Not meaning to be vindictive here – just critical, in the “Simon Cowell” sense. If you’re in any way offended, I’m sorry in advance (it’s just that there are a LOT of holes). Also, if you want an explanation of each point, I’ll be happy to give them to you:
From Comment #1:
The concept of a God or god-form is not necessarily an absolute, but a conjuration.
You’re already starting off on the wrong foot: God is the embodiment of the absolute.
4/30/2013 note: If you are coming here from Google, here is the update to this post. I tried to make use of some editing skills to make it more readable.
Reposted from what seems like a now-defunct Garage Scholars blog (argh!). A very good recap of a Ravi Zacharias message, “A Defense of Absolute Truth”, which details why secularism fails to provide a coherent set of answers to the problems of the world (part 1 | part 2).
An interesting anecdotal defense of this point is in the second result of this Google search.
Here’s a gem: Secularization = no shame. Relativism = no reason. Privatization = no meaning. [All three have occurred to varying degrees in Westernized civilizations.]
Original post has been reposted below.
[note: in case you missed it, this is a recap which has taken on a kind of bullet-point form. I’ve reformatted parts of it for readability. If you don’t get parts of it, feel free to comment.
note #2: thread available at Newsvine. I’m thinking about manually importing it.]
On Saturday, March 12, the Garage Scholars, named that day by Robert Grange, held their second meeting and listened to a talk by Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias. This talk was given the day before Ravi’s talk at the Mormon Tabernacle.
Ravi Zacharias
A Defense of Absolute Truth
11/13/05
The University of Utah
Sexuality, marriage, stem-cell research, genetics—“these things are getting very, very complex.” It’s hard to know “how to address this tangled subject with meaning and coherence.”
Daijinryuu, I’ve brought the thread to my site in case you wanted to discuss further here (also due to readability errors and recent force of habit).
I could never be a Christian because both my spiritual and literal ancestors were mercilessly and unnecessarily killed when the christ-god said “thou shant murder”. where does jesus get off saying his followers do not have to fast or follow kosher anymore, or sacrifice to the god who is called i am? and how come just because a woman has a vagina and womanly hormones, she is automatically subservient to man (even though galations 3:8 states oppositely that there is no jew/gentile, slave/master, man/woman in god?). and, of course, why is he called jesus of nazareth instead of jesus of bethelehem, because everyone either bore the name “x of/from some city” or “x son of y”. and studying israeli history shows there is no city called nazareth in that day or age.
my god desires sacrifice, but is best pleased with song, water, plants, or devotion. (i am a devotee of krishna.)
There’s obviously no excuse in the actions of supposed devotees of the past. I can only offer my apologies and say that I, myself, have learned, or have a greater understanding of the teachings of Jesus and illegitimatacy of the justifications used for preemptive war as a result of it. (Although, that’s far from the case for many American Christians today… in fact I used to be one of those in support of the Iraq drumbeating)
Europeans no doubt have it much harder on themselves given the bulk of immigration from Arab states tends to be going towards them instead of the US. This article in Spiegel demonstrates just how seriously Islam is perceived as a threat to civil liberties and other traditionally democratic ideas such as the freedom of speech.
If there are any Muslim readers out there, I’d be happy to dialogue on how it indeed is or isn’t. Does the Quran permit freedom of speech? Did Muhammad? Do you see it as being a good thing or bad?
Also to the Buddhists – what do you think about the artistic statement of Budda being beheaded?
Berlin’s Deutsche Oper opera house is under fire for cancelling a controversial production of a Mozart opera which shows the severed heads of the Prophet Muhammad, Jesus and Buddha. Politicians have condemned the cancellation as self-censorship and cowardice.
Fellow Christians, please take heed. For all others, please discuss. Does the thesis Yohannan present hold weight?
FYI, the Wiki Dalit article. Ghandi, anyone?
http://www.gfa.org/gfa/latestnewsarticle?wid=PuLfZqX6Zx_LPoG51DmVGQ
A Commentary by Dr. K.P. Yohannan, President of Gospel for Asia
–> Global awareness of the plight of Dalits (“Untouchables”) in Asia is on the increase. For thousands of years, Dalits and other low-caste groups have endured poverty, discrimination, illiteracy, and ostracism—all in the name of religion. Today, not only is their story being told, but the world is starting to listen. For that I am glad.
Yet I have a growing concern over what I see as a new form of “liberation theology” rising up within the evangelical world in an attempt to deal with injustices against Dalits. This way of thinking is not new; in fact, it has been around for as long as man has walked the earth. But if we think it will bring freedom to Dalits, we are wrong.
Let us look at some historical examples of this kind of theology and follow them to their logical end. Let us also examine what the Word of God says is true liberation for Dalit men, women and children.
Fundamentalist Christianity 