What Is A Personal Relationship With Christ?

[dunany77]

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.

Please elaborate on WHY the bible should speak authoritatively on anything. By what authority do a few first century romans and jews have to write a story that is not to be taken literally?

 

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.

Assumption? Might say? Might interact? Why should we assume anything the bible says to be true if it cannot be taken literally? Is it because it 'feels' right? It 'sounds' good? Which parts of the bible do you choose to believe and which parts do you choose to reject and by whose authority do you claim to do this?

 

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.

You assume that the 'good news' is universally translatable and then you turn around and say that anyone who takes it literally is bound to "crash big time". So, if I understand you correctly, the Gospel that jesus preaches (repent for your sins, believe and be saved from hell, reject and be condemned to hell) is a message that all mankind universally understands. But to take jesus literally is to take a trip into madness.

 

What then is the point in trying to defend something that you believe isn't real?

 

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.

ALL first century writings, beliefs, gods and religious practices need to be understood together in context, and be used as a tool to interperet civilization at that point in history. The history of human thought is the evolution of ideas. Each age of human philosophy is a moment captured in time of what we believed based on the information available. 2000 years has given us plenty of time to make a more educated guess about the nature of the universe. Why base your current view of the universe on a first century, anonymous document that is not to be taken literally?

[BuddyFerris]

...

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.

That's about what most evangelicals would say. They'd probably add some points about justification by grace through faith and salvation being a free gift.

Buddy

[Deva]

That's about what most evangelicals would say. They'd probably add some points about justification by grace through faith and salvation being a free gift.

Buddy

 

Yes they would, because it is in the Bible. It is mainly, but not solely, in the ravings of the Apostle Paul. Complete hogwash from start to finish (and I am being polite here). If you think you are in a position to prove differently, I would like to see the evidence, if you want to start another thread. For now, I would like to stick to the matter at hand, if you please - what makes you think this so-called "relationship" is anything more than different parts of your mind conversing in an internal dialogue?

 

Or do we have your final word on the matter with your story on fulfilled prophecy?

[BuddyFerris]

[... - what makes you think this so-called "relationship" is anything more than different parts of your mind conversing in an internal dialogue?

 

Or do we have your final word on the matter with your story on fulfilled prophecy?

Dear Lady,

I doubt anyone who knows me would believe that 'final word' part.

 

I'd like to be able to offer something scientific, I suppose, but as we've agreed, conversation with God, if there is such, is a highly subjective activity. The premise is that there is a God, and that he's communicative. Given that, the personal evaluation of such conversations would follow a reasonable path. Deny the existence of God, and the alternative you offer is therefore more reasonable.

 

For the sake of conversation, then, grant me for a moment (just hypothetically, of course) that if there were a loving God, inclined to communicate with us, we would be able experientially to validate or invalidate our observations following some reasonable set of criteria, much like we do in learning to trust or believe (or not) each other. Sequential events, evaluated honestly, point with progressively improving confidence to a conclusion.

 

In the assumed absence of a communicative God who genuinely cares for you, any such experience would be dismissed with or without explanation.

 

Can you know Jesus? I think rather strongly that you can and certainly may. I know you think otherwise and don't fault you for it. I presume you've arrived at your position carefully and honestly and with good reason. I like to think I have as well.

 

Buddy,

Wednesday evening in Lisbon, waiting for a midnight-thirty flight. I hate this part.

[BuddyFerris]

Somewhere along the way, ....

Please elaborate on WHY ...

 

On the assumption ...

... Which parts of the bible do you choose to believe and which parts do you choose to reject and by whose authority do you claim to do this?

 

... Been there, just like you.

... What then is the point in trying to defend something that you believe isn't real?

 

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.

... Why base your current view of the universe on a first century, anonymous document that is not to be taken literally?

Shall I call you Dunany?

 

Our friend DevaLight has brought us back to the thread's original issue of a personal relationship with Jesus, so I hope you'll forgive me for not answering your questions right away. Perhaps a little later.

Buddy

[Deva]

I doubt anyone who knows me would believe that 'final word' part.

 

I didn't really think so, but you seemed to have nothing else to offer as evidence. As it is, its pretty poor. I know you just like to play games anyway, not much to do at the airport, is there?

 

I'd like to be able to offer something scientific, I suppose, but as we've agreed, conversation with God, if there is such, is a highly subjective activity

 

I am sure you would, but "a personal relationship with Christ" is hardly provable in a laboratory with the scientific method nor is it "scientific" in any other way unless you wish to twist the meaning of the word. I am surprised you would even bother using it.

 

The premise is that there is a God, and that he's communicative.

 

I am not willing to grant you that premise. It doesn't make any sense. Even if I did, which god are we talking about and how would you distinguish them? This is why our friend Dunany is still on topic. Very clever and evasive of you to try to say its all now off topic. It all comes back to the authority of the Bible. I simply didn't want to go down the path of which are "true" Christians or not and which have the "true" interpretation - but maybe that's what it really boils down to though, isn't it? All your "evidence" that a loving and caring God is talking to you comes from a book. Or, do you deny that? Otherwise, how would you know the attributes of your God? If it isn't based upon Biblical authority we may let it slide but if it isn't, how can you refer to yourself as a Christian?

 

Deny the existence of God, and the alternative you offer is therefore more reasonable.

 

Ridiculous. I don't think you know what my "alternative" is. God may certainly exist and not wish to communicate with humans. Or, maybe humans are God - have you read the Upanishads?

 

For the sake of conversation, then, grant me for a moment (just hypothetically, of course) that if there were a loving God, inclined to communicate with us, we would be able experientially to validate or invalidate our observations following some reasonable set of criteria, much like we do in learning to trust or believe (or not) each other. Sequential events, evaluated honestly, point with progressively improving confidence to a conclusion.

 

That's way too much for me to grant you, Buddy, even hypothetically. You can't prove Biblegod is speaking to you.

 

Can you know Jesus?

 

Of course you can, with enough mental gymnastics, imagination and self-deception.

[dunany77]

Our friend DevaLight has brought us back to the thread's original issue of a personal relationship with Jesus, so I hope you'll forgive me for not answering your questions right away. Perhaps a little later.

Buddy

I do believe our friend DevaLight has given us the authorization to proceed with our discussion. I eagerly await your response.

[BuddyFerris]

... So, to any and all Christians--- I have heard this phrase all my life and just don't get it. Explain to me what a "personal relationship" with Christ is. Please don't just quote verses out of the Bible. Explain to me what this "relationship" consists of in a real life, day-to-day basis and what it personally means to you.

 

It's the "heart of Christianity" so it must not be too hard to explain, right?

Here's where we began, dear lady. What does this relationship consist of in real life, day-to-day; what does it personally mean to me.

 

Answered, if briefly.

 

You've asked how I might know that what I experience isn't a delusion. For me, it's the same as any other emerging understanding. Process, experiment, observation, analysis, conclusion.

 

You complain (politely) that I've offered little credible evidence. I've offered none, but I have described my experience in relationship as you asked.

 

If you'd like me to prove it so that you're persuaded, you've already stated that that won't happen. I haven't tried.

 

I've been asked both to give my description without quoting scripture and to cite scriptural references for my conclusions. It isn't needed for this question, but it might be an interesting aside.

 

I don't think you know what my "alternative" is.

Your offered alternative, "Its really the voice of your own self."

 

I joined the thread because it's an interesting question, worthy of serious thought by a believer. I have a long established conviction regarding God, his love, and his willingness to be involved in my life. It's the result of decades of thought and care and won't be discarded lightly. I've been profitably challenged on this site. Alice and Antlerman particularly have required that I review the convictions I hold, and I appreciate it. Skip's a hoot, and a nice guy to boot, but don't tell him I said so. The thing I've appreciated the most is not the harangue that so easily springs up, but the thoughtful exchanges.

 

How might we profitably go forward from here? I've read the thread, and I'm actually interested.

 

Hope you're well and happy.

 

Buddy

In Africa, finally. Hot, sweaty, tired. Time for a shave and breakfast; then to work.

[Deva]

I've been asked both to give my description without quoting scripture and to cite scriptural references for my conclusions. It isn't needed for this question, but it might be an interesting aside.

 

Why isn't it?

 

I don't think you know what my "alternative" is.

Your offered alternative, "Its really the voice of your own self."

 

You are rephrasing. You stated first that this "alternative" denies the existence of God by prefacing your remark with "Deny the existence of God...". My remark doesn't deny the existence of God, and you know it.

 

How might we profitably go forward from here? I've read the thread, and I'm actually interested.

 

I don't know. Anyone can say anything and it be true for them in their own subjective experience. Your wording " Process, experiment, observation, analysis, conclusion" can only be meaningful to you, since we get no details. It doesn't mean anything to anyone else. I think I'm done. Maybe you could start answering Dunany's questions.

[JernJane]

The main effect the personal relationship with Jesus Christ had on me was guilt. Guilt, guilt and more guilt, and increasingly so. If you believe in Jesus Christ, if you believe in your personal relationship with him, you treat him like you would treat a real person. You also love him like you love anyone else, but you're required to love him more. Your devotion to him should be stronger, or else you're not worthy of him.

 

You can't keep his rules, or make him happy, so you just end up with the worst self-confidence in the world, you have no belief in yourself, and you're even told that self-belief is a sin! What rubbish! If you can't trust yourself, who the hell can you trust? How do you know right from wrong, truth from lies? The answer is - you don't! You get it dictated by people who have been dead for the last 1900-3000 years, most of whose existence you don't even see evidence of!

[BuddyFerris]

I've been asked both to give my description without quoting scripture and to cite scriptural references for my conclusions. It isn't needed for this question, but it might be an interesting aside.

 

Why isn't it?

 

I don't think you know what my "alternative" is.

Your offered alternative, "Its really the voice of your own self."

 

You are rephrasing. You stated first that this "alternative" denies the existence of God by prefacing your remark with "Deny the existence of God...". My remark doesn't deny the existence of God, and you know it.

 

... Maybe you could start answering Dunany's questions.

Dear Lady,

On the question of personal relationship, the substance is not in what you read about it but in what you do, at least from my point of view.

 

My apologies. I presumed from what I thought you saying that you were declining the hypothesis on that basis.

 

I'll back up and take a look at Dunany's questions. I don't know that I'll have adequate answers, but perhaps the conversation will be profitable.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

The main effect the personal relationship with Jesus Christ had on me was guilt. Guilt, guilt and more guilt, and increasingly so. If you believe in Jesus Christ, if you believe in your personal relationship with him, you treat him like you would treat a real person. You also love him like you love anyone else, but you're required to love him more. Your devotion to him should be stronger, or else you're not worthy of him.

 

You can't keep his rules, or make him happy, so you just end up with the worst self-confidence in the world, you have no belief in yourself, and you're even told that self-belief is a sin! What rubbish! If you can't trust yourself, who the hell can you trust? How do you know right from wrong, truth from lies? The answer is - you don't! You get it dictated by people who have been dead for the last 1900-3000 years, most of whose existence you don't even see evidence of!

Dear JernJane,

 

Thanks for the candid description. Reading it, I realize I've experienced at least some of what you tell, and thinking further, I doubt any believer has been completely free from what you describe. My own imperfection still sets me back a bit from time to time. I had particularly difficulty loving Jesus more than ___ (fill in the blank) when I was younger, and the '... or else you're not worthy of him' element bothered me as well.

 

I've left a lot of the guilt motivation behind over the years. Not all of it, probably. It's hard to shake off, I think, but it's not something Jesus endorsed. '... free from guilt and shame' is supposed to be part of the package. Teaching otherwise would be both unbiblical and unchristian in my thinking; I'm pretty hard over on that subject. Guilt doesn't motivate good character, just suppressed behavior and pain.

 

I'd like to offer a couple of ideas about love that occurred to me while reading your post. I'd be interested in your thoughts afterward.

 

I love my wife. We've been married for decades, and I've loved her more all along the way. Early on, there was this preponderance of feelings which I interpreted as love, but which were more accurately described as attraction, affection, enjoyment, and appreciation for how she made me feel. All are valid and elements of love, but they were side notes along the path to something much grander.

 

I stumbled over not having a lot of 'feelings' about Jesus. I didn't get it. I'm supposed to love him with all my heart, etc., but the feelings don't line up. In the same manner that I've grown up in love for my wife, I think we're supposed to do similarly in our relationship with God, and feelings aren't the measuring tool.

 

Loving my wife, if we're going to use the richer traditional concepts, is not something I feel; it's something I do. Actually, it's everything I do. The choices I made after we were married began to reflect her interests as well as my own. I began valuing her opinion and trusting her as an intimate counselor. I began encouraging her in her efforts to become more than the 19 yr old bubble-gummer I married. I encouraged her in education and skill development, it broader thinking and deeper meanings, etc., and I held her up when things didn't go so well. She returned the same, investing her heart and life in me as I struggled to be a man in a somewhat confusing world. In retrospect, the substance of love is investment in the other; imperfect at every stage, still it grows and reaches for better. She never struggled with whether or not she was 'worthy' of me; my love for her was much to compelling to allow that to become a question. She's the joy of my life and the center of my world, and she knows it. There weren't any rules beyond the vow to 'love, honor, and cherish, good times or bad, til death do us part.' And beyond, if things work out the way I think they will.

 

I wonder as I write if God doesn't have a similar heart toward us and a love too grand for small details like imperfection.

 

I wouldn't attempt to dissuade you from your convictions, but I wonder if your experience didn't include some unrealistic expectations on what loving Jesus was all about. Thoughts?

 

Buddy

Last note; my wife tells of having a fairly painful self-image as a teen. Love drew her out, raised her up; she's a magnificent woman. From college drop-out to sought-after teacher and powerful roll-model, and it only took 37 (I think) years.

[Deva]

On the question of personal relationship, the substance is not in what you read about it but in what you do, at least from my point of view. My apologies. I presumed from what I thought you saying that you were declining the hypothesis on that basis.

 

I have no clue what you are talking about. Where did I say a personal relationship is actually based upon what you read about rather than what you do? That's the Christian position, not mine. Their "relationship with God" is entirely based upon the Bible otherwise they wouldn't have any idea which "god" is speaking to them.

[dunany77]

I'll back up and take a look at Dunany's questions. I don't know that I'll have adequate answers, but perhaps the conversation will be profitable.

I'm all ears!

[florduh]

The "personal relationship with Christ" is what the Christian who is weak on theology falls back on to get at least an emotional connection if not an intellectual one.

 

It is also what the Christian who is strong on theology falls back on when his understanding of the Bible, the only basis for his belief, has developed to the point he cannot ignore the inconsistencies and mistakes, but just can't let go of his beloved religion.

 

In those two instances, the emotional satisfaction of an imagined relationship with a supernatural being can be the only comfort left for them. Many nominal Christians fall between these extremes, and they don't claim or emphasize the "relationship" aspect.

[JernJane]

EDIT: As I read over the post, I realized it seems more aggressive than what it is meant to be. Please take that into account when reading.

 

Loving my wife, (...) is not something I feel; it's something I do. Actually, it's everything I do.

 

It seems to me that what I said has come across to you as love=feelings. Well, it's both feelings and actions, but it's the feelings that lead to the action. Call it gratitude, call it whatever you like, there is definately an emotional connection between loving somebody and showing it.

 

I wonder as I write if God doesn't have a similar heart toward us and a love too grand for small details like imperfection.

 

You may think that, and that's fine with me, but it doesn't agree with the Bible. The Bible clearly says that if you break one commandment, you've broken them all - i.e. you're spiritually dead and estranged from God. In Protestant circles, you're estranged from God from the moment you come into being due to your inherited sinful nature anyway.

 

I wouldn't attempt to dissuade you from your convictions, but I wonder if your experience didn't include some unrealistic expectations on what loving Jesus was all about. Thoughts?

 

Unrealistic according to what? According to reason - yes certainly. According to the Bible - certainly not. My expectations were derived from the Bible because I did believe in God. I did believe in the promises of the Bible. I did believe that I should be better than I was, and according to the Bible's teachings, I should be! Now, anyone with the slightest touch of reason knows that no person is perfect. That's no excuse before the God of the Bible though - it's all the more reason for him to send us all to hell. Jesus clearly says that one should hate one's family by comparison to one's love for Jesus. Unrealistic? Of course, but it's his demands (or whoever wrote his lines). I didn't make them up myself.

 

Buddy, judging from your post, you seem like the sort of sensible Christian to me - a moderate who doesn't take the Bible literally, and filters out what is reasonable and what is not. This is, I believe, the only way to remain reasonable as a Christian, but I was a faith-head. You must understand that I was taught that the Bible was the inerrant Word of God, and I believed it as such. I spent 5 years debating Neo-Charismatics and Catholics because I believed they were going to hell. I believed they had been deceived by the devil, into believing in "another Jesus" (Galatians 3).

 

Whenever I encountered Bible passages that didn't make sense because they contradicted another passage, or 10 other passages, I would lean on my theology. I would think private thoughts inside my own head, trying to find a solution - a compromise between the two passages which would not deny either one of them. In the end, I found it was all bullshit.

 

If such a thing as a God truly exists and is anything remotely like something or someone worth worshipping, then I believe his smile upon me would be broader now than it was when I was a Christian. A good God would value honesty rather than self-delusion, courage rather than theological cowardice and science would not be his enemy, but his friend.

[Antlerman]

I wonder as I write if God doesn't have a similar heart toward us and a love too grand for small details like imperfection.

Well now that view of God doesn't fit the experience of what most of our churches conveyed in the image of God they taught to us. God cared very much about not sinning, and this constant threat of backsliding, being spewed out, judging sinners, etc, portrayed a god who was very much concerned about imperfection. So much so that he will sit on a Great White Throne judging the whole world.

 

The husband/wife relationship is all good and fine in redefining God to fit our culture's value system (as God has always been fit to a culture's current reflection of themself). But in defining that relationship in Biblical terms, you have submission and obedience going on. My partner (wife for all intents and purposes), is in no way shape or form expected to be obedient to me, nor submissive to my will! Furthermore, I am not the head of the household, nor is she. That's why we are partners, which frankly has a better word meaning conveyed than husband and wife does, with it's history rooted in property rights and ownership.

 

What analogy better fits is that of parent and child. Where we are supposedly not capable of being fully realized people, being dependent on the parent for our very lives. In this case submission to will makes sense. Otherwise you degrade the value of an adult human by expecting that sort of a role in a relationship.

 

But I appreciate your sentiments, that a love that was truly grand, truly pure and boundless, would in fact not be concerned with the imperfections. That God would love all humans, and would be something bigger than what is portrayed in the traditional Roman church-approved books of the Bible.

 

What is imperfection to God, if not sin?

 

Last note; my wife tells of having a fairly painful self-image as a teen. Love drew her out, raised her up; she's a magnificent woman. From college drop-out to sought-after teacher and powerful roll-model, and it only took 37 (I think) years.

It's usually the love of a peer that has meaning like this. A parent's love is important, in fact crucial in many ways, but the love of an equal is one that promotes certain sense of "affirmation" that helps us to find the potentials of ourselves - in ourselves. It doesn't come from the other person, but from yourself. The other person is helpful in offering a positive mirror in which to see ourselves, but the light is your own and it comes from inside. Friendships just help us to bring that out.

 

Now to the Christian concept of relationship. You have no worth or value in yourself. It comes entirely from Christ. That's Biblical. Period.

 

So what you're saying is wonderful. I respect it. But it's not a traditional Christian concept. It's a human one. If you wish to see God as reflecting this, then that's great. But it is reflective of modern sensibilities projected onto the symbol of God. That's fine if it helps to externalize it symbolically like this. They're great values. But to people who were taught the literal interpretation of those words from the Bible, were conflicted in trying to fit the traditional Christian God into our modern value system where relationships are equals, and we value the dignity of humans.

 

We would have preferred God to look more - loving. But alas, the fundamentalist's God is 2000 years too old. There's too a great of a generational gap in that relationship for it to work. Your God must be much closer to your age for you than he was for us.

[dunany77]

This thread has made me do a lot of thinking about how I related to god when I was a xian. I fully admit that I had tried very hard to convince myself that my "internal dialogue" (thanks to DevaLight for the expression) was in fact me talking with the holy spirit. It was also a relationship with the Trinity - the father and the son and the holy spirit, and I visualized my small life in relation to these mammoth figures of the spiritual realm.

 

God the father was the quintessential King in a very medieval sense. He was unapproachable except by begging on my knees and prostrating myself on the floor before his majestic throne. He was the Great Judge and the Silent One. He also had all the traits that my own father had in terms of being judgmental and never being satisfied with imperfection. I had a very romantic view of The Father as I imagined myself as a type of Sir Galahad who seeks out truth, purity and charity to gain the favor of the father. I loved reading the stories of King David who "had a heart for god". His sins gave me hope that I too could find favor with the Father. This God never left the throne, was always very very big, like I was the size of one of his toes, and I could never visualize his face because the light emanating from him was so bright. And he was terrifying to behold.

 

Jesus Christ was god's PR man. I could look him in the eye and go man to man with him. He knew me inside and out and was a brother/friend/mentor/teacher to me. I always cried out to Jesus when I had "spiritual attacks" or had a family crisis. He's the go-to guy for all my daily troubles. He would appear in my dreams dressed in the robes and the beard and just smiled. He had that smile that says, "I know what your going through, you're a fuck-up like everyone else, but it's ok. I'm here now". And I actually, sincerely loved jesus. He was the only one who was human enough to "communicate" with.

 

The holy spirit accounted for all the weird stuff that happens in life that can't be understood. Every coincidence, every well timed phone call, every perfect parking spot was thanks to the holy spirit. I tried to visualize him/it but all I could get was some kind of mysterious Casper the friendly Ghost who flies this way and that, doing gods will. Definitely the most impersonal of the trinity.

 

All these thoughts were visualized repeatedly in my head to the point that they became a regular part of my psyche. I could not imagine life without them. Only when I looked at the actual bible for all its mistakes, contradictions and lies, did the bubble burst and my mind was free from the big brother surveillance. Only the TRUTH set me FREE. Now I know that the relationship was a synthetic one based on my own desire to live my life from the biblical worldview. In the end the relationship was really with myself. But it was a fallacy.

 

Now I can relate to myself as an individual with a single mind that is whole. The ghosts are gone for good.

[Jedah]

TL;DR It's basically assigning an imaginary friend to your conscience.

[dunany77]

TL;DR It's basically assigning an imaginary friend to your conscience.

Ya, the Holy Trinity of Me, Myself and I.

[Guest end3]

Now to the Christian concept of relationship. You have no worth or value in yourself. It comes entirely from Christ. That's Biblical. Period.

 

By the declarative "Period" on the end of this statement, I am understanding that you have the complete answer to the assumption behind the statement?

 

VAINGLORY! (Stolen from Brother Jeff)

[BuddyFerris]

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.

 

Please elaborate on WHY the bible should speak authoritatively on anything. By what authority do a few first century romans and jews have to write a story that is not to be taken literally?

 

Sure, friend. Let's clarify what I said a bit, if you don't mind, beginning with 'literally'.

 

I'm persuaded that the bible is as it presents itself to be. A collection of inspired writings conveying the writers' understanding of things. That's kind of basic. I'm inclined not to fantasize about what they may have meant, and to be satisfied with what they said. I'm also inclined to avoid reading too much into the text, but rather to consider who said it, to whom it was said, and the circumstances at the time. That's probably enough to start with.

 

Do I believe the bible should be taken literally? I don't think it should be taken anywhere. Especially, I don't think it should be taken out of the context in which it was given and inserted as a tool of policy in an institution. The 'literalists' to whom I refer are those who use the bible as a rod to control sheep, or to corral the flock. That's not the context in which it was given.

 

Having said that, why should the bible speak authoritatively on any issue? Pick one; honesty, integrity, love, grace, forgiveness, anger, marriage, children, work, business, or whatever. Got a favorite?

 

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

Loving my wife, (...) is not something I feel; it's something I do. Actually, it's everything I do.

 

It seems to me that what I said has come across to you as love=feelings. Well, it's both feelings and actions, but it's the feelings that lead to the action. Call it gratitude, call it whatever you like, there is definately an emotional connection between loving somebody and showing it.

 

Like a breath of fresh air is a reasonable response.

Forgive me for being brief here, but it's post-lunch and time to get back to work, but I'd like to agree with you for the sake of expanding the concept you've laid out.

 

I agree, emotions and actions are interrelated; intimately. I have a question, though, about feelings leading the way to actions. I think it's a choice, or perhaps should be. Either our feelings lead us to decisions and actions, or our character chooses a course of action and the feelings go along for the ride. If you, as a function of integrity, make a hard and unpleasant choice and endure the unpleasant but necessary and right aftermath, you've probably gone against your feelings, and did well in doing so. Doing what's right rather than what's most pleasant is commendable.

 

There is, as you say, definitely an emotional connection between loving somebody and showing it. Absolutely. But are we primarily responders, feeling our way through life? Might we not be something a little less self centered and perhaps more attuned to justice and mercy, or generosity and compassion, or you name it?

 

I genuinely want to respond to the rest of your post, plus I notice a couple of others have joined the thread with thoughtful contributions.

 

Yours wasn't aggressive. I've seen aggressive.

Buddy

[MathGeek]

Sure, friend. Let's clarify what I said a bit, if you don't mind, beginning with 'literally'.

 

I'm persuaded that the bible is as it presents itself to be. A collection of inspired writings conveying the writers' understanding of things. That's kind of basic. I'm inclined not to fantasize about what they may have meant, and to be satisfied with what they said. I'm also inclined to avoid reading too much into the text, but rather to consider who said it, to whom it was said, and the circumstances at the time. That's probably enough to start with.

 

Do I believe the bible should be taken literally? I don't think it should be taken anywhere. Especially, I don't think it should be taken out of the context in which it was given and inserted as a tool of policy in an institution. The 'literalists' to whom I refer are those who use the bible as a rod to control sheep, or to corral the flock. That's not the context in which it was given.

 

Having said that, why should the bible speak authoritatively on any issue? Pick one; honesty, integrity, love, grace, forgiveness, anger, marriage, children, work, business, or whatever. Got a favorite?

 

Buddy

 

Number one, you may a key mistake in your first paragraph. If you were taking or dare I say 'debating' theology with any kind of Christian literalist, he or she would go as far to call you a 'heathen' and 'a false teacher'. I have seen this behavior between two different fringe Christian groups as documented here...

 

 

I am sure you have a vast knowledge of Christian theology and history, so I venture to guess you are familiar with the strife of the Reformation. Taking the Bible 'in context' or 'literally' or 'as seen through a human eyes by God' are all flawed positions, because Christians and non-believers alike have a history of disagreement on what the Bible means, let alone which translation should be used. Therefore, anything a Christian says about what a personal relationship with Christ should mean is ultimately a flawed line of reasoning.

 

Number two, you commit a fatal mistake for your cause in life. All Christians branches use the bible to speak authoritatively on things. Let me explain my argument mathematically...

 

Degree of Fundamentalism = Degree of Literalism of Biblical Interpretation * Degree of Motivation to serve

 

Or D(F) = D(L) * D(M)

 

This equation fits every Christian denomination around the horn.

 

For example, United Methodists...

 

Less Fundamental on Homosexuality = Low Regard for the Pentateuch * High Degree to serve God

More Fundamental on Serving Mankind = High Regard for the Red Words in the Gospels * High Degree to serve God

 

For example, Westboro Baptist Church...

 

Most Fundamental on Homosexuality = High Regard for the Bible * High Degree to serve God

Most Fundamental on Hating Mankind = High Regard for the Bible * High Degree to serve God

 

The parameters you select for D(L) and D(M) allows for any person to critically analyze what any Christian denomination believes.

 

And this type of thought and action has led to the schismatic behavior among Christians, and human action combined with varying interpretations of the Bible has led to likely why many have given up the faith entirely.

 

Therefore, anything a Christian says about a personal relationship is automatically up for scrutiny. Christians are known by their fruits and when we former believers don't see those fruits, we expose for what you really...another human being.

[Antlerman]

Now to the Christian concept of relationship. You have no worth or value in yourself. It comes entirely from Christ. That's Biblical. Period.

 

By the declarative "Period" on the end of this statement, I am understanding that you have the complete answer to the assumption behind the statement?

The Apostle Paul does:

 

"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me" Ga. 2:20

 

and again,

"Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. " Ro. 7:24-25

 

Is my statement accurately reflecting Paul's definitive statements here, or am I exaggerating?

 

Edit: Personally I think the Bible teaches a lot of contradictory positions in regards to this question, which is why you had the "heresy" of Pelagius who taught that man was inherently good and that Jesus was more of a guide. My statement of "period" is directed at those who see the Bible and the writings of Paul as authoritative, following Augustinian theology which teaches that man is inherently bad and needs to turn to religion (and consequently control of the Church in its teachings) for salvation. You don't have worth according to this doctrine. It's doctrine, and by default with doctrine there is a big "Period" at the end of it.

 

VAINGLORY! (Stolen from Brother Jeff)

No kidding. I've always said that of the Apostle Paul, who made that definitive statement. Vainglorious bastard, he.