find further reason to conclude it's possible to be in a relationship with this god, which would seem an even more difficult task to find an answer to than the first question.

 

The first point is not possible to reason successfully since there is no objective evidence available, so the second would be moot question. The only way for your question to have validity is to bypass it being a question at all and simply leap beyond reason into faith based on choice alone. Now with that done, is it possible to have a relationship with that god you've accessed via a leap of faith? Sure why not? It's all simply a choice of what you want to believe. Doesn't matter what you read in the Bible, unless that's important to tell yourself it's based on sound reasoning, in some fashion.

 

Hi Buddy. That's was a long trip to Africa.

[BuddyFerris]

I'm inclined to lean toward the things Jesus said as being adequate.

 

Well that is really no answer since the things Jesus said have to be interpreted too.

 

Now you do raise an interesting point with the " "MY personal savior" as generally used". It's a harsh one, if I understand the way folks here seem to respond to the issue. As generally used, at least the way I hear it in the F/E mainstream, it's not well developed and perhaps somewhat shallow. It seems to have the exclusionist's taint to it in the fundamentalist's use, and a formulaic flavor among the Evangelicals. Or maybe it's the other way around, but it seems to perhaps be wielded in such a fashion that most hearers would be a little nervous that they didn't qualify somehow. Not a healthy environment, if you ask me.

 

Can you make this clearer? You say all the time phrases like "It seems to", "maybe" "perhaps" "didn't qualify somehow" your usual qualifed answers that don't tell me much. It is an exclusivist claim to a relationship. Agree or not? How can it be otherwise?

 

Does stupid teaching invalidate the concept?

 

Are you then admitting that the teaching of the exclusivist "personal relationship with Christ" is stupid? And if the teaching is stupid, why not the concept also?

 

is there a God whom you can know personally?

 

I say no to that question, but I am sure you will try to supply some proof for it, no matter how obscure. That is, unless you decide to change the subject suddenly.

Dear Lady,

I hope your holiday weekend was enjoyable; the days were near-perfect here. Felt a bit like vacation.

 

To your point, every statement is subject to interpretation regardless of the originator. You're absolutely correct that the things Jesus spoke must also be evaluated in some fashion by the reader. The same applies to what is said by you or me here. More along that line at another time, perhaps.

 

The qualifiers in my correspondence may all be read as, "in my opinion," or "from what I've seen, which is certainly not all inclusive." I don't intend to equivocate, but rather to soften statements that might be inaccurate if applied universally or beyond the context in which they are found. It would be relatively easy to group fundamentalists or evangelicals into narrowly defined positions it they would be so helpful as to agree among themselves with careful precision, but they don't, do they. On exclusivism, for example:

 

It might be that some have a relationship with God that is warm and friendly, and some do not. You might describe that as a circumstance of 'haves' and 'have not' exclusivity. If only some were welcome, you'd be right. If all were welcome, but only some were interested in pursuing such a relationship, well, maybe you'd be applying the descriptor inaccurately.

 

We've probably all heard the 'get it right or go to hell' version of preaching, but that's a bit of a stretch from what Jesus offered. If a way is open to anyone who is interested, easily found, easily followed, then the legalistic approach of 'get it right or die' is perhaps chasing the wrong goal.

 

Thoughts?

 

Buddy

[Deva]

To your point, every statement is subject to interpretation regardless of the originator. You're absolutely correct that the things Jesus spoke must also be evaluated in some fashion by the reader. The same applies to what is said by you or me here. More along that line at another time, perhaps.

 

Yes of course, every statement is open to interpretation. I suppose we agree on this point.

 

I would like to see you give your opinon on whether or not the statement "my personal savior" is an exclusivist statement and would like to see you answer End3's question. Please bring it down to my level and don't worry about softening it. I can take it. Remember, you aren't going to persuade me of anything so we might as well have the honest truth of the matter. Getting back to my OP - What is a Personal Relationship with Christ?

 

We've probably all heard the 'get it right or go to hell' version of preaching, but that's a bit of a stretch from what Jesus offered. If a way is open to anyone who is interested, easily found, easily followed, then the legalistic approach of 'get it right or die' is perhaps chasing the wrong goal.

 

I obviously don't believe in Jesus as God, saviour or what have you, so I am not sure what you mean. "Get it right or die" is really what fundamentalists do teach, according to my experience, but I know not all Christians do. Are you saying a way IS open, easily found, etc. or not? I assume you do but it is hard for us to make out what your real position is.

[dunany77]

I am convinced that a "personal relationship with Christ" is nothing more than relabelling one's own internal dialogue so that, with enough mental gymnastics, one can convince oneself that part of that dialogue comes from an invisible man named "Jesus". And this is supposed to be spiritual?

This is EXACTLY what my pastor taught from the altar. He would say over and over that when you pray you have to listen for the 'still small voice', and if it sounds like your own voice, then that's because god is speaking through you! I actually believed this shit! I remember praying alone in my room so hard, and having hour long bouts of silence so I could be sure that I was hearing god and not my own voice. Once in a while I would convince myself that I had a 'revelation' from the lord and then go to prayer group to tell everyone. They would be ecstatic and start praying in tongues and laying hands on me so god would anoint me with MORE LORD! MORE LORD! MORE LORD! I sure felt special after an hour and half of that garbage!

 

Now my 'inner dialogue' is finally free of the big-brother complex. My mind is my own again! Now I only have relationships with people I can SEE and who TALK back to me.

[BuddyFerris]

To your point, every statement is subject to interpretation regardless of the originator. You're absolutely correct that the things Jesus spoke must also be evaluated in some fashion by the reader. The same applies to what is said by you or me here. More along that line at another time, perhaps.

 

Yes of course, every statement is open to interpretation. I suppose we agree on this point.

 

I would like to see you give your opinon on whether or not the statement "my personal savior" is an exclusivist statement and would like to see you answer End3's question. Please bring it down to my level and don't worry about softening it. I can take it. Remember, you aren't going to persuade me of anything so we might as well have the honest truth of the matter. Getting back to my OP - What is a Personal Relationship with Christ?

 

We've probably all heard the 'get it right or go to hell' version of preaching, but that's a bit of a stretch from what Jesus offered. If a way is open to anyone who is interested, easily found, easily followed, then the legalistic approach of 'get it right or die' is perhaps chasing the wrong goal.

 

I obviously don't believe in Jesus as God, saviour or what have you, so I am not sure what you mean. "Get it right or die" is really what fundamentalists do teach, according to my experience, but I know not all Christians do. Are you saying a way IS open, easily found, etc. or not? I assume you do but it is hard for us to make out what your real position is.

Sorry to be incomplete. I keep getting interrupted by calls; they're trying to get every question asked before I slip beyond their grasp.

 

My personal savior... every paired relationship is between just two parties, I suppose, but I think your question involves whether knowing Jesus is (1) possible for anyone, and (2) possible for everyone. Yes to both, in my opinion. Exclusive to the degree that only some might participate? No, I don't think so.

 

And to End3's well-framed question, what is it to me personally, sans scripture. It began in a real sense when I was a much younger man. I grew up Baptist; the options available were get saved, get rededicated, or get committed to full time Christian service, whatever the heck that was. Over a period of years, I was aware that there was something being offered to me personally, but hadn't a clue what it was. I'd 'gotten saved' as a child, did it again as a teen (rededicated?), tried dedicating my life to full time service, all without a lot of real change either in my soul or in my awareness of God. It was as though there was something waiting for me to grow up a bit in understanding. Years later, still aware of something being offered but no clue what it was (other than I was pretty sure it was interesting and good), I made plans with my wife to finish my current career obligations and go to bible college or some such and be a pastor. I thought I was being 'obedient to the call'. We agonized over that for several months, talking and praying and trying to get some sense of what we were supposed to do. For the first time, one day in the middle of landing airplanes (I was an air traffic controller), I felt rather precisely that God said something like I never told you to do that! It was the first in a long line of conversations with God on practical matters that has grown into a personal relationship. I offer advice, he offers insights, we negotiate good ideas into useful activities. I try to pay attention to the things he says are important. He stays close to me and my family through the hard times. He's been a faithful friend.

 

How's that?

Buddy

 

P.S. If I disappear for awhile, it's because they called my flight. London tonight & Lisbon tomorrow; 11 hours in the Lisbon airport, then overnight again to Africa.

[dunany77]

We've probably all heard the 'get it right or go to hell' version of preaching, but that's a bit of a stretch from what Jesus offered. If a way is open to anyone who is interested, easily found, easily followed, then the legalistic approach of 'get it right or die' is perhaps chasing the wrong goal.

Do you have any scripture verses to back up your claim that the offer jesus makes to the world is somehow separate from the hell and condemnation that is guaranteed for all who reject jesus christ?

 

Matthew 23:33

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

[chefranden]

If I were preaching to day, one of my campaigns would be to get rid of this "personal savior" crap.

 

You can't find this non-sense anywhere in scripture. Believers might just take the time to wonder why BibleGod bothered with prophets if he was just going to talk to any old so and so. Go and have a read of Isaiah 6 again if you ever read it to begin with. (One of my pet peeves even as a preacher was/is the appalling ignorance of Christians of their bible.)

 

From Isaiah you might get the idea that BibleGod is not just a Wilson to chat with over the back fence. BibleGod wasn't just some piece of clay you set on mantle with a basket of fruit and a candle. BibleGod wasn't no hill god pantywaist! No! Sir! BibleGod was a genuine City God. BibleGod got himself a real stone temple with a real inner sanctum, all painted up with gold and jewels and other impressive stuff. You damn sure had better wipe your feet before entering the anti-anti-chamber. And you'd better damn sure check to see if your testicles matched before you went into the anti-chamber. God isn't going to bother with scaring the crap out of you if your balls* don't match. On top of that God only let the guy with the prettiest balls into see him in person and then only once a year. God might be a lot of things, but personal he is not. God doesn't want to be your chum!

 

*And if you don't have any balls matching or not? Don't you have a load of clothes to wash?

[BuddyFerris]

We've probably all heard the 'get it right or go to hell' version of preaching, but that's a bit of a stretch from what Jesus offered. If a way is open to anyone who is interested, easily found, easily followed, then the legalistic approach of 'get it right or die' is perhaps chasing the wrong goal.

Do you have any scripture verses to back up your claim that the offer jesus makes to the world is somehow separate from the hell and condemnation that is guaranteed for all who reject jesus christ?

 

Matthew 23:33

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

If we were looking for what the 'good news' might be, your signature line wouldn't help a lot, would it. As DevaLight has pointed out, what Jesus said will be interpreted in a variety of ways, depending on the individual doing the interpreting. Some perhaps helpful guidelines in attempting an objective interpretation would include the following:

- to whom was he speaking

- in what context was the statement made (the before and after content)

- in what circumstance was the statement made (social, political, cultural, etc.)

 

For example, your quotation from Matthew 23. It seems to be spoken to the exclusionists, the religious rule makers who hadn't any interest in the kingdom of God, only in their superior position and influence. The whole chapter seems to lay out an objective view of legalism and its' adherents.

 

The before part is aimed at righteous justice; he heals the sick and gets criticized, he does good in a variety of ways and the legalists complain; people flock to him in large numbers and he heals them all; the legalists focus on trying to find some error, some fault in his reasoning; shortly afterward, he is betrayed. So it's kind of a wrapup piece, perhaps. The people appear to love him or hate him, to hear his 'good news' of the kingdom with real excitement, or to respond in anger as though perhaps their status quo were threatened.

 

Objectively, in which group would you place yourself? Are you curious if such things are possible, or threatened by the personal upheaval it would entail. Is the offer separate from the end Jesus expects? Perhaps not. Is the foretold end something Jesus would choose for you personally? Hardly. Whosoever..., etc.

 

We might ask if any warning about things to come included the desire that any should suffer in it. Usually, we ascribe the one who warns of avoidable trouble the generous motive of offering to help, not harm, by having made the effort. Unless we're legalistic. Like those to whom he spoke in the passage you quote.

 

Buddy

[Deva]

For the first time, one day in the middle of landing airplanes (I was an air traffic controller), I felt rather precisely that God said something like I never told you to do that! It was the first in a long line of conversations with God on practical matters that has grown into a personal relationship. I offer advice, he offers insights, we negotiate good ideas into useful activities. I try to pay attention to the things he says are important. He stays close to me and my family through the hard times. He's been a faithful friend.

How's that?

 

That's better Buddy. At least you spoke from your own experience. Now, how do you know that voice in your head isn't just another part of yourself that you label "God"?

[BuddyFerris]

For the first time, one day in the middle of landing airplanes (I was an air traffic controller), I felt rather precisely that God said something like I never told you to do that! It was the first in a long line of conversations with God on practical matters that has grown into a personal relationship. I offer advice, he offers insights, we negotiate good ideas into useful activities. I try to pay attention to the things he says are important. He stays close to me and my family through the hard times. He's been a faithful friend.

How's that?

 

That's better Buddy. At least you spoke from your own experience. Now, how do you know that voice in your head isn't just another part of yourself that you label "God"?

An absolutely valid question, and I'm not an expert. I suppose such things, subjective as they must be, would have to play out consistently over time. As a point of evaluation, from time to time, they should be contrary to your preference or predilections. They should be confirmed from time to time in a variety of independent ways. Did I tell you about the personal prophecy nonsense? It's popular in certain churches, I guess. We see it from time to time; I usually listen and just file it away. I don't think I'd make any decisions based on such. Occasionally, there's something startling. Some years ago, my wife and I were introduced to a couple who offered to pray over us. We'd never met, but they prayed for us and told us things about ourselves that were stunningly accurate. Blah, blah, you don't care, but the last part was interesting. The fellow stopped for a moment and asked me if I were in business. I said yes, although at the time we were on the verge of bankruptcy, just the 5 of us scrambling to keep the cash flow going. He said he had the impression we would be doing what we do internationally, far flung places, and successful. Blah, blah, I filed it away along side the note that my wife had told me she had the same impression a year earlier. Interestingly, there are 20+ of us now, the demand is pretty high, and we're in operation in various places around the country and around the world. If you'd asked me on the day I heard the 'prophecy', I'd have said the chances were nil. No financing, no prospects, no projects, no contacts, no backing, no sponsor, no business, and no chance. Go figure.

 

So, I guess my answer is that maybe you don't know right off, most times, especially early on. Later on, maybe you get better at hearing. I don't spend any time 'listening in the silence' for a voice, an answer. Never did. I'm kind of inclined to talk less, do more, and see where it all goes. It's not an easy path; don't know that I'd recommend it.

 

Here's a link to the best picture I ever took, if you're interested, from our last foray in Africa.

 

Here.

 

Buddy

[Deva]

An absolutely valid question, and I'm not an expert. I suppose such things, subjective as they must be, would have to play out consistently over time.

 

That is the key statement, my bolding. Pardon me, but you realize that your story of true prophecy, while I am sure it is most impressive and convincing to yourself, is much less so to those of us who either have never experienced such a thing or have experinced it under different circumstances.

 

Now Buddy if you had been raised a Hindu, for example, and a Vedic astrologer told you something that came true, you would be attributing that to some other God/Gods or planetery forces. It would not enter your mind to attribute it to the Christian God, would it?

 

Now I am sure you realize that you are opening yourself up to ridicule, so I will be brief. If, in fact the Christian God told you and other Christians the future correctly and consistently, what kind of world would we see around us?

[Guest end3]

Thank you for the response.

[dunany77]

Objectively, in which group would you place yourself? Are you curious if such things are possible, or threatened by the personal upheaval it would entail. Is the offer separate from the end Jesus expects? Perhaps not. Is the foretold end something Jesus would choose for you personally? Hardly. Whosoever..., etc.

I belong to neither group. I once viewed the bible literally and tried very hard to rationalize the story of jesus and man's redemption in order for it to make sense in our modern world. But this was folly. We are talking about a first and second century mythological amalgam of ancient sun gods. There is nothing about jesus that hasn't been expressed in other pagan gods. To argue theology from one source only (the old and new testaments) is to give credibility to a document that is utterly bereft of sound proof or cohesion.

 

When I asked you to back up your claim that the offer jesus makes to the world is somehow separate from the hell and condemnation that is guaranteed for all who reject him, I do so to point out to you that you can literally make the bible say what you want it to say. The reason for this is simply because there is no reason to take any of it literally. It is a myth that sets out to personify the SUN in such a way as to conjure emotion and a sense of attachment to the hero. Humans are drawn to Story and the story of the fallen hero who rises from the grave to redeem himself over his enemies is a very powerful one. It is, in essence, the ultimate revenge tale where the bad guys finally get what's coming to them.

 

If you take the bible literally, then you are forced to admit that jesus' good news is that anyone who believes he has risen will be saved from eternal damnation in hell, and free to enter into the presence of god for eternity in heaven. That is the "Good News". Jesus has no gospel if he doesn't promise hell for all who reject him. To think that his message is anything other than that, is to read into the scriptures a certain esotericism that only confuses the layman and allows the scholar to dream up all kinds of fanciful interpretations.

 

To take any of the bible literally is to miss the point (as I did once). First you must prove its credibility, honesty and veracity. Then you are free to discuss the details of "relationship" and "salvation".

[BuddyFerris]

An absolutely valid question, and I'm not an expert. I suppose such things, subjective as they must be, would have to play out consistently over time.

 

That is the key statement, my bolding. Pardon me, but you realize that your story of true prophecy, while I am sure it is most impressive and convincing to yourself, is much less so to those of us who either have never experienced such a thing or have experinced it under different circumstances.

 

Now Buddy if you had been raised a Hindu, for example, and a Vedic astrologer told you something that came true, you would be attributing that to some other God/Gods or planetery forces. It would not enter your mind to attribute it to the Christian God, would it?

 

Now I am sure you realize that you are opening yourself up to ridicule, so I will be brief. If, in fact the Christian God told you and other Christians the future correctly and consistently, what kind of world would we see around us?

Dear Lady,

We needn't overplay the single event I mentioned; I wouldn't suggest such things were particularly useful unless, as mentioned, they proved valid consistently over time along with a few other criteria. Consistency with scripture is another test I would encourage. In the case of personal prophecy, Paul was on his way to Rome, if I remember correctly, when a friend came to him, wrists bound with a belt, and said something along the line of this is what waits for you in Rome. Now I suppose that qualifies as telling the future, but I suspect it was more of a confirmation of what Paul already knew. But back to the core issue of a personal ..., etc.

 

I mention the event in the context of relationship. I made no decisions on the information, nor would I or any reasonable person be likely to do so. It was useful as encouragement and a bit of confirmation that the choice of direction we had made some years earlier was still OK. At the time, I didn't either appreciate the words nor expect much if anything to come of them. It's only in retrospect that the event is useful. The years pass, and the cumulative weight of such things is heartwarming, not unlike the constant, rock-steady love my own father showed to me all the years of his life. He never turned his back; I was his son, and his love is a great treasure. The relationship is that sort of thing.

 

I appreciate your warning that I might open myself to ridicule, although I do that be being here at all. I'm moderately thick skinned and would much rather listen to my critics than those who are too careful what they might say in my presence anyway. My time here has been personally useful thanks to the frank exchanges.

 

Now if I had been raised a Hindu, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And if a snake had legs, he wouldn't get a belly-burn from slithering across the parking lot. But I wasn't and he doesn't, and there we have it.

 

Buddy

Charter member of the 'Do It Now Foundation'

Wednesday morning, London, Heathrow

[Deva]

Now if I had been raised a Hindu, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And if a snake had legs, he wouldn't get a belly-burn from slithering across the parking lot. But I wasn't and he doesn't, and there we have it.

 

That's my whole point. We wouldn't be having this discussion. I am sure you would like to dismiss it as not applicable, but it is important. Someone from a different background and culture would have interpreted this story which you related in a completely different way. Or is it that you deny people of other religions and cultures also have these types of experiences?

 

You talk about your experiences being consistent with scripture. In what way?

[BuddyFerris]

... I once viewed the bible literally and tried very hard to rationalize the story of jesus and man's redemption in order for it to make sense in our modern world. But this was folly. We are talking about a first and second century mythological amalgam of ancient sun gods. There is nothing about jesus that hasn't been expressed in other pagan gods. To argue theology from one source only (the old and new testaments) is to give credibility to a document that is utterly bereft of sound proof or cohesion.

 

When I asked you to back up your claim that the offer jesus makes to the world is somehow separate from the hell and condemnation that is guaranteed for all who reject him, I do so to point out to you that you can literally make the bible say what you want it to say. The reason for this is simply because there is no reason to take any of it literally. It is a myth that sets out to personify the SUN in such a way as to conjure emotion and a sense of attachment to the hero. Humans are drawn to Story and the story of the fallen hero who rises from the grave to redeem himself over his enemies is a very powerful one. It is, in essence, the ultimate revenge tale where the bad guys finally get what's coming to them.

 

If you take the bible literally, then you are forced to admit that jesus' good news is that anyone who believes he has risen will be saved from eternal damnation in hell, and free to enter into the presence of god for eternity in heaven. That is the "Good News". Jesus has no gospel if he doesn't promise hell for all who reject him. To think that his message is anything other than that, is to read into the scriptures a certain esotericism that only confuses the layman and allows the scholar to dream up all kinds of fanciful interpretations.

 

To take any of the bible literally is to miss the point (as I did once). First you must prove its credibility, honesty and veracity. Then you are free to discuss the details of "relationship" and "salvation".

Thoughtful. I've been a literalist, also. I probably spent most of 3 decades doing as you did, trying to make a comprehensible theology/philosophy out of what it says. Somewhere along the way, someone wiser than I pointed out that the bible wasn't written to that end. I'm persuaded that two opposing views of scripture differ on precisely that point. Should (or does) the bible speak authoritatively (probably) and comprehensively (probably not, from my view) to all today's cultures and varied circumstances. On the assumption that the bible is all God might ever have said or might need to say, it falls short. On the assumption that it is authoritative and representative of what God might say and how he might interact with the creation, it's spectacular.

 

You can follow the thoughts of Jesus (the Kingdom is here) through Paul's application for the Roman world. To the Jews, Jesus spoke to the culture and current political circumstance in clearly understandable terms from their point of view. Paul carries the same message, framed in terms assimilable by his readers. The citizens of the Roman empire were known as the body politic and Caesar was its' head. Paul uses that concept, so precisely familiar in the minds of his readers, and describes the kingdom as a body, the believers as members of that body, and Jesus as its' head.

 

On the assumption that the 'good news' is in fact so universally translatable and applicable, I would expect literally every person who tried to be a literalist regarding the bible would crash big time. Many do. Many others live with high-stress intellectual inconsistencies and don't have a clue how to reconcile it all. Been there, just like you.

 

Your first and second century mythological amalgam granted (at least in part), a first century message needs translation into a twenty-first century life in action.

 

Buddy

_{To talk or to do. Life's dividing line.}

[BuddyFerris]

Now if I had been raised a Hindu, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And if a snake had legs, he wouldn't get a belly-burn from slithering across the parking lot. But I wasn't and he doesn't, and there we have it.

 

That's my whole point. We wouldn't be having this discussion. I am sure you would like to dismiss it as not applicable, but it is important. Someone from a different background and culture would have interpreted this story which you related in a completely different way. Or is it that you deny people of other religions and cultures also have these types of experiences?

 

You talk about your experiences being consistent with scripture. In what way?

On consistency, here's an old joke; a fellow opens the bible each morning and puts his finger on a random scripture as the 'counsel of God' for the day. Comes the unfortunate day when the fingered verse is, "Judas went and hanged himself." Assuming a more useful verse might show up if he tried again, he gets, "Go thou and do likewise."

 

Not something you might find suggested by the church fathers as a devotional practice. Not consistent with what Jesus taught or what Paul or James or John laid out for the believers.

 

I'm allergic to the spooky-pooky stuff that I can't find any support for in the bible. Doesn't mean I'm right, by any means. The laughing and falling down stuff looked pretty foolish; we're gonna have to watch for the fruit of that stuff, I suppose, before we can say it was something God had a hand in or not. My experience with both was pointed and emphatic; it's filed away with a lot of other stuff.

 

I require of myself, as a point of intellectual honesty, that I make a genuine attempt at objectivity. That includes the liberal arts approach (science, philosophy, history) to understanding. Not claiming to have answers to everything, you understand; just working hard not to be dishonest with myself.

 

I don't by any means discount your comment on the difference growing up in another culture might bring. That's a large subject that needs a context larger than we're embarked upon here; I've got some partially formed thoughts that I'd like to float out there for discussion and critique sometime. Perhaps you'll raise the issue again after we've covered enough ground on relationship.

 

 

You mention my experience with prophecy compared to that of some here. "Thus-a sayeth-a the Lord-a", I suppose. Is that what you were alluding to? I've seen a lot; I give credence to only a little, and I'm inclined to a different place for such 'gifts' in the church than what perhaps we might find among the fundamentalist/evangelical crowds.

Tongues is the least of the gifts, interpretation ranks next, I suppose, and prophecy is up there as far as gifts go. But the gifts aren't central to anything; they're barely peripheral, ranking as a class about on par with showing up to be with friends for worship, and doing so with a good heart. The gifts are showy, sometimes, and persuasive to non-believers, not-so-often, and a good add-on to genuine friendship (fellowship). Attempted by themselves, without organic context, they're pretty annoying.

 

Does that sort of answer the question? I have a tendency to ramble.

 

 

 

Buddy

[Deva]

Not something you might find suggested by the church fathers as a devotional practice. Not consistent with what Jesus taught or what Paul or James or John laid out for the believers.

 

They said a lot of things. I suppose you don't want to be more specific.

 

I still don't see that there is anything to this "personal relationship" thing than what I said before:

I am convinced that a "personal relationship with Christ" is nothing more than relabelling one's own internal dialogue so that, with enough mental gymnastics, one can convince oneself that part of that dialogue comes from an invisible man named "Jesus". And this is supposed to be spiritual?

 

If you had been raised in another country with a different book, instead of "Jesus" it would be "Krishna" or "Allah" or "Ahura Mazda" or whatever else you had been raised to revere. In difficult times it is comforting to imagine you have guidence from above, especially if things work out well for you. Its really the voice of your own self.

 

Even if possible, I would not want a relationship with BibleGod in any event. As Dunany said :

 

Jesus has no gospel if he doesn't promise hell for all who reject him. To think that his message is anything other than that, is to read into the scriptures a certain esotericism that only confuses the layman and allows the scholar to dream up all kinds of fanciful interpretations

.

 

The core of the gospel is that Jesus saves us from "sin". Humanity is "condemned". Not a pretty picture but one that is there very definately in the Bible. I think I would pick someone else to have a relationship with-- someone who didn't look down on me as corrupt and condemned and fit for hell. You can't sugar coat this Buddy. This is the view of Bible God toward humanity.