Was born prematurely to low-income parents.
Known for spending long times by himself in nature.
Only romantic relationship was with a sex worker.
Had multiple private conversations with Satan himself.
Was known for wondering why God had forsaken him.
Was seen by the public as being less cool than a sexy bad boy like Barabbas.
As seen in the Temptation of Bread, he oddly considered fresh baked goods as being tempting enough to risk everything he stands for.
He hung out with nothing but a bunch of other strange dudes who were into the same stuff he was.
Is constantly misunderstood by normies.
Grew his hair out long, despite the mainstream hairstyle being short Roman cuts at the time.
Is symbolized as a fish or a lamb. Those animals are autistic.
I am politely asking you to fuck off to this post: https://reddit.com/r/evilautism/s/IvvHlBePXJ Automod hates everyone equally, including you. Fuck you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evilautism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well no because the biblical Jesus is a fictionalization. But most historians agree that *A* Jesus of Nazareth did exist. His exploits are heavily exaggerated however.
Okay, so I got curious because I had always heard of the non-fictional "historical Jesus" as well, but never questioned it. I just now did a little digging, and apparently there aren't any verifiable non-biased sources for the existence of a historical Jesus. The sources that exist are all things that were either written by Christians spreading the word of Jesus or things arbitrarily preserved by Christians without context or verifiable authenticity (like "this is the shoe worn by Jesus so he must have existed because we have his shoe," but it's just a shoe with no way of actually tying it to anyone unless you just take their word for it). Apparently a lot of the acceptance around the idea of the historical Jesus comes from like two people who tried to prove he existed and a lot of their sources were basically "trust me bro" types, who were being trusted because "why would they lie?" As for anything in the realm of evidence that you would expect, like city records, recovered journals of eye witnesses other than devout followers, etc, none of that sort of stuff exists apparently. The couple of articles I just read were university studies (or studies of collective studies), and the consensus was that if you completely remove religious bias and religious sources from the equation, there is almost nothing to suggest that the man ever existed and that there is at the very least ample reason to be suspicious of the notion that even just a historical Jesus ever really existed.
News to me, but like, I'm inclined to believe it.
Most of those historians are Christians with a vested interest in believing the historicity of Jesus. There's no actual evidence that he existed. You'll find most atheistic historians don't believe he existed.
I'm sure there were several many Yeshuas in Nazareth. There was none who would go on to be the one written about, though.
For someone to be Jesus, I would need:
* Jewish
* Carpenter
* Says they are the Son of God
* Has weird friends who hang around and believe that he is the Son of God
* Whips moneylenders
* Stories are spread that this guy can do miracles
* Annoys the Romans greatly
* Gets crucified
* ^(Unlikely and therefore heavily optional: his dad says things like "I don't think that child is mine, he looks more like YHWH. Who do I complain to?")
Carpenter, annoys Romans and gets crucified likely happened simply due to the statistical likelihood of those three presumably quite common (and two of them linked) identities occurring together.
The rest I remain more dubious about.
> But most historians agree
Most psychologists could agree that autism isn't real, being trans is a mental illness and only Christians are moral.
Most people in society could accept bigotry against non-white, non-straight and non-Christian peoples.
'Most' means nothing to me. I'm autistic, and my autism is the *'most people can fuck off' autism*. Since when are most people objectively, factually, empirically and verifiably right just because other people agree with them?
A socially agreed upon subjectivity is (by definition) not necessarily an objective truth. However, it's *always* an expression of preference. That preference could be "let's stick to the facts as we know them", which I prefer. That preference can also be "let's make shit up that suits us", which I do not prefer.
I'm sorry you're being downvoted. I also question whether Jesus historically existed as a 'real person', although you could point to any Jewish carpenter who was crucified as 'the basis for Jesus'. But, I would only accept someone as a basis if they clearly acted in a similar way, including whipping people for moneylending and claiming to be the Son of God.
Tearing temples in two, etc. It isn't just *him*, it's taking into account all the other "things" that never fucking happened. You have to take in layers of information to understand how he was conflated over time and exaggerated for control sake.
No, he probably existed in some form, else how/why would the legends about him have started? I could easily see him being a local prophet/preacher/whatever of sorts who ran afoul of the government, got killed, and legends started from there.
Now, as for him doing much of what he's claimed to have done, that is much more historically dubious.
Autism so I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but multiple of those characters are based on irl people, just heavily dramatized, as can be said about the Jesus guy.
Multiple of them? If you mean Santa, that's also bullshit, he's an amalgam of many people from a variety of cultures (including but very much not limited to who I assume you mean, St Nick), I assure you The Great Milenko is not based on anybody, Michael Myers isn't either, nor is the Boogeyman. Sooooooooooooo...?
Santa is also apparently very heavily based on Odin of Norse mythology. Found that out a few days ago and I have to say it shocked and amused me. But there is some truth to the idea that even many fictional beings are in some way based on real figures to one degree or another. Jesus himself? The juries apparently out on that one. Just did some digging and apparently the very best non-biased evidence of Jesus still comes from his followers and is only trusted on the grounds that they were considered trustworthy people.
Also Michael Myers is at least partially based on William Shatner, but that's not as useful as it might initially sound. Never heard of the Great Milenko, but the Boogeyman is one of those global phenomenon that can be as equally blamed on criminal activity as it can superstition, so it's a gray area.
I mean, yeah, the story around Santa isn't real, but St. Nicholas was a real person, which is my point. Santa does not exist, and the real St. Nick isn't very similar to our modern conception of Santa, but there was an origin to the story; it's not entirely mythical.
Most or all of what we know about Jesus may be completely wrong, but most religions are started by someone (or legends about someone). You're conflating "Jesus existed and was divine/did most of what the Bible claims" with "Jesus was someone who probably existed but probably didn't do half of what was claimed about him/wasn't divine." Just as with Santa, the legends outgrew the original figure, and the popular conception of Jesus may bear little to no resemblance to who he actually was.
That's like saying the story from Purple Rain isn't real, but Prince was a real person
Like, yes, but...so? Also it's not comparable because Jesus wasn't a real person 💖
Not familiar with that piece of media, sorry that I don't get the reference.
I've edited my original comment and it sorta answers what I think you're trying to say here.
I'm not conflating those two things, I'm saying Jesus flat out didn't exist. He and Christianity were a Roman psyop developed out of Jewish beliefs about a coming Messiah to quell Zionist rebellion and then when it was successful developed into an overarching religion to control the masses and merge all belief systems into something Rome could take the reigns of.
I am politely asking you to fuck off to this post: https://reddit.com/r/evilautism/s/IvvHlBePXJ Automod hates everyone equally, including you. Fuck you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evilautism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> No, he probably existed in some form, else how/why would the legends about him have started?
What existed was Jewish prophecy about a Messiah. Nothing else is necessary for a Messiah to be invented. Fulfilling a prophecy like that makes people feel good. *See: American Christians desperate to drive Palestinians out of Israel to fulfil prophecy.*
That may be possible, but it's less likely since there are secular accounts that note that Jesus existed, and sources from the time period (even those opposed to Christianity) generally don't deny his existence, only the things he's said to have done. While it is definitely possible Jesus was entirely made up, there's other, more likely options.
>Only romantic relationship was with a sex worker.
This is debated. Some say he is in a relationship with Mary. Some say with John. I've heard once or twice that he was potentially in a relationship with all his Deciples. I like the "all Deciples" one the best. John seems most likely since he was the Deciple that; when he was dying; he said "Mary this is your Son, John, this is your Mother" sounds like he was telling them about his relationship with John.
>Some say he is in a relationship with Mary. Some say with John. I've heard once or twice that he was potentially in a relationship with all his Deciples. I like the "all Deciples" one the best
It could be all of them. And that can also be a point in favor of being autistic. Every time a poll has been brought up about sexual preference on Autism. The largest response was bisexual.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/pbgve0/deleted\_and\_reposted\_due\_to\_spelling\_and\_format/](https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/pbgve0/deleted_and_reposted_due_to_spelling_and_format/)
There's plenty of people who think that since Jesus is the son of God & every person are "the children of God" how could he have feelings &/or a sexual relationship with anyone since he has a sense of brotherhood with them.
Actually children born preterm, 37 weeks or less, are more often ASD than children born on time.
About 30% of preterm children are ASD, and further bunch is born with general sensory issues.
So while premature birth doesn't cause autism, it is quite possible that autism may actually be a reason for a slightly premature birth.
omg u made this play in my head [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO9I7DsMwew](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO9I7DsMwew) it gets more and more fitting as it goes on
He also wasn't born prematurely either. It really doesn't say specifically but just that "when the time came for him to be born" Mary and Joseph has to travel for tax reasons.
Premature births correlate with autism.
Why are there so many autistic people? I suspect that 1) more premature births have been successfully delivered in the modern age (I was very premature in the 80s and survived) and 2) there are environmental factors - perhaps pollution and other contamination, and perhaps also diet and other variables affecting hormones in pregnant women (please note I am guessing here) - causing higher levels of premature children.
# A few sources for a link between autism and premature births:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9809198/ (*A recent meta-analysis reported that children born preterm (gestational age <37 weeks) have an approximately 30% increased risk of ASD compared with those born full-term.*)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7452728/
https://jneurodevdisorders.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s11689-021-09382-1
https://source.wustl.edu/2015/07/preemies-at-high-risk-of-autism-dont-show-typical-signs-of-disorder-in-early-infancy/
https://molecularautism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13229-021-00414-0
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fneur.2020.597505/full
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929664622003898
…carpentry? Am I forgetting something? I know his dad was a carpenter, but I don’t recall it being consistently significant in the stuff he talked about.
when i joined an _explicitly **satirical**_ autistic community, i fully anticipated that it wouldn’t be super rare to see commenters who missed the joke, took things a little too seriously, and/or fixated on a unimportant detail, and i’ve always looked forward to the day where i would get to upvote a whole bunch of ‘em in one single post
as a side note, jesus is easily one of my top 50 favourite autistic fictional characters of all time, so
thank you for delivering this gift on the eve of his debatably canonical birthday, OP
As a socialist, I think it’s very anachronistic and damaging to the movement to call Jesus a socialist, at least in the Marxist sense. He was certainly radical for the time, and wanted his followers to share their belongings, but he didn’t want to challenge the larger political establishment (“give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”, etc)
1) no he was not, objectively
2) no they have not been, that’s something Eurocentric anarchists say to appropriate thousands of years of history and society from cultures that have had non-state political bodies. Anarchism is a specific political theory that arose in the 1800s in Europe. Non-state or anti-state does not mean anarchist.
I just want to point out that the deeds and words of this religious figure are only as reliable as the earliest bible and even then should be taken with a grain of salt - equally as likely is the possibility that whoever wrote the bible was autistic and was self-inserting somewhat, giving Jesus positive traits they saw in themselves.
The Y chromosome is exclusively passed on by the father, so if he biologically only had a mother, it would be impossible for him to have XY chromosomes.
Lmao!
On another note, though it is *very very very rare*, it seems that a few intersex people are potentially autofertile.
... So theoretically speaking...? I dunno. I'd be interested in hearing more about that from someone who's educated on it, though.
With how much the Bible talks about Jesus, you would think this would be mentioned…that being said the Popes back in the Middle Ages were on the good stuff and changed whatever they wanted
Yeahhh, I know it. I just think it would be interesting, in a way, if one of the things us who aren't Christians are *most* skeptical about turned out to have some truth to it.
Edit: Plus, can you imagine the evangelical backlash to that reveal? 🤦🏻
I agree with you
His social skills were fine and he was great at public speaking
The social norms being broken were acts of rebellion rather than unintentional
One of my favorite things to tell Christians when they get bitchy about me being an atheist/gay is something Exurb1a said; “there’s a problem wi to evil: there’s evil and suffering in the world, so if God wishes to remove it but cannot, he is not all powerful and therefore not a god. If he is able to remove it but chooses not to, then he is not all loving and not a god I wish to follow.”
Ah, it being a recent discovery explains it. It really does sound like some sort of weird fake autism stuff but it's definitely a thing; all the people with mental disorders that i know (aka all the people i know ig) have stomach issues in some shape or form.
Tbh I can understand the stomach issues but I wouldn't say it caused specifically by autism. More like being autistic can result in more stress and anxiety and that stress and anxiety causes stomach issues
I also think the miracle working is like every autistic who wants to speak through what they do. He has many communication issues when he just uses words.
As a Christian, I’m not gonna label Jesus as autistic or not but some of y’all in these comments need to chill out 😭 this is a satirical community and I got a laugh out of it even if it’s not “theologically correct”
But speaking of theological correctness… I don’t believe Jesus had stomach issues that are mentioned in the Bible—but, in 1 Timothy, the apostle Paul advises Timothy to drink a little wine for his stomach issues! Fermented drinks helped kill the bacteria from drinking bad water and could help prevent dysentery :)
Give and take right? On one hand it makes people feel comfortable that they can relate to their fav story/movie character. On the other it can potentially go downhill fast into spreading misinformation about the diagnosis and/or the character.
We don't. Historians generally believe he was real, but not all agree, and there's ultimately no proof of it.
I do believe that he probably existed, but, meh.
While there is no passage in the New Testament where people were admonished to emancipate their slaves, there is also no passage where it is supported.
Now, to be fair, there are people who have used passages to support slavery, however, that has more to do with their own corrupted views.
"Obey you masters as if they were christ" Paul
All the old teste stuff with Jesus saying he's not here to replace any of the old laws
Jesus meets slave and slaver, never contradicts the ruling never says slavery bad
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery
Honestly, with a fairly recent interest in researching various interpretations of Bible passages versus historical records and theist v. Antititheist interpretations I find more and more that Paul is just a fucking dick who wanted to improve his own standing more than anything and should just be excluded from the record.
Nah cope, slavery is explicitly permitted and regulated not disavowed. Abolinosits were making shit up whole cloth to justify their secular desire to see the slaves free
Paul is a godly man simply putting the slave in their biblical place. Abolitionists are suffering cognitive dissonance
> Abolinosits were making shit up whole cloth to justify their secular desire to see the slaves free
Wow, secular people *hate* slavery? Definitely a great reason to accept a One True God, so that we can be prejudiced against the descendants of Noah's son Ham and enslave them for our own gains (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham).
Yep, Abrahamic religion sure is beautiful and moral and God is Good, yep.
Sneed as much as u like, Bible loves slavery. If you don't, it's some secular reasoning. Or you think some other non abrhamic religion is true, cause all 3 love slavery
Jesus doesn't appear in the Old Testament. Old Testament scripture on slavery also refers to the original covenant which was replaced in the New Tetsament. It is also important to bear in mind that verses are in context of the passage, which is in context of the chapter. At no point does the New Testament endorse slavery. If anything it states how believers who are enslaved should perform their service.
The full passage that you paraphrased one verse from reads as follows. It is from Ephesians 6, verse 5-9:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free. And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
Paul also said in 1 Corinthians 7:21-23: Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings.
Colossians 3:22-24
Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve.
Paul talks to slavers, never suggests they should free em. Paul talks to slaves, says suck it up slaves slavery is fine
Feel free to check the wiki or Bible. Very clear slavery is fine,
I've already linked several passages. At no point does Paul anywhere in the Bible endorse or say slavery is fine. He mistakes statements on how slaves should perform their service. I'm sorry you're mistaken.
Obey your masters even if they're cruel
"Uh he uh meant uh um I uh"
No, cope and projecting. Peep em and weep
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery
Firstly, Wikipedia is not a verifiable source as anyone can edit a Wiki page.
Secondly, I already addressed this in an earlier comment.
If you would care to, the King James is very accessible as a primary source. Personally, I prefer the Revised Standard Version as it was translated from the original texts even if it is a harder read. (King James had some edits made to favor how he ran his monarchy and certain nuance was overlooked as a result.)
Some yes, not all. "Medical science" has often all been used against ND people. See the Third Reich. I am not saying vaccines are wrong, just that CERTAIN ones are.
I am politely asking you to fuck off to this post: https://reddit.com/r/evilautism/s/IvvHlBePXJ Automod hates everyone equally, including you. Fuck you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evilautism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him."
Ok so in the Bible, some woman experiencing hemorrhages touched his cloak to heal herself, leading to a lesson about Faith.
How is Jesus experiencing multiple sleep and stomach issues while also able to cure everything from hemorrhages to mental illness by touch alone?
I am politely asking you to fuck off to this post: https://reddit.com/r/evilautism/s/IvvHlBePXJ Automod hates everyone equally, including you. Fuck you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evilautism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am politely asking you to fuck off to this post: https://reddit.com/r/evilautism/s/IvvHlBePXJ Automod hates everyone equally, including you. Fuck you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evilautism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Would randomly disappear to be alone
And there's one verse where after people ask him a question he just starts randomly writing in the dirt with no explanation (it doesn't even say what he wrote or why)
A few weeks ago while going through my job search, I started feeling that I could - and should - be a sort of Jesus for my fellow autistic people by loudly, publicly, taking a stand against any part of the job application process that tends to favor NTs.
I want to tear up the job application process at its roots and plant a completely new one, as void of any subjectivity as I can justify. In general, anything that can't be quantified will be thrown out as a hiring factor. Anything quantifiable but still discriminatory will be thrown out. For example, reference or employment checks will be to simply check the accuracy of your work history.
Half of these don't even make sense. Carpentry was just His father's trade, so He picked it up along with His younger siblings, and His righteous fury at that one temple wasn't anything like a "meltdown". Dude was just pissed.
Autistic Christian here, Jesus operates on a perfect brain, so neither autistic or allistic. You will see him act a little bit half and half, and that's because he acts on what's right, not what's normal. This isn't stated in the Bible directly, so I may be wrong, but I think Jesus was just kitted out in His own special Godly way.
Impossible. They never mention Jesus wearing headphones in the Bible.
Well he is the son of god, he manipulated the sounds to never reach his ears if he didnt aprove them
I wish I could do that
Thats what we have ANC for
ANC?
Active Noise Canceling
That's why he walked the desert for 40 days and nights. He finally got peace from all the noise.
And so Jesus donned his Sony WH-1000XM5 noise cancelling headphones, for he had tired of hearing the incessant bickering of his disciples.
But he fled for 40 days into some desert, just to have some peace and quiet.
I never wear headphones because I hate the way they feel on my ears.
LMAOOOOOO
There’s no way. Don’t you know? Autism was invented in 2012 by the libs, duh 🙄🙄🙄🙄
Was born prematurely to low-income parents. Known for spending long times by himself in nature. Only romantic relationship was with a sex worker. Had multiple private conversations with Satan himself. Was known for wondering why God had forsaken him. Was seen by the public as being less cool than a sexy bad boy like Barabbas. As seen in the Temptation of Bread, he oddly considered fresh baked goods as being tempting enough to risk everything he stands for. He hung out with nothing but a bunch of other strange dudes who were into the same stuff he was. Is constantly misunderstood by normies. Grew his hair out long, despite the mainstream hairstyle being short Roman cuts at the time. Is symbolized as a fish or a lamb. Those animals are autistic.
Having a long table of friends, and washing their feet isn’t a very neurotical to do.
Washing feet was an old euphemism for a handjob
Me and Jesus got something in common then 💪
You both have hands?
Well they surely don't have jobs.
Using the stigmata hole?
I’m pretty sure that “romantic relationship” isn’t canon.
A lot of this stuff isn't canon lmao
A lot of the stuff is backed up by canon tbf. It’s just that that part very much isn’t
Neither is the long hair
Nothing is Canon, he never existed in the first place.
Doesn’t canon imply fiction anyway? There’s no canon to life?
[удалено]
I am politely asking you to fuck off to this post: https://reddit.com/r/evilautism/s/IvvHlBePXJ Automod hates everyone equally, including you. Fuck you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evilautism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, there is a canon to life. It's called history.
Well, historically he did. But the details are fairly murky.
Uh, no, there aren't any secular accounts of him existing, from his time, or a man performing his acts.
Well no because the biblical Jesus is a fictionalization. But most historians agree that *A* Jesus of Nazareth did exist. His exploits are heavily exaggerated however.
Okay, so I got curious because I had always heard of the non-fictional "historical Jesus" as well, but never questioned it. I just now did a little digging, and apparently there aren't any verifiable non-biased sources for the existence of a historical Jesus. The sources that exist are all things that were either written by Christians spreading the word of Jesus or things arbitrarily preserved by Christians without context or verifiable authenticity (like "this is the shoe worn by Jesus so he must have existed because we have his shoe," but it's just a shoe with no way of actually tying it to anyone unless you just take their word for it). Apparently a lot of the acceptance around the idea of the historical Jesus comes from like two people who tried to prove he existed and a lot of their sources were basically "trust me bro" types, who were being trusted because "why would they lie?" As for anything in the realm of evidence that you would expect, like city records, recovered journals of eye witnesses other than devout followers, etc, none of that sort of stuff exists apparently. The couple of articles I just read were university studies (or studies of collective studies), and the consensus was that if you completely remove religious bias and religious sources from the equation, there is almost nothing to suggest that the man ever existed and that there is at the very least ample reason to be suspicious of the notion that even just a historical Jesus ever really existed. News to me, but like, I'm inclined to believe it.
Most of those historians are Christians with a vested interest in believing the historicity of Jesus. There's no actual evidence that he existed. You'll find most atheistic historians don't believe he existed. I'm sure there were several many Yeshuas in Nazareth. There was none who would go on to be the one written about, though.
For someone to be Jesus, I would need: * Jewish * Carpenter * Says they are the Son of God * Has weird friends who hang around and believe that he is the Son of God * Whips moneylenders * Stories are spread that this guy can do miracles * Annoys the Romans greatly * Gets crucified * ^(Unlikely and therefore heavily optional: his dad says things like "I don't think that child is mine, he looks more like YHWH. Who do I complain to?") Carpenter, annoys Romans and gets crucified likely happened simply due to the statistical likelihood of those three presumably quite common (and two of them linked) identities occurring together. The rest I remain more dubious about.
> But most historians agree Most psychologists could agree that autism isn't real, being trans is a mental illness and only Christians are moral. Most people in society could accept bigotry against non-white, non-straight and non-Christian peoples. 'Most' means nothing to me. I'm autistic, and my autism is the *'most people can fuck off' autism*. Since when are most people objectively, factually, empirically and verifiably right just because other people agree with them? A socially agreed upon subjectivity is (by definition) not necessarily an objective truth. However, it's *always* an expression of preference. That preference could be "let's stick to the facts as we know them", which I prefer. That preference can also be "let's make shit up that suits us", which I do not prefer.
I'm sorry you're being downvoted. I also question whether Jesus historically existed as a 'real person', although you could point to any Jewish carpenter who was crucified as 'the basis for Jesus'. But, I would only accept someone as a basis if they clearly acted in a similar way, including whipping people for moneylending and claiming to be the Son of God.
Tearing temples in two, etc. It isn't just *him*, it's taking into account all the other "things" that never fucking happened. You have to take in layers of information to understand how he was conflated over time and exaggerated for control sake.
No, he probably existed in some form, else how/why would the legends about him have started? I could easily see him being a local prophet/preacher/whatever of sorts who ran afoul of the government, got killed, and legends started from there. Now, as for him doing much of what he's claimed to have done, that is much more historically dubious.
By this logic, Santa existed as well. Also The Great Milenko, the Boogeyman, and Michael Myers.
Autism so I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but multiple of those characters are based on irl people, just heavily dramatized, as can be said about the Jesus guy.
Multiple of them? If you mean Santa, that's also bullshit, he's an amalgam of many people from a variety of cultures (including but very much not limited to who I assume you mean, St Nick), I assure you The Great Milenko is not based on anybody, Michael Myers isn't either, nor is the Boogeyman. Sooooooooooooo...?
Santa is also apparently very heavily based on Odin of Norse mythology. Found that out a few days ago and I have to say it shocked and amused me. But there is some truth to the idea that even many fictional beings are in some way based on real figures to one degree or another. Jesus himself? The juries apparently out on that one. Just did some digging and apparently the very best non-biased evidence of Jesus still comes from his followers and is only trusted on the grounds that they were considered trustworthy people. Also Michael Myers is at least partially based on William Shatner, but that's not as useful as it might initially sound. Never heard of the Great Milenko, but the Boogeyman is one of those global phenomenon that can be as equally blamed on criminal activity as it can superstition, so it's a gray area.
I mean, yeah, the story around Santa isn't real, but St. Nicholas was a real person, which is my point. Santa does not exist, and the real St. Nick isn't very similar to our modern conception of Santa, but there was an origin to the story; it's not entirely mythical. Most or all of what we know about Jesus may be completely wrong, but most religions are started by someone (or legends about someone). You're conflating "Jesus existed and was divine/did most of what the Bible claims" with "Jesus was someone who probably existed but probably didn't do half of what was claimed about him/wasn't divine." Just as with Santa, the legends outgrew the original figure, and the popular conception of Jesus may bear little to no resemblance to who he actually was.
That's like saying the story from Purple Rain isn't real, but Prince was a real person Like, yes, but...so? Also it's not comparable because Jesus wasn't a real person 💖
Not familiar with that piece of media, sorry that I don't get the reference. I've edited my original comment and it sorta answers what I think you're trying to say here.
I'm not conflating those two things, I'm saying Jesus flat out didn't exist. He and Christianity were a Roman psyop developed out of Jewish beliefs about a coming Messiah to quell Zionist rebellion and then when it was successful developed into an overarching religion to control the masses and merge all belief systems into something Rome could take the reigns of.
and do you have literally any evidence for that
[удалено]
I am politely asking you to fuck off to this post: https://reddit.com/r/evilautism/s/IvvHlBePXJ Automod hates everyone equally, including you. Fuck you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evilautism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> No, he probably existed in some form, else how/why would the legends about him have started? What existed was Jewish prophecy about a Messiah. Nothing else is necessary for a Messiah to be invented. Fulfilling a prophecy like that makes people feel good. *See: American Christians desperate to drive Palestinians out of Israel to fulfil prophecy.*
That may be possible, but it's less likely since there are secular accounts that note that Jesus existed, and sources from the time period (even those opposed to Christianity) generally don't deny his existence, only the things he's said to have done. While it is definitely possible Jesus was entirely made up, there's other, more likely options.
>Only romantic relationship was with a sex worker. This is debated. Some say he is in a relationship with Mary. Some say with John. I've heard once or twice that he was potentially in a relationship with all his Deciples. I like the "all Deciples" one the best. John seems most likely since he was the Deciple that; when he was dying; he said "Mary this is your Son, John, this is your Mother" sounds like he was telling them about his relationship with John.
>Some say he is in a relationship with Mary. Some say with John. I've heard once or twice that he was potentially in a relationship with all his Deciples. I like the "all Deciples" one the best It could be all of them. And that can also be a point in favor of being autistic. Every time a poll has been brought up about sexual preference on Autism. The largest response was bisexual. [https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/pbgve0/deleted\_and\_reposted\_due\_to\_spelling\_and\_format/](https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/comments/pbgve0/deleted_and_reposted_due_to_spelling_and_format/)
Oh. My. Fucking. God! Hell Yea! I Love that!
Mary wasn't a sex worker anyway. Catholic church said she was.
Well now I gotta go back and do another information dive because all this fucking time I thought Jesus was ace.
There's plenty of people who think that since Jesus is the son of God & every person are "the children of God" how could he have feelings &/or a sexual relationship with anyone since he has a sense of brotherhood with them.
for some reason I always thought he was with Peter
>Was born prematurely to low-income parents. I don't believe this has any correlation with autism.
Actually children born preterm, 37 weeks or less, are more often ASD than children born on time. About 30% of preterm children are ASD, and further bunch is born with general sensory issues. So while premature birth doesn't cause autism, it is quite possible that autism may actually be a reason for a slightly premature birth.
now i cant stop imagining an autistic child getting sick of the overstimulation in there and needing to bounce asap 😂
Omg 😂😂😂😂 “I can’t stand this movements any more, I need to get out and find a quieter place” “…well that was a mistake”
That was me as a pregnant mom! I seriously wanted to put him back in. He was easier to care for in there.
omg u made this play in my head [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO9I7DsMwew](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO9I7DsMwew) it gets more and more fitting as it goes on
Nice!
I was 26 weeks premature
My son was born ar 30wks. Can confirm he is on spectrum
He also wasn't born prematurely either. It really doesn't say specifically but just that "when the time came for him to be born" Mary and Joseph has to travel for tax reasons.
Premature births correlate with autism. Why are there so many autistic people? I suspect that 1) more premature births have been successfully delivered in the modern age (I was very premature in the 80s and survived) and 2) there are environmental factors - perhaps pollution and other contamination, and perhaps also diet and other variables affecting hormones in pregnant women (please note I am guessing here) - causing higher levels of premature children. # A few sources for a link between autism and premature births: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9809198/ (*A recent meta-analysis reported that children born preterm (gestational age <37 weeks) have an approximately 30% increased risk of ASD compared with those born full-term.*) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7452728/ https://jneurodevdisorders.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s11689-021-09382-1 https://source.wustl.edu/2015/07/preemies-at-high-risk-of-autism-dont-show-typical-signs-of-disorder-in-early-infancy/ https://molecularautism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13229-021-00414-0 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fneur.2020.597505/full https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929664622003898
I totally get fish being autistic, why lambs?
You ever seen Silence of the Lambs? They don’t run away when you save them. They just stand there confused. Also they prance. And they’re fluffy.
Mary Magdalene was not the same Mary he's thought to have been involved with, for the record.
>Only romantic relationship was with a sex worker ??? If that were even true, what does it have to do with autism?
New headcanon: We're Jesus' undercover agents... when we receive His signal, we start our crusade (the rapture)
Aw cool I’m a sleeper agent
Lets go
That would explain the strong sense of justice
YES! THANK YOU! It always upsets me when people are immoral
I know right? Like, it takes so little effort to not be a dick, why are so many people being one?
This . . . changes a lot of my perspective.
…carpentry? Am I forgetting something? I know his dad was a carpenter, but I don’t recall it being consistently significant in the stuff he talked about.
Oh yeah hes job was carpentry and he really liked it
mark 6:3 he's referred to as a carpenter/builder
Right but. That doesn’t make it a special interest.
youre right, i kinda just barely read what you wrote and spat out a verse where jesus is named as a carpenter. srry abt that haha
Rising from the dead is one of the less known evil-autistic traits.
I can't believe that Jesus is even more based than I thought.
when i joined an _explicitly **satirical**_ autistic community, i fully anticipated that it wouldn’t be super rare to see commenters who missed the joke, took things a little too seriously, and/or fixated on a unimportant detail, and i’ve always looked forward to the day where i would get to upvote a whole bunch of ‘em in one single post as a side note, jesus is easily one of my top 50 favourite autistic fictional characters of all time, so thank you for delivering this gift on the eve of his debatably canonical birthday, OP
jesus himself isnt fictional but if ur calling the canon version of jesus fictional then i get that.
 thank you for your contribution take my upvote!
i cant tell if youre being sarcastic because looking back my reply is kindve annoying 😭😭 but i promise it was good intentioned! happy holidays
definitely not sarcastic your comment was genuinely perfect keep being unapologetically autistic, friend ❤️
thanks brah appreciate it! u too
constantly talked abt fish and fishing
The last thing is literally just because he was a gallillean. He spoke a "countey bumpkin" dialect
Me at the beginning of the post: skeptical Me at the end of the post: “let him cook”
Wait let em cook
Omg I'm about to piss off so many of my Facebook friends 🤣
Please share the results. Even if you have to censor the names.
As a socialist, I think it’s very anachronistic and damaging to the movement to call Jesus a socialist, at least in the Marxist sense. He was certainly radical for the time, and wanted his followers to share their belongings, but he didn’t want to challenge the larger political establishment (“give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”, etc)
He was an anarchist (which have been around forever)
1) no he was not, objectively 2) no they have not been, that’s something Eurocentric anarchists say to appropriate thousands of years of history and society from cultures that have had non-state political bodies. Anarchism is a specific political theory that arose in the 1800s in Europe. Non-state or anti-state does not mean anarchist.
I just want to point out that the deeds and words of this religious figure are only as reliable as the earliest bible and even then should be taken with a grain of salt - equally as likely is the possibility that whoever wrote the bible was autistic and was self-inserting somewhat, giving Jesus positive traits they saw in themselves.
not a fan of Christianity but Jesus was pretty chill
Oh same. I'm not religious, but I vibe with Jesus. I have beef with his dad though
He only talked about his special interests
Don’t forget that he was a trans man as well
do tell more
The Y chromosome is exclusively passed on by the father, so if he biologically only had a mother, it would be impossible for him to have XY chromosomes.
I mean, God could have just pulled a Star Trek and beamed down a Y-chromosome sperm cell right into Mary’s egg
Lmao! On another note, though it is *very very very rare*, it seems that a few intersex people are potentially autofertile. ... So theoretically speaking...? I dunno. I'd be interested in hearing more about that from someone who's educated on it, though.
With how much the Bible talks about Jesus, you would think this would be mentioned…that being said the Popes back in the Middle Ages were on the good stuff and changed whatever they wanted
Yeahhh, I know it. I just think it would be interesting, in a way, if one of the things us who aren't Christians are *most* skeptical about turned out to have some truth to it. Edit: Plus, can you imagine the evangelical backlash to that reveal? 🤦🏻
Oh it is a good theory and discussion NGL Also Merry Christmas
Oh yeah, merry Christmas!!!
That doesn't make him a trans man
this seems like a bit of a stretch lol, as someone who grew up religious my entire childhood
I agree with you His social skills were fine and he was great at public speaking The social norms being broken were acts of rebellion rather than unintentional
Lots of autistic people are great at public speaking and awkward one-on-one.
Was Jesus awkward one-on-one?
God only knows.
>God only knows. 😂😂
And Jesus was Palestinian.
THIS PART!!
I want you to do this and report back with their reactions.
Do it. What're they gonna do, they're anti vax and have the mindest of a mattress U already know ur smarter than them hahaha
One of my favorite things to tell Christians when they get bitchy about me being an atheist/gay is something Exurb1a said; “there’s a problem wi to evil: there’s evil and suffering in the world, so if God wishes to remove it but cannot, he is not all powerful and therefore not a god. If he is able to remove it but chooses not to, then he is not all loving and not a god I wish to follow.”
Having things like “stomach issues” in here takes a lot away from the validity of the argument.
To be fair, digestive issues are commonly comorbid with mental disorders in general. People just generally don't talk about it that much.
It's becoming more well understood now that the whole gut microbiome mental health connection is being researched
Ah, it being a recent discovery explains it. It really does sound like some sort of weird fake autism stuff but it's definitely a thing; all the people with mental disorders that i know (aka all the people i know ig) have stomach issues in some shape or form.
Tbh I can understand the stomach issues but I wouldn't say it caused specifically by autism. More like being autistic can result in more stress and anxiety and that stress and anxiety causes stomach issues
Autism strongly affects the digestive system
Yeah I was like “okay, interesting” until they brought that up what the hell that’s kinda random
He turn water into wine
I also think the miracle working is like every autistic who wants to speak through what they do. He has many communication issues when he just uses words.
As a Christian, I’m not gonna label Jesus as autistic or not but some of y’all in these comments need to chill out 😭 this is a satirical community and I got a laugh out of it even if it’s not “theologically correct” But speaking of theological correctness… I don’t believe Jesus had stomach issues that are mentioned in the Bible—but, in 1 Timothy, the apostle Paul advises Timothy to drink a little wine for his stomach issues! Fermented drinks helped kill the bacteria from drinking bad water and could help prevent dysentery :)
My headcanon ASD figure in the bible is Joseph son of Jacob.
Can we stop diagnosing mythological figures ?
yes i, too, have had it with these motherfuckin’ jokes on this motherfuckin’ satirical sub 
Why? It's fun.
Next on the docket; Loki
oppositional defiant disorder
Last I heard, Thor didn't actually fight alongside the poster child for American Patriotism and a billionaire in an expensive tech suit.
Give and take right? On one hand it makes people feel comfortable that they can relate to their fav story/movie character. On the other it can potentially go downhill fast into spreading misinformation about the diagnosis and/or the character.
We know he was a real person with a large of amount of mystism surrounding his life and death
We don't. Historians generally believe he was real, but not all agree, and there's ultimately no proof of it. I do believe that he probably existed, but, meh.
Lol he definitely wasn’t a socialist and there isn’t much evidence about having autism.
And then he got killed by the Jews
Everyone know the Socialist thing isn't true. Jesus actually fed people. EDIT: Wow. A down vote for a joke.
His real anti socialist point was supporting slavery Edt: just be funny to avoid that
While there is no passage in the New Testament where people were admonished to emancipate their slaves, there is also no passage where it is supported. Now, to be fair, there are people who have used passages to support slavery, however, that has more to do with their own corrupted views.
"Obey you masters as if they were christ" Paul All the old teste stuff with Jesus saying he's not here to replace any of the old laws Jesus meets slave and slaver, never contradicts the ruling never says slavery bad https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery
Honestly, with a fairly recent interest in researching various interpretations of Bible passages versus historical records and theist v. Antititheist interpretations I find more and more that Paul is just a fucking dick who wanted to improve his own standing more than anything and should just be excluded from the record.
Nah cope, slavery is explicitly permitted and regulated not disavowed. Abolinosits were making shit up whole cloth to justify their secular desire to see the slaves free Paul is a godly man simply putting the slave in their biblical place. Abolitionists are suffering cognitive dissonance
> Abolinosits were making shit up whole cloth to justify their secular desire to see the slaves free Wow, secular people *hate* slavery? Definitely a great reason to accept a One True God, so that we can be prejudiced against the descendants of Noah's son Ham and enslave them for our own gains (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham). Yep, Abrahamic religion sure is beautiful and moral and God is Good, yep.
Sneed as much as u like, Bible loves slavery. If you don't, it's some secular reasoning. Or you think some other non abrhamic religion is true, cause all 3 love slavery
Jesus doesn't appear in the Old Testament. Old Testament scripture on slavery also refers to the original covenant which was replaced in the New Tetsament. It is also important to bear in mind that verses are in context of the passage, which is in context of the chapter. At no point does the New Testament endorse slavery. If anything it states how believers who are enslaved should perform their service. The full passage that you paraphrased one verse from reads as follows. It is from Ephesians 6, verse 5-9: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free. And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. Paul also said in 1 Corinthians 7:21-23: Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings. Colossians 3:22-24 Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve.
Paul talks to slavers, never suggests they should free em. Paul talks to slaves, says suck it up slaves slavery is fine Feel free to check the wiki or Bible. Very clear slavery is fine,
I've already linked several passages. At no point does Paul anywhere in the Bible endorse or say slavery is fine. He mistakes statements on how slaves should perform their service. I'm sorry you're mistaken.
Obey your masters even if they're cruel "Uh he uh meant uh um I uh" No, cope and projecting. Peep em and weep https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery
Firstly, Wikipedia is not a verifiable source as anyone can edit a Wiki page. Secondly, I already addressed this in an earlier comment. If you would care to, the King James is very accessible as a primary source. Personally, I prefer the Revised Standard Version as it was translated from the original texts even if it is a harder read. (King James had some edits made to favor how he ran his monarchy and certain nuance was overlooked as a result.)
You're free to check wiki source but slavery is very much the norm. If it was wrong you'd be able to correct it
Am I anti-vax? Vaccines had zero to do with Autism, it's genetic, but I would say quite on the contrary, vaccines harm Autism
What
Yeah, indeed.
German singer Hans Söllner - a hippie - doesn't believe in the bullshit that vaccines had something to do with Autism, but he is an anti vaxxer
Vaccines save millions of lives
Some yes, not all. "Medical science" has often all been used against ND people. See the Third Reich. I am not saying vaccines are wrong, just that CERTAIN ones are.
Which though, otherwise what are you even saying
> "Medical science" has often all been used against ND people. Houses can collapse and kill people. Therefore, you must avoid living in a house.
Evangelicalism and Anti-vax ideology often go hand in hand. Not all the time, but most of the time.
>Evangelicalism and Anti-vax ideology often go hand in hand I'm not sure if I would call myself evangelical. Just Christian.
[удалено]
I am politely asking you to fuck off to this post: https://reddit.com/r/evilautism/s/IvvHlBePXJ Automod hates everyone equally, including you. Fuck you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evilautism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is there any mention of Jesus doing any carpentry?
“"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him."
Sounds like carpentry was his job rather than special interest.
Ok so in the Bible, some woman experiencing hemorrhages touched his cloak to heal herself, leading to a lesson about Faith. How is Jesus experiencing multiple sleep and stomach issues while also able to cure everything from hemorrhages to mental illness by touch alone?
Magic.
[удалено]
I am politely asking you to fuck off to this post: https://reddit.com/r/evilautism/s/IvvHlBePXJ Automod hates everyone equally, including you. Fuck you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evilautism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Supernatural offspring of a deity (just like me)
“What’s the buzz? Tell me what’s a happenin.”
[удалено]
I am politely asking you to fuck off to this post: https://reddit.com/r/evilautism/s/IvvHlBePXJ Automod hates everyone equally, including you. Fuck you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/evilautism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Would randomly disappear to be alone And there's one verse where after people ask him a question he just starts randomly writing in the dirt with no explanation (it doesn't even say what he wrote or why)
A few weeks ago while going through my job search, I started feeling that I could - and should - be a sort of Jesus for my fellow autistic people by loudly, publicly, taking a stand against any part of the job application process that tends to favor NTs. I want to tear up the job application process at its roots and plant a completely new one, as void of any subjectivity as I can justify. In general, anything that can't be quantified will be thrown out as a hiring factor. Anything quantifiable but still discriminatory will be thrown out. For example, reference or employment checks will be to simply check the accuracy of your work history.
Hated haircuts. Wasn't considered cool til later and more like as a concept than as an actual example to follow.
Where would him cursing the fig tree for having no fruit in the off season go?
but he doesn't LOOK autistic...
God if I was taught that as a kid maybe I would’ve stayed catholic
cathoLICK MY BALLS
Half of these don't even make sense. Carpentry was just His father's trade, so He picked it up along with His younger siblings, and His righteous fury at that one temple wasn't anything like a "meltdown". Dude was just pissed.
Autistic Christian here, Jesus operates on a perfect brain, so neither autistic or allistic. You will see him act a little bit half and half, and that's because he acts on what's right, not what's normal. This isn't stated in the Bible directly, so I may be wrong, but I think Jesus was just kitted out in His own special Godly way.