Talk:Jesus

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon christianity.svg

This Christianity related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Silverbrain.png
Editorial notes

Archives for this talk page: , (new)



Revising The Tone of the Article[edit]

Hi there, I'm new to RationalWiki. I will provide a disclaimer that I'm "technically" Christian and not Atheist or Irreligious, however my concern on this article has nothing to do with the arguments or information that would argue against the value of Jesus or Christianity, it's the EXTREMELY sardonic and immature tone the article has compared to related articles like "Jesus Myth theory" or "Evidence For the Historical Existence of Jesus Christ".

I don't think I need to post any examples as anyone even remotely interested in thinking rationally should be able to see how very blatantly biased and intentionally offensive the language is (not the arguments or information but the way it's conducted). My concern with this is that it damages reputation for Rational Wiki and possibly extending to rationalists as a whole if an article that could be seen as a major de-facto source of information for why the concept of Jesus of Nazareth should be doubted or scrutinized. Instead of trying to provide a rational argument against the divinity of Jesus, it looks more like an atheist trying to wank himself and other atheists off.

As someone who is not an atheist, I do not see or get that appeal. Despite my religiosity, I care much more about a rational argument than a passionate one no matter what the subject and as I look through this article, I see hyper-conservative Christians and Trump-thumpers being justified in the bullshit they spread that lead to the post-Trump election we live in now. This does not help spread rational thinking, it is exclusive when it needs to be inclusive. Rational thinking, arguments, information and speech, as a form of teaching, should always be free of bias, otherwise it counters its own purpose.

I hope I've made my plea in a way that doesn't look like I'm butthurt for Jesus or anything, as well as hope I'm issuing proper respect towards the rational community here. Thank you.MeteoXavier (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)MeteoXavier

Hello! Thank you for the non-flame criticism. I highly recommend closely reading this, this, this and (crucially) all of this — it will help you greatly on your way. Best of luck! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Jesusland[edit]

The most amusing thing about Jesus - he would not be allowed into the Godfearing Jesusloving United States of America. 86.191.110.154 (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

There is much more information particular to this Article, much of which can be found here...[edit]

There is much much more information particular to this Article, of which can be found here...

http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm


I suggest adding this as a reference as well to completion.

Myth[edit]

"It is traditionally accepted that myths generally do not derive from thin air, and that the characters and stories in these myths are exaggerations, deifications, or simple mischaracterisations of events and persons that really existed and did something of some kind of note."

Maybe it is, but so what? It's hardly axiomatic, given that the various creation myths (two in the first two chapters of the Bible alone) and the roles of gods in stories (i.e. YHWH's various character roles throughout the tanakh) hardly point to historical events or people (good luck finding the historical Moses). Thereby, to concede historicity is more likely (contra Carrier) on that basis is flawed and presumptuous. --Scherben (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

ew[edit]

Impregnated by the holy spirit puts a disturbing picture in my mind... Silent Scream (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

"...ambiguously Gay, Socialist Jew.."[edit]

Haha no but seriously, what is this? Jewish:definitively and defingly so. Important to mention, no qualms there

Socialist: Maybe by some people's understandings (I'm a fan of the diggers myself), but no where is there a reference for this. It also isn't clear whether this is referencing something from manuscripts written after he had died (like those collected in the New Testament) or is something he historically did, or both.

Ambiguously Gay: Firstly, the concept of being of homosexual or heterosexual attraction is alien to the place and time Jesus lived in, and the examples given for what could possibly point to him being gay are relatively weak. To say either Jesus Christ of the New Testament or the historical Jewish itinerant preacher who walked around Roman Judea was possibly gay is just as equally baseless as saying he was ambiguously straight. This part ("ambiguously Gay") specifically really does add anything meaningful to the article, except maybe frustrate people who will not read this wiki

GenericGman (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Terry

The part of Jesus being the first socialist should be removed. First, because socialism, just like liberalism, conservatism and any modern political philosophy didn't exist 2000 years ago. Second, because, supposing we're quote mining someone to claim that they were a socialist or a proto-socialist, the Greacchi brothers are older than Jesus. Regarding being a Jew, well, he was a jew, so I don't think we should remove it. I agree about the part of Jesus being gay. Putting something that is probably incorret just to make Christians angry is not the way to go. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 11:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Apologies, I added that there as a subtle joke that Jesus may have been gay because he wasn't known to have a wife and hung around a lot of men, and as for the socialist part, a lot of people on the left think he's a socialist (even though he wasn't because modern ideologies like socialism didn't exist thousands of years ago). I was in no way trying to make christians angry or offend them. Rational Dude (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Pythagoreanism predated Jesus and the Apostles, and I've read that they formed similar small collectivist communes. Chillpilled (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Rational Dude, I can certainly see the intention now better now that you've explained it, but on first glance it looked like the equal opposite of something that Breitbart or Conservapedia would say, which I see now wasn't your intention. I didn't mean to throw shade your way, I apologize if I came off that way at all. As for Jesus being a socialist, I would agree (with GeeJayK) that making him one requires you to renegotiate the texts mentioning him for your own purposes and uses, just as all Christians do for their own ends. It also means your applying a wide range of ideologies and a worldview that wasn't defined until the first half of the 19th century, even if you can say some people practiced it before then. Retrofitting old figures with our ideas for our world isn't without precedent, but it's hardly rational. My openness to the idea of him being a socialist is partially because of my sympathy for those who call themselves socialist and Christian, those who have the same goals as myself ultimately, and whom I respect. But I concede that you can't seriously make an argument from a scholarly point of view that Jesus of Nazareth was anything we would call socialist today, which is why to make that argument you need to renegotiate the texts to make them fit that idea. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk. If any of my formatting is off let me know, or fix it yourself if you are so inclined. GenericGman (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Terry