No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!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:
Rules (interactive)
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.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
Ofc there are. Unless they got destroyed someway or another. There was a guy named Jesus that was crucified by the romans and all that. There is proof of that. It's all the biblical stuff that there's no proof of.
There isn't actually. The proof is basically: it's embarassing that their cult leader got painfully crucified, so the early Christians and writers of the new testament wouldn't have made that shit up.
Personally I find it rather unconvincing.
Don't believe in god either way, but if it's good enough for the majority of historians , then it's good enough for me. Not sure why you'd need more, but you do you.
It isn't. Historians would love to have independent evidence of the existence and crucifixion of Jesus, but there isn't... so most historians refrain from taking a position one way or the other. The ones that do have to make do with what little objective information they have, and the best they can come up with is: well because of this embarassing thing, it's more likely that he did exist and was crucified than that he didn't, because why would they make that up?
That's rather weak evidence, and far from "proof".
Well for one because the more prominent people who have studied this have a vested interest in wanting it to be true. For example, John P. Meier, who posited this criterion of embarassment that I outlined in my previous comment, isn't really a historian but a catholic priest, professor of theology (not history) and a writer of books on the subject.
So instead of taking the glory for themselves like pretty much all other humans they decide to preach about an imaginary friend? Meh... Between "guy who got lost in history" and "bunch of guys that raved about that one gf that went to a different school", I'll go with the former as the more plausible one.
I'll concede the fact that it's not the same level of proof as other figures, but all these people writing about him is more than we have about others.
There are basically four positions you can take about this:
I am on (2), as are most historians, and you put yourself on (1).
Yeah, I guess that's fair. Religion and history are so intertwined when it comes to this subject that it's easy to dismiss sources as biased, which is what's happening here. Still not convinced they should be dismissed in this case