Am I the only Aspie out there who belevies in a God?

Post Reply New Topic

I do, but my reasons are different from pretty much everyone I've met at church (which is partly why I haven't been going lately). To me it just makes sense to me that we were created, not that life just happened. There's a lot more to it than that, but that is one of the main things.

I don't like at church how people seem to think that having an intellectual view of it is bad. People assume I'm being "prideful" because I'm trusting in my own intelligence and understanding rather than having faith. But I can't feel what they feel apparently, and I don't relate to any of them.

I believe in God.

Along with other social values and social abilities, I was never taught to have "faith."

I believe in God. I'm not the Sunday-go-to-meetin' type, but I consider myself very spiritual.

As for "The Big Bang Theory" (not the TV show), and "Evolution", I can totally see how they could be believed----I just happen to believe that God had a hand in it, if that's the way it all came-about!

I believe in God and His Son, Jesus the Christ. I was raised in the faith, but I didn't truly embrace Him until my late twenties (very long story). I always knew something was very different about my mindset, but others rarely believed me. I was diagnosed with A.S. last year, but its been a mostly-uphill battle.

I am a Christian, but not of the organizational systems sort.

I see the state religion of the United States to be secularism (the worship of man in general and self in particular).

Even if I wanted to force someone to be a Christian, it could not happen unless God was working to make it so.

I grew up in the Lutheran church. When I was still in my teens, I called myself an agnostic (insufficient data) for the next 20 years. I then started to read the Bible and used a highlighter for the confusing parts (many at first). Slowly what at first looked irrational became more understandable.

I can understand why Christianity would seem strange and even foolish to many today.

1. It seems unscientific. I was actually surprised to see how poor the "science" was that supposedly refuted it.
2. It seems unpopular. Churches with lists of rules and boring sermons have had a large had at making Christianity unattractive.
3. It is out of sync. Christianity is about relationships (us with Jesus, and with other Christians). The family (the primary source of relationships) is almost dead. What passes for other relationships are often workplace acquaintancships, transient sexual encounters, or Facebook OMG LOL posts.
4. It is about truth. Truth is seldom comfortable. Those who insist on it often find themselves alone. Flexibility on things like morality makes one more acceptable to the larger world.

L Holmes - I understand your disconnect. If I can be of any help, please feel free to PM me.

I absolutely don't believe in god or the idea of an imaginary friend that created it all, sees it all and knows it all. Makes not sense at all, especially the belief that everything was created 5000 years ago.
But I wonder and ask, what about all the other religions out there who are constructed on an entire different system, like Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Shintoism and more (around 2 billion people). Are they wrong about their faith, because they don't have a concept of god. So are their wrong in their faith? And maybe they think that the 3 big ones with their unique god is wrong?
That just to say, god makes no sense.
Just my own opinion.

Last edited by SpirosD on 25 Oct 2014, 8:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It's nice that you noted that, because you might be interested to know being the reasonable sort you are, that this whole "5,000-6,000 years ago", "created in seven days", "no Big bang", and "no evolution" is all actually foreign to the people who originally wrote the bible and they would be baffled by the westerners today who think they have this eminent understanding of a Middle Eastern, not western, religion.

In spite of what many fundamentalists might like to believe, this idea of a 6,000 year old universe, a seven day creation, and a great worldwide flood, are all frankly impossible given some basic knowledge of the Hebrew language and Hebrew culture. The truth is that Genesis 1-3 is purely theological and in that particular text they weren't even interested in talking about physics, evolution, or anything like that. Let me explain why as it is quite simple:

1. When you look at the first chapter of genesis every time you see it use the word "day", the Hebrew writer used the word yod. Literally speaking, yod means "day cycle" and when taken literally the reader was supposed to visualize a sun and moon cycle. Of course in the first few verses this word is used even before it says the necessary celestial bodies for a day cycle were made, and of course we know that there was a sun before there was the earth and so on and so forth.

So what is the writer talking about? Well, in order to understand that we have to realize that the Hebrews, as opposed to westerners today who like to insert their own cultural ideas instead of coming to terms with ancient Hebrew ideas, were comfortable with figurative concepts and they had many wonderful devices for using such concepts. The concept of writing something "holy" and at the same time "inviolably literal" would have been very foreign to them, because that would have seemed quite a lifeless and sterile way of expressing something. The truth is that even with their scriptures they put high value on poetic expression and not only would they be comfortable with but they would have encouraged us to look at their scriptures as both theological, and as literary art.

But I digress. What the writer(s) of Genesis 1-3 were talking about has specifically to do with something called acrostics. The Hebrew people had something that scholars call an acrostic alphabet, which means that each member of their alphabet corresponds with a number and there is a symbolic meaning for each. However, this made it difficult to count and difficult to express historical events so there are many examples of scripture in the Old Testament which were written in Aramaic, as ancient Hebrew can be very abstract for historical purposes.

So is meant by "seven days of creation" when, like I said, if it were a literal seven yod the text would in fact be contradicting itself? Seven, in Hebrew acrostics, is the number for "perfect", "complete", and "holy/set-apart". So what the author is saying is: "God made the earth with a perfectness, a completeness, and it is set-apart/unique".

2. Now let's take a look at this idea of the earth being five to six thousand years old. This was an idea that didn't come into vogue until the late 19th century and it was merely a guess made by some scholars who looked at the genealogy of Adam and said "okay let's take the number of generations here and multiply that number by forty to determine the number of years". Not only did they have no idea when Noah, at the end of the genealogy, was alive, but the number forty was just an arbitrary figure, they were just as arbitrary in their use of the rest of the biblical genealogies in conjunction with this one to determine a time scale, and they were hopelessly ignorant about the Hebrew practice of toledoth/genealogy in the first place.

To the Hebrew people, one's toledoth was like a pedigree, it established who you were from and because they felt that you actually inherited your sense of morality from your ancestors to them it established what caliber of person you were. So for obvious reasons only people of historical importance were included in these and often significant gaps can be found to this day in toledoth supplied by Hebrew people. For all we know there can be many significant gaps in Adam's genealogy and the bible doesn't even address the subject of other people already being around. See the story of Cain and how he was banished, and then went to live around other people not from Adam and Eve's family.

Not only that but we've already established that the seven days of creation can't be literal in the first place. The biggest mistake that people make here is they have trouble even recognizing the genres and topics of Genesis.

3. And of course there is the issue of a global flood. This one has also been blown out of proportion because of modern westerners thinking they can just take the translations they are given at face value. The truth is that the word used in Hebrew that English translators have translated into "the whole earth" was erets. Erets has a twofold meaning, both "earth" in the sense of "clay" or "mud" and "dominion". It is another word with a variety of applications, both literal and figurative, and it has been used to mean anything from a farmer's field, to the boundaries of a kingdom, to the entire world.

So let's be frank, what are the chances that the text is talking about the whole world when according to the text people aren't even all that spread out? As far as scholars can tell, the first chapters of Genesis are talking about a small region of the middle east centered around northern Africa. What's much more likely both scientifically and as a reasonable interpretation of the text, is that the flood was regional.

While its true that many live like this in the U.S., the same holds true for people all over the world. As such, I think painting any country with that brush is a little harsh.

Even God won't force someone to trust Him against their will.

Yeah, most of the "science" cited by nonbelievers is sourced in the philosophies of humanism and uniformitarianism. Once those aspects are removed, the conclusions fall apart.

That's why I'm so thankful for my local church in Dallas. They play contemporary gospel music more than hymns, and even some blues and rock. My pastor's a big fan of U2.

Yeah, its truly sad how selfish a lot of people have become, both in and out of the Christian faith. We're called to be salt and light, and tell the truth in love...but many leave out the "light" and "love" parts.

That's where striking a proper balance between truth and love comes in, never letting one override the other. I love how simply Christian apologist Frank Turek summed up the "truth issue"...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaGNRP6Q-6Q[/youtube]

I don't believe in the God versions on offer from the world's major religions. I don't believe in God conceptualized as a mega-person in non-material form up in the stratosphere taking an intense personal interest in the lives of each of the 7 billion plus people on the planet. I don't believe in a God that offers suicide bombers a whole lot of young virgins as a reward. I don't believe in a God who is indifferent to the fates and treatments of animals and who gave humans dominion to use and abuse and make animal species extinct.

I don't believe in atheism either, because it too is another belief system and denies there is anything but the material world as we currently know it - and that is obviously a foolish belief if you know anything about modern physics.

I believe in possibility. I believe that there are physical laws of which we are currently unaware in the multiverse. I believe in the multiverse, dark matter and dark energy exist. I believe that the four basic dimensions we perceive on earth (3 of space and 1 of time) are not the only possible dimensions throughout the multiverse; I believe that there will soon be more proof that the nature of the universe and multiverse is far more complex than either scientists or Christians, Muslims or other faiths currently believe.

Yet I concede that science is not without belief systems too. The discipline of the philosophy of science is partly the academic study of the belief systems in science, where they came from, and how they affect scientific enterprise.

I believe in keeping an open mind. I believe it is possible that there are creative principles in the multiverse that are unknown on this current planet yet which may affect this planet and have always affected this planet.

I don't believe in easy, pat answers to these huge mysteries. I detest fundamentalism in any form - whether in science or religion - because both want to close their minds to new possibilities. Christian fundamentalism asserts basically that it's adherents know all that there is to be known, and that is the hallmark of a totally closed mind. I shake my head in despair when I read of Christian fundamentalist literalists who pick up poisonous snakes in the belief that God will exercise special protection for them and then are surprised that they get bitten. I don't believe in childish naivete.

If becoming a Christian and going to church and praying helps you lead a better, happier life and behave as a better person to others, that is all well and good. Good for you. But don't assume it would have the same effect for me, nor assume that because I lack faith in your God that I am a bad godless person who is automatically inferior to you. Don't be a smug Christian - eek, the worst kind. Not all of them are, I readily concede. Don't insist on praying for me unasked and without my permission.

I am not "anti-Christians" and have 3 Christian friends I love very much. They are not blind believers: they reflect, they doubt, they question, and they grow in spiritual maturity and wisdom through these processes. They respect my views as I respect theirs and we get along fine. I am anti-Christian hypocrisy such as that exhibited by the likes of the disgusting Bakkers who preached, proselytised and were the opposite of what they preached, they were corrupt, greedy, self-serving hypocrites. (I may have spelt their surname wrong).
Beware of people like that. It takes a lot of narcissism to portray yourself as God's specially chosen personal representative, and narcissism on that scale goes with a huge sense of entitlement, manipulation, and indifference to the harm inflicted on others by deception.

Above all think for yourself. Choose what you want to believe, but do it in an informed way, not blindly accepting what others want you to believe because it's what they believe. Isn't that what free will is about?

I don't really believe in 'god' per say but I think there are certainly spiritual entities that influence the physical world somewhat or have the ability to do so....but It's pretty vague like I don't have a specific spiritual philosophy.

Post containing mockery of religious beliefs and responses to it have been removed (again), as it is against the rules to ridicule or provoke other members.

Post it one more time, and you will earn an official warning.

If you feel that is "the state religion of the United States" then fine, but that isn't what secularism is. Secularism is the belief that there shouldn't be a "state religion", people should be free to believe whatever they like, and religious organisations should not get to create laws.

(I do not believe in any gods because there is no good evidence for them. There is no aspect of reality that requires a god, and parsimonious explanations are always more likely. I have no objection to people believing in things that don't exist, unless those beliefs cause them to do evil things, including suppressing objective knowledge such as evolution. If you are interested in learning more about why I believe what I believe then you may PM me, although I am not interested in converting you. I would welcome attempts to convert me)

Hi. I'm probabley going to get told off for this but I'm afraid I have to say it anyway. Please don't tell people that they have the right to believe in things that don't exist. I don't believe in something that doesn't exist. I believe in something that is unproven. There is a difference. Surley you can see how "God doesn't exist, but believe in something that doesn't exist if you want" is the kind of Atheist attitude that makes Christians angry. If you wish to say it then at least say "Believe in something unproven if you want."

I believe reality itself is much more bizarre than god.

I'm glad somebody said something! Magic Space Cow (pbuh) is very very real. Sometimes I lay in my bed in the still of night, and I swear that I can sense the rhythmic signature of her majestic digestive tract. One day science will advance to the point that indisputable proof of the Holy Bovine (pbuh) will be produced for all to see.

Moo upon you all.