Ravi Zacharias on the Rubin Report

Hi friends,

If you haven’t already, please take the time to watch Ravi Zacharias dialogue with David Rubin:

Discussion Questions:

  1. What do you notice about how Ravi treats Dave Rubin and the other people he mentions?

  2. What points or illustrations do you find most helpful in advancing the conversation with friends?

A few quotes:

We can’t seem to disagree without bringing the person down… We don’t go with ad hominem arguments, that’s a sign of weakness. Anybody who attacks you personally is telling me they can’t deal with your arguments, so they are dealing with you.

Our only hope without coercion is to put the ideas out there and hope that hearts will change and that truth and beauty will win out in the end rather than that which is hideous and that which is false.

God doesn’t just change what we do he changes what we want to do.

I think what it has to start with is, this bottom line question to me, David, what does it mean to be human? If we don’t answer that question, everything else is footnotes without the body of the substance.

Fascinatingly, Jesus didn’t persuade he spoke to. There were some that walked away…. The cost of truth is huge. But conviction with compassion is indispensable.

The way I come at it is this. There are tests for truth and there are objects of those tests. And I say its this: there are really four questions of life, David. Origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. That forms our worldview. Where did I come from? What does life actually mean? How do I differentiate good and evil? What happens to a human being when he or she dies?

And therefore you put the two tests of truth: correspondence and coherence. Are my answers corresponding to reality? When my answers are put together, is there a coherence to them? And to me, in that Judeo-Christian worldview, meets the two tests of coherence and correspondence to the four questions of life.

We need examples to model it, not just to speak it.

10 Likes

Thank you Ravi for showing us always, your compassion with conviction when talking to the person behind the question. You are so right when you say that our faith changes us from what we do, to what we want to do. God is Good to All. Fred Proch

1 Like

To me, Ravi is the epitome of grace and humility when speaking to others, whether coming from a different worldview or the same. He exemplifies his philosophy of treating people equally and with respect, but their ideas separately.

In addition to the statements and examples you listed, I loved his example of the Post-Modernity building with its interior going nowhere, but still needing a prescribed foundation. That idea coincided with “top-down” transcendency of purpose and human value, paired with a foundation of absolute truth that changes us.
In terms of the political arena in the US, I Ioved his example of the difference between how horses fight an attacker as opposed to the way donkeys fight. As donkeys, politicians are kicking each other instead of facing problems and kicking the problems.
In explaining the transition from the OT to the NT, he used the illustration of a mirror being the law showing me a dirty face. But the mirror couldn’t cleanse it. It took water to wash it.
Thanks for this great video. I learned a lot and took a lot of notes.

4 Likes

This is very interesting. I notice how much this is the default position of a lot of people, and am currently wondering on how to change a personal attack into a meaningful conversation (especially in online forums such as facebook comments), and at what point to let a conversation lapse.

Do you think that deep down, when someone uses a personal attack, they themselves know it stems from anger or insecurity? thus it’s easier to just ignore it completely and adjust conversation to a gentler approach?

In the case in which a personal attack is the start of a conversation; is it wise to try to gently try turn this around to a good discussion?

If you reach a point in what was a good conversation; and when you recognise a personal attack, you can adjust the conversation because you know you’ve reached a point at which your questions are hitting home and making people question their worldview; and at which point you might let that be enough for that particular conversation rather than making the mistake of pushing too hard and boxing people into a corner: thus showing we are trying to win the argument; and failing to reach the person behind the question. I think curiosity is a quite powerful thing; and knowing what not to say is the hardest thing sometimes.

just pondering out loud; Great interview; I’m hoping that Ravi and Jordan Peterson will be able to have a discussion some day. :grin:

3 Likes

Fairly early in the discussion Rubin referenced the Constitution. He said the Constitution guarantees us ‘freedom FROM religion’. (Emphasis mine) That is wrong. The amendment says the government shall ESTABLISH no religion.’ In England, the king established the ’ Church of England’ and it was against the law to refuse membership.
Our Constitution prohibits this, and be protects our right to practice our religion according to it’s lights without coercion, except where such practice may infringe on on another’s rights.