Ravi Zacharias Hid Hundreds of Pictures of Women, Abuse During Massages, and a Rape Allegation
By: News Reporting
I have known of Ravi Zacharias' ministry to the world since the early 90's. Perhaps some or many of you all have as well. First and sadly I did not know Mr. Zacharias had passed away. Lastly, I did not hear anything about these sexual scandals involving him and his enterprises.
Personal note: Thank you to whosoever got my proper article image to post!
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
February 11, 2021 04:29 PM
A f our-month investigation found the late Ravi Zacharias leveraged his reputation as a world-famous Christian apologist to abuse massage therapists in the United States and abroad over more than a decade while the ministry led by his family members and loyal allies failed to hold him accountable.
He used his need for massage and frequent overseas travel to hide his abusive behavior, luring victims by building trust through spiritual conversations and offering funds straight from his ministry.
A 12-page report released Thursday by Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM) confirms abuse by Zacharias at day spas he owned in Atlanta and uncovers five additional victims in the US, as well as evidence of sexual abuse in Thailand, India, and Malaysia.
Even a limited review of Zacharias’s old devices revealed contacts for more than 200 massage therapists in the US and Asia and hundreds of images of young women, including some that showed the women naked. Zacharias solicited and received photos until a few months before his death in May 2020 at age 74.
Zacharias used tens of thousands of dollars of ministry funds dedicated to a “humanitarian effort” to pay four massage therapists, providing them housing, schooling, and monthly support for extended periods of time, according to investigators
He used his need for massage and frequent overseas travel to hide his abusive behavior, luring victims by building trust through spiritual conversations and offering funds straight from his ministry.
A 12-page report released Thursday by Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM) confirms abuse by Zacharias at day spas he owned in Atlanta and uncovers five additional victims in the US, as well as evidence of sexual abuse in Thailand, India, and Malaysia.
Even a limited review of Zacharias’s old devices revealed contacts for more than 200 massage therapists in the US and Asia and hundreds of images of young women, including some that showed the women naked. Zacharias solicited and received photos until a few months before his death in May 2020 at age 74.
Zacharias used tens of thousands of dollars of ministry funds dedicated to a “humanitarian effort” to pay four massage therapists, providing them housing, schooling, and monthly support for extended periods of time, according to investigators.
RZIM hired Miller & Martin after a September 2020 Christianity Today report on allegations of abuse by three women who worked at Zacharias’s spas. Initially, the ministry leadership stated it did not believe the women. Today that has changed.
“We believe not only the women who made their allegations public but also additional women who had not previously made public allegations against Ravi but whose identities and stories were uncovered during the investigation,” the statement said.
In a span of eight months, RZIM has gone from having to reimagine the work of its global ministry following the death of its renowned namesake to having to restructure entirely, as Christians inside and outside the organization lost trust in its longtime leader.
Multiple speakers and RZIM staff members left the ministry during the course of the investigation, concerned about top officials’ initial response to the allegations. RZIM’s Canadian branch suspended fundraising efforts and donation collection through April, while the UK-based Zacharias Trust is threatening to split if RZIM does not apologize to victims and institute major reforms. (Update: The day after the report was released the UK board voted unanimously to separate from RZIM and choose a new name.)
Even before the report’s release on Thursday evening, RZIM leadership had shifted to reduce the involvement of the Zacharias family. Margie Zacharias, Ravi’s widow, resigned from the board and the ministry in January, while her daughter Sarah Davis stepped down as board chair but remains CEO.
Staff members inside RZIM say the ministry— the largest apologetics organization in the world —plans to dramatically downsize to as few as 10 US apologists and a few international speakers, supported by a small staff.
(The article continues in greater detail at the seed itself.)
Tags
Who is online
100 visitors
I am shocked and saddened. I am sure not to be alone when the truth was discovered and now some two years later.
Seriously? This is sad, but old news. Most Christians knew about this as soon as he passed away. Super awesome of you to bring it up in here, though, where Christ's enemies can have some fun with it. Good for you.
Instead of being angry that such abuses are brought to light, maybe it would be better for Christ and the church if the culture that allowed such abuses were evaluated and changed, where need for change is found.
It almost sounds like you're saying God and/or his son need protection from the truth.
considering all the continuing religious scandals, just exactly who would that be at this point in time?
Gotta laugh. So Christ's enemies are the ones exposing the people that are using Christ as a way to abuse people...
hard to believe that a lot of thumpers are also devoted trump supporters, isn't it... /s
Your comment is just one more in a series of dismissals and condescensions you level against me when you bother to address me. This is 'old' news in the sense that Mr. Zacharias died in 2020 and I did not learn about it until 2022 (yesterday).
Did you write an article on this in 2020? I don't recall seeing it (I would have learned of the death had you done so.)
"Super awesome" indeed. There are no "Christ's enemies" that I need concern myself. Mr. Zacharias, of whom, one woman calls their relationship one of rape should have terminated his ministry responsibly,
When he realized he could not follow what he was directing, teaching, exhorting, inspiring, others to be/come.
What? Drakkonis, did you think I possibly am not aware of the biblical 'requirements' of a leader in the realm of faith?
Mr. Zacharias did this to himself, his ministry, and the church.
Therefore, you will not lecture me about another's shortcoming. I have my own shortcomings too. But, they do not compare with bringing down a world-class ministry "dramatically,"
I can not tell you how disappointed I am that Drakkonis, and I am mindful that I am speaking about him indirectly, but it seems appropriate for what I am about to say, took such an approach to trying to hide Mr. Zacharias' "shame" here.
We, people of faith, can not be about shouting Jesus "from the rooftops" and discreetly clamming up when one of the giants of faith bankrupts his or her testimony!
In the back of my mind, there is a 'reel' of Mocowgirl playing on a loop last night and today as she complains and delivers scathing reports on what ways a or several leading men of faith caused her harm in life. For the longest of time I could not really connect to Mocowgirl's "impact statement" but now I can see what disturbs her more clearer. Because Mr. Zacharias, is/was one of my heroes in the faith community.
Now it turns out Ravi Zacharias was a hypocrite in his personal, private life. I do have to wonder without the caliber of Ravi Zacharias International Ministry would I have heard of him at all?
That said, this is an example of why believers should not build their faith around any single man or woman or groupings.
I respect what Ravi Zacharias shared with the body of faith. In the end, turns out he had a sex 'addiction' of some sort.
And Sandy, God does not require any ministry to be built on a foundation of pretense or lies. Ravi Zacharias should have stepped down from leadership the moment this relationship outside of his marriage got beyond his ability to control it.
LOL! You and your "thumpers" - gotta chuckle at the mention of it this morning. A little levity to go along with a 'pound' of shock. The "thumpers" that support Trump are a particular class-White evangelicals and even narrower- evangelicals who hold to colonial values where they think of this country as belonging to one race or ethnic group as "superior" and all other citizens as "inferior."
These people caught up in church scandals. . . 'abuse survivors'. . . should they stay hidden out of sight and mind?
I am not angry that Ravi's sins were exposed. It had to be done, in spite of the pain and grief he caused to millions.
I'm saying nothing at all like that. In fact, that doesn't even make sense. God needing protection or thinking truth could be withheld from Him? No, my objection to CB's post is why would a real Christian bring Ravi up in this place full of God deniers and haters? What purpose does he have in dragging Christianity through the mud, again? Ravi's shame brought shame on the whole body of Christ. That's not the sort of thing a real Christian should want to talk about outside the body of believers, since the pain and grief of it all would not be appreciated by most in this place. So just what was CB's purpose in posting this? It sure wouldn't be to find a sympathetic ear, so it must have been to simply say, "Hey, look! Another 'Christian' exposed!"
Strawman. Try again.
Actually, it isn't a strawman at all, real victims that have suffered at the hands of Ravi and numerous other so-called Christian leaders and some of their followers deserve to be heard and all the evil brought to the light of day where they cannot hide like the scum that they are.
It seems that you'd rather have this horror hidden than expose it. We sure don't want to embarrass those sexual abusers/pedophiles. /s
“…why would a real Christian bring Ravi up in this place full of God deniers and haters?”
How could a ‘real Christian’ deny the truth? Name it, claim it, and hold those uncountable sinners accountable, especially if you are concerned about the ‘deniers and haters’.
This just isn't true.
The church is not alone in its abuse problem. Schools, daycare centers, sports teams, foster homes, and families, biological or otherwise, have all been settings for sexual abuse. It's painful and causes grief no matter where it happens, and the church is neither exempt from such grief nor subject to greater grief than other groups.
IOW, it's not as special as some would like to think it is.
The church would do well to examine whether its culture contributes to abuse or hiding abuse, and act to change that culture if it finds in the affirmative.. How is it similar to other groups where abuse is common? Maybe blind obedience, concentrating power in the hands of the few, and devaluing and dehumanizing a significant portion of the group's members is a bad thing, leading to abuse. Just a thought.
xtians haven't been able to clean their own house in 2000 years and they're going to save us? pffft
Learn what a strawman is before claiming it is not.
This question suggests that my original comment was about trying to keep the world from finding out about the Ravi's of the world.
The audience and the likely reaction are the subjects, not keeping it secret. Especially since it isn't a secret. My point was, why would a supposed Capitalist go to a room full of Communists to share someone's failure in Capitalism? So, yes, a strawman.
Where did I indicate that they would or should? If you read my original post? Have you read any of the subsequent posts?
Christ's enemies??
Am I Christ’s enemy?
God haters?? I can see God denier in the sense that the Christian God clearly does not exist as defined by the Bible since the Bible defines the character as a contradiction. But in general, agnostic atheists do not deny god(s) in the abstract (that would be the domain of the gnostic atheist — an irrational position); rather, we simply are not convinced any god (including the Christian God) exists. That is not denial ... it is a lack of belief.
Woah there, exposing the failure of a Christian is an indictment for the whole of Christianity? Is it your position that Christianity is better served by sweeping the bad under the rug?
It might be an expression of disappointment that someone he thought was doing right by Christianity was engaged in serial hypocrisy. It might be to show that being a true Christian is a lot more than simply putting on a front and saying the right words.
Just my guess.
I'm well aware of what a strawman is and you would be guilty of using it.
So it is best to keep the sexual abuse/pedophilia among certain groups of Christians, do even realize what you're saying? It seems that by your words keep it secret we don't want outsiders to know about this. That is what most every Church or group that has this problem has been trying to do and you want it to continue.
Again your words. Just to clarify something for your bigoted viewpoint, I don't hate God it would seem that the person that needs some forgiveness is you, Drakkonis. Spewing that type of nonsense simply shows you for what you are, one that does not have the backbone to point out the horrific offenses done by the various churches and want to hide it among your fellow travelers.
Why can't you guys argue without creating strawmen in order to do it? Where did I say only the church has abuse problems?
As for whether the Church's grief is greater or not, how would you know? To you, church is just an organization, like Scouting. For us, it is existential. For us, it isn't just what the Ravi's of the church do to their victims, as horrible as that is all by itself, but what the Ravi's of the church do in God's name, under the cover of His name and to His name is as if you suddenly found out your father, whom you love, had been raping and murdering children most of his life. But wait! There's More! How many people that might have been saved turned away from Christ because of this? How many hearts hardened against Christ with eternal consequences? Because eternity is the perspective we look at this from.
So, yeah, in my opinion, the Christian's grief is greater concerning what Ravi did because the scope of what he did is much greater to us than what you assign to it. We are more horrified by what he did.
And this is why I object to CB posting this here if he's the Christian he claims to be. Few, if any, of you will understand what I am talking about above because it isn't the basis of your life. It isn't your very identity. So what good does CB think can come from posting this here? You know as well as I do that all he will accomplish is further proving in the minds of those here that Christianity is a crock. Does he think you're all going to just say, 'Don't worry, CB. Not all Christians are like that.'?
Many, if not most of us, agree.
Funny how people can have completely opposite views about a thing. In my mind, people dehumanize themselves. For instance, when someone born male deceives themselves into thinking they are female. To dehumanize, in our vocabulary, is to be something other than what God designed us to be. As I have repeatedly stated every chance I get, none of us are what God intended us to be. In all of history there's only been three true humans, and two of them fell. If you wish to think that calling this truth to people's attention is dehumanizing, I can't stop you.
Oh, not you, too!
his enemies are the f'n fringe evangelicals. if they can't thump on you, they dump on you...
Um, you said that, not me. That would be an example of a strawman.
Except I recall talking about this very thing two years ago when it first came out. It was pretty big news but nobody seemed to care.
Another example of a strawman.
While I do need forgiveness, it's not for anything I've said in here. I don't recall singling you out specifically as a God hater. Perhaps you imagine me saying those words with a sneer on my face or something. If so, let me correct you. Those words are theology, not emotion from my heart. There are those here who hate God, the One who describes Himself in the Bible. We've all seen posts where people say He's a monster. I'm stating a fact, not making an accusation.
As for God denier, I don't mean denying that He exists. Anyone who doesn't submit to God and obey Him is denying His right to be God of their life. That certainly describes most people here. That isn't an accusation, either. It's just pointing out the obvious.
Except that your whole response has been in reference to a strawman. I made no claim about keeping Ravi's sin a secret was to be desired. What I actually did was question someone who claims to be a Christian's purpose for providing meat to pirhana. Since Ravi's sin has not been a secret for two years now, what would be the point of me trying to cover it up?
Which I might feel bad about if your post related to what I was talking about. Since it doesn't...
I am responding to what you wrote. What position do you want to express? From your comments you have argued both sides of the sweeping under the rug notion.
if I remember right, I think he's required to be nice to you, until judgement day...
On this, why do you presume that non-Christians would categorically condemn all Christians because of the failure of one?
Many of us have family and friends who are Christian. Some of us are absolutely surrounded by same. Do you really think that the misdeeds of one person professing to be a Christian leader would cause someone like me to categorically attribute his failings to all my friends and family?
You said
Of course it is. Some of us have known victims of sexual abuse. And even for those who haven't, just a tiny bit of empathy would allow us to appreciate the pain and grief of anyone dealing with it.
The same way you claim to know that most here wouldn't appreciate the pain and grief of abuse committed by an organization to which we belonged.
The rest of your post is just special pleading.
The principal of my middle school molested several male students. At least 3 of them later committed suicide. And do you know what I'm willing to bet? I'm willing to bet there's a school secretary who beat herself up because how could she sit at her desk outside his door for years, and not know what was happening on the other side of that door? I bet there are some guidance counselors and teachers, who dedicated their lives to educating and nurturing children, who wonder why none of those boys ever came to them for help. Who interacted with that principal on a daily basis and never guessed what he was. Or maybe even are beating themselves up because they suspected, like we students did, but never said anything.
I'll bet his wife was especially torn up over it. How could the man she married, with whom she had a son, harm the sons of others? I imagine she had quite a few sleepless nights, wondering how she'd missed the signs, wondering if their son was one of his victims, afraid to know, but afraid not to know if he needed help and was too scared or embarrassed to ask.
Hey, but that school full of educators, that little family - they weren't churches, so they weren't hurting as badly as the church would, right?
Do you even realize how arrogant your words sound?
Christ preached humility. Your words are not Christ-like. They dismiss others' pain, and set your own above it. They claim nobility of purpose for you and the church, but deny it to others. They're full of self-pity and self-righteousness. Jesus hated self-righteousness.
I imagine that depends on one's experiences. Try being told that you were made to serve a man, that no matter how much more educated you were than the men present, that only they could teach, and not you, and that you have to submit to men because you brought sin into the world, and decide if you think you're seen as fully human. And that's mostly the New Testament stuff. The OT misogyny goes much deeper.
Nice transphobia in that comment, BTW. I see you have to make up your own definitions for words to justify it.
I am not, in any way, shape or form, talking about sweeping this under a rug. Especially when I spoke about it when all this came out two years ago.
What I am doing, factually, is pointing out that there is no good reason for someone who claims to be a Christian to bring this up in THIS environment. If CB is just now hearing about this and is shocked and saddened by what Ravi did, the logical place to go would be another Christian, who could understand his feelings in a manner non-believers cannot. Instead, as I said earlier, it's just meat for the Pirahna.
Once again, I'm talking about THIS PLACE. NEWSTALKERS. And I presume because of practically every interaction that's occurred on subjects like this one in here.
Nice.
I think we can all figure out the answer to TiG's question:
It's projection.
Then I will raise again my objection to your thinking this environment is going to categorically condemn Christianity merely because a Christian leader was a serial hypocrite. That is too cynical.
Every religion and non-religion has its flawed members (and leaders). I personally do not condemn Christianity itself because of individual failures. That makes no sense. If one is to criticize Christianity (or any other category) it should be on the attributes of Christianity itself and not based on the flaws of individuals.
Since I quoted your exact words hard to call it a strawman. But when one cannot defend his comments try the squirrel defense.
It's probably best that you stay contained in your world of willful ignorance.
No, what would you call them? Volunteer something constructive to a much needed discussion.
It does not bother me what Ravi Zacharias did to himself. Why does it vex you? Did the exposure of Ravi's shortcoming affect/damage your faith? The discovery saddens me, because I happen to have liked Mr. Zacharias' ministry (though sometime I wondered quietly to myself why he was so influential as I 'struggled' to connect to his teaching style/form) .
Your contempt towards a fellow believer is worn on your sleeve! I'm okay with that-I guess. I have no choice but to be okay.
For the record: There are other fallen leaders (men) taken from this 'flyer' that I opened Monday 8/22 to learn of Mr. Zacharias' death (in 2020) :
Drakkonis, as you can see and read from the listing there is going to be a public discussion and presentation - UPCOMING in September.
Go ahead, fire your 'blanks' of discontent and incredulity at me-"the messenger."
God does not need cover from his men of God who fall down, for God knows what Ravi was 'down with' because it was in Ravi's heart before he acted on it. Ravi should have stepped down-instead he continued to enjoy the 'trappings' of ministry and success well into his old age and death.
Moreover Drakk, you squander your time trying to 'convict' me of putting a man of faith to shame before the outside world. The Church has done way too much to convict itself (as the flyer and upcoming event points out and) will make more explicit and public.
Yes, you quoted me. We agree on that. It's what you twisted it into that is the strawman.
You turned what I said about most of you not understanding what Ravi did from our perspective to it being a desire to cover up sexual abuse, which is a ridiculous claim, since the cat was out of the bag on this one two years ago. I even mentioned it a time or two when it was just breaking news. None of you seemed to care about it, though. I guess you guys didn't really understand what a huge influence this guy was in Christian circles at the time. Pretty sure I've made it known in the past that people who do things like this in the church should be held accountable for their crimes as well so the suggestion that this is what I meant is just lame.
Kavika, I am reading and researching the "American" Indian experience with the Church institution. It is not good.
Indeed, the Catholic Church and its Doctrine of Discovery, White Europeans in the Americas with their doctrine of 'manifest destiny,' insistence on Indians becoming "White" through assimilation, and Indian forced relocation to and on reservations in order to take advantage of your peoples' falling numbers due to disease (from White immigrants) and tribal internecine wars, shows me why some White conservatives do not want to be presented with their past history of destruction-because it haunts them!
Who in the world are you to question CB Christianity? You claim to be a Christian why should anyone believe you?
One assumption after another. Why is the logical place to go to another Christian?
So you are once again assuming that people commenting on the CB article are non-believers? Are you now the Great Karnac?
The condescending attitude you're displaying deserves an academy award.
Really? It doesn't bother you? How about this?
That should be enough right there but I already covered other reasons. Apparently you didn't read it. I'll post it again for your convenience.
That's why it 'vexes' me.
No.
I don't know anything about this group so why would I fire blankets at you, whatever that means? If this group isn't just a progressive wokism social justice Jesus kind of thing I'm totally on board with anything that can help churches avoid abuses.
Um, aside from the fact that Ravi has been put to shame two years ago, how are they going to make something public that is already public? And, are you saying the purpose of this conference is to out the church? I thought it was supposed to provide tools to churches that can help them avoid abuse? Who, in your mind, is the target audience? Believers or non-believers?
Because a real Christian can boldly talk about a great many things. My faith is not founded on covering the doings of hypocritical men and women! Me dragging their dirty laundry out into the street? Where did you first learn of these "celebrity" preachers, pastors, and leaders-in private? Nope- in public.
And let me stop you once again. You don't get to mislabel my Christianity with your self-righteous dictates as to who is an authentic Christian! Here's why. Riddle me this: With the millions under the sway of Ravi Zacharias—how real a Christian can Zacharias be to be sleeping with women around the world not his wife (who is in his home)?
You will fail miserably trying to put me down, but I forgive you for being careless.
Yet, you would choose Ravi Zacharias, an alleged rapist and Church leader; over any homosexual in a loving uni-relationship, eh? Why, is that? Ask yourself! See if you like your answer!
That would be the understatement of all time, CB. The Indian Boarding Schools era, the last of which was closed in the 1980s was run by various religious groups and the cultural destruction, and abuse both physical and sexual ran rampant in these so-called schools.
Oh, BTW in the land of religious freedom the Indian religions were outlawed and it wasn't until 1978 with the American Indian Freedom of Religion act did we enjoy freedom of religion.
Incidentally, who were these women (and young girls) not his wife, Ravi Zacharias was having intimacy? For how long was this going on? How young was Ravi Z., when he started fornicating and committing adultery?
Were these girls and women all 'saints of the most high God'? Or where they from 'the world'?
Drakkonis, continues to miss the point, by trying to focus on 'peripherals.'
There are a great number of men and women who would never accept the mantle of leadership, because they find some 'blemish' within themselves. Or, once they discover a blemish they resign. It is power-hungry men and women who stay 'put' in corruption until they are found out and pushed out of leadership and maybe its community. Power-hungry.
I will answer that! Because as I have been speaking out for several years now: Hypocrites who put their hands to the plow to do what they tell others not to do with their plows are perpetrators.
And I find it offensive that you keep trying to put a spotlight on me, instead of the "perpetrator" in our midst.
It is how delusions of 'grandeur' get started in the first place. Forgetting truth and remembering error instead is just silly and wrong.
Sorry, didn't see this. To answer, have you been born again? Is your identity in Christ? If not, then most likely you are. It's an either/or thing.
Emphatically. Great guess! I am shocked, shocked, as to why the other believer in this discussion couldn't figure that out for himself! Just saying.
I had no reason to doubt Mr. Zacharias' ministry or person until I read this accounting of his personal life. Indeed, he was a good man until I got this 'news' of his womanizing and worse his death at the same time.
Calling someone who doesn't believe in a religious figure an "enemy" to that figure is pretty damn close to religious bigotry.
Arvo CB ..it is the same every where "Christians" trampled the First Nations people...
The American/Canadian Indians, the Koori people here, the New Zealand Maoris, the South Americans, Africa...history repeated itself over and over again...
A trail of destruction felt right around the world, that sadly still echos to this day..
This is a perfect example of why I doubt your Christianity. I'm missing the point? You consider God's name peripheral?
Aside from the fact it doesn't matter at all whether these women were saints of the most high God or not, the rest of this is really what is peripheral. They are details. What Ravi did was monstrous because of who God is but you don't seem to get that. The most offended party in the whole thing is God and then Ravi's victims and then everyone who looked up to him. What Ravi did was monstrous precisely because it violates God's law and His intent and desire for what He created. God is central to everything.
Drakk, I am surprised that you wrote this. Is 'enemy' really the best word to use here? Do you consider 'I do not believe Christ is divine' to be the same as being an enemy of Christ? Can you not see how one can find the basic ideas of Christ's attributed 'teachings' to be good while not believing Christ is divine (or even existed as a single individual)?
whoop, there it is...
Some (many) Christians have been calling, and treating, anyone who doesn't believe in their particular version of Christianity "enemies" for more than 2,000 years.
The comment you responded to well-exemplifies that mindset. As the commentor stated, for them: "It's an either/or thing". Either accept their religion, or you're their enemy.
Christians have not been alone in this, of course, but throughout the history of Christianity the Christians have engaged in particularly egregious misconduct.
And then they play the victim...
Very true.
Well, if so, maybe you should take it up with God? I mean, it isn't as if that is simply my opinion. The only reason it's my position is that it was first His.
That's just one verse but, really, the entirety of the Bible is about the same thing. It's pretty hard not to notice if you've ever read it.
The seeded content is from a website based on a Christian worldview:
Our Guiding Values
Just saying for Drakk's sake.
There is a fine example of the danger in taking the words of ancient men to be the divine word of the grandest possible being.
The words of men claiming to speak for God.
Men who were religious bigots. Tribe over everything.
Bigotry is bigotry, regardless of its source.
Proof? Evidence? Otherwise, you're just stating your opinion.
So, your opinion is that God wrote the Bible with his own hands?
Either the guys writing it were bigots, then, or your god is a bigot. Which would you rather?
Not so fast. Your charge of bigotry must rely on some standard that is being violated. What is it and where does it come from? What gives it authority?
Again with the questioning of another members legitimacy to claim Christianity. I don't question if you are a Christian. I will continue to share my truth as I see it and you can question my sincerity or faith all you wish. It won't affect my faith 'walk' or journey. I am sure those you are name-calling "piranha" shouldn't care.
Bigotry has a definition, Drakk.
That's not how it works. The burden is on those claiming a book was written by a supernatural being and not men to provide evidence and proof. In the absence of such evidence and proof, logic and reason prevails over belief based merely on "faith".
My faith is not based on what Ravi Zacharias has done. Does it bother me that he did this while clutching his life-long ministry to his chest, his brand, his ministry being the largest in the apologetic world (and that is saying something when you think of the Norman Geisler' s in our religion).
God can manage the 'bad publicity.'
Here is what you are missing here. Turns out Mr. Zacharias, now deceased, had fashioned his life around fornication and/or adultery-your choice of term. The world knows about it as the world should since he is likely victimizing girls and women from outside the church/faith.
Get your 'propers' in order. This is not about me. Your "objection" is a red-herring. I can post whatever I wish as long as it is acceptable to the terms of service on NT. My Christian confession is not for you to question-another red-herring.
Back to the article:
Mr. Ravi Zacharias, owned massage parties in various places across nations, and frequented them, where it has been proven he, a high-ranking leader in the Christian apologetic ranking, who made a life telling people about the God of the Bible, had multiple sexual contacts and sexual expression.
Drakk, deal with this revelation, because for some of us it is news. I am sorry we missed it when you 'offered' it. But, here it is now and from your perspective: again.
Yes, it has a definition. While my beliefs are strong, they aren't unreasonable and I don't dislike others, therefore it doesn't meet the definition.
It is a red-herring. Even if Drakk is accidentally doing so. Drakk is asking you, me, us, to concern ourselves with the effect of Mr. Zacharias' actions on the body of believers and would be some day believers. At this point, the issue is what, when, why, how, where, of this faith leader who has been investigated for committing fornication, adultery, and an alleged rape of at least one woman.
Here is the 12 page report from the investigation:
To be clear, I enjoyed my time learning from Mr. Zacharias, but that does not mean he gets a pass for committing sex acts he would forbid others in his exegeses of biblical scripture.
Yes, actually, that is how it works. It applies to anyone making a truth claim, otherwise it's just rules for thee and not for me. The claim was made that the Bible is just the word of men claiming to speak for God, therefore they have the burden of proving their claim. You can't just selectively apply it.
The extraordinary claim that the Bible is the divine word of the grandest possible entity is what requires evidence. The default claim of any book is that it was authored by one or more human beings.
You have the burden of proof here, not Sandy.
Again: this is a red-herring comment. But let me respond ever so briefly.
How dare you suggest to others here what I should discuss with 'other' Christians. BTW, where are these 'other' Christians on NT that I should chat about this? Your being here comes as a complete shock to me (though you are welcome here). Your correspondence with me over this is the most 'action' I have had from you in all my time on NT and even now you try to take a 'superior' outlook over me.
You're being offensive: I am not Christian enough for you to accept it. And all the pagan-others are "piranha."
Mr. Ravi Zacharias is the 'hot topic' in this article. Time for you to focus on him (again if need be)!
Defend RZIM if you wish. I could say nice words about Mr. Zacharias' ministry in my life, but for one important aspect. Many times Dr. Zacharias' teachings were pretty "high-brow" but not in the style of a Norman Geisler or William Lane Craig or J. W. Warner, or Lee Strobel to name a few lecturers and writers.
The claim of truth is that the Bible is divine. By default it is just a book. It is the extraordinary claim that bears the burden.
If someone claimed that our reality is just an illusion designed to control us, that would be an extraordinary claim. The burden is on that claim. Holding that our reality is not an illusion, unless shown otherwise, is the default.
The proof lies in logic and reason. Only human beings can write books. Dogs cannot write books. Snakes cannot write books. Unicorns cannot write books.
Throughout human existence men have created religions and sometimes put their creations in written form. Some were not literate, their societies did not have written languages, and their religions were transmitted by oral traditions.
There is no proof that a supernatural being exists, much less ever wrote anything or inspired men to write anything. There is only the word of men.
Prove otherwise. I'm certain you cannot.
Says the guy who has called nonbelievers "enemies of Christ" and "pirahna".
One more take on this.
The claim is that the Bible is a collection of books and that human beings authored the books. This is obvious and you have in the past agreed that this is true.
Your claim goes beyond that and stipulates that the Christian God took action (oft-deemed: 'inspiration') to ensure that His word was revealed in the books.
There is no need to prove (or even offer further evidence) that the Bible was penned by men (as noted, you agree with this). There is, however, a burden of proof (evidence) on the ADDITIONAL claim that the Christian God exists and actively 'inspired' the authors of the Bible; that the hand of this god acted on what has resulted as the Bible.
Now, I can go further. I will make the claim that the Bible was NOT a result of actions by the Christian God (as defined by the Bible) to produce a perfect, divine Word.
That is a claim that bears the burden of proof. The proof is as follows:
⛬ The Bible has thus defined a god that is a logical contradiction. A god defined as a contradiction cannot exist. That which does not exist cannot act to "inspire". On top of that, if the Bible is simply wrong then the perfect God "inspired" His Word to be written imperfectly (wrong).
Note: the Bible could still be inspired by an inexplicable presence but that presence cannot be the Christian God as defined by the Bible and the Word cannot be held as perfect.
Your comment is irrelevant. Ravi Zacharias alone has caused the non-believer to blaspheme the name of God, when he acted on his activities. Furthermore, God is not depended on one man or a group of men to win souls. For in the economy of God, the 'program' of soul-saving can run indefinitely and for its own 'eternity' if God say 'be.'
Now let me ask you a question. You wrote this at
Who were you talking to? Was it on Newstalkers? What Christians were you hoping to discuss it with you on NT then?
And here's the clencher:
If you posted an article on this two years ago at Ravi Zacharias' death and exposure, how is it any different than me posting one about it now (re: the upcoming conference on 1.1.34)?
Your 'excitability' over my comment is irrelevant, unremarkable, and a red herring.
“…have you been born again?”
I figure once is enough as I was raised to respect others, to try not to judge, and to always be grateful. So if my salvation is predicated upon your faith’s rite of baptism, I’ll take faith in my karma over your dogma every time. And salvation is really just a dangled carrot when we should be living, giving, and caring in every precious moment we have.
Peace.
Your contempt for progressives participation in the life of this country and the church is duly noted and offensive. Whatever UNBELIEVABLE does in its session/s on the 'Fall From Grace' will be for public consumption-I am pretty sure the host won't have standing directives to screen the audience filtering for born-again Christian credentials!
Ravi Zacharias and the other to be discussed fallen leaders will be the topic; atheists and pagans won't be on the 'menu' this time!
The conservatives of the period considered Indians savages right along the lines of Africans of the period, and those conservatives were going to give Indians "Whiteness" on their terms and White evangelical were going to 'save' Indians with their (our) Jesus.
And that is the real issue: Today's conservatives pine away about the loss of their status (which really is not a loss at all), though what is really happening in the U.S. is a proper alignment of privileges, rights, and liberties. But the unspoken reality in our country is conservatives want to be in-charge of this country perpetually. And specifically, white male dominance control of this country forever. To today's conservatives, this country is the property of White male and their Christian following. Not all Christians, mind you-just those who worship after the manner of conservatives!
Enemy. This is a troubling aspect that I 'receive' from Drakkonis' spirit and its unsettling. I woke overnight with a start and realization that Drakk's sees this present world as a 'holy war or struggle' of some sort! Effectively, if he is not perceiving the landscape shift to preferential conservative theology of Jesus Christ-he reacts-in contempt of anybody who does not stay within conservative guidelines. That's disturbing. Why?
Because Jesus told us to love one another, even our enemies, or perceived enemies, as a means to keeping the peace between the believers and the 'world.'
Drakk, is an activist seeking souls for his conservative theological ideology.
Where I differ from the Drakk "approach" to religion is I allow people to come to religion on their own accord. Compelled by something internal to them. "A calling." As I did. I returned to my religious upbringing on my own (with the aid of God's Spirit). The door was 'ajar' and I entered in, sat down, and have remained 'seated' since.
I do not 'fret' who will bring God up or down, because truly God can not be lifted any higher (though magnified yes) and most definitely can not be lowered by something any of us causes through our collective or individual earthly failings.
There is a certain. . .beauty. . . and calmness in such a philosophy of just 'resting' in God, instead of laboring all one's life to change people not ready to give over to another's ideology. Why not wait. . . why not fix. . . repair those who are brokenness in the midst of the Church?!
The fact is the details do matter. God can not be brought down and honestly human lust is something God has dealt with since closing the Garden to humanity. God, as God, saw everything God wanted to know about Ravi Zacharias in real-time of the act/s. Same with any of us. Though, I would be hard-pressed to explain how such matters work in 'heavenly' practice.
What is news is the 12 page report detailing what, why, how, when, where, and how many for human consumption.
But you continue being insulting and see where it gets you in your kingdom 'walk.' I am secure in my faith. And apparently "Christianity Today" is secure in its interest to post the report for public consumption.
Incidentally, I have not completed its reading yet.
Ahem. Apparently it is more of a strict sect (conservative Christian) character trait then liberal Christian. I have been accused of being a liberal Christian by Drakk and to him that makes all the difference in the world. I didn't know this, but he made sure to let me "in" on it. From the conservative Christian point of view, unless you agree with their brand you can not be a Christian. And yet they are 'clear?' that they don't know if you can enter Heaven or not as a liberal.
That is inconsistent, but it is what religious conservatives share with the rest of us.
So who in this world are you expected to keep peace with as much as it lies within you, Drakk'? And what exactly do you consider Paul means when he says to do so?
Romans 12: 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.
I Corinthians 9
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
And don't forget Drakk' has a dislike for liberal Christians too!
I do not believe that Drakk would dislike a fellow Christian merely because of their liberal ideology.
Drakk, seems to me, has a very particular view of Christianity and what he believes God demands of human beings. It is fidelity to God's will that underpins the majority of Drakk's religious (and sometimes political) arguments.
IMO, of course, after years of debating Drakk.
Drakk', has been down on social justice, progressivism, and liberal Christians (which he labels as questionable Christianity). His "fidelity" is not to God, but the God of heterosexuality. That is, Drakk's God has a hatred for homosexual males and females, while apparently allowing for heterosexuals to lick, slurp, and bang their way through life with cultural acceptance, approval, or overlooking.
I think you will find that Drakk is a near perfect channel for his very specific interpretation of the Bible. I am not of the opinion that he uses the Bible to justify his views but rather that his views are determined by his interpretation of the Bible.
He can interpret anything he wants as long as he keeps a perspective that it should not condemn anyone else who is not of his fundamentalist Christian persuasion. Other than that, other protestants can interpret the Bible too. And then it goes a bit further. Some fundamentalists and other believers are ascetics and even prefer to flog themselves for sinning or thoughts of sinning.
There is a line in a Depeche Mode song ("Strange Love") that seems suitable here: "I give in to sin. . . because you have to make this life livable."
Now then I am not telling anybody to give in to sin, but I am in agreement with the lyric - "you have to make this life livable."
Consequently, people who do not know God as Lord, will do what makes life liveable. And in the same vein, people who do know God will find they are going to do what makes life "livable" -if they intent to remain on this plane of existence.
It is not enough to tell people simply live the book and do not question "how" and what form of living that entails. There are always practical considerations to be ironed out.
As for some heterosexual, or group of heterosexuals, or a patriarchal society telling homosexuals how to live "Straight or bust" that may work in the span of a few years, but what about living like someone else well into old age? It simply is impractical and without spiritual help 'from above' undo able.
I fully agree that, at least with most beliefs, one should not be condemned for their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Disagreement need not lead to condemning the person. Beliefs themselves (e.g. the belief that homosexuality is an affront to God) certainly can be harshly challenged and condemned.
As someone who is living a Christian experience, there are practical considerations and a requirement to be authentic and not a blatant fraud. God understands these 'matters' and concerns, while Christian ideologues can just speak words that they themselves have no power to obey or in the case of Mr. Zacharias fail without being open and honest about it.
Many of these spiritual leaders, married to the 'girl' or 'woman' of their dreams, are self-righteous to say to the homosexually-inclined: "Heal thyself!" "Now! Go make marriage a beautiful thing!" All the while, these spiritual leaders speak against same-sex marriages and legislate against such! Leaving homosexuals out of a stable marriage life, even as they scorn those men and women for fornicating outside of marriage!
What you're claiming is that only 'another Christian' can empathize with CB's feelings.
I can assure you that is a false posit.
One need not be Christian to empathize with someone else's disillusionment and/or disappointment.
I have no sense of why this. . . member. . . would think that I should seek him or any other Christian out when he has a proven record of questioning my Christian position and furthermore would only discuss matters of the faith behind 'closed doors' and private notes features. Moreover, it is not that I am confessing any sin/s or sinful nature but that of a Christian "celebrity" leader of the largest apologetics organization in the world!
What Mr. Zacharias has done will ripple through the stream of Christendom for several decades or more.
Drakk's 'discomfort' with me exposing in 2022 what he claims to have done in similar fashion in 2020 is hardly an excuse for his offensive attack on me-personally. In this one regard, Drakk's doing more of his 'dismissal' of my value as a believer. It's pathetic and sad as the article and the 12 page report.
May the force be with you and live long and prosper.
may the farce be with them...
Red Jacket Defends Native American Religion, 1805
by Red Jacket
The Senecas, members of the Iroquois Confederacy, fought on the side of the British in the American Revolution. Red Jacket, also known as Sagoyewatha, was a chief and orator born in eastern New York; he derived his English name from his habit of wearing many red coats provided to him by his British allies. After the hostilities, as the British ceded their territories to the Americans, the Senecas and many other Indian peoples faced enormous pressure on their homelands. Red Jacket was a critical mediator in relations between the new U.S. government and the Senecas; he led a delegation that met with George Washington in 1792, when he received a peace medal that appeared in subsequent portraits of the Indian leader. In 1805 a Boston missionary society requested Red Jacket’s permission to proselytize among the Iroquois settlements in northern New York State. Red Jacket’s forceful defense of native religion, below, caused the representative to refuse the Indian’s handshake and announce that no fellowship could exist between the religion of God and the works of the Devil.
Friend and brother; it was the will of the Great Spirit that we should meet together this day. He orders all things, and he has given us a fine day for our council. He has taken his garment from before the sun, and caused it to shine with brightness upon us; our eyes are opened, that we see clearly; our ears are unstopped, that we have been able to hear distinctly the words that you have spoken; for all these favors we thank the Great Spirit, and him only.
Brother, this council fire was kindled by you; it was at your request that we came together at this time; we have listened with attention to what you have said. You requested us to speak our minds freely; this gives us great joy, for we now consider that we stand upright before you, and can speak what we think; all have heard your voice, and all speak to you as one man; our minds are agreed.
Brother, you say you want an answer to your talk before you leave this place. It is right you should have one, as you are a great distance from home, and we do not wish to detain you; but we will first look back a little, and tell you what our fathers have told us, and what we have heard from the white people.
Brother, listen to what we say. There was a time when our forefathers owned this great island. Their seats extended from the rising to the setting sun. The Great Spirit had made it for the use of Indians. He had created the buffalo, the deer, and other animals for food. He made the bear and the beaver, and their skins served us for clothing. He had scattered them over the country, and taught us how to take them. He had caused the earth to produce corn for bread. All this he had done for his red children because he loved them. If we had any disputes about hunting grounds, they were generally settled without the shedding of much blood. But an evil day came upon us; your forefathers crossed the great waters, and landed on this island. Their numbers were small; they found friends, and not enemies; they told us they had fled from their own country for fear of wicked men, and come here to enjoy their religion. They asked for a small seat; we took pity on them, granted their request, and they sat down amongst us; we gave them corn and meat; they gave us poison in return. The white people had now found our country; tidings were carried back, and more came amongst us; yet we did not fear them, we took them to be friends; they called us brothers; we believed them, and gave them a larger seat. At length, their numbers had greatly increased; they wanted more land; they wanted our country. Our eyes were opened, and our minds became uneasy. Wars took place; Indians were hired to fight against Indians, and many of our people were destroyed. They also brought strong liquor among us; it was strong and powerful, and has slain thousands.
Brother, our seats were once large, and yours were very small; you have now become a great people, and we have scarcely a place left to spread our blankets; you have got our country, but are not satisfied; you want to force your religion upon us.
Brother, continue to listen. You say you are sent to instruct us how to worship the Great Spirit agreeably to his mind, and if we do not take hold of the religion which you white people teach, we shall be unhappy hereafter. You say that you are right, and we are lost; how do we know this to be true? We understand that your religion is written in a book; if it was intended for us as well as you, why has not the Great Spirit given it to us, and not only to us, but why did he not give to our forefathers the knowledge of that book, with the means of understanding it rightly? We only know what you tell us about it. How shall we know when to believe, being so often deceived by the white people?
Brother, you say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit; if there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agree, as you can all read the book?
Brother, we do not understand these things. We are told that your religion was given to your forefathers, and has been handed down from father to son. We also have a religion which was given to our forefathers, and has been handed down to us their children. We worship that way. It teacheth us to be thankful for all the favors we receive; to love each other, and to be united. We never quarrel about religion.
Brother, the Great Spirit has made us all; but he has made a great difference between his white and red children; he has given us a different complexion, and different customs; to you he has given the arts; to these he has not opened our eyes; we know these things to be true. Since he has made so great a difference between us in other things, why may we not conclude that he has given us a different religion according to our understanding. The Great Spirit does right; he knows what is best for his children; we are satisfied.
Brother, we do not wish to destroy your religion, or take it from you; we only want to enjoy our own.
Brother, you say you have not come to get our land or our money, but to enlighten our minds. I will now tell you that I have been at your meetings, and saw you collecting money from the meeting. I cannot tell what this money was intended for, but suppose it was for your minister; and if we should conform to your way of thinking, perhaps you may want some from us.
Brother, we are told that you have been preaching to the white people in this place. These people are our neighbors; we are acquainted with them; we will wait, a little while and see what effect your preaching has upon them. If we find it does them good, makes them honest and less disposed to cheat Indians, we will then consider again what you have said.
Brother, you have now heard our answer to your talk, and this is all we have to say at present. As we are going to part, we will come and take you by the hand, and hope the Great Spirit will protect you on your journey, and return you safe to your friends.
Source: Daniel Drake, Lives of Celebrated American Indians, Boston, Bradbury, Soden & Co. 1843), 283–87.
Emphasis.
Awesome, Kavika. Thank you so much for sharing this great speech by Red Jacket. While religious beliefs may vary somewhat among the many Tribes, Red Jackets' explanation speaks for most, if not all, of the different Tribes.
While the religious ceremonies, traditions and ways of worship may vary among different Tribes, even among the families, the most important thing regarding Native American religions is the belief in, and worship of, The Great Spirit.
Excellent speech Kavika. I think that says it all. Red Jacket was a very wise man. He explained so eloquently how exceptant our people are of different beliefs, and what they were not getting back in return.
From the Midewiwin (The Grand Medicine Society) of the Anishinaabe people. The actual interpretation of Gitch Manitou (Great Spirit) is the ''Great Mystery''. We assign no color or gender to it. We build no monuments, temples or churches. We have no paintings, statues, or photos of it. We have no set day or time to honor it, each Anishinaabe does it their own way and at whatever time they chose to or not.
The Anishinaabe term, Gakina Awiiya means ''we are all related'' to us this includes all living things, animals, fish, birds, plants, and trees for each has a soul and are an intricate part of the circle of life.
The Anishinaabe term, ''Waasa Inaabidaa" means ''we look in all directions''. Meaning that we engage the world as a whole, each and every part of it.
To become a ''mide'' of the Grand Medicine Society takes 20 years. They must understand all the cures/remedies that are in the plants and trees that surround us. In addition to the physical side they must also understand how to heal the soul of the people. They are also the keepers of the ''Sacred Scrolls of Anishinaabe''
Walking the Red Path in life is very important to us as a people.
We NEVER proselytize.
The Christians should have an understanding of the world as we do, then perhaps they would stop and better understand their place in the world, which is not trying to convert or force their religion on other.
From my perspective, I see value in proselytizing as a positive outflow for good—when good is being dispensed. But, Christian Nationalism, as it is, is not a good thing. This evangelical 'notion' that you can force people in a free society, with a plurality of religions, and social diversity to live in one mode of reality is sad, ridiculous, and misses the point of the aforementioned.
if there is an afterlife, I can only hope there's a separate one for fringe evangelicals. I can't imagine spending an eternity with such despicable bigoted scum, let alone one minute. I envy the NA's of our past history, solely for the fact that they were able to make some of that warped religious human refuse pass thru hell in the last minutes of their meaningless lives.
It is a bit morbid for Evangelical Christians to call themselves people of hope, faith, and charity while 'wedded' to a political party that cheers liars, name-callers, violators of the liberties of their fellow citizens, and all the while whining about losing freedoms they already possess in abundance (as they 'rob' their fellow of liberties, freedoms, and privileges).
This kind of. . . thing puts forth a big question for the adulterer who is primed (deceased 2020) and preparing to enter a heavenly realm. Now, the faithful have a real test for their understanding of what faith over works really means in practice!