What is meant by having "a personal relationship with Jesus"?

[MarkCharles]

I am truly curious. Several of my friends from high school now claim to have this.

They went to the same church as I did back then, a Protestant rather liberal middle-of-the-road church, compared to the spectrum.

But they stayed in that church for years and years, and it gradually went more and more "fundamental", as they say.

I met up with a three of them in the last month, (people I see once a year or two) at Christmas things, and they said that they now had a "personal relationship with Jesus".

The setting and the timing of their revelations were awkward for me asking for a more extensive discussion, and I'm really over 100 miles from where they live, so we probably won't chat much in the coming days.

One of them had a Bush 04 sticker on his truck, so I sort of got the idea that we will only be casual acquaintances from this point forward in our lives.

But I'm curious, and I'm not about to call or visit them to find out, but I'd love to know how having "a personal relationship with Jesus" is anything tangible, anything measurable, anything demonstrable, compared to having a personal relationship with people you know and love.

So I'm opening up the question here.

Anyone care to fill me in?

[PassingFair]

1. This?

[immoderate]

2. and insert "...and you don't!"

Can't say I know a lot about it, but sounds like the perpetual pissing contest believers have about their devoutness.

King's new clothes is the key. If you question it, you don't understand.


--imm

[cbayer]

3. I've never seen anyone say that here, so I am not sure you will find

someone who can give you a description from a personal perspective.

OTOH, if you google the phrase, you can find lots of rather interesting articles on this phrase.

It's not a biblical concept (that I am aware of).

[GliderGuider]

4. Culture and language

I expect it's what happens to a direct experience of the numinous when it gets filtered through a would-be mystic's culturally-defined world-view. We use the language we know to communicate our experiences in such a way as to maximize our social acceptability.

Where I might say I had directly felt the unity of all things or had experienced samadhi, someone else might say they have a personal relationship with Jesus. Same experience, different cultural setting and language.

[rrneck]

5. I've heard it a lot.

It's about the same as saying "your Wall Mart". It's a Jesus designed to be personally possessed like any other consumer product.

The concept turns religion on its head. It's founded on an egotistical grasping sort of spirituality rather than promoting common cause with those around you.

[MarkCharles]

6. I appreciate all respondents so far, I'm at a loss to understand it..

and I sort of thought of it as their ultimate put-down, that anything other than THEIR way of thinking was worthless.

But I still value them as old friends. I wish I knew what thought process led them to that way of thinking, when we grew up on The Golden Rule more than on anything else in the Bible as young Christians.

This is a phenomenon I want to understand from someone else's personal perspective, not from a doctrinal point of view.

[cbayer]

8. Like I said, you may have to go find someone who actually says that.

You may find that person here, but I doubt it. And even if they are here, I suspect they would be unlikely to engage in this thread.

So far, it looks like mostly what you will get is answers that use it as an opportunity to attack believers.

Who would have guessed that??

[MarkCharles]

11. Attack believers? Or question their beliefs? There's a distinct...

difference! Don't you agree?

[cbayer]

14. Oh, there is most definitely a difference.

... the perpetual pissing contest believers have about their devoutness.

... founded on an egotistical grasping sort of spirituality

... a type of hallucination

... Kind of like having a personal relationship with your invisible friend when you're Except that you're a grown-up, and a lot of other grown-ups want to have the same invisible friend. And calling him "Jesus" instead of "Harvey" is the best way to avoid the guys in the white coats.

... It's when one is really, really convinced that his imaginary friend is real.

You decide.

Of course, you are truly curious and really only wanted to hear from people that actually use this phrase in an attempt to better understand it. It's just an unfortunate turn of events that it is primarily being used as a vehicle to insult believers.

[MarkCharles]

15. Some people here seem to marry their beliefs with their identity.

"egotistical grasping sort of spirituality"

"a type of hallucination"

"having a personal relationship with your invisible friend"


"convinced that his imaginary friend is real"


We are talking about beliefs and behaviors here, not insults to human beings, (unless you find them identical).


You do realize that these statements of opinion deal with questioning beliefs or descriptions of behaviors, and not about insulting actual human beings, right?

[cbayer]

16. Right you are. There are many here that seem to marry their beliefs

(or lack of beliefs) with their identities. They tend to be the ones who are the least tolerant of other, IMO.

Questioning beliefs as a matter of opinion is one thing. Referring to those that see things differently as mentally ill is quite another.

These are insults against actual human beings (assuming your "friends" described in the OP are actual human beings).

You do understand that, right? (a statement which is insulting on it's face).

[MarkCharles]

17. If people are mentally ill, they deserve our support, it is not an insult.

I'm sorry if you find diagnosis of some illnesses insulting, if I were a diabetic, and you called me a diabetic, should I feel insulted? I certainly don't think so. I'd expect your support for my challenges from that illness.

I think some people find some illnesses more alien than others.

You do understand that many religious people experience visions and hallucinations, right?

You do understand that only people who experience NON religious visions and hallucinations are labeled "mentally ill" by your own definition, right?

[cbayer]

19. Oh, I didn't realize that people posting here were psychiatrists!

My bad.

You do understand that "You do understand" is insulting, right?

I do understand that there are some people who say that they have experienced visions. There was a very interesting thread here a couple of days ago about how many people believe in angels. There were many members who talked honestly about their personal experiences. None of them appeared to be mentally ill. And none of them related it to a religious experience, that I recall.

Did you know that visions or hallucinations can be caused by all kinds of things and are not necessarily signs of psychiatric illness? In fact, any competent psychiatrist will look first for another cause before proceeding with a psychiatric diagnosis.

So, save your hollow statements about supporting those that you feel are suffering from a mental illness.

[humblebum]

26. Yes, and some fail to see it in themselves.

"You do realize that these statements of opinion deal with questioning beliefs or descriptions of behaviors, and not about insulting actual human beings, right?"

"You walk a very fine line in a very gray area" - To many people their mannerisms and their beliefs ARE their identity. I don't buy your blather, nor ascribe to your POV. But, it's nothing personal.I am simply questioning your reasoning and non-beliefs.

[frebrd]

7. I guess it's a type of hallucination that.......

is hard for outsiders to understand.

[skepticscott]

9. Kind of like having a personal relationship

with your invisible friend when you're 6. Except that you're a grown-up, and a lot of other grown-ups want to have the same invisible friend. And calling him "Jesus" instead of "Harvey" is the best way to avoid the guys in the white coats.

[edhopper]

10. Mainly a counter to Catholicism

and other more formal religions, where you have a Pope or Archbishop praying to Jesus for you. or you pray to Saints who might intervene with God. You have a "personal" relationship where you can talk directly to Jesus and he can act on your behalf.

[MarkCharles]

13. Oh, THAT'S what it's all about?

I never thought of it in that context. But that sounds reasonable.

I find it hard to have a "personal relationship" with someone that I have never met. I can have "relationships" of all types, even "relationships" with people on the internet, whom I have never met, don't even know where in the world they are, but we can share something together.

But with someone dead about 2000 years, I can't imagine a "personal relationship" with someone like that, just as I cannot imagine a "personal relationship" with Martin Luther King, whom I deeply admire, but whom I know less about.

[Igel]

25. That's a big part of it.

No intermediary. Saints are less important per se than just not having anybody between you and Jesus. Thomas a Kempis probably would use "personal relationship", even if he was Catholic. He was pietistic, "mystical" in bent as opposed to corporatist and formal.

The phrase emphasizes personal worship, not corporate or group worship. You may gather for worship but that's an adjunct to a one-on-one relationship. Whatever formalisms there are, apart from a few biggies (baptism and marriage, mostly) they're unimportant.

It goes further than that. It means that you actually do take the time to pray and read the Bible or other study materials. Perhaps sing hymns. This is measurable.

It goes with some feeling or sense that Jesus is "with you" and not just "with my peer group." It's an open claim that there are things in your life that you think God/Jesis are responsible for above and beyond anything you did. It's a claim that you think of Jesus as not distant and omnipotent, but a big brother and close to you.

In some ways it's code for "I'm a Christian and it's important to me that I am a Christian." It also says something about your type of Xianity.

[lindysalsagal]

31. "Personal relationship" implies a fair give and take, contributions from both

so to me (a total athiest) it means someone has really needed the illusion of a powerful benevolent agent working in their life just to get them through the day. There is a re-parenting aspect to it that differs from the traditional methodist-sunday-easy-going type of believer.

This person is saying that he or she "gives more" than most and also "gets more" than most, and on an entirely different plain.

I hear it as someone who has not grown up and is trying to strengthen themselves in the face of hardships, setbacks or difficulties. There's also a surrender aspect: Someone who hasn't had the earthly system pay off for them has waived the white flag on other people or organizations. This is someone in a phase- I don't think it's a long-term destination, unless that person is a working evangelical. In that case, this is a tool meant to bring others to him/her.

[Deep13]

12. It's when one is really, really convinced that his imaginary friend is real. nt

[Taverner]

18. As an Ex-Christian, let me explain it in computer terms:

When an evangelical or fundie (it really is only them that think of things in this dangerous way) believes in a personal relationship, they mean something akin to a process that always runs in your brain. It's patterned partially off the bible, but partially off of various authority figures in your life: your dad, your mom, your grandfather, sibling, etc.

In UNIX, every program you run is called a process. It is a program that can create, shut down, and modify other programs if it has root access. And "Personal Relationship w/Jesus" almost ASSUREDLY runs with full root access.

In a real world scenario, it basically means sacrificing all of your personality, your "self", your reason, your desires, your mind, and every living thought to that self-created form of "Jesus." This is why I think Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christianity is a CULT just as much as Scientology.

You sacrifice you (born again, remember) instead of making decisions for yourself.

[deacon_sephiroth]

33. outstanding explanation

and no where is the desire to delete the self and replace your own thoughts with the cult icon than in thier own slogans.

WWJD?

Wear it, say it, sing it, ask yourself, and he shall do the thinking for you... Consult the Jesus partition of your brain nd leave the rest out of it, anytime you have to make a decision, just ask yourself what a jewish carpenter from 2000+ years ago in the middle east would do in your sted.

Of course when WWJD was real big I was still in High school and had a much much worst attitude than I do now, so my ussual responce to such a question was. "What would Jesus do?" -- "He'd die, why don't you?"

[Taverner]

34. "He'd die, why don't you?" - LOL

Mean, but funny

[tama]

69. Not only mean and funny

but also deep.

[MineralMan]

20. If you ask for an explanation, you're likely to get

some mumbled expression of something that won't make it any clearer to you. It's pretty much an empty phrase that is learned from another person who has such a "personal relationship," so it's obviously a really, really good thing to have. Just saying it is enough, I believe. You don't have to know what it means. Now, if the person with this "personal relationship" is at all clever, they will have learned to tell you that you can't know what it means until you have your own such "personal relationship." You have to have one before you can understand what it is, but if you have one, you'll understand immediately. Or so the story goes.

Eventually, you'll just nod knowingly when told this bit of information. That is the only acceptable response.

[lindysalsagal]

32. I'm sure that getting to that point requires lots of attention paid to the teacher, as well as lots

of time in service to the organization's needs, and of course, money.
There's also probably a pyramid scheme involved where you have to bring others to jesus before he lets you into his special clubhouse.

[RainDog]

21. it's a fundamentalist term

that stems from the idea of being "born again."

Nuns have had a similar expression - they "marry" christ.

but if you're a fundie xtian, you can marry a human and have a personal relationship with jesus. polyamory for the pew warmers.

fundies traditionally trashed the mainline denominations as being too abstract and too willing to let go of literalism. they said the mainliners' christianity was just "lukewarm" fundies like the concept developed by Bill Bright, of Campus Crusade for Christ and his little proselytizing pamphlets that talk about making a decision to turn your heart and life over to Jesus.

(the brain, which has to be put in a coffin, doesn't get mentioned.)

so they're saying they had a religious conversion, of sorts, in which they spent a lot of time with other fundies who share their pov.

[LiberalAndProud]

22. I can only speak as a recovering theist,

that is to say, I think I can explain this to you.

It is difficult to describe this personal relationship except in terms of an entity (perceived as separate from self) in your head heart who is always there -- somebody to talk to when things aren't going well or to thank when they are. Who understands and forgives *everything* about you.

It is something like having an imaginary best friend who loves you no matter what. To be honest, I think it is exactly like that.

[cbayer]

23. What is so fascinating about this description is that I think Freud

would use similar terminology to describe a healthy ego.

Another concept that can't really be proven, but has been very helpful in understanding human psychology.

I think your description is apt.

[RainDog]

24. yeah but Freud was sort of...off the mark himself

I always thought Freud's true gift was appropriating the trinity for a secular/post Darwin western society. Christianity also appropriated various religions' beliefs for their version of a deity as well on their way to becoming top dog in the west.

Sartre did a pretty good take down of Freud's ideas - specifically about the way that the unconscious cannot exist.

In terms of cognitive therapeutic terms - the voice you talk to in your head is always your own voice and learning to overcome distortions of that voice (all or nothing thinking, generalizations) create a healthy ego. the forgiveness is about undoing what others have said so often that you appropriate those negatives in your own inner dialog.

[deacon_sephiroth]

35. god as a guru, or friend when you need one.

Where did I hear that before?

Ah yes, at a Hitchens debate.

"That this evening we've already had your suggestion that God is only really a guru, a friend when you're in need. I mean he wouldn't do anything like bugger around with Job to prove a point. Which if I now tell you well that must mean that that book is not the word of god, you can say 'well whoever believed that was ever the word of god?'

Let me just tell you something: for hundreds and thousands of years, this kind of discussion would have been in most places impossible to have, or Sam and I would have been having it at the risk of our lives. Religion now comes to us in this smiley-face ingratiating way because it has had to give so much ground, and we know so much more. But you have no right to forget the way it behaved when it was strong, and when it really did believe that it had god on its side." - Hitch

[lindysalsagal]

81. Interesting. Implication: Current purveyors know they don't have god and followers

don't, but there will always be a desire for god. Therefore, the purveyors settle for a half-hearted shrug in the direction of god as better than nothing.

Gotta say- I think you're right. Otherwise, why would the church try so hard, including getting into the politics business? They act as thought they, themselves will never have to answer for their deceptions and judgments of others.

[mr blur]

27. I've heard it said in the context of "Christianity is not a religion,..."

"... it's a a personal relationship with Jesus".

Always seems to me to be a way of being able to 'protect' Christianity from all the standard criticisms of religion against which they have no real rational arguments: "Oh, you can say that about religion but, you see, Christianity....."

A relationship, however, is a two-way thing; talking to yourself isn't.

[MarkCharles]

28. That's another angle I honestly hadn't thought about!

Thanks for that insight! Yes, people can claim a "personal relationship" and feel further insulated from the valid criticisms of organized religions.

[Odin2005]

29. They are mentally immature and want a personal sky daddy.

[MarkCharles]

30. Oh dear, mental immaturity is not going to go over well with..

people who believe in their personal sky daddy, people who think facts mean less than unsubstantiated beliefs, people who have an intolerance for anyone other than other believers in a sky daddy, yet have an unfounded accusation for those "organized" without beliefs in a sky daddy: whom they accuse of being Stalinists, or worse.

They are going to INSIST that their arguments are not so "immature"!

[humblebum]

37. Spending hours and hours reading and hearing atheists' complaints about others' ideas, but

very seldom do they discuss the benefits of atheism. Oh yes. Of course. Nothing. Yes, I must admit nothingness does have a certain flair. Not one shred of evidence to assert the claims of nothingness or to explain all of the various nuances of nothingness - but, by god, whoops! I mean by nothing, it's exciting! And oh so logical.

[laconicsax]

38. Replace "nothingness" with "God" and you've summarized why many of us are atheists. n/t

[humblebum]

39. Oh of course, given that the vast majority of posts in this group concern comments

about religion. And there is plenty of objective proof that "things" are "created" by living beings, i.e. your computer, but very seldom do "things" pop into being from nothingness. Gee. let me see. Which is more believable? That's a real stumper.

[laconicsax]

40. You're trotting out THAT hoary old argument?

BTW: You may enjoy reading this article--http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110603/full/news.2011.346.html

[humblebum]

41. The trouble with "THAT hoary old argument" is that it is

too simplistic and logical. That observation stuff will get you every time. BTW, I am familiar with your definition of nothingness. Your nothingness is now a somethingness. It had to be changed to validate atheistic hypotheses.

[laconicsax]

42. If by simplistic and logical, you mean wrong...

Paley's design argument (a favorite of creationists, and you apparently) has been discredited and debunked too many times to count in the 209 years since it was first made.

It makes three big errors in reasoning. I'll leave it to you to figure out what they are.

[humblebum]

43. There IS NO PROOF one way or the other. That's the point. You are conducting

an ad hoc argument. The old argument that nothing comes from nothing makes perfect sense, unless of course your nothing is now a something.

[laconicsax]

44. Sigh...you really don't get it, do you?

Arguing that something complex requires an external agency was first thoroughly debunked in 1859.

Arguing that the universe must have been created invites the still unanswered question of how the creator came to be. If you argue that the creator self-created or that the creator always existed, you are contradicting the premise that everything needs an outside creator. If you argue that an even more complex being created the creator, the question continues ad infinitum.

There is ample evidence that the universe could have self-started. You can accept this, or continue your fingers in your ears while yelling "something can't come from nothing."

[humblebum]

45. Your "ample evidence that the universe could have self-started." is nothing

more than hypothesis. There IS no proof. The absence of answers to important questions in no way constitutes negative answers. We are debating a truly unanswerable question if one is seeking totally objective proof. ALL IS SUBJECTIVE.

[laconicsax]

46. Nothing more than hypothesis? Uh, no. It's been experimentally confirmed.

[humblebum]

47. In a laboratory that simulated a theoretical model of an ancient natural environment.

Yep! Definite proof. Even when it is a theory based on a theory. So whether or not it rises to the level of a theory is debatable. Again, THERE IS NO PROOF. ALL IS SUBJECTIVE.

[laconicsax]

48. Wrong again.

I feel like we have this conversation every few months. I post facts, you ignore them, and so on.

What evidence do you have that your god-based model is correct? None? That's interesting...now why should I take it seriously at all?

[MarkCharles]

49. I'm starting to see a pattern here. Evidence presented, some posters

have too little a science and math background to understand it, so mythical-based religion is the answer!!!!

These folks, might as well be dancing around campfires, and yet they have the arrogance to denounce a science they cannot understand.

I've seen this all my life, "I don't understand, therefore religious beliefs are better!"

[humblebum]

67. "They have the arrogance to denounce a science they cannot understand." - or

someone who has the arrogance to claim that he actually knows the background, education, and definite religious beliefs of anyone he encounters. I do remember that you claimed that you could no longer be taught anything, and that you expressed a contempt for your students because of their conflicting beliefs - conflicting with your own, that is.

[humblebum]

50. "What evidence do you have that your god-based model is correct?" I guess

the all caps thing is doin' it. Again. There is NO proof. Yes, your experiment was done in a laboratory, under controlled conditions, and by living human beings. Again. You have NO proof. I do not claim proof. All is subjective. There is NO PROOF.

[laconicsax]

52. As you readily admit that you have no evidence...

Why should I see your claim of a creator deity as anything to be taken seriously?

[humblebum]

53. As I said before, it is all subjective. And why should I take you seriously

just because the natural world in no way demonstrates something from nothing, or that existence did, nor did not, have a beginning. To those who have experienced or witnessed a supernatural event, no objective proof is needed. All is subjective and people are going to believe what they believe or not.

[laconicsax]

58. This is where you fail.

My declining to take your illogical guesses seriously is different from your stubborn refusal to accept the growing evidence that the universe could have self-started without the need for a creator deity.

You can say that everything is subjective, but you'd be wrong. Some things are objectively true--that is, they are true whether anyone believes it or not. The framework under which the universe could have self-started is objectively true and has been experimentally confirmed. Refusing to accept that on the basis that an ancient philosopher posited that something must always come from nothing is intellectually bankrupt. The limited personal experience of someone living thousands of years ago is a laughable source for understanding the universe. The ancient understanding of the universe was, in many ways, absolutely wrong:

There's no series of celestial spheres, Earth isn't even close to being the center of the universe (and the sun is no closer), heavy objects fall at the same rate as light ones, objects gain mass and shrink dimensionally as they go faster, cold is not a substance, time moves slower the faster you go, and most importantly, when you have nothing, you will always get something.

These things are objectively true. They were true when the Greeks were postulating about existence, they're true now, and they will continue to be true whether there's anyone around to believe so.

[humblebum]

61. "The framework under which the universe could have self-started is objectively true

and has been experimentally confirmed." The problem with your reasoning here is that your statement is only objective within the framework of the experiment. You have have no objective proof that those exact conditions existed in a natural setting. Again your nothingness is not accepted as nothingness by all. It is totally subjective.

[laconicsax]

63. I believe we already established that your definition of nothingness is self-contradictory

As I recall, you defined it to simultaneously exist and not exist then continued to contradict yourself.

First it was an empty void, then it had no physical attributes, then it was zero-dimensional, then it had zero energy and was a closed system but don't I dare point out that those are physical attributes.

Also, the framework I described is physics..you know, the framework under which the universe operates. Saying that my statement "is only objective within the framework of the experiment" and that I "have have no objective proof that those exact conditions existed in a natural setting" shows a complete lack of understanding of just about everything relevant to this discussion.

[humblebum]

64. In other words your nothingness is a somethingness - got it.

IOW, in order for it to exist you must be able to understand it - got it.

[laconicsax]

65. I suppose self-consistent is something. n/t

[humblebum]

66. Mouthing the words "I don't know" would be something too, instead

of inventing explanations to answer your own questions. Normally that is called hypothesizing, which is definitely not fact.

[laconicsax]

68. And again, you show your complete lack of understanding. n/t

[humblebum]

72. As well do you. Huge difference between hypothesis and fact.

IOW, the same old line. if we cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch - it doesn't exist. Your nothingness is still somethingness. You lack the ontological understanding of and distinction between concept and objectivity.

[laconicsax]

73. I was wondering when you'd trot that straw man out. n/t

[humblebum]

74. I think your straw man is a straw man. My statement has everything to do

with identifying your twisted reasoning.

[laconicsax]

75. LOL! Good one!

[tama]

60. Ex nihilo?

Natural world does demonstrate something from nothing, e.g. virtual pairs of (anti)particles popping "in and out" of existence - at least when&where some measurement device/observer is present. When either part of the particle part becomes entangled with Something Else, complexity increases and creation continues.

Also theology can and has done much better than staying within confines of linear causality - the idea that causes the idea of First Cause.

[MarkCharles]

51. One of the best paragraphs of logical response I have ever seen!

"Arguing that the universe must have been created invites the still unanswered question of how the creator came to be. If you argue that the creator self-created or that the creator always existed, you are contradicting the premise that everything needs an outside creator. If you argue that an even more complex being created the creator, the question continues ad infinitum."

This is the concept that religious believers never wish to engage in, nor offer an answer that is in any way intelligible to humankind, their answers ALWAYS avoid this question.

[LiberalAndProud]

54. Not all religious believers also disbelieve evolutionary science.

Christians in my family do not discount Darwin, but incorporate him. I don't say this to defend belief, but to point out that belief does take many forms. We could probably identify as many separate Christian doctrines as numbers of Greek gods.

[Eliminator]

79. Sometimes I wonder if this should be a TOS violation

Seriously. Don't go overboard with the crazy talk. Does actually denying evolution qualify? In my opinion I think it should.

[laconicsax]

80. Historically, crazy talk gets a lot of leeway when discussing religion.

For some reason, claiming that all life on Earth was created by an intelligent agency is crazy talk when that agency is aliens, but not when it's a god.

[tama]

82. Who is saying

that "aliens did it" is crazy talk? AFAIK exogenesis is just as good hypothesis as autogenesis of life on Earth, if not better? The guy who got Nobel from finding DNA (BTW they say with little help from LSD ) supported the Panspermia hypothesis, and there's some evidence of organic molecules on meteorites.

Orthodoxians of every ilk tend to consider anything alternative to their view crazy, but that's just the way of the world...

[laconicsax]

83. Creationists tend to view exogenisis as crazy talk.

And there are A LOT of creationists in the US.

[Arugula Latte]

84. "Crazy talk gets a lot of leeway when discussing religion"

I'd go farther and say say "crazy talk" is pretty close to the definition of religion.

[LeftishBrit]

57. People do not generally believe or disbelieve something because they've decided that it has

'benefits' to so. They believe/ disbelieve things because they think that they are/ aren't true.

[Taverner]

70. heh. "Benefits of Atheism"

There are none, other than being right.

But for some of us, all the false hope and all the false ideals are nothing compared to actually knowing what is going on.

On my deathbed, I want to know how much morphine they are using to put me down.

[humblebum]

71. You have no more proof of being right than religious believers. nt

[LeftishBrit]

59. Not necessarily IMO

Religion is not usually about what you 'want' but about what you believe. This is heavily influenced by family and society:: i.e. people tend to adopt a religion that was practiced by their parents, or which is prevalent in their community.

[cleanhippie]

36. Dinner and a movie? Maybe some cuddling afterwards?

Nothing more than heavy petting, of course.

[TygrBright]

55. Means you know what kind of toppings He likes on His pizza when He orders from Domino's. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

56. Well, I'm non-religious, but as I understand it...

the concept of a 'personal relationship with Jesus' started out as something that distinguished Protestants from Catholics; and within the Anglican Church, the 'Low Church' from the 'High Church'.

Catholics, High Anglicans and some others tend to emphasize the role of priests as interpreters of Christianity, and rituals as expressions of it. For some Low Church people and Nonconformists (I'm using English terminology here; not sure of exact American equivalents), there is a greater emphasis on the individual worshipper's receiving Jesus' message directly. This can range from emphasizing modern translations of the Bible over the Authorized Version, and in the Catholic recent past, the Latin Mass; to encouraging very emotional responses to religious worship. I am not quite sure what aspects of this involve 'personal relationships with Jesus', and what aspects involve being 'filled with the Holy Spirit' - I believe that speaking in tongues, for example, is related to the latter- but often the same churches emphasize both.

Another aspect of this is feeling that Jesus or God is an advisor in one's decision-making; and praying for advice in making decisions.

I have not noticed such characteristics to be *necessarily* associated with what's normally called fundamentalism, or with the political right: in fact the people whom I know who most fit the description tend to be somewhat apolitical.

[kwassa]

62. good analysis

and American fundamentalists did not become political until the early '60s.

[ZombieHorde]

76. I keep clicking on this thread to make a dirty joke,

but then I think, "too easy."

[rrneck]

77. I don't know that we had a personal relationship, but we jammed together a couple of times. nt

[Humanist_Activist]

78. My ex had a personal relationship with Jesus, hence why she's an ex...

damn philandering neighbor, that Jesus.