thanks

This is very good, I meant with saying correct light as in churches that view autism with respect

I wondered, but didn't get round to asking, if the OP is in the US because I think some of the more conservative churches there may exercise some influence on how parents interact with children with autism.

In the UK, it is more about efforts to be as inclusive as possible, and that includes such things as ensuring wheelchair access, loop systems for hearing aid users, large print info for people with sight problems etc.  

You're right, though, none of that is unique to churches or other places of worship.  The guy I mentioned at Aberdeen Uni is involved in work involving people with a variety of disabilities and exploring their perspectives on church and spirituality etc, and that's being done from a practical/pastoral theological perspective.

Are you in a seminary which teaches from a particular theological perspective, or are a variety of theologies studied and taught?

What are the particular areas which you are finding difficult?

I'm not aware of any theologians who write from a particularly Aspie perspective, but if you were to email John Swinton he may be able to point you towards studies or research which would be helpful for you.

Another, exciting I think, option, would be for you to research and write on this area yourself.

I am at a seminary that teaches a particular perspective but I research a large variety of different perspectives.

It is not so much a particular area, it is just that I am studying to become a pastor so in order to preach on a particular subject, I need to understand it to the point of explaining it. This requires me to research the current discussions on the subject, understand it in my perspectives and then translate it back into NT speak. This is quite time consuming and I was hoping to find scholars who write similar to how aspies think which would make it easier to develop my thoughts.

I will email John Swinton in the hopes that I can find a theologian, but as I have a number of different subjects that I am working on right now, I do not think I will be able to write about it myself.

Ah, ok, I get you now.  I'm in the very final stages of training for ministry myself, and will, God willing, be ordained at the beginning of May.  I'm currently in the process of being called to a charge.

I know of one minister who uses mindmapping software to organise his thoughts, and he preaches from his laptop.  Maybe that would be something which you'd find helpful.

Hmmm.... this is a huge area.  There are so many variables which affect how you preach, not least your own natural style.  

I recently attended a day seminar organised by the UK's College of Preachers.  I haven't had time to look at their website, but you might find some helpful resources there.  At the seminar I went to, speakers had varying approaches to how they prepared and preached a sermon.  They spoke about using film, music, fine art etc both in preparation and in delivery - what you use and how you use it will depend on you, your congregation and your church, of course.

A word of caution - don't assume that you are necessarily preaching to a congregation of "NTs".  It is important to know your congregation well so you can preach to them most effectively.  For example, I am currently with a congregation in which there is a significant number of people with mental health difficulties, two or three with moderate to severe learning disabilities and at least one that I reckon is Aspie.  I have to bear that in mind, as well as what is happening in the life of individuals and the congregation as a whole when I am preparing worship.

Also, the sermon is only one means by which you communicate information.  You have to think about how your message can be communicated in the sung praise and prayers.  Maybe involving the congregation in some kind of participation by movement or sensory stimulation could also form part of worship.

Edited to add:  If I'm telling you what you already know, I apologise.

I'm not a Christian, but the way that I process concepts is the same as you. It can make me appear a bit thick at times, but over the medium to longer term I find that it is an advantage. It might take me longer to grasp a new concept, but once I do I tend to understand it on a deeper level than most people seem to.

I read a quote recently (attributed to Temple Grandin) that NTs learn general to specific, while autistics learn specific to general. That pretty much sums it up for me.

Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)

Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)  
If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10).  

If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)

If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death.  (Leviticus 20:14)

If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16).

If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)

Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death.  (Leviticus 20:27)

If a priest's daughter is a ***, she is to be burnt at the stake.  (Leviticus 21:9)

People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)

Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community.  (Leviticus 24:14-16)

Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)


As good today as whan it was first written!

It is a thread on Christianity, not Judaism, bro.

Human race as a whole would benefit from having no religion at all.

That's christianity too.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.

Yeah not conveting a neighbor donkey. It's so important for aspie...

How so?

Sounds like that story my history professor told me...

What about the Byzantine Empire?

The secular advances made by the Chinese empire immediately prior to the European age of exploration--which arguably even kicked off the European age of exploration--were destroyed in China by a completely secular problem: absolute kingship.  When the emperor who sponsored the voyages of Zheng He died, his replacement wanted a clean break from the usurper who went before him.  So the discoveries made by Zheng He's treasures ships were censored, just like secular learning was censored in Christian Europe.  Christianity and Islam are basically the same problem, only the absolute monarch is a deity instead of a man.  Absolute faith may be in one or the other: it is still destructive.  

The lead poisoning thing is overemphasised.  The city of Rome was building aqueducts from before the Empire even began, and the Caesars ruled for three or four more centuries yet. Edit: oh yes, many if not most of these aqueducts are still in use today.  if they did use lead in their aqueducts, they knew how to do it safely. /Edit  "Outsourcing" had also been done from nearly the beginning: one of the earliest expansions of Rome was to give citizenship to neighboring Latin tribes.  Paths to citizenship were created for any individual (limited ones, but still more liberal than some that are in effect in Europe today) and as Rome expanded into the territories, much of its military and much of its culture was created by the formerly Celtic tribes who were now adopting (and elaborating upon) Roman culture and language and joining the Roman military.  As an example, Virgil was a romanized Celt from cisalpine Gaul.  His ancestors sacked the city of Rome; his literature added to the glory of the city.

Another problem was the Villae.  As rich Romans bought bigger and bigger estates and bigger and bigger farms, they were populated with more and more slaves, and small landowners were shunted into the cities forming a growing destitute underclass.  At these low levels is where Christianity spread the fastest.  Turning these low statuses in roman society into holy vocations put an end to the increasing tide of slave revolts that accompanied the increase in slaves.  With the new God opposing the old gods rather than the human misery generated by the terrible economy, the increasing chaos was resolved in feudalism.

By the way, he's dead. Might explain his difficulty in making you aware  of his forgiveness of whatever you think you've done.
As noted elsewhere, teh basic tenets of Christian morality are sound; but you don't need to believe in all the mumbo-jumbo about surviving your own death and going to live in the sky in order to adhere to a sound moral code.

Sex between Adam and Eve damned mankind and Christ's death and resurrection is all that protects us from Hell?  (most basic definition of Christianity that all Christians agree on)  Sex=reproduction, and anything else (including cloning, homosexuality, birth control, in vitro fertilisation, etc) is evil?  A slave must submit to his master?  If a man sue you for your jacket, then [no matter who is wrong and who is right] offer him your cloak?  If you look at a sexy woman and regard her as a beautiful desirable creature then that is morally the same as adultery or fornication or even incest?  

Or are you referring to cultural universals, like murder=wrong, or submit to the state.  Hardly Christian principals.  Even cannibals accept them.  What exactly are you talking about, regarding Christianity being right?

Yeah, good point, I actually mean the stuff that's attributed to Jesus, not the picky laws from Leviticus and so on. And certainly not how it's all been twisted since. The Golden Rule and stuff. And yeah, it aplies to pretty much every religion before and since, just about treating people decently. Apparently, there's an organiztaion called 'Atheists for Christ' who respect the moral philosophy without losing their sense of reality. Sounds like one for google...

Yeah, there's a lot of stuff I like about the bible.  "Let my people go" "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, etc."  

I still dispute that a slave must submit to his master.  I dispute turning the other cheek.  I don't question its potential value as a form of protest: Ghandi used such methods very effectively.  But in today's American society, where media outlets don't need to compete against one another for accuracy or even relevance, the moral message will end up lost.  Six "independent" outlets, all with the exact same political interests will never report the news.  Only propaganda.  Its a function of the very nature of monopoly and quasi-monopoly.  Once quasi-monopoly has been reached, the free market is no more, and there is no competing product.  So nobody's voice who agree with the protestors can matter.  No matter how peaceful they are.  

Our salvation in a modern world is not Jesus, but twitter, facebook, forums, and other forms of social media.  Otherwise our voices will never be heard.

I also thought that about Gandhi, until I read 'Letter to a Christian Nation' by Sam Harris.

Yeah, my point exactly. I think the Golden Rule is in Plato. The 'salvation' stuff is obviously part pf what I called mumbo-jumbo, as it relies on us believing in alternative 'lands' in the sky and under our feet that centuries of scientific exploration have been unable to find

Personally, I'm agnostic.  Which I thought was a fairly self-explanatory concept until I googled it!  I found a lot of different types, as below:

Types of agnosticism
Agnostic atheism: Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.

Agnostic theism: The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.

Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism: The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.

Ignosticism: The view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable.  Some philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against.

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism"): The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism"): The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, when there is evidence, we can find something out."

Spiritual Agnosticism: The view that universal ethics and love can guide actions more effectively than questioning the existence of deities. A spiritual agnostic would say "It doesn't matter what religion you call yourself a follower of, nor does it matter whether or not you believe in God. What matters is what you do, not what you believe."

After reading all of the above, I think I'd have to say that I'm a combination of "Soft Agnostic" and "Spiritual Agnostic".  I don't know if there is or isn't a deity, and I don't much care.  But I do think how we choose to live our lives is important and valuable.  

Alison

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

I disagree.  As I use the term, agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.

My position is that if gods exist, I will not argue they don't.  Likewise, I'm not about to say they do when I have no evidence to back it up.  I just find it surprising that so many people get so hot under the collar about the subject, when to me, it's pretty much a non-event.

Alison