Who were the most autistic Christian figures, be it in the Bible or outside of it
Not completely in the insulting way, but one that displays very odd behavior and even ones that are symptoms of autism
Ex: Martin Luther
>played with his own literal shit (a trait of autism)
Other urls found in this thread:
ocduk.org
queenmobs.com
twitter.com
Can you prove those things?
ocduk.org
On the second part, I'll backtrack and say that playing with feces was a myth from searching it up, but he did talk about that stuff, a lot
queenmobs.com
I'm not going to attack Lutherans on this stuff though, I'm sure a lot of religious figures have really bad things hiding in their closets
ah, i thought they had actually found one of his toilet walls and confirmed it did have fecal matter spewn on the walls
Pic related.
Read any section of the Summa Autistica and tell me this man isn't autistic.
Too based for this board.
autists are the intellectual master race
Sound like a smear campaign to me.
I friggin xD 'd
YIKES, forgot polite sage
Who?
It's supposed to be Aquinas but it doesn't sit well with most Catholics that he was generally an ugly and fat guy while also being the crux of their theology so the depiction that was posted made him look like Sean Connery instead of well… Aquinas.
catholic here, never heard of this before. it's more simply we do not know what he actually looks like, in the same way we do not actually know what shakespeare looked like.
To some extent we do, at least in proportions he was a tall and large man, notably fat too since he barely fit into his desk.
Art historian Sister Wendy who briefly examined what we know about him stated "they had to cut a big circle out of the communal dining table so he could eat properly and reach his plate".
His actual facial features well, that we do not know for sure but generally he is always depicted with a bowl cut and often depicted with a large hanging face, even in some churches he's depicted that way.
There's few paintings that depict him otherwise and the one was posted here before me is definitely, very idealistic and naturalist that wants to reflect his inner wisdom with his outer look.
May have went overboard with my generalisation so my apologies for that.
I don't think anyone in the Bible is that sad. Not even Ezekiel. He was just displaying strange behavior and symbols to show how bad things had gotten (at the command of God, no less).. it didn't sound like he enjoyed himself.
What about Jonah?
You couldn't get fat like that back in the day, even if you ate a lot…There wasn't enough garbage industrial food poison back then.
You definitely could, especially if you were a 13th century Dominican monk who was so devoted to writing and prayer like him.
It's all calories in and calories out at the end of the day, every description we know of mentions his exceptional size.
Not true, most people were not living on the edge of starvation their whole lives in the medieval era and didn't subsist on chaff and bones. If you were a farmer and your crop failed, you might starve. If every farmer's crop failed you were in trouble no matter what you were. By 1500 grease trucks selling grilled pork were common in London. Beef was always expensive, but most city dwellers could afford to eat some kind of meat worth every meal. Were meat off the menu for all but a handful of aristocrats for a thousand years, how could the tradition of fish fasting survive to the present?
And Italian food is almost pure carbs.
Doubt.jpg
The Bible is a very difficult book to read and in itself is not self explanatory. It requires commentaries upon commentaries.
I'm getting into it myself but keep in mind there are other works out there just as important.
God is not the author of confusion, user.
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
Sure, but the data is showing that a majority of Catholic Americans don't read the Bible at all
It stands to reason that this is related to a Catholic deemphasis on the authority of scripture in favor of the authority of the RCC as an institution.
Also, what is this?
1 John 5:9
Yes God did not author confusion, but a normie cannot just pick up Revelations and start understanding it right away.
Perhaps that is true. I am not Catholic just pointing out passing a theology exam does not in itself make you a good Christian.
You can have knowledge of scripture but knowledge in itself is not a good or bad thing. It is an armor but it's up to you how to use it.
It's generally helpful. But a clever villain can use knowledge of the Bible to pervert God's word.
You can read the Bible and not be a good Christian, but you can't be a good Christian and not read the Bible
You know what, I disagree with that.
Every false interpretation of scripture is blatant and may be spotted immediately upon being uttered. Only if you were unlearned would you have trouble with this. Yes, the adversary will bring up scripture but it will never deceive the elect. Matthew 24:24. The only real camoflage they have is they will often repeat some true doctrine and save the false for deceiving the unlearned behind everyone elses back.
I don't concur with all these people glorifying the adversary. Every time I've seen some cult teach false doctrine I've seen through it immediately by knowing scripture. They are essentially blind to scripture and by being saved and being able to see it makes it very easy to see why they are wrong. This is, in fact, an essentially unlevel playing field where the adversary is physically disabled yet trying to play the game. 1 Corinthians 2:12-14.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. - John 12:40
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
- 2 Thessalonians 2:10-11
If the scripture is so straightforward then why are there so many Protestant sects?
And does the word only come through the Bible? To say the church fathers and apostles had nothing to say is incorrect.
It’s an interesting discussion nevertheless.
I'm fine with Aquinas being a literal sperg.
I'd rather someone not read the bible than to spread heresy. I'm sure those homo prot churches are well read…
Yeah I agree.
Ok couple things here. First off, sects aren't people. Everyone is at an individual level of understanding having studied differently and grown in different measures. So when you bring together many people you don't have everyone at the exact same page on every issue. But there are opinions that have no connection to scripture, there are finer points of doctrine and then there is a line where people will cross into heresy and need to be disassociated with.
Having said all that, I inherently acknowledge my own limitations and reliance on being taught and guided by someone else– God– in order to be protected. The only reason I can say I have confidence is because it's based in Him, not in me. It's based in the understanding given by God to man about his word.
Now having said that also, it is clearly consistent then from what I just said above that the only source of understanding is in Spirit-guided study of the inspired word of God, not in reading writings by other men. One good way to study is to read it, and another is to hear it expounded and see demonstrated for yourself, but in all cases the Lord opens each individual understanding as he pleases. See Luke 24:45. Only once one have been saved and gotten right with God will they see and really appreciate the parts of scripture that teach why we regularly assemble in church and all the points of doctrine that are fulfilled by that institution. But it doesn't replace the service of scripture; there is only one word of God to follow, which is the final authority. So to ask why you have disagreeing sects is fundamentaly backwards because you don't go to them first to find truth, you go to the word of God. The Bible is safeguarded by but not equivalent to the church.
Now to address some other points, if you have a political movement that is trying to appear godly and righteous but only in order to benefit itself then naturally many false "denominations" like this will arise. It's inevitable that this will happen as self-absorbed people draw away disciples to themselves. So there's one possible motivator, the lust for worldly power. And another cause of this effect is the lack of knowledge due to not thoroughly studying the word either due to never reading it to begin with or being duped into using a corrupted version and not knowing any better. So I'd say that explains most of it. If one is saved and disqualifies all the groups that use wrong, non-received scripture, it should be pretty straightforward to find the right church. And I'm sure that God will reward those who diligently seek him.
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
- Hebrews 11:6
Homo prot church members (mainline) in the US plurality seldom or never read scripture, similar to Catholics.
Compare this to evangelicals who by a wide majority read scripture "at least weekly".
Roughly three times as many self-identified US catholics seldom/never read scripture than evangelicals.
But yes, just like you guessed, even the faggot protestant churches read the Bible more than US catholics
Same user here you replied to. I think he was just cold and disobedient. He thought Nineveh wasn't worth his effort (they were also Gentiles interestingly.. which might be the real lesson of the episode), despite God himself commanding him.
Not even the same. The Catholic church is liturgical and has scripture read and symbolized in mass. The lectionaries contain over 50% of scripture at least.. I don't have numbers offhand, but I know the NT percentage is like 75%.
It'd be different if they didn't have any decent liturigical practice at all as well as didn't read or hear scripture (such as the homoprots do). But a Catholic gets the bible drilled into their head every mass, every year, and then indirectly by prayers and words of saints as well.
cope
Cope with what? I could talk about scripture all day with you. I'm doing fine. Thanks. All this tells me is you Prots "wing it" in church and don't understand what liturgy is or it's benefits. It says more about you than Catholics. But maybe Catholics don't realize how much scripture they're getting themselves, and those stupid polls phrase the question in a way that makes them look silly. But they definitely get scripture on a regular basis.
k
If this is the best argument you have, begone.
Yeah this is kind of a crap poll. While Catholics might not personally read the bible enough, there is a lot of bible reading happening in the daily masses. That's kinda the whole point.
The survey is making no claims about liturgy. It's only reporting how members of religious groups respond to a variety of questions.
Fine, then we can say the person who posted the poll is dishonestly interpreting it to bolster his argument.
When?
This should say DOUBLE BAPTIST. We Lutherans believe in Real Presence.
No.
I'm Catholic and this one is one great meme
none of that refutes that user's argument that the scriptures should be read in light of tradition and the teachings of the Apostle's
so, are the illiterate not good christians? what about the mentally ill?
...
How do you know that?
History, tradition. St. Peter's execution (along with St. Paul's) in Rome is a matter of fact, it only gets disregarded or refuted by those with an axe to grind against the Catholic Church.
so not the bible then huh
Do you see how the Roman tradition stands to gain from such a claim?
the only death the Bible covers is St. Stephen, that's not a really rational judgement on your part.
I could say America isn't in the Bible, thus America doesn't exist! or any other number of silly things
The claim of the last guy was " way to no (sic) even read the Bible you worship so much."
you shouldn't pay so much attention to someone flinging reviling banter, but the point still stands, St. Peter really did get executed in Rome.