Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Personal relationship with Jesus Christ

124

Comments

  • #92
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    MrPudding wrote: »
    The fact that the universe we live in is suitable for us to live in is not proof of god. PDN meeting a mate in a filling station in the States is not proof of god. The voice in Wolfsbane’s head telling him that god exists is not proof that god exists.

    Proof! What's with all these demands for proof being fired around all of a sudden?

    I suspect, like me, you can't prove that either gravity exists or that evolution is correct, but you accept them nevertheless. Now I'm not saying that faith in God is analogous to acceptance of evolutionary theory, rather I'm attempting to point out the ridiculous demands made of Christians to provide undeniable proof for God's existence. Furthermore, your demands are about as ridiculous and unreasonable as asking science to either definitely prove or disprove Gods existence. In matters relating to God, science is an inappropriate tool - at least form the perspective of a Christian.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    The thread you linked to asked if people would follow god if it was proven he existed, not would you believe god existed if it was proved that he existed.

    MrP

    It actually covered both options: would you believe and would you follow (see below).
    Also, just remember, the question is not just 'would you then believe', its would you actually follow him also. The latter being the more important question for me.

    I really only put it there as a point of interest. I think it does provide a good insight (however hypothetical) into the unlikelihood of some people ever accepting a God no matter what evidence.


  • #93
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I'm attempting to point out the ridiculous demands made of Christians to provide undeniable proof for God's existence.
    I don't think that anybody's asked for undeniable proof -- though I'm sure it would be nice to see some. Instead, we're just looking for anything at all that's stronger evidence than a self-contradictory story in a book written at an unknown time, by unknown people, in an unknown place.


  • #94
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Now I'm not saying that faith in God is analogous to acceptance of evolutionary theory, rather I'm attempting to point out the ridiculous demands made of Christians to provide undeniable proof for God's existence.

    I don't think anyone is asking for that.

    What people are saying is that you guys don't have proper evidence that God exists, despite constantly claiming that you do.

    Things get a bit complicated when people start branding the word "proof" around (bad oeb, bad doggy)

    When I say proper evidence I mean demonstratives evidence, repeatable evidence. PDN's opinion falls short of that.

    So when he starts talking about science in the same breath as his particular interpretation of particular things that happened to him, people's feathers get ruffled some what.

    Personal opinion is not science, it is not evidence. Despite PDN's claims to the contrary he does not have proper evidence that prayers are answered.

    I imagine the next question will be "Why do you atheists get to decide what proper evidence is.." which I will get to later but right now I have to catch my bus ... :pac:


  • #95
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I suspect, like me, you can't prove that either gravity exists or that evolution is correct, but you accept them nevertheless.

    Eh, what happens when YOU drop something?


  • #96
    oobydooby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 697 ✭✭✭oobydooby


    If the opening post asked about the nature of a personal relationship with a divine being, why is there suddenly a burden of "proof" on a participant to convince a third party that there is indeed a personal relationship?
    oeb wrote: »
    That's the wonders of science, we can adapt. If you can prove to me, in a scientific manner, that your god exists or that prayer works, then I will accecpt that.
    Seems you can adapt so quickly that your position has significantly shifted within about 8 lines of text.
    There is not a single significant piece of proof that indicates prayers work.
    There is not a single significant piece of proof that a god exists.

    Present me with that proof, and I will examine it, and I may accecpt it.

    And then your argument/point has shifted somewhere else a few lines later.
    There is not one compelling part to your argument
    to be clarified by this
    Maybe argument was the wrong term. I was refering more in general to the christian belief system. (devine creator et al)

    I think most Christians believe that the Creator worked alone. Also, where have you been if you have never come across a compelling argument in support of the Christian belief system?


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    oobydooby wrote: »
    If the opening post asked about the nature of a personal relationship with a divine being, why is there suddenly a burden of "proof" on a participant to convince a third party that there is indeed a personal relationship?

    I find myself wondering whether the OP was really wanting to discover more about Christian ideas of a personal relationship. Maybe he was just looking for a quarrel?


  • #98
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Wicknight wrote:
    I don't think anyone is asking for that.

    What people are saying is that you guys don't have proper evidence that God exists, despite constantly claiming that you do.

    When I say proper evidence I mean demonstratives evidence, repeatable evidence. PDN's opinion falls short of that

    Good points WK, but I disagree on a couple of issues :pac:

    Firstly, I think that there are enough opinions stated in the link to suggest that some people are, in fact, looking for definitive proof - or something approaching it. For instance, it was mentioned a number of times that if a miracle X was recorded, God would not be an option for its cause. With this stance, I personally can't think of much less than a definitive proof would shift them from their position.

    Secondly, I will, of course, object to your use of the term "proper" when discussing evidence. Certainly, in regards to God, there is already "proper" and compelling evidence for billions of people. Your labelling a particular form of evidence as "proper" ignores the fact there are different types of evidence - some more appropriate given certain circumstances or subjects. So, while you are correct in stating that personal opinion or personal knowledge is not science, it remains evidence all the same, especially when you consider that Christians believe God is not testable by any scientific method conceived to date.

    And I believe now we are back at the the first issue: the argument over proof. Whereas some people would be of the opinion that everything can potentially be solved by science - and bear in mind that I have tried to make it abundantly clear over the years posting here (years! man, that's scary to think) that I have no problems with science - others believe that there is something beyond the potential of science to explain, and that something is God.

    Finally, we can both probably agree that we believe in love, the human conciousness and goodness. But while I believe that all these are things greater than the sum of their parts, I assume, from a scientific perspective, you can only ever accept that these otherwise intangible concepts are the result of neurological activity not yet fully understood.

    So you have Science (with a capital S), whereas I have God and science. Those are two mutually exclusive ideologies. And unless you see the light or I become a "bright" things aren't going to change. But who is to prove that either one camp is right?


  • #99
    oeb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,793 ✭✭✭oeb


    oobydooby wrote: »
    If the opening post asked about the nature of a personal relationship with a divine being, why is there suddenly a burden of "proof" on a participant to convince a third party that there is indeed a personal relationship?

    Seems you can adapt so quickly that your position has significantly shifted within about 8 lines of text.
    I must apologise if I am not articulating my self well enough for you, I think it is relitivley clear to most people what I am trying to say here, and if it is not, I apologise. I can not see anywhere in the proceding statements to indicate that my stance has shifted, and I would appreciate it if you were to point it out and I will clarify.

    oobydooby wrote: »
    And then your argument/point has shifted somewhere else a few lines later.

    to be clarified by this
    The term argument was used in the debating form, rather than the 'resulting in pistols at dawn' form. I just thought I would clarify that with the second statement. If you are going to accuse me of changing my stance at least quote me in context and try to indicate WHERE I change my stance.
    oobydooby wrote: »
    I think most Christians believe that the Creator worked alone. Also, where have you been if you have never come across a compelling argument in support of the Christian belief system?

    By Et Alii (which I of course mis-spelled (that's not a very uncommon thing for me to do, as you have no doubt been able to tell from my posts)) I was refering to the whole lot, god, jeasus, the holy ghost etc etc. Hense refering to the whole christian beliefe system.

    Where have I been that I have not come across a compelling argument for it? Well, my obvious tounge in cheek answer here should probably be 'In the real world'. There is no evidence to suggest that you are correct. There is nothing to support it other than an ancient, mistranslated book and 'faith'. Making the leap of 'We do not know how X was done, so it must have been god' cultivates ignorance.

    Fanny Cradock wrote:
    Good points WK, but I disagree on a couple of issues :pac:

    Firstly, I think that there are enough opinions stated in the link to suggest that some people are, in fact, looking for definitive proof - or something approaching it. For instance, it was mentioned a number of times that if a miracle X was recorded, God would not be an option for its cause. With this stance, I personally can't think of much less than a definitive proof would shift them from their position.

    Secondly, I will, of course, object to your use of the term "proper" when discussing evidence. Certainly, in regards to God, there is already "proper" and compelling evidence for billions of people. Your labelling a particular form of evidence as "proper" ignores the fact there are different types of evidence - some more appropriate given certain circumstances or subjects. So, while you are correct in stating that personal opinion or personal knowledge is not science, it remains evidence all the same, especially when you consider that Christians believe God is not testable by any scientific method conceived to date.

    And I believe now we are back at the the first issue: the argument over proof. Whereas some people would be of the opinion that everything can potentially be solved by science - and bear in mind that I have tried to make it abundantly clear over the years posting here (years! man, that's scary to think) that I have no problems with science - others believe that there is something beyond the potential of science to explain, and that something is God.

    Finally, we can both probably agree that we believe in love, the human conciousness and goodness. But while I believe that all these are things greater than the sum of their parts, I assume, from a scientific perspective, you can only ever accept that these otherwise intangible concepts are the result of neurological activity not yet fully understood.

    So you have Science (with a capital S), whereas I have God and science. Those are two mutually exclusive ideologies. And unless you see the light or I become a "bright" things aren't going to change. But who is to prove that either one camp is right?

    I once again apologise if it seems like I am taking a very narrow black and white approach here. This is more to do with my inability to articulate myself than the actual approach that I take.

    By refering to proper evidence, I mean evidence that stands up to scientific examination. 'God grants my prayers' does not stand up to it. If an athiest wishes that someone who was ill gets better/could have the child they have been trying for/something similar and they do, does that mean a genie did it?

    Claiming god is above science is a cop out. If god has a mesurable effect on humanity, science can measure it. This could be demonstrated by things such as a lower illness rate amongst believers, a longer life span, a drasticially lower crime rate etc.

    The difference between love and religion is pretty vast. It's a common analogy used by the religious because they are superficially the same. But there is evidence to suggest that someone loves you. It can be seen in their communication with you (the way they look at you, how they speak to you, how ye touch, the fact that they tell you they love you) and how they behave towords you (wanting to spend more time with you, gifts (I don't refer directly to the material here, I also include things like cooking meals), and protectivenes/support). The effects of love CAN be measured.


  • #100
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    PDN wrote: »
    I find myself wondering whether the OP was really wanting to discover more about Christian ideas of a personal relationship. Maybe he was just looking for a quarrel?
    It would appear from examination that the word "personal" in the context "personal relationship with Jesus" is another Christian mis-use of the English language. "Magic relationship", "supernatural relationship" or even relationship" might be more apt.


  • #101
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    For instance, it was mentioned a number of times that if a miracle X was recorded, God would not be an option for its cause. With this stance, I personally can't think of much less than a definitive proof would shift them from their position.
    Well, I can't speak for everyone posting here, but I've said something along the lines of that but it isn't quite how you put it

    The point is that if it is demonstrated that religious people are actually communicating with something, that doesn't actually demonstrate that that something is God. That is an assumption that Christians make. Posters like Wolfsbane appear to recognise this, but then assert that they could tell if it is God or not by matching what they are told to the Bible. Which is a faulty assertion because it assumes that nothing else could say something that matches the Bible.

    This is similar to the arguments used that if Jesus rose from the dead it demonstrates that he is the Son of God. It actually doesn't. It demonstrates that he can rise from the dead. The Christian argument is that nothing else but the son of God could rise from the dead, which is nothing but a theological assertion.

    So it isn't that we (I alone?) are asserting it can't be God. It is that we can't rule in God just because you guys say it had to be God. It didn't have to be God, and when we start introducing the supernatural really it could be absolutely anything.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    So, while you are correct in stating that personal opinion or personal knowledge is not science, it remains evidence all the same, especially when you consider that Christians believe God is not testable by any scientific method conceived to date.

    Well anything can be considered evidence under that line of thinking, that is why I introduced the term "proper".

    By proper evidence I mean it reaches a certain scientific standard independent of ones own person interpretation. Because, as I said, personal interpretations are rather useless.

    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    others believe that there is something beyond the potential of science to explain, and that something is God.

    Yes but the point is that you are then into a realm that cannot be understood properly.

    This is the great paradox of the constant claims that God lies outside of science, outside of anything that can be modeled and tested. Because if that is true then you can't know, properly know, anything about it/him. But you guys don't seem to care that much about that.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Finally, we can both probably agree that we believe in love, the human conciousness and goodness. But while I believe that all these are things greater than the sum of their parts, I assume, from a scientific perspective, you can only ever accept that these otherwise intangible concepts are the result of neurological activity not yet fully understood.

    This would be an example of what I'm talking about above. You say you believe that love and goodness are "more" than the sum of the neurological activity in the brain. Why?

    Do you believe this because you have a compelling theory about what it actually is that demonstrates that the understanding of brain activity is flawed. Do you believe this because it is an accurate reflection of reality?

    Or do you just believe it because it sounds wondrous and romantic? Often when we say something is more than the some of its parts that is to invoke a sense of majesty about something.

    This is my greatest objection to this idea that we must look beyond science.

    When people start doing that they end up with a very egocentric version of reality. The things that they hold as being of significance are given significance. The things they don't aren't.

    When was the last time anyone said "I believe the human ability to process fetal matter is not just a combination of biological systems, but something much more than the some of its parts"

    No one does because no one things pooping is particularly wondrous or magical. Pooping is just the sum of its parts, and people are quite happy to leave that as science explains its. But when we talk about other things, things that trigger strong emotional responses in us, like love, then we start asserting that these things must be more than just biology.

    Going down the road where we, as humans, decide how the universe should be, rather than looking at how it actually is, is a road to nonsense. It is a hole of ignorance that we have been trying to climb out of for thousands of years, but that we unfortunately keep slipping back into.

    Because it has been shown time and time again that the universe isn't how we believe it should be.

    That is an incredibly difficult thing for humans to accept, but it holds from the significance of love over pooping, right down to the quantum physics that rattles our intuitive sense of how things should behave when interacting with each other.

    And it relates back to religion and God, because a lot of the justifications for religion are based on the assertions of believers about how things should be, how the universe should work, rather than looking at how it actually does and accepting that.

    So you have PDN proclaiming that prayers are answered, thus convincing him that God exists, instead of looking in a proper fashion to see if prayers are actually being answered (anyone who has actually done this proper has found no evidence they are).

    You have Soul Winner proclaim that the universe had a creation and that beginning must have been a result of God. The logic for that assertion is all over the place, but it is an assertion I've heard from lots of different religious people and it all falls back again to saying how things should be.

    Ultimately the idea of saying that there is "more" to science is this. It is saying that science isn't representing the world as it is supposed to be, so there must be more to science, because something has to present the world in the way it is suppose to be.

    If science says that love is a biological process produced by thousands of years of evolution to establish strong mating bonds, then there must be more than science because there should be move to "love"

    If science says that when people get old and die and their bodies stop working then there must be more than science, because the way it should work is that people get old and die and go to the after life.

    It is asserting, in the areas we hold of importance, how we want the universe to be.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    It would appear from examination that the word "personal" in the context "personal relationship with Jesus" is another Christian mis-use of the English language. "Magic relationship", "supernatural relationship" or even relationship" might be more apt.

    No, I think "personal relationship" is a perfectly reasonable use of the English language.

    Jesus is a Person. I am a Person. Therefore we are talking a relationship between two persons.

    I talk to Him through prayer and also through Praise and Worship. I express my feelings of love and adoration towards Him. I apologise when I do things that grieve Him. I ask Him to help me in various ways. I question Him when He doesn't help me in the ways I would expect. I thank Him when I realise how much He has helped me - even when I didn't appreciate His help at the time, or when He did things differently from what I wanted.

    He communicates to me through His Word, the Bible. In some ways this is a general, rather than personal form of communication, since every other Christian has the same Bible. However, many times I will pray before I open my Bible and feel strongly led to turn to a particular book or chapter. There I read words that relate specifically to situations and circumstances I am facing.

    Sometimes He speaks to me through other people. This can be through a direct word of prophecy, or simply through people coming and giving good unsolicited advice on the very same subject I was praying about a few minutes earlier.

    He also communicates with me by answering prayer in specific ways. For example, once my car caught fire on my way home late at night. It was damaged beyond repair and I had no funds to replace it. I got home about 2am and spent the next hour praying for for Jesus to help me. I needed a car - any car would do - to continue my ministry. Then I went to bed. I was wakened by a phone call the next morning. A friend, who knew nothing about my incident the night before, had just started a new job with a company car supplied. He had woken up in the middle of the night with an overwhelming impression that he was to give me his old car. The funny thing was that he kept apologising for 'insulting' me. He said, "I know you have a perfectly good car, so why would you want my old banger? I'm not trying to be funny or anything, but I just can't get rid of this idea that God wants me to give you my old car!"

    (No doubt this will provoke a string of rather desperate posts saying, "But these kind of things happen all the time". But the fact is these kinds of things don't happen all the time. I have been in full time Christian ministry for 24 years, and this is the only time someone has given me a car. The key point is it happened a few hours after the only time that I have ever been left without a car and with no funds to replace a vehicle.)

    Sometimes Jesus speaks to me in a direct audible way. This is very rare - it has only happened to me 2 or 3 times in my 27 years of being a Christian and was when I was on the verge of making decisions that, with the benefit of hindsight, would have terribly hurt myself and others.

    Other times He communicates with me by simply giving me an overwhelming sense of His Presence. This probably makes more sense to those of you who have been married for a long time. My wife and I were married for 20 years before we got reached the stage where we can derive deep comfort and peace from simply being in each other's presence - not needing to speak a word or even look at each other to communicate our love for one another. (Those who are younger and haven't experienced this yet will have top take my word that it is intensely satisfying on an emotional level). I have particularly experienced this Presence of Jesus in very stressful situations (the death of a child, the time I needed 2 million euro in 9 days, the days when I was receiving death threats

    Another form of communication is when I suddenly feel a powerful urge, almost a compulsion, to take a particular course of action. This is often counter-intuitive and contrary to what my reason and logic would tell me. These have included waking up in the middle of the night to pray for people and discovering the next day that they were rushed to hospital the night before. Other times this 'leading' has caused me to take somewhat risky strategies in connection with my career that have turned out to be wildly successful and led to rapid promotion.

    Now, taken altogether I think these kinds of communication between two persons do indeed amount to a personal relationship.

    No doubt this post will provoke various sceptical or trollish responses. However, pause for thought before you do so. This personal relationship has led me from a starting point where I was a lonely,suicidal, homeless alcoholic. Now, as a result of this relationship, I live a life that is extremely exciting and emotionally satisfying, I am very happily married for 22 years, and I have a wonderful daughter that makes me proud to be her father every day. This relationship has also provided a beautiful home in which to live. (A long story - but after feeling led in prayer I took a risky decision to help a marginalised group of people. They later built me a house for free.) I work in a job that I love and look forward to going to work each day. My personal relationship with Jesus has helped me be successful in this job - leading me to take decisions that resulted in my being elected onto the ruling council of a denomination with 7 million members and overseeing an annual budget of over 1 billion US dollars.

    Now, does anyone have a different world view to present to me that will set me free from my delusion or magic and so improve my life? I'm always happy to consider better options.


  • #103
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    PDN wrote: »
    Jesus is a Person. I am a Person. Therefore we are talking a relationship between two persons.
    Well then you have a different definition of Person.
    A person has DNA, chromozones, cells, mass, is visible etc.
    Jesus was a person not is a person.
    I talk to Him through prayer and also through Praise and Worship. I express my feelings of love and adoration towards Him.
    Persons don't communicate this way.
    He also communicates with me by answering prayer in specific ways.
    Persons don't communicate this way.
    Now, taken altogether I think these kinds of communication between two persons do indeed amount to a personal relationship.
    I see them as a relationship with a God, or your imagination but not a relationship with a person.
    This personal relationship has led me from a starting point where I was a lonely,suicidal, homeless alcoholic. Now, as a result of this relationship, I live a life that is extremely exciting and emotionally satisfying, I am very happily married for 22 years, and I have a wonderful daughter that makes me proud to be her father every day.
    I have no problem accepting that but it doesn't infer your relationship is personal. (You're not perfect though, you can mean and unnecessarily insulting sometimes).
    Now, does anyone have a different world view to present to me that will set me free from my delusion or magic and so improve my life? I'm always happy to consider better options.
    It doesn't matter what makes you happy. What matters is what's true and what alleviates human suffering.

    On the property of truth:
    I'd rather know the truth and take it head on, even if it's occasionaly depressing. I'd rather take that option than submerge myself in something I felt had no truth. That's just me.

    On the property of human suffering, your decision to be a Christian and my decision to be an atheist has nothing to do with the A&E crisis, the credit crunch or any of the major problems faces our species or planet.

    If one is genuinely interesting in human suffering, the Christian and atheist thing is largely moot.


  • #104
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Well then you have a different definition of Person.
    A person has DNA, chromozones, cells, mass, is visible etc.
    Jesus was a person not is a person.


    Persons don't communicate this way.


    Persons don't communicate this way.


    I see them as a relationship with a God, or your imagination but not a relationship with a person.


    I have no problem accepting that but it doesn't infer your relationship is personal. (You're not perfect though, you can mean and unnecessarily insulting sometimes).


    It doesn't matter what makes you happy. What matters is what's true and what alleviates human suffering.

    On the property of truth:
    I'd rather know the truth and take it head on, even if it's occasionaly depressing. I'd rather take that option than submerge myself in something I felt had no truth. That's just me.

    On the property of human suffering, your decision to be a Christian and my decision to be an atheist has nothing to do with the A&E crisis, the credit crunch or any of the major problems faces our species or planet.

    If one is genuinely interesting in human suffering, the Christian and atheist thing is largely moot.



    Why are you even discussing this Tim? You think from a completely different ground. Jesus was not is a person etc. News flash, we are Christians, So Jesus 'is' not 'was'. You then ignored all PDN's testimony, some of which actually involved a direct audible voice. Now you can say you don't believe PDN, but don't say that what he has descibed is not a personal relationship. And this line
    '(You're not perfect though, you can mean and unnecessarily insulting sometimes). '

    What are you getting at with that? Are you implying that PDN thinks he's great or something?


  • #105
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    JimiTime wrote: »
    WYou then ignored all PDN's testimony, some of which actually involved a direct audible voice.
    Mental institutions are full of people that hear the voice of god. What is the difference?

    MrP


  • #106
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Mental institutions are full of people that hear the voice of god. What is the difference?

    MrP

    I'm not arguing about that. But what PDN described was a personal relationship, contrary to Tims opinion. As I said, but you seem to have missed, is that you can say you don't believe PDN, but you can't say what he described wasn't a personal relationship. Tim just seemed to ignore the testimony.


  • #107
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Why are you even discussing this Tim? You think from a completely different ground. Jesus was not is a person etc. News flash, we are Christians, So Jesus 'is' not 'was'. You then ignored all PDN's testimony, some of which actually involved a direct audible voice. Now you can say you don't believe PDN, but don't say that what he has descibed is not a personal relationship. And this line
    '(You're not perfect though, you can mean and unnecessarily insulting sometimes). '

    What are you getting at with that? Are you implying that PDN thinks he's great or something?

    I think Tim's point is that Christians don't communicate with Jesus they way they communicate with any other "person", nor is Jesus a person in the way any other human is, so why call this a personal relationship

    If I understand PDN's post he doesn't even have a personal relationship with Jesus the way two humans would. It seems more like the relationship someone might have with a celebrity.


  • #108
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Mental institutions are full of people that hear the voice of god. What is the difference?

    Mental institutions are full of people who think that others are trying to kill them. There are also a number of individuals who really do have others trying to kill them. However, only a complete buffoon will argue that there is no difference between the two sets of people.

    I know plenty of people who hear the voice of God. One is a member of the Royal College of Surgeons and one of the most respected figures of Ireland's medical community. Others are proficient and successful in the areas of teaching (including at Trinity), in business, in politics, in the Garda etc. They all find that their personal relationship with Jesus Christ has helped them to excel in their careers.


  • #109
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    (No doubt this will provoke a string of rather desperate posts saying, "But these kind of things happen all the time". But the fact is these kinds of things don't happen all the time. I have been in full time Christian ministry for 24 years, and this is the only time someone has given me a car. The key point is it happened a few hours after the only time that I have ever been left without a car and with no funds to replace a vehicle.)

    You are slightly missing the point with the "desperate" (:rolleyes:) posts saying these things happen all the time.

    it isn't you get a car that happens all the time. it is you praying. you pray all the time

    odds are you will be praying around the time a coincidence happens. you will then assign importance to the last relevant prayer.


  • #110
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I think Tim's point is that Christians don't communicate with Jesus they way they communicate with any other "person", nor is Jesus a person in the way any other human is, so why call this a personal relationship

    If I understand PDN's post he doesn't even have a personal relationship with Jesus the way two humans would. It seems more like the relationship someone might have with a celebrity.

    We all communicate with people in different ways. I communicate with Asiaprod by PM. I communicate with Fanny Cradock by PM but we have also chatted in person. I have friends all over the world where we primarily communicate by phone or email. Some of these people meet with me every few years in the flesh - but with others our contact is purely electronic. When my wife lived in England and I lived in Ireland we communicated by letter. Nevertheless, all these amount, at one level or another, to a personal relationship.

    My personal relationship with Jesus involves some different methods of communication, but it is still a personal relationship. Tim is just playing his usual games.

    BTW, Wicknight, I have met one or two celebrities and I think they are actually human (but Sid Vicious did give me some doubts on that score).


  • #111
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I think Tim's point is that Christians don't communicate with Jesus they way they communicate with any other "person", nor is Jesus a person in the way any other human is, so why call this a personal relationship

    Because its personal. PDN asked for certain things which he got. He apologised when he hurt Jesus. And he had a 2 way audio also. He knows Jesus loves him, and he loves Jesus. He communicates with Jesus, and Jesus communicates back. It seems pretty straight forward to me. You can argue that PDN hears voices in his head, and that all of the events he describes are coincidences etc etc, but at the end of the day, we have someone (Tim) who is trying to argue about the misuse of the English language because he doesn't believe in God, so believes all this stuff in in PDN's head. i think the only solution, is that Tim calls it a 'Magical relationship' or whatever, and PDN can call it a personal relationship. Its silly semantics IMO, and pedantic ramblings.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Well then you have a different definition of Person.
    A person has DNA, chromozones, cells, mass, is visible etc.
    Jesus was a person not is a person.

    Tim, if you would actually try listening to us (as opposed to trying to pick pointless arguments) then you might actually get a clearer idea of what Christians believe.

    Christians believe that Jesus was raised from the dead and bodily ascended into heaven (wherever or whatever heaven might be). We do not believe that Jesus is a disembodied spirit floating around like Casper the Friendly Ghost. We believe that Jesus has a body, DNA, cells, mass, chromosones etc. Visibility is not an issue because he is somewhere else. My friend Femi in Nigeria is not visible to me right now, but he is still a person.
    On the property of human suffering, your decision to be a Christian and my decision to be an atheist has nothing to do with the A&E crisis, the credit crunch or any of the major problems faces our species or planet.

    If one is genuinely interesting in human suffering, the Christian and atheist thing is largely moot.
    Very debatable. My Christianity certainly motivates me to work actively to alleviate human suffering.


  • #113
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Why are you even discussing this Tim? You think from a completely different ground. Jesus was not is a person etc. News flash, we are Christians, So Jesus 'is' not 'was'.
    The crux of the matter is, you use the word "person" and "personal" in a sense that is incorrect. If Jesus is a person, then persons can be invisible and personal relationship can encompass a hole host of magic and paranormal which cannot be explained by scientific analysis. That means when I say "I am person" or "personal relationship" it's absolutely meaningless.
    You then ignored all PDN's testimony, some of which actually involved a direct audible voice.
    If the voice was audible, why couldn't it be recorded? I did't ignore PDN's testimony, I read it. I am not answering to every single sentence unless I have something meaningful and relevant to say.
    Now you can say you don't believe PDN, but don't say that what he has descibed is not a personal relationship. And this line
    '(You're not perfect though, you can mean and unnecessarily insulting sometimes). '
    I believe PDN has had these experiences and is telling us about them in earnest. I just don't agree or accept the explanations.
    I had a similar a debate with a Scientologist recently who made very similar claims:
    * Prevented suicide
    * Cured additiction

    In fact I've also heard these claims from Angel card readers, Tarot cards readers. The difference in this particular instance, is that there is a specifc claim of a "personal relationship" which upon examination, this is a misuse of the English language.


  • #114
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Nevertheless, all these amount, at one level or another, to a personal relationship.
    Agreed
    PDN wrote: »
    My personal relationship with Jesus involves some different methods of communication, but it is still a personal relationship.

    Well it really depends on what you mean. Bertie Ahern has communicated with me through the TV for the last few years, and every once and a while I communicate back (I've met him 3 times, at different unconnected events)

    But would anyone describe that as a personal relationship between me and Bertie Ahern.

    You mentally speak to God/Jesus and you assume he is always listening (he is God after all)

    You believe that occasionally God influences you in a certain manner.

    Is that really a personal relationship? To me that term implies proper conversation between one another.


  • #115
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    PDN wrote: »
    Tim, if you would actually try listening to us (as opposed to trying to pick pointless arguments) then you might actually get a clearer idea of what Christians believe.
    It's a pretty poor debating tactic to infer I am not listening to you when I have clearly dealy with every relevant point you have made in this exchange.
    Christians believe that Jesus was raised from the dead and bodily ascended into heaven (wherever or whatever heaven might be). We do not believe that Jesus is a disembodied spirit floating around like Casper the Friendly Ghost. We believe that Jesus has a body, DNA, cells, mass, chromosones etc.
    I do not think you speak for all Christians there. I think some might not believe that Jesus's person cells exist and is bound by the scientific laws the rest of us our bound by. Does the part of the Universe he reside in have enough oxygen for a "person", enough protein, vitamins etc?
    Or does he reside outside the universe and get all his person needs there?

    As for one who tried to accuse me of circular logic earlier, it's ironic you don't even recognise your own.

    1. God created humans.
    2. A person is a human.
    =>
    God created persons.
    3. Jesus is God.
    4. Jesus is a person.
    =>
    Jesus created himself. How circular is that?

    Very debatable. My Christianity certainly motivates me to work actively to alleviate human suffering.
    I accept that. My atheism and humanism motivates me to work actively to alleviate human suffering.


  • #116
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    but at the end of the day, we have someone (Tim) who is trying to argue about the misuse of the English language because he doesn't believe in God, so believes all this stuff in in PDN's head.

    well yeah but he kinda has a point.

    To me you guys are say this is "personal" because you are mapping it back to relationships humans have between each other. And it seems to me the only bit that is relevant is that the relationship between Jesus and you or PDN is given a similar pleasing sounding classification. A non-personal relationship would some how imply that God does care specifically about individuals, so it has to be a personal relationship because God cares about you. What ever the term "personal relationship" actually means in the context of communication with a deity that exists outside of space/time comes a very far distant second.

    You say it is personal because they communicate with each other. But they don't really, at least not going on what PDN's own post said. Certainly not in the fashion that humans communicate.

    The communication is mostly 1 to many on God's part, apart from the odd time when PDN feels that God is some how direct him to a certain outcome. And that is before one factors in issues such as time and the present and how the communication actually manifests itself.

    I'm not sure if PDN means at that specific moment God decides to send some kind of mental message to PDN, or if he means that when God created the Bible he knew that at this moment certain parts would be releavent to PDN.

    Ultimately this topic comes down to what you actually mean by these words you band about. What you guys are trying to establish is that God exists and cares about you, and is interested in you, where as Tim is trying to get to the actual meaning of the terms you guys use.


  • #117
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    JimiTime wrote: »
    we have someone (Tim) who is trying to argue about the misuse of the English language because he doesn't believe in God, so believes all this stuff in in PDN's head. i think the only solution, is that Tim calls it a 'Magical relationship' or whatever, and PDN can call it a personal relationship. Its silly semantics IMO, and pedantic ramblings.
    Throughout this debate I have tried to include the possiblity that God might exist.


  • #118
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Throughout this debate I have tried to include the possiblity that God might exist.

    In all honesty, if someone has had personal experiences with Smeone, its safe to say its a personal relationship. Now you may argue that some of the experiences are just in ones head etc. So be it. What are you trying to convince us of?


  • #119
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    It's a pretty poor debating tactic to infer I am not listening to you when I have clearly dealy with every relevant point you have made in this exchange.
    Well there's the problem, isn't it? You see this as a debate, where two people argue opposing positions, try to score points off each other, and try to win others to their point of view.

    I had assumed, from your OP, that you were genuinely interested in discovering why Christians speak about having a personal relationship with Jesus. Instead it quickly became obvious that you just wanted to argue.

    I have tried to explain the Christian position to you a bit more clearly. In my first response I tried to explain to you that Jesus, for us, is a person with a body. Instead you start going on about scientific detection of communication etc and then, pages later, you still haven't understood that Christians believe Jesus to have a body. That's why I don't think you listen.
    I do not think you speak for all Christians there. I think some might not believe that Jesus's person cells exist and is bound by the scientific laws the rest of us our bound by. Does the part of the Universe he reside in have enough oxygen for a "person", enough protein, vitamins etc?
    Or does he reside outside the universe and get all his person needs there?
    The term 'Christian' gets used so loosely on this board that nobody can speak for all Christians. However, it is part of orthodox Christian belief (both Catholic and non-Catholic) that Jesus ascended bodily into heaven, still has a body, and will bodily return to earth at some point in the future. Beyond that anything else about oxygen or scientific 'laws' is speculation. Does an omnipotent God need oxygen to stay alive?
    As for one who tried to accuse me of circular logic earlier, it's ironic you don't even recognise your own.

    1. God created humans.
    2. A person is a human.
    =>
    God created persons.
    3. Jesus is God.
    4. Jesus is a person.
    =>
    Jesus created himself. How circular is that?
    That is not my logic - so I guess the strawman factory is cranking up production again. It's good to see one section of the economy is still going strong.

    Christians believe that God is a Person (in fact Three Persons) so we do not believe that God created all persons. We also believe that God created Christ's human body, but that His divine nature pre-existed and took up residence in human flesh (Incarnation).
    If Jesus is a person, then persons can be invisible and personal relationship can encompass a hole host of magic and paranormal which cannot be explained by scientific analysis.
    I see no logical reason why, in theory, a person cannot be invisible. Don't some scientists see invisibility as a theoretical possibility? If someone invents a technology to produce the Invisible Man then will the poor guy therefore cease to be a person? You are introducing your own arbitrary definitions of personhood - so therefore you are the one who is misusing the English language.


  • #120
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    In all honesty, if someone has had personal experiences with Smeone, its safe to say its a personal relationship.

    Not really, but then again the rules kinda go out the window when you are dealing with a deity, since God by definition knows use in intimate detail.

    I really don't think personal relationship as a concept applies when talking about a relationship between humans and God, because it is trying to map a human to human relationship to something that is fundamentally different to a human


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    PDN wrote: »
    Well there's the problem, isn't it? You see this as a debate, where two people argue opposing positions, try to score points off each other, and try to win others to their point of view.
    Multiple people.
    I had assumed, from your OP, that you were genuinely interested in discovering why Christians speak about having a personal relationship with Jesus. Instead it quickly became obvious that you just wanted to argue.
    I see it as a debate and a discussion. I would have thought Christian Theology had some flexibility in the is a / was a "person" and "personal relationship" part. I think Protestants put more emphasis on this.
    Instead you start going on about scientific detection of communication etc and then, pages later, you still haven't understood that Christians believe Jesus to have a body. That's why I don't think you listen.
    I have heard that and I have examine it and it doesn't make any sense.

    The term 'Christian' gets used so loosely on this board that nobody can speak for all Christians. However, it is part of orthodox Christian belief (both Catholic and non-Catholic) that Jesus ascended bodily into heaven, still has a body, and will bodily return to earth at some point in the future. Beyond that anything else about oxygen or scientific 'laws' is speculation. Does an omnipotent God need oxygen to stay alive?
    Does an omnipotent God need a body? If they do, surely it's not a human body or something what we would / could call a person?
    That is not my logic - so I guess the strawman factory is cranking up production again. It's good to see one section of the economy is still going strong.
    Well point out what you disagree with? Because that's what comes across.

    Christians believe that God is a Person (in fact Three Persons) so we do not believe that God created all persons. We also believe that God created Christ's human body, but that His divine nature pre-existed and took up residence in human flesh (Incarnation).
    So you believe there are three Gods which are one God which are also three persons and one person.
    Correct?
    I see no logical reason why, in theory, a person cannot be invisible.
    I don't know any invisible people myself. But we aren't just talking invisible we are talking undetectable using any scientific technique and not having a full range of properties we associate with personhood. But at the same time we have a hole load of properties that we don't associated with personhood. Answering prayers, putting voices in people's head. Omnipotence. In which case, why call it person, or "personal". That is the point I have been trying to make, and I wonder are any of you listening.


Advertisement