!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
What do you mean by deal?
One interesting thing I came across a while ago was that Jesus healing people was not very sensational at the time, as spiritual healers were not that rare. What blew people's minds about the healing was that he was doing it for free.
I had a class in college about Jesus. It was taught by a Catholic priest.
One thing he said that stuck with me is that people don't see the real miracles.
When they talk about the miracle of the loaves and fish, people talk about how enough food for the multitude was created out of just what a couple people brought for their own lunch. People think the miracle is the creation of food. However this priest pointed out that the real miracle is that people who didn't know anyone else there gave all they had so that others could eat. Everyone shared so that no one went hungry.
Edit: one other thing that he said that stuck with me was, "Jesus Christ, son of Mary and Joe Christ"
That sounds like a cool priest, but unfortunately Catholicism is still against gay marriage, meaning they are still discriminating.
Catholicism across the board isn’t against gay marriage, different people believe different things.
That's strange, because the old pope was. I thought he was supposed to be the one defining catholicism more than anybody else.
Jesus = basically Josh, son of Mary and Joe
... Brother of James, father of Tamika, Joshua and James?
They just seem weird. Walk on water, not really that impressive. We fly through the sky these days I'm sure that might blow away some people who lived in jesus times. Heal the sick, that's like a job you get and I'm sure we pulled many many people back from the brink in our age. Turned water to wine? Feed people? If he was god he had to know these miracles would be kinda lame sauce to people in a few thousand years. Why not like swim in a volcano or lasso the moon?
How the actual fuck is walking on water not impressive? I’m not a Christian, I don’t necessarily believe it happened, but yeah, that would probably blow some people’s minds.
The point is that they are fucking miracles. It doesn't matter whether they are "impressive" or "lame" when they prove that the natural laws of the Universe do not apply. Whatever the effect of the miracle is less significant than the simple fact of it and what that implies.
Them deal was they fictional.
Remember the prime directive.
There is no remotely reliable evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed.
Edit:
Funny how some people downvote this, but without providing any reliable evidence.
There is actually a hell of a lot of evidence he did.
You can read a capsule summary with references on Wikipedia, but it is accepted fact among historians - not just religious scholars - that Jesus of Nazareth was born in Judea under King Herod, was baptised by John the Baptist, and was cruxified under the orders of Pontius Pilate.
Here's a fun excerpt: "There are at least fourteen independent sources for the historicity of Jesus from multiple authors within a century of the crucifixion of Jesus such as the letters of Paul (contemporary of Jesus who personally knew eyewitnesses), the gospels, and non-Christian sources such as Josephus (Jewish historian and commander in Galilee) and Tacitus (Roman historian and Senator)."
I'm an atheist, but a historical Jesus almost certainly did exist.
only two key events of the biblical story of Jesus's life are widely accepted as historical, based on the criterion of embarrassment, namely his baptism by John the Baptist and his crucifixion by the order of Pontius Pilate.
Except there is no historical evidence of these events.
The only evidence there is, is that John the Baptist is an actual historical figure, and there exist AFAIK a reference to Pontius Pilate, although his position is unclear. But the events are NOT documented and neither is Jesus.
The historicity of Jesus is a concept driven by Christians that have undertaken the biggest accumulated search in history spanning 1800 years, to document the existence of Jesus, and they have turned op NOTHING!!! Just the Mormon church alone has spend massive amounts of resources on this for more than a century. Obviously the Catholic church is by far in the lead, since they are both the oldest and most wealthy of all.
There are at least fourteen independent sources for the historicity of Jesus from multiple authors
No there are not, not a single one is contemporary, and not a single one is first hand or even has a reliable source. This is required to be considered reliable historical evidence.
It may sound convincing on the surface, until you dig into it, and find out it's all hear say, and it's all created AFTER Christianity became a thing.
Also evidence for the existence of Jesus is just about the most faked historical/archeological thing there is. Because it creates fame like nothing else, and churches are willing to pay enormous sums to get their hand on it.
I’m an atheist, but a historical Jesus almost certainly did exist.
You didn't investigate enough to get past centuries of Christian lies and propaganda.
This is a long piece, but it's easier than doing the research yourself:
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/did-jesus-exist/
Alternatively you can present me with just 1 piece of reliable evidence for the historicity of Jesus.
But please before you do, check up on the criticism about it first.
Ok but like if I asked why did Gandolf stop to fight the Balrog you'd have no issue answering.
~~Gandolf~~ Gandalf
No but that's because Lord of the Rings is way more consistent than the Bible is.
Did he really do them though? The reason why this is within the scope of belief is the fact that there's no conclusive evidence that removes reasonable doubt by contemporary standards.
Let's say it's all exactly as it says in the four different versions that are somehow considered canon and none of it is a millennia old game of telephone: did he choose to do them? Did his dad force him? Could he maybe not have had free will in this regard? Do we know about all the miracles? Maybe there were more! Would it be fair for us today to judge him based on incomplete records?
He's a fictional character.
Jesus absolutely existed, even Atheist or anti-Christian historians don't debate that he was a real person.
Jesus was a common name un that time. He was made up.
No, he wasn't. The Romans executed a Hebrew cult leader for treason/rebellion and it was a big enough deal that Tactitus commented on his followers still being pissy about it decades later.
His deeds were made up.
You can make fun of religion nowadays, sure, very original, or ignore the question and talk about historical accuracy, alright. But if you want an answer what is compelling and mythical about these stories, try not to take them literal. Just like fairytales, they have something psychological about them. E.g. when Jesus made the blind see, this is about depression and how it is cured. Try to cast a friendly eye on the whole topic.
The physical miracle demonstrates his identity and power, but they have a spiritual significance beyond the physical. For example, raising the dead indicated that He is the Creator with power over life and death, but also that He can give spiritual life to people dead in their sins.