Ravi Zacharias - Arguments for God rejected

Ravi Zacharias - Arguments for God rejected (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> God

Message

WormHeart -> Ravi Zacharias - Arguments for God rejected (7/26/2008 7:03:11 AM)
Greetings all. This is supposed to be a tread for logical arguments for God. I know there is already such a tread, but I would like to start out with a rather harsh review of Ravi Zacharias' book "Jesus among other Gods". If anyone feel like jumping in and correcting me or suggest other arguments - feel free. On to the review... Ahem... Jesus among other Gods WormHeart takes a look. Well, Ravi begins his book by explaining what his purpose with the book is – to show that the claims of Jesus is unique and that the Bible can be trusted. Seems like an ambitious project, but let us read on and see where he takes us. In the very first chapter Ravi relates how he came to Christ. This is always a good starting point, but he will not use these in the rest of the book. I must say that fairly soon he begins to make some rather common fallacies. He states that the popular notion is that ALL religions are true and goes on to show how this is ridiculous. It IS ridiculous and of course it is a strawman argument. Since different religions have different claims, it is not possible for them all to be 100% correct and I have not heard of anyone claiming so. What a lot of people claim is that all religion have VALUE – that they have merit in their positive influence on their followers. He goes on to say that the proponents of “all is right” actually means “You must be open to everything I’m am open to and disagree with everything I disagree with”. This is obviously another strawman. He relates a lot about family life in India and how great expectations are wrecking havoc with a lot of young people’s lives. Then he tells of a turning point. He had heard a Christian preacher and was beginning to doubt Hinduism. At one time he passes a cremation and stops to ask the Hindu priest where this deceased person is now. The priest answers: “That is a question you will ask all of your life and you will never find a certain answer!” If even the priest didn’t have all the answer, what was he to do? He then tried suicide and became a Christian while in hospital. The first chapter is brought to a close with the story of Ravi moving abroad. I will read next chapter and post my thoughts here!

WormHeart -> RE: Ravi Zacharias - Arguments for God rejected (7/26/2008 7:04:14 AM)
Jesus among other gods Chapter 2 Hmm… Ravi is beginning his quest to show the claims of Christ are unique and how it relates to the other gods of the world. Unfortunately he is of to a shaky start. He right away assumes that the Bible is a faithful recount of who-said-what-when and seems to assume that the reader agrees. So when he delves into John the Baptists’ words of “This is the Lamb of God” and the dove descending, he shows how this ties into the OT. The very real objection of “Did this happen this way? Or at all?” have not been addressed so far. Maybe he will get back to it. At page 29 he then states: “Every other person who is at the heart of any religion has had his or her beginning either in fancy or fact. But nevertheless, there is a beginning. Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem was a moments preceded by eternity. His being neither originated in time nor came about by the will of humanity. The Author of time, who lived in the Eternal, was made incarnate in time that we might live with the eternal in view. In that sense, the message of Christ was not the introduction of a religion, but an introduction to truth about the reality as God alone knows it” Excuse me? I understand that this is what Christianity claims. This is merely an expression of the faith, not something that makes even a passing impression on non-Christians. This claims Jesus was God. Non-Christians believe that he was human, if he even existed. Sloppy apologetics! He then goes on to explain that the message of Jesus is clear among the “confusion of religions with no single message”. He makes some rather sweeping generalisations about the wickedness of the world and claims we cannot stand purity. That whenever we encounter something noble or good, we must try to destroy it! Wow – sad outlook on life. Moving on… he is about to argue the validity of Jesus’ claims. Ehhh... Ok... The first point of proof is the virgin birth. Basically his argument for Mary to be a virgin, is that it would be dangerous to make a claim if it wasn’t true. He states that the claim would be easily verified, but makes no mention of his intent. There is no place in the Bible, where anyone gives Mary a physical check-up before birth. To claim that it COULD have been verified is a shot in the dark. Then he takes a leap and asks how the antagonists cannot deny the divinity of Jesus since he fulfilled these hundreds of prophecies including the virgin birth! So his argument basically boils down to this: We should believe outlandish claims if those making them are putting themselves at risk in doing so. His final argument is that even Islam states Jesus was born of a virgin. The obvious fault in this reasoning hardly deserve any effort, since Islam is an offshoot of Christianity and revere Jesus as a prophet. His second proof is the sinless life of Jesus. Now, ignoring the fact that Ravi again just assumes that the Gospels tell the full, detailed account of the life of Jesus, he makes a gargantuan assumption on behalf of the reader. He assumes the reader shares Christianity’s concept of sin and the fallen nature of man. He states that Jesus was Spotless, that he never sinned at all. But he fails to see, that this is a circular argument. Jesus didn’t sin, because Jesus was God, so anything he did was righteous. I could think of the trashing of the merchants at the temple, where he lost his temper. And even assuming that He was free of every Christian sin – why should that impress non-Christians? So he never had sex, didn’t have a wife and ate according to Jewish customs? What’s wrong with sex and pork? Still, mr. Ravi never addresses the real issues – he just makes some passing jabs at strawmen. Reading on… Well, this second chapter didn’t really do anything. Ravi seems to be a nice person with a good intent, but he keeps walking around in circles in his own pre-conceived worldview. So far I haven’t been challenged, but I hope for the best and move on to chapter three! WormHeart

WormHeart -> RE: Ravi Zacharias - Arguments for God rejected (7/26/2008 7:05:30 AM)
Well… I’m way into chapter three now and my respect for mr. Ravi is diminishing. He attempts to show the rationality of believing in God by attacking a lot of other concepts and ways of thinking. He has not made a single argument yet for the existence of the Christian God, and I begin to doubt if he will make one. There’s some stuff about the Big Bang, the origins of life and such, but not with any credibility and not with anything that points to God. He merely states that belief in Christ is rational, compassionate and moral – he doesn’t state why! Moving on to the resurrection… He seems to state at the end of page 49, that the resurrection is a unique sign. He fails to notice that according to the Bible lots of people had risen from the dead just days before. later Eh… ok – this whole chapter is dedicated to the claim that our bodies a sacred and when Jesus claimed “They can tear down this temple and I will build it in three days” he was talking about his body, although the listeners didn’t understand. Again his preconceived worldview spills into his judgement of what is moral or unethical. Chapter four – Page 58 – Sigh. Miracles are believable because a single gulp of water contains 6 x 10(23) molecules? The sceptic will challenge the miracles, not realising that the water he drinks is a miracle in itself for containing such a number of molecules? Ok… I begin to doubt that Ravi has much grip on how to make an argument aimed at people who does not already agree with him.

WormHeart -> RE: Ravi Zacharias - Arguments for God rejected (7/26/2008 7:06:49 AM)
Chapter five – Is God the source of my suffering Well, we had to wait to chapter five for Ravi to really dig into the tasty bits. Chapter five deals with the problem of evil and how to respond. Ravi states that EVERY world-view have to deal with the problem of evil, whether it is the atheist argument that the presence of Evil disproves the existence of God, or the pantheists evil-is-not-really-evil or, as he states, evil is most coherently explained by Christianity. :-p The first part isn’t interesting, because he makes another strawman. He claims that atheists sees Evil as the proof of the non-existence of God and tries to turn this argument around. It’s not my argument, so it’s not interesting. Moving on. Ravi states that the problem of Evil is that we are part of the problem. Because we are fallen beings, Evil is within us and we must realise this before we can understand the nature of this state. He states that there are three sides to the problem of Evil. 1) What is the source of it 2) How do natural disasters etc fit in 3) How can it be justified. Now, without even reading further I suspect problems with the objectivity here. This was of dealing with Evil is a very Christian one – one that assumes that there IS such a thing as a “source of Evil” and that assumes that the world IS just. Reading on. He starts backwards with the justification of Evil. How can there be Evil, if there is a good God? Unfortunately he immediately attacks the concept of Evil-means-there-is-no-God. As he states: If evil exits one must assume good exists in order to know the difference. If good exits one must assume a moral law exists by which to measure good and evil. But if a moral law exists one must assume an ultimate source of moral to exist or at least an objective basis that are valid at all times. He then goes on to explain that evolution cannot be the source of our moral guide. He is skating thin ice, which the following (page 77) shows. “Objective moral values exists only if God exists. Is it all right then to mutilate babies for entertainment? Every reasonable person will say no. We know that objective moral values do exist. Therefore God must exist.” gnashes teeth That is so nice, cute, fluffy puppy word simplistic that it hurts my brain. He argues a universal, objective moral by picking an extreme example, and even then he has to guard himself by limiting the answers to ‘reasonable people’. So the UN-reasonable people are not part of this universal moral? He is using the concepts of good and evil as Good and Evil. As predefined, objective conditions that isn’t dependant on subjective interpretation. But this is the crux of the issue, damnit! And this argument can be turned around against him. If we had taken a poll during the settling of America about the value of a Native American life, the majority might not choose Ravis idea of the morally right. Ah, good – now he goes into the territory of the subjective evil. The universe ruled not by moral, but by chance. No Good, no Evil, just things happening randomly. He tries to show that this worldview is folly. That if DNA doesn’t care about Good or Evil, then WE couldn’t do it either. It seems he doesn’t quite understand how neutral nature can produce group-behaviour that resembles moral. And – then comes the emotional plea – try telling a raped woman that her attacker was merely acting according to nature. He goes on a rant about this, but it seems he fails to grasp how people (us) can choose to upheld a moral, even if it is not God-given. He seems under the impression that if God didn’t dictate right and wrong, then everything goes! I don’t get him here. Why such a limited outlook? He ends up concluding that one cannot explain evil by denying objective moral law. I’m at a total loss as to how he reaches this conclusion. The chapter goes on to show that God is not just good, but all good MUST stem from God, and that the script of life, and therefore morality, flows from the only source possible – God. He doesn’t really make any arguments, though, just states that this is the only way that makes sense. It is spiced with personal tales and examples, but it doesn’t really gets to grip with the main problems in his approach. That the world MUST be just, and Good MUST be an objective choice from a primal source. Having finished the chapter I seem to find myself still unsatisfied. His premises for this whole chapter has been that Evil is rampant in our society. That it is recognisable as a distinct trait, not a subjective description. It appears that this is aimed at people who share his basic views on the world, but that’s not really the right way to handle apologetics, IMHO. He seems to be missing his audience… Getting back to chapter six later! Now it’s time for a horror-movie, I think! :) WormHeart

WormHeart -> RE: Ravi Zacharias - Arguments for God rejected (7/26/2008 7:08:10 AM)
Jesus among other gods – Chapter six – When God was silent. Well, I won’t go into detail with this chapter. It deals with the silence of Christ when he was brought before Pilates and what we can learn from this. Not very essential reading and quite boring most of the time. One comment, though. Ravi keeps writing that Christ thought so-and-so while being silent and that his reasoning (page 96 if anyone is checking) for being silent was such-and-such. That is pretty bold. To claim knowledge of what went on in Jesus head at the time is more direct than anything I have read elsewhere. Moving on… Chapter seven – Is there a gardener? This is where the treads is supposed to come together in a defence of the claims of Christianity. It goes a lot of places. Unfortunately, he keeps taking the same approach he has throughout the book. He constructs a strawman and then destroys it. Going back to the Scopes trial in 1925 he suggest taking the questions aimed at the theist and asking the atheist the same. So the question: “Where did Cain get a wife?” could be phrased: “Where did the first Homo Sapiens get a mate?”. He just asks this question and assumes that it would defeat the atheist as well. Apparently he has little to no understanding of evolution theory or he would not make such ridiculous statements. He asks how sex and love and the whole range of emotions can stem from the Big Bang? He even goes further to quote a paper that suggests that sex arose as a mean to combat parasites by mixing and strengthening genes. He goes on to ridicule this notion, without pointing out what the ridiculous parts are? He just makes some jokes about prescription sex to battle infections… 8-/ To his credit he does write a lot about Genesis and how it has been misrepresented by literalists and atheists alike. According to Ravi it was never meant as a step-by-step guide to the creation, but merely to illustrate the human-God relationship. His main objection toward the Big Bang is “How can nothing produce something?” Again I suggest he tries to understand the theories before giving critique. Besides, every argument against the universe being contained in time as well as space, can be aimed at God as well. The first part of the arguments for God is an emotional plea. If there is no God – no voice from beyond, then we are hurtling through the darkness of this universe alone. If there is no absolute moral, then we can re-define relationships as we please and societies can take any direction they so desire. This is a weird argument in a book of apologetics!? If he aims this at atheists, they already believe this and finds comfort in it. If he aims it at non-Christians, then their religion will provide that which he claims is missing. Hmm… Some tidbits from the following parts – Page 117 – “Every major moral battle we fight is either because we deny the text or because we justify the contrary…” “Common sense tell us that we cannot live without a moral law. But how does one generate a moral law if God has not spoken?” Ah – this is more interesting… “This reason is in violation of both logic and theism. What begins with a subtle departure from the truth by the allurement of self-deification ultimately resuls in the deification of everyone and everything. Such a world would be destroyed by powers of conflict because every power would claim autonomy. That is why Hinduism’s epics are full of war and killing as an integral part of being gods and goddesses. And into the mix of polytheism and pantheism, other divinities are added – rivers, wind and fire. The world of god-making had begun.” (WormHeart – This clash among powers could also explain the war-parts of the OT – just a thought) “The Christian Scriptures are dramatically different. When God sent the plagues upon Egypt in the Old Testament, they were designed to show that He alone was supreme over the objects that they had deified (rivers, planets, creatures, magic and so on) and there was no other like Him.” So that is an argument? The Christian scriptures tales of my-God-is-stronger-than-your-god is seen as evidence that there is only one God? That’s not even circular logic… that’s beyond! Besides – his jab at the wars among Hinduisms gods and goddesses are mirrored in his own scripture. God’s people went on warfare against people following other gods. Gods own turf was the centre of warfare among the angels and right now the world is supposedly in a state of spiritual warfare between the fallen angels and the powers of God. His arguments are thin, but at least he makes arguments… Third part start of promising.. “The third garden is the point on which I wish to truly focus because, by any standard of measurement, here the Christian faith offers an answer for which no other system even pretends to find a substitute.” Wow – looking forward to it! later And – disappointment… The main message: (page 119) “But here is the point. He did not die as a martyr for a cause, as others have done; nor was He just non-violent so that the enemy would surrender through public outcry, as still others have done. He did not even die because He was willing to pay the price that someone else would live. He came to lay down His life so that the very ones who killed Him, who represented all of us, could be forgiven because of the price that He paid in the hell of a world that does not recognize His voice.” Well… Yes… That is what the faith suggests. If people aren’t Christians, they probably don’t believe this. Just stating it again is not going to do the trick. Is this the “answer to which no other system even pretends to find a substitute?” That was rather disappointing. He doesn’t show why this would be necessary – nor why death of one should take the guilt of the many. No other system has a substitute? Of course not, since no other system have the problem! Christianity teaches that we are broken, fallen, sinful beings whose natural destination is Hell. If another worldview does not agree to this rather specific scenario, then obviously they will not produce a saviour! This prime argument fall flat on it backs in front of those he presumably is addressing! The final part explains the resurrection (again from the it’s-in-the-Bible stand) and points out that if only people would stop denying God and listen with an open heart, He will come looking. Final comments and evaluation of WormHeart Well, I really wanted to like this book. It is the first real book of apologetics I heave read, and I must admit I’m disappointed. Ravi appears to officially aim this at those outside the faith, but it seems to be really aimed at other Christians. As a non-Christian he did not give me anything to consider. Even worse he did not even try to explain his stance in a way that would make sense outside Christianity. His basic approach was to take an anti-Christian argument, build a strawman and then destroy this strawmen with ease. He spices this up with a lot of personal tales that does seem to play on the emotional strings a lot. Maybe I’m just a cynic. The way to do apologetics ought to be building a chain, link by link, that points toward the religion you are defending. The chain will not be stronger than the weakest link, but if you skip a link the chain won’t hold at all. I would expect it to look something like this: There is a spiritual world --> that world is governed by a single, all powerfull being --> that being is the Judeo-Christian God --> that God became human and died so we all could be saved Now THAT would be building an interesting case. I’m sorry, but mister Ravi doesn’t seem to DO apologetics. He seems to write for other Christians to agree with him. That is an honest living, of course, but apologetics it ain’t. Sorry for the harsh review, but I really wanted to enjoy this guy. He let me down! Besides apologetics is supposedly the defence of a religion – that should take a critical audience for granted! Mr. Ravi has been weighed, he has been measured and he is found wanting! -- It was an interesting exercise, so I think I will try to dig up more books to review. I will take a glance at the other Ravi book, but maybe I should go straight to the head honcho and take on C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. Coming soon to a tread near YOU! WormHeart

rlj -> RE: Ravi Zacharias - Arguments for God rejected (7/26/2008 8:31:26 AM)
quote: It was an interesting exercise, so I think I will try to dig up more books to review. I will take a glance at the other Ravi book, but maybe I should go straight to the head honcho and take on C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. I have never read Mere Christianity but I absolutely loved Screwtape Letters. Based on your review I would tend to agree that he is writing as much or more to those who agree with him already as he is to those who don't. If you haven't read it yet I would recomend Josh McDowell's "Evidence That Demands a Verdict". It is a book not without its criticisms but it is a very interesting read anyway. When he wrote that he was actually trying to disprove God and instead converted to Christianity. He has done a revision called "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" but I am not familiar with it. I wanted to touch on something though (and I'm speaking from a christian viewpoint and I understand we disagree on what sin is, maybe if it exists etc.): quote: He states that Jesus was Spotless, that he never sinned at all. But he fails to see, that this is a circular argument. Jesus didn’t sin, because Jesus was God, so anything he did was righteous. I could think of the trashing of the merchants at the temple, where he lost his temper. Jesus obeyed the Old Testament Law to the letter so he upheld the exact same level of Righteousness that was dictated by the Law. He also had a fleshly body exactly like you or I. He was human while He was here having putting aside His divinity for his purpose here. Without sin we (and all of creation) would live forever. It is sin that has come into the world and causes humans and all of creation to perish. Since Christ was sinless while He was here when they killed Him (or His body) sin had no power over Him so He rose from the dead. If Jesus had sinned there would be no Resurrection. If there was no Resurrection there is no Christianity. Mary had to be a virgin to fulfill the prophecies. Had she not been a virgin that would have made the prophecies wrong. quote: So he never had sex, didn’t have a wife and ate according to Jewish customs? What’s wrong with sex and pork? There is nothing wrong with having a wife and having sex (in that order with that person) and there is no longer nothing wrong with eating pork. The pork ban was lifted with the Resurrection and specifically when Peter received the vision on rooftop of the sheet with all of the unclean animals. If you have ever done or read of the Jewish laws and customs you would find that there were more laws concerning diet and what could or couldn't be eaten than anything else. Remember uncooked or undercooked pork might be the most dangerous meat there is.

WormHeart -> RE: Ravi Zacharias - Arguments for God rejected (8/1/2008 9:26:52 AM)
Hi RLJ. Sorry about the delay. My on-line time is limited at present. quote: ORIGINAL: rlj I have never read Mere Christianity but I absolutely loved Screwtape Letters. Based on your review I would tend to agree that he is writing as much or more to those who agree with him already as he is to those who don't. If you haven't read it yet I would recomend Josh McDowell's "Evidence That Demands a Verdict". It is a book not without its criticisms but it is a very interesting read anyway. When he wrote that he was actually trying to disprove God and instead converted to Christianity. He has done a revision called "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" but I am not familiar with it. I’ll try to get my hands on it. :) quote: ORIGINAL: rlj I wanted to touch on something though (and I'm speaking from a christian viewpoint and I understand we disagree on what sin is, maybe if it exists etc.): quote: He states that Jesus was Spotless, that he never sinned at all. But he fails to see, that this is a circular argument. Jesus didn’t sin, because Jesus was God, so anything he did was righteous. I could think of the trashing of the merchants at the temple, where he lost his temper. Jesus obeyed the Old Testament Law to the letter so he upheld the exact same level of Righteousness that was dictated by the Law. He also had a fleshly body exactly like you or I. He was human while He was here having putting aside His divinity for his purpose here. But my point was this – can you imagine a situation, where He would sin? If, for instance, someone offended Him, and Jesus would point a finger and say: “You are cursed”, and the man dropping dead in the streets. Would that be a sin? Of course not. Christ had the authority of God, hence he was free to do what He pleased. Or are you saying that Gods rules also goes for God? (Thou shall not kill etc.) quote: Without sin we (and all of creation) would live forever. It is sin that has come into the world and causes humans and all of creation to perish. Since Christ was sinless while He was here when they killed Him (or His body) sin had no power over Him so He rose from the dead. If Jesus had sinned there would be no Resurrection. Wait – this is a new one to me. Are you saying that if Christ had gone wrong, Death would have ruled Him, no matter if He was God Incarnate? Is this a common Christian belief? quote: If there was no Resurrection there is no Christianity. Mary had to be a virgin to fulfill the prophecies. Had she not been a virgin that would have made the prophecies wrong. Assuming of course that the virgin prophecy concerned Christ in the first place. I seem to recall it is placed smack in the middle of another (local) prophecy. WormHeart

Peter_Gunn -> RE: Ravi Zacharias - Arguments for God rejected (8/1/2008 9:58:47 AM)
Another excellent read (if you can handle it)...The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.

EStan -> RE: Ravi Zacharias - Arguments for God rejected (8/1/2008 10:19:12 AM)
Delving into a Christian apologetics book a priori as you have, Wormheart, I have to be honest - I wouldn't expect you to be all that open to (or impressed by) the content. I love reading Ravi Zacharias, and have this book, as well as a couple of others, but if I weren't a Christian, I probably wouldn't find his arguments compelling.

WormHeart -> RE: Ravi Zacharias - Arguments for God rejected (8/1/2008 11:05:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Peter_Gunn Another excellent read (if you can handle it)...The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. I have it! :) Now I just need to find the time to read it! WormHeart

WormHeart -> RE: Ravi Zacharias - Arguments for God rejected (8/1/2008 11:08:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EStan Delving into a Christian apologetics book a priori as you have, Wormheart, I have to be honest - I wouldn't expect you to be all that open to (or impressed by) the content. I love reading Ravi Zacharias, and have this book, as well as a couple of others, but if I weren't a Christian, I probably wouldn't find his arguments compelling. Well, I would expect an apologetist to build a case for Christianity outside those who are already Christian? Otherwise I fail to see the real point of the books. As a Christian you already agree with Ravi's worldview, so what do you gain from it? What I would expect from good apologetics is building an argument that leads to the Christian God. If one have to already accept the Bible as truth or God as the true God, then you are already there, no? WormHeart

EStan -> RE: Ravi Zacharias - Arguments for God rejected (8/1/2008 11:23:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WormHeart quote: ORIGINAL: EStan Delving into a Christian apologetics book a priori as you have, Wormheart, I have to be honest - I wouldn't expect you to be all that open to (or impressed by) the content. I love reading Ravi Zacharias, and have this book, as well as a couple of others, but if I weren't a Christian, I probably wouldn't find his arguments compelling. Well, I would expect an apologetist to build a case for Christianity outside those who are already Christian? Otherwise I fail to see the real point of the books. As a Christian you already agree with Ravi's worldview, so what do you gain from it? What I would expect from good apologetics is building an argument that leads to the Christian God. If one have to already accept the Bible as truth or God as the true God, then you are already there, no? WormHeart Those are absolutely fair questions, and yes, the whole point behind apologetics is to give an "answer" as to why Christ is who He says He is, and why faith in Him is the only way to everlasting life. Unfortunately, I believe apologetics in its current form faces many more obstacles than ever before, mainly because of the "anti-theist" movement (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens). I think few, if any, people today approach Christianity with a truly open mind, with a willingness to honestly consider the overwhelming evidence in support of it. But, of course, there are many, MANY great works of apologetics out there, and I'm truly grateful that you're willing to give some others a go! [:)]

earthless -> RE: Ravi Zacharias - Arguments for God rejected (8/1/2008 11:25:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WormHeart Well, I would expect an apologetist to build a case for Christianity outside those who are already Christian? Otherwise I fail to see the real point of the books. Again, if the book's audience is one thing, there is no need to write as it if were for another. This is done in all areas of publishing, not just Christian authored writings. quote: ORIGINAL: WormHeart As a Christian you already agree with Ravi's worldview, so what do you gain from it? This is akin to questioning an atheist for reading the latest writ from Dawkins. quote: ORIGINAL: WormHeart What I would expect from good apologetics is building an argument that leads to the Christian God. If one have to already accept the Bible as truth or God as the true God, then you are already there, no? WormHeart This is also a horrific argument. It's like faulting a chef for reading the latest from Anthony Bourdain because he already knows how to cook a basic meal. Please be made aware that there are apologetic writings for self-professing Christians. Not all apologetics is for those that are not believers. These last few points of yours takes me aback.. why? Because you have proven to me that you are not a 'dumb' individual, you know how to read and formulate very good thoughts. But these last few bits from you leave me scratching my head.

blue1914 -> RE: Ravi Zacharias - Arguments for God rejected (8/1/2008 12:59:24 PM)
Wormheart, I have not read all of your responses yet (just the first one) but I did want to ask-have you read (or heard about) the book "The Hero with 1000 faces" by Joseph Campbell? I have not read the whole thing yet, but the basic premise of the book is that it explains the commonality that tends to run through the notions of religion the world over. From an atheistic worldview, that tends to point to the probability that there "is no god", but if we look at it logically, doesn't is much more point to the fact that there must be SOMETHING and that something is worshiped the world over in many different forms. Don't get me wrong-I'm not implying that "all roads lead to God"-in fact, I am saying the exact opposite-there is one way to God and all other attempts are man's interpretation of that reality. I've got to run, but I will come back and expand on this a little.

rlj -> RE: Ravi Zacharias - Arguments for God rejected (8/1/2008 2:28:18 PM)
My schedule is crazy now as I pack up my computer today and have to wait 2 weeks to get my internet back after moving. :X A couple of things though: quote: Wait – this is a new one to me. Are you saying that if Christ had gone wrong, Death would have ruled Him, no matter if He was God Incarnate? Is this a common Christian belief? I can't do this proper justice because I don't have time to double check my scripture references. In Romans 5 Paul writes: 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned. So I believe that had Christ sinned when He was crucified He would not have been raised from the dead because His body would have perished under the power of sin. I don't believe that He would have perished forever but His mission would have been a failure. quote: Assuming of course that the virgin prophecy concerned Christ in the first place. I seem to recall it is placed smack in the middle of another (local) prophecy. The arrival of Jesus did occur after the occurences predicted in Isaiah 7 came to pass. quote: If, for instance, someone offended Him, and Jesus would point a finger and say: “You are cursed”, and the man dropping dead in the streets. Under the New Covenant that Christ brought in we are to forgive our enemies. I believe that in one instance one of the Apostles wanted to do exactly as you suggest but Christ told Him no. I did a brief search and can't find the scripture but i need to get moving. : / I hope that helped clarify some.

WormHeart -> RE: Ravi Zacharias - Arguments for God rejected (8/8/2008 2:00:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: earthless quote: ORIGINAL: WormHeart As a Christian you already agree with Ravi's worldview, so what do you gain from it? This is akin to questioning an atheist for reading the latest writ from Dawkins. Which I would also question. I don’t bother to read most pagan authors, because I already agree with their basic premises. I don’t find then entertaining nor challenging. quote: ORIGINAL: earthless quote: ORIGINAL: WormHeart What I would expect from good apologetics is building an argument that leads to the Christian God. If one have to already accept the Bible as truth or God as the true God, then you are already there, no? WormHeart quote: ORIGINAL: earthless This is also a horrific argument. It's like faulting a chef for reading the latest from Anthony Bourdain because he already knows how to cook a basic meal. Please be made aware that there are apologetic writings for self-professing Christians. Not all apologetics is for those that are not believers. These last few points of yours takes me aback.. why? Because you have proven to me that you are not a 'dumb' individual, you know how to read and formulate very good thoughts. But these last few bits from you leave me scratching my head. This might hinge on a misunderstanding on my part. I have often debated the logic of Christianity with people. As a religious man myself, I of course agree with a spiritual worldview, but I often hear the claim: “Christianity is the only faith that are grounded in logic.” When challenged and the debate runs out, I have often been recommended Ravi Zacharias as a Christian Apologetic that should challenge me. He didn’nt. If he is not really writing to me, but to Christians, then a lot of things make sense, and I have probably been poorly advised in choice of apologetics. I would say, however, that even if writing for a Christian audience, he should shape up his logic-skills. I mean – just stating that something is logical, without showing it, it sloppy no matter who you are addressing. Comparing a miracle to the number of atoms in a gulp of water is… well, I don’t know, but logical it isn’t. I have often heard the claim, than the resurrection is proven beyond what it would take in court. But people never deliver. I am curious, so I tend to seek out those arguments, but I am also smart, and a lot of them are bogus. Do you (Earthless) know an apologist you could recommend? WormHeart

WormHeart -> RE: Ravi Zacharias - Arguments for God rejected (8/8/2008 2:06:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blue1914 Wormheart, I have not read all of your responses yet (just the first one) but I did want to ask-have you read (or heard about) the book "The Hero with 1000 faces" by Joseph Campbell? I have not read the whole thing yet, but the basic premise of the book is that it explains the commonality that tends to run through the notions of religion the world over. From an atheistic worldview, that tends to point to the probability that there "is no god", but if we look at it logically, doesn't is much more point to the fact that there must be SOMETHING and that something is worshiped the world over in many different forms. Don't get me wrong-I'm not implying that "all roads lead to God"-in fact, I am saying the exact opposite-there is one way to God and all other attempts are man's interpretation of that reality. I've got to run, but I will come back and expand on this a little. Sounds interesting. Of course – showing that faith has common elements worldwide is bound to lead to different conclusions. I would understand the atheist position in the matter, although I obviously see it the other way around. Unfortunately it is not an argument for either side. Without a religious experience, atheists will always see it as an argument for their case. WormHeart

WormHeart -> RE: Ravi Zacharias - Arguments for God rejected (8/8/2008 2:16:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rlj My schedule is crazy now as I pack up my computer today and have to wait 2 weeks to get my internet back after moving. :X No sweat – I’ll be here when you return. quote: ORIGINAL: rlj A couple of things though: quote: Wait – this is a new one to me. Are you saying that if Christ had gone wrong, Death would have ruled Him, no matter if He was God Incarnate? Is this a common Christian belief? I can't do this proper justice because I don't have time to double check my scripture references. In Romans 5 Paul writes: 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned. So I believe that had Christ sinned when He was crucified He would not have been raised from the dead because His body would have perished under the power of sin. I don't believe that He would have perished forever but His mission would have been a failure. Interesting. So God could fail His mission? quote: ORIGINAL: rlj quote: Assuming of course that the virgin prophecy concerned Christ in the first place. I seem to recall it is placed smack in the middle of another (local) prophecy. The arrival of Jesus did occur after the occurences predicted in Isaiah 7 came to pass. I’ll tackle Isaiah next post. quote: ORIGINAL: rlj quote: If, for instance, someone offended Him, and Jesus would point a finger and say: “You are cursed”, and the man dropping dead in the streets. Under the New Covenant that Christ brought in we are to forgive our enemies. I believe that in one instance one of the Apostles wanted to do exactly as you suggest but Christ told Him no. I did a brief search and can't find the scripture but i need to get moving. : / I hope that helped clarify some. Yes, we are supposed to do that. But Christ had the authority of God. Are you suggesting Christ would have sinned, had he killed anyone? Looking forward to you return. :) WormHeart

WormHeart -> Isaiah 7+8 (8/8/2008 2:28:10 AM)
From Biblegateway quote: Isaiah 7 The Sign of Immanuel 1 When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it. 2 Now the house of David was told, "Aram has allied itself with [a] Ephraim"; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind. 3 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, "Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub, to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Washerman's Field. 4 Say to him, 'Be careful, keep calm and don't be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood—because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah. 5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah's son have plotted your ruin, saying, 6 "Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it." 7 Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says: " 'It will not take place, it will not happen, 8 for the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people. 9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah's son. If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.' " 10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 11 "Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights." 12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test." 13 Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you [c] a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and [d] will call him Immanuel. [e] 15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria." 18 In that day the LORD will whistle for flies from the distant streams of Egypt and for bees from the land of Assyria. 19 They will all come and settle in the steep ravines and in the crevices in the rocks, on all the thornbushes and at all the water holes. 20 In that day the Lord will use a razor hired from beyond the River [f] —the king of Assyria—to shave your head and the hair of your legs, and to take off your beards also. 21 In that day, a man will keep alive a young cow and two goats. 22 And because of the abundance of the milk they give, he will have curds to eat. All who remain in the land will eat curds and honey. 23 In that day, in every place where there were a thousand vines worth a thousand silver shekels, [g] there will be only briers and thorns. 24 Men will go there with bow and arrow, for the land will be covered with briers and thorns. 25 As for all the hills once cultivated by the hoe, you will no longer go there for fear of the briers and thorns; they will become places where cattle are turned loose and where sheep run. Sooo… A straight reading of this would suggest the following: The armies of Pekah and Rezin is approaching the land of Ahaz. Ahaz is worried so Isaiah brings him the message from God: “Within 65 years those people will cease to be.” As a sign that this will come to pass, a virgin (1) will give birth to a boy and will call him Immanuel. Before he grows up, the end of Pekah and Rezin will come to pass. 1 - translation? I often see the claim that virgin means young woman, not someone who has never had sex. Woah – Now comes Isaiah 8 quote: Isaiah 8 Assyria, the LORD's Instrument 1 The LORD said to me, "Take a large scroll and write on it with an ordinary pen: Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. [a] 2 And I will call in Uriah the priest and Zechariah son of Jeberekiah as reliable witnesses for me." 3 Then I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the LORD said to me, "Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. 4 Before the boy knows how to say 'My father' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria." So… Isaiah himself fathered the child and before the son could say “my father” or “my mother” the prophecy came to pass and the two armies was no more. I don’t see why this would be a prophecy of a coming Messiah? WormHeart

Anoc -> RE: Isaiah 7+8 (8/8/2008 7:01:07 AM)
quote: quote: I can't do this proper justice because I don't have time to double check my scripture references. In Romans 5 Paul writes: 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned. So I believe that had Christ sinned when He was crucified He would not have been raised from the dead because His body would have perished under the power of sin. I don't believe that He would have perished forever but His mission would have been a failure. Interesting. So God could fail His mission? Yes, that's correct. Forgive me for dipping into some mysterious waters of theology here, but the orthodox Christian teaching is that Christ had two natures, he was both God and man. It's an important point that while he was God incarnate, at the same time he was also as human as you or I, not simply a god in the disguise of a human body. The early theologians coined the phrase, "Only what has been accepted (= human nature) can be redeemed." A relevant Bible passage is Hebrews 2:14-18: "Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.... For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted." Also, before his crucifixion, Jesus was afraid and, I think, hoping he could pull out: "He withdrew about a stone's throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground." (Luke 22:41-44) Must go now but am happy to try to answer any questions you may have.

facedown -> RE: Isaiah 7+8 (8/15/2008 10:28:26 PM)
wormheart i've not read any of this guy's writings, or arguments, so i can't really say one thing or another about them. but, when i think of the things i look for in an author/scholar/theologin/etc - i'm thinking, looking for: a) an authentic understanding of the jewish folks - thier understandings, insights, mannerisms, culture, etc - in other words, when/if someone would have heard the words written - what would they have heard? what are the details highly glossed over? et cetera? b) along the same lines: especially relating to theological propositions c) what is the background for the text? in other words, i don't want to hear how certain words are just used in the bible - but how they were used at the time in the 'world'? for instance, if a greek used the word 'logos' - what, specifically, would have been intended? the bible, afterall, isn't a dictionary, or an index, etc d) is the author a scholar, or a popular/mainstream author? doesn't necessarily make a difference, but expectations change - i want references to source documents for the material - etc e) is what the author suggests easily understood after an understanding of what folks would have understood back in the day? there are very few publishd authors who kind of meet this "criteria" (if you will), of which nt wright is probably on (or near) the top of the list.

rlj -> RE: Isaiah 7+8 (8/18/2008 11:42:12 PM)
Got my internet back FINNALLY today but I've been on for a total of an hour and a half tops so far. : / I'll touch on this so I can go back through my post history tommorrow or the next day to respond more: quote: Yes, we are supposed to do that. But Christ had the authority of God. Are you suggesting Christ would have sinned, had he killed anyone? It depends on the circumstances. Had he been conscripted into the Roman army then no I don't see how it would have been sin had he killed anyone.

rlj -> RE: Isaiah 7+8 (8/19/2008 11:24:40 AM)
quote: Interesting. So God could fail His mission? This has me thinking pretty hard. No He couldn't have failed. The OT prophecies concerning Christ were that He would succeed. Had He failed this would have made those void. Isaiah 53 mentions that He had done nothing wrong yet would be bruised. Had Christ failed then too much of the OT would have failed and God would not have been God. Had He failed though there would be no Christianity.

wreid77 -> RE: Isaiah 7+8 (8/19/2008 3:59:03 PM)
The question of whether Jesus could have failed...there is one of the paradoxes of Christianity (the nature of the trinity is another) I don't pretend that I can firmly answer either, but that the council of Nicaea defined Jesus as consubstantial (being both fully divine and fully man) leaves us with problems with questions like this. I whole heartedly believe the nature of Jesus as both fully God and fully man...that said we are expected to distiguish the two natures while we are not able to separate one from the other. (PARADOX) By this view Jesus, son of man, could certainly have sinned or failed in his mission. Jesus, Son of God, most certainly was incapable of sin and incapable of failing to complete His role in the salvation of mankind. When He was crucified though, and the weight of the world's sin was placed on Him, God turned from Him. Because of His nature and His sinless life as a man, death had no claim to Him even with the sin debt of the world laid upon him. Faith demands that sometimes we believe what we do not understand or cannot explain. Though I am a logical thinker I accept this requirement and believe with absolute certainty that HE IS.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI