Discussion Groups / English Usage / February 2010

God only knows. (And he might be confused.)

I suppose the first question is what was understood by a "personal God"
in 1916. A quick Google (probably not divinely guided) found this,
orininally published 1925):
http://www.ditext.com/broad/vbpg.html

   In order to discuss the question whether there is any ground for
   believing in the existence of a personal God it is necessary to
   begin by defining our terms. For the word 'personal' and the word
   'God' are both highly ambiguous. I will begin with the word
   'personal'.

There are then several screenfuls.

I was about to quote from this:
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Personal_God/id/543872
until I noticed at the end:

   Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Personal God",

So:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god

   A Personal god is a deity that is, and can be related to as, a
   person. The personhood of God is one of the characteristic features
   of monotheism. In the sacred scriptures of Judaism, Islam and
   Christianity, God is conceived and described as being a personal
   creator, with a purpose for the creation. In the Pentateuch, for
   example, God talks and instructs his prophets and is conceived as
   possessing volition, emotions (such as anger, grief and jealousy),
   intention, and other attributes characteristic of a human person. In
   Vaishnavism the reality of God is always not in an idealization, but
   the actual impact of God in the life of man. Islam however, very
   clearly opposes conceiving God as resembling "the creation" -
   refraining from anthropomorphism. The Qur'an maintains that whatever
   image a believer has of God, is not God, and that he is truly
   transcendental.
   
   However, the conception of God as a person should not be equated
   with a simple anthropomorphism. Relating to God as a Father (as in
   Christianity) or a Friend (in Sufism) is only a way of approaching
   God and the intimacy possible with one's own maker. It is this
   intimate relationship with God that is at the core of the Holy
   Spirit concept, which refers to God's real presence in each living
   human being.

AFAIK, most of the ancient gods are personal: in most respects they are
powerful immortal people.  They have human emotions, have relationships
with other gods and/or mortals (including carnal relationships), enter
into contracts (such as the Mount Sinai covenant), cause destruction
when angered, etc.

In modern times we have new impersonal gods: the divine clock-maker of
the Deists, the pantheism of Spinoza, etc.

I think the inclusion of "personal" was meant to rule out any believers
in the modern impersonal gods.

Eh?  Speak louder.

-----------------------------

El Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:32:24 -0500, mm escribió:

To start with, what about de-capitalizing it. You wouldn't write "What is
a personal Chair?". Or would you?

A God who takes an interest in what goes on and specifically in people so
you and me. The word "personal" is there to emphasise that there is a
relationship between God and the the individual. The God of the Bible is a
personal God because He has interacted with individuals.

I have heard it said (but no, I'm not able to cite anything) that some
theories of creation involved a god who just set things going and then took
little or no interest after that. Such a god would be an "impersonal" god -
assuming such a phrase really exists.

The following may give a slightly different take on it but is consistent
with my understanding: http://everything.explained.at/Personal_god

I found this thread and question very interesting, and keep thinking about
it. I guess they had to make him a personal God so that he could be
described as getting mad at us for sinning, and animate him so he could talk
to certain very privileged ones of us. If he were just a philosophical
concept, or the entire universe, or a collective for all of us, you couldn't
have a "relationship" with him, and you couldn't "sin" against a concept.
No, he had to be a person so that we could identify with him, like your
father or something. Then they can inflict guilt on us for hurting his
feelings or violating his law.

The biggest "sin" should really be to claim that you know anything about
God.

Gary Eickmeier