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.

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)


The most amusing thing about Jesus - he would not be allowed into the Godfearing Jesusloving United States of America. (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...

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


"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)


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