Any Christian Aspies out there?

Post Reply New Topic

Religion was not "brought in" to do anything. It has been there as long ago as we have anything to read. The oldest extant literature is the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the gods are all over the place.

Spirituality is the natural fruit of man's search for meaning.

You surely can't offend me. As I've said, I've been where you are and understand it perfectly well.

Quite. Religion is a basic part of humanity.

Are you saying the unreligious are inhuman?

Yes, religion has been around for as long as civilization has. Just about every tribe in history has had their own gods and creation myths.
In the modern world, people born in India are likely to become Hindus, people born in Saudi Arabia are likely to become Muslims, and people born in Thailand are more likely to become Buddhists.
In fact - even allowing for conversions - people are most likely to adopt the same religion as their parents.

Doesn't that tell you something about the arbitrariness of religious belief?

Last edited by Klytus on 19 Oct 2005, 8:10 am, edited 2 times in total.

Or the universality of it, the point that I have been making.

The overwelming majority of people that want a God, really want to be children with a daddy that can kick all other daddys to the curb.

A mature spiritual person is self actualizing.

Christianity is a backwards religion. It claims that a historical figure that did not percieve himself as having any role to play in the gentile world is pro gentile. It claims that a historical figure that did not claim any unique relationship with the divine has one. It claims that the only path way to salvation is a path of clever lies ment to make people subject to the Roman empire especially since what they hold to be Christianity was created by Helenists under the control of a Roman Emperor named Constantine who wasn't so interested in becoming Christian (did not convert until his death bed) as creating a system through which he could preserve his Empire. After such a theology was created, the leaders of this new religion began killing Judaisers (Christians who attended Jewish Temples and followd the Law), and the mystic traditions.

So Christianity, no thanks, been there, done that, have no interest in going back.
Do I believe in Jesus? Yea, you bet. He was a pretty cool guy, an active and adimit social critic,
a believer in equality for women, an advocate for self rule; a tireless campaigner for the poor, underprivleged and disenfranchised. If I had been alive and around during his time, I would have wanted to be his friend.

There are so many inaccuracies in that post. He did say that He was there to save all people( a radical idea at the time) Christ did claim to be one with the Father, He was recognized as the Messiah by His followers. The rest of your post is a fabrication made by confusing the Roman Empire system of Christianity with actual Christianity. Actual Christianity is about relationship. The only way to salvation part is totally inaccurate. Christ made this claim, not the Romans.

Where is the documented evidence of this. I read that his name wasnt even Jesus it was something similar and that he was an orthodox Jew who was horrified at being called the son of god. The fact is you dont have any real evidence about a god atall so arguments from christians are purely emotional. They cant accept the fact that they have been duped all this time as a way for the powers of the day to have control over the ignorant masses and it still is to an extent.

Dont get me wrong id love someone up there to be guiding me and a nice place to go after i die but it aint gonna happen so i think religion is a waste of my and everyone else's time. If the Romans didnt become christian then most likely you and every other christian wouldnt be christian now so you should acknowledge that the Romans are your 'saving grace'.

Sigh. I do not want to get into an argument here as I tend to get quite emotional. I will close by saying that I really do not know where you are getting your facts from, but they are 100% inaccurate. As for evidence, it is in how people look at it that determines the decision. I am not emotional, I am a rational, scientifically minded individual who knows that there is a God. To say that you 'know' that there is no God is impossible because you would have to be omniscient. I t is infinitely more difficult to prove a negative than a positive. Do not compare my experiences based on that of Roman endorsing a 'state Christianity' (in Constantine's time) there is much more to it than that. I'll stop now or I am going to just keep going. Note this is not really a debate thread either, so if you wish to attack my beliefs, please do so in another thread.

You want authentic Christianity you have four choices
1. Convert to Judaism
2. Read everthing that the ecumenical councils forbade, if you can find them all. Then filter it for what you want to believe.
3. Become your own Christ with all appropriate knowledge and gifts.
4. Build a time machine

A person who denies the role that the Ecumenical Councils played in defining Christianity knows very little about the history of the faith. First, it was not called Christianity until the Council of Nicea. Second, before the council of Nicea most believers in Jesus attended synagogues run by rabbies as there were very few if any churches. Three, the scriptures were codified in the first four Ecumenical Councils. So who's lying to whom?

Ok so now I quote scripture.
"Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness amoung the people."Matthew 4:24
He spoke to his people, the Jewish people. Which people did he heal, again the Jewish People.
Who were his disciples? Again they were Jews every last one of them were Jews.
Why?
"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen will disappear from the Law..."Matthew 5:18
"Why do you ask me about what is good ... There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."Matthew 19:17
"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you."Matthew 23:2
"If Then David calls him Lord, how can he be his son?"Matthew 22:45
"My G-d My G-d why has though forsaken me." Matthew 27:45

Now there are three times in the scriptures when Jesus heals what are arguably Gentiles
1. The lady who comes and begs for healing for her child. Jesus tells her that he has only come for the jews. She tells him that even dogs are worthy of the crumbs from their masters table.
2. Jesus heals the son of a centurian. The centurian tells Jesus that he is not worthy of having Jesus (a jew) enter his home.
3. Jesus acts on behalf of a Roman magistrate only after all the Jewish leaders in the area come and testify of the magistrates unquestioning support of the Jewish community and of Israel.
I'd be happy to pull the scripture references on these too if you wish.

So, you can choose to continue to argue with me.
You can choose to continue to argue with historical fact.
You can choose to argue with scripture.

Frankly I don't care what you choose to believe.
It may very well be that I used colorful language in my first attack.
What it is not is a bunch of fabrications.

Alternate choice Believe in the Christ of the Bible.

Seriously, though, your facts are skewed and the approach is flawed. Jesus began by ministering to the Jewish people, and then expanded it to include all those who were not Jewish-the Gentiles. I did not mean to insult. I do not deny that role that the Councils played. Also, most believers in Jesus attended house churches as the Jewish leaders of that time were hostile toward them.

Also why, pray tell, are you attacking my beliefs?

"I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith" (may not be word perfect, it's from memory), Jesus praised the centurian, a gentile, as a rightous man. The centurian did not reject Jesus' offer to go to his home because Jesus was Jewish, he refused because he believed that Jesus was God and that he was not worthy of having God in his home.

Well no, because you asserted that there is a Christianity "freed from Roman Empire system of Christianity" which is more authentic. You can not solely look to a text or collection of texts established by the Hellenists under Constantine and derive a system of thought that is freed from the Roman Empire system. Thus, you can not derive this more authentic Christianity by looking at scripture alone. You have to look elsewhere.

"Whoever teaches and follows these commands will be called great"Matthew 5:19
Jesus stated one basis for greatness, the following of the Law of Moses.
If the gentile was righteous it was because his understanding of the practical application of the law of Moses was one of the best that he had seen. The Centurian knew that the rabbi did not need to be physically present for the law to be effective. The Law was the law. Thus the Centurian was great.
Luke 7:3-4 "The Centurian heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the the Jews to him ... When they came to Jesus they pleaded with him earnestly 'This man deserves to have you do this because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue' So Jesus went with them."

We see only very limited help to the gentiles under Jesus, and Jesus never wanders far from the Law of Moses.

I told you why I like Jesus, but Jesus starts losing meaning for me the more one trys to remove him from an historically Jewish figure reacting to the social fabric of his time. Christianity loses tremendous meaning to me when it trys to posit exclusivity.

None of that says that I dont see it as a valuable fabric for framing early spiritual growth.
I was raised in a church, a church founded when Henry VIII wanted to divorce his first wife and the pope told him no. I've even lived in a very austere Orthodox monestary. I know my theology, and I know my history.

So please, go on believing whatever you want, until it doesn't serve you anymore. Then feel free to grow.


I do not question that there were house churches with baptismal pits.
Even still many Christians still attended services at the local synagogue.
If this were not the case then Crysostimouse would never had needed to write his "Seven Treatises against Judaising Christians" I urge you to read a full text of the Council of Nicea.

: shrugs: Youll notice i was already debating with litguy when you got involved in a debate with me and Irishmic. Actually i think what i have been reading is a lot more accurate than the bible seen as there is a lot of ghosts and weird goings on in the bible and it isnt exactly historical fact. I doubt there is a god it is you my friend who is saying you know there is and that he is a christian one. Id rather keep my mind open but sceptical. This outlook has served me well with just about everything before. your logic is very flawed.

Science (and pretty much everything) goes by proving things not saying it is positive so that proves it. You have no more proof that your god exists and that Jesus is his son than i have proof that the loch ness monster exists. I have no problem discontinuing the debate but please dont get involved in one if your going to spit the dummy out when i argue back.

While i dont believe in christianity any more im just curious why dont the protestant churches do the sign of the cross?

This became far too much of a battle between people quite assured of their "facts" for it to be a religious discussion I could continue to join in.

I ducked out, but have been lurking, as you can see.

Your probably right Litguy, it would be better if we said i think rather than this IS but the whole point of debating is saying my strongest argument and even playing devil's advocate just to see how strong someones ideas or beliefs are and then decide whether i think there is something to that individuals arguments. I tend to say things like 'my belief is' and ' i read' etc but seing as no-one else seems to be using such pleasentries, i dont bother so much either. 'You are wrong but dont argue with me' wont win any debates.

If i as a single, not very powerful person can have my beliefs questioned, i dont see why an organised religion as big as christianity cant. It's no use saying 'questioning is good, question away' and then when i put forward questions and arguments then saying you are too sure of yourself for me to debate with you. My mind is open to changes in beliefs but i must admit that it is less so to anything supernatural like ghosts if i dont see it myself even holy ones.