Question to salty/light Christian aspies.

Post Reply New Topic

I consider myself devout. You understand that having aspergers you can be discriminated like I have and in that case I myself turn to religion as a form of solace. The general consensus of people with aspergers could go either way as, Aspies by their very nature are philosophical and their philosophy could bend either way. Atheists not just Aspie Atheists believe in considering others and their feelings they just don't think that there is any means to an end, you just treat others the way you want to be treated mentality.

I philosophically believe that everyone no matter how evil someone is they always strive for what they think is best for the world. They just have convoluted view on what makes society succeed and then in that case would be a liability for society to move forward. Though I believe that the greatest evils truly believed what they were doing was right. The Who's Behind Blue Eyes discusses this.

I was raised a christian, and often look to the bible for answers when someone asks me something I'm not too sure about.

I don't have any problems with science, because, as my sig says, "The Signature of God is Truth." Therefore I cannot deny something is true if it is in fact true. There is a lot of theories out there, so I take it all with a grain of salt considering the constantly altering landscape of Science. I believe parts of Evolution but don't pin my faith in its ability to explain the origin of life as many atheists do. The Bible was never written with an intent to explain science. It goes into detail how God created the earth, sure, but the intent of those first few chapters in Genesis is to 1.) end polytheism and paganism, and 2.) show us the nature of God. The 7-day creation story is more of a drum-roll then it is a main point to hang one's faith on. No one knows if Adam and Eve actually existed, and that doesn't matter, the story is still powerful and relevant to everyone on earth. I don't like that Christians have stuck to it as a literal science, and I don't like the atheist response to it. Both are missing the larger point of Genesis, and how it has changed human history forever.

The science community for a long time always argued that Matter always existed. Theists always argued that God always existed. The Big-bang theory quieted the former for a bit because, according to the theory, we know for a fact that one wasn't always there... The big-bang theory might in fact be wrong, but I don't care. Atheists and scientists are off to prove some multi-verse theory now as a proof that we have all that we need to explain the origin of the world without God, but, I don't see their wild theories testable and its going to continue to be a fun ride to watch the ever-evolving nature of science. I find both fascinating, and would be sad to live in a god-less and/or science-less world.

The word "religion" is just a summary word for any kind of system that seeks to reconcile man and God. I don't know your reasons for thinking Christianity is not a religion, but I've often wondered the same thing. My reason is that pretty much all world religions, especially those in the near-east and the west, centered around mortals attempting to rise up to meet God in some way that their actions would somehow restore the connections they lost to God through sin. The more despicable religions of history go a step further by attempting to actually MANIPULATE God/gods into granting wishes. The ancient religion that eventually became Judaism, together with Christianity, admits the futility of trying to earn God's favor. It is rather God reaching down to us, not our reaching up to Him, that forms the foundation for our faith. As such, it really isn't a religion at all. Theology, however, is not inappropriate to use in describing what Christianity is since theology is concerned with studying that exact relationship.

But in terms of what believers and non-believers alike can understand, "religion" forms a sort of common denominator and thus describing Christianity as a "religion" does not offend me, whereas understanding it as a non-religion or anti-religion theology can be confusing to those who don't fully understand what Christianity teaches.

I'd be careful in saying Catholics are not Christian. I believe that there are many Catholics who are depending on their faith in Christ alone for their salvation. My only mild concern about Catholics is that doctrinally "The Church" has wavered doctrinally between sole sufficiency in genuine faith and the necessity of works. In my view, works are EVIDENCE of a born-again Christian, not an element vital to saving grace itself. If someone professes to have Christ in his heart but he has not repented from his sins and renounced his former life, he's a liar whether he means to be or not. And that's not to say heaven-bound, born-again Christians aren't works in progress. But anyone, even if on the surface he claims to be a Christian, who does not truly know in his heart that Christ is the Son of God and produced a saving work on the cross by dying and rising again on the third day, is not saved and will not enter heaven. The only works he can do are either for the sake of the works themselves or for his own selfish motivations and purposes. They do not matter in the end. The way I see it, Catholic doctrine has traditionally placed its adherents at risk for placing their faith in the wrong things.

They're aren't the only people guilty of that, either. Certain groups of evangelicals are guilty of placing too much emphasis on avoiding certain kinds of sins. Where I grew up, if you so much as ever had a DROP of alcohol in your entire life, you're destined "for a devil's hell" (frequently heard term in revivals back then) no matter what you do. So the stereotype or cliche is that of a little old lady who is just as pious as she can be because she doesn't drink or go out dancing. But if a poor woman so much as sets foot in a church with a low-cut blouse and a skirt that doesn't fit right (because she can't afford anything else), the little old lady won't hesitate in the least to start making ugly comments about her with her friends. The only communication in the world faster than mass media and the internet is church gossip. Even more disturbing is texting is on the rise with this group of people, whereas not 20 years ago technology was still "the work of the devil"! How ironic.

And that's why I'm slow to pick on Catholic teaching and rather accept them as fellow brothers/sisters in Christ, regardless of how they might feel about it!

I'm lookin' at YOU, Natty_Boh!

I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I would say this qualifies me, at least, as a "salty Christian." I am an evangilizer within my own neighborhood and have taken trips to places throughout the Midwestern U.S.A. as well.

My main source of knowledge is the Bible itself. I often use this along with study aids from the Watchtower Society to help my understanding. As I have been with the organization for 12 years now, I have been able to make some discernments on my own regarding wisdom, insight and knowledge. I have also recognized Biblical signs such as those found in Matthew 24 from media and the world around me.

A few examples: I recently saw a show hosted by former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura. In it, he explores the notion of the U.S. goverment having a secret hideout under the Rocky Mountains in Colorado. Apparently, some believe that this is where the government will operate from if WW3 ever actually happens. The rest of us will just die from nukes or whatever else they use, I guess. I don't pretend to believe this is true, nor can I state that it is not. However, if it is, it brings life to Revelation 6:16 (King James) : "And said to the rocks and mountains, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that siteth upon the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb. For the great day of his wrath is come, and who will be able to stand?" Makes you wonder if the U.S. has something besides atomic war in mind, doesn't it?

When I began to study, I used many sources to test out what I was learning, including encyclopedias and reference books. I read up on many of the Christian apologists from the 2nd and 3rd century, many of which are quoted in the Society's writings. I didn't do that so much after realizing I could trust the sources I had, but it's always an excellent idea when one is searching for truth.

If Catholics aren't included, then I would imagine a Lutheran like me doesn't qualify either, as your faith and mine share several similarities.
And by the way, I've never heard the terms salty and light Christians, so all the more likely I would be excluded.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I missed this one.

Darf ich nur sagen, it hardly matches the salt and light function as commonly understood to diss those whose awareness of and discipleship to Christ is at least [I deliberately understate] as deep regardless of liturgical preference and doctrinal fine tuning.

What makes you think a Catholic cannot also be a salty or light Christian as you define those terms? I don't see anything in the definitions that conflicts with Catholicism. Catholicism is a big umbrella; there are many subgroups of belief. So, while I certainly mean to honor your restriction, I am annoyed by it because I think it shows an incorrect understanding of the denomination, and I've seen way too much of that to far too negative effect in my life.

But by putting in that prejudice you just invited us to derail it in another way. Something to think about.

As I noted above, Catholicism is a big umbrella. I'd be hard pressed to find a singular message among my friends on this topic. Mostly we learn our faith in a whole different language, and in a different cultural tradition, a bit like the difference between the way someone with AS uses language v someone who is NT, and the way someone in Japan celebrates Christmas v someone in Norway. When I sat down in college with my born-again friends and stripped the language and cultural aspects off to talk about actual experience, and ran through examples to talk about result, we came to the same place far more often than any of us had considered possible.

No one on Earth has the right to say who is Christian and who is not. Only God can make that call.

Edit: I think my second sentence, about singular message, is a poor attempt to make an hours long translation in a few words. To put it simply, Catholics don't really talk faith v works, and we don't talk works. This is a theological war of someone else's making. For me, the short translation is that I don't really see how you could have one without the other, the interrelation is that complete, and I believe the Bible tells us it is that complete. Yet even this is a very poor translation, because some will read that as my saying a Muslim, for example, could not be saved, when I believe God has given us direct instruction to the contrary. I think we all need to be wary of allowing our faith terminology to obscure the truths of the heart.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 28 Apr 2011, 11:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

As both a Christian and a Mormon, I personal do find that the terms 'salty' and 'light' Christian to be derogatory,.
As it dones give then impression that Christians are snack foods.
The same can be say if Atheists were referenced to as 'hard boiled', 'deep fryer' and 'batter'.

I think "hardboiled" may have been preempted by some Christians, though my memory is hazy.

Anyway, passing over the poster's not inoffensive and under-considered if not seriously ill-informed words and trying to respond to what I THINK was the serious point intended, in brief yes - in any variety of Christianity I know SOME of which may match the group you intend there ARE people who consistently and persistently pursue maximal data and appropriate insights.

Myself for one.

In your opinion, will it be possible for God to decide that someone who has lived his/her life morally, as a follower of another religion, is really a Christian at heart?

If God has given the gift of faith to that person - and even if that faith is a mere spark rather than a roaring fire - yes.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I don't think the original poster intended to be insulting. The statement that was made was no doubt one based on a genuine desire to shape the discussion towards the point that was intended to be made. A point that that no doubt has been lost by this point.

@ AngelRho
I don't know who is teaching you about justification but the Church teaching of Holy See is that we do not disagree on the matter. The Vatican and the Lutherans have signed a joint declaration on justification; ergo if you want to disagree with the present consensus then you are not just disagreeing with the Catholic Church. James specifically states that faith without works is death. The Church does not teach that we can earn salvation, or that we can be justified through actions; rather that we are saved by grace. That however, we are 'assailed from without and from within and fall into sin (1 Jn 1:8,10), they must constantly hear God's promises anew, confess their sins (1 Jn 1:9), participate in Christ's body and blood, and be exhorted to live righteously in accord with the will of God'. This is the official position of the Catholic Church.

Section 33 of the Joint Declaration
'Because the law as a way to salvation has been fulfilled and overcome through the gospel, Catholics can say that Christ is not a lawgiver in the manner of Moses. When Catholics emphasize that the righteous are bound to observe God's commandments, they do not thereby deny that through Jesus Christ God has mercifully promised to his children the grace of eternal life.'

The only real objection to the present doctrine of justification I have seen has come from southern evangelicals; who for the most part, simply do not understand the Church's position on the subject. They seem to think that being 'born again' means something different to being justified in the Catholic and Lutheran sense of the word.

Section 27
'We confess together that in baptism the Holy Spirit unites one with Christ, justifies, and truly renews the person. But the justified must all through life constantly look to God's unconditional justifying grace.'

We do not disagree, the argument over justification is pretty much over. The historical disagreement over the subject has been found basically to be two groups of people saying roughly the same thing in different language... which is in my view a tragic but true indictment on both our houses. One of my friends, a Luthern actually wrote his PhD thesis on the subject. I hope that this resolves some of the issues in this thread.

Depends on the southern evangelicals in questions. I'm a southern evangelical and I don't really have a problem with the Church's position on justification.

What IS interesting, though, is this--


This does not sound at all like "faith alone." Now, you might say justification through works is not meant here, but the wording if very poor if Catholics were meant to understand "faith alone" instead of "faith and works." The evangelical understanding is that works are a demonstration of faith or are evidence of faith. Works are not REQUIRED for salvation. It's teaching like this that we can somehow "merit for ourselves" that, if not meant as requiring works for salvation, are terribly misleading.

As in these people using the followings of their religion to help them get though the good times and bad times in their lives, God considers them Christians too?