Ravi Zacharias Ques. on Jesus and Society

From Top 5 questions from the University of Iowa

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Jesuspublic

[tigerlilly66]

Ravi is very good and speaks well, but one has to really listen on purpose as he is complex in his answers. Someone looking for a simplistic defense of Christianity would be quickly put off by his speaking style.  Too bad that so many today have to be spoon-fed Dick & Jane type answers because they are so intellectually bereft.

[stanyonator]

Craig is an agnostic on the creationist front, but he also holds that you don't have to be a creationist to be a christian so in the end it doesn't really matter what point of view you take on this matter it doesn't effect your salvation :)

[knowwaie]

Needless to say, you're so mentally warped that you don't even realize that natural evolution also approved of all these things. So saying any of it is wrong saying grass grows wrong.

The most pathetic thing is how clueless you are about the whole subject. "Slavery" was voluntary in Israel. And foreign countries were selling their own people for a profit.

Loving your enemies doesn't mean we don't have to fight them. 'Throwing the first stone' only applied to Jesus.

Learn before confronting

[drfoxcourt]

@knowwaie "I assure you you're making a huge mistake and God does not at all approve of your reinterpretation."

How do you know of what God approves? If we are to take the Bible as the source, well God clearly approves of slavery, your personal poverty, you loving your enemies, and not casting 1st stones. Are you going to obey those tenets? Don't they strike you as horrible ideas?

For me, I refuse to live in the prison that Theists make for themselves.

[drfoxcourt]

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." -1st Amendment US Constitution

I take this to say that we should not take religious matters into account when making laws. Take away the Manger scene from public property, becasue otherwise government is supporting (establishing) a religion.

I am in favor of religious studies, but too often such courses are taught by men of particular faiths, rather than philosopher/historians.

[dinopad10]

@stevenweir76 "sophistry is a maze where fallacy can be found..." Yeah, that's called the definition of sophistry. In essence, you just said, "a fallacious argument is... Where fallacy can be found." duh. You're only trying to sound smart, quite unsuccessfully. Bad debater!! Bad!

[stevenweir76]

@tigerlilly66 - Only the religious equate ability to sell along with intelligence. Come one, come all, get your Jesus here!

Sophistry is a maze where a fallacy can always be found, and apologetics is sophistry.

[shieldsff]

@soccerguy - "Fuck! He's against gay marriage! I'll have to reconsider my vote in 2012."

Your statement is technically, but not quite accurate. This vid discussion was prior to his first election in 2008. He indicated since then that he was re-thinking his position and this has led to his support of gay marriage in various positions including refusal to support DOMA. He also led repeal of DADT in the military. I guess you can feel free now to support him 100% with no further criticism.

[Yaddrasile]

@tigerlilly66 Harsh but true. Ravi touched upon a nerve with this subject that corroborate with your statement. Simple, people need to learn how to think.

[knowwaie]

You have abandoned belief in God. Have you ever actually read the book? It says it is the word of God, and not only that but the 'word IS God'. When you say the word should be reinterpreted then you're also saying God should be reinterpreted. So we should reinterpret the words of God according to the theories of the world, which we're told in the book is the Devil's world...

I assure you you're making a huge mistake and God does not at all approve of your reinterpretation.

[stanyonator]

@knowwaie I will not say God is an allegory, and i do not think the Devil is allegory. I understand what is and is not a Christian and if i ever cross that boundary i will be sure to re-label myself, however i have no intention of abandoning my belief in God. I do not think that God should be reinterpreted, that is not what i am suggesting. I am suggesting the creation story should be reinterpreted. I don't think this is an aprropriate place to discuss creationism so im gonna leave it.