Categories: Anti-Islam, Christianity, Death
Shocking news. He died yesterday, apparently from a rare form of cancer. (Just like Nabeel Qureshi). They worked for the same fundamentalist missionary organisation that targeted Muslims.
Categories: Anti-Islam, Christianity, Death
He was implicated in a sexting scandal, when he extorted a woman for nude photos and then threatened her to keep quiet. Nuff said…
That is not an accurate statement on what happened. From what little I have read, a woman texted him at first for a long time on just conversational level – started with spiritual things and counseling issues (apparently she was in the audience at a conference, and went forward and talked to him about spiritual matters, etc. ) then later started texting him on a just conversational level, and then, drew him into texting back with her and strung him a long for a long time (with no sexting in it for a long time – months) and then suddenly starting sending him scantily clad texts, etc. and then tried to extort him for money. Ravi later admitted he was wrong to have even talked with her on a friendly level that seemed at first not a problem. It was she who tried to extort him and it was she who sent the photos – he did not do that.
It is a warning to all men in the west to be very careful and guarded against even starting / entertaining those kinds of conversations without standards and protocols of protection.
And most conservative Christians in the west would agree that Islamic culture has better protocols of protection against those kinds of problems to happen.
The west is too loose in society. Feminism / rebellion against traditional values and roles in marriage and family and work-place relations, etc. has created many problems.
We agree here.
https://raviwatch.com/
Your he said/she said nonsense is disproven by emails he sent her threatening suicide if she “betrayed” him. He never denied sending those emails.
Yes, it seems he did threaten suicide, because he realized that he should have never entertained the non-sexual texting emails at first, for several months, then suddenly she started sending sexy ones. But who knows if all the details are true – the atheist had an axe to grind and bias, and difficult to sort it all out.
I agree that he was unwise in even starting out casually which later developed into content that was a bad testimony on his part.
Why would he threaten suicide if she “betrayed” him? If she’s the one who started the whole thing, then how was her threat to tell her husband a “betrayal”?
As far as I know, he never denied sending those emails. They are the smoking gun.
Look, everyone makes mistakes. Some people make bigger mistakes like committing an inappropriate online relationship and then trying to cover it up. Instead of doing so, it would have been far more honorable if he admitted his involvement instead of pinning the blame on the woman.
See this:
https://bloggingtheology.com/2020/05/22/ravi-zacharias-abused-victim-speaks-out-a-video-statement-from-lori-anne-thompson/
wow . . . looks really bad . . . how can we know without a fair trial where both sides get equal opportunity to give their side?
Jesus said,
“Whatever is done in the dark will be exposed later in the light and be shouted from the housetops.”
See Matthew 10:26-27
Luke 8:17
Judgement day will expose everything.
1 Corinthians 4:5
Revelation 20:10-15
He funded people whose job were distorting the truth against Islam and committing shirk, avodah zarah, a serious sin, he is now accountable for his actions before God of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all), Allahu Ta’ala
Jesus taught His understanding of the OT and the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob is the right interpretation of the OT, etc. He said He is the Messiah, the son of David, the Son of God, and the LORD (kurios, Yahweh) and fulfilled Psalm 110:1. Giving money to support the truth of the NT is a good and righteous thing. Just as you believe your Zakat and raising money and giving for Da’awa is a good thing.
Jesus in Matthew 22:23-46
Proper understanding of the OT. Keep reading to chapters 26-28 – crucifixion, death, resurrection. Demonstrates Qur’an is wrong.
23 On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him, 24 asking, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother as next of kin shall marry his wife, and raise up children for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother; 26 so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh. 27 Last of all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her.”
29 But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31 But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” 33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.
34 But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. 35 One of them, [n]a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and [o]foremost commandment. 39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”
41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question: 42 “What do you think about [p]the Christ, whose son is He?” They *said to Him, “The son of David.” 43 He *said to them, “Then how does David [q]in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying,
44 ‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
Until I put Your enemies beneath Your feet”’? [quote from Psalm 110:1- showing Jesus is Yahweh]
45 If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his son?” 46 No one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question.
The problem is…
The Messiah, Jesus had God over him,
The Messiah, Jesus prayed to God,
The Messiah, Jesus did not know certain things,
The Messiah, Jesus was sometimes unable to do a miracle,
The Messiah, Jesus feared the future,
The Messiah, Jesus submitted his will to God,
The Messiah, Jesus had faith in God,
The Messiah, Jesus was tempted,
The Messiah, Jesus was raised by God from his ordeal.
The Messiah, Jesus called God, “the only true God.
Not a problem, since . . .
Trinitarians have always believed there is a heirarchy of roles within the Trinity – the Father was in heaven, invisible while Jesus the Son was on earth.
Yes, Jesus prayed to the Father. John 17:1-5
While on earth, Jesus did not know the day of the second coming, but He knows now; after His resurrection, glorification, ascension to heaven.
He was able, but chose not to do a miracle at that time because of the people’s atmosphere of unbelief.
Jesus did not fear the future, rather He had genuine human emotions of stress in the Garden of Gethsemane as He contemplated having to bear the sins of the world and bearing the guilt and then the wrath of God the Father, at the same time being innocent and holy and sinless. No one can imagine that weight of burden.
Yes, the Son submitted His will to the Father. Not a problem in Trinitarian (Trinitas Unitas = three persons in ONE substance / essence).
Being tempted is not sin. He never gave into sin. Matthew 4:1-12, Hebrews 4:15; 2 Cor. 5:21
Yes, all three persons of the Trinity were involved in the resurrection.
Yes, Jesus, while on earth, prayed to the Father, called Him “the only true God” (John 17:3), but also in John 17:5 also pointed out that He and the Father shared the same glory into eternity past. This is not a problem for Trinitarian theology.
The only hierarchical relationship between God and Jesus, as far people can see, the former is the boss (God) of the latter, who obeys him (his servant). it is clear that God and Jesus are two different selves, and so two different beings, and not two modes (personalities) of one being.
Big problem for trinitarian theology!
No, the economic Trinity (hierarchy of roles between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) is not a problem for Trinitarian theology and has been part of the doctrine from the beginning.
1 Corinthians 11:1-3
For God and Jesus having two selves implies of two different ontological beings. They are not-identical, that is, not numerically one.
But Trinitarian rule requires that the Father and Son be two selves, but one being.
So it is a problem. Big one!
@ Ken
1. “Trinitarians have always believed there is a hierarchy of roles within the Trinity ”
Then they are not “equals”. A slave can never be equal to the master.
2. “While on earth, Jesus did not know the day of the second coming,”
So you concede there was a time Jesus(as) didn’t know something. Therefore he does not have the attribute of “All-Knowing” thus he can’t be God.
3. “He was able, but chose not to do a miracle at that time because of the people’s atmosphere of unbelief.”
The text says nothing about choice.
He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.
Word used in greek ἐδύνατο (dü’-nä-mi). The text says Jesus was not;
“…able or possible:—be able, can (do, + -not), could, may, might, be possible, be of power.”
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1410&t=LXX
Furthermore, people’s belief doesn’t matter on god’s ability. That’s the point of a miracle to prove a point to disbelievers not perform a magic trick. Pharaoh and his magicians didn’t believe in Moses(as) but Moses(as) still performed his miracle with no issue. So therefore God according to you failed to execute His will because people didn’t believe really, really hard.
4. “Jesus did not fear the future, rather He had genuine human emotions of stress in the Garden of Gethsemane…No one can imagine that weight of burden.”
To begin to have human emotions is comparing God to the creation (which you said God doesn’t when we bring up things like God rested, cried, regretted etc in your text). For someone to beg (themself?) to save them is not All-powerful. Furthermore, this makes no sense to be “stressed” when that was the WHOLE PURPOSE of coming according to your theology. Finally he asked God (himself?) to “take the cup from me”
Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground (made sujood like a Muslim) and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.” (Matthew 26:39)
Luke makes this even easier:
“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” (Luke 22:42)
This shows his will is different from God’s. Finally this makes no sense of “not being able to imagine such a burden” because he is alleged to have been divine. If you gave ANYBODY on this forum divinity they can do the exact same thing he did as that’s nothing special.
5. “Being tempted is not sin. He never gave into sin. Matthew 4:1-12, Hebrews 4:15; 2 Cor. 5:21”
It doesn’t matter if he “gave in” (even though as noted by QB he sins quite a lot in the biblical text, for example, lying, working on the Sabbath etc) God cannot be “tempted”. How can a creation “tempt” God when God is the owner of all things?
6. “Yes, Jesus, while on earth, prayed to the Father, called Him “the only true God” (John 17:3), but also in John 17:5 also pointed out that He and the Father shared the same glory into eternity past. ”
Well that’s easy because the author(s) of John didn’t believe Jesus(as) to be equal to God but instead a pre-existent semi-divine being that did His will. If Jesus identified God as the “Only true God” then that means he is NOT the “Only true God” and thus the Bible doesn’t teach the Trinity but in reality a form of Arianism.
If Muslims don’t respect the death of other Muslims. You can’t expect them to respect non-muslims.
https://youtu.be/SG0dikjiHPc
Well, we certainly will not respect a non-Muslim who spread lies about Islam but also lies about his own academic background and committed extortion..
Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone.
A forged verse…what’s your point?
I follow the majority text.
But I thought you would say that. And I also thought of something else at the same time.
Do you have hadith earlier that Sahih Bukhari but more reliable?
And how early a text should be to be classified as reliable?
I meant the collection of hadith.
@ Eric
Yes we have ahadith collections much earlier than Buhari. All he really was codify. So you’re claiming the lady taken in adultery is authentic? Interesting…care to explain why it’s missing in earlier manuscripts…and sometimes placed into Luke?
A collection of hadith and more reliable. You forgot to say if the collection is considered more reliable.
@ Eric
They will generally have the same content. All Bukhari did was absorb works into a “mega collection”
Why do I have a feeling that a non-Muslim troll with a fetish for Shamoun is pretending to be brother Eric?
Yes, his (and the other persona “Ali”) paraphrasing sounds really like shameoun
I did not take his profile photo or username “bin Kisam”. And quoting the bible. Spot on I’m pretending to be him. Use your brain if you have one instead of relying on your feelings.
Actually, if feelings is from the brain that mean your a lost cause. It is what it is.
Paul, just to be clear, please tell me you are not implying some sort of connection of being a fundamentalist missionary and dying from a rare form of cancer.
Not that I am aware of.
Paul,
How is it shocking for a 74 year old man to die of cancer?
Lots of people in their 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, etc. die of cancer.
Nabeel’s death was shocking because he was so young, but Ravi’s is not. kind of normal for his age.
I was shocked to hear of Ravi’s death. It is a normal human reaction.
As a rationalist and a secularist, I am aware this is not a coincidence, I think this was by design. If God exists and the religion of Islam is true, then this becomes clear: the two men were opposing Allah (God) and paid the price. What are the chances that God exists? Depends on who you ask, based upon Bayesian probability. Could Islam be true? It can not be ruled out and the arguments of the Qur’an are strong.
Furthermore the arguments (some) are pierce the heart (emotionally) and the intellect, something that would be expected from the message of God.
The Trinity, for all intents and purposes, is demonstrably a grave sin and heretical fabrication.
I am inclined to the view that Islam is the true religion of Allah, the religion of Abraham and Muhammad, the God of Moses, peace be upon them.
Ouch, that sarcasm is so sharp that I just cut myself.
I am not being sarcastic at all.
The existence of God can be argued based upon science and evidence.
The doctrine of the Trinity can be refuted by history, bible-scholarship and revelation.
Where is the controversy?
Fair enough. I misunderstood you then. My apologies.
Are you saying, however, that this is God’s punishment?
”They have certainly disbelieved who say, “Allah is the third of three.” And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment.” sūrat l-māidah verse 73
“As a rationalist and a secularist, I am aware this is not a coincidence, I think this was by design. If God exists and the religion of Islam is true, then this becomes clear: the two men were opposing Allah (God) and paid the price.”
I meant to ask if you saying the death of the two men is God’s punishment?
See this:
https://bloggingtheology.com/2020/05/22/ravi-zacharias-abused-victim-speaks-out-a-video-statement-from-lori-anne-thompson/