Personal God

roosh

Hey guys, this thread isn't meant as a covert attempt to discuss my own views on the nature of God, I simply want to know what people understand by the term "Personal God". I hear it mostly from atheists, when describing what people believe in, and this is usually followed by the assertion that people believe in an "invisible man/person".

So what does it mean in general and to you?

wolfsbane

mangaroosh wrote: »

Hey guys, this thread isn't meant as a covert attempt to discuss my own views on the nature of God, I simply want to know what people understand by the term "Personal God". I hear it mostly from atheists, when describing what people believe in, and this is usually followed by the assertion that people believe in an "invisible man/person".

So what does it mean in general and to you?

That God is a person, not an influence or force.

He relates to us as Creator and in the persons of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

He brings us (believers) into fellowship with Him as sons/daughters, and as brethren of Christ. The Father loved us and sent His Son to atone for us. Christ loved us and willingly bore the punishment that was our due. Christ is related to us (corporately) as a Bridegroom to His Bride. The Holy Spirit indwells us, conforming us to Christ's character and comforting us in our struggles.

___________________________________________________________________
Hebrews 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;

roosh

wolfsbane wrote: »

That God is a person, not an influence or force.

He relates to us as Creator and in the persons of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

He brings us (believers) into fellowship with Him as sons/daughters, and as brethren of Christ. The Father loved us and sent His Son to atone for us. Christ loved us and willingly bore the punishment that was our due. Christ is related to us (corporately) as a Bridegroom to His Bride. The Holy Spirit indwells us, conforming us to Christ's character and comforting us in our struggles.

___________________________________________________________________
Hebrews 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;

when you day that god is a person, do you mean a person like you and I, that is in human shape, but infinitely greater?

wolfsbane

mangaroosh wrote: »

when you day that god is a person, do you mean a person like you and I, that is in human shape, but infinitely greater?

No, the body is not an essential component of personality. God the Father is a spirit. Jesus His Son was only spirit, but became human as well as Divine, having a body like us. That did not change His person.

So God is a person, but as you say - infinitely greater than all. He made all things and sustains them all by His will. He has purposes and plans, is loving, merciful, holy, just, etc. - all characteristics of personhood.
___________________________________________________________________
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

roosh

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, the body is not an essential component of personality. God the Father is a spirit. Jesus His Son was only spirit, but became human as well as Divine, having a body like us. That did not change His person.

So God is a person, but as you say - infinitely greater than all. He made all things and sustains them all by His will. He has purposes and plans, is loving, merciful, holy, just, etc. - all characteristics of personhood.
___________________________________________________________________
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

cheers. I was pretty sure, that a "personal God" did not mean an "invisible person", in the sense of an invisible man, with the body of a human. Although, I don't doubt that some people actually do have such a conceptualisation of God.

I see that the oxford english dictionary makes a distinction, and states that "person" applies to the three states of being of God.

raah!

I've only generally heard it when used to draw a dinstinction between theistic and deistic conceptions of god. I don't use the term myself though, and don't really see how it would be in anyway useful. In fact, I'd say it only confuses matters.

Fanny Cradock

I'm not sure how it confuses matters. Could you expand on that?

The idea of a personal God is quite different from the god(s) found in Deism, pantheism or panentheism. I've certainly met a few "Christina" who would have some muddled idea that the God of the bible fits into one of these.

The idea that a monotheistic God interacts with his creations towards a definite end - the destruction of sin and the renewal of creation - and suffers with them in a broken world seems to be a radical departure from the other models used to describe God. And it just so happens to be one that I find inspiring.

raah!

Sorry, it confuses me

It seems that it can be interpreted in many different ways.

a)As a conception of god which is "personal" to you, which could mean alot of things, ie not the orthodox conception
b)As a god which is "person like"
c)As used simply to draw a distinction between theism and deism.

One could probably think of other interpretations of this, but it is because of the varying, and not necessarily similar interpretations of it that I find it confusing.

That's not to say that it would confuse me if I knew there were one fixed definition for it. I just haven't heard this.

Edit: I am also aware of the term being used to just mean directly one of the trinity, but I don't think this is useful. For example if we were to use such a definitino with respect to a question such as:

What kind of god do christians believe in?
A personal god.

This can be reduced to "the god that christians believe in" that's why I see the term as confusing matters. When the word personal is used in its normal sense, and not the special sense refering to a christian god, it becomes confusing, for me. But to be honest I do not know the full etymology of the words personal or persons, and I suppose in this ignorance lies my confusion.

roosh

I would be in agreement with yourself raah!

the term "personal God" can lead to some confusion, the issue being, as you say, the various meanings of the word "personal", which aren't always clear when used in relation to the term God.

When a person uses the term "personal God", it is not guaranteed that the person to whom they use the term, will understand it in the same way, and this can, and I'm sure does, lead to an erroneous interpretation of peoples beliefs.

wolfsbane

mangaroosh wrote: »

I would be in agreement with yourself raah!

the term "personal God" can lead to some confusion, the issue being, as you say, the various meanings of the word "personal", which aren't always clear when used in relation to the term God.

When a person uses the term "personal God", it is not guaranteed that the person to whom they use the term, will understand it in the same way, and this can, and I'm sure does, lead to an erroneous interpretation of peoples beliefs.

Yes, it is important to make sure we understand what the questioner is asking, as well as what our answers may convey to them. Saying the same thing from two or more angles helps define the exact point of meaning. Also, saying what it does not mean can be just as useful.

So 'personal God' used by me means God is a person, not an influence or concept. Further detail does not change that basic meaning. That He exists as three persons, one God; that only one of those persons has a body; etc. - none of that changes the meaning of 'personal' here.
_________________________________________________________________
John 14:15 “If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

roosh

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, it is important to make sure we understand what the questioner is asking, as well as what our answers may convey to them. Saying the same thing from two or more angles helps define the exact point of meaning. Also, saying what it does not mean can be just as useful.

So 'personal God' used by me means God is a person, not an influence or concept. Further detail does not change that basic meaning. That He exists as three persons, one God; that only one of those persons has a body; etc. - none of that changes the meaning of 'personal' here.
_________________________________________________________________
John 14:15 “If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

agreed, with regard to clarifying what is meant.

On the idea that god is a person and not a force. One of the two persons of God, other than "the son", could be both a person and a force, as the concept of a force is quite ambiguous.

nozzferrahhtoo

I hope this helps but I thought the phrase "personal god" referred to the theistic idea that the creator of the universe takes a personal interest in human affairs. In other words the use of the word personal is not a use indicating personal to US, but is used to show what that god considers personal to it.

See the issue most atheists have with the concept of god is that there is literally no evidence, argument, data OR reasons being offered that there exists a non human intelligence responsible for the creation and subsequent maintenance of the universe. Nadda.

However the theists go one step further and say that not only do they think such an entity exists, but they have a fair idea what it wants of us and how it feels about us.

This is a whole group of higher level assertions which I can not put any credibility in considering the base assertion, the entity I mention above, lacks any credibility in and of itself. I simply can not bring myself to that second level, when its foundation level appears baseless.

raah!

:rolleyes:

You've never heard someone give an argument for the existence of God?

Fanny Cradock

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I hope this helps but I thought the phrase "personal god" referred to the theistic idea that the creator of the universe takes a personal interest in human affairs. In other words the use of the word personal is not a use indicating personal to US, but is used to show what that god considers personal to it.

See the issue most atheists have with the concept of god is that there is literally no evidence, argument, data OR reasons being offered that there exists a non human intelligence responsible for the creation and subsequent maintenance of the universe. Nadda.

However the theists go one step further and say that not only do they think such an entity exists, but they have a fair idea what it wants of us and how it feels about us.

This is a whole group of higher level assertions which I can not put any credibility in considering the base assertion, the entity I mention above, lacks any credibility in and of itself. I simply can not bring myself to that second level, when its foundation level appears baseless.

You seem to be getting confused between no evidence and the quality of evidence, which broadly speaking, is either considered reliable or unreliable. Most people seem to be able to recognise that there is evidence for God's existence, just as there is evidence against his existence. In a perfect world they weigh up both sides as fairly as they can and come up with their own verdict. But we have had this debate countless times before, no? I see no reason to have it again, especially in a thread that is unrelated to your personal beliefs. Take the conversation elsewhere, please.

homer911

To me a personal God is about having a personal relationship with God - talking with him in prayer like you would your parents or your best friend.

roosh

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I hope this helps but I thought the phrase "personal god" referred to the theistic idea that the creator of the universe takes a personal interest in human affairs. In other words the use of the word personal is not a use indicating personal to US, but is used to show what that god considers personal to it.

See the issue most atheists have with the concept of god is that there is literally no evidence, argument, data OR reasons being offered that there exists a non human intelligence responsible for the creation and subsequent maintenance of the universe. Nadda.

However the theists go one step further and say that not only do they think such an entity exists, but they have a fair idea what it wants of us and how it feels about us.

This is a whole group of higher level assertions which I can not put any credibility in considering the base assertion, the entity I mention above, lacks any credibility in and of itself. I simply can not bring myself to that second level, when its foundation level appears baseless.

I might respond to this in a new thread if that is cool? Or perhaps it can be moved to the relevant thread, within the Christianity section? not sure which one that would be exactly.

Fanny Cradock

Off topic post deleted. PM me if you want copies to start another thread.

wolfsbane

mangaroosh wrote: »

agreed, with regard to clarifying what is meant.

On the idea that god is a person and not a force. One of the two persons of God, other than "the son", could be both a person and a force, as the concept of a force is quite ambiguous.

Yes, God is both a person and a force, for any person who has power is such. But a force that is not a person is something quite different, like electricity or a falling object.

_________________________________________________________________
Matthew 7:24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.
26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”

nozzferrahhtoo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But we have had this debate countless times before, no? I see no reason to have it again

But I have no intention of having this debate here and I apologise if I gave that impression. I merely point to it to highlight what it is that I AM saying which is entirely on topic.

Sometimes when describing pears it is helpful first to mention apples. This does not mean you want the conversation to be about apples.

What I am saying put another way then if it is more suited to the thread is that in the case of the people the OP refers to:

what people understand by the term "Personal God". I hear it mostly from atheists, when describing what people believe in,

...they are often talking about a god that is not mere deism, that a non-human intelligence exists, but a god that takes a personal interest in the affairs of humans. In other words they are referring to a god who is aware of, and cares, what we do, say, or think.

Another phrase that will be heard often, which is worth mentioning in this context, is “interventionist” god, which is referring to a god that not only is interested in the affairs of humans, but actively affects them too.

The reason such people use such terms are varied but one of them certainly is as I suggested that the user is wanting to distinguish the level of evidence required in each case. Clearly there claim that there IS a god, needs less evidence than the claim that god cares what we do, say or think. Why? Because the latter contains the former and then some.

In short therefore, when talking to the people that the OP mentioned, I think it would be a mistake to assume they mean a god you have a personal relationship with. They could mean this sometimes, but I warrant not often.