They think, “Jesus was cool. I like him, and I’m gonna try to be like him.” Kind of like their guiding light is what would Jesus do? But there isn’t a focus on identification, recruiting others, judging others based on their religion, fear of God, fear of punishment for sinning, respect for clergy as an authority, rituals, worship, etc. Basically, just the example of Jesus’ life.

inb4: Christian lol!! got em!

  • BonerMan@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    The guy was a real scientifically proven to have existed person. Being interested in him and not religion is having a interest in history therefore being atheist.

    • dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      We have no direct evidence of Christ’s existence, there is no “scientific proof” of Christ’s existence as a person. Instead what we have is historical evidence, i.e. people wrote about him, so he probably existed. It’s the best evidence we have that Christ lived, and it’s generally good enough in the discipline of history - but it’s not the same standard of evidence as used in science.

      • Rolando@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        You’re right, but just to rephrase:

        • The natural sciences aren’t in the business of saying whether or not a given person existed.
        • If you think of history as a social science, then there may be “scientific” methodologies that determine whether or not a given person existed, but that’s not what’s generally though of as “scientifically proven”
        • dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Right, I’m not trying to indirectly make a point about Christ not being likely to have existed or anything, just making a point about the language: Christ’s existence hasn’t been scientifically proven, it’s just that historians agree that it’s a reasonable guess based on the texts that were left behind and mentioned him.

          Archaeologists might use scientific methodologies, e.g. carbon dating, to estimate how old a text is, for example, but I wouldn’t consider this scientific proof that someone existed.

      • BonerMan@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Bro, he was Jesus from Nazareth not “Christ” and yes we do have documents and texts from that time naming him, these documents predate the Bible. Its not clear where his body actually is, however there is scientifically enough evidence of his existence that it can be called a fact, even the resurrection can be scientifically explained with sedatives that did exist naturally around the time and where used together with Vinegar, wich is named in the Bible as a pretty significant element of the crucifixion.