1

Ravi has always impressed little old me. The man has an awesome perspective on an awesome God.

2

I agree. I was just listening to him on the radio tonight. As always, he is unbelievably insightful, and incredibly incisive. He has a scholar's education, and an evangelist's gift for expression. Truly a great combination.

Oh, and his teaching isn't half bad, either.

You can hear last night's message Here.

3

I'm embarressed to say I've never heard of him. Can anyone give me any pointers on which of his books would be the best intro to Zacharias?

4

The Ravi book that got me hooked was "Deliver Us from Evil". My bible study group used it along with the tape series as a study.

5

My mom got me a Ravi book many a year ago. I seem to recall some flagrant misquotation of prominent philosophers. I'll try to dig 'em up. At any rate, he's certainly one of the cornerstones of modern apologetics.

6

I've read Jesus Among Other Gods. Based solely on that book, I think I like his speaking style better than his writing. He's a pretty good storyteller, and I think his greatest value is his ability to expose the western mind to eastern thought (and maybe vice versa). His writing style was a bit disjointed, however, and it was hard to follow his logical themes.

Either way, I keep finding myself going back to listen to recordings of his speaking engagements at rzim.org.

7

Zacharias is one of evangelicalism’s most popular and respected apologists.

Not amongst non-Christians. Amongst non-Christians, he's widely known as a chrlatan. Go check out the Amazon.com reviews of his book on Jesus and the Buddha for a nice flavor of how he's actually perceived outside the evangelical cheerleading community, or another suggestion, go to the internet infidels and check do a search on "shattered visage." Zacharias is the worst kind of fraud, someone who knowingly, it seems, lies about other religions, it seems. (One would conclude, after thoughtfully reading him, that he's either stupid or a liar, and I give him credit for his intelligence.)

Or if you don't like, that, go to his own websites' "about" area to see how he presents himself.

Right up front- "Give me money!!!"

That's his "good news."

(Luckily here they've updated it. They used to say something oddly circular, like "RZIM exists to help RZ," as I recall.)

8

Let me give you an example of how Ravi Zacharias sounds to the rest of us....

You see, postmodernism plays word games with us. Postmodernism tells us there’s no such thing as truth; no such thing as meaning; no such thing as certainty.

Here's a great rebuttal to that.

“If you look at the early picoseconds of this universe and analyze just one contingent, the expansion and relation to the contraction, do you know how precise that had to be?” He said, “It would be like taking aim at a one-square-inch object at the other end of the universe twenty billion light years away and hitting it bull’s eye.” And then he looked at us with typical English anticlimax and said, “Gentlemen, there’s no free lunch. Somebody has to pay.”

We don't know if this story is true or not, but we do know that current physical theories posit that different physical laws would give rise to different universes. It happens, though we live in this one.

Let me repeat it for you: Objective moral values only exist if God exists. Objective moral values do exist; therefore, God exists.

Ravi over-simplifies things here. There are other alternatives, but his paying audience...that is, you, dear contributors to Ravi Zacharias miniistry... want to rest assured that you've chosed correctly, and so this "Grand Inquisitor" gives nice flowery words to tell you, the converted, that what you claim you believe is true.

You'll note, by the way, in the above passage, Zacharias never actually gets around to proving his assertion- he only uses it to make a veiled reference to bashing gays.

I could go on...but you could learn a lot from really reading this guy critically.

9

Here, is a good take on Zacharias' trashing of atheism.

That a man would use Pascal's Wager today - which presupposes that you live a lie that any self-respecting omniscient deity would see through in a heartbeat- as an apologetic argument is simply fraudulent.

10

A number of years ago at a "Family Camp" in Oregon, Zacharias was the keynote speaker. A lot of his rhetoric involved "either / or" reasoning to the effect that either eastern thinking is true, or Christianity is true. He'd then point out the supposed deficiencies in eastern thought (mostly involving abuse of the principle of noncontradiction), and presto! Christianity was the last weltanschaaung standing. For someone so keyed up about logic, he was remarkably blithe about the false dilemma fallacy.

11

Ravi over-simplifies things here.

This is just the MO of contemporary apologetics: reductionist repackaging of philosophical thought for a popular audience to disseminate. If RZ were to claim 'deep thinker' as his mantle, that'd be problematic, but he pretty clearly markets himself as populist apologeticist.

12

Hey mumon, just want to let you know I find you repulsive. What are you going to do about it?

13

Jim Anderson:

Not simply a false dilemma, but a complete mis-rendering of eastern thought.

Again, this is packaged not so much as to convince the truly doubting, nor to refute the claims of others with different beliefs or lack thereof, but to basically reassure the converted, for a fee, that they've chosen correctly.

As in The Sting, the mark still thinks he's gotten a good deal long after the grifter's left town.

14

mumon, you wrote, "Here's a great rebuttal to that."
That NYT writer doesn't "get" Derrida. Just FYI.

15

That NYT writer doesn't "get" Derrida. Just FYI.

Just FYI: yes he does.

16

TWJones:

jpe's right. The writer was Derrida's grad student.

17

"This is just the MO of contemporary apologetics: reductionist repackaging of philosophical thought for a popular audience to disseminate. If RZ were to claim 'deep thinker' as his mantle, that'd be problematic, but he pretty clearly markets himself as populist apologeticist. This is just the MO of contemporary apologetics: reductionist repackaging of philosophical thought for a popular audience to disseminate."

Funny, though, that when you ask the folks around here who recite these tired scripts what are the names of their preachers who hand them out, you are greeted with silence. This guy clearly is a low-roller if there ever was one.

I have to say I haven't been keeping up with the Evangelist Hall of Fame. I clicked on this link because the guy wasn't white and he had an absurd hair-do.

I'm still waiting for the Phil Johnson baseball card.

18

vaildog - since you're an anonymous loser typing behind the safety of a pseudonym on a blog, probably nothing. What exactly was your point?

19

Joe,

I'm waiting to see your take on N. T. Wright.

20

Larry Lord:

I clicked on this link because the guy wasn't white and he had an absurd hair-do.

On other places on the 'net, I've actually seen folks write something to the effect of, "Because he's an Indian, he must know Eastern thought..."

21

Chester:
Since you're an anonymous loser...

What are you, sticking up for mumon? He seems able to dish it out with the best of them. vaildog's comment may have been pointless, but what was yours?

Besides, there maybe is a point. This kind of crass negativity coming from mumon and Mr. Larry Lord is too ad hominem to be taken seriously. There is a place for a man that helps people feel good about what they have chosen. The exigencies of communicating with folks less educated can sometimes seem strange even to those in agreement.

So thanks, mumon, for the objective concerns you raise. Certainly, it is good to remember that what plays in Peoria doesn't always play in New York. Do you think they have the truth any more in one place than the other? Do you? And casting aspersions on someone for being of eastern descent is so classy!

22

Mumon
"Not simply a false dilemma, but a complete mis-rendering of eastern thought."
and
"On other places on the 'net, I've actually seen folks write something to the effect of, "Because he's an Indian, he must know Eastern thought..."

Yeah...being raised by a Hindu priest as a father...he must be totally clueless as to Eastern thought...*roll*

Of course living in india for 20 years also means he would not be exposed to eastern thought either...*roll*

Do you always act will such willfull ignorance?

23

jpe wrote: "Just FYI: yes he does."

No he doesn't. Yes, he does. No he doesn't. Yes he does. No he doesn't... ;-)

Let me explain. In this piece, he uses the trite cant and cliches of postmodernism that grew (in large part) from Derrida's work. He may be doing this to appeal to a particular audience, namely postmodernists. At root deconstructionism is a method of analyzing and exploiting weakness in language, specifically written language. But the writer soon goes into the postmodernist ideaology which is ultimately at odds with deconstrutionism. Derrida as a man may have agreed with the things that the writer says, but his system, deconstrctionism, does not...

Examples:
1. idealogical statements like... "he [Derrida] developed a vision that is consistently ethical."
2. "Mr. Derrida does argue that transparent truth and absolute values elude our grasp. This does not mean, however, that we must forsake the cognitive categories and moral principles without which we cannot live: equality and justice, generosity and friendship." But the writer does not acknowledge that this is the conclusion of his system.
I could go on and on,.... But just read Alan Sokal's pieces on postmodernism and deconstrutionism and science:

"Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermenutics of Quantum Gravity"

"Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellctuals' Abuse of Science"

24

Larry spewed: "Funny, though, that when you ask the folks around here who recite these tired scripts what are the names of their preachers who hand them out, you are greeted with silence. This guy clearly is a low-roller if there ever was one. I have to say I haven't been keeping up with the Evangelist Hall of Fame. I clicked on this link because the guy wasn't white and he had an absurd hair-do. I'm still waiting for the Phil Johnson baseball card."

Larry,

Just so you know, we already expect you to make at least one snide comment and one personal attack. So, next time you post if you just want to get straight to the point that'd be great. Unless that is your point, then just know that we'll assume that's what you'd post if you did post and you can save yourself some time by NOT posting.

Just a suggestion.

Ed

25

mumon wrote: "Zacharias is the worst kind of fraud, someone who knowingly, it seems, lies about other religions, it seems. (One would conclude, after thoughtfully reading him, that he's either stupid or a liar, and I give him credit for his intelligence.)"

mumon,

That's a fairly serious claim. Can you be specific?

Ed

26

The question of who gets to speak to the "reality" or true nature of a position or religion is an interesting question. I wonder if mumon remembers that when he starts taking potshots at Christianity? It is good to remember Job's counselors at times like this and God's judgment on them for their presumption and error.

I have never been sure that "apologetics" was a valid pursuit in the first place. Paul avoided debating the Athenians about their beliefs, only using an obscure shrine to give himself a point of entry for evangelism, not apologetics, at least in my opinion. Remember, it was Paul who said rather pointedly "I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified." 1 Cor 2:2

27

William,

You bring up a good point--if I read your post correctly. As Greg Koukl pointed out on his show yesterday, there is more often than not a large disconnect between a religion's 'doctrine' and the practice of that religion within it's various denominations and by it's adherents. To say that Mr. Zacharias 'lied' about other religions, one must point out in which context he was referring to that religion. Granted, Zacharias should have pointed out in which context he was speaking of a particular religion--and perhaps he did as I have yet to see the specific examples of his alleged lies. But I'd be careful in calling someone a liar when discussing their experiences with certain religions. Expecially when discussing Eastern religions which tend to be less doctrinally dogmatic.

28

Forget the intellect and education. This guy has great hair. If I woke up tomorrow with a head of hair like that, my doubting days would be over. I'd quit teaching and start preaching.

29

Remember how great Gene Scott looked when he was younger? He had a great head of hair, those impeccable teeth with the mild underbite, the piercing eyes ...

That was about the time of the wonderful Herzog documentary about him ("Gods Angry Man"). Then he went into Phase II with the sunglasses, the cigar, and the double baseball caps. But still fascinating to listen to.

But he seems much more frail lately as he delivers sermons that remind me more and more of the sermon about "the therefore experience" which appears in Eroll Morris' excellent documentary, "Vernon, Florida."

Has anyone else here seen that film?

30

Mr Ed:

That's a fairly serious claim. Can you be specific?

Alan:

Yeah...being raised by a Hindu priest as a father...he must be totally clueless as to Eastern thought...*roll*

Of course living in India for 20 years also means he would not be exposed to eastern thought either...*roll*

Galloworth:

And casting aspersions on someone for being of eastern descent is so classy!

I happen to know quite a few educated Hindus, and they happen to recoil at the dishonesty of folks like Zacharias in presenting Hinduism.

It's downright racist to think that because the guy's of Indian descent, and claims (do we know for sure?) a priestly background (or is it just Brahmin?) that he's accurate.

You can read the Bhagavad Gita on line, I believe, and any number of Hindu texts.

You can read any number of Buddhist texts on line, and talk to Buddhists, and compare what they say to what Zacharias says.

I've already posted a link that shows how he misrepresents post-modernism.

Clearly the guy has an intellect, which leads me to conclude that therefore the guy is a liar and a phony.

And if he wasn't so "negative," no rejoinders would be needed.

TWJones:

There clearly have been abuses on the left and on the right on post-modernism and deconstruction. On the other hand, though both sides have found it very useful. Deconstruction is the tool of judicial activists on the right and the left.

I might add that marketers and product development people have found it to be a positive boon for themselves.

I would also add, that keeping a questioning mind is itself an ethical pursuit. Not engaging the world with a questioning mind- what we call mindfulness in Buddhism- leads to ignorance, hatred, and greed.

I think that's the core of why there's so much animus against folks like Derrida, frankly, despit e the fact that so many profit so handsomely from what he wrote.

Just not in hard sciences.

In engineering though...

31

mumon wrote: "There clearly have been abuses on the left and on the right... Deconstruction is the tool of judicial activists on the right and the left."

A couple of points, first, there are very, very few conservative "judical activists". Judical Activism (which leads to Oligarchy) is antithetical to the principle of -'government of, by, and for the people'- which is at the center of modern conservatism.

Second, 'Judicial Activists' use a postmodernist 'mind set' to justify ruling according to their personal inclinations. It is the same set of presuppositions and 'habit of mind' that passes for deconstructionism in many quarters. But strictly speaking, one could not come to a practical conclusion using it in its pure form taken to its logical end.

32

mumon wrote: "... they happen to recoil at the dishonesty of folks like Zacharias in presenting Hinduism..."

Could you give us a couple of specific examples where you think he provides a false representation of Hinduism? Generally, (at least when I was in high school), we learn of the Hindu belief of reincarnation and how it led to the famous Caste system that is still having terrible effects on the lower castes, although its supposed to be illegal.

33

At root deconstructionism is a method of analyzing and exploiting weakness in language, specifically written language.

I think you misunderestimate the role of the text in the deconstructionist pallete. The deconstructionist takes a particular attitude to the text; specifically, the reader takes a fundamentally ethical attitude to the text. Given the postmodern expansive reading of what a 'text' is, it shouldn't be hard to understand how the ethical relationship to the text translates, mutatis mutandis, to other ethical relationships.

Thanks for playing, though.

34

Second, 'Judicial Activists' use a postmodernist 'mind set' to justify ruling according to their personal inclinations.

You don't really know what you're saying at this point, I assume. Ok, good to know.

35

jpe,
I know that 'deconstructists' consider the 'text' to be -any form of representation, including thoughts, senses, and more. So, 'text' includes nearly everthing, and thus, means nearly nothing. That's why I said 'written language' as opposed to the deconstructionists' 'text'.

By 'postmodern mind set', I mean operating under a set of assumptions, for instance:
-that there is no objective truth,
-all meaning is relative,
-many common leftist political beliefs
-there is no objective meaning to written language, (and this one is key to the 'Judical Activists' as they use it to rationalize nearly any decision)
-etc, etc

36

it's such a pleasure to see you again ...

37

TWJones:

I, in particular, am not really qualified to speak on Hinduism, but my colleagues would say, among other things:

a) Hinduism is not dark and sad...

b) Hinduism allows for a wide variety of belief systems- including (don't ask me, like I said, this is outside my area of expertise) atheism.

c) evidently their versions of the principle of non-contradiction is not as Zacharaias describes it.

there are very, very few conservative "judical activists"...

Nope; depends solely on where you sit. From where I sit, there's a lot of dangerous ones- including ones on the court.

The most dangerous right wing judicial activists want to go back to the days of the 1890s and "yellow dog contracts." Sick stuff.

...use a postmodernist 'mind set' to justify ruling according to their personal inclination.

No, TW, not personal inclination- to privilege one aspect of the law over another. For example, does the right the people to be free from the establishment of religion- and to receive a jury trial- clash with the rights of a jurist to express his own religious beliefs?

When one side of this game loses, they always cry "judicial activism," without admitting how this actually works.

By 'postmodern mind set', I mean operating under a set of assumptions, ...

But this is not what post-modernists themselves say post-modernism is.

And that's why when I see what the post-modernists say, and I see the caricature (lie?) repeated by folks on the right about what post-modernists say, I have to assume that somebody's lying, because I can for myself see that post-modernists actually, really do say something entirely different than that which the post-modernists say.

TW, let me tell you right not: nobody logically claims "there is no objective truth." This is a straw-man invented by right-wing ideologues.

No Buddhist claims there is no objective truth in the sense that Zacharias would say it.

Zacharias, by the way, claimed to have spoken with Buddhists in writing "The Lotus and the Cross," but if he did, then he clearly intentionally misrepresented what Buddhists say about their own religion.

38

Zacharias is one of evangelicalism’s most popular and respected apologists.

mumon replies:

Not amongst non-Christians. Amongst non-Christians, he's widely known as a chrlatan.

That is supposed to be a valid criticism?

Please give me the names of some Christian apologists who are respected among non-Christians...

By your standards, I dare say, there are none.

39

Mumon,

Let us say that you cannot call somebody a liar when they describe a religion as evil, that is an opinion. A Christian would perceive that to be true, because you disagree does not make it a lie. Before you call somebody a liar, you should know what he or she are lying about instead of making accusations without providing proof. It is a cop out to say I cannot speak because I am not a Hindu but my Hindu friends say. If you were not acquainted enough with subject to begin with you should not make the accusation that is a lie, it makes you look like an imbecile.

40

Mumon,

evidently their versions of the principle of non-contradiction is not as Zacharaias describes it.

I wasn't aware that the law of non-contradiction came in different "versions." Are you saying that Zacharias misrepresents their adherence to that principle or are you saying that Hindu's have a different set of logical laws than the rest of us?

41

By 'postmodern mind set', I mean operating under a set of assumptions, for instance:

I understand what you're saying, but it just isn't a good (and certainly not a necessary) fit between pomo and 'legal activism' (whatever that is). Remember, Critical Legal Studies (the pomo wing of legal theory) didn't really come about until the mid-to-late 70s, by which point the Warren Court had already decided its big cases.

-that there is no objective truth

To the extent that 'legal activist' decisions deviate from the four corners of the text, they either come from an expanded sense of history/tradition or a sense of justice. Both purport to derive from something that has some form of objectivity.

-there is no objective meaning to written language, (and this one is key to the 'Judical Activists' as they use it to rationalize nearly any decision)

Well, 14th amendment jurisprudence, for example, makes use of a few cryptic sentences from the constitution, and the text just isn't clear. Much of this jurisprudence is just judicial doctrine, so it's pretty well-detached from the text already. Perhaps this jurisprudence is a mistake, but that's where you'd want to lodge your objection.

42

In other words, the pomo thing really doesn't do anything for the 'legal activist' argument. They're just independent of one another. I guess one could argue that all decisions that argue around the text are, in some essentialist sense, pomo, but arguing that Justice Marshall was a post-modernist won't be easy.

43

TW, let me tell you right not: nobody logically claims "there is no objective truth." This is a straw-man invented by right-wing ideologues.

It's not so out there. It's not some po-mos to argue, not that there isn't truth, but that truth itself is a construction. But, there's really nothing particularly revolutionary about that; it's just an extension of Kant. Apropos of that, it's not limited to post-modernism (if by that we mean something like Continental Philosophy and its offshoots); because Kant is the fount of modern philosophy, the theory that truth is a construction is everywhere in philosophy, and not just in po-mo.

To be contrarian, one could argue that there's probably more room in po-mo to account for objective truth than in other branches of philosophy, since much po-mo by its terms rejects totalizing or systematizing thought. It sees itself as a minor philosophy, concerned with specific areas, and accordingly it brackets larger questions about capital-T truth.

44

It's not some po-mos to argue, not that there isn't truth, but that truth itself is a construction.

I think that was supposed to be something like this:

Many pomos argue, not that there isn't truth, but that truth itself is a construction.

45

Jeff Blogworthy :

Good point- the whole endeavor is kind of shady...

Joe Carter:

Zacharias misrepresents their adherence to that principle.

46

jpe:

Of course, Marshall, Jay etc. weren't pomos, but in terms of choosing which parts of text to privilege/marginalize, functionally, I'd say they do similar if not identical things.

47

Mumon:

I'd argue that your reading of Marshall, and not Marshall's reading of the Constitution, is the post-modern moment. Marshall was deploying classic modernist instrumental reasoning, rather than utilizing post-modern theories of the text.

You're right to note that Marshall was reading the text in a way that privileges certain parts over others; but that's a descriptive theory (we all privilege certain parts of the text over others - that's just what reading is). By contrast, TWJones seemed to be referring to some normative theory of post-modernism, in which the reader first accepts post-modernism and then.....derives some normative jurisprudence from it somehow.

I'm not exactly sure what a normative post-modernism would look like, though. He clearly wants it to be semantic nihilism, but that move from descriptive to normative to nihilist post-modernism needs to be unpacked. The Critical Legal Studies movement is probably a good example of such a move, but it seems to me that one can counter that that was just a bad reading of post-modernism coupled, ex post facto, with a stupid jurisprudence (in fact, some post-modern legal theorists argue just that).

48

jpe wrote,
"Remember, Critical Legal Studies (the pomo wing of legal theory) didn't really come about until the mid-to-late 70s, by which point the Warren Court had already decided its big cases."

Good point, but, 'Legal Realism' was around from the '20's until the about the '60's in US legal education (approx.). As LR was losing ground in the '60's, CLS was in its infancy and beginning to grow. LR was dying because (among other reasons) they began to see the similarity between it and the European legal theories that had fallen prey to National Socialism and facism. Both LR and CLS, although having different theoretical underpinings, justify deciding social policy from the bench (Judical Activism -essentially usurping the power of Congress).

Justice Marshall, historically, most likely fits into the 'Legal Realism' area. The 14th Amenendment has become the single largest reference point of 'Judical Activism', but there are many bits that have been used. And, the list is still growing...

49

Good point about the convergence of LR and CLS; for all intents and purposes, they lend themselves to roughly the same normative jurisprudences. Unless you want to argue that LR is some species of post-modernism or a symptom of post-modernism (which you probably could), I think you proved my point: post-modernism isn't a necessary component of judicial activism, which has been around as long as judges have.

FWIW, you're dead-on about Marshall and LS.

50

Bah! That last sentence should end 'Marshall and LR.'

51

jpe wrote,
"The Critical Legal Studies movement ... was just a bad reading of post-modernism coupled, ex post facto, with a stupid jurisprudence..."

That seems like a sound assessment. Now how to get rid of the political and moral flotsam and jetsam floating in the wake of all this...

52

jpe wrote: "...Unless you want to argue that LR is ... a symptom of post-modernism ..."

This is at the root of the argument.

jpe wrote: "...post-modernism isn't a necessary component of judicial activism..."

Yes, sadly, they will probably find another rationale for activism once the current one has passed. But, there is just a slim, outside chance that when this rationale for Judical Activism passes that most decisions will be based on 'dispositive legal principles' derived through dispassionate legal analysis.

53

mumon,

Really, you have yet to give example of "lies" that Mr. Zacharias has told. You give anecdotal evidence of some of your friends who don't like him or think he lied. But if you want to come out in public and state that it seems this man is a liar, I would think you would have some specifics. Otherwise you may not want to be so harsh.

As has already been said, for a Christian to state that "Hinduism is dark and sad" is a matter of religious belief. It is not a lie to say such a thing because coming from the Christian, Jewish or Islamic perspecitve, for example, Hinduism may indeed appear dark and sad. In fact, I believe the Buddha himself would probably claim that Hinduism as largely practiced in his time was dark and sad.

Regarding the "law of non-contradiction", I've read just a few websites from Hindus about that subject and have found already differing views. It is quite likely, is it not, that your friend has one of those differing views?

I hate to be a stickler on this but calling someone a liar is, as I said, a serious claim.

54

Mr Ed:

...for a Christian to state that "Hinduism is dark and sad" is a matter of religious belief. It is not a lie to say such a thing because coming from the Christian, Jewish or Islamic perspecitve, for example, Hinduism may indeed appear dark and sad...

OK, so now we're not being objective in our evaluation of religions, but subjective?

Look, the right people to ask as far as the darkness and sadness of Hinduism are Hindus, not Christian apologists, who have a vested interest (i.e., the source of their income) from saying nasty things about other religions, and people are worse off for giving them credence.

Regarding the "law of non-contradiction", I've read just a few websites from Hindus about that subject and have found already differing views. It is quite likely, is it not, that your friend has one of those differing views?

I'm told there's a wide variety of viewpoints in Hinduism, so again, for Zacharaias, who seems to be an educated person, from pretending there's just his distortion, is certainly dishonest.

You can search for all kinds of reasons why he's bearing false witness against non-Christians, but that is what he is indeed doing.

55

mumon,

OK, so now we're not being objective in our evaluation of religions, but subjective?

No, of course not. But that doesn't mean that a person, even a teacher, can't have some opinions. And the above certainly is an opinion. I'd be surprised if it was presented as anything but an opinion.

I'm told there's a wide variety of viewpoints in Hinduism, so again, for Zacharaias, who seems to be an educated person, from pretending there's just his distortion, is certainly dishonest.

It would be, but again since you don't have any quotes we are just speculating on what he said and how he presented it.

You can search for all kinds of reasons why he's bearing false witness against non-Christians, but that is what he is indeed doing.

Again, I fail to see how you've come to this conclusion on anything but purely anecdotal evidence.

56

I wrote: "This is at the root of the argument."

CLS (not LR) is a symptom of po-mo. Oops!

57

Mr Ed:

As I've said, I'll rely on my Hindu colleagues more than Zacharias, especially since I've already seen the lies- there's no other way to put it- that he perpetrates about Buddhism.

I should add that "false witness" does not, strictly speaking, require intentionality to be false witness. Zacharias, as well other "ministries" have no doubt been contacted by non-Christians (I personally know that both Focus on the Family and Hank Hannegraff have been contacted for their false witness), and have an affirmative resonsiblity to be honestly represent other religious views. But they don't, and would suffer in the pocketbook if they did.

Want an example of what he does with Buddhists?

Here's one.

Now read this

Incidently I've had a similar incident myself. Guess what? Your ability to face death actually depends on how you train your mind. I have felt no inclination at all to invoke a Christian deity, despite my years of inculcation, education and belief as a Christian. Just as there are indeed atheists in foxholes, there are Buddhists who have equanimity in the face of death without invoking Jesus Christ.

Zacharias should know this; Zacharaias should present it as it is, but he doesn't.

He has the means to lie (most of his "flock" don't really study other belief systems for themseleves, and won't put forth "alternate" views or explanations), he has the motive to lie ($$$), and he certainly has the opportunity to lie.

You can't attribute all of this to innocence; as I've said, he has an affirmitive resonsiblity to actually find out the truth and report it (and if not, what kind of "apologist" is he, anyway?)

You have two choices: immoral or incompetent. But incompetency in someone in Zacharias position is a form of immorality in that you are letting off the hook for his responsiblity to be honest.

58

Mumon,
You seem to have a huge mistrust and maybe hatred of Ravi Z. and possibly Christians in general. I don't know what happened to cause this but I think it stands in the way of rationality. Ravi is sincere and trustworthy. Your links proved nothing.
Your arguement through this whole thread is both passionate and knowledgeble but weak in logic. I don't understand how you could think this of Ravi except through extreme bias. I'm sorry that some Christian or so-called Christian out there has hurt/betrayed you.
But I don't think Ravi is immoral.
Furthermore, if he says a certain religion is dark and sad, that is his perogative. He is a Christian Apologist. He defends the Christian faith. He is obviously biased in his beliefs. It is expected that he will preach the superiority of the Christian faith and the innefficiency of other faiths.
You say he misrepresents Hinduism by not teaching ALL its strains of belief. That is not a fair thing to demand. If someone is using Hinduism as a contrast, you can't expect him teach every single strain of Hinduism beliefs. Instead he gives a general summation of it's beliefs and his opinion. In general, I'm sure he represented Hinduism as he sees it.

I'm going to pray for you right now Mumon. I will pray that you have a great Christian friend come into your life and redeem your respect for Christians and then pray that God renews your heart and mind and gives you faith.

Lastly, after reading all your posts, I must say that I distrust your sincerity. I wonder if you are being arguementative simply to overwhelm any positive views of Ravi. I wonder if you are a pawn in the hand of Satan to do his will. You should ponder this too.

Respectfully yours,
Neil

59

jpe, thanks for the discussion. It made me think of things that I haven't thought about in years and differently than I have ever thought about them before (due to your perspective and questioning).

60

mumon,

As I've said, I'll rely on my Hindu colleagues more than Zacharias, especially since I've already seen the lies- there's no other way to put it- that he perpetrates about Buddhism.

Again I say, please show me an example. You haven't done this yet. The link you provided was an anecedote. Nothing in it perpetrated a lie about Buddhism in general or Buddhists specifically. It was only an anecdote from one man.

I should add that "false witness" does not, strictly speaking, require intentionality to be false witness. Zacharias, as well other "ministries" have no doubt been contacted by non-Christians (I personally know that both Focus on the Family and Hank Hannegraff have been contacted for their false witness), and have an affirmative resonsiblity to be honestly represent other religious views. But they don't, and would suffer in the pocketbook if they did.

Now I'm getting offended. You have yet to show any proof for your claim that Ravi Zacharias has lied and now you're claiming without proof that both Hank Hannegraff and FOF have lied as well. Please, I'm literally pleading with you at this point, mumon, show me where any of the above has beared false witness.

In the absence of proof I suggest that you cease with your accusations.

61

mumon >For example, does the right the people to be free from the establishment of religion

Actually according to the Bill of Rights what the people are free from is the federal government establishing a religion as an officially sanctioned body such the Anglican Church of England or the Swedish Luthern Church. That is significantly different than what you said.

The best interpretation of intent is always how those who formulated the statement interpret it themselves, about which we have volumes of materials that presume non of today's interpretations and go against almost every one of them.

Why have a mechanism for ammendment if you are going to allow judicial activism to just reinterpret the meaning out of context of the original intent? This is unethical and destroys the purpose and authority of the document being appealed to, turning it into silly putty.

There is an inherent ethical dishonesty in the modern judiciary, which often bows to expediency and social demand rather than legitimate process and coherency of form and structure and interpretation. It has become he who rules the bench rules the legal landscape because the bench has become fundamentally corrupted.

62

Mumon,

Thank you for stopping with your false accusations and adhering to the request made by Mr. Ed.

63

Does Ravi lie about other religions? Yes, I have to agree with mumon. He does. Well, either he intentionally lies or else he is too lazy to really try to understand them beyond suface appearances.

I don't know who Mumon is or what he believes, but as someone who is both a dedicated Christian and also someone who has actually studied islam, I know that Ravi has fibbed about this faith or else failed to learn more about it.

I am opposed in principle to islam and consider it the duty of all thinking Christians to roll back islam, but if we lie about it and create a paper tiger to knock around that muslims (or those of other faiths) don't even recognize as their faith, then our positive arguments for choosing Christ will be lost on deaf ears.

In that respect, I think someone who fudges the truth about other faiths to make them look worse than they are in order to make Christianity look better are doing our faith a great harm.