“I just adore this man.”
It’s not surprising that our views color our perceptions. Still, I was a bit taken aback when a recent commenter portrayed one of my favorite Christian apologists as being driven by fear and a need to satisfy his political appetite. Anything’s possible, but all the evidence I’ve seen and heard indicates this conclusion is false.
Is Christianity a vacuous faith for the gullible and simple-minded and its promoters driven by fear and hunger? This man and his colleagues provide another line of evidence that the barrier this presupposition creates can be easily demolished if one is simply willing to examine it.
My darling daughter found herself under attack for her belief in God and not knowing how to answer the objections raised by a very good but angry friend. The above quote was the complete text of an email response she sent me after viewing a video that I had suggested might help her, and her friend.
The man in question is a man with answers. Ravi Zacharias is an Indian-born 
Christian apologist who has spoken to government officials, military leaders, and university students all over the world, defending the Christian faith. He is a man of high intelligence, abiding faith, great humility, and genuine compassion for all people. He is also a communicator par excellence with a winsome style that is warm and approachable, and a crisp, definitive, British-Indian accent that just grabs your attention and holds it. The late Chuck Colson referred to him as “the great apologist of our time.” And I agree.
Ravi Zacharias was born into a nominal Christian household but did not believe in God. His hopeless worldview and mindset led him to attempt suicide as a teen, but he was unsuccessful. While in the hospital recovering from the effects of the poison he had taken, a Christian gave him a Bible and his mother read to him from the Gospel of John. Dr. Zacharias records that it was John 14:19 that drew him to commit his life to Jesus Christ. There he read,
Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live.
Since then he has given his life back to Christ, as in a very real way, Christ gave Ravi his life back to him. He travels most of the year speaking in sometimes hostile environments, answering tough questions in a gentle, thoughtful, respectful way. He has been invited to speak by and to leaders of many different countries and at leading universities in the US and UK and around the world. He is much sought after for his depth of knowledge and wisdom, unshakeable faith, and his pleasant but powerful manner of communicating truth.
I’m sure my daughter felt immediate affection for this man because he follows well the Apostle Paul’s example of “speaking the truth in love” found in Ephesians 4:15. My favorite quotation that I display on my sidebar is one that I keep as a reminder of this crucial distinction between an arrogant and unfruitful apologist, and one that God can use in turning hearts to him. I hurriedly wrote it down while listening to one of Dr. Zacharias’ recorded talks.
Conviction that is not undergirded by love makes the possessor of that conviction obnoxious, and the dogma possessed becomes repulsive.
If you’re not acquainted with this man who reminds me so much of Jesus (I have to really guard myself against idolizing him, he’s so wonderful), I recommend you take 9 ½ minutes to listen to him now.
Zacharias is no different from any Christian apologist – he is a presuppositionalist.
There is no verifiable evidence for a single foundational Christian claim.
LikeLike
Something else to consider perhaps.
He questions the Buddhist about leaving her kids etc and the tacit implication in his questioning is that she is wrong, or at least mistaken, thus adding some sort of credence to his religion.
Now, did not Jesus state that anyone who was to follow him must be prepared to give up family?
Wives, husbands children etc?
And of course if one chooses to ignore the salacious nature of certain accusations that Jesus was either married to or had an affair with Mary Magdalene or worse, a homosexual relationship with his favorite ”disciple” then we can take as a given he lived a celibate lifestyle. Totally un-Jewish, of course, but this lifestyle was also preferred by Paul if I am correct ( marriage was a poor second if celibacy could not be maintained) and several of the Church Fathers. Origen comes to mind.
Zacharias comes across as somewhat of the hypocrite I am sorry to say.
LikeLike
One more thing, Ark, about why I don’t even want to engage with you. I wasn’t sure yesterday what you were referring to with the above comment, but upon re-viewing the video I see more evidence that you are just looking for opportunities to put down theists like me. Any honest person seeking truth would recognize that what Dr. Zacharias was pointing out is the unlivability and incoherence of the Buddhist way and goal of ridding themselves of all desires. It was not in any way a criticism of the woman’s choice to live apart from her children.
LikeLike
Well if he is is criticizing the in-tenability of the Buddhist goal then he is tacitly criticizing its adherents for following their doctrine. As it said.
Much like your own religion in fact, and what Jesus expected of his followers, didn’t he?
I am not trying to ”put down theists” but encourage you to re-evaluate the dogma you subscribe to and hope that you will at least stop proselytizing.
LikeLike
Why should I stop trying to persuade others that what I believe is true?
LikeLike
Because you haven’t demonstrated that what you believe is true, for one thing. And while an adult such as myself is is quite capable of defending myself against apologetic arguments with genuine evidence a young child is not so adept.
This is why I invited you to discuss a more ”sciencey” type topic ( rather than a head-to-head religious one) such as the Human Genome Project, where there is clear evidence of the biblical fallacy and which has kicked the notion of Adam and Eve into touch for good.
And I am still open to this, if you are willing?
So, my question regarding proselytizing, is how can you, in all good conscience, teach this particular example as fact to children when it is simply fiction?
LikeLike
1. What makes you think I’m addressing young children?
2. Nevertheless, yes, I taught my children these truths about God because I have become convinced on the basis of the evidence that Christianity is true.
3. My blog is all about demonstrating that what I believe is true. Just because you are not convinced doesn’t mean my beliefs are “fiction.”
4. You present your views as truth and hope others will be persuaded. Are you not proselytizing?
5. I am not a scientist, so not qualified to discuss details related to scientific discoveries or theories. But I’m aware of enough of the science to be convinced that it supports rather than disproves theism.
6. Facts are objective but how one interprets them is not. I am not swayed by the fact that some scientists believe the science supports atheism. Plenty of others do not.
LikeLike
The Human Genome Project was originally headed by a Christian. You know this, Caroline, I am sure.
The irrefutable evidence from Human Genome Project does not support an innerantist view of the bible.
This is plain fact.
As this one scientific endeavor has shown that humans did not originate from a single individual human being how does knowing this fact sit with your current belief that Adam and Eve were actual historical people?
Do you still feel comfortable teaching a lie to children?
LikeLike
I am not arguing and have not argued biblical inerrancy. Nevertheless, I do believe in an actual, historical Adam and Eve. Contrary to what a lot of unbelievers think, correct, faithful interpretation of the book of Genesis does not require that we believe the universe was created in six literal 24-hour days, nor that we get our science from it. The Bible is not a textbook and was never meant to be.
LikeLike
My point is, now that you have been informed that the Human Genome Project proved that there could not possible have been a literal Adam and Eve, ( and I am sure you are savvy enough to check the evidence yourself) how can you continue to believe and teach a lie?
LikeLike
Not proven. See my point 6 above.
LikeLike
Yes, proven! Unless you are going to go all ”Ken Ham” and ask, ”Where you there?”
Even Collins acknowledges this as fact.
What scientific evidence could you possibly have that refutes it?
LikeLike
Again…point 6.
LikeLike
I don’t understand what you are saying?
Please explain
LikeLike