Don't Crucify the Messenger

[WanderingWonderer]

I hope you can consider autism as a mutation that doesn't always work out well, but works extremely well on occasion. Many autistic people have been able to revolutionize the field they choose to pursue, and probably so because of how their brains work differently allowing for a unique perspective. It's even arguable that the quirky personalities of people like Einstein and Tesla could hint that they were autistic.

[WanderingWonderer]

You're quite dismissive of many things. I find that interesting from someone who gives the subject so much attention. It's humorous that you denounce not divinity in general, but the supposed magical super hero version of God. You realize that I am not a Christian, don't you?

[Mike Cl]

You're quite dismissive of many things. I find that interesting from someone who gives the subject so much attention. It's humorous that you denounce not divinity in general, but the supposed magical super hero version of God. You realize that I am not a Christian, don't you?

I don't care what label you apply to yourself.  What things are I dismissive of?  Yes, I do denounce divinity in general.  I just know more about christianity since I was born into a society in which that is the most accepted form of religion and divinity.  Personally, I don't 'denounce' any of the chaos or mutations or mutilations that show up in nature.  That would do no good, since there is nothing to denounce but nature.  And that is simply what is.  I do, however, have great compassion for those who suffer from any disease or malformation or handicap.  To ascribe these things to any god or divinity makes me question the sanity of that god or divinity. 

[Mike Cl]

I hope you can consider autism as a mutation that doesn't always work out well, but works extremely well on occasion. Many autistic people have been able to revolutionize the field they choose to pursue, and probably so because of how their brains work differently allowing for a unique perspective. It's even arguable that the quirky personalities of people like Einstein and Tesla could hint that they were autistic.

Of course not all mutations are good; they come in three flavors I suspect.  Those that are all good, all bad or a mixture of the two.  Autism is neither good nor bad--it just is.  We are the ones who apply the labels.  But to suggest that is god's will, is in my estimation, insanity.

[WanderingWonderer]

I've taken many hippies to lunch, in a manner of speaking. I know a lot about "new age" spirituality and the focus they put on "love and light" and bliss. I am well aware that the Genesis account of creation doesn't make literal sense, but I do see it as a lesson about merely following your bliss compared to the merits of a more challenging life. I agree that the line between good and evil is less defined than most tend to think. The yin yang represents the play between the two rather well and the story I shared about the archangel highlights that point as well, but you missed it because you're dismissive. Moreover, I don't draw a separation between God and creation, or more specifically, God and self. You seem to give God much credit, but what about us? We are in control here more than any other creature. Why expect God to fix what we have done to ourselves? Better still, what if we are the means for which God makes things better?

The defining difference between you and I is that you come off as having the answers while I come with questions and proposals. Chances are, I'll tire of this game long before you do, and you'll come away with one of those false senses of victory we spoke of before, but honestly, I hear you saying stop, the path you've chosen isn't worth it. I disagree, and it's for reasons you can't get your head around because you've not allowed yourself to go there. Congratulations, great victor.

[Mike Cl]

You have a lot of animosity toward a god you don't believe in, don't you? Deformities are mutations, and I'm sure that as an atheist, you're well-versed in evolution science and the need for mutations.  Also, you curiously expect me to have every answer for you. What exactly do you think I am? Now, since you've picked my words apart so well and I'm using this rather simple app, I'll have to end here and go back to your post before preceding.

My questions and observations seem to have made you rather uncomfortable--why?  Who do I think you are?  A theist of some sort, I suppose.  But when I question you about your 'creator' you get rather defensive.  How come?  I'm glad you think I have picked your words apart.  I'm curious in what way did I do that?  I await your reply.

[WanderingWonderer]

To return to the original post.  I will discuss Jesus, since I am most familiar with that fictional tale.  I would suggest that Jesus can be made to 'teach' opposite points.  For example:

Does Jesus teach peace?
Yes.
Blessed are the peacemakers. Matthew 5:9
One of them ... drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus ... Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Matthew 26:51-52
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. Luke 2:14
Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. John 14:27
These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. John 16:33
The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ. Acts 10:36
No.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Luke 12:51
He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. Revelation 19:11

So, the answer to the question I guess is yes--and no.  Depends upon what you want to believe in.

Consider this about Jesus, as well.

What did Jesus teach about the Old Testament?
by Ryan Turner
Many people today do not believe in the authority of the Old Testament as Scripture. However, Jesus had some quite different things to say regarding the Old Testament. Here is a brief list of some of what Jesus taught about the Old Testament:
1.Source of Authority
1.When confronted by Satan, Jesus appealed to the Old Testament as a source of authority by stating, "It is written," (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).
2.Imperishability
1."For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished," (NASB, Matt. 5:18).
1.Unbreakability
1."The Scripture cannot be broken," (NASB, Jn. 10:35).
1.Source of Doctrinal Authority
1.Jesus appealed to Scripture when correcting false doctrine stating, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God," (NASB, Matt. 22:29).
1.Truthfulness
1."Your word is truth," (NASB, Jn. 17:17).
1.Historical Reliability
1.Jesus affirmed the historical existence of Jonah (Matt. 12:40), Noah (Matt. 24:37-38), and Adam and Eve (Matt. 19:4-6).
1.Scientific Reliability
1.Jesus affirmed that God created the world (Mk. 13:19, cf. Matt. 19:4).
1.Old Testament Canonicity1
1.Jesus made reference to the Law and Prophets as a unit, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill," (Matt. 5:17).
2.Jesus explained the Scriptures, "Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures," (NASB, Luke 24:27).
3.Jesus referred to the entire Canon by mentioning all the prophets from Abel (from Genesis, the first book and first martyr) to Zechariah (Chronicles, the last book, and the last martyr) (Matt. 23:35).2
What does this mean?
Since Jesus is God in flesh, performed a life of miraculous healings, died on the cross, and was miraculously resurrected three days later, what He taught on issues of doctrine are vastly important. Since He was God in flesh, whatever He taught is true. This means that we can trust the accuracy of the Old Testament Scriptures on issues of history, science, and moral instruction.

The Old Testament is a collection of fictional stories detailing a horrid, evil god, with horrid evil, commandments to follow.  And Jesus thinks that's really great.  Jesus thinks the OT is accurate in the areas of history, science and morality.  That Jesus is an idiot and willfully stupid.  He can be your avatar if you'd like--I want nothing to do with him or his fictions.

Your attack on the tales of one character from a bias perspective and out of context, and we can both agree that the particular context is one of the most altered collections of literature in human history. Therefore, it's not a strong position. 

[Mike Cl]

I've taken many hippies to lunch, in a manner of speaking. I know a lot about "new age" spirituality and the focus they put on "love and light" and bliss. I am well aware that the Genesis account of creation doesn't make literal sense, but I do see it as a lesson about merely following your bliss compared to the merits of a more challenging life. I agree that the line between good and evil is less defined than most tend to think. The yin yang represents the play between the two rather well and the story I shared about the archangel highlights that point as well, but you missed it because you're dismissive. Moreover, I don't draw a separation between God and creation, or more specifically, God and self. You seem to give God much credit, but what about us? We are in control here more than any other creature. Why expect God to fix what we have done to ourselves? Better still, what if we are the means for which God makes things better?

The defining difference between you and I is that you come off as having the answers while I come with questions and proposals. Chances are, I'll tire of this game long before you do, and you'll come away with one of those false senses of victory we spoke of before, but honestly, I hear you saying stop, the path you've chosen isn't worth it. I disagree, and it's for reasons you can't get your head around because you've not allowed yourself to go there. Congratulations, great victor.

Sarcasm does not become you.  Let me approach you and this subject in a different way.  I have searched for god or divinity for most of my adult life.  I tried everything from astrology to full blown christianity.  I was even a board president and vice president for a local church for 3 years.  I have done academic research and emotional involvement.   I can't say I've tried it all, but I have given various approaches my full attention.  As for the answers, I have my own.  But they are not etched in cement.  I am still searching and hope to be open to other possibilities until the day I die.  I suppose I have been a bit forward with my 'stop' message--but that is because your path is a 'stop' for me--because I've been on it for awhile and it was not a good fit.  You may think I can't get my head around your path; I don't really know what the full extent of your path is, so you may be correct--or not. 

Look, at best I see theism as a helpful crutch to get one through life.  At worst, I see it as a tool used by the few to control the many for the benefit of the few.  I have seen theism as the worst much, much too often.  I do subscribe to following your bliss to get through this life and to give your life meaning.  But by bliss I do not mean the airy fairy bliss, the bliss that means mindless pleasure.  I mean the bliss that drives you to do something well, that feeds you emotionally, that drives you to be the best you can be.  Don't need god for this. 

[WanderingWonderer]

I don't care what label you apply to yourself.  What things are I dismissive of?  Yes, I do denounce divinity in general.  I just know more about christianity since I was born into a society in which that is the most accepted form of religion and divinity.  Personally, I don't 'denounce' any of the chaos or mutations or mutilations that show up in nature.  That would do no good, since there is nothing to denounce but nature.  And that is simply what is.  I do, however, have great compassion for those who suffer from any disease or malformation or handicap.  To ascribe these things to any god or divinity makes me question the sanity of that god or divinity.

Back in my twenties when I first got high-speed internet, I saw the creation vs. evolution "debate" and while I assumed evolution was true, I couldn't argue against creationism very well because I didn't have the knowledge. So because I was passionate about the subject, I did my homework.

The Christian dogma alone doesn't actually do so well to portray divinity, and so having that (and a limited perspective of that) as your sole argument makes you like I was back in my twenties.

[WanderingWonderer]

Of course not all mutations are good; they come in three flavors I suspect.  Those that are all good, all bad or a mixture of the two.  Autism is neither good nor bad--it just is.  We are the ones who apply the labels.  But to suggest that is god's will, is in my estimation, insanity.

What bubble are you living in? The whole world is insane, and you are no exception.

[Mike Cl]

What bubble are you living in? The whole world is insane, and you are no exception.

Yeah, I guess you could say that all is insanity.  Must be god's will, eh? 

[WanderingWonderer]

My questions and observations seem to have made you rather uncomfortable--why?  Who do I think you are?  A theist of some sort, I suppose.  But when I question you about your 'creator' you get rather defensive.  How come?  I'm glad you think I have picked your words apart.  I'm curious in what way did I do that?  I await your reply.

I used to be atheist. I was for nine years and agnostic before that. Before high-speed internet. I changed my mind.

[Mike Cl]

Back in my twenties when I first got high-speed internet, I saw the creation vs. evolution "debate" and while I assumed evolution was true, I couldn't argue against creationism very well because I didn't have the knowledge. So because I was passionate about the subject, I did my homework.

The Christian dogma alone doesn't actually do so well to portray divinity, and so having that (and a limited perspective of that) as your sole argument makes you like I was back in my twenties.

Well, then, maybe you should go back to the way you were in your twenties.

[WanderingWonderer]

Yeah, I guess you could say that all is insanity.  Must be god's will, eh?

What if our will is God's will?

[Mike Cl]

I used to be atheist. I was for nine years and agnostic before that. Before high-speed internet. I changed my mind.

Most interesting.  Would you mind sharing why or what moved you to change?