God and testosterone

[pw201]

It's rather late, and I'm sat up listening to Premier Christian Radio's Unbelievable programme. I've been following their podcasts since I was on the programme a while back. The chap on the latest programme (MP3 link), Jonathan Castro, believes in Christianity but doesn't have the relationship with God which he's been expecting, and sounds a bit

Comments

[lisekit]

Most world religions with an ineffable god provide some kind of closer-to-home figure with which participants in the religion can have a personal relationship. So, for example, Brahman is the eternal increate transcendent univeral principle for Hindus, but he's not very useful to pray to. So the pantheon contains not only a layer of gods with finite lives (very long, but finite) and a more direct relationship with the world,looking after such matters as creation, war, money, dance and other such necessities

[pw201]

Jesus, in the Protestant understanding. Catholics have Mary and the saints fulfilling that role.

My point is that this relationship thing doesn't seem to mean much: the people who say they have it seem to disagree a lot on stuff the deity could just put them straight on.

[lisekit]

It strikes me you're looking for some kind of definitive answer to be "put straight" on. Nowt wrong with that, that's obviously the way in which you perceive the world (weirdo). ;-)

Perhaps the kind of relationship that's being referred to is less a scientific proof, more a narrative understanding - the kind of relationship we might have with a text (which seems logical, given the textual tradition western religions of) or a work of art. Which, y'know, can sustain more than one interpretation, I've heard it said...

[pw201]

I agree that what Christians have is a relationship with the text, as my theory of text-based religion as a fandom says. People like robhu seem to say it's more than that, though, claiming that the relationship is with a conscious being who exists outside of the text and its interpreters. This seems unlikely to be true.

[woodpijn]

I'm not sure there's any biblical support for the "relationship with God" thing. Someone once said we have a relationship to God, rather than a relationship with him. I think I'd go along with that.

[ex_robhu]

In the New Testament Jesus talks a lot in relational language about his people, and then there is the thing about God coming to live in us through the Holy Spirit.

I don't doubt that Christian people have a relationship with God, but exactly what that means is a bit unclear. Christians have adopted the ideas of their age to try to understand God, God as King, God as Judge, God as Friend. I don't think these ways of understanding our relationship with God are wrong, they're all just different aspects that has been emphasised at different times.

[pw201]

Did we ever decide whether it was Steve Chalke or the conservative evangelicals who weren't spiritual men? Or is the mind of Christ schizophrenic? (or more accurately, suffering from multiple personality disorder).

[cathedral_life]

I entirely agree with you about the lack of biblical support for the "relationship with God" thing. Since there is no mention of relationship, there is also no mention of its close cousin, the "persnul relationship". If we have to go down the relationship route, I'd have to argue that we have a public relationship with God, which is of no meaning whatsoever without other Christians.

However, I'll have to ponder the "relationship /to/ God" phrase. Whilst I think the whole spousal analogy of "persnul relationship" is overdrawn, I fear that "relationship to God" does not take the incarnation seriously enough. I think it might be better to say that "we are partakers in God" (2 Pet 1:4).

Unbelievable programme

[anonymous]

Hi all,

I am the guy who was on the programme. Maybe it would clear things up a bit if I let you know that this programme was first broadcast two years ago (in 2006), and at the time I was still interested in Christianity.

I've changed a lot of my views in the 2 years since, and so it was a bit regrettable that the programme was repeated without this point being made clear.

I would now describe myself as an ignostic apatheist.

regards,

Jonathan Castro
www.antichurch.co.uk