Need help with anti-Christian "Religulous" Wikipedia article

[JohnClay]

See 0:53 in this video:

My text:

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”.

Was Jesus copied from the Egyptian god Horus?

The column says the alleged parallels repeated what self-taught Egyptologist Gerald Massey claimed “whose work has never been taken seriously by scholars".

Was Jesus copied from the Egyptian god Horus?

StrangeNotions.com, which attempts to be "the central place of dialogue between Catholics and atheists",

About

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".

Horus Manure: Debunking the Jesus/Horus Connection

The Wikipedia text before it was removed:
Religulous - Wikipedia

The comment of the revert:

"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 the talk:
Talk:Religulous - Wikipedia

Dose Jesus seem like a Horus copy?

Richard Carrier and Robert Price are mythicists who find the Horus-Jesus connection illicit. Earl Doherty is perhaps the most prominent mythicist and agrees:

“It may not be an exaggeration, for example, to say that the majority of alleged parallels between Horus and Jesus are either unfounded or overstated.”

Carrier and Price have PhDs and believe Jesus never existed. They are more qualified than the comedian Bill and they've written many books. Carrier is also an atheist.

So the Horus segment isn't 100% accurate. Surely the accuracy of a documentary is relevant

There are also other comments on the talk page.

It might be easier for atheists to fix the article compared to Christians.

 

[Ken Rank]

It might be easier for atheists to fix the article compared to Christians.

Right, because they are intellectually superior?

I find that an entity or force (Satan in the bible?) will copy the truth and resell it in a way that pulls people away from God. The constellations for example, are ancient and tell the story from creation to redemption. Pagans come along and turn them into a power unto themselves and now we have the zodiac. Another example is where the High Priest wore the breastplate that had 12 precious gems, 1 for each tribe of Israel. That gets sucked into culture and those gems become birthstones. Another.... God's commandments were well known before Sinai... they were written at Sinai. But, that would be 200 years after Hammurabi created his own legal system which clearly uses the understanding of right and wrong of that day and culture... so when Moses comes along 200 years later to put in writing what was already understood within the culture, atheists cry "plagiarism."

Horus and Yeshua do not have any ties beyond the fact that one can tie a trinity of sorts to both, that's it. Otherwise, there is nothing in common at all. But, have at Wiki, your target audience doesn't take Wiki that seriously anyway.

 

[JohnClay]

It might be easier for atheists to fix the article compared to Christians.

Right, because they are intellectually superior?...

No, because my addition was removed because I was "attempting to push your agenda" - an atheist would seem less biassed when thinking about whether Jesus is based on Horus.

 

[Ken Rank]

It might be easier for atheists to fix the article compared to Christians.

No, because my addition was removed because I was "attempting to push your agenda" - an atheist would seem less biassed when thinking about whether Jesus is based on Horus.

Atheists have an anti-God bias. Tying Yeshua to a pagan god is a dream come true for one who tries to discredit the bible.

 

[JohnClay]

Atheists have an anti-God bias. Tying Yeshua to a pagan god is a dream come true for one who tries to discredit the bible.

The film in the article is by an atheist comedian. People who maintain that article can't accept that the film has any factual errors. They assume they are correct. Christians who disagree would obviously be mistaken in their view. They can't even accept that fellow atheists find any problems in the film.
BTW Richard Carrier and Robert Price want to discredit the Bible - they believe Jesus never existed. Even though it seems that the Horus connection would be in their interests, they are too intellectually honest to accept those connections. (BTW I disagree with them in their belief that Jesus is only a myth)

 

[Tinker Grey]

Atheists have an anti-God bias. Tying Yeshua to a pagan god is a dream come true for one who tries to discredit the bible.

Yeah, and Christians have a pro-God bias.

Seriously, the Straightdope, mentioned in the OP, is at least secular if not out right atheist with respect to religious questions. A fair number of atheists, IME, really are interested in truth. And, thus, yes, atheists might be inclined to debunk the Horus/Christ connection. I would if I could. It certainly appears spurious.

 

[Ken Rank]

Yeah, and Christians have a pro-God bias.

Seriously, the Straightdope, mentioned in the OP, is at least secular if not out right atheist with respect to religious questions. A fair number of atheists, IME, really are interested in truth. And, thus, yes, atheists might be inclined to debunk the Horus/Christ connection. I would if I could. It certainly appears spurious.

We all have a bias, champ. The fact is, however, atheists are a minority and the minority shouldn't have the final say. That doesn't mean (to me) that a Christian or a Jew (or whatever) should dictate what others believe. Rather, I believe both sides should be fairly presented and the reader should be allowed to choose without bias interference. But our culture won't allow for that... we have 2 sides to every issue and one side always wants to shut the other up. I don't think that way... I think it is fair to present all sides equally and allow each individual to choose on their own.

 

[Tinker Grey]

We all have a bias, champ.

My point, champ.

The fact is, however, atheists are a minority and the minority shouldn't have the final say. That doesn't mean (to me) that a Christian or a Jew (or whatever) should dictate what others believe. Rather, I believe both sides should be fairly presented and the reader should be allowed to choose without bias interference. But our culture won't allow for that... we have 2 sides to every issue and one side always wants to shut the other up. I don't think that way... I think it is fair to present all sides equally and allow each individual to choose on their own.

Nobody is suggesting that. I believe the OP's point is that maybe the wiki would get changed if an atheist proposed the changes.

I would hope that it wouldn't be necessary for an atheist to make the proposal. I would hope that all that contribute to a wiki page would care about what's true regardless one's affiliation. But ...

 

[Ken Rank]

I would hope that it wouldn't be necessary for an atheist to make the proposal. I would hope that all that contribute to a wiki page would care about what's true regardless one's affiliation. But ...

"But..." as in I don't agree? I do... the problem isn't your idea (or his) but rather Wiki. Have a great day.

 

[Tinker Grey]

"But..." as in I don't agree? I do... the problem isn't your idea (or his) but rather Wiki. Have a great day.

No. "But..." as in reality sometimes isn't the way we want it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"Nothing is as it seems".