What does "A Personal Relationship with Christ" mean to you?

[Traveler]

There are unfaithful members of every faith tradition. Their unfaithfulness is not a reflection of the truth of the faith tradition.

I think that in essence we agree - that it is not our association with any particular organization but rather to the principles that it stands for. This can become a "slippery slop" when an organization that portends certain principles allows those principles to be violated (slightly altered) by select members (or even has a different set of principles and ordinances for different elements of the organization). Indeed this is a conundrum even within the organizations G-d establishes for man and the reason the covenant of "Israel" fell into bondage on more than 1 occasion - and is in essence the genesis of the flood of Noah. The cause of G-d is the prime excuse for war and almost all the atrocities of history.

Well, of course we all have the responsibility to adhere to the doctrines and teachings of the faith we have chosen otherwise what would be the point in choosing it? We all answer individually, but also as the people of God. We're not in this on our own. Paul speaks very lucidly about this when he compares the Church to a body with many parts.

Did not Jesus say if you eye offend you - it should be plucked out? (Matt. 18:9)

The Traveler

[Traveler]

I appreciate your insight Traveler.

For me, It is like giving a full-report, an accounting, of my actvities and progress. If that is a full accounting there will be things that I know are not pleasing as well as things that are pleasing.

In turn I frequent receive comfort & direction & can even say I have been counseled.

So the idea of "chit chat" & expecting to make beuatiful music is not the concpet I was trying to convey ....

NOTHING in life can be accomplished without applied action and no one can truely improve if they do not have a mentor or coach or someone to emulate - if you are the only person you report to, if you are the only example in your life, no one to challenge you to make improvements except you yourself, then you are likely exactly as you will always be.

I think this gets at the heart of the discussion of this thread and the point I have been trying to make - that point is - the relationship one "thinks" they have with a mentor is meaningless unless they follow the mentor's instructions. If someone thinks they get any special or different treatment from G-d because they enjoy a relationship with him that they think others do not have - I do not believe it - I think they have fallen for one of the oldest "tricks" in Satan's book. Thus my point is that if someone is not keeping the commandments (especially in difficulty or trial) - their pretense of a relationship with G-d is false.

The Traveler

[Sharky]

I think this gets at the heart of the discussion of this thread and the point I have been trying to make - that point is - the relationship one "thinks" they have with a mentor is meaningless unless they follow the mentor's instructions. If someone thinks they get any special or different treatment from G-d because they enjoy a relationship with him that they think others do not have - I do not believe it - I think they have fallen for one of the oldest "tricks" in Satan's book. Thus my point is that if someone is not keeping the commandments (especially in difficulty or trial) - their pretense of a relationship with G-d is false.

The Traveler

Ah Yes Traveler. I think that is where my original response & your interpretation of it took different turns ....

When I said:

...to become much more of a personal mentor in my life.

A person can mentor all they want; however, they do not become a mentor until the mentee(?) mentoree(?), okay, the receipient allows them to be a mentor ... by listening & following and heeding.

So I think we were & are both on the same page, I just assumed a simplistic understanding of a difference between the one-way "mentoring" and the two-way "becoming a mentor".

Okay, so I am a little simple minded & don't have the greatest abilities to express my words .....

Edited February 15, 2013 by Sharky
spelling

[norah63]

A personal relationship is what we either have or don't have. It's not what we just 'think' we have. I could not guess another's personal relationship with anyone.

Their works might tell me they were doing what that person asked of them, or desired of them. Yet I would have no clue how they felt about that person, unless they told me. Then by their words the clues might come forth. Did they speak fondly of the one they were serving, or being obedient to. The op was personal relationship, and when you are in love with a person, anything you can do for them is just a joy, never a task. IMHO.

[SteveVH]

I think that in essence we agree - that it is not our association with any particular organization but rather to the principles that it stands for. This can become a "slippery slop" when an organization that portends certain principles allows those principles to be violated (slightly altered) by select members (or even has a different set of principles and ordinances for different elements of the organization).

Do you have a particular organization in mind or is this just hypothetical? Not quite sure what you're getting at. All I am saying is that many times a Church is judged by its lowest common denominator, by members who are unfaithful and cause scandal. This isn't a fair way to judge any faith tradition.

The cause of G-d is the prime excuse for war and almost all the atrocities of history.

I have found that to actually be a common myth. Count the bodies left in the wake of Hitler (12 million), Stalin (6 million) and the all-star mass murderer of all time, Mao (50-78 million), to name a few non-religious mass murderers and tyrants. No religious wars come close. But time will tell with the situation in the middle east. A nuke here, a nuke there, and all of a sudden millions could be gone literally in a flash. Very scary.

And, we must not forget that, as of the last anniversary of Rowe vs. Wade, 50 million innocent, helpless lives have been taken by abortion, in this country alone, making the womb of a mother, statistically, the most dangerous place in the world to live. This, again, the result of secularism, not religion, although I do blame those religious organizations who do not speak out on behalf of the most vulnerable and innocent among us who don't have a voice of their own. No one hears their screams.

[Vort]

The cause of G-d is the prime excuse for war and almost all the atrocities of history.

This may be true; I don't know. But if it is, it is just that, an excuse. "Pretext" might be a better word.

[Traveler]

This may be true; I don't know. But if it is, it is just that, an excuse. "Pretext" might be a better word.

There is and always have been possible discrepancies between what is and what is perceived to be. Thus it seem to me to be a matter, not so much the difference in what is perceived to be, as it is the means by which individuals consider a sanity check or verification concerning what they think they perceived to be.

It seems to me that the most prolific invalid verification employed by us human species types - is what we desperately want - the more desperately we want the more we seem to cling to that perception as reality.

Although even the scientific community is prone to such delusions - it does not appear to me that scientist to be anywhere near the delusions suffered in religion and politics. Granted there are wars that are not religiously motivated - in which case I believe it to be politics - I do not know of a war in history based for purpose because of scientific delusions.

The Traveler

[Windseeker]

I do not know of a war in history based for purpose because of scientific delusions.

The Traveler

How about World War II. It's without question that Social Darwinism played it's part in Nazism and the associated attrocities.

[Traveler]

How about World War II. It's without question that Social Darwinism played it's part in Nazism and the associated attrocities.

I think you should study rise of Nazism - In particular the term "3rd Reich" had reference to the 3rd rise of the "Holy Roman Empire" - which was by very definition Christian - or at least a perception of Christian.

Others may use the term Social Darwinism to refer to the Nazis but it is important to understand that they (Nazi) believed they did their Christian G-d a service in attempting to exterminate Jews and others considered unacceptable in their Christianity.

I personally agree with the LDS position - that it is contrary to Christian beliefs to initiate offensive war. I also believe that those despite their Articles of faith and doctrine taught from the Book of Mormon that pursued to initiate the Mountain Meadow Massacre will answer to G-d for their crime.

The Traveler

[Vort]

Granted there are wars that are not religiously motivated - in which case I believe it to be politics - I do not know of a war in history based for purpose because of scientific delusions.

Hitler, an atheist who considered himself very scientific, was taken with the then-current scientific theories of Aryan supremacy. We see where that led. No war in recorded history took a greater toll of human life than the one waged by Hitler in search of his scientific wonderland.

[Traveler]

Do you have a particular organization in mind or is this just hypothetical? Not quite sure what you're getting at. All I am saying is that many times a Church is judged by its lowest common denominator, by members who are unfaithful and cause scandal. This isn't a fair way to judge any faith tradition.

There are many examples - Nazi Germany may be suitable to you in that homosexuals were openly despised - yet many high ranking officials of the Nazi party participated in homosexual activity. I am sure you can think of other leaders that teach principles to their followers that they do not practice. It is quite common for our Congress to pass laws (like Social Security) that they require of the general population but they themselves to not participate.

I have found that to actually be a common myth. Count the bodies left in the wake of Hitler (12 million), Stalin (6 million) and the all-star mass murderer of all time, Mao (50-78 million), to name a few non-religious mass murderers and tyrants. No religious wars come close. But time will tell with the situation in the middle east. A nuke here, a nuke there, and all of a sudden millions could be gone literally in a flash. Very scary.

Your point is well take - but I would point out that many view secularism as a religion. I somewhat agree - atrocities in the name of social justice - or to right some perceived moral beliefs -- appears to me to be at least a form of religion and a false worship.

And, we must not forget that, as of the last anniversary of Rowe vs. Wade, 50 million innocent, helpless lives have been taken by abortion, in this country alone, making the womb of a mother, statistically, the most dangerous place in the world to live. This, again, the result of secularism, not religion, although I do blame those religious organizations who do not speak out on behalf of the most vulnerable and innocent among us who don't have a voice of their own. No one hears their screams.

This is a point to which I must agree - even if one considers the ruling in Rowe vs. Wade a just decision - which ruled only in the 1st trimester of a pregnancy is a fetus not considered human - yet many viable children well beyond the 1st trimester and in a stage of development in which many children have survived outside the womb, have been unnecessarily and unjustly killed.

But as I have posted - this is according to perceived morals and justice which is in my mind the very definition of religion.

The Traveler

[selek]

Vort: unless of course one counts Stalin and Lenin's war against the peoples of Russia and eastern Europe (most of whom were their own citizenry) in the name of scientific socialism, or the millions who died in Southeast Asia in the name of the same cause.

Remember: socialism was repeatedly cast as a rationale, scientific discipline and as the logical and inevitable result of the process of history.

[Traveler]

Hitler, an atheist who considered himself very scientific, was taken with the then-current scientific theories of Aryan supremacy. We see where that led. No war in recorded history took a greater toll of human life than the one waged by Hitler in search of his scientific wonderland.

Hitler was an atheist? Why would he want to establish a "Christian Empire"? - the 3rd installment of the Holy Roman Empire? Which by definition is Christian? The Nazis are also called extreme "Right" when they were in every way Socialists - which is "Left" wing politics.

The Traveler

[Vort]

Hitler was an atheist?

Did you honestly not know this?

Why would he want to establish a "Christian Empire"? - the 3rd installment of the Holy Roman Empire?

Not sure which part of "power-hungry" you do not understand.

Which by definition is Christian?

By whose definition? Not mine.

[SteveVH]

There are many examples - Nazi Germany may be suitable to you in that homosexuals were openly despised - yet many high ranking officials of the Nazi party participated in homosexual activity. I am sure you can think of other leaders that teach principles to their followers that they do not practice. It is quite common for our Congress to pass laws (like Social Security) that they require of the general population but they themselves to not participate.

Okay, I'm not sure what this has to do with our conversation, however. Yes, there are hypocrites in every organization.

Your point is well take - but I would point out that many view secularism as a religion. I somewhat agree - atrocities in the name of social justice - or to right some perceived moral beliefs -- appears to me to be at least a form of religion and a false worship.

But the very definition of "secular" means that it is not religious. It becomes difficult to communicate when we assign our own unique definition to commonly understood words. The point I am making is that those without God in their lives at least to some extent have created the greatest autrocities.

This is a point to which I must agree - even if one considers the ruling in Rowe vs. Wade a just decision - which ruled only in the 1st trimester of a pregnancy is a fetus not considered human - yet many viable children well beyond the 1st trimester and in a stage of development in which many children have survived outside the womb, have been unnecessarily and unjustly killed.

What the first trimester has to do with whether or not a human life is growing within a woman's womb I will never understand. And I have no idea how one who professes to be a Christian can believe that Rowe vs. Wade was a just decision. When did a woman ever have the right to kill her children? Abortion is on its way to making the holocost look like a picnic and those who stand by and say nothing are just as guilty as those who stood by and said nothing about the holocost.

Sorry, didn't mean to derail the thread here, but I am very passionate about this subject. Do you know that an equivalent of a 911 is happening every single day in this country? Over three thousand innocent lives every day! It is as barbaric as mankind has ever been, maybe worse. Even in the pagan hordes children were looked upon as a blessing and not disposed of as an inconvenience.

Edited February 18, 2013 by StephenVH

[Windseeker]

Yeah..wiki, not the greatest but I believe this is correct

Nazi Germany's justification for its aggression was regularly promoted in Nazi propaganda films depicting scenes such as beetles fighting in a lab setting to demonstrate the principles of "survival of the fittest" as depicted in Alles Leben ist Kampf (English translation: All Life is Struggle). Hitler often refused to intervene in the promotion of officers and staff members, preferring instead to have them fight amongst themselves to force the "stronger" person to prevail - "strength" referring to those social forces void of virtue or principle.

The argument that Nazi ideology was strongly influenced by social Darwinist ideas is often found in historical and social science literature. For example, the Jewish philosopher and historian Hannah Arendt analysed the historical development from a politically indifferent scientific Darwinism via social Darwinist ethics to racist ideology.

[Traveler]

Okay, I'm not sure what this has to do with our conversation, however. Yes, there are hypocrites in every organization.

But the very definition of "secular" means that it is not religious. It becomes difficult to communicate when we assign our own unique definition to commonly understood words. The point I am making is that those without God in their lives at least to some extent have created the greatest autrocities.

I think the point on which we should agree that those that worship the true and living G-d - do not start wars or use the name of G-d to commit atrocities.

What the first trimester has to do with whether or not a human life is growing within a woman's womb I will never understand. And I have no idea how one who professes to be a Christian can believe that Rowe vs. Wade was a just decision. When did a woman ever have the right to kill her children? Abortion is on its way to making the holocost look like a picnic and those who stand by and say nothing are just as guilty as those who stood by and said nothing about the holocost.

Sorry, didn't mean to derail the thread here, but I am very passionate about this subject. Do you know that an equivalent of a 911 is happening every single day in this country? Over three thousand innocent lives every day! It is as barbaric as mankind has ever been, maybe worse. Even in the pagan hordes children were looked upon as a blessing and not disposed of as an inconvenience.

I agree - but I wanted to point out that even the advocates of freedom of choice that argued Row vs Wade only argued that the fetus is not a child during the first trimester have demonstrated the flaw and hypocrisy of their legal argument by supporting abortions of viable children in latent pregnancy.

I would add my scientific thought to your viewpoint with this additional thought. Even if we presume that a pregnancy was not planned - that it is a complete surprise for whatever reason. For many years scientist have been searching our galaxy and nearby galaxies for life - in particular intelligent life. There are definite “signs” that we can use to detect the most intelligent use of nuclear fusion or fission reaction - it is like a finger print and a beacon of advanced civilization - but there is no sign of any such civilization in our galaxy or any nearby galaxies that theoretically should support such life forms within the window of light years to be at our level or more advanced - this means that intelligent and advanced life even to our level is a very rare thing in this part of the universe -- But then - how intelligent is an individual that wants to kill a most rare life form that in all the universe is most like them? How can such an intelligent life form live with itself when they realize what they have done?

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

I think the point on which we should agree that those that worship the true and living G-d - do not start wars or use the name of G-d to commit atrocities.

I agree - but I wanted to point out that even the advocates of freedom of choice that argued Row vs Wade only argued that the fetus is not a child during the first trimester have demonstrated the flaw and hypocrisy of their legal argument by supporting abortions of viable children in latent pregnancy.

I would add my scientific thought to your viewpoint with this additional thought. Even if we presume that a pregnancy was not planned - that it is a complete surprise for whatever reason. For many years scientist have been searching our galaxy and nearby galaxies for life - in particular intelligent life. There are definite “signs” that we can use to detect the most intelligent use of nuclear fusion or fission reaction - it is like a finger print and a beacon of advanced civilization - but there is no sign of any such civilization in our galaxy or any nearby galaxies that theoretically should support such life forms within the window of light years to be at our level or more advanced - this means that intelligent and advanced life even to our level is a very rare thing in this part of the universe -- But then - how intelligent is an individual that wants to kill a most rare life form that in all the universe is most like them? How can such an intelligent life form live with itself when they realize what they have done?

The Traveler

I agree with everything you said. But the idea that a fertilized human egg is somehow not a human life is scientifically inaccurate. Imagine how upset most people would be if I climbed a tree and starting hurling eggs out of an Eagle's nest. I could respond "What's the big deal, its not an Eagle, its only a ferilized egg". Most would not see it that way. They would realize that I am in fact destroying the life of an eagle. Not so when it comes to human beings. The fact that the Supreme Court concluded that there is no human life present during the first trimester is meaningless. The court use to uphold laws in favor of slavery as well.

Anyway, you make some good points. Great post. Having said that I think we have gone way off topic here. There was a thread that I started on the abortion issue which was shut downby the moderators (twice, actually). I don't think they would be real happy with me for discussing the topic again on an unrelated thread so these will be my last comments on this issue.

Edited February 28, 2013 by StephenVH

[Traveler]

I agree with everything you said. But the idea that a fertilized human egg is somehow not a human life is scientifically inaccurate. Imagine how upset most people would be if I climbed a tree and starting hurling eggs out of an Eagle's nest. I could respond "What's the big deal, its not an Eagle, its only a ferilized egg". Most would not see it that way. They would realize that I am in fact destroying the life of an eagle. Not so when it comes to human beings. The fact that the Supreme Court concluded that there is no human life present during the first trimester is meaningless. The court use to uphold laws in favor of slavery as well.

Anyway, you make some good points. Great post. Having said that I think we have gone way off topic here. There was a thread that I started on the abortion issue which was shut downby the moderators (twice, actually). I don't think they would be real happy with me for discussing the topic again on an unrelated thread so these will be my last comments on this issue.

Perhaps we are a little off topic but maybe not - So may I ask a question of the forum? If Christ was posting - what do you think he would say about personal relationships? Maybe something like Matt. 7:21-23?

Anyway - I wanted Stephen to know that though I disagree in some matters (perhaps some important and critical matters) - there are others (also critical and important) in which he is a trusted ally.

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

Perhaps we are a little off topic but maybe not - So may I ask a question of the forum? If Christ was posting - what do you think he would say about personal relationships? Maybe something like Matt. 7:21-23?

Anyway - I wanted Stephen to know that though I disagree in some matters (perhaps some important and critical matters) - there are others (also critical and important) in which he is a trusted ally.

The Traveler

My opinion is that ever since Jesus started his Church, having a personal relationship with Christ means having a personal relationship with his Church. It has never been about just me and God, rather it is about us and God, a united body of which I am a part; the mystical Body of Christ.

Obviously, we all must relate to God within our own being. I have personal conversations with God on a daily basis. He guides me through each day. But I must realize that I am a part of something much larger than myself; Christ's Church, the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ. It is through this union with God and with each other that we realize the purpose for which we were created. It will not be fully realized until we are in heaven and share in the life of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit as adopted children of God.

Also, thanks for your honesty and your vote of confidence. That means a lot.

God bless you, Traveler.

[Maureen]

...It has never been about just me and God, rather it is about us and God, a united body of which I am a part; the mystical Body of Christ....

It's about being a family.

M.

[Anddenex]

I agree with everything you said. But the idea that a fertilized human egg is somehow not a human life is scientifically inaccurate. Imagine how upset most people would be if I climbed a tree and starting hurling eggs out of an Eagle's nest. I could respond "What's the big deal, its not an Eagle, its only a ferilized egg". Most would not see it that way. They would realize that I am in fact destroying the life of an eagle. Not so when it comes to human beings. The fact that the Supreme Court concluded that there is no human life present during the first trimester is meaningless. The court use to uphold laws in favor of slavery as well.

I think this is one of the most valid points I have heard regarding the egg of a woman, however, I feel like being the devil's advocate for a moment.

I assume you don't like chicken eggs do you? Many of us eat eggs for breakfast, and I am particular fond of the breakfast burrito -- eggs, hash browns, and meat.

Yes, at times fertilized chicken eggs become breakfast for our culture, and some cultures the small chicken within the egg, is a delicacy.

:)

[SteveVH]

I think this is one of the most valid points I have heard regarding the egg of a woman, however, I feel like being the devil's advocate for a moment.

I assume you don't like chicken eggs do you? Many of us eat eggs for breakfast, and I am particular fond of the breakfast burrito -- eggs, hash browns, and meat.

Yes, at times fertilized chicken eggs become breakfast for our culture, and some cultures the small chicken within the egg, is a delicacy.

:)

I am not in any way trying to imply that there is something wrong with eating eggs. In fact forget the eggs. I'll be happy to eat the chicken as well.

The only reason that I use the analogy of the eagle's egg is to show that our society actually places more importance on an eagle's egg then it does on a human egg. I would be arrested if I destroyed the eagle's egg. It is just fine if I want to destroy a fertilized human egg or embryo.

My point is that life begins at conception and sometimes an analogy from outside of ourselves hleps us see that. Just using science, if we draw a time line of a human life, from its beginning to its end, we must begin at conception. That is when the cells of the father and the mother become someone else, a separate being entirely.

As much as I would like to have this conversation, I will just say again that the moderators have shut down the threads on this subject and so I don't want to continue it under the cover of another thread topic. In other words, we need to respect the decision of the moderators. I do appreciate your comments, however.

[SteveVH]

It's about being a family.

M.

You got it.

[Misshalfway]

Having a personal relationship with Jesus to me means letting Him in. So, I try to practice that. Whether I'm in a state of sadness or angry or apathy or joy, I try to let him in.

I used to be afraid of Him.When I was young. I remember being so afraid at age 14 that He'd condemn me in my patriarchal blessing. What a relief it was when I read the words and felt such a love instead.

I used to just serve him.....from a distance. Like guiding others up to get healed by him but keeping myself safely to the side.

Now, I worship with a lot less fear. And I've learned that Jesus understood my fear and where it came from. And I learned that he liked me anyway. And he'd stay with me anyway.

So, now I try not to hide anything. If I'm angry and spiteful, I tell him. If I'm sad or afraid or confused, I let him into that. And he helps me with it. And I've learned that letting him in sure relieves the stress. No he doesn't solve it all in a day. He is a god of process. But it's so comforting that I can be a human being that is growing and that I don't have to figure it all out on my own.