Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

"DOLPHAN1 wrote:

so. to break it down; in 500 years "we" all will pray to L.Ron Hubard (God) and have portraits of Tom Cruise (Jesus) hanging on "our" walls and in "our" churches...

is that about right?:lol:

dont forget about john "the baptist" travolta.

what................................where.

"Sethdaddy8 wrote:

dont forget about john "the baptist" travolta.

what................................where.

:sidelol:

"DOLPHAN1 wrote:

hmmm. kinda sounds like ThePhins.com...:lol:

You got that right. I depend on you guys a lot.

Pagan,

I knew you meant "blood" family but I want to push that a little. Since you appear to have blood family, then perhaps we will never quite understand each other. I am an only child, my mother was an only, and my Dad had one brother who survived to adulthood, who I have seen less than a dozen times in my life. Beyond my wife (technically not "blood") and my one daughter, I literally have no family. For me the expression "family of God" is more than a hollow statement it is a living reality on which I stake much of the same emotional investment that it sounds like you give to your blood family. Likewise, I put a lot of energy into friendships, many if not most of which, have little to do with questions of faith.

So when I spoke about the Church as family I was not trying to be deliberately obtuse, but indeed was speaking of my own existential reality.

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

Pagan,

I knew you meant "blood" family but I want to push that a little. Since you appear to have blood family, then perhaps we will never quite understand each other. I am an only child, my mother was an only, and my Dad had one brother who survived to adulthood, who I have seen less than a dozen times in my life. Beyond my wife (technically not "blood") and my one daughter, I literally have no family. For me the expression "family of God" is more than a hollow statement it is a living reality on which I stake much of the same emotional investment that it sounds like you give to your blood family. Likewise, I put a lot of energy into friendships, many if not most of which, have little to do with questions of faith.

So when I spoke about the Church as family I was not trying to be deliberately obtuse, but indeed was speaking of my own existential reality.

Understood...and I feel for you man. I come from a big Italian family. One thing about Italians...we keep things in house, like I said before.

When I was Christian I never referred to the others who went to the same church as me as "family". Never felt that way towards them.

Perhaps that was another of the many reasons I'm no longer Christian. ;)

Woudln't this confuse people?

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

Pagan,

I knew you meant "blood" family but I want to push that a little. Since you appear to have blood family, then perhaps we will never quite understand each other. I am an only child, my mother was an only, and my Dad had one brother who survived to adulthood, who I have seen less than a dozen times in my life. Beyond my wife (technically not "blood") and my one daughter, I literally have no family. For me the expression "family of God" is more than a hollow statement it is a living reality on which I stake much of the same emotional investment that it sounds like you give to your blood family. Likewise, I put a lot of energy into friendships, many if not most of which, have little to do with questions of faith.

So when I spoke about the Church as family I was not trying to be deliberately obtuse, but indeed was speaking of my own existential reality.

i guess i have been fortunate so far in my life. my mom is one of seven children and my dad was one of four. i have two older half siblings, a full blood sister, two step sisters and a younger half sister. who knows how many cousins, aunts and uncles on both sides. but i have always had very strong relationships out side of my "blood" family that i would consider much stronger than my family. i have friendships that have lasted 30 years and as they slow and then resume, seem as though there was never a break.

interpersonal relationships, whether blood or not have been very important to me. i have always seemed to find the "good" in people when others want nothing to do with them. there is value in every acquaintance's that i have or ever have had. i understand your Church as family position very well. i think it is human nature to find comfort in what ever we are involved in, substituting what we we can to complete our circles. because your birth circumstance was limited in the "family" role, it is understandable that you will fill in the planks so to speak, to complete that circle. though i'm not rich in money, i feel very rich with family and friends.

"Pagan wrote:

Understood...and I feel for you man. I come from a big Italian family. One thing about Italians...we keep things in house, like I said before.

When I was Christian I never referred to the others who went to the same church as me as "family". Never felt that way towards them.

Perhaps that was another of the many reasons I'm no longer Christian. ;)

a fellow tri-state area ginzo? how much crap did your folks give you about the hair?

when i was in 7th grade and had it real long, my dad used to pull me around by it, like a dog leash.

Thank you Pagan and D1,

I suppose you never miss what you never had. I have been blessed by friends and they do have one advantage over blood.....you get to pick them!

"Sethdaddy8 wrote:

a fellow tri-state area ginzo? how much crap did your folks give you about the hair?

when i was in 7th grade and had it real long, my dad used to pull me around by it, like a dog leash.

Worse than you think bro...not only Ginzo, but dad was a sarge in the Air Force.

Let's just say when I was in my teens and 20's I wasn't exactly living up to his expectations. ;)

Fortunately for me, before he passed on he softened his stance and actually appreciated that I was a musician.

"Pagan wrote:

Because if a person is that much of a sheep that he or she needs a human appointed figure to tell them what's real and what isn't instead of thinking for themselves, they should just throw themselves in front of the next crosstown bus and hasten the inevitable.

And there's the problem with organized religon too many people cant think for themselves.

"Mike13 wrote:

And there's the problem with organized religon too many people cant think for themselves.

There are a lot of people outside of a religious faith who can't or at least don't think for themselves either. I advocate self study and taking personal responsibility but if a person is going to look for others for guidance I am happier if they look to a solid person of faith than say a politician.

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

I advocate self study and taking personal responsibility but if a person is going to look for others for guidance I am happier if they look to a solid person of faith than say a politician.

Here's where I have to challenge you, Ohio.

What if the person goes to a "solid person of faith" and is told that non-believers are going to hell, and that gays are an "abomination"?

Now, I know you personally might not say that, but a vast majority of religious (i.e. Christian) leaders would.

Is this the proper guidance that should be given?

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

There are a lot of people outside of a religious faith who can't or at least don't think for themselves either. I advocate self study and taking personal responsibility but if a person is going to look for others for guidance I am happier if they look to a solid person of faith than say a politician.

:lol: that seems to be a condition of modern man, trying to make himself less responsible.

"Pagan wrote:

Here's where I have to challenge you, Ohio.

What if the person goes to a "solid person of faith" and is told that non-believers are going to hell, and that gays are an "abomination"?

Now, I know you personally might not say that, but a vast majority of religious (i.e. Christian) leaders would.

Is this the proper guidance that should be given?

Fair questions. Proper guidance, no. ( I'm not sure vast majority is correct but your point has some validity) On what do I base that? My standard as always is the Bible. I would point to John 3:17 regarding your first hypothetical, the unbeliever. Biblically there are some explanations of how someone "inherits eternal life". It is a mistake to assume the unspoken negative.

There is a fine line between believing your own position and condemning an opposite position. One seems to logically follow the other but while I can believe I am right, I can not go to next step and say "you are thus wrong". The best I can do is warn you that I do not see your position within the apparent boundaries and urge you to reconsider. The Bible does not allow that.

My next answer will be less popular. I do not believe a person who understands themself to be homosexual is "an abomination" I don't think that position is Biblically supported. The Bible does say, however, (Romans chapter 1) that homosexual activity is symptomatic of the brokeness of creation. Likewise there is no place within scripture to support same sex marriages. Thus I would urge anyone outside of marriage to be chaste and thus advocate celibacy for homosexuals.

The condemnation question is troubling for me. It certainly happens a lot and it is generally done badly. Let me try and explain where I think it should be though I recognize it will likely sway no one.

No human being has the right to condemn. Yet, we are called, in love, to admonish behavior we understand to be outside the will of God in order to aid our neighbor to not stray into activities which might harm them. That is a knife edge and is often crossed in both directions to the detriment of our Christian witness.

But it is not just about our witness. Luther's revelatory moment was when he first "heard/read" a passage from Romans 3 which talks about not being saved by works of the law but by grace. I am not justified (made Holy) before God by anything I do (or fail to do) but by the gracious act of Christ. Thus I can do nothing to add to or subtract from my being made acceptable to God. What I do is then a loving act of saying thank you.

While many evangelicals would accept the notion of "Amazing Grace" they fail to see the flip side of that which is "if I can do nothing in order to be saved" then my "actions" be that whatever (even homosexual activity) can not put me outside the pale.

I do not understand the emphasis on so called sexual sins. There is far greater talk in all of the Bible about proper use of wealth, justice, stewardship, etc, than sex yet it gets the most play.

I don't think I will convince anyone but here is where I stand.

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

Fair questions. Proper guidance, no. ( I'm not sure vast majority is correct but your point has some validity) On what do I base that? My standard as always is the Bible. I would point to John 3:17 regarding your first hypothetical, the unbeliever. Biblically there are some explanations of how someone "inherits eternal life". It is a mistake to assume the unspoken negative.

There is a fine line between believing your own position and condemning an opposite position. One seems to logically follow the other but while I can believe I am right, I can not go to next step and say "you are thus wrong". The best I can do is warn you that I do not see your position within the apparent boundaries and urge you to reconsider. The Bible does not allow that.

My next answer will be less popular. I do not believe a person who understands themself to be homosexual is "an abomination" I don't think that position is Biblically supported. The Bible does say, however, (Romans chapter 1) that homosexual activity is symptomatic of the brokeness of creation. Likewise there is no place within scripture to support same sex marriages. Thus I would urge anyone outside of marriage to be chaste and thus advocate celibacy for homosexuals.

The condemnation question is troubling for me. It certainly happens a lot and it is generally done badly. Let me try and explain where I think it should be though I recognize it will likely sway no one.

No human being has the right to condemn. Yet, we are called, in love, to admonish behavior we understand to be outside the will of God in order to aid our neighbor to not stray into activities which might harm them. That is a knife edge and is often crossed in both directions to the detriment of our Christian witness.

But it is not just about our witness. Luther's revelatory moment was when he first "heard/read" a passage from Romans 3 which talks about not being saved by works of the law but by grace. I am not justified (made Holy) before God by anything I do (or fail to do) but by the gracious act of Christ. Thus I can do nothing to add to or subtract from my being made acceptable to God. What I do is then a loving act of saying thank you.

While many evangelicals would accept the notion of "Amazing Grace" they fail to see the flip side of that which is "if I can do nothing in order to be saved" then my "actions" be that whatever (even homosexual activity) can not put me outside the pale.

I do not understand the emphasis on so called sexual sins. There is far greater talk in all of the Bible about proper use of wealth, justice, stewardship, etc, than sex yet it gets the most play.

I don't think I will convince anyone but here is where I stand.

there really isn't much more that can be said here, truly eloquent, but i'm going to anyway...

i think were people fail is in forgetting that it is not our place to judge, that is for another. we should view each other for who and what we are. deciding weather we like each other or not on individual basis. judging, unless in a court of law, should be left to God.

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

There is a fine line between believing your own position and condemning an opposite position. One seems to logically follow the other but while I can believe I am right, I can not go to next step and say "you are thus wrong".

Well said Ohio. Your entire post that is. I just quoted this part because...well...it rules. :tongue:

Why can't all Christians see it that way? Would definitely make my life easier. :lol:

"Pagan wrote:

Well said Ohio. Your entire post that is. I just quoted this part because...well...it rules. :tongue:

Why can't all Christians see it that way? Would definitely make my life easier. :lol:

It's always about you Pagan.:pity:

:lol:

Damn skippy. :tongue:

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

Fair questions. Proper guidance, no. ( I'm not sure vast majority is correct but your point has some validity) On what do I base that? My standard as always is the Bible. I would point to John 3:17 regarding your first hypothetical, the unbeliever. Biblically there are some explanations of how someone "inherits eternal life". It is a mistake to assume the unspoken negative.

There is a fine line between believing your own position and condemning an opposite position. One seems to logically follow the other but while I can believe I am right, I can not go to next step and say "you are thus wrong". The best I can do is warn you that I do not see your position within the apparent boundaries and urge you to reconsider. The Bible does not allow that.

My next answer will be less popular. I do not believe a person who understands themself to be homosexual is "an abomination" I don't think that position is Biblically supported. The Bible does say, however, (Romans chapter 1) that homosexual activity is symptomatic of the brokeness of creation. Likewise there is no place within scripture to support same sex marriages. Thus I would urge anyone outside of marriage to be chaste and thus advocate celibacy for homosexuals.

The condemnation question is troubling for me. It certainly happens a lot and it is generally done badly. Let me try and explain where I think it should be though I recognize it will likely sway no one.

No human being has the right to condemn. Yet, we are called, in love, to admonish behavior we understand to be outside the will of God in order to aid our neighbor to not stray into activities which might harm them. That is a knife edge and is often crossed in both directions to the detriment of our Christian witness.

But it is not just about our witness. Luther's revelatory moment was when he first "heard/read" a passage from Romans 3 which talks about not being saved by works of the law but by grace. I am not justified (made Holy) before God by anything I do (or fail to do) but by the gracious act of Christ. Thus I can do nothing to add to or subtract from my being made acceptable to God. What I do is then a loving act of saying thank you.

While many evangelicals would accept the notion of "Amazing Grace" they fail to see the flip side of that which is "if I can do nothing in order to be saved" then my "actions" be that whatever (even homosexual activity) can not put me outside the pale.

I do not understand the emphasis on so called sexual sins. There is far greater talk in all of the Bible about proper use of wealth, justice, stewardship, etc, than sex yet it gets the most play.

I don't think I will convince anyone but here is where I stand.

I have been reading your posts Ohio and I have to comment on this one. It sounds to me like you are of the "once saved always saved" camp? It sounds like it, If not I apologize. This is to say that when one becomes a believer, then no matter what they do they are saved as if is God's will for them to be saved, kinda like predestination.

On the other hand there is the camp that believes that one can throw away thier salvation after obtaining it. This means that not only are we saved by Grace, but Faith without works is dead, meaning we should live consistantly for God, and inconsistantly not. We all will continue to sin, but doing so willingly and without repentance and rejecting of what particular sin we are struggling with will effect our salvation will it not? It is all about a right relationship with God the Father. I just don't see a right relationship with God including an active homosexual. Do you?

"DOLPHAN1 wrote:

there really isn't much more that can be said here, truly eloquent, but i'm going to anyway...

i think were people fail is in forgetting that it is not our place to judge, that is for another. we should view each other for who and what we are. deciding weather we like each other or not on individual basis. judging, unless in a court of law, should be left to God.

Here is the thing with "judging" others. WE have no authority to ultimately Judge anyone, only God can and will do that. What does Judgement mean then?

It means one who has the authority to not only convict, but condemn, and only God can do that.

We as humans and fallible often times don't grasp that while we do make judgements about people (or observations as I like to call it), we forget that it isn't our job to condemn that person. In fact we are to help and admonish if possible to help that person realize their predicament, and here is another forgotten christian value - doing all this "In Love".

We wrote a song called Without Love that speaks about this very principle.

It goes like this :

I could give the poor man all my money
I could give the blind my eyes to see
I could lay my life down for another
But without Love, it doesn't mean a thing.

I could have the faith to move a mountain
I could cast the Catalinas in the sea
I could have a hope that lasts forever
But without love, it doesn't mean a thing

I read You said Love is the greatest thing
I know You showed us how to do it perfectly
I could be good in all I do and say
But without Love, it doesn't mean a thing

I could quote the bible to the letter
I could pray for hours down on my knees
I could sing a song that leaves you cryin
But without love, it doesn't mean a thing.

I know many people in my life are "lost" by biblical standards. They need Jesus. They are involved in all sorts of sins. I know this, yet I do not turn my back on them, I do not shun them. I try to help them. I try to be a good influence on their lives so that maybe one day they will find God though me, not because of me. And then there are some who just won't ever want anything to do with Jesus.....for those I pray.

"Dolphan7 wrote:

Here is the thing with "judging" others. WE have no authority to ultimately Judge anyone, only God can and will do that. What does Judgement mean then?

It means one who has the authority to not only convict, but condemn, and only God can do that.

We as humans and fallible often times don't grasp that while we do make judgements about people (or observations as I like to call it), we forget that it isn't our job to condemn that person. In fact we are to help and admonish if possible to help that person realize their predicament, and here is another forgotten christian value - doing all this "In Love".
We wrote a song called Without Love that speaks about this very principle.

It goes like this :

I could give the poor man all my money
I could give the blind my eyes to see
I could lay my life down for another
But without Love, it doesn't mean a thing.

I could have the faith to move a mountain
I could cast the Catalinas in the sea
I could have a hope that lasts forever
But without love, it doesn't mean a thing

I read You said Love is the greatest thing
I know You showed us how to do it perfectly
I could be good in all I do and say
But without Love, it doesn't mean a thing

I could quote the bible to the letter
I could pray for hours down on my knees
I could sing a song that leaves you cryin
But without love, it doesn't mean a thing.

I know many people in my life are "lost" by biblical standards. They need Jesus. They are involved in all sorts of sins. I know this, yet I do not turn my back on them, I do not shun them. I try to help them. I try to be a good influence on their lives so that maybe one day they will find God though me, not because of me. And then there are some who just won't ever want anything to do with Jesus.....for those I pray.

Judgement in the human terms of others is impossible due to the fact that judgement is something that one only does to himself. He just projects that judgement of himself on other people. The only time people "judge" is when someone does an action and with that action they feel that they should do something completely different. It is an indivisual thing.

Anytime someone does something that bothers you or sins, first you must go into your mind and find meaning with the action. One you find your decided meaning you find your decided action towards that meaning. If it is something that shines a light on something you do not like in yourself then you "judge" the actions of the other person.

The judgement of God if it even exists is how you put it is a completely different thing. Even when it is people who are judging in the name of God, it is still something they are judging in themselves.

"Dolphan7 wrote:

I have been reading your posts Ohio and I have to comment on this one. It sounds to me like you are of the "once saved always saved" camp? It sounds like it, If not I apologize. This is to say that when one becomes a believer, then no matter what they do they are saved as if is God's will for them to be saved, kinda like predestination.

Nope, I am not. That is not typically part of a Lutheran understanding. More commonly I would flirt with the border of universalism but can not cross that either.

On the other hand there is the camp that believes that one can throw away thier salvation after obtaining it. This means that not only are we saved by Grace, but Faith without works is dead, meaning we should live consistantly for God, and inconsistantly not. We all will continue to sin, but doing so willingly and without repentance and rejecting of what particular sin we are struggling with will effect our salvation will it not? It is all about a right relationship with God the Father. I just don't see a right relationship with God including an active homosexual. Do you?

Why would that sin be any worse than any other?

In our confessional service we announce that we "are captive to sin and can not free ourselves". One of the core doctrinal understandings of being Lutheran is "saint and sinner" or "simul eustis est peccator". (Don't hold me to the Latin spelling.) I am always a sinner. It is core to my being. In Christ I am set free, redeemed, justified, made a saint but I am still a sinner. Otherwise then I am responsible for saving myself and that would fly in the face of my understanding of Romans and Galatians. God is with me in the struggle all the time.

Can some people walk away from God? Scripture and historical observation would seem to affirm that can and has happened. How? I am not sure. How God works that falls into God's realm and I am not convinced scripture gives me full enough details to answer that. Thus I just keep telling the story, trying to get it right, and trying to live in such a way that my words are consistent with my deeds or that my deeds proclaim my words first.

There have been a couple posts today that have referenced "judgement". I want to bring back a quote from a post I made here yesterday.

The condemnation question is troubling for me. It certainly happens a lot and it is generally done badly. Let me try and explain where I think it should be though I recognize it will likely sway no one.

No human being has the right to condemn. Yet, we are called, in love, to admonish behavior we understand to be outside the will of God in order to aid our neighbor to not stray into activities which might harm them. That is a knife edge and is often crossed in both directions to the detriment of our Christian witness.

Now I used the phrase condemn instead of judge because people rarely "judge" in order to praise, they do it to condemn. I will not however discard what I feel is my call to warn, exhort, admonish, etc. when I see behaivor which seems to my judgement to be harmful to the individual and/or others.

It is hard not to do that judgementally and sometimes I am better at than others. It is also difficult not to hear it judgementally, especially if one has a bit of a guilty conscience to start with. While it is hard it is another of those lines one should be careful not to cross.

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

Nope, I am not. That is not typically part of a Lutheran understanding. More commonly I would flirt with the border of universalism but can not cross that either.

Why would that sin be any worse than any other?

In our confessional service we announce that we "are captive to sin and can not free ourselves". One of the core doctrinal understandings of being Lutheran is "saint and sinner" or "simul eustis est peccator". (Don't hold me to the Latin spelling.) I am always a sinner. It is core to my being. In Christ I am set free, redeemed, justified, made a saint but I am still a sinner. Otherwise then I am responsible for saving myself and that would fly in the face of my understanding of Romans and Galatians. God is with me in the struggle all the time.

Can some people walk away from God? Scripture and historical observation would seem to affirm that can and has happened. How? I am not sure. How God works that falls into God's realm and I am not convinced scripture gives me full enough details to answer that. Thus I just keep telling the story, trying to get it right, and trying to live in such a way that my words are consistent with my deeds or that my deeds proclaim my words first.

Ok, replace homosexual with adulterer, or drunkard, or "pick your sin".

In God's eyes sin is sin and sin has no heirarchy. A white lie is just as sinful as a murder to God.

But in a new relationship with God there is forgiveness of sins of the past. We start off with a clean slate. Soon that slate isn't so clean again, yet we are reminded to seek forgiveness of sins on a daily basis, and to repent from those sins - to turn away from them, seek help if need be. There has to be work involved in the relationship in order for that relationship to work. We just don't tell our wives and girlfriends when we meet them that we love them and if anything changes I'll let you know - do we? No we are constantly working on that relationship and seeking to improve on it and make it better all the time. Same with our relationship with God.

1JN 2:4 The one who says, “ I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;

JN 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

JN 14:21 “ He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.”

Just like there is an expectation your wife or girlfriend have that you will not cheat on her, God also expects us to obey and follow his commandments/teachings.

Willingly continueing to involve oneself in sin of any kind will put ones salvation in jeapardy.

Just a question - what part of the Lutheran Church are you in? The more traditional church or the more liberal minded part? I ask becasue I know that there is a split of some sort within the greater Lutheran Church.