Many Christians emphasize the importance of having an actual *relationship with God/Jesus* as opposed to merely being *religious*. The previously asked question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/69228/50422 attests very well to this fact. But what about when people from other religions claim to have similar personal relationship experiences with their deities? For example, a Muslim claiming to have a personal relationship with Allah, a Hindu claiming to have a personal relationship with Brahman, a Hare Krishna claiming to have a personal relationship with Lord Krishna, a New Ager claiming to have a personal relationship with the Universe, their spirit guides, their higher self, etc. Qualitatively speaking, what sets the Christian *relationship with God* apart from *relationship* experiences that people claim to have in other religions? What makes the Christian *relationship with God* special and unique? Are people in other religions just having counterfeit, deceitful experiences? ____ Related: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84362/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86124/50422

From what I understand, St. Augustine had a "common-law wife" (concubine) who bore him a child. He abandoned them to pen theology. Was this considered honorable by the Catholic clergy?

**Scope: I'm seeking answers from Protestant denominations.** The concept of a "personal relationship" is fairly natural and intuitive when we think of the interactions between two human beings, like friends, spouses, or parents and children. However, attempting to extrapolate this intuition and understanding to a relationship between a human and God isn't immediately obvious. Let me explain why I think this. In human interactions, we can dissect a "personal relationship" into several core components: - **Awareness** or **Perception**: In a personal relationship between two individuals, each person must be *aware* of the other's *presence*. Put simply, they must be able to *perceive* each other's existence and acknowledge their presence. It doesn't seem logical to claim that A has a *personal relationship* with B if A isn't aware of B's existence or cannot perceive B's presence. There must be a means for both parties to perceive and be aware of each other's presence for a genuine personal relationship to exist. In human interpersonal relationships, this perception and awareness is possible through our natural senses and a well-functioning brain capable of sound cognitive processing. This combination enables us to decode and interpret sensory input into meaningful concepts, like perceiving another person's presence. - **Communication**: In a personal relationship between A and B, communication is essential. A should be able to convey coherent messages to B, and vice versa. Moreover, A must recognize when B initiates communication and vice versa, which ties closely to the previous point on awareness and perception. A needs to be able to distinguish between moments when B is speaking and moments when B is not, making it possible for A to have reactions such as "Ah, B is addressing me now" (and vice versa). - **Interactivity**: Beyond communication, it should be possible for A and B to engage in many other forms of interaction. While communication is crucial, human interaction can extend to many more activities. For instance, A and B can play a game of chess together, play table tennis together, practice synchronizing moves in a dance routine (like tango) together, take turns driving a car together, and so forth. Notice how these specific examples require fairly equal involvement from both parties. I might be overlooking some features, but the ones I've mentioned appear to be quite fundamental, particularly in human interpersonal relationships. Regarding the concept of a "personal relationship" between a human and God, do the features I outlined (*awareness* or *perception*, *communication*, *interactivity*) retain their importance? Are there additional crucial aspects? Are there interactions that are possible between two humans but are not possible between a human and God? Conversely, are there interactions that are possible between a human and God but that are not possible between two humans? In short, is there an established list of essential attributes in Protestant Christianity defining a "personal relationship" between a human and God? References to official or reputable Protestant sources are encouraged.

Previous questions have already explored various facets of the notion of having a "personal relationship" with Jesus/God, such as: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/470 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/7703/61679 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/44771/61679 However, a question on the Biblical basis for this concept is missing. Do Christians who claim to have a "personal relationship" with Jesus/God believe that this concept has a Biblical basis, and if so, what is it? Does the Bible explicitly outline all the elements of a "personal relationship"? Is there anything close to a canonical list of attributes that define what it means to have a "personal relationship" with Jesus/God, with each attribute supported through exegesis of one or more Biblical passages?

**Scope: I'm seeking answers from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.** The concept of a "personal relationship" is fairly natural and intuitive when we think of the interactions between two human beings, like friends, spouses, or parents and children. However, attempting to extrapolate this intuition and understanding to a relationship between a human and God isn't immediately obvious. Let me explain why I think this. In human interactions, we can dissect a "personal relationship" into several core components: - **Awareness** or **Perception**: In a personal relationship between two individuals, each person must be *aware* of the other's *presence*. Put simply, they must be able to *perceive* each other's existence and acknowledge their presence. It doesn't seem logical to claim that A has a *personal relationship* with B if A isn't aware of B's existence or cannot perceive B's presence. There must be a means for both parties to perceive and be aware of each other's presence for a genuine personal relationship to exist. In human interpersonal relationships, this perception and awareness is possible through our natural senses and a well-functioning brain capable of sound cognitive processing. This combination enables us to decode and interpret sensory input into meaningful concepts, like perceiving another person's presence. - **Communication**: In a personal relationship between A and B, communication is essential. A should be able to convey coherent messages to B, and vice versa. Moreover, A must recognize when B initiates communication and vice versa, which ties closely to the previous point on awareness and perception. A needs to be able to distinguish between moments when B is speaking and moments when B is not, making it possible for A to have reactions such as "Ah, B is addressing me now" (and vice versa). - **Interactivity**: Beyond communication, it should be possible for A and B to engage in many other forms of interaction. While communication is crucial, human interaction can extend to many more activities. For instance, A and B can play a game of chess together, play table tennis together, practice synchronizing moves in a dance routine (like tango) together, take turns driving a car together, and so forth. Notice how these specific examples require fairly equal involvement from both parties. I might be overlooking some features, but the ones I've mentioned appear to be quite fundamental, particularly in human interpersonal relationships. Regarding the concept of a "personal relationship" between a human and God, do the features I outlined (*awareness* or *perception*, *communication*, *interactivity*) retain their importance? Are there additional crucial aspects? Are there interactions that are possible between two humans but are not possible between a human and God? Conversely, are there interactions that are possible between a human and God but that are not possible between two humans? In short, is there an established list of essential attributes in the LDS Church defining a "personal relationship" between a human and God? References to official or reputable LDS sources are encouraged.

**Scope: I'm seeking answers from Catholicism.** The concept of a "personal relationship" is fairly natural and intuitive when we think of the interactions between two human beings, like friends, spouses, or parents and children. However, attempting to extrapolate this intuition and understanding to a relationship between a human and God isn't immediately obvious. Let me explain why I think this. In human interactions, we can dissect a "personal relationship" into several core components: - **Awareness** or **Perception**: In a personal relationship between two individuals, each person must be *aware* of the other's *presence*. Put simply, they must be able to *perceive* each other's existence and acknowledge their presence. It doesn't seem logical to claim that A has a *personal relationship* with B if A isn't aware of B's existence or cannot perceive B's presence. There must be a means for both parties to perceive and be aware of each other's presence for a genuine personal relationship to exist. In human interpersonal relationships, this perception and awareness is possible through our natural senses and a well-functioning brain capable of sound cognitive processing. This combination enables us to decode and interpret sensory input into meaningful concepts, like perceiving another person's presence. - **Communication**: In a personal relationship between A and B, communication is essential. A should be able to convey coherent messages to B, and vice versa. Moreover, A must recognize when B initiates communication and vice versa, which ties closely to the previous point on awareness and perception. A needs to be able to distinguish between moments when B is speaking and moments when B is not, making it possible for A to have reactions such as "Ah, B is addressing me now" (and vice versa). - **Interactivity**: Beyond communication, it should be possible for A and B to engage in many other forms of interaction. While communication is crucial, human interaction can extend to many more activities. For instance, A and B can play a game of chess together, play table tennis together, practice synchronizing moves in a dance routine (like tango) together, take turns driving a car together, and so forth. Notice how these specific examples require fairly equal involvement from both parties. I might be overlooking some features, but the ones I've mentioned appear to be quite fundamental, particularly in human interpersonal relationships. Regarding the concept of a "personal relationship" between a human and God, do the features I outlined (*awareness* or *perception*, *communication*, *interactivity*) retain their importance? Are there additional crucial aspects? Are there interactions that are possible between two humans but are not possible between a human and God? Conversely, are there interactions that are possible between a human and God but that are not possible between two humans? In short, is there an established list of essential attributes in Catholicism defining a "personal relationship" between a human and God? References to official or reputable Catholic sources are encouraged.

When Christians talk about having a "personal relationship with Jesus," what does this mean?

For context, I'd recommend reading first the answers to [*What exactly would count as a "positively meaningful and reciprocal conscious relationship" between a person and a God?*](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/105869/66156) on Philosophy Stack Exchange. --- The phrase *"positively meaningful and reciprocal conscious relationship"* appears in the context of the atheistic [*Argument from Divine Hiddenness*](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/) : > (1) Necessarily, if God exists, then God perfectly loves such finite > persons as there may be.
(2) Necessarily, if God perfectly loves > such finite persons as there may be, then, for any capable finite > person S and time t, God is at t open to being in a **positively** > **meaningful and reciprocal conscious relationship** with S at t.
> (3) Necessarily, if for any capable finite person S and time t, God is > at t open to being in a **positively meaningful and reciprocal conscious** > **relationship** with S at t, then, for any capable finite person S and > time t, it is not the case that S is at t nonresistantly in a state of > nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists.
> (4) There is at least one capable finite person S and time t such that > S is or was at t nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to > the proposition that God exists.
> > ---- > > (5) So, it is not the case that God exists. (from 1 through 4) > > *(Source: Howard-Snyder, Daniel and Adam Green, "Hiddenness of God", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 Edition), Edward N. > Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = > .)* From a Christian standpoint: - Does the idea of a *"positively meaningful and reciprocal conscious relationship"* with God align with Christian beliefs? - Is it a fundamental expectation, by principle or definition, for all Christians to cultivate a *"positively meaningful and reciprocal conscious relationship"* with God? - Can the notion of a *"positively meaningful and reciprocal conscious relationship"* between an individual and God be articulated in a manner that better aligns with Christian theological principles and terminology? - Are there specific ways in which God is expected to *talk back* to Christians, assuming the existence of *two-way communication*? - Similarly, are there specific ways in which God is expected to *intervene in reality*, assuming the existence of a *two-way interactive relationship*?

Are these synonymous? My question is based on the point of already being a Christian. I’m open to any ideas and eager to hear them. Please note, I’m not looking for definitions of these terms. I’ve read many from various sources, and they are so minute that it renders them nearly identical. I am asking if the idea of relationship and fellowship (with God) is the same? If not, what are the differences? Does exegesis of biblical ideas exists, and if so what is the term for it? Of course any Bible verses that detail the differences in meaning of these ideas would be extremely helpful. I don’t know enough about Greek to figure that out on my own. I’m not asking out of mere curiosity, I’m studying to learn about these things for my personal growth.

We know that if we hate a brother we are a murderer at heart: > “We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the > brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death. ***Whoever > hates his brother is a murderer***, and you know that no murderer has > eternal life abiding in him.” ‭‭I John‬ ‭3:14-15‬ Hatred is different than “**disliking**” someone. Hatred can entail such animosity that things escalate beyond peace, but disliking can be of a more modest nature in terms of behavior. I wonder if disliking and hatred are the same? **Q: Is there any biblical justification for disliking somebody? (Put another way): Is it a sin to “dislike” another person?**

The Natural Moral Law is a good way for Christians to understand quite a bit about the nature and purpose of what they're doing and who they are and quite a few of the papal teachings in the last hundred years have been around the nature and purpose of marriage and the relations between the sexes (Castii Canubii, Arcanum divinae sapientiae, Humane Vitae, etc.) , but to my knowledge very few have ventured to give advice about how to get there. What can the Natural Moral Law, which instructs us that marriage is a bond centered around unity and procreation, tell us about how we should conduct ourselves while courting? What should one's expectations be of a suitor and suttee?

According to the verse below I believe this is how it was in the garden of eden, and how it should be > Isaiah 11:6 > > The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie > down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling > together; and a little child shall lead them. Did the behaviour of animals to man and each other changed after the fall of man and as a result of the fall of man? Or were they influenced by our new nature and attitudes? Or have they been like they were from the beginning? If they have changed, what are the obvious changes?

This is a practical question. According to Trinitarianism, three distinct Persons form the Godhead: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In principle, they are all just one God, but in practice people might tend to focus / fixate more on one specific Person over the other two. For example, someone might focus excessively on Jesus, talk all the time about Jesus, but then forget about the Father and the Holy Spirit. Alternatively, another person might develop a very strong and intimate bond toward the Person of the Father by following very strictly the pattern of prayer that Jesus taught: *"**Father**, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come [...]"*, whereas Jesus is relegated to a secondary plane, only being remembered on Sunday services or transactionally at the end of prayers (*"in Jesus' name, Amen"*). And likewise, there might be Christians who over fixate on the Person of the Holy Spirit, perhaps those who lean more towards the Charismatic/Pentecostal side of the spectrum, thus relegating the Father and the Son to the background in terms of importance. **Question**: How do Trinitarians deal with the issue of over-fixating on one particular Person of the Trinity while relegating the other two to the background? Are there recommended practices within Trinitarian denominations for developing a balanced and equally intimate relationship with each Person of the Trinity, so that no Person is treated "unfairly"?

I've been reading a book on Church growth (*Growing A Healthy Church* by Dan Spader and Gary Mayes) with a chapter on evangelism that says something which I've heard in churches before: >"Typically a**n unbeliever needs to have more than five meaningful contacts** with a number of Christians before he or she will begin to trust the message of the gospel Growing a Healthy Church This seems to be a linchpin point supporting relationship-style evangelism but the book doesn't cite any sources and I don't seem to be able to find any myself. **Can someone else locate the source of this claim whether it be a study or merely an idea proposed by someone else?**

In the Bible it talks of Jesus being one with the Father John 10:30 but also says that we should be one with them John 17:11 . In the Bible's original Greek text, is the same word used for both, or is the word that describes our oneness with them different? The scriptures that speak of our heavenly Father and Jesus as being one are often used to prove the doctrine of the Trinity. (The Trinity being of one nature and one substance.) Does the original Greek word denote a physical oneness in substance, or a oneness in unity, purpose, action, and nature?

I was raised a Catholic, and I have been very disappointed with Christian views toward homosexuality. Wikipedia summarizes : > Homosexuality is treated in Roman Catholic Church teaching under two > forms: homosexual orientation is considered an "objective disorder" > because Catholicism views it as being "ordered toward an intrinsic > moral evil", but not sinful unless acted upon. Homosexual sexual > activity, by contrast, is viewed as a "moral disorder". Which comes directly from official Catholic sources (emphasis my own): > Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a > sin, **it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic > moral evil**; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an > objective disorder. [...] Therefore special concern and pastoral > attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, > lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in > homosexual activity is a **morally acceptable** option. **It is not.** I believe that being gay is not a choice, it's a chemical imbalance in the human body that causes one to be sexually attracted to the same gender. And that sexual attraction is, biologically speaking , the catalyst through which a romantic relationship is initiated between two people. That romantic relationship is what leads to the trust and intimate compassion that we define as love between a married couple. Here's an excerpt from a paper by the American Academy of Pediatrics : > Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by > a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.2 In > recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by > experts. Of course, homosexuals are free to leave the Church, but these teachings cause social issues for millions of these people who have friends and family who are Catholic. Why should homosexuals feel guilty for having intimate romance with those whom they intimately love, while we straight people enjoy that pleasure of life freely? As a Catholic, this didn't makes sense to me, and it seems to be hurting people, so as a straight man, raised Catholic, I feel responsible to ask this question. **How does the Catholic Church justify the belief that homosexuals should not enjoy consensual romantic relationships with the same sexual freedoms that straight people have?**

My question can sound like a question out of blue, but I am going to ask it anyway. We can come up with many different descriptions of so called "perfect relationship", but for Christians the best example of perfect relationship (or the most "ideal" relationship) would be the relationship within the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Will every relationship that takes place in heaven (which includes heavenly relationship between God's creations, for example, a relationship between two heavenly human beings) as perfect and complete as the relationship of the Trinity? On one hand, my logic says it is impossible for God's creatures to have such perfect and complete relationship with some other God's creation, since we as a finite and inferior being do not have capacity to receive love or to give love as much as our infinite God. On the other hand, my logic says that because heaven is "the perfect" place, the strength of relationship/union that occurs throughout heavenly community should be equally perfect, powerful, and strong to the utmost extreme. If the heavenly relationship between God's creation are not as perfect and complete as that of the Trinity, that means unity in heaven is in a sense can be fragile. Will every heavenly relationship (including relationship between a heavenly human and some other heavenly human) be as perfect and complete as the relationship that Trinity has? Please answer according to Catholic understanding. Thank you,

My question, in strict propriety, is specifically what kind of relationships are defined as incestuous in Christianity? I am guessing that it is forbidden to marry one's parents/children or siblings but what about other relations like first cousins. I would appreciate some sort of a reference to maybe a specific passage in Christian holy scriptures. Is this something specifically commanded by God explicitly, listing forbidden relations? Or is it some sort of an interpretation done later by a scholar which is widely accepted today? And I am talking about Christianity in general encompassing all of its sects. Do different sects have different rules?

It is common these days to hear questions like: > Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus? Or... > The most important thing is your personal relationship with Jesus. The Bible never uses this phrase. Jesus certainly had personal relationships with his disciples, but after his death, Paul never tells the churches in Corinth or Rome that they need better "personal relationships with Jesus." The other epistles don't talk about ways to "strengthen" that "personal relationship," etc. How long has a "personal relationship" with Jesus been talked about in Christian culture? Where did this **term and related language originate**, and what is its history? **EDIT** Please note I'm not specifically looking for Biblical references to support this concept (although that could certainly be part of a good answer!) I'm asking about the cultural history of this concept. And while I can appreciate that even Jesus made statements that can be easily interpreted as supporting a personal relationship, he definitely did not emphasize this aspect of Christian culture. When, where, how did the concept of a "personal relationship with Jesus" enter Christian culture as a prominent theme?

I've heard Christians say that an appropriate title for a Christian is, "friend of God." I've also heard preachers (e.g. Beth Moore) say that this is inappropriate: only certain people (Abraham and the Disciples ) can be called friends of God. What is the Biblical basis for saying modern Christians are generally "friends of God"?