Refutation of Religulous?

Hi,
I know it was posted here before but now I can’t find it - can anyone direct me to a website or websites which refute the claims made in religulous?
Again, I know this is a source that’s out there - I’ve read it before - but the google machine can’t find it, and the search feature in here isn’t getting me results either.
Thanks, I really appreciate it!!! :slight_smile:

For starters, here’s something from “West Coast Witness”:

Here’s a list of some of the stupid things this movie puts forth as “facts”:

* “There’s no proof that Jesus ever existed.” (Wrong! There’s more historical evidence proving His existence than almost any other character in history)
* None of the gospel writers knew or had even ever seen Jesus. (Wrong! Matthew and John were two of the Twelve Apostles, and Mark and Luke are believed to have written down the sermons of Peter and Paul, respectively.)
* None of the gospel writers were historians. (Wrong! Doctor Luke was a serious historian whose accounts are corroborated by other recorded events in history.)
* All the Scriptures condemning homosexuality come from the Old Testament – the New Testament says nothing about it. (Wrong! The New Testament condemns the practice of homosexuality along with the Old. See Romans 1:25-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.)
* The story surrounding the Egyptian god Horus predates and parallels the story of Christ. In other words, the story of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection was simply made up. (Wrong! The story of Horus predating the story of Christ is an urban legend - no historical sources support this because they don’t exist.) NOTE: Read more about this on [Ben Witherington’s blog]("http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/12/zeitgeist-of-zeitgeist-movie.html") – these false claims about Horus were popularized by the film ‘The Zeitgeist Movie.’~~~~~~

This site and this one might also be of use to you.

“Religilous” had more going for it than many Christians wish to acknowlege. I enjoyed the movie until the last 30 minutes…he concentrated too much on Islam…he was doing quite well before then portraying the more “darker side” of Christianity.

“Religilous” had more going for it than many Christians wish to acknowlege. I enjoyed the movie until the last 30 minutes…he concentrated too much on Islam…he was doing quite well before then portraying the more “darker side” of Christianity.

I haven’t seen the movie. What about it did you think was done well? The reason I ask is because of the arguments cited by Heteroclite from the film.

If these were the sorts of “proofs” used in the film against Christianity then I am unimpressed. Those were the type of objections I was able to easily shoot down way back in High School.

But then again, it’s Bill Maher, so…I’m going to be charitable and stop typing :slight_smile:

Most of the movie concentrated on the more “fringe” Christians. The movie capitalized on the abundance of Christians who are against science, civil equality for minorities(including those minorities that many conservative Christians deny ARE minorities at all). Unfortunatly many Mahr interviewed would be considered “fringe” even in their own religious traditions.

He also spent a lot of time at “Bible Land”…or some such thing in Florida where he interviewed “Jesus” and the visitors to the “amusement park” that specialized in religious themes.

He interviewed the more “vocal” conservatives…which in many ways are accurate representations of Christianity as a whole…especially US Christianity.

He also interviewed a Catholic priest at the Vatican who gave a different opinion of what is taking place at the Vatican and Catholicism in general than the more “staunch” Catholics one encounters on this board.

I enjoyed the movie…but the last 1/2 hour was more “angry” than humorous…it wasn’t the subject of Islam that 'turned me off"…but the angry portrayal…Mr. Mahr is a product of his culture after all in many ways.

I think it’s worth the watch.

Yes.

What Maher did was distortion of truth. First of all we do not have the full interviews but only what Maher left in (and but cutting and editing you can already distort things).

Then he concentrated on ‘extremists’ either Christians or Islamic… it;s like judging the people from the USA by inteviewing ‘stereotype rednecks’ from a town where everybody is related to each other (if such place exist)

You could make atheists look like ignorant hateful people too using the same method (interviewing Maher himself might be enough :smiley: )

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.