Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion

This is the place to discuss Why Jesus. We can limit the discussion to the first few chapters and then start a new thread for later chapters...or discuss the whole book here.

I'm enjoying the book! He's interesting and intelligent. To set the stage, from the early chapters Ravi insists he's going after absolute truth, and presumably he has found it. Some quotes:

"I have followed through on my promise to pursue truth and have devoted my life to the study and understanding of all the major religions and systems of belief in the world."

"If the truth is so important in one isolated courtroom case, how much more important is it in the search for the spiritual answers to our deepest hungers?"

"'The most valuable thing in the world is the truth,' said Winston Churchill"

"Nothing is so destructive as running from the truth."

Hopefully, Ravi really has found something, and won't let us down!

I agree that he is interesting and intelligent, but there is something about his writing style I don't like. It is almost like he is an intellectual who is trying to write like a pastor and I am not sure if he succeeds.

Here's what I wrote on the previous "Why Jesus" thread about why though I think Ravi does well, his book (and books like it) are only half the battle.

It just seems to me that Christians have become very good at apologetics; there are Christian philosophers (Alvin Plantinga, William Craig) and Bible scholars (NT Wright, Craig Evans and more) who are not just "Christian" but would qualify as evangelical (traditional, conservative).

It almost seems the next step is for Christians to apply that apologetic to real life. For example, if what Ravi is talking about is that high philosophical ideas have trickled down via television and influenced the masses, then countering with other high philosophical ideas is only step one in responding. Or even, as we said, the problem is not Chopra but that his view almost permeates our culture.

What I am trying to say is we (Christians) need to create good art that is influenced by our worldview and can thus influence people who will not read Ravi books. I don't mean movies that end with an altar call or that have such a blatant message only Christians will watch it (Fireproof). I mean, we need serious Christians writing television shows, making music, making movies and so on.

One example, I think Gran Torino basically preaches the gospel. I am not sure what Eastwood's purpose in such a movie was, but if Christians made movies like that: gritty, real life, but clearly illustrating Christian truth...that might be step two (if Ravi's book is step 1).

I think Lord of the Rings is another example - not as blatantly allegorical as Narnia, but influenced by Christian truth.

I loved Gran Torino!

halfway through, now, and I'm starting to get a little impatient. Ravi has done nothing yet except tear down other claims to truth; no effort expended at all to tell about his discovered truth (Jesus).

I too loved Gran Torino. I think its a desperate stretch to say it has a Christian message. It's pretty obvious its main point was: Don't be a racist jerk.

I don't think Ravi is going to give you Truth the way you want it Lee. It's subtle. He's a philosopher - It will be thinking Truth.

Maybe we should start a new thread to discuss truth in film. Whenever I watch a movie, I am looking for signs of grace. I didn't look too hard in Gran Torino.

A man teaches a younger man how to live. This young man is torn between two ways: the way of violence (Zealots) and the way of the older man. In the very end you expect the older man to get out his guns and destroy everybody (based on every other Eastwood film, just as most expected the Messiah to be violent). In an amazing twist, he lays down his life in such a way as to free the younger man from the demons (gang members, violent way of life that is self-destructive and leads to death) that hold him. The younger man can now live a new life.

Come on, its the gospel.

I agree that it's a wonderful parallel to the gospel. Does it bring me closer to Jesus: or just make me think whether or not its cool to drink a 6-pack with a Priest?

Do you also think the Anti-christ will be a wonderful representative of the signs of grace? He will attempt a Gospel presentation for his own benefit. Same as Gran Torino and Lord of the Rings. For their own benefits.
Great movies though - don't get me wrong! I just don't read Jesus into them.

A thread for movies would be great. "Legion" is one of my favourite religious movies - an amazing theological mess (I love it! Makes me think.)

Maybe this is an example of how we think differently.

I think, ultimately, all truth is God's truth. So if a movie or a song or a book says something true, it is true. To use an example, early Christians argued that Socrates was a Christian before Christ and that Greek philosophy prepared Greeks for Christ just as the Law prepared Hebrews. If a person writes truth or creates a movie that illustrates truth, that is a sign of God.

It is like when Paul told the Athenians, "as some of your own poets have said." I think we can say, "hey, remember that movie, there is something in there that points to a greater truth." I don't think this is reading Jesus into them, if it is true and Jesus is truth then Jesus is already there.

I imagine we have different views of "anti-Christ" too.

I think something either points clearly and correctly to Jesus...or it doesn't.

I have the same problem with the Narnia series. Lots of fun. Nice comparison.

But many people watched that and walked away without a thought for Jesus. Might as well of seen a Chuck Norris movie.

Rod, your last statement could be applied to anything.

"Many people read that book by Ravi and walked away without a thought for Jesus. Might as well of read Twilight."

I mean, you can't judge the worth or truth of something based on how many people "get" it. Look how many people didn't get Jesus.

Anyway, I was skimming through the book and I found a quote in chapter 5 that might be worth discussing:

"Chopra and others of his ilk claim that modern physics validates ancient Hindu metaphysics, a claim that is vehemently rejected by serious scientists who insist that there is no connection between the discoveries of modern physics and the metaphysical claims of Ayurveda."

Zacharias, Ravi (2012-01-25). Why Jesus?: Rediscovering His Truth in an Age of Mass Marketed Spirituality (p. 87). Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition.

I noted that Ravi is "playing with fire" here. What I mean is...well, first of all he has no footnotes for this statement, which is frequent in the book and drives me nuts. Second, it is the same statement some make to discount Christian faith: "serious scientists" don't believe in God or whatever. To appeal to "serious scientists" as an authority seems disingenuous: would he submit to their views when they reject Christian faith?

I thought precisely the same thing as I read that, David.

I kind of agree with you about the footnotes.

However, I find footnotes to be just random names of people i've never heard of - with degrees from places that i am never going to check - in publications I am never going to call to validate their source.

Although I have yet to meet a Christian who claims "modern physics validates ancient Christian metaphysics." I would definitely laugh if I did. :D

Finished reading ... I found precious little apologetics in the book, but the discussion on pp 176-7 was interesting.

If we assume evil, we assume good.
If we assume good, we assume a moral law
If we assume a moral law, we assume a moral lawgiver

why does this assume a moral lawgive?

because "evil" invariably is in regards to people
that implies people have intrinsic worth
and intrinsic worth implies creation by one of ultimate worth.

Not sure I follow that last step, but what do you think?

I would not put this book under the apologetics banner either. Ravi is more of a philosopher.

So when dealing with Hinduism and Guru's: facts are often thrown out the window to make room for experience and spiritual traditions.
_____________________________________________________

So why do we have a moral law? Something must of given it to us. Animals sure don't have it. People desire it when it's in THEIR favor.

I would actually be impressed if atheists attempted to live by their official understanding of nature and the universe - but they endlessly borrow from religion to fulfill their emotional securities.

If I did not believe in a God - I would be the most dangerous atheist on this planet. I would assume there is NO right or wrong, or judgement. I would say that people have no intrinsic worth. Crazy eh?

Lee, I think the moral argument makes sense.

In a world with no supernatural, all we have is nature. Thus, everything must be explained by something else in the natural world. I imagine naturalists (atheists) would perhaps call this reductionistic, but I can't see any way around it - such a natural world eliminates free will. We are conditioned by culture or biology. Any apparent new information just comes from something else in the system.

To put it another way, if all there is is nature, then nothing could be called "unnatural". Humans are part of nature, so if we pollute the world, that is as natural as anything any other part of nature does. Where does the information come to call it "evil"?

I think when we call things evil we are applying to some sort of standard. I think the same goes for meaning, creativity, heroism- anything that expects us to choose between two things and assumes we really can implies there is a force outside of nature (free will?).

The question is: can we jump from a moral law to a moral lawgiver? I think we can, though who or what that "lawgiver" is like is open to question.

That said, unlike Rod, I do not think I would be a "dangerous atheist." I imagine if I stopped believing in God, much of how I live would stay the same. I think social conditioning plays a large part - even if I decided that killing was not inherently wrong I would not do it because I would not want to go to jail. I'd want to enjoy life! But in the same way, The thing is, what outside force is there to tell us our social conditioning is wrong? I don't think a naturalist universe has one.

I think we would still have Love and goodness in an atheistic world. We could see the benefits and joy of these things scientifically. However...

Anything that gets in the way of our love and joy can easily and conscience free be destroyed for the greater good. Every drug dealer and pimp that approaches my children would be erased without any guilt on my part. The world would be a war zone of desires. None better or worse than anybody elses. Kind of like now. Except I leave these things in God's hands.

Somehow the world assumes there is justice and honesty. But with no God: I would not expect an agreement on truth. WE have no justice now. Imagine removing the possibility of divine judgement?

Definitely still interested in discussing this one, Rod. He's a little too fiesty for me (as a publication, I mean, I don't mind little fiestiness in our forums!), but that's just personal taste.

I rated the book 3 stars, because of my frustration that it never did get to the point. He never discusses "why Jesus?" ... he just tears down the competition. I think the book would be more likely to make me give up religion entirely than to choose any particular one.

I too had a problem with the title "Why Jesus?"

The book was not clearly about that.

I have to tell on Ravi once, cuz I thought it was pretty funny, and if Ravi is going to ridicule other people then he deserves it a little.

Ravi detests the Gospel of Thomas, even refusing to acknowledge it among the genre of gospel. So anyway, Deepak quotes from Thomas, verse 120 or something like that, and Ravi ridicules Deepak, because there are only 114 verses in the Gospel of Thomas. Twice he says this.

Poor Ravi, he might never live that one down. There are 114 sayings in Thomas, not 114 verses!

Wow! Really. I'll have to look.

I heard there were alot of problems with the Gospel of Thomas. I've only read bits of it though.

Lee wrote: "I have to tell on Ravi once, cuz I thought it was pretty funny, and if Ravi is going to ridicule other people then he deserves it a little.

Ravi detests the Gospel of Thomas, even refusing to ackn..."

I am not a part of this discussion at all so pardon my barging in. Lee ... where's the 120th verse of the Gospel of Thomas located? Ravi's point seems be there are only 114 of them whether you call them verses or sayings (as they are referred to internally in the Gospel of Thomas). No matter what you call them I only see 114 of them.

Clark

Well, it depends upon whose translation you read. Most sayings are broken down into multiple verses, but how they're numbered differs. I don't know what Deepak was quoting (Ravi doesn't say) so we don't really have a way to know.

I've also noticed that people confuse the Infancy Gospel with the Sayings Gospel, so it's possible that either Ravi or Deepak was confused. :)

Page 15 easily sums up the book.

"Yet, again and again we find ourselves uncertain as to what truth means and why it matters. "What is Truth?" asked Pontius Pilate impatiently...and walked away, without waiting for an answer. The irony is that he was standing in front of the one Person who, as the personification and embodiment of Truth , could have given him the answer. (Jesus).

Why Jesus? and Why Truth? are the core of this book.

Lee wrote: "Well, it depends upon whose translation you read. Most sayings are broken down into multiple verses, but how they're numbered differs. I don't know what Deepak was quoting (Ravi doesn't say) so we ..."

I think it is obvious Ravi is not speaking of the infancy gospel of thomas which is so compact that it doesn't come close to 100+ verses. And I've taken a look at multiple translations of the saying gospel and each seems to be numbered at 114 verses (or sayings). In addition, it is drastically different in form and style than the traditional gospels which seems to support Ravi's point entirely that it is not of the same genre.

I think if you were being intellectually honest you would have to admit Ravi is right on both points. I think you're making a mistake if you decide to go to the wall with Deepak on this one :)

Clark

Thomas is a sayings gospel. I assume you mean because it doesn't narrate the life of Jesus that it doesn't qualify as a gospel? I have no problem calling it a gospel like all the other scholars I know, so Ravi is merely spreading his ruffled feathers.

Honestly, Clark, Ravi is being quite childish in ridiculing Deepak on this one, isn't he? I don't mind admitting that he drove me crazy, with the pedantic little ways he ridicule people. I think he was very unchristian.

He doesn't tell us what Deepak was quoting so we can see for ourselves what "verse" means to Deepak. He merely wants us to think Deepak is an idiot. Well, frankly, that only makes me think Ravi is an idiot who can't climb above an ad hominem argument.

In my favorite translation of Thomas (The Fifth Gospel, Stephen J. Patterson et. al) saying 1 has 1 line (verse?); saying 2 has 4 lines; saying 3 has 5, etc.

Ravi appears to be an idiot to you because he is standing up for Truth. Do you not see the common chaos of Deepak in the other dealings with him in the Book. The part with Deepak and Richard Dawkins is quite funny.

Maybe I get all my pedantic little ways from Ravi? I'm in great company then. Ravi is very serious about Jesus - Deepak is not.

I'm not a fan of Deepak, Rod. Nor am I a fan of ridicule. Sorry, but Ravi's style grates on me.

I'm not saying Ravi is an idiot; he clearly isn't. But when he resorts to ad hominem, he SOUNDS like an idiot.

I fully approve of Ravi's style. He's in my top 5 favourite people on this planet.

Ravi has great compassion and a wonderful ministry to those in need. He does not however, put up with false teachers. Neither did Jesus or Paul. Interesting eh?

What's interesting, Rod, is how everybody can be convinced that they somehow have the Truth while all the others are false teachers.

It is not sufficient to say nice things such as “All religions say the same thing.” Nobody, and I do mean nobody, really believes that. If they say they do, you can call their bluff in moments by exposing the preconceived sovereignty they have exercised in evaluating one religion over the other and by which they have arrived at the conclusion that all religions lead to the same destination, even though the religions all say different things.

Zacharias, Ravi (2012-01-25). Why Jesus?: Rediscovering His Truth in an Age of Mass Marketed Spirituality (p. 158). Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition.

I was a bit critical of the book, but I think this quote is spot on. I get frustrated when people claim all religions teach the same thing, because, well how do YOU know? Christians and Muslims can disagree on theology, and perhaps to some it sounds arrogant when each side claims they are right. But it is just as arrogant for a third party to come in and say that you are both wrong because your religions actually are the same.

Thoughts?

Well said David. We are all arrogant. Such is life.


Lee quote:
" ...is how everybody can be convinced that they somehow have the Truth while all the others are false teachers."

Somebody has to be wrong. There are way to find truth. The wise are able to see people lie to themselves. (but you can never prove this to them...)
It's as much about evaluating yourself as well as others.

David, the search for common denominators between religions is fascinating to me. I have long wondered just how similar the experiences are that people have with God ... regardless of their beliefs. Anyway, some observations:

1. At the core of all major religions is the same humanitarian principles.

2. But the theologies, the means of worship, the holy books, the picture of God, the organizational structure, etc. are very different from religion to religion.

So, the various major religions are both exactly the same and wildly different.

Maybe it is a matter of emphases. I mean, I don't think anyone is saying that one religion is 100% correct (in belief, ritual, practice) and thus the others are 100 percent wrong.

There are certain commonalities between religions. Its something CS Lewis said (in Mere Christianity) - Christians can welcome truth wherever we find it. The question would be, do the points where religion disagree matter?

Instead of saying, "both your religions are the same", is it less arrogant to say, "where both your religions disagree does not matter." Lee, is that what you're saying (and I know you're not arrogant!)?

I am not sure if I would say "all major religions" have the same humanitarian principles. Isn't a main principle of Hinduism the caste system and along with it, no interest to improve the lives of the lower castes?

At any rate, I think it is good to recognize agreements but it is also important to be open about disagreements. I would even say part of my identity as a Christian is to love the other in such a way as to respect where we disagree and live in the disagreement.

For examples of how the humanitarian teachings at the core are roughly the same:

http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2012/1...

But I also tend to think ... without any scientific evidence ... that the "God-experiences" that believers share are roughly the same. If you're reading my book about John's Gospel yet, you'll find examples of how the Spirit washes over people of different faiths, leaving the experiencer with the same feeling of love.

Yet, the religion side (the side which, I admit, holds little interest for me except in historical studies) differs quite radically.

Lee wrote: "What's interesting, Rod, is how everybody can be convinced that they somehow have the Truth while all the others are false teachers."

This comment alone is enough to convince me that we must look to the Bible for objective Truth. Once we allow truth to become subjective it is no holds barred chaos.

Clark

David H wrote: "Maybe it is a matter of emphases. I mean, I don't think anyone is saying that one religion is 100% correct (in belief, ritual, practice) and thus the others are 100 percent wrong.

There are certa..."

Well said David. I have been toying with writing a series of books that examines the truth that can be found in alternative religions. I have this theory that if all truth is God's truth, than there is no truth that can be found in any faith that isn't already present in the Bible/Christianity. Of course, it is where Christianity differs from other religions (specifically Christ) that the ultimate truth can be found.

My working title for the books would be something like ... "Christians Make Better Wiccans" or "Christians Make Better Buddhists." Essentially, these books would be apologetic in nature as they would appeal to people to consider Christianity in favor of alternative faiths.

Thoughts? Good idea of bad idea? Somewhere I have a couple of pages completed toward the Wicca book.

Clark

Lee wrote: "that the "God-experiences" that believers share are roughly the same"

Maybe to an impartial observer. However, it seems to me that in the Garden of Eden our relationship with God was damaged. Since then, we have been struggling to fill that void with some sort of "God-experience." We try to fill the void that was once filled by God with an artificial God like practice ... which leads to a salvation by works or religious practice mentality. Christianity, however, teaches that we can fill that void with God (as it's supposed to be) through Jesus Christ.

This would all seem to be a huge difference to me.

Clark

David wrote: "Instead of saying, "both your religions are the same", is it less arrogant to say, "where both your religions disagree does not matter." Lee, is that what you're saying (and I know you're not arrogant!)?"

I guess I didn't answer this ... I didn't because I'm not sure what to make of the word "matter". Matter to who? In regards to what?

I think our religious practices matter to us a great deal! But I don't know enough about God to know whether it matters to him/her/it/them/whatever. So in the absense of such knowledge, I can only say I have no opinion except common sense ... which says that those who grow up in an alternative culture don't deserve to be punished for finding their religious practices more meaningful.

Clark - those books sound interesting, though I wonder what your audience is? I ask because you could come off sounding very arrogant. Imagine how you'd feel if a Muslim wrote, "Why Muslims are Better Christians." Plus, you run the risk of sounding like you get their own religion better then they do. I would say if you had interviews with people of those other religions, that could help. I recommend Stephen Prothero's book on world religions also, because he talks about how not all religions are seeking the same thing. Thus, he argues, it is odd to say how Wiccans believe "salvation" is attained as Wiccans are not looking for salvation.

Lee - I think "matter" to those members of the religion. To say (and I don't think you are saying this) that I, as an outsider, can tell you what is relevant about your religion (the humanitarian ethics) and what is not (the metaphysical theology) rubs me the wrong way. I think true religious dialogue is not a third party coming in and telling Christians and Muslims what to think and unite on, but rather Christians and Muslims being honestly difference and recognizing the differences...but still allowing the other to live however they choose (which may be what you are getting at in your last paragraph).

Very good point David. Perhaps a better approach would be Christianity for Wiccans. The basic premise would be to establish the foundations of the Wiccan faith ... say for instance the love of nature ... And then explore what the Bible says about mankind's relationship with nature. You are probably correct though that the audience for such a book would be slim.

Clark

Clark, it sounds fascinating to me. Do at least one book with a short coverage of many, if not a series! I'd buy!

I vote for wiccan, buddhist, Islam, and atheist. You could map them to Luke, John, Matthew and Mark! :)

I think they could have large appeal either to Christians , wiccans or both. I'd read it. I like Lee's idea.

I can see some nasty challenges to your book concept Clark:

You would probably have to ignore the Bibles claims about these belief systems -
1 Timothy 4:1
"Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons..."

For instance...I dare you to start with Baal Worship. I doubt Elijah would appreciate your efforts. :O

I totally think you should do it: Just for FUN! But if you make it come off like THESE RELIGIONS REALLY AREN'T THAT BAD - then God would not be proud of your efforts.
I would definitely want to read one. You could make a million bucks if you did a Mormon one right now - specially if the New President is Romney.

Lee quote:
"At the core of all major religions is the same humanitarian principles."

Fascinating thought. I honestly don't think so though. Just like David's comment about the Hindu's Caste system. most religions do have a dark secret they try to hide. For instance islam is a dark sexually abusive fantasy in the making - Islamic heaven is men having their eternal lusts provided for by God through wives and 72 virgin angels. Women get nothing.
I'm still looking into the dark side of Buddhism. It's there but it tricky to pin-down.

You could say Christianity has a dark side. But only when its followers abuse God's plan and guidance. At the core it is perfect. (I'm a little biased.)

lol! Yeah, Rod, you're a little biased. :)

I don't think I'd agree with Rod's comments that basically say all other religions are "bad" or have "dark secrets". Even many conservative Christians have a more balanced view of the world religions then to say they are all demonic, that is a pretty shallow view.

There's a lot I could say, but it reminds me of the Mormon thread - the arguments you make against other religions end up digging your own grave as a Christian. You can apply them to Christianity, which you imply by admitting Christianity has its dark side. We need to at least be fair to other religions (love your neighbor, love your enemy) - to call Islam a "sexually abusive fantasy" does not show love to others. From what I know, Islam was not started in that way, the ideas of the heaven you mention are not at the root of Islam. So I imagine a Muslim could pretty easily argue that what you mention could be "when its followers abuse God's plan", as you say.

My point is:
1. Religions are more complex then to say all are evil
2. When you criticize other religions harshly, the same criticisms can rightly be laid on Christianity.

This is why we need to focus on Jesus (why Jesus?!). No religion is perfect, not even "Christianity." When I wake up, my goal is to conform my life more to Jesus and really, that is all I would ask of any person of another religion. Identify the good in your life, and both I and my Muslim or Hindu friend certainly has much good, Godly stuff in our lives. The flipside is to shine the light of Jesus into life and allow his grace to change the bad.

Finally, the grace of Christ is wide-reaching and we may be surprised how many people of other religions end up saved through Jesus Christ. Praise the Lord.

David wrote: "Finally, the grace of Christ is wide-reaching and we may be surprised how many people of other religions end up saved through Jesus Christ. Praise the Lord. "

Once again, well-written post David. One additional thought: Peter instructs us in 1 Peter to be on our best behavior when we interact with unbelievers. Everything we do and say should be done with their salvation in mind. I think we need to strike that fine balance between speaking the truth and loving and respecting them as individuals. If these people reject Christ, Christ should be their stumbling block - not our poor behavior or rude comments.

I say this to remind myself more than anyone else in the group!

Clark

David quote:
" Islam was not started in that way, the ideas of the heaven you mention are not at the root of Islam."

Actually the view of Heaven I mentioned is straight out of the Quran. There should not be a single Muslim mail who will argue with it. They all look forward to this sexual paradise.

It is nice when all religions can get along and find common things to discuss and share - but these religions are leading people to Hell. That needs to be dealt with eventually.
I agree we must Love people and Hate anything that comes between them and salvation.

Of course if you don't believe (or worry!) about Hell then nothing really matters...do whatever the hell you want. Many assume God will understand. :)
I don't recall the God of the Bible being totally understanding about everything. There are some things he doesn't joke about.