Christians: Define A Personal Relationship With Jesus

[Astreja]

Steve, it is simply not possible for any of your videos to have "the truth" about My atheism, or any other individual's atheism. You aren't a mind reader, and neither is the creator of the video. You are simply not in a position to tell us what we believe or do not believe, and why. At best you can observe our external behaviours and attempt to guess what we might be thinking.

 

If you had been paying attention -- And I don't think you have been, based on the fact that you apparently completely missed a Moderator warning -- you might have noticed that we aren't impressed with your messages. Perhaps you should try a completely different way of conversing with us, lest you be shown the door.

[Ramen666]

I want to say that this thread is a very good read. Second I want to chime in, so I try to ask the same question. The point of this thread is not for you to tell us why we need Jesus or anything like that. We don't care about Bible verses either, that is not what is being asked. I will try to explain what is being asked, even though it has been mentioned many times for you.

 

Within Christianity they use the term it is a "relationship with Jesus". So what is being asked in this thread, explain in detail a day to day relationship with Jesus. Since it is a personal relationship, it should not have any Bible verses in it. It should be your own personal activities of you and Jesus.

 

You are the primary source, since YOU are having the "personal relationship" with Jesus. It is up to you to define what is exactly that is. Again day to day activities you have with Jesus.

[midniterider]

For me, I would personally describe a personal relationship with Jesus as a set of lenses or a state of mind. 

 

Jesus  = Endorphins, not actually interacting with a real person. Thank you for the clarification.

[thereisnoperfect]

I watched the rest of the stupid video. Nobody else should waste your time on it. It's crap. 

 

Specifically: the speaker takes arbitrary quotes from people and then focuses on the parts that (seem to) support his view and just ignores or outright accuses of lying the people he quotes who don't support it.

 

The underlying idea is that "meaning" is only something absolute, and only something that matters if it lasts for eternity, and that people who reject imposed meaning are doing so only out of a personal desire for "freedom" (which basically seems to stand in for "ability to to bad things"). 

 

When he encounters the correct idea that people have to create meaning, he dismisses that and suggests that it's a lie. And then he says that people can't hold such a worldview and live with themselves--despite all the people who have done so, including many of the people he is quoting. On the whole, cherry-picked, out of context, illogical, and certainly not respectful of the actual perspective of real atheists (or agnostics, or skeptics, etc.). The mere existence of existentialism disproves most of the central points of this talk.

 

And to be clear, if I have to pick a label for myself, it's agnostic.

 

So it's one of those things that's only persuasive to people who already start out agreeing with it. But it is very condescending and takes its assumptions as true without ever examining them--which may strike some of you as familiar.

 

 

And as to the thread itself, and to Steve's response to the poll--here's part of me. Steve, pay attention, 'cause I have a question for you.

 

At one time, years ago, during prayerful meditation, I saw (in my mind, that is) Jesus come up to me and put his wounded hand on my forehead, marking me with his blood. I was deeply moved by this. I was almost ashamed to share it because it seemed too special. And I was sure, at the time, that it could not have come from me--that it had to come from God.

 

And for about a decade, I continued to hold on to that as a kind of evidence that there had to be something beyond me that was communicating with me.

 

I also with some frequency over the course of many years had the experience of feeling "led" to certain things--to a longer fast, to need to think about something a certain way. I thought those things came from God. I certainly was 100% that I had a personal relationship with Jesus.

 

So Steve, is that personal enough for you? Visions of Jesus spending time with me, being led by him?

 

And to be fully honest, I cannot now offer any proof that my vision did NOT come from beyond me. But neither can I offer any proof that it DID. And I have come to understand enough about how all kinds of things work to realize that the Bible cannot be the flawless communication of a flawless and loving God.

 

Do you really think that people who have torn up their lives, their relationships, their reputations, and in some cases their careers really "haven't thought through" their atheism or agnosticism or whatever else they might have come to?

 

 

[Geezer]

Christians quoting scripture to people who clearly don’t believe the bible is true is a strange tactic. What makes believers think that approach is going to be effective here?

 

The folks here generally accept the premise that the god of the bible was created by human beings as was the bible.  And posting video’s that supposedly provide “evidence” of something is also a questionable tactic. That kind of evidence is open to a wide range of interpretations and ultimately proves nothing.

 

The big problem for Christians, when it comes to producing indisputable evidence that somehow proves god is real and the bible is true, is that there is no such evidence. That is why faith is required to be a believer, but we don’t have faith and I think that fact will pretty much swamp their boat. And you would think they would figure that out at some point.

 

The bible tells them to seek good soil when they are attempting to spread the gospel. I think it should be pretty clear that this particular place doesn’t qualify as “good soil”.  The bible also notes there comes a time when the only option left is to shake the dust off your sandals and move on. Well, duh.

[mwc]

     I thought the personal relationship with god idea came from Martin Luther.  It was to have people reject the Catholic church and their relationship to god via the system of priests and rituals and to form a relationship with god directly bypassing that whole system that he now felt was corrupt.  Thanks to the printing press anyone who was literate, or knew someone who was literate, could use the written word of the bible to come to faith on their own and create a direct relationship to god based on what they read and not on what they were told the bible said or doing what someone else said god wanted them to do.  It would be up to them based on the words alone and not some intermediary.

 

     What this relationship is like would clearly be up to the individual to decide since it would as unique as they are.  It would be like assuming all people feel love or pain the same.  It may be similar thanks to the chemicals involved but it doesn't appear to be identical.  The problem here is that it's all one-sided so "relationship" may now be more accurately described as "infatuation" but that wasn't Luther's intent when he came up with the idea.  Infatuation may have been better suited for someone like Luther who appeared to want a close relationship with his god but he thought this "church" was in the way.  With them gone he could have a true relationship.  Up close and personal with no one telling him what to do or how to do it.

 

          mwc

[Guest Marty]

 

I never presumed to know anything about your personal life sir. . . 

 

 

Oh no?  Then what do you call this statement?

 

 

I'm not sure you've fully thought this whole Atheism thing through. . . 

 

 

 

I don't agree with you, so obviously I have not thought about this as much as you did, or I am not as smart as you are, or I do not have the same information as you do.  However or whatever made you write that statement, you made a presumption about me and my life.

 

Unless, of course,  you are going to pull out the other classic christian card of redefining what words in the English language mean.

[Guest Marty]

 

 

 

It's a real simple question. 

 

 

And the video takes your question extremely seriously by exploring every facet and implication of your question with in depth research of thinkers who have pondered your question seriously over the centuries.

 

Your question is what does a relationship with jesus offer that any of us here don't also have?

 

Well. . . one would have to compare and contrast atheism with Christianity to find out. 

 

I'm sorry if you were looking for a punchline.  But I think attempting a punchline would undermine how much serious thought so many people over the centuries have put into that question.

 

 

Stop moving the goalposts!!  The actual question, in the OP, is "what is a personal relationship with jesus like"?  You quoted an offshoot of that question from me because what you told us in that post was no different than what any of us have already without jesus.

 

We want you to describe what this personal relationship is like.  Does jesus prefer action movies, or dramas?  Does he prefer red or white wine?  What is his favorite thing to do to relax after a long day?  Is he a Mac or PC guy?

 

These are things that occur in relationships.  I could answer all of these and more about numerous people in my life; my roommate, my ex gf, my boss, my parents.  This is the simple question that was asked, this is what you keep avoiding.

[Ramen666]

I am really interested in a real answer but I am afraid we are not going to get one. Anyone? I mean this is the basis of the Christian religion, it should be a fairly easy question to answer. Yet why is it so hard for the Christians to answer it.

 

A personal relationship, is well personal, but all I am seeing is Bible verses. That is NOT an example of how his relationship is "personal".

[Guest Marty]

     I thought the personal relationship with god idea came from Martin Luther.  It was to have people reject the Catholic church and their relationship to god via the system of priests and rituals and to form a relationship with god directly bypassing that whole system that he now felt was corrupt.  Thanks to the printing press anyone who was literate, or knew someone who was literate, could use the written word of the bible to come to faith on their own and create a direct relationship to god based on what they read and not on what they were told the bible said or doing what someone else said god wanted them to do.  It would be up to them based on the words alone and not some intermediary.

 

     What this relationship is like would clearly be up to the individual to decide since it would as unique as they are.  It would be like assuming all people feel love or pain the same.  It may be similar thanks to the chemicals involved but it doesn't appear to be identical.  The problem here is that it's all one-sided so "relationship" may now be more accurately described as "infatuation" but that wasn't Luther's intent when he came up with the idea.  Infatuation may have been better suited for someone like Luther who appeared to want a close relationship with his god but he thought this "church" was in the way.  With them gone he could have a true relationship.  Up close and personal with no one telling him what to do or how to do it.

 

          mwc

 

If it did come from Luther, I never learned it.  I was raised evangelical lutheran, which is regular lutheranism with some Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell type thinking thrown in for good measure, and I didn't hear anything about a "personal relationship" until I was well out of church and working in recording studios.  It was a woman in a praise band that told me I needed to go to a spirit filled church to get a relationship with jesus and I thought "wtf is this woman smoking?"

 

 

**Then again, maybe it was taught.  I started deconverting in 6th grade, but I still had to go for another 3 or 4 years, so I tuned a lot of stuff out towards the end.  But I remember watching a show with my mom once and a woman described herself as a "born again christian" and my mom asked me what that meant.  When I explained it to her she made a weird face and said "I was born right the first time…"

[Ramen666]

I was non denemonational, and that phrase is basically something you hear every single Sunday.

[Guest SteveBennett]

For those who don't want to watch the video because they prefer a more neutral approach.  I did think of a way of explaining the main idea that Dr. Keller covers.

 

Dr. Sandal is renowned for his Socratic approach to issues. Whenever he addresses the public, he constantly talks about how frustrated he is that civil debate seems to have turned into a kind food fight of slogans and low blows.

 

He purposefully avoids the conclusion that a certain line of reasoning leads to (because he is teaching in a secular environment).  My sense is that many people get offended by where reason leads us. . . as opposed to being offended to reason itself.

 

Either way.  I think Dr. Sandal's Socratic approach will be much more palatable approach than my own to many:

 

[Guest SteveBennett]

The thesis statement of Dr. Sandel (and Immanuel Kant) is, "We are instrument's, rather than author's, of the purposes we pursue."

[bornagainathiest]

SteveBennett wrote...

 

"My sense is that many people get offended by where reason leads us. . . as opposed to being offended to reason itself."

 

So where do you think reason (not faith, nor reason guided by faith) leads us, Steve?

 

Please describe what you think the destination of pure reasoned, rational inquiry is.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Guest SteveBennett]

SteveBennett wrote...

 

"My sense is that many people get offended by where reason leads us. . . as opposed to being offended to reason itself."

 

So where do you think reason (not faith, nor reason guided by faith) leads us, Steve?

 

Please describe what you think the destination of pure reasoned, rational inquiry is.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

I, personally, think all roads lead to Jesus Christ.

 

After the head is satisfied, only the question of the heart remains.  And I think, for most, this obstacles is far more obscure an issue to resolve depending on what hurts and pains they have endured.

[Guest SteveBennett]

I think many are trying to figure out which one to follow.  I don't think one needs to follow both.  My own approach is to address the head only.

 

But I'm fully cognizant that the second needs addressing.

 

I will not be so patronizing as to pretend I can do anything about the latter over an internet forum labeled "Lion's Den."

[Guest SteveBennett]

And I do sincerely apologize for my double post that could have been made one post,  I seem to have lost my ability to edit posts.

 

I have a very frequent habit of simply clicking "submit" before going back and editing grammar.  It seems my ability to edit grammar mistakes has been taken away from me for reasons I am unable to determine.

[bornagainathiest]

 

SteveBennett wrote...

 

"My sense is that many people get offended by where reason leads us. . . as opposed to being offended to reason itself."

 

So where do you think reason (not faith, nor reason guided by faith) leads us, Steve?

 

Please describe what you think the destination of pure reasoned, rational inquiry is.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

I, personally, think all roads lead to Jesus Christ.

 

After the head is satisfied, only the question of the heart remains.  And I think, for most, this obstacles is far more obscure an issue to resolve depending on what hurts and pains they have endured.

 

 

Yes, I thought you might say that.

 

The wording of my question to you was quite specific.  Pure reasoned, rational inquiry.

 

The heart has no place in this.

Once the head is satisfied, the process of pure, reasoned and rational inquiry is... over.

 

If the destination of pure Kantian reason leads is, "I don't know" then that is where the buck stops.

 

Pure, reasoned and rational inquiry does not lead us to Jesus Christ, does it?

 

Answer this question please.

 

BAA

[Guest SteveBennett]

My I answer is I don't think that's where reason leads.  I think Immanuel Kant makes a good case of this, and I think Dr. Sandel does a good job of explaining Kant's reasoning process in a way that makes Kant's big ideas even more easily absorbed to the man on the street than Kant does.

[falemon]

 

SteveBennett wrote...

 

"My sense is that many people get offended by where reason leads us. . . as opposed to being offended to reason itself."

 

So where do you think reason (not faith, nor reason guided by faith) leads us, Steve?

 

Please describe what you think the destination of pure reasoned, rational inquiry is.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

I, personally, think all roads lead to Jesus Christ.

 

After the head is satisfied, only the question of the heart remains.  And I think, for most, this obstacles is far more obscure an issue to resolve depending on what hurts and pains they have endured.

 

 

If all roads lead to ∂ then ∂ does not require your personal thinking; it would be self evident.

 

It only leads to ∂ because of your personal thinking. A Muslim would tell you the same about Islam.

 

Until there is 100% proof, no logical road leads to Jesus.

[bornagainathiest]

My I answer is I don't think that's where reason leads.  I think Immanuel Kant makes a good case of this, and I think Dr. Sandel does a good job of explaining Kant's reasoning process in a way that makes Kant's big ideas even more easily absorbed to the man on the street than Kant does.

 

Then explain your thinking please.

 

Not Kant's or Sandel's... yours.

 

Please note that I can explain mine.

So it's not as I'm not asking you to do anything difficult or anything that I wouldn't do... if asked.

 

Please oblige me.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Ramen666]

Steve,

 

Do you or do you NOT have a relationship with Jesus Christ? It is a yes or no question. There is no trick question, there is no games, it is a simple one word answer.

[falemon]

Steve is a bot!

[Pantophobia]

 

SteveBennett wrote...

 

"My sense is that many people get offended by where reason leads us. . . as opposed to being offended to reason itself."

 

So where do you think reason (not faith, nor reason guided by faith) leads us, Steve?

 

Please describe what you think the destination of pure reasoned, rational inquiry is.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

I, personally, think all roads lead to Jesus Christ.

 

After the head is satisfied, only the question of the heart remains.  And I think, for most, this obstacles is far more obscure an issue to resolve depending on what hurts and pains they have endured.

 

 

Again, this is a personal belief, not a fact. You cannot offer empirical evidence of this being anything other than your own very subjective and culturally/socially contextual experience. 

 

Steve, the experiences you discuss here are experiences that we all have, and have had in the past, and you are apparently unable or unwilling to grasp that not everyone who has the same feeling will be fulfilled in the same way by the answers that you find fulfilling. The feelings you describe are ones we've all had. You aren't going to wow us with something we've never heard/thought/believed before about God. 

 

We aren't asking you what Kant or Descartes or Marie Curie or Kirk Cameron would say about a personal relationship with Jesus. We are asking you, yourself, personally, in your own words, without a million links or videos or bible verses, to answer what SHOULD be a very simple question. And over and over again, you fail spectacularly to do so. And that failure is the "fruit" of your beliefs. Simply put, your methodology is flawed.

 

You cannot walk into a post-doc level academic discussion, announce that you really think book-based learning is corrupting and, hey, watch this video!, and expect people to be impressed by your insight.

[Guest SteveBennett]

Look. . . a man's promises are only as good as his word.

 

If he makes them and doesn't keep them . . . then who would listen to him?

 

If he made them, and consistently kept them, then why on earth would I trust anyone's view over his promises?

 

If the bible is true and if God keeps his promises then what fool on this highly unlikely earth would ever choose to trust in the sorrow's of men than the hope of the living God?

 

That is . . . if He keeps His promises-- which is a historical question, not a modern one.

 

None of us can ever go anywhere but where our reasons lead us. . . and even method of approaching reason, I honestly believe, reflects our hearts and intentions.