1. There is no life apart from Earth because we, humanity, are made in God’s image and are therefore unique in the universe. This view typically views the relationship between God and man to be very familial and sees the likeness of man to God as very special indeed.

2. There is no life apart from Earth because we have no evidence for it in the Bible, which is the record or the history of humanity. Adherents to this view sometimes fall in the first category as well. The Earth was created about 6000 years ago and God would have told us if he had created others like us.

3. There is probably no life apart from Earth because the thing that is unique about Earth is that God breathed life into it billions of years ago. This group takes a more liberal view of Genesis and accepts evolution of other scientifically accepted theories about our universe. Within this view, humanity has been blessed with the spirit of God and is, therefore the only spiritual race in the universe.

4. Maybe there is other life out there, and I don’t know what that means about the uniqueness of humanity and our relationship with God. The more agnostic approach is widely held among moderates.

5. Yes, I think there are other intelligent life-forms out there, God made us, why wouldn’t He make others. He made a huge universe, it seems silly that it is just for us. This group plays the odds card. While the odds of there being another planet out there that is as acceptable as ours for human life are astronomical, the odds are still in our favor. Ask any seasoned poker player if they’ve seen a Royal Flush and they will say “Yes.” The odds of a Royal Flush are 1:250,000 but if you play enough hands you will come across one.

What do you think? Can you stand by one of those numbers? Is there another option I left out?

There are several assumptions made when one decides that rabbit like replication is the way to go. First, they assume that faith communities can be boiled down to a simple blue print which can be easily copied without losing it’s essence. Second, they assume that good, quality leaders can be raised up quickly and will be equipped to raise up new leaders just as quickly as they were raised. Third, it assumes that little variation is required from one community to the next. Like the blue print of a model home there is some room for edits to be made but major renovation would take the talent of an architect for which there simply isn’t time or resources.

I am not saying that faith can’t be simple, or that forming community requires the input of a well educated architect. I would suggest the healthy faith communities cannot be replicated. One can take a snapshot of a healthy community and build multiples but those new communities are likely to lack the essence which made the original community worthwhile. There are millions of photos of the Mona Lisa but no one is interested in buying them – people what the real thing, not a copy.

So then, the elephant? Maybe. Unlike elephants, community builders can have overlapping pregnancies which significantly cut down on the time it takes to birth an offspring. At the same time, I would argue that faith communities should be birthed individually, not as a litter. Significant variation, and individual attention to environment are necessary parts of community building.

In my opinion there should be several rolls involved. There should be a group of people who want the community. These are the homesteaders, the actual community or people. There should be at least one builder. This is the person or persons who are going to make sure everything gets done and works properly. Lots of attention should be paid to the land, this is the culture in which the community will exist. Finally, an architect should be consulted to help draw the plans. This is the professional, who may or may not be part of the community. He/she understands the land and the details of how to design the structure so that the water runs and the lights turn on. He/she is trained and knows how to make sure wind and rain won’t blow the place apart It is imperative that the architect listen to the community and the builders so that the structure reflects the needs and interests of the land and the community.

Rabbits, as well as photos of the Mona Lisa, are easy to find, and easy to destroy. They aren’t worth much and few people are willing to commit themselves to caring for them. Elephants and the real Mona Lisa are a huge pain to create and care for, they require a skilled laborer and are rare indeed. They are highly valuable and there are tons of people around the world ready to give themselves over to protecting them.

I would rather spend my life creating single work of art than spend a lifetime copying someone else’s grand work.

The issue at hand was of foundation. All things which stand on earth are built upon a foundation, likewise our perception of institution or organization is foundation based. When a business forms it lays a “foundation” for its processes just as it lays a foundation for the physical structure in which it will house it’s offices. I think that this is because of our perception of truth. Truth for a business is monetary gain, so its foundation is a set of outlines and processes which are believed to be necessary to gain monetary gain. One foundation may be “We need clients.” Another may be, “We need employees.”

The Church operates via this same model. Christians generally agree that God is truth. They set up foundations which they believe are necessary to seek and know God. One foundation might be the Bible, another might be prayer.

When a building is constructed on Earth a foundation is necessary. There is a mass of soil and rock standing between our buildings and the gravitational center. On Saturn this is not the case. Saturn is a Gas Giant, meaning there is no solid ground, it is simply gas caught in the gravitational pull produced by the gas itself. It is a cyclical/mutually necessary relationship. The gas would not create gravity if it were not amassed by the gravity it creates. On Saturn one could not build a house upon a foundation because there is no ground in which the foundation can be poured. Objects also do not descend to the center of Saturn due to the equilibrium effect. Every object finds mass equilibrium as it travels toward the center. The Equilibrium effect is the effect of density of a mass upon objects within that mass. Like ships  in water. Ships, although heavier than water find equilibrium with the water because the air in them is much less dense than the water, and therefor the total density of the ship is less than that of the water.  So, if an object was twice as dense as the gas on the outside of Saturn and half as dense as the gas in the middle, and the arch of density was constant then that object would find equilibrium half way between the outside edge of the planet and the center.

So how would you build a house in such a place? I would like to suggest that we are not, spiritually, living on a Terraform, like Earth, but a Gaseouform, like Saturn.

If Truth is the gravitational pull then I would assume you would want to be as close to the center as possible. Knowing that we are human and are, therefor not Truth perfected, we cannot reach the center on our own. We are not “dense” enough, but never the less the center is our goal. Why then would we build ourselves foundations on which to stand? These foundations would only serve as barriers between ourselves and the center which pulls us.

I think the answer here is to float, not aimlessly, but propelled toward God by the gravity of his Truth. Vulnerable, exposed and without control, I suggest we float as far as He brings us, without house, without foundation and without a safety tether. Leave the building on the surface and dive toward God! Unless God is a lair, you will not be drawn off course by the pull of an adversary mass so long as you seek Him, because those who seek God, find God.

How do you build a house on Saturn? You don’t, you go for a ride, and try not to drive but allow for the leading of God’s gravity. He will find your equilibrium.

Today I read a Post concerning this indecent. You may read it here if you like (it is short). I’d like to respond to your post Mr/Mss Kamikaze Airlines. For simplicity sake, I’ll refer to you as KA, I hope that is ok.

I am a follower of Jesus and I agree with almost everything you said. I agree especially with your opening statement: “[Pat Robertson] is the true face of religion, unsullied by centuries of corruption by rationalists, empiricists, scientists.” I’d like to approach that issue.

It is my belief that Jesus [Christ] did not found a religion. I believe he destroyed at least one, and destroyed the need for it altogether. Admittedly, Jesus was a Jew; and he worshiped at the Temple in Jerusalem and he attended the religious feasts. One could make a strong argument that Jesus was religious. However, I argue that his adult life was spent standing against the religious establishment.  Jesus’ most scornful words were toward the religious leaders, who were condemning those around them and lifting themselves up as pious, righteous people. Jesus was constantly bombarded by the religion of his culture for not following the rituals, and for befriending and loving the people who were unwelcome as part of the religion.

I agree that Pat Robertson is the true face of religion, just the way the high priest of 1st Century Judaism was.

The issue is that Christianity, as we know it, was not founded by Christ as the name would imply. It was founded by Constantine in the forth century. It was not until Constantine  announced Christianity as the new religion of The Empire that Christianity, as we call it, took shape. Almost immediately, church buildings, clergy,  regulated music, incense, preaching, strange apparel, and most if not all of the things that make Christianity a religion appeared. Interestingly, they were simply borrowed from the religion that Constantine knew, Greco/Roman Paganism.

My point is that Pat Robertson is “running the software” the way Constantine shipped it to him, but not the way Jesus “shipped” it. After Constantine founded Christianity, it has 1600 years to build the dogma and worldview that it has today, and it if from that dogma, I think, that comes the hatred you see. I think you are right, the problem is religion. But that’s not the way Jesus “shipped the software.” When a man asked Jesus was the most important thing in life was, Jesus said, “Love God, and love everybody else.”

While most of this is true, the point of comfort is untrue. The center moves, it is not constant and stable. Everything moves. We know that people change, technology advances. What is known today is found untrue tomorrow. The Earth spins, the Moon revolves, the Sun travels, the galaxy progresses, and the universe expands. Interestingly, one might seek to find the center of the universe; the epicenter of our reality. Unfortunately, this task is futile. Every point in the universe appears to be the center. Like balls, evenly spaced on an elastic string every point is moving away from every other point in the universe. We are all moving but we all appear to be the only one stopped. We are the center of the universe, and so is everyone else. Strange.

Christians often make the claim that Jesus is the center of the Church, he is the unmoving goal which Christians aspire to. The fighting comes when Christians disagree on where exactly our center is found. Some say He is here, others that He is there. I would argue that Jesus, like everything else in our existence is moving and at the same time at the center. He is the center in a universe which has no center.

Christians are always talking about “forgiveness” but I challenge anyone to really figure out what that word means and what its exact place is in worldview.

Is forgiveness an obligation or an opportunity?

What if the instigator is unapologetic?

Must forgiveness and restoration of trust correspond?

What is righteous anger? Practically?

Example from this last week:

Somebody slit my tire and broke my bumper – Pissed me off fiercely, after about 2 hours I was saying The Lord’s Prayer to myself and was struck by, “forgive us as we forgive those who sin against us,” It honestly helped me calm down. What does it mean to forgive this person?

The next day my tire was slit again- Anger like I haven’t felt since high school boiled inside me and I was ready to curbstomp a fool. I haven’t physically attacked someone in the 8 years that I’ve been taking my faith seriously but I was ready to go. Now I live in fear of my tire being slit for no reason. What does it mean to forgive this person?

You will have to forgive me, I know I my posts are typically more external and less personal but as I sit in my office next to my daughter I reflect on the issue of adulthood.

It seems like I woke up one day and was all grown up; I suppose that is a normal feeling but I can’t put my finger on what exactly it is that makes me feel the way I do. In an attempt to answer the question I reflect on a time when I certainly was not an adult. High School is like a bad dream at this point, I graduated seven years ago and my life had change dramatically. I drove a $400 car with a $2,000 stereo system. I still smile when I think about setting off car alarms simply by turning up the volume. I ran, constantly and was proud to play on the varsity soccer team. One year we went to State, and that was a big deal. I interned at church; set up classrooms, made flyers and bulletins and occasionally planned events. I preached sermons and taught youth classes about things I had no business talking about.

I certainly did not become an adult when I graduated High School. Sure, I moved 500 miles away for college but I left behind the only real responsibility I had in my job and went to a private Christian school with more rules than a convent and more supervision than death row. I played poker and video games every night, rarely studied and did not work.

Did I become an adult when I sold my beloved stereo to by an engagement ring? I don’t think so, certainly I did a lot of growing up when I got married. Our first year we made almost $10,000, went to school full time and had no time for poker or video games. Still, we never went hungry, and never missed a bill payment. We learned a lot about living with another person, and we learned what it was like to choose to love someone. I would say that the first year of marriage was a growing point, but I’m still not sure we were adults. When there was a problem our default was to ask our parents. We never thought about a Will or 401K. We still attended the oppressive school and lived in a small town cultural bubble.

I think I became an adult sometime after moving to Chicago. We moved to the big city and grew up fast. Every relationship we entered was as an adult, not as kids living at home and not as college students living on Daddy’s dime. We had real rent to pay, insurance to find and a career to begin. I have a real career, in the field for which I earned my degree. I have a Will and a tax guy. We chose to have a child and we are now paying her medical bills. We are learning to eat ethically and making long term plans. I have 5,10, and 20 year goals. I think about school systems, and politics. I care what happens in Egypt, Greece and the North Pole.

So what is adulthood? I don’t know but I think it has something to do with perspective. I think it has more to do with how you view the world than it has to do with how old you are. It has to do with accepting responsibility and standing by your decisions. I think it has to do with living intentionally.

I am not fully grown. I am sure than in 5, 10 and 20 years I will reflect on my mid 20s as I currently reflect on my teens. Adulthood is a process but, for some reason, I feel like an adult today.

One of the more divisive subjects between so called Liberal and Conservative Christians is the role and authority of Paul. On the far right, Paul is literally Christ incarnate. He is “The mouthpiece of Christ” and his words might as well be in red letters because when he speaks it is not Paul, but Jesus Christ who is speaking. On the far left, Paul, who lefties like to call Saul, is a misogynist, murderous, self-righteous Jewish leader. He was one of the exact people that Jesus scorned repeatedly and his words should be stricken from the Bible completely.

Hum, that is a problem. Those two views are pretty well irreconcilable.

Is he Jesus, or is he Satan (the adversary)? I would very much like to open this up for conversation but before I do I will add a little fodder to the fire.

It seems like much of this argument hinges on a person’s interpretation (sorry far right, I know you don’t like that word) of Acts 9. Specifically verse 15 which reads in the NIV, “But the Lord said to Ananias, ‘Go! This man [Saul] is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel.’”

So here are a few questions, the answers to which probably shape your view of Paul’s (Saul’s) authority: For the sake of argument we are going to risk error to the right on our evidences, accepting the text as legitimate, and using it as the primary source.

Is Ananias a trustworthy source?

How special is this authority which is given to Saul?

Does ‘chosen instrument’ imply direct ordination and infallibility?

After all of this, Saul, who starts being called Paul (so I will too), starts traveling and teaching. Some of his teachings are particularly divisive in the Church today. Many people discredit Paul, not because of his conversion story but because they find his teaching to be in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus. Other’s discredit him because he speaks strongly, on topics that Jesus never spoke of.

An example of one teaching of Paul’s that some Christians find contrary to Jesus is the teaching of ex-communication. Ex-communication requires that a person or group of people judge the heart and intention of another and cease to forgive said person. This may seem to be in contradiction to Jesus basic teachings of, do not judge, and forgive a brother 77 times.

An example of a place where Paul makes a strong stand where Christ is silent is the issue of homosexuality. It is difficult to read the letter to the Roman church and miss the point that Paul says homosexuality is unacceptable. Jesus never mentioned the subject.

So, If Christ and Paul disagree, what does that mean?

If Paul speaks where Jesus was silent, what does that mean?

I would like to know what you think.

In the comments left by Seekingakingdom and Mark I see four basic questions:  What is the need to put a specific label on God? If a Christian is a panentheist then where does evil come from? If a Christian is a panentheist then who do they worship? Can panentheism be backed up Biblically?

It seems to me that the obvious place to start is the issue of labels. Society is built upon the assumption of language. We base our ability to communicate on the assumption that the hearer can interpret our words the way we intend them. We bank on definitions, connotations, and labels. In spiritual conversations people often feel that they disagree with one another simply because there is no unified language. When we drive down the road there are clear, universally accepted signals which tell us how to navigate safely, with spiritual conversation this is not the case. This post was intended to help people better understand what a few words mean so that they can better communicate with one another. If your God(s) does not fit into one of these labels then so be it; that is not the purpose.

The following three questions all have to do with the position of a panentheistic view of Christianity.

First, the issue of theodicy. Panenthiesm no more answers the question of evil than does monotheism. To ask how God can be in an Earthquake is the same as asking how God can allow an Earthquake. This is a question not answered by a theological framework but by one’s view of the personality of God and the purpose of humanity.

Second, worship. This raises the issue of what you mean by worship. I will try to answer as appropriately as possible. Worship and value are closely related. Panentheism lifts everything up as being intrinsically valuable since it is all connected to God. At the same time I think it is appropriate to assign different amounts of value to different types of objects. Rocks are less valuable than animals because they are less able to express God in themselves. Within this understanding of value, the only thing that would be exalted to a level worthy of reverence is the part of God separate from existence; the part which we cannot know, see, or understand.

Third; is it Biblical? While I am not typically one to point to the Old Testament to evidence my point I will start there this time. The first time God describes himself is to Moses and he describes him self as The I Am. I take that to mean The All, or The Everything. If you ask, is He this? He is.

In the New Testament, the idea of spirit is the word for wind, or air. This was a thing which the people of that day could not completely understand but they knew that it was the thing which was in everything and allowed everything to live. This is the word which refers to the Holy Spirit and refers to the spirit of man.

I don’t have a lot of site verses but I don’t think that is really what you want anyway. I am sure there are more evidences which will occur to me later but I’ll leave it here for now. Thank you for your questions and comments.

Monotheism is the belief in a single deistic power. There is one god. The reason Christians claim this stance is because we have named your god by his essence, God. Our god is God. When we did that we lost the actual meaning of the word god and replaced it with our understanding of God.

Within traditional Christianity there are several gods. One can argue about the trinity all day long and get no where so we will avoid that conversation. Sidestepping that, there are plenty of angels; these are gods in the correct sense of the word. They are subject to the creator god which makes them “lesser gods” but still gods. Also the adversary character for most Christians is viewed as a specific deity called “Satan,” he is a supernatural personality and therefore a god. One who recognizes many gods who are subject to a greater God and only worships the greater god is a Henotheist. This is what much of Christianity is, Henotheism.

Catholicism, which deifies individual humans, is simply Polytheistic. The exaltation of Mary as well as the apostles is Polytheism. They are recognized alongside the creator. This is also the case for conservative Christians who view Paul as Christ. Many Christians view the words of Paul as equal to the words of Christ because they view him as “the mouthpiece of Jesus.” This is the deification of a man. This understanding is Polytheism.

A few Christians are really Monotheists. Though I find it difficult to come to this conclusion Biblically, they reject the notion of angels, demons, and Satan. They do not lift up Mary, Paul or the disciples. They recognize a single deistic personality, this is Monotheism. Of all the options I find this the most difficult to conclude Biblically.

Some Christians are Pantheists. This is also a small minority, but those who view God as a spirit which saturates the whole of existence are Pantheists. They often say, “God is in everything.” These Christians often have a great respect for all living and non-living things as they view all things to have supernatural value. At the same time they might under play the life of Jesus as, while he was supernatural, he was not really different from anything else since is to impossible to add supernatural value to something which is already saturated. All things are equally god, and Jesus simply understood that the best. I also have a hard time understanding this Biblically.

Finally, some Christians are Panentheists. They recognize God as the spirit which saturates everything while at the same time greater than the sum of all things in our world. This is to say that God is in all of his creation but he is not bound to it. This understanding allows for some parts of Creation, and some people, to be more god than others. For example it allows Jesus to be fully God and fully man in a way which is special from the rest of humanity which is also fully god and fully man. Rocks are fully god and fully rocks. Everything has supernatural value but God cannot be counted since his essence is exterior to our universe.

The intention of this post is not to place value on one framework above another. While I think that some are more Biblical than others I respect them all. The purpose is to help Christians put the right label on how they view God. What other options are there? What did I get wrong, and where do you find yourself?