Atlanta Civic Center 2010 - The Mystery of Evil, the Sovereignty of Good

[Brucev7]

many deceived. 1 Joh 4:1 

[polopowers1]

Did Adam eat more good than evil? No, he ate equally both good and evil. Many believers act like Adam ate more good.Man is religious because of being good and evil.God is not moral equal to law in virtue.Morality is not the ideal hence, Christ who spoke of God superior to law and morals.God is perpetual Spirit Virtue superior to morals.All men are flesh and even if perfect their flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God.All flesh attempts some powerless form of morality Spirit virtue is better

[Lightmane321]

Why is youtube unable to list comments in the order that they are written, so that others can actually read the discussions/debates that people have on here?

[vicambulatorious]

Ravi is amazing. He gets the tough questions and answers them. He also has a knowledge of societies, history, sociology and logic/fallacy. God has helped this man as he goes to the very tough places to contend. God bless him and God bless you.

[axemurderah17]

RAVI NEEDS TO COME TO DALLAS!!

[lightbrownpoop]

Are new video clips of this conference going to be added to youtube?

[curiosityversusfaith]

God-given morals eventually are anthropomorph and are based on arbitrariness (irrationality) and rarely on reason, social consensus and empiric studies!

Arbitrary morals can not sustain a stable society as effectively as ethical standards that

- are based on social agreements that serve directly the needs of humans rather the needs of a non intelligible imaginary deity

- can be developed and adjusted to humans needs much quicker and efficiently than God-given (mostly out-dated) morals

[anewdayproductions]

@curiosityversusfaith how is arbitrariness avoided without an objective basis by which to define things? how do you distinguish between the needs of humans vs the desires of humans? after all, heroine addicts think they "need" heroine to sustain themselves, but in reality it is this felt "need" that is killing them. by what basis is a social agreement rightfully concluded when one of its participants does not agree? who prevails and why? please honestly answer these questions.

[curiosityversusfaith]

@anewdayproductions

'how is arbitrariness avoided...'

By consensus.

'how do you distinguish between the needs of humans vs the desires of humans...'

By reason, scientific studies, ...

'by what basis is a social agreement rightfully concluded...'

An agreement is not concluded it is agreed upon!

'who prevails and why?...'

Agreements do not last for ever - they change and develop!

[anewdayproductions]

@curiosityversusfaith 1. a consensus is made up of finite individuals who (in your apparent worldview) have no choice but to be arbitrary as there is no objective source or standard to draw from. in many countries in the middle east women are treated like second class citizens and virtually nothing more than property. that is the consensus in that culture. are you saying that is no better or worse than a culture that values human dignity and ontological equality?

[curiosityversusfaith]

@anewdayproductions

'are you saying that is no better or worse than a culture that values human dignity and ontological equality?...'

This is your straw man - show me where I said that.

[anewdayproductions]

@curiosityversusfaith 2. reason (the kind you are trying to invoke) implies realized objectivity and there must be a standard (or recognized rulebook) for that objectivity. otherwise it cannot exist. however, your version of "reason and scientific studies" is based on mere personal inference and by your own confession it cannot be defined in objective terms as there is no objective standard (in your worldview) by which to establish it.

[curiosityversusfaith]

@anewdayproductions

'there must be a standard (or recognized rulebook) for that objectivity...'

As long as this 'rulebook' is open for critique and democratic developments I am with you! I believe (in contrast to you) that objectivity can be established by humans, yet this objectivity is no absolute.

[anewdayproductions]

@curiosityversusfaith what you don't seem to understand is that without an objective point of reference this critique that you talk about is nothing more than arbitrariness and subjectivity. the definition that you are trying to assign to objectivity renders the concept of subjectivity completely meaningless and mere gibberish. people are undeniably finite therefore inescapably subjective.

so again, how is arbitrariness avoided without an objective basis by which to define things?

[curiosityversusfaith]

@anewdayproductions

'critique that you talk about is nothing more than arbitrariness and subjectivity..'

A consensus is not an arbitrary decision of a single individual (it takes at least two, in general in a democracy a political consensus is reached by a majority by peaceful means). In contrast, devine 'rules' are forced by a single individual upon all others. Since the Devine is a subject the rules are arbitrary and subjectiv. Besides there are thousands of Gods - no objectivity granted.

[anewdayproductions]

@curiosityversusfaith what makes you dismiss the fact that something is still not arbitrary if it is merely more than one person? is that your only criteria to define subjectivity? large groups of people can still be arbitrary. have you never heard of a mob rule? surely you have.

the significance that there are nominally "thousands of gods" is what exactly? what does this have to do with the real truth of who and how god is? as already discussed, belief does not definite reality.



[curiosityversusfaith]

@anewdayproductions

'..critique that you talk about is nothing more than arbitrariness and subjectivity..'

Since I am a subject my critique is subjectiv - so I agree with you in that.

On the other hand, since I have presented plausible arguments and explanations my critique is not arbitrary.

[anewdayproductions]

@curiosityversusfaith "since I have presented plausible arguments and explanations my critique is not arbitrary."

hardly. i'm still very much waiting for a remote semblance of plausibility in anything you have said. you've made a lot of assertions, but have backed none of them up against the points that i have made. i'm sorry, but ignoring them still doesn't make them go away.

[curiosityversusfaith]

@anewdayproductions

'backed none of them up against the points that i have made...'

No, you are wrong - read my comments, there are arguments and explanations within.

On the other hand, all you have done so far, is claiming that a social agreement by consensus is arbitrary and subjectiv. I haven't seen a single argument or explanation of yours why this would be so.

[anewdayproductions]

@curiosityversusfaith the conversation is over. i've got better things to do than talk to a flagrant liar.

[curiosityversusfaith]

@anewdayproductions

'the definition that you are trying to assign to objectivity renders the concept of subjectivity completely meaningless and mere gibberish...'

Individuals, societies, cultures, legals institutions do a good job to objectify one another! They all are much more real than any deity.

Also, in the past God-given rules and morals have not been a warrant against inhuman practices (look at the human sacrifices of the Aztecs, the inhuman morals and God's role model of the OT).

[anewdayproductions]

@curiosityversusfaith there's no way you could be this unaware of the meaning and usage of words like this. the objectification of someone or something in the sense that you are using it has absolutely nothing to do with what i said and you know it. that is a blatantly dishonest (and weak) attempt to retort a point where there clearly isn't anything to retort with......... it seems you are now resorting to mere assertions to save face. also, my unaddressed questions are beginning to add up.

[curiosityversusfaith]

@anewdayproductions

'objectification ... it has absolutely nothing to do with what i said ..'

So far you haven't said much about what you mean by objectification. So go ahead and define it! But don't forget to define the reference/scale for your objectification.

[curiosityversusfaith]

@anewdayproductions

'my unaddressed questions are beginning to add up....'

There is nothing to add up because you addressed only one question. And I have given you arguments and explanations.

[anewdayproductions]

@curiosityversusfaith "Also, in the past God-given rules and morals have not been a warrant against inhuman practices (look at the human sacrifices of the Aztecs, the inhuman morals and God's role model of the OT)."

so are you trying to make a point about something being objectively wrong? if so, your entire argument falls. if not, then what are you even talking about? truth is to each his own right? who are you to judge and why? etc....

[curiosityversusfaith]

@anewdayproductions

'so are you trying to make a point about something being objectively wrong?...'

You are beating a straw man - no good grain can be harvested from straw.

'who are you to judge and why?..'

Of course I do - humans are able to judge what is human and inhuman. I do not need an imaginary police officer to tell me that. I rather trust real existing intelligible authorities (traditions, social agreements, laws, scientific studies, personal experience, intuition, ...).

[anewdayproductions]

@curiosityversusfaith 3. i figured you would skirt this one. i will ask again; BY WHAT BASIS (or standard) is a social agreement RIGHTFULLY concluded? apparently you do not understand what conclude means; to finish.

4. what is the difference between a broken agreement and a changed or "developed" one?

please answer the questions that i actually ask. if you're not going to address what i truly ask and merely ascribe your own ideas to me then i'm no longer interested in this discussion.

[curiosityversusfaith]

@anewdayproductions

'please answer the questions that i actually ask...'

I do my best. On the other hand our 'discussion' has been a bit one-sided so far. So, what if you presented some of your 'objective' standards.

Now to the basis of agreements - just go to any democratic country and look how laws, treaties, rules, regulations, ... are made and how they work. The basis of these agreements are humans and their thoughts and actions.

[anewdayproductions]

@curiosityversusfaith my point exactly. look at certain countries who have employed certain distinct ideas derived directly from certain worldviews and you will see a direct correlation of problems inherent to that worldview. yes, sometimes and often there are other factors at work as well, but it does not negate the point i'm making. take the freedom of a country like the U.S. this could never exist under the subjective and arbitrary rule of islam. ideas have serious consequences.

[polopowers1]

God is not moral and that is why morality should not be assumed by Christians as the ideal.Morality cannot give freedom.The only liberty perfect is a new Nature given by Chrsit to live in the Spirit,the law is bondage.

[jkol323]

i was there... 2:00 is my dad

we r firm belivers, he was just making a point :)

[thataznpride101]

wish he came to Seattle, Washington!

[fingerfootmusic]

This is too cool!

[key2yeshua]

No, Ravi is coming to Tampa Bay, FL (positive affirmation :P JK)

[sonifrostie]

"You are Too smart to be a Christian"

My Jesus lives, and the proof is that we have intellectual Christians like Ravi Zacarias still living amongst us.

Glory to His name.

[davemakesawave]

Ravi is worth listening to, that's for sure.

[mattea19841984]

wow I wish he was coming where I live!

[HushAndLearn]

Awesome. I wish to see you one day in person. God bless you.

[MrFF39]

Come to Sydney - Please Ravi come to Sydney!!!

[owchywawa]

Is that Atlanta Georgia?

[rzimmedia]

Yes, it is in Atlanta, Georgia. The event is downtown at the Civic Center.

[LthrnZack]

Are you by chance stopping by Birmingham Alabama as well?

[LthrnZack]

Will ya'll be stoppin by Birmingham Alabama soon?

[iToyRobot]

cant wait to see a recording of this

[SycrosD4]

Man, I would LOVE to go to this. If only I had the money, time, and transportation.

[Brucev7]

@SycrosD4 I heard him speak once. He is a dynamic, anointed speaker.

[John6verse27]

That is why Ravi & Michael are called to do what they do. It is hard to deal with people who think they are too smart to believe in God, but yet, they are searching for answers & they are convinced God does not have the answers!

Ravi, thanks for being patient in your walk!

[diuryl]

wow!!