Problems with the "Religulous" movie

[excreationist]

This is about the Wikipedia Religulous article

This is a section I attempt to add:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...=920048609#The_Alleged_Horus-Jesus_Connection

The Alleged Horus-Jesus Connection

The movie included a subtitled segment about alleged similarities between the stories of Horus and Jesus which involved amusing scenes from old movies about Jesus while the song Walk Like an Egyptian played. When asked about this part of the movie, the Straight Dope column stated “The notion that Jesus was copied from Horus is a stretch”.[48] The column says the alleged parallels repeated what self-taught Egyptologist Gerald Massey claimed “whose work has never been taken seriously by scholars". [48] StrangeNotions.com, which attempts to be "the central place of dialogue between Catholics and atheists",[49] republished an in-depth response to the claims of the Horus segment concluding these types of claims "have little or no connection to the facts". [50]

48: "Was Jesus copied from the Egyptian god Horus?". The Straight Dope. May 25, 2012. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
49: "About StrangeNotions.com". Retrieved 2019-11-11.
50: Sorensen, Jon (Nov–Dec 2012). "Horus Manure: Debunking the Jesus/Horus Connection". Catholic Answers Magazine. Retrieved 2019-11-11.

My most recent attempt to add that section got reverted with the comment:
12 November 2019: "I see you have been attempting to push your agenda here for years despite an extended discussion on the article talk page regarding your pushing of non-WP:NPOV material"
in 28 July 2016 their comment was: "doesn't say much about the subject of the article; non-RS cites" ["Reliable Sources"]

From the Talk page:
"Major inaccuracies regarding the Horus-Jesus connection"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...curacies_regarding_the_Horus-Jesus_connection

I think the sources I referred to are "reliable".... it is about a documentary but some people in Wikipedia won't allow me to include criticism regarding the accuracy of its content. The article does allow a huge amount of comments from reviewers and how many stars they gave it, etc.

I have been really frustrated with this but if I can share my thoughts here then that would make me feel better.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This is about the Wikipedia Religulous article

This is a section I attempt to add:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...=920048609#The_Alleged_Horus-Jesus_Connection

The Alleged Horus-Jesus Connection

The movie included a subtitled segment about alleged similarities between the stories of Horus and Jesus which involved amusing scenes from old movies about Jesus while the song Walk Like an Egyptian played. When asked about this part of the movie, the Straight Dope column stated “The notion that Jesus was copied from Horus is a stretch”.[48] The column says the alleged parallels repeated what self-taught Egyptologist Gerald Massey claimed “whose work has never been taken seriously by scholars". [48] StrangeNotions.com, which attempts to be "the central place of dialogue between Catholics and atheists",[49] republished an in-depth response to the claims of the Horus segment concluding these types of claims "have little or no connection to the facts". [50]

48: "Was Jesus copied from the Egyptian god Horus?". The Straight Dope. May 25, 2012. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
49: "About StrangeNotions.com". Retrieved 2019-11-11.
50: Sorensen, Jon (Nov–Dec 2012). "Horus Manure: Debunking the Jesus/Horus Connection". Catholic Answers Magazine. Retrieved 2019-11-11.

My most recent attempt to add that section got reverted with the comment:
12 November 2019: "I see you have been attempting to push your agenda here for years despite an extended discussion on the article talk page regarding your pushing of non-WP:NPOV material"
in 28 July 2016 their comment was: "doesn't say much about the subject of the article; non-RS cites" ["Reliable Sources"]

From the Talk page:
"Major inaccuracies regarding the Horus-Jesus connection"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...curacies_regarding_the_Horus-Jesus_connection

I think the sources I referred to are "reliable".... it is about a documentary but some people in Wikipedia won't allow me to include criticism regarding the accuracy of its content. The article does allow a huge amount of comments from reviewers and how many stars they gave it, etc.

I have been really frustrated with this but if I can share my thoughts here then that would make me feel better.

Bill Maher is a comedian. The entire film is him taking the piss out of Christians. It's not a rigorous critique of Christian theology. I liked it. I thought it was funny. But it only takes aim at the most ridiculous forms of Christianity.

I think it's unlikely that anybody here is likely to come to Bill Maher's defense. I think anybody who has ever read a book understands the film is theologically pretty weak. It's still funny. My favourite is the guy who admits he was a Satanist. I still don't understand what he meant by that. I somehow doubt this guy sacrificed blood and prayed by black candlelight in a hood. But that's the image I got.

The entire world dies in the winter and resurects every spring. I doubt we need more inspiration than that to project resurection onto our mythical heroes. As made evident of the fact that it is a fairly common trope in religion.

It reminds me of the film Zeitgeist. Full on bullshit from start to finish. Just because I'm an atheist I'm not going to defend every idiot atheist who has an opinion

 

[excreationist]

Bill Maher is a comedian. The entire film is him taking the piss out of Christians. It's not a rigorous critique of Christian theology. I liked it. I thought it was funny.

Well Michael Moore is also able to make humorous documentaries - while at the same time being pretty accurate (hopefully). Same with Ricky Gervais when he talks about Christianity (like the Garden of Eden or Noah's Flood)

But it only takes aim at the most ridiculous forms of Christianity.

And it makes assertions that Christianity significantly identical to Horus stories - it gives the impression it is completely factual and the humour just comes from the music and the old video excerpts. They could have just removed that section.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lLiRr_mT24&t=60s
Bill: But Jesus' story isn't original
Guy: How so?
Then it has nearly a minute of inaccurate claims...

I think it's unlikely that anybody here is likely to come to Bill Maher's defense. I think anybody who has ever read a book understands the film is theologically pretty weak.

My Wikipedia addition referred to a source that investigated in depth each statement in the Horus segment.... yet they only allow parts to remain that are just based on people's impressions and opinions. It seems they don't want any mention of there being factual problems.

It reminds me of the film Zeitgeist. Full on bullshit from start to finish. Just because I'm an atheist I'm not going to defend every idiot atheist who has an opinion

Yeah Zeitgeist also talked about Christianity being copied from other sources (including Horus?)

 

[DrZoidberg]

Well Michael Moore is also able to make humorous documentaries - while at the same time being pretty accurate (hopefully). Same with Ricky Gervais when he talks about Christianity (like the Garden of Eden or Noah's Flood)

We think differently of Michael Moore's accuracy. Or to quote a documentary filmmaker friend of mine. "People don't watch documentaries to learn anything. Documentaries is entertainment. If you want to learn anything. Read books."

It's a longer quote. The topic was whether film was a good or bad way of conveying information. He thought it was good for one thing only, and that was to convey feelings. Which makes it particularly bad to convey information, because those feelings will always get in the way.

If somebody is trying to convince you of anything and is doing it in a Youtube video or a documentary... all your alarm bells should be ringing.

And it makes assertions that Christianity significantly identical to Horus stories - it gives the impression it is completely factual and the humour just comes from the music and the old video excerpts. They could have just removed that section.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lLiRr_mT24&t=60s
Bill: But Jesus' story isn't original
Guy: How so?
Then it has nearly a minute of inaccurate claims...

I think it's unlikely that anybody here is likely to come to Bill Maher's defense. I think anybody who has ever read a book understands the film is theologically pretty weak.

My Wikipedia addition referred to a source that investigated in depth each statement in the Horus segment.... yet they only allow parts to remain that are just based on people's impressions and opinions. It seems they don't want any mention of there being factual problems.

It reminds me of the film Zeitgeist. Full on bullshit from start to finish. Just because I'm an atheist I'm not going to defend every idiot atheist who has an opinion

Yeah Zeitgeist also talked about Christianity being copied from other sources (including Horus?)

Everybody wants to live forever. Everybody who has had a loved one die, wants them to live again. Why do you think we need any inspiration for this?

 

[southernhybrid]

I never thought of that movie as a documentary. It's just a comedy that pokes fun at a lot of religious mythology. My favorite part is when Maher acts as an evangelist for Scientology. Laughter is a great way to help us cope with the more negative aspects of life. There is evidence that laughter may help our immune systems, according to a nursing CEU course I took a couple of years ago. So, please never take Maher too seriously. He's just a comedian. If you don't find him funny, then find some other comedian or comedy movie that makes you laugh, and forget about Maher.

 

[excreationist]

I never thought of that movie as a documentary. It's just a comedy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religulous
Wikipedia calls it a documentary 9 times... (5 times in the article and 4 times in the categories) - so it should put some effort into how accurate its claims are... (like its assertions about Horus)

.....So, please never take Maher too seriously. He's just a comedian. If you don't find him funny, then find some other comedian or comedy movie that makes you laugh, and forget about Maher.

Here is an example of talking about things like Horus is a seemingly accurate way while being funny: (it also mentions Bill Maher at the end)

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0-EgjUhRqA[/YOUTUBE]

The problem is that Christians might investigate the movie's Horus section and then have their faith strengthened when they find it is garbage....

http://www.strangenotions.com/horus-manure

 

[atrib]

Perhaps you should take it up with the film maker and the persons who wrote and approved the script. I've seen the movie, and I don't think the director intended to create a serious documentary fully supported by citations and references. I think it was intended as satire, which is also an acceptable form of commentary.

 

[southernhybrid]

I never thought of that movie as a documentary. It's just a comedy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religulous
Wikipedia calls it a documentary 9 times... (5 times in the article and 4 times in the categories) - so it should put some effort into how accurate its claims are... (like its assertions about Horus)

.....So, please never take Maher too seriously. He's just a comedian. If you don't find him funny, then find some other comedian or comedy movie that makes you laugh, and forget about Maher.

Here is an example of talking about things like Horus is a seemingly accurate way while being funny: (it also mentions Bill Maher at the end)

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0-EgjUhRqA[/YOUTUBE]

The problem is that Christians might investigate the movie's Horus section and then have their faith strengthened when they find it is garbage....

http://www.strangenotions.com/horus-manure

Wiki doesn't always get things right, but if you want to call it a documentary, at least admit it's a comedic documentary. I doubt many Christians wold bother to watch a satirical movie by an atheist comedian. Do you honestly think Christians would be influenced one way or the other by that comedy?

Good grief. If Christians want to be a positive influence, they should do it by imitating the better nature of the Biblical Jesus, not by criticizing a silly movie. Sorry if I've missed your point. Even when we read each other's posts, sometimes it's difficult to know exactly what point the poster is trying to make. I know I've been misunderstand many times, and I'm sure most of us here have.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The problem is that Christians might investigate the movie's Horus section and then have their faith strengthened when they find it is garbage....

http://www.strangenotions.com/horus-manure

Christains watching Religulous? I find that unlikely.
Someone at their church tells them what's in it, what the creator's motivation was, what to do about it, what to say in their letters to the paper, their senator, etc.

Just like Last Temptation of Christ. Or The Pope Must Diet.
Wandering around with signs being offended without actually seeing any content.

 

[excreationist]

The problem is that Christians might investigate the movie's Horus section and then have their faith strengthened when they find it is garbage....

http://www.strangenotions.com/horus-manure

Christains watching Religulous? I find that unlikely.

In that link a Christian not only watched it, they examined every single word in the Horus segment. And that was published in "Catholic Answers Magazine".

 

[excreationist]

Wiki doesn't always get things right, but if you want to call it a documentary, at least admit it's a comedic documentary.

Yes of course it is comedic. BTW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_film
"....is a non-fictional motion-picture intended to "document reality" (or at least reality in the view of its creator)

I don't see any reason for it to include so much misinformation in the Horus segment - even though the movie criticises religion for misinformation.

Here is an example of problems that can happen because of the segment:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6AZqOO2FJA[/YOUTUBE]

So the atheist thought he had a good argument for William Lane Craig but then it turned out it was a bad one. See also the video in post #6 where Christians would are informed that people like Bill Maher are spreading misinformation about Horus....

 

[excreationist]

Perhaps you should take it up with the film maker and the persons who wrote and approved the script. I've seen the movie, and I don't think the director intended to create a serious documentary fully supported by citations and references. I think it was intended as satire, which is also an acceptable form of commentary.

In the Horus section it appears to be on the side of the misinformation (while assuming it is factual) while in other parts of the movie it seems to be opposing the misinformation and mocking people for it.

 

[southernhybrid]

Wiki doesn't always get things right, but if you want to call it a documentary, at least admit it's a comedic documentary.

Yes of course it is comedic. BTW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_film
"....is a non-fictional motion-picture intended to "document reality" (or at least reality in the view of its creator)

I don't see any reason for it to include so much misinformation in the Horus segment - even though the movie criticises religion for misinformation.

Here is an example of problems that can happen because of the segment:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6AZqOO2FJA[/YOUTUBE]

So the atheist thought he had a good argument for William Lane Craig but then it turned out it was a bad one. See also the video in post #6 where Christians would are informed that people like Bill Maher are spreading misinformation about Horus....

I watched your video, but to be honest, I have never taken the movie in question seriously. I've watched it at least 3 times, just for a good laugh. And, I'm not sure that the person in your video is any more knowledgeable than any other person who thinks he knows all about Jesus. Of course, we all know that Jesus was Jewish. Oddly enough, Bill Maher was raised with one Jewish parent and one Christian parent, so I imagine he's been exposed to plenty of Jewish and Christian mythology too.

I apologize if I've wasted your time. My point is that the movie is just a satire of religion, nothing to be taken as "gospel" truth, but rather something that pokes fun at religious mythology. I don't even remember the part about Horus, so maybe if I have time I'll watch the movie again to see what you're taking about, but there are only so many hours in a day.

What one person finds humorous, another person may find offensive.

 

[none]

What a waste of time

 

[ideologyhunter]

I always wondered if it led to increased tourism to Cerne Abbas, England, to see the giant boner man.

 

[Bomb#20]

The problem is that Christians might investigate the movie's Horus section and then have their faith strengthened when they find it is garbage....

http://www.strangenotions.com/horus-manure

Christains watching Religulous? I find that unlikely.

In that link a Christian not only watched it, they examined every single word in the Horus segment.

Keith&Co. is a comedian. (You're talking to the guy who turned his submarine into a make-believe democracy just so he could bamboozle his commanding officer into giving the crew a day off. ) His post is not a rigorous critique of Christian movie-watching behavior.

And that was published in "Catholic Answers Magazine".

This is about the Wikipedia Religulous article

This is a section I attempt to add: ...

I think the sources I referred to are "reliable".... it is about a documentary but some people in Wikipedia won't allow me to include criticism regarding the accuracy of its content. The article does allow a huge amount of comments from reviewers and how many stars they gave it, etc.

I have been really frustrated with this but if I can share my thoughts here then that would make me feel better.

It sounds like Wikipedia is applying its "No original research" policy. They don't want an explanation of what's wrong with the movie unless the explanation comes from some other published source that they can cite -- which means if you haven't been published in a real journal then your criticisms aren't what they consider it their job to report. So I'm guessing if instead of saying what's wrong with the movie, you add a paragraph to the "Critical Response" section reporting what Catholic Answers Magazine says is wrong with it, and you cite "Catholic Answers Magazine", and you put in a footnote with the issue number and date and so forth, then I expect they'll leave it in.

 

[southernhybrid]

What a waste of time

We are really good at that, or haven't you noticed! . It keeps me from doing boring chores like dusting and mopping.

 

[none]

I'm getting a wood burning stove.

 

[atrib]

Perhaps you should take it up with the film maker and the persons who wrote and approved the script. I've seen the movie, and I don't think the director intended to create a serious documentary fully supported by citations and references. I think it was intended as satire, which is also an acceptable form of commentary.

In the Horus section it appears to be on the side of the misinformation (while assuming it is factual) while in other parts of the movie it seems to be opposing the misinformation and mocking people for it.

I understand that. The documentary appears to be satire, and satire uses exaggeration and even misrepresentation to make its point. From Google:

Satire - the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

I don't understand what your point is. Are you criticizing the movie for including exaggerated elements that potentially stray from the facts? What do you want us to do about it?

 

[excreationist]

I understand that. The documentary appears to be satire, and satire uses exaggeration and even misrepresentation to make its point. From Google:

Satire - the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

I don't understand what your point is. Are you criticizing the movie for including exaggerated elements that potentially stray from the facts? What do you want us to do about it?

It is just based on self-taught Egyptologist Gerald Massey. The Horus segment is shown after this:
Bill: But Jesus' story isn't original
Guy: How so?

Are you saying that Bill wasn't really serious about his claim or something?