The film was very misleading. It presented credulous ministers and pseudo-intellectuals as objective commentators. The so-called evidences were nothing more than possibilities that - in a contingent universe - exist for virtually any ancient narrative. Several fallacies in logic plague this well-spun web of sophistry. Only the most ridiculous -"straw man" - objections to the veracity of the Christian tale are addressed. Two salient examples will suffice to illustrate the erroneous logic of this film: First, host D. James Kennedy's ridiculous analogy of the silliness of the Grand Canyon being created by a Navajo dragging a stick as a way of imbuing the Christian story with veracity is fallacious. Kennedy states that the very existence of the massive Church - by some teleological construct - proves that it was created by something of profound - even divine origin. Would Kennedy infer the same of the other popular religions of the world? The Rig Veda - is it divinely inspired because of its longevity? Buddha - 500 years before Christ - still has enormous influence on many in the East. Christian apologist celebrity Josh McDowell is obviously addressing believers when he argues that the testimony of the 500 witnesses in Matthew would be overwhelming evidence in a modern court of law. It is prima facie ludicrous. To infer the authority of 500 sworn testimonies or affidavits from 500 anonymous "saints" uncorroborated by any other author is utterly embarrassing for anyone of McDowell's assumed stature. This film demonstrates once again that Christian apologists have little interest in tabula rasa scrutiny of historical evidence. Already convinced of the veracity of scripture, they assume in advance what they intend to prove: "The Bible says it is the Word of God; therefore it is because the Bible being the Word of God is true" is esteemed as independent evidence! The compulsion to intellectual dishonesty is great. Without malice, and perhaps with great benevolence, the apologists feel more beholden to God than to intellectual integrity. This ultimately undermines the fundamentalist's effort to enter a true debate upon a subject that can convince only those predisposed to believe. What's a lie in the pursuit of the furtherance of the kingdom of God? So what if we avoid the most challenging objections? Why would we not "stack the deck" with "experts" we know to hold beliefs (not analyses) in compliance with ours? Should we give the devil a voice? Hmmm. This film is definitely meant to inoculate the believer against any truly intellectual challenges, which bombard any reasonable mind. It is truly designed to comfort the believer in his or her happy delusion.
1 of 3 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?