But until I had accepted that truth I didn't want to believe it.

I can relate to that in a way. I haven't always believed, but I seemed to always want something to believe in.

Christianity stood out among all the other religions.

I came to belief during a world religions class in a secular college. I looked at all of the systems pretty objectively, and there were multiple reasons to choose Jesus. However, in the end it came down to every other religion saying Jesus was a great teacher or prophet and Jesus saying he's the only way.

I was enjoying my physics and math courses at the time. There seemed to always be a right answer or governing law that was inviolable.

Jesus to me was expressing the "religious" equivalent of an absolute truth. So I chose him.

Once I did that, as Steve says, it was more like coming home than finding something new. I distinctly felt (and still do) that I was built to believe in Jesus.

But his lunch was eaten pretty fast as well.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-atkins.html

Part I of Zeitgeist is based on real documents and artifacts. What they don't tell you is the age of the documents/artifacts and how the story of Horace, Attis, Dionysius, Mithras and others morphed to look like Christianity by the 3rd century AD, compared to the original stories of these gods, around centuries before Christ. It was a marketing campaign to compete with Christianity, rather than the birth of Christianity. The older myths do still have some overlap but hardly any of the long lists presented in Part 1.

Some religions looked more appealing (Budism and Wicca both seemed to have aspects that appeal to my innner desires of how I wanted the world to be). Yet, it was clear that they weren't true. They contained bits of truth, but those bit were held together by a lousy glue. They had mastered the saying "the best way to hide a lie is to slip it in between two truths."

Now that I've become a believer, the real truth is far better than I could have ever thought. But until I had accepted that truth I didn't want to believe it.

With regard to atheism vs. Christianity in general, I agree with Greg, there are well reasoned arguments on both sides, and in the end I believe because I choose belief.

Is it because my arguments are stronger or weaker than the contrary position? No, its because of my will. I WANT to believe. But more importantly, there is something innate (created) within me that resonates with that belief.

As for the debate, in my opinion D'Souza ate Hitchens for D'Inner.

Regarding Hitchins….that's it? Is that anti-theism's best? This is the guy whose book is all over the major airport hubs and is a bestseller? Human solidarity is itself a moral idea so how could it possibly be the foundation for morality? Wild…

Christopher Hitchins has increased my faith in Jesus, rather than detracted from it. I encourage everyone to watch this debate and watch it again.

Zeitgeist did a better job than Hitchins.

Basically, Zeitgeist and Hitchins (particularly Zeitgeist) purposefully teach and appeal to many faulty propositions as proven historical facts to disengenuinly disuade people away from a belief they particularly hate. The project is self-serving one of destruction, rather than enlightenment. What alternatives do they offer without sounding like Rich Little doing the Apostle Paul?

Erik, thanks for putting out the other side. Greg, thanks for the same thing.

You are right on about faith preceding conclusions when approaching evidence.

I used to worry alot about the very stuff in Part 1. I used to agree with it till I was saved. Then it bothered me off and on for many years, spawning lots of neurotic study.

Biblical Christianity is true.

What amazes me with this movie and many books written out there…is the lengths we use our intelligence and rationale to come up with this stuff…the effort and energy behind it speaks volumes more than the content.

Let me know if the new one works. I don't have a .wmv viewer at home.

That link doesn't work. Can you double check it?

Thanks

My skeptical relative has bought into some of it. I would like to republish my reply to her below (edited to protect her privacy):

Hi Aunt D,

I'm actually going to comment on the movie starting from its end and going to the beginning.

I didn't bother watching the third section of the video because of my conclusions about the second section.

The second section of the video on the 911 conspiracy is cut off by Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor).

As Abraham Lincoln once said, "Two can keep a secret if one is dead."

The more complicated a conspiracy theory gets, the less believable it becomes.

Do I believe that conspiracies exist and that things aren't as they appear? You bet! But they aren't elaborate. They can't be. It only takes one altruistic person. Altruism is a thorn in the side of materialists, evolutionists, liberals and the like. Not everyone has a price.

The first 3rd of this video is most interesting to me as a Christian.

Would you be surprised to hear me say that this section confirms the argument set forth here FOR Christianity?
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/gis/gis_qa.html

There is actually an author named Daniel Kikawa called "Perpetuated in Righteousness", who believes that God placed the Gospel in the stars in order to reach the Hawaiians:

Here's a review:
http://www.letusreason.org/current4%20.htm

I first heard the Gospel In The Stars position presented about 10 years ago by the now deceased Dr D James Kennedy (he wrote "The Real Meaning of the Zodiac" - http://www.amazon.com/Real-Meaning-Zodiac-James-Kennedy/dp/1929626142)

And as for the similarities between Christianity and ancient religion, I see this as God revealing His truth, not just in the stars, but to ancient people who preceded Christ. We are seeing their expressions of this revealed truth in these ancient religions. Does every detail of these ancient religions match Christianity? No… and they don't have to. God grades on the curve, meaning that He judges us based upon what we DO know, and how we apply that in our lives, not on what we do NOT know. "To whom much is given, much is required."

I ask you the following question. How is it that both sides of this issue can look at the relatively the same evidence and come up with different conclusions and BOTH have cohesive, logical arguments? What kind of world do we live in that gives us these situations?

I can take this line of reasoning beyond the Gospel in the Stars.

How is it that an evolutionist can look at the Grand Canyon and say it was formed by "a lot of time and a little water" and a young-earth creationist can look at it and say "a lot of water and a little time." (www.answersingenesis.org)? BTW, I'm now an old-earth creationist…..

How is it that a conservative and a liberal can attend the same political debate and each side think theirs won? (I had a similar experience happen to me with an old atheist friend when attended a debate on origins). And how is it that one person can clearly win such a debate in some cases, but could still be wrong, only winning the debate because they were more educated on their position and a better debater, NOT because they were right?

If there is a God, what is God trying to tell us with these truths?

Another example.

A person can say they feel "empty" (spiritually/emotionally) inside.

A materialist can interpret that emptiness to mean that the person is empty because life is meaningless and that they need to create a delusion of meaning in their lives to live contently (Professor Loyal Rue - http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/?view=usa&ci=9780195075083).

A Christian will say that the hole exists because it was placed in the heart of man by God (Ecclesiastes 3:11 - "He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.") I think it was C.S. Lewis who said that the stomach's desire for food is proof that there is something that exists that can fill it.

You're asking questions. That means you're hungry. That is the best place to be! I'm frankly scared of people who don't ask questions.

So getting back to my question. Why is it that we live in a world where evidence and arguments can be so easily viewed from two perspectives and both make sense? Why does this fork in the road exist? Why can two equally intelligent and educated people stand on totally opposite ends of the spectrum?

I have asked this question and I believe I have found the answer. The answer can be summed up in one word: volition.

I on one hand shoot for objectivity defined loving the truth (God) more than loving being right.

But I am subjective in this regard. I believe what I want to believe IF I can support it with a strong reasoned argument.

The problem is that the Christian apologist AND the makers of this video can both come up with arguments that totally oppose each other and yet BOTH look equally rational. What is someone to do? This problem reveals the limitations of reason. I believe in reason. That's why I follow it's path in this very e-mail. But reason, when followed, reveals its limitations, just as a humble leader choose wise and competent advisers.

It was either Atheist Bertrand Russell or John Cage who once stated that he once saw beauty and asked himself why beauty should exist. He stated that he couldn't come up with an answer therefore it didn't exist.

I see the same evidence and come to a different conclusion. Beauty DOES exist…. it exists beyond reason's ability to reach. He chose to conclude that beauty was limited (didn't really exist) and I chose to believe that reason was limited.

This is the essence of faith.

Reason necessitates its own limitations. There are things that exist outside of reason's abilities to grasp.

Why do I come to a different interpretation? Is it because my arguments are stronger or weaker than the contrary position? No, its because of my will. I WANT to believe. But more importantly, there is something innate (created) within me that resonates with that belief. I was created to believe, just as a Corvette was designed to go fast and a bird was designed to fly.

Here's the most fascinating part for me. If we live in a world where there is really an all-powerful all-loving God who wants a relationship with us (as opposed to the impersonal non-loving Deity of Deism), then this God would put us into a world that forced us to choose. I'm not making a political statement here since I'm pro-life, but God is PRO-CHOICE in the sense that He doesn't want us to believe in Him because He's God…. because we would be puppets… because He's all-powerful …because we have no choice. He wants us to CHOOSE Him. Why? Because LOVE requires choice. Have you ever tried to force someone to love you?

But an all-powerful God has a problem that I would liken to the problem that rich single guys have (wouldn't you like to meet one of those?) A rich single man may never truly know whether or not his lover loves him because of who he is or because of what he has. If I ever became rich and single, I'd therefore hide my wealth to a prospective mate until I KNEW she loved me for who I was.

I am convinced that this is what God is doing.

Chuck Colson wrote about this in his most excellent book, "The Good Life". If I sent it to you as a Christmas gift, would you read it? He had one particular chapter that covered this ground. I've been a Christian all my life and had never seen this line of thought raised until I read his chapter on the subject. It is still one of the most profound things that I've ever read!

So you have a choice. You can look at the arguments in the first section of the movie and choose to believe in them, or you can choose to reject them. The strange thing is that if you choose to embrace materialism, you'll struggle with contentment and fulfillment. Why is that? Could it be that its because you were created for a relationship with our Divine creator?

C.S. Lewis said it this way,

"If you are really a product of a materialistic universe, how is it that you don't feel at home there?"
–Encounter with Light

Although I am not doing it in this e-mail, I could have easily gotten bogged down with the details of the video and argued against the claims of the video in that first section point by point. I can assure you (and I'm banking that you know me well enough by now to know that I can do this) that I could come up with just as strong of reasoning to reject their claims as they have produced to embrace them. I recently told Angie that I should have been a lawyer!

The problem is that in the end, you'd be left with choice not reason.

I am convinced that God wants to know whether or not you are going to love Him for who He is and not for what He has. Will you choose to love Him even if He allows your son to remain mentally ill? Believe me, we don't have to like it. I constantly tell him that if I were God, I'd run things differently. I constantly tell Him that I don't like many things that He seems to allow happen, but in the end do I love Him enough to trust that He is good?

Love you,

Greg