Christian Apologist Sexually Assaulted Several Women

[Paul of Tarsus]

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?"

[JehovahsWitness]

Wait, you are suggesting that husbands own their wives? Is that standard JW doctrine?

No, its a standard biblical description .

Is it a standard biblical description you agree with?

Tcg

Depends on what you mean by "own". God is both owner and master in the absolute since he, I believe, is our life-giver. Biblically, a husband has relative authority over his wife (as she does over him) and occupies the position as her head.

1 CORINTHIANS 7:4 - Berean Study Bible

The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife.

1 CORINTHIANS 11:3 - New Living Translation
But there is one thing I want you to know: The head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God

The above is what the standard biblical description of husbandly "ownership" means and I wholeheartedly agree with it.


JW



RELATED POSTS

What did being a man's "property" mean to the ancient Hebrews?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 01#p814401

Is it wrong for men to treat women as their "property"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 57#p977057

To read learn please go to other posts related to ....

HUSBANDS , FATHERS and ... WOMEN,

[Tcg]

Wait, you are suggesting that husbands own their wives? Is that standard JW doctrine?

No, its a standard biblical description .

Is it a standard biblical description you agree with?

Tcg

Depends on what you mean by "own". God is both owner and master in the absolute since he, I believe our life-giver. Biblically, a husband has relative authority over his wife as her head and I agree with that.

I mean it in exactly the same way this standard biblical description means it. So, do you agree with that meaning?


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

I mean it in exactly the same way this standard biblical description means it. So, do you agree with that meaning?


Tcg

I have fully answered the question.
viewtopic.php?p=1042928#p1042928


Anything else?

[Tcg]

I mean it in exactly the same way this standard biblical description means it. So, do you agree with that meaning?


Tcg

I have fully answered the question.
viewtopic.php?p=1042928#p1042928


Anything else?

No you haven't. You replied, "a husband has relative authority over his wife." This isn't that same as ownership. At this point you have displayed that you don't agree with this "standard biblical description." That's not surprising. There is much in the bible that should be disagreed with. This a perfect example of one.


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

I mean it in exactly the same way this standard biblical description means it. So, do you agree with that meaning?


Tcg

I have fully answered the question.
viewtopic.php?p=1042928#p1042928

No you haven't.
Tcg

Well the answer in POST #41 the only one I have to give.
viewtopic.php?p=1042928#p1042928

You asked if I agreed with what "standard biblical description means" and I told you what the standard biblical description means and said I agree with it.



JW

[Tcg]

Adultery is being disloyal/betraying ones partner The nation of Israel was a dedicated nation whose "husbandly" owner was YHWH (Jehovah).

Wait, you are suggesting that husbands own their wives? Is that standard JW doctrine?


Tcg

No, its a standard bibliical description .

The subjugation of women to property in this standard bibliical description is a perfect example of how Christianity promotes the type of sexual abuse Ravi Zacharias committed. Once a human being is considered property, the "owner" can treat them any way they choose.


Tcg

[JoeyKnothead]

Adultery is being disloyal/betraying ones partner The nation of Israel was a dedicated nation whose "husbandly" owner was YHWH (Jehovah).

Wait, you are suggesting that husbands own their wives? Is that standard JW doctrine?
Tcg

No, its a standard bibliical description

Is it a standard biblical description you agree with?
Tcg

Pretty thing's got her some schooling coming up!

Nevermind, she beat me up.

Any y'all got a bandaid?

[Paul of Tarsus]

And why did Jesus classify "looking" at said woman as ADULTERY of the heart?

When he described people whom he thought were evil he described them as "adulterous."

Jesus did not systematically describe the wicked as being "adulterous"(see Mat 7:11; Mat 17:17) so reasonably it was not without significance when he did . Adultery is being disloyal/betraying ones partner The nation of Israel was a dedicated nation whose "husbandly" owner was YHWH (Jehovah). Their disloyalty to God was thus spiritually adulterous. If Jesus also described the the man looking lustfully at a woman as being "adulterous" it is logically because it represented an act of betrayal.

So I see we've gone from a man looking at a woman he finds sexually attractive to Israel's alleged disloyalty to God. If it wasn't for you Biblical apologists I would miss so much when reading the Bible!

Anyway, I just checked the NKJV, and some form of the word adultery appears nineteen times in the four gospels, and most of those instances involve something Jesus is quoted as saying. So I must disagree with your denial of his apparent obsession with adultery. I think there's something going on with Jesus in his story that's rooted in adultery. Jesus may have been married to a woman who was unfaithful to him, and her infidelity turned him off on marriage and women.

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.

Contextually and logically then Jesus was not making a blanket statement prohibiting having a sexual passion for one's own marriage partner but condemning an act of disloyalty to her.

In that passage Jesus is obviously redefining the meaning of the word adultery to make it much more broadly applicable. He makes no exceptions for a man lusting after his wife. The way he defines adultery, heterosexual men cannot avoid being adulterous. Sexual passion in men can be easily aroused by any woman, and she need not be his wife. Men do not choose which women they find sexually attractive. So if we accept Jesus' understanding of adultery, only gay or asexual men can get by without being adulterous.

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

In that passage Jesus is obviously redefining the meaning of the word adulteryto make it much more broadly applicable .

I do not disagree, the point of contention is applicable to whom. You suggested ....

... people whom he thought were evil he described them as "adulterous."

I have provided scriptural references to prove that is not precise enough since he did not describe all "evil" people as adulterously (see post above)
viewtopic.php?p=1042924#p1042924

From what I can see you have not actually addressed this point with scripture. Nobody is contending Jesus did not frequently condemn his generation as wicked and adulterous, the point is that the two adjectives do not seem to be interchangeable. In short, from his usage that which is wicked /evil is not necessarily that which is adulterous.



JW

[Paul of Tarsus]

In short, from his usage that which is wicked /evil is not necessarily that which is adulterous.

Sure, but Jesus still appears to be obsessed with the idea of adultery.