Christian Philosopher Ravi Zacharias - Controversy

Commented on Answering the Biggest Objections to Christianity - Dr Ravi Zacharias Q&A
G-d is like the Swedish Chef of the Muppets. Don't ask me why He is the way He is. My understanding is that we don't get to judge Gd. G-d Does as He Does, all I can try to serve Him and hope for Moshiach. Find what team you are on; team duck, team shrimp, team salad, or even team pork? I am on team human. I don't eat humans because I am on team humane. G-d is like the Swedish Chef of the Muppets.
What's for diner tonight?! It probably has to deal with what team you are on.

Commented on Answering the Biggest Objections to Christianity - Dr Ravi Zacharias Q&A
Heart/soul and are different than faith. Gd punishes those with faith. Gd loves soul.

Replied to a comment on Answering the Biggest Objections to Christianity - Dr Ravi Zacharias Q&A
Heil Odynn Sorry about trying to add some lighthearted humor. You said it yourself - see: "funny!" Please don't get bummed by it. Perhaps, the only way to beat Christian fundamentalism is to apply some humor to it. I know a pastor that does that. The Christian gods, such as the Trinity, need a good dose of ridicule. Judaism teaches humor, for instance the name of the patriarch Isaac also means, "Laughter." Fill the world with laughter. Too many people are angry at the local god mart.

Replied to a comment on Answering the Biggest Objections to Christianity - Dr Ravi Zacharias Q&A
re Ryan Fish: flesh = is essentially DNA

Replied to a comment on Answering the Biggest Objections to Christianity - Dr Ravi Zacharias Q&A
Re Dd s:  I want the human race to see Christianity as a faulted and broken religion/faith. There is hope, as religions come and go. The best answer I can give is that I believe in humanity can overcome Christianity though scrutiny, and that by doing so; humanity can improve.

Replied to a comment on Answering the Biggest Objections to Christianity - Dr Ravi Zacharias Q&A
Rosa: I  would not just relegate G-d to memory. G-d made himself known at Mt. Sinai to the Jews. What happened there is that the Jews became changed in a very special way. How do I know? The impression G-d left on the Jews has been indelible to their soul as a nation of G-d. It had to be G-d at Mt. Sinai because it could only be absurd if history could have happened some other way.

Replied to a comment on Answering the Biggest Objections to Christianity - Dr Ravi Zacharias Q&A
Peter: I don't believe this answers any of my questions? Please tell how these words relate to the subject.

Replied to a comment on Answering the Biggest Objections to Christianity - Dr Ravi Zacharias Q&A
In the "Trinity," which God does the thinking and can they disagree with each other? What is the purpose of having equal minds in the Trinity unless they can disagree with each other? What is the point of the equality of Gods' minds?

Replied to a comment on Answering the Biggest Objections to Christianity - Dr Ravi Zacharias Q&A
If Jesus was God in the flesh, a human, then he would have to have human DNA. There is no such thing as a human without DNA. But, where did his DNA come from? It must have came from his parents, through sexual reproduction because he wouldn't be human if he had no genetic parents.

Replied to a comment on Answering the Biggest Objections to Christianity - Dr Ravi Zacharias Q&A
How many penises did Gd have then?

Replied to a comment on Answering the Biggest Objections to Christianity - Dr Ravi Zacharias Q&A
" the family of God" What family of God, Zeus, Helena, Poseidon, etcetera?

Replied to a comment on Answering the Biggest Objections to Christianity - Dr Ravi Zacharias Q&A
If G-d is the Holy Spirit, a personage,  does that mean that the personage of the Holy Spirit used a His Penis of God in order to impregnate Mary?

Commented on Answering the Biggest Objections to Christianity - Dr Ravi Zacharias Q&A
Why isn't one all powerful Gd sufficient for Christians?

Replied to a comment on Answering the Biggest Objections to Christianity - Dr Ravi Zacharias Q&A
lol

Commented on Answering the Biggest Objections to Christianity - Dr Ravi Zacharias Q&A
I respect Ravi.

Commented on Answering the Biggest Objections to Christianity - Dr Ravi Zacharias Q&A
Which is more powerful, the Father, the Son, and/or the Holy Spirit? Aren't all of them all-powerful? What is the point of having 3 all-powerful Gods? ~ Why isn't one all powerful Gd sufficient for Christians?!!

The Quadrilemma: A Look at C.S. Lewis’ Trilemma

The explanation of Jesus was one or more of these things:

Loser - He did not accomplish what he wanted to do for lack of power.

Lord - He accomplished what he aimed to do, though I still can’t figure what that is.

Liar - He was wicked, and started an evil new religion that was only defeated recently with the acts of civil men and civil women.

 

Lunatic - He was mentally ill, and through no fault of his own he created a big mess.

Elie Wiesel: Unconditional Love for God and His Creation

It is in my faith that love for Hashem should be unconditional.  Therefore, I look up to Elie Wiesel; the man in the picture.  His love for Hashem was also unconditional. 

I am not a Jew (or a Christian), but I loved Hashem first (see * for explanation below), when I was at my worst, and in return He gave me a wonderful life beyond my wildest dreams as a child**. 

At my lowest, in college, I was an atheist addicted to the opiates gliadorphin and casomorphin.  I probably also had severe sleep apnea, because after college I was given a sleep study, and I slept for 45min having 54 apneas in that 45min.  Just imagine getting 1hr of sleep a day on opium for years on end.  I had also been hospitalized for psychosis, and treated with psychotropic drugs.  I worked at a golf course, where one of my fellows dictated, "Craig is the tiredest human being on earth."  While I was suffering greatly, the idea of G-d was maddening.  Then, Hashem spoke to me, an unlocatable voice out of creation that said, "I am punishing you."  I had faith, and boldly (I had nothing to lose that I know of.) retorted back to Hashem, "Why are you punishing me?"  Hashem responded, "I get everyone sooner or later. (Deuteronomy 31:20 chabad.org - ...Then, they will turn to other deities and serve them, provoking Me and violating My covenant.)" So I believed, not because I assumed or demanded He would shower me with gifts, yet I testify divine reward and punishment are real things.  As an atheist, I received divine punishment.  As a believer in Hashem, I was eventually rewarded.  

It is now absolutely a joy to be alive, and I trust that no matter what, I love Hashem in the way that I love my wife, Meghan, and I believe with trust comes blessing. However, with Hashem, like my pet turtle; I don’t love her because she is smart, or because she does anything. She is a turtle, a reptile, and would eat me alive without knowledge of doing right or wrong if I let her. I love G-d in the way that I love creation, big animals, small animals, plants and beyond. There is nothing about creation that I think is appropriate to hate or judge Hashem for.

The answer to problems is love, not love that says if I do this then Gd will give me such and such, but to accept all of His creation, and to observe His commandments, regardless, as Elie Wiesel put on tefillin, as did many others, during the Holocaust. I think sometimes Hashem tests us to see if we actually do love Him unconditionally with a love dependent on nothing.  That may be the reason behind the Holocaust, I don’t know, but I do know the answer is always to love Hashem with a love similar to the love of David and Jonathan, a love dependent on absolutely nothing at all.
Torah that comes to mind (from chabad.org):

***Ethics of the Fathers 5:16. Any love that is dependent on something--when the thing ceases, the love also ceases. But a love that is not dependent on anything never ceases. What is [an example of] a love that is dependent on something? The love of Amnon for Tamar. And one that is not dependent on anything? The love of David and Jonathan.

****Ethics of the Fathers 1:3. Antignos of Socho received the tradition from Shimon the Righteous. He would say: Do not be as slaves, who serve their master for the sake of reward. Rather, be as slaves who serve their master not for the sake of reward. And the fear of Heaven should be upon you.

This is different from Jesus teaching in his "Sermon on the Mount."  It is different because I believe one should seek Hashem first, not the kingdom, and expect nothing in return.

Matthew 6:33 in the Authorized King James Version of the Bible: "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."

* "Malachi 1:3 And I hated Esau, and I made his mountains desolate and his heritage into [a habitat for] the jackals of the desert. " - chabad.org

** Rambam - Edut - Chapter 13:2
Converts are not considered as relatives. Even two twin brothers who convert may testify on each others behalf. For a convert is considered as a newborn child.

***This is a comparison of my version of ideal love for Hashem.  It is the way David loved Jonathan, and also the way Elie Wiesel loved Hashem.

****This is another comparison of my ideal version of love for G-d.  Serve the L-rd demanding absolutely nothing in return in the way that a good employee shouldn't serve their boss/manager for the sake of rewards, such as money.

A Snippet of Torah Examined as a Science Book

Pondering Genesis ch. 1; density is the primary reason for the separation of matter. Dawkins suggested discarding Holy Books.
I don’t agree. Choose what helps, Torah and/or science. Torah suggests getting dirty as if there is no Gd to heal.

This is what I ponder; when the sun isn’t shining, naturally darkness falls. Likewise, darkness is radiated from our enclosed universe, except where light dispels.
When closing a box, the matter causes the inside to radiate darkness, in the same way darkness results when the sun passes from view. Hashem divides light and darkness, and the dense and the less dense. Matter usually darks, especially if energy does not make it such as a lightbulb; it radiates darkness when off. Outer-space is thus a place of balance between darking matter of the outer universe and lights like the sun. This balance makes it a place of less gravity; outer space is in between, at the primary area of mixing, and why satellites don’t fall back to earth.

Down With Religion and Science Fundamentalists!

I, as someone who believes in evolution, hope that scientists don't become evolution fundamentalists. By that I mean, as Dr. Bart D. Ehrmanputs it, "No fun, too much damn, and not enough mental," because we don't have a "Theory of Everything," which Albert Einstein and many other scientists have given their life to find. For instance, in science there is no known way to combine carbon and radioactive dating with the idea of oxidative corrosion, which is also a form of aging. However, the discipline of corrosion study is very inaccurate, and will probably always seem that way. It is not a reliable way of studying history, and I believe that if the truth is found, the earth won't be billions of years old, full of stories of epochs of history that are counted in millions of years. Truly, if that is true, I would accept it, but as someone who has taken an Ecology and Evolution Class, as well as a Comparative Chordate Anatomy class, worked in an electrochemistry lab, and read quite a bit of Richard Dawkins writing, I still believe we are probably overestimating the age of things in our world.

Also, I don't believe natural selection is the driving force of evolution. Rather, I believe it is fetish selection that results in the formation of new species. By that I mean natural selection selects for the fittest. However, most species are not the fittest, and they are more likely to become extinct, but nonetheless some species select for things that are queer or unusual in nature, and when reckoned with a mighty sex drive, that is a very powerful force for speciation (the creation of new species).

Part of the reason why I feel this way is from a Richard Dawkins book I read. The question was, "What would it take to disprove the theory of evolution?" The answer was finding something out of order in the fossil record. That has already happened and evolution's fundamentalists closed their eyes and hoped it would go away. The finding was a Coelacanth, a fish long thought extinct for millions of years was showing up in fishermen's catches. "Coelacanths were thought to have become extinct in the Late Cretaceous, around 66 million years ago, but were rediscovered in 1938 off the coast of South Africa.[6][7]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth

The same is true for biblical literalists that would bet their life that the creation week was literally created in 7 24hr days. They say evolution can't happen, but that is easily proved wrong when examining old world snakes, such as pythons. On the outside of a usual python there is not a hint that it has legs. Yet, if you dissect a python, you will find evidence of a pelvic girdle and limbs, suggesting at one point in history, the ancestors of snakes walked on 4 legs!

Logic and Faith Meet

In geometry, consider the size of a point.  Mystically, the size of a point can’t be determined.  Tell me how big a point is, and I’ll reduce it by half.  Tell me again, and I will cut it in half again, and so on. Geometry does not tell us the size of a point, or even prove that a point exists.  Now consider two points, on the Cartesian plane, and draw a line between them.  Because you don’t know the exact size of the points, you can’t know the exact size of the connecting line, and so on. It can be said that it is important that the points are relatively the same size in order for calculations to become closer to an equality, but rarely are two points or two shapes, or even copies of points and shapes equal. The job of an engineer is to say, "Close enough." However, if one point is big, and one is small, in the real world, it can effect the size of a line.

Judaism has answers for this; the logistic size of points, and line on the Cartesian plane.  We assume a "yud" is a point. In the same way, we assume the existence of a point is possible , so too we are able to have faith in G-d without logistical proof.

This is a letter yud:

We just believe that a point can exist because of a mystical meaning of the Hebrew letter “yud.”  How big is a yud?  It is the size that it is.

Likewise, we can fill the Cartesian plane with lines and shapes because of the mystical meaning of the Hebrew letter “tes.” Tes is like a pregnant woman. In creation, tes was pregnant and gave birth to the universe, in the same way that a mother gives birth.

This is the letter tes:

Premarital Sex Equals Marriage

From a daily email called “Today’s Mitzvah” at chabad.org - "Mitzvah means, "good deed" - "When a man takes a wife and is intimate with her"—Deuteronomy 24:1

Below, please find “Kiddushin is accomplished through one of three methods - c) Through a man being intimate with her.”

Premarital sex is a lie.  If pop culture considered intimacy to result in a marital bond as it is understood in Torah, then the world would be a better place.  There would not be as many broken hearts, or unwanted pregnancies if we put an end to this lie.  Let’s get away from the “premarital” sex idea, and claim that there is no such thing as premarital sex.

The theoretical existence of premarital sex is a great lie propagated by media and corporations that use sex in advertisements in order to sell products.

I am not encouraging more sex among people that cannot afford marriages.  Teenage sex often results in unwanted pregnancies where there is not enough pressure for protective commitment.  Commitment of all of society is necessary to protect young ladies.  Yes, the pressure is to protect young ladies to a greater extent because young women have the most to lose from unwanted pregnancy!  This is something many young ladies fail to understand, probably a consequence of unrealistic idealism.

Part of the email itself:

Positive (Torah) Commandment 213
Marriage

"When a man takes a wife and is intimate with her"—Deuteronomy 24:1

It is a mitzvah for a man to marry a woman through kiddushin. Kiddushin is accomplished through one of three methods: a) The man giving the women an object of value [for the purpose of marriage]. b) The man giving the woman a marriage contract [a document upon which is written, "With this document I am marrying you"]. c) Through the man being intimate with the woman.