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!
To me, that seems to exclude the Jesus part tho.
I’m agnostic. I believe there may or may not be a god (regardless of religion) and that we may or may not find proof once we die but while I’m alive I’m just gonna live the best life I can with my own values. If Jesus was alive today I believe we would be homies, dude seemed chill.
Adherence to a moral standard is secular, even if the source is a mythological text that is the foundation of a religion.
Keep in mind that the religious figure of Jesus predates Christianity.
What part does it exclude?
it doesn’t mention Jesus
Maybe I’m losing the context, when are you using this term? If you wanted a simple term to get the idea across you could just say you’re a “Christian atheist”, no? Most people probably don’t care tbh, so it’s unclear when you need to be making these distinctions. I only say this because “atheism” doesn’t exclude Christ’s secular / moral teachings, and the concern with Christ not being mentioned in a term like atheism makes me wonder why that’s relevant.
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.
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.
You’re right, but just to rephrase:
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.
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.
I don’t see the point in policing whether he is referred to as Christ or Jesus from Nazareth - is there some meaningful distinction here?
Also documents are not scientific evidence. The documents are enough evidence to consider it a historical fact, but that’s, again, not the same thing as a scientific fact, and it is not backed with any material or physical evidence. Not that we expect or demand such evidence, I’m only pointing this out because you claimed there is scientific proof where there is none.
Regardless, I would be curious to get your receipts on those documents referencing Christ that predate the gospels, I hadn’t heard of that before!
Speculation about the resurrection being faked with sedatives is irrelevant to this discussion, but since you brought it up, why not entertain more likely alternatives: towards the end of the book of John, Mary saw the resurrected Christ in the tomb and was the first to see him, yet she did not recognize him:
If he took sedatives, why did he look like a different person such that she thought he was the gardener? Why not think the resurrected person was just falsely claiming to be Christ, since he didn’t look like him anyway? Why resort to more elaborate explanations when we have more simple ones at hand?
There is also the issue about how Christ supposedly survived being eviscerated and tortured before being hung on the cross, even if he did have access to sedatives. It’s just not likely he survived that, and the sedatives don’t explain that away.
The distinction is that in all documents besides the Bible he is named Jesus from Nazareth and not “Christ” wich does make a big difference im this discussion.
The remaining comment of yours reads a bit like a conspiracy theory, historical documents are indeed scientific evidence, when checked against fraud and forgery, all together are proof. You make it sound like you think the someone made up a person and forged documents that are scientifically proven older than Christianity. There is physical evidence as well, but after all that time its pretty vague from my knowledge.
I by all means am absolutely not religious, but its a fact that the person Jesus from Nazareth did exist, and that his written down life is very consistent and plausible, can be checked against other sources from different parties of interest.
Why his “resurrection” is of interest, is because the the crypt was empty and doesn’t necessarily have to have been staged on purpose. Its less likely that a looker like did take part in that thing.
Torture back then is a loose term, it was most likely a whip and punching, most other methods where not necessarily used. And even though infections are a bad thing, especially during that time, most people actually survived, there are some sources that describe the torturing of criminals for confessions, it was likely pretty sanitary compared to the middle ages, especially because they actually did disinfect the wounds with… Vinegar and Herbs, wich is also the stuf he was given hanging on the cross, we know for a fact that there are herbs growing in that area that are natural sedatives and some are very strong.
The description of looks may or may not be accurate, especially because nobody expects a dead person to just appear in front of someone. Furthermore, days of hanging on the cross and spending time in a cave will change the appearance of a person, so. That is actually a pice of evidence with lower credibility and can be neglected.