What *is* a "personal" deity?

[Quintessence]

I wasn't sure exactly where to put this question as there seem to be multiple places I could post it. I'm largely hoping for Christian perspectives here, as this term seems to be used most often in Christian theology - or at least that's my understanding.

What does it mean to say a deity is "personal?" I don't quite understand this. Please try to explain it without using words derived from "person" in your answer, or if so, define what "person" means for me. Where does this distinction of "personal" deity arise from in the first place? Conversely, what does "impersonal" deity imply?

I realize there's a thread related to this in the front page of this forum already, but the definitions provided by the OP in that topic are as nebulous to me as all the others I've heard. I ask these questions because I never know quite what to say to "do you believe deity is personal or impersonal?" It might be a nonsensical dichotomy from my theological vantage point, which may be why I have such a hard time understanding it. o_o;

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

It's the result of the evolution of God-concepts from Prime Mover to Sky Boyfriend.

-Nato

 

[Splarnst]

As I use the term, a personal deity is similar to a human person: mind, personality, identity, will, etc. It's distinguished from an impersonal deity like the universe itself, a force, a wholly non-humanlike being, etc.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not sure myself. I assume that a personal god would be capable of interacting with specific persons and, for lack of a better expression, "know them by name". An impersonal god wouldn't.

 

[Quintessence]

As I use the term, a personal deity is similar to a human person: mind, personality, identity, will, etc. It's distinguished from an impersonal deity like the universe itself, a force, a wholly non-humanlike being, etc.

So "personal" equates to "like a human" in some fashion?

This confuses me I think, because it seems that Christians often speak of a "personal" god. How can their god be personal if it has the qualities that are traditionally claimed (especially transcendence)? Or was that the problem that Jesus solved? His presence allowed for "personalness" of their deity?

I think the idea also confuses me since I don't see the universe as impersonal by this measure (I'm largely pantheistic/animistic, so everything has a "personality" or "essence/soul" to it).

 

[Sunstone]

My memory could be faulty about this, but I believe I've read that the term, "personal god", and "personal relationship with god", date back to the 1800s in America. They came out of one of revival movements. I'm not entirely sure what they really mean, however, and I've assumed they are somewhat vague terms.

 

[rsd]

I'm largely hoping for Christian perspectives here
What does it mean to say a deity is "personal?" I don't quite understand this.quote]

Thank you for your question. I will give you an example. I was living near Oceanside, California back in the early 90s and one morning, went to visit the historical, San Luis Rey de Francia Mission.

After the services, I saw two ladies walking out of the church. They were VERY Catholic in dress. Each lady had around their neck a silk rope that held a Baby Jesus in a type of pouch. For these ladies, these "dolls" were their personal deities. There are many examples.

 

[Katzpur]

What does it mean to say a deity is "personal?" I don't quite understand this. Please try to explain it without using words derived from "person" in your answer, or if so, define what "person" means for me. Where does this distinction of "personal" deity arise from in the first place? Conversely, what does "impersonal" deity imply?

To me, a personal deity is one who knows me as an individual, who loves me, cares about me, listens to my prayers and answers them. This would be in direct contrast to a deity who may have the power to do all of those things, but who is simply disinterested in the lives of His creations.

 

[Jainarayan]

For Hindus we have a concept called Ishta-devata (Sanskrit for "cherished deity"). It is a form of God we choose, or more likely chooses us, to form a close personal relationship with. Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita that humans need to experience things with our senses. In my estimation that includes forming a mental and spiritual personality for God.

This quote refers to the 10th chapter of the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, the stories of Vishnu:

Book Ten includes the most enduring images and stories of Krishna: the mischievous child who steals butter; the godlike child who holds the entire universe within himself; the boy who can slay demons and move an entire mountain with one finger; the cowherd who is the love of all the gopis, making them leave all their duties to follow him.[29]

... While the Mahabharata and the Bhagavad Gita show Krishna in various roles as teacher and diplomat, Book Ten shows Krishna simply engaging in lila, or divine and intimate play with his devotees. It presents this intimate relationship with God as the highest goal of human existence.[30]

To us, our Ishta-devata is very personal and real, someone we can talk to as parent and child, or as close confidante. Our Ishta-devata takes a real, person interest in our well-being and welfare.

In keeping with the o.p.'s request for a Christian perspective, having been raised Christian, this same concept of a close loving relationship with Jesus is of paramount importance, and not really different than the Hindu Ishta-devata.

 

[Splarnst]

So "personal" equates to "like a human" in some fashion?

That's what I mean when I use the term anyway. I'm not a Christian anymore, but I don't think my usage of the term has changed since my deconversion.

How can their god be personal if it has the qualities that are traditionally claimed (especially transcendence)?

First, “like a human” doesn't mean “identical to a human.” It just means having certain qualities or attributes that humans have. Second, I think certain aspects of the Christian god, as traditionally conceived, are meaningless and/or contradictory with other aspects, so I'm not the one to defend the conception as internally consistent and consistent with observed reality. I'm just specifying the attributes of a personal rather than impersonal deity.

I think the idea also confuses me since I don't see the universe as impersonal by this measure (I'm largely pantheistic/animistic, so everything has a "personality" or "essence/soul" to it).

Frankly, I have difficulty understanding this perspective. But I think it's fair to say there's a distinction between a universe with personality, as it were, and a deity who communicates with mankind as flaming shrubbery or as a first-century Nazarene.

 

[waitasec]

it's justification for good and or bad behavior
it's an explanation that says there is a purpose in the indifference we find ourselves in...
which seems rather sinister objectively speaking...
"i prayed for this job and got it" while another prayed for too and didn't.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm just so incredibly important and unique that the all-powerful and infinite creator of all existence takes time out of his busy schedule just for me. Yes, I'm that important.

 

[Willamena]

Please try to explain it without using words derived from "person" in your answer...

Is "anthropomorphized" a better word?

...or if so, define what "person" means for me. Where does this distinction of "personal" deity arise from in the first place? Conversely, what does "impersonal" deity imply?

To me, a "person" is in reference to all the things that we mentally collect and regard to be about ourselves.

A "personal" deity is an image of a god that has some similar features. Doesn't have to have them all, could have just one. Usually, "conscious" in the sense of awareness is the big one.

"Impersonal" deity is formless. Often that's because it doesn't differ from any form we could give it (any features of character or attribute).

 

[Quintessence]

Hmm. This is making a bit more sense now, I think.

I have to wonder, though, if at least in certain theologies, "personalizing" deity and even asking this question could be seen as a ... a sort of illusion? An "improper" projection of human qualities onto the divine that we may be making for the wrong reasons? We more easily relate to things that are more similar to us, after all. Perhaps the aspects of the divine that we can grasp end up being "personalized" as an artifact of our own limitations?

Heh, that waxed a bit more speculative than I think I intend for this thread.

 

[Katzpur]

I have to wonder, though, if at least in certain theologies, "personalizing" deity and even asking this question could be seen as a ... a sort of illusion? An "improper" projection of human qualities onto the divine that we may be making for the wrong reasons? We more easily relate to things that are more similar to us, after all. Perhaps the aspects of the divine that we can grasp end up being "personalized" as an artifact of our own limitations?

What I wonder is why anyone would think it's "improper" to project human qualities onto the divine when the Bible specifically states that we are created in the image of God.

 

[Quintessence]

What I wonder is why anyone would think it's "improper" to project human qualities onto the divine when the Bible specifically states that we are created in the image of God.

Well, I'm not a follower of an Abrahamic religion, so I can see where an argument can be made. I could see where an argument could be made even within Abrahamic faiths also, when I think about it (e.g. it is improper to project limited and flawed human qualities onto an infinite and perfect deity; "image of" is not "exactly same"; and so forth). I think it depends on one's own personal interpretation, which is part of why I put improper in quotes before.

If one finds deity to be different in kind, not in degree from people, than it would to some extent be improper. It would be the same sort of error as a person projecting emotional qualities onto, say, a rock. But if you do not find deity different in kind from people and instead by degree (or perhaps not different at all) it's harder to justify it as being improper. I actually fall more into this category since I see the divine in all things; I still have concerns about projecting qualities onto the but for somewhat different reasons. That is tangential to this thread, though, so I won't elaborate on that further.

 

[Jeneshisu]

As others have said, I believe that a personal deity is one one would be able to relate to. One that's.. well, personal.

As a pantheist, that's not really my thing, I suppose.

 

[Willamena]

I have to wonder, though, if at least in certain theologies, "personalizing" deity and even asking this question could be seen as a ... a sort of illusion? An "improper" projection of human qualities onto the divine that we may be making for the wrong reasons?

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.

 

[gurthbruins]

so everything has a "personality" or "essence/soul" to it).

I agree with that "so". And as God is a part (if not the whole) of that "everything", then he also has a "personality". - QED.

*Personally* (pun intended), (for me, i.e.) God is, with the most utter simplicity, that whole.

I trust I am being 100% clear.

 

[mycorrhiza]

A God that is a person and thus has a single mind. As opposed to Gods that are "forces", inanimate or have a collective mind.