The late Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias (died 19 May 2020 (aged 74)), has been accused of sexual misconduct by several women including his groping them, masturbating in front of them, and propositioning them. Wikipedia quoting Christianity Today says of the apologist's alleged misconduct:
Zacharias masturbated in front of one of the women more than 50 times, according to her recollection. He told her he was burdened by the demands of the ministry, and he needed this "therapy." He also asked her to have sex with him twice, she said, and requested explicit photos of her...
"He would touch my leg, which was kind of by his hand, but then he would run his hand up to the middle of my thighs and then to the private area," one woman said. Another woman recalled Zacharias touching her lower back. It seemed friendly, almost comforting. Then he moved his hand down and inside of her pants. Several other times, he moved his hand up her side and touched her breast.
These allegations are especially revealing considering that Zacharias often blamed society's ills on unbelief.
How are other Christian apologists responding to these revelations? Frank Turek, who worked with Zacharias at times, admits that Zacharias is guilty of the allegations but that Christianity is not to blame.
Is it true that we cannot blame Christian faith for these sad events, or is Christian faith responsible in some ways?"
The Bible doesn't promote his sexual immoral behavior, actually quite the opposite. Sexual immorality is considered a sin and it is clear it is wrong.
And again, that appears to be the root of the problem. Ravi knew the Bible very, very well, so whatever he was reading in it had a very significant impact on his behavior. That much should be obvious.
So you are saying that his negative behaviour was not impacted by the bible? Your words imply that his behaviour would have been significantly improved had he been properly impacted by its contents.
Paul of Tarsus wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 9:03 pm
...Jesus very clearly label just looking at a woman to be adultery and encourage his followers to abstain from sex?
MATTHEW 5:27, 28
You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Jesus was a Jew who explicitly expressed his endorsement of the Mosaic law. In line with the law Jesus condemned lusting after another mans wife, he did not condemn having sex with ones own marriage partner. Jesus never made a blanket condemnation of sex or said it was sinful but spoke within the context of the LAW which condemned adultery and all forms of sexual immorality.
He did recommended celibacy for Christians but only for those ready to make such a sacrifice It was not a command.
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Mon Jun 28, 2021 4:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Paul of Tarsus wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 9:03 pm
If sex within marriage is God's gift ... then it's odd that Jesus preached that people not take "God's gift."
Where did Jesus tell married people to abstain from having sex with each other?
Paul of Tarsus wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 9:03 pmIt doesn't help anybody to be indoctrinated with the belief that a wrathful, all-seeing voyeur will punish them for being human having sex with a willing partner.
Correction, God will not punish for having sex with a willing spouse.
The Bible does endorse the dichotomy of souls lost and souls saved. Ravi made good use of this idea to frighten his victims into silence regarding his abuse.
We can misuse and abuse anything, does that mean we should get rid of it? Science can be be used for evil, should we get rid of science? Money can be used for evil, should we get rid of money? Politics can be used for evil, should we get rid of politics? Even sex can be used for evil, should we get rid of sex?
Sure, religion can also be used for evil, but that does not mean religion itself needs to be thrown away. If you can point to a particular religious tenet that espouses wrong behavior, then certainly that should be debated and addressed, but it doesn't mean all of Christianity should be discounted because there's the potential of abuse.
My point is that all of these harmless activities should be considered acceptable. I'd much rather have Ravi masturbate in front of a prostitute than in front of women who were not meant to be his sexual playthings. Prostitutes consent to such behavior, but the women he worked with never consented to it.
What went on in Zacharias' mind is mostly all conjecture on our part. But one thing for sure is we don't always act logically. Zacharias was one of the most intellectually gifted men, but obviously not all of his actions were logical.
As for prostitution, it's illegal in almost all of the US, including Georgia where he resides. So, visiting a prostitute, regardless what he choose to do in front of a prostitute, would get him into trouble.
If harmless activities are said to be wrong, then people may turn to doing those activities in hiding and harm innocent people in the process. That's what I see had happened with Ravi.
Even if prostitution was legal and Zacharias and the worker were consenting partners, realize he also has a wife, which highly doubtful she would've also consented.
Then why did Jesus very clearly label just looking at a woman to be adultery and encourage his followers to abstain from sex?
Adultery is only applicable outside of a marriage. Sex and desire is not prohibited within a marriage relationship.
Then should Elton John be put to death for his lying with another man as the Bible commands? He is married to another man.
Not only Elton John, but we all are worthy of death of our sins. None of us are perfect.
otseng wrote: ↑Sun Jun 27, 2021 10:48 am
...Even sex can be used for evil, should we get rid of sex?
Whoa now, let's not do something we might regret
Sure, religion can also be used for evil, but that does not mean religion itself needs to be thrown away. If you can point to a particular religious tenet that espouses wrong behavior, then certainly that should be debated and addressed, but it doesn't mean all of Christianity should be discounted because there's the potential of abuse.
...
Humans'll be humans. They'll justify their heinicity in all manner of ways, but that doesn't make a religious rationalization automatically evil (nor good). We must look to the act itself, outside of rationalization, and make our best decision about an act's morality.
To me, the stoning of homosexuals is a horrid, horrid notion. But I notice the vast majority of theists ain't running around throwing rocks at folks (though a few will harm em). They've found other theistic, or human, rationalizations to not do that. They've countered a 'biblical evil' with a real human, or even biblical 'good'.
So just picking on religion as a sole motivator doesn't cut it for me anymore. It's down to humans need to be responsible for their actions, regardless of the justifications for em.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
Paul of Tarsus wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 9:03 pmIt doesn't help anybody to be indoctrinated with the belief that a wrathful, all-seeing voyeur will punish them for being human having sex with a willing partner.
Correction, God will not punish for having sex with a willing spouse.
It looks like God is very busy punishing those millions of people who have extramarital sex many of whom happen to be Christians. I've often wondered why he cares if unmarried people have sex. Many people cannot marry including those slaves he had his people shackle. Maybe he doesn't want people to have sex at all and has created marriage as a sure way to put an end to all that.
We can misuse and abuse anything, does that mean we should get rid of it?
In some cases yes. If something proves to be more trouble than it's worth, then we'd be better off without it. Just ask John Lennon.
Science can be be used for evil, should we get rid of science? Money can be used for evil, should we get rid of money? Politics can be used for evil, should we get rid of politics? Even sex can be used for evil, should we get rid of sex?
No, no, if possible, and no.
What exactly is religion good for?
Sure, religion can also be used for evil, but that does not mean religion itself needs to be thrown away. If you can point to a particular religious tenet that espouses wrong behavior, then certainly that should be debated and addressed, but it doesn't mean all of Christianity should be discounted because there's the potential of abuse.
If a religious doctrine causes harm, then it should be discarded. It's that simple especially if people are being harmed.
As for prostitution, it's illegal in almost all of the US, including Georgia where he resides. So, visiting a prostitute, regardless what he choose to do in front of a prostitute, would get him into trouble.
Thanks to Christianity's negativity toward sex, prostitution is illegal.
If harmless activities are said to be wrong, then people may turn to doing those activities in hiding and harm innocent people in the process. That's what I see had happened with Ravi.
Even if prostitution was legal and Zacharias and the worker were consenting partners, realize he also has a wife, which highly doubtful she would've also consented.
If they had had an open marriage, then little if any harm would have been done if Ravi had sex with other women who consented. It sure would have beat his sexually harming women who never consented.
Then why did Jesus very clearly label just looking at a woman to be adultery and encourage his followers to abstain from sex?
Adultery is only applicable outside of a marriage. Sex and desire is not prohibited within a marriage relationship.
When did Jesus ever preach that even marital sex is acceptable? He said that if you look at a woman to lust for her, then to do so is adultery. He made no exceptions for men looking at their wives.
Then should Elton John be put to death for his lying with another man as the Bible commands? He is married to another man.
Not only Elton John, but we all are worthy of death of our sins. None of us are perfect.
Based on your Christian beliefs, you think we all should be put to death. Understood. I can only wonder if Ravi's supporters felt the same way about his victims. After all, if they deserved death, then their being sexually abused is entirely inconsequential.
By the way, did you get a chance to watch the video I posted in the OP? In it Frank Turek claims that he and other Christians were very upset when they heard of what Ravi was doing, and they promptly took steps to stop it. What Turek is saying may not be completely true. Steve Baughman, the man who broke the Ravi Zacharias scandals, testifies to a very different picture of how Christians both in and out of Ravi's ministry reacted to the scandals. Baughman says, for example, that Ravi's ministry knew for years that Ravi was lying about his educational credentials, but they turned a blind eye to it. Baughman said he was personally attacked by Christians because he is an atheist and that he exposed their favorite preacher. They said that atheists can't know what wrong is which is a popular apologetic.
Paul of Tarsus wrote: ↑Sun Jun 27, 2021 6:50 pmWhen did Jesus ever preach that even marital sex is acceptable?
WHY DID JESUS NOT SPECIFICALLY VOICE APPROVAL OF MARTIAL SEX?
Jesus didn't have to, he endorsed Hebrew scripture (including the writings of Solomon) which (in poetic language) encouraged men to find sexual pleasure with their wives.
PROVERBS 5:18-20 - Berean Study Bible
May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth: 19A loving doe, a graceful fawn— may her breasts satisfy you always; may you be captivated by her love forever. Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress, or embrace the bosom of a stranger?
Further by explicitly referencing the Genesis account in support for his position on the perminency of marriage, Jesus implied his support for one of the purposes of marriage as stipulated in that same account . God commanded Adam and Eve "... “Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth...". . Jesus referenced the Edenic account to validate his teaching on marriage and divorce.
MATTHEW 19: 4-6 NWT
“Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? 6 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart.”
CONCLUSION: Jesus said enough to indicate he held to the biblical view that sex within marriage is an entirely legitimate way to express erotic love, find sexual pleasure and father children.
The Bible doesn't promote his sexual immoral behavior, actually quite the opposite. Sexual immorality is considered a sin and it is clear it is wrong.
And again, that appears to be the root of the problem. Ravi knew the Bible very, very well, so whatever he was reading in it had a very significant impact on his behavior. That much should be obvious.
So you are saying that his negative behaviour was not impacted by the bible? Your words imply that his behaviour would have been significantly improved had he been properly impacted by its contents.
Since many Christians assume from the outset and by faith that the Bible is perfectly moral, no amount of evidence or reasoning will change most of their minds. Reasoning and evidence are irrelevant, and so is the suffering of the people who end up victimized by those who take the Bible seriously.
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Sun Jun 27, 2021 1:58 amJesus was a Jew who explicitly expressed his endorsement of the Mosaic law. In line with the law Jesus condemned lusting after another mans wife...
I've noticed that it is very common for Christians to change the Bible to save it. It's like my being accused of poor hygiene only to rush off to shower and then telling my accuser that I'm clean.
If sex within marriage is God's gift ... then it's odd that Jesus preached that people not take "God's gift."
Where did Jesus tell married people to abstain from having sex with each other?
I've also noticed that many Christians deny the Bible's implied messages by arguing that those messages are not spelled out.
Anyway, it appears to me that Jesus was not heterosexual and probably not bisexual either. If he practiced what he preached, then he never felt lust for a woman. I'd say that he was then either homosexual or asexual. Note that Jesus never told any men that it was a sin to lust after other men. So in Jesus' day as in our day, people who have sexual orientations that are frowned upon by their religious peers may go under-cover to attain sexual gratification. As they do so they might victimize many innocent people.
Last edited by Paul of Tarsus on Mon Jun 28, 2021 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
JehovahsWitness wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 3:24 am
WHY DID JESUS NOT SPECIFICALLY VOICE APPROVAL OF MARTIAL SEX?
Jesus didn't have to, he endorsed Hebrew scripture (including the writings of Solomon) which (in poetic language) encouraged men to find sexual pleasure with their wives.
PROVERBS 5:18-20 - Berean Study Bible
May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth: 19A loving doe, a graceful fawn— may her breasts satisfy you always; may you be captivated by her love forever. Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress, or embrace the bosom of a stranger?
Further by explicitly referencing the Genesis account in support for his position on the perminency of marriage, Jesus implied his support for one of the purposes of marriage as stipulated in that same account . God commanded Adam and Eve "... “Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth...". . Jesus referenced the Edenic account to validate his teaching on marriage and divorce.
...
As always, I preciate your providing support for your claims within the post ya make em (even as I may disagree on the particulars). I think it tells on ya for anticipating disagreement - even maybe your own, and that you've thunk about it good.
I've heard tell that sex within a marriage should only be for the baby making, and not the practice.
What say you?
I think this is on topic, as the answer may reflect on the OP's topic of abuse - where if we do the happy dance without making the babies, well how bout that.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 9:56 am
I've heard tell that sex within a marriage should only be for the baby making, and not the practice.
What say you?
Well the article I linked to above on the topic states the following :
The Bible describes the pleasure that husbands find in marriage with these words: “Rejoice with the wife of your youth . . . Let her own breasts intoxicate you at all times. With her love may you be in an ecstasy constantly.” (Proverbs 5:18, 19) God also intends for wives to enjoy sex. The Bible says: “Husbands and wives should satisfy each other’s sexual needs.”—1 Corinthians 7:3, God’s Word Bible.
