From a purely Autistic standpoint, how does this creed sound to you

[Human Avatar]

And do you know anyone has made it to the top of this mountain? And learned this revelation? Why is it we have never heard of him or her but have heard about Christ rising from the dead to appear to many? Why didn't He talk about this supposed revelation, you'd think that since He came back from the dead, He of all people would've known about this supposed truth. Why do none of the "spiritual masters" of the Catholic Church talk about this, St. Teresa of Avila doesn't talk about this, St. Faustina doesn't mention this, the child-like St. Therese of Lisieux doesn't mention this, nor does St. John of the Cross who wrote a book called The Ascent of Mount Carmel! Our Blessed Mother despite being in Heaven and being Conceived without our fallen nature, also never mentioned this in Her apparitions on Tepeyac Hill, Lourdes, Fatima, and elsewhere.

Also "spiritual" simply refers to that which concerns our intellects and wills, we're all spiritual, we all have spirits, intellects and wills; religion by contrast refers to giving God His due, we simply refer to other beliefs and practices as such because they resemble this virtue.

Could it be that they are a collection of stories of metaphors and poems ?. And should not be taken in a literal sense. A mountain can mean many different things in Ancient languages. My intention is not to offend , but to apply logic

 

[Greatshield17]

As far as I recall, the Marty's Shrine in Midland, ON is to the glory of the local Jesuits. They may have meant well, but they got the entire Huron tribe killed.

Not only did they mean well they had practically no idea what was happening, and on top of that, there are even secular scholars who say that the smallpox epidemic in this particular case came from New England, not even New France let alone the Martyrs.

They may have meant well, but they got the entire Huron tribe killed. On Vancouver Island, when a band of Spanish colonizers mining gold got killed, the Priest was saved for last, because he had perpetrated the most cruel abuse.

Yet oddly enough back in Latin America, Tupac and the Indigenous folk didn't rebel until after the Bourbon Reforms, it's almost as if before the Bourbon Reforms, the Indigenous people were actually treated quite well, even given some autonomy under something called La Republica de los Indios. I don't know why, it's not as if Spain itself was also a diverse place with different ethnic groups that were also granted autonomy under the Castilian Monarchs, groups like, my own Basque ancestors who were allowed to keep their customs and unique Pre-Indo-European language.

Where I live, near residential schools, the Catholic church does not dare to have another white Priest.

The Residential Schools were done by the British Empire, which was Protestant and had a much different policy from the Catholic Spanish and French Empires.

 

[Greatshield17]

Could it be that they are a collection of stories of metaphors and poems ?. And should not be taken in a literal sense. A mountain can mean many different things in Ancient languages. My intention is not to offend , but to apply logic

But the Bible itself contains explicit metaphors, and much more complex things like typology. Of course other religions contain explicit metaphors as well, and deal with simple logic and reasoning, like Taoism and Buddhism, which are heavily misunderstood by modern westerners.

 

[Greatshield17]

What I meant was, I'm surprised that Jesus was crucified because he said he was the Son of God which was a capital offense under Mosaic Law rather than people focusing more or at least equally on his outrageous and disturbing rhetoric that in present day would only be characterized as lunacy.

The crowd to Pilate: "Sir, we have grave concern about this man Jesus. He is clearly insane by any measure we have. He's been telling people that he can grant them eternal life and give them a food that will sustain them eternally and by these claims, he's influencing thousands of people to follow him."

Pilate to the crowd: "What kind of food is he offering?"

The crowd to Pilate: "Sir, he's saying that those who follow him can partake of the "Living Bread" which perpetually sustains."

Pilate to the crowd: "Yes, but where is this "Living Bread"?

The crowd to Pilate: "Sir, he's saying they need to eat parts of his body and drink his blood while he's alive. He's saying that he's the "Living Bread". He's promoting cannibalism and says the only way people can achieve salvation is to eat of him."

Pilate to the crowd: "Figuratively, no doubt."

The crowd to Pilate: "No, Sir. Literally. He's saying he means it literally."

Pilate to the crowd: "Thank you, we'll take it from here....Guards!"

^I'm saying that I'm surprised that this was not emphasized more in a historical context.

Firstly the Jews probably focused more on this because the First Commandment is the First and most important Commandment and thus offense against it is the greatest. (Hence why I brought it up in the other thread.) Secondly, Catholic Tradition holds that the Gospels were written in short-hand and stuff was omitted, it could be that this was brought up and simply omitted from the Gospels.

 

[Greatshield17]

Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith.
^ What about other faiths?
For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost forever.
^Definitely "black or white", "all or nothing" going on there. It's sad given the fact that it's impossible for anyone to keep that faith "whole and entire" so the outcome seems to be "undoubtedly" being "lost forever."

Redemption is a gift, it's not something you earn, when people argue that people just need tp be good to go to Heaven and not have to join the Church they're saying that we should be able to earn our Redemption and Salvation. We didn't earn own creation, how much less do we expect to earn our Redemption from our sins and fallen state?

Redemption, Salvation, the Church are all gifts from God, we do not earn them. That's why we baptism infants, because we recognize that it is a gift, not something we have earn.

The Father was not made, nor created, nor generated by anyone.
The Son is not made, nor created, but begotten by the Father alone.
^Beget: "give rise to; bring about". I don't know how that's really different in this context to being created or made, but it seems to be an important distinction to those who created this creed.

A father does not make or create his children, he begets them. A creation is not of the same nature or substance as the Father, the Son is.

There is, then, one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.
In this Trinity, there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less. The entire three Persons are coeternal and coequal with one another.
^Is it ok for me to scream if I read any more about three in one, but not three, but not one, but three, but one, but not one because they're three and one is different than the other two and the other two are different from the one and also different from each other but they're all still one but they're all separate from each other? But remember, in order to be saved it's imperative that this be believed. What exactly is imperative again? I've already forgotten.

Because you cannot love what you do not know. God judges us on Charity, and the greatest Commandment is to Love God with all our hearts, minds, souls and strength.

As God, He was begotten of the substance of the Father before time; as man, He was born in time of the substance of His Mother.
He is perfect God; and He is perfect man, with a rational soul and human flesh.
^"perfect man"? There isn't such a thing as a "perfect" human. Humans are fallible. He illustrated this both by losing his temper and trashing the temple area occupied by the money changers who were doing their job which was mandated by Jesus' own religion and also by killing a perfectly good fig tree because it didn't have figs on it (being out of season at the time) and therefore he wasn't able to eat from the tree when he was hungry. I don't get how a petulant act like that (tantrum?) coincides with being a "perfect man".

No! No! No! This is a huge problem in our modern world, this misunderstanding and/or contempt for our own human nature. It's not human nature to be fallible, (well it might be, but we'll get to that in a bit) our nature is fallible because it is broken! This is why I use the term Common Lapsarian to refer to non-Autistic people, we Autistic people are broken, but that doesn't mean that non-Autistic people aren't broken, they're just broken in a different way from us. We are all broken, we all have a Lapsarian nature, but that is not how God intended us to be, while I'm not 100% sure about infallibility, I do know that God intended us to be perfect, and while we are not perfect God did make Someone Who is. That Someone is the Immaculate Conception, the Immaculately Conceived New Eve, Our Lady; I consider Her to be the Platonic Form of Human Nature, Humanity as God originally intended us all to be. She is a Perfect Human Being and so is Her Son, Who is Consubstantial both with Her and the Father; they are perfect Human Beings (though one is also God), and they don't do Lapsarian things like judge the actions of the New Adam and Son of God Himself.

I'll get to the rest later, I'm going to have dinner first, but I really needed to address this part here.

 

[VictorR]

Yet oddly enough back in Latin America, Tupac and the Indigenous folk didn't get uppity until after the Bourbon Reforms, it's almost as if before the Bourbon Reforms, the Indigenous people were actually treated quite well, even given some autonomy under something called La Republica de los Indios. I don't know why, it's not as if Spain itself was also a diverse place with different ethnic groups that were also granted autonomy under the Castilian Monarchs, groups like, my own Basque ancestors who were allowed to keep their customs and unique Pre-Indo-European language.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/uppity

The adjective uppity is an informal, somewhat old-fashioned word. When used to mean "arrogant" or "presumptuous," it is no more offensive than either of these synonyms. In its meaning of "aspiring to a rank or position higher than one deserves or is entitled to" it is decidedly disparaging, the implication of the word being that the one described does not deserve or is not entitled to rise in standing. Beyond this denotation, however, uppity has a long history of being applied to members of racial minorities and especially to Black people. Its association with such uses, and the bigotry they represent, means that when it is used to describe a member of a racial minority it is likely to be considered especially offensive.

The Residential Schools were done by the British Empire, which was Protestant and had a much different policy from the Catholic Spanish and French Empires.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/pope-francis-residential-schools-genocide-1.6537203

While addressing residential school survivors and their families in Maskwacis, Alta., Francis expressed deep sorrow for harms suffered at the church-run schools and asked for forgiveness "for the wrong done by so many Christians to the Indigenous peoples."

The Catholic Church ran over half of the residential schools in Canada.

 

[Greatshield17]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/uppity




https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/pope-francis-residential-schools-genocide-1.6537203

Corrected the Tupac part. There were no Residential Schools Latin America, or at least none that I know of and if there were, I highly doubt that they were there before the Bourbon Reforms. As for Pope Francis' visit to Canada, I do not want to talk about that, that was a disaster in so many ways...

 

[Greatshield17]

I have a problem with any claim that a document written in the 4th century could be correctly interpreted through any modern lens of the 21st century by applying that latter century's values and understanding to the interpretation of the early document.

To correctly interpret the document, the reader must have some historical, cultural, and grammatical context by which they may draw out from the document the meaning therein. Keep in mind that we are not only bridging a philosophical gap between a contemporary philosophy back whereby we must step back into a constituent philosophy but there are also concerns here with carefully bridging the historical/cultural gap and even a translation/language gap. This document is making an apology to (i.e., a response in defense of) the doctrines of the catholic church (little 'c'--not the Catholic church you know today but the Christian church universal) against the Arian heresy, which denied the deity of Christ.

To come up with any other reason explaining its existence is ludicrous.

I wasn’t asking for an Autistic interpretation but an Autistic experience; of course interpreting it any other way than through the 4th century philosophy and Theology that Eastern Orthodox and Catholics like myself still use today is ludicrous.

 

[Greatshield17]

One must be almost a professor of history of the exact time period of their Preferred religion, to exactly understand the context and language.

Not exactly, creeds are meant for the laity as well, you may need some catechesis and some understanding of the historical background helps, but other than that the creed is there for you to learn and internalize. Catholics recite the Apostles’ Creed or sometimes even the Nicene Creed every time we attend Mass and every time we start a Rosary.

 

[GypsyMoth]

I wasn’t asking for an Autistic interpretation but an Autistic experience; of course interpreting it any other way than through the 4th century philosophy and Theology that Eastern Orthodox and Catholics like myself still use today is ludicrous.

Well, if I am autistic, my experience of it your OP was there were too many words there & I skipped to the historical point. No, I didn't read it. (Although I'm sure I've read it in the past. I'm a seminary grad.)

 

[Gerontius]

Well, if I am autistic, my experience of it your OP was there were too many words there & I skipped to the historical point. No, I didn't read it. (Although I'm sure I've read it in the past. I'm a seminary grad.)

I would agree. I think it's a lot more bombastic than it needs to be, and it's definitely aged poorly compared to the Apostles' Creed. Simplicity is a benefit, and long elaborate texts, repetitive rambling, and all that makes it feel like it really wasn't intended for liturgical use anyway but as a specific example of the day of Athanasius.

I'm glad we do not start the rosary with it.

 

[Greatshield17]

Well, if I am autistic, my experience of it your OP was there were too many words there & I skipped to the historical point. No, I didn't read it. (Although I'm sure I've read it in the past. I'm a seminary grad.)

Very well then.

 

[Alexej]

HI @Greatshield17
I am aware of the Athanasian creed, but have not had it used in church.

Personally I find it overly wordy and a bit hard to follow.

Having said that it is a product of its time, and as a counter to Arianism has its place.

from an autistic point of view I find it simple and very clear

 

[Greatshield17]

Thanks for the response. Though it doesn't do much to clear up what the trinity is about. Just that he believed in it and others at the time didn't hence the intense focus on it. I personally don't think underdog status adds validity to anything.
The fear tactics are still there, it's not as simple as those that write these texts being conscious of the results, value systems don't work like that. You don't need malice to perpetuate malicious systems, only ignorance or apathy. In the case of the world of common faith, where few dare look beyond their own local culture, when people are willing to die and kill for what they believe before ever asking a question, this is what I would point at as the ignorance that becomes the vessel for evil. Conviction: with understanding comes ignorance.

It’s only malicious and fear tactics if it is false which it is not; if I’m a bad person in your own subjective view for believing the Catholic Faith and willing with the help of God’s Grace to suffer and die for it, so be it.

I hope you’re willing to live up to your own standards.

 

[Knower of nothing]

It’s only malicious and fear tactics if it is false which it is not; if I’m a bad person in your own subjective view for believing the Catholic Faith and willing with the help of God’s Grace to suffer and die for it, so be it.

I hope you’re willing to live up to your own standards.

No, if it's false then it's malicious, fear tactics and DECEIT. You can absolutely spread malicious fear tactics using truth (though we both know that is not the case in this example otherwise it'd be called knowledge, not faith.)
I can talk with conviction at someone with social phobia about crime statistics and detailed accounts of where, why and how these things happen and then tell them they shouldn't go outside anymore and just stick with me because I got their best interest at heart. You know what I'd be called? An emotionally manipulative sociopath. There you go, an example of truth used to malicious ends thanks to abusing the fear in people's hearts.

 

[Xerces Blue]

@Knower of nothing I see you are aware of the villian's path. *Tips hat*

Honestly I think everyone would be better off if they looked at the values a faith attempts to teach and looks at the dogma as a vehicle to teach those values.

This makes things a lot more fun and less likely to cause Holy wars and get people murdered.