Is Someone Manipulating YouTube Search for Steve Baughman’s Video: “The Case Against Ravi Zacharias?”

The Case Against Ravi Zacharias?, Steve Baughman, Clergy Sexual Misconduct, Misleading Credentials

Ravi Zacharias, sex scandal, falsified credentials, lawsuit

Twitter photo


***

Steve Baughman, the attorney who has been attempting to get Ravi Zacharias to come clean on his academic credentials, just contacted me and told me that for the SECOND time, something/someone has been monkeying around with his YouTube account.

From Steve:

About two months ago, my video called “Ravi Zacharias Online Sex Scandal” was taken down. A notice from YouTube said that I was given a strike. Three strikes and your channel goes.

I appealed to YouTube and it came back a few hours later.

Then tonight, I noticed that my new video, “The Case Against Ravi Zacharias” is no longer searchable. Nobody can find it. I know it’s there because I can find it through my channel. But nobody else can.

Somebody is playing dirty pool.

 

He’s correct. I tried searching “The Case Against Ravi Zacharias,” and I got pages of Mr. Zacharias’ own videos. Then scrolling down, I finally saw Steve’s channel (in the middle of the photo).

 

53396898062__330322a3-6027-4c64-884f-698fd51cf392

 

But the search engine should be showing the video. The actual video is nowhere to be found on the search. Someone is clearly manipulating the search engine.

You can, however, find the video, but only by clicking on the FriendlyBanjoAtheist channel. This screen shot shows the search I did. I had to scroll way down until I finally got to FriendlyBanjoAtheist channel. If I didn’t know the video was in that channel, I never would have found it. This is ridiculous.

Go ahead and check for yourself on YouTube. Search for “The Case Against Ravi Zacharias,” and let me know what you find.

So, does anyone find it “coincidental” that:

  1. RZIM came out this week with a statement saying they would update it, but there’s been silence?
  2. I was asked to take down emails? (This may or may not be from the Zacharias camp, but I’m still going to include it here as a possibility.)
  3. For the second time, Steve Baughman’s YouTube account has been manipulated in different ways?

What do all three of the above have in common?

Ravi Zacharias, The Case Against Ravi Zacharias

SILENCE

The more they can keep the victim silent, and Steve silent, and me silent, the more they can continue doing what they’ve been doing and hide . . . . THIS.MUST.STOP!! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

photo credit: Jarbas Ribeiro ▲ shhh… via photopin (license)

100 comments on “Is Someone Manipulating YouTube Search for Steve Baughman’s Video: “The Case Against Ravi Zacharias?”

  1. The video doesn’t come up on my search. In fact, Steve Baughman’s channel doesn’t show in my search either. I clicked on the “All” and “Video” tab and nothing showed on either one.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Offered for what its worth, I had a horrid sin when I was in the faith community. I will admit to it and I have tried to repent of it for most of my life. It is a truly vile, evil and even damning sin. This is the sin of “needing”. I have said this in the past that the “unpardonable” sin is needing Jesus. It really is, look at so many posts, blog articles, conferences. They give a hat tip to Jesus but basically, U are to muscle it through deal with it and above all move on. Keep moving on. That is what Ravi feared, in my opinion, to actually fall into the hands of a truly loving savior. Think on it, what was one emotion U feared to show in church, of course, fear, struggling etc. True Christians should never need anything especially Jesus. People outside the industry, let me restate this for emphasis it is an industry. But it is preached with every sermon and reinforced with every blog/twitter/facebook post. Don’t Need ever no matter what. I get that, we are born somewhat alone, we live alone for the most part, and we, by God’s divine decree will die alone. That was made clear.

    JA I lived this theology deep and true for years, never trust them ever. U are doing the right thing and honoring Jesus.

    Like

  3. This is not good. I just spent some time searching various ways and also using search engines. On Yahoo.com and Bing.com, searching for ‘Case Against Ravi Zacharias’ under ‘all’ or ‘web,’ the YouTube video came up as the first listing on both. It did not do so on Google or Norton safe search.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Wouldn’t it be better to wait for more concrete evidence of what has gone on? You could speculate that Steve himself had done this in order to make it look as though Ravi’s ministry were guilty of suppressing the truth. But that is all it would be – pure speculative guess work. (In case someone is not paying attention at the back, I’m not saying for one moment I actually think Steve has actually done this.)

    This could be a hack by a Ravi supporter without his knowledge or consent. Or with it. It might be youtube worried about possibly legal implications. Who knows.

    This speculation is a bit reminiscent of the Fred Butler fake twitter account rumpus. A bit too much like a conspiracy theory.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. KAS – I’m thinking out loud here. I don’t know for sure, but I am alerting people that something funky is going on, so we can be watchful. We have seen this kind of thing happen before.

    Like

  6. why don’t you try typing in FriendlyBanjoAtheist on youtube. That is his channel for crying out loud. you people seriously think Ravi Zacharias can manipulate youtube ? Good lord get control of yourselves. All the videos are there.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. When you have lots and lots of money and are famous you can do anything you want. Next we will probably hear from RZIM that it was God vindicating Zacharias from that horrible attack of the enemy! lol

    Like

  8. There is another Christian blogger who is exposing all of the information I have been exposing here. I just got word that the video he posted on YouTube was also taken down. It’s now back up after he appealed.

    Like

  9. Oh. No. My Christian radio station plays Ravi’s messages every weekday morning. While I always got kind of a weirdly-wrong feeling about him(I wrote it off as triggers of hurt from an East-Indian man I used to work for that treated me, a white woman, less than good to put it mildly) I too took what was good from it. So, with these videos being hard to find, and the YouTuber with the name “athiest” I struggle with how to tell them that. They need to do research, but how? Thanks for this blog; that’s probably a good start, right?

    Like

  10. When I entered Baughman’s search terms ‘Ravi Zacharias Online Sex Scandal’ on YouTube, the first two videos that came up were posted by ‘MuslimbyChoice’, the third was ResuingtheChurch’, and two of Baughman’s (FriendlyBanjoAthiest) were fourth and fifth. I gather from the description lines in the first and second videos that the poster is seeking to discredit the late Nabeel Qureshi (a convert from Islam) by discrediting Ravi Zacharias. I have not watched any of them, as film documentary is the least reliable kind of evidence when it comes to examining an issue as it is too easy to edit out what doesn’t fit the narrative and sources are only shown briefly.

    I have only ever heard Zacharias speak once at a church service, and even then only part of the message as other duties called me away. I was very underwhelmed, as I like a different kind of message from a different kind of speaker (apologetics is low on my list of preferred listening material), but the building was packed with excited people of my generation (millennial) and older to hear him. I have never read any of his books or watched any of his internet talks or debates. Nevertheless, something feels different about this than other cases such as Tchidavijan or Driscoll. One question occurs to me regarding the alleged online relationship. People can impersonate other people online – for example, I frequently see commenters with the names of celebrities who are not those celebrities commenting under YouTube videos, and many people who developed internet chat room relationships have discovered on meeting the person that the persona online did not match the one in reality. Is it certain that it was Zacharias communicating with this woman?

    Like

  11. I am certain, roscura. I only posted a few emails. I have more than that. And the lawsuit, and others who have communicated with her and vouched for her. Her story and their relationship was real. And I’m sickened that Ravi Zacharias is trying to cover it up.

    Like

  12. I am on neither side and just want to know the truth. However, in his defense I have 2 questions.

    Like Roscuro said, how do we know it was him?
    It is extremely easy to minipulate emails or other documents.
    Also, I do find it kind of odd that someone like Ravi with such an educational background would make so many grammer mistakes in his respones.
    Of course I realize that with casual emailing one might not be too worried about it.

    My other questions is: There are reports that this women’s husband was accused of extorting a pastor in 2008. If this is true, that is a big red flag.

    I am trying to look at both sides, i thing people are innocent until proven guilty.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Thank you Lois, for making that clear as I wasn’t sure from reading the posts here.

    I have now read the documents from the case that were available on Baughman’s site. If the documents are real, than I would say there still seems something odd about the case, something that doesn’t add up. I’m not saying that Zacharias is innocent, but that I don’t think either side is telling the whole story – neither the court filing nor the letter from the accuser’s lawyer is telling the full truth.

    Like

  14. Hi Carl,

    You have some good questions, thank you for asking because I’m sure others have the same questions.

    In the e-mails I posted, I redacted the e-mail addresses (I am intentionally trying to protect the victim, and as a courtesy, I redacted Mr. Zacharias’ email address). However, it is important to note that I have seen correspondence to/from Ravi Zacharias using the same e-mail address (it might have been in court documents).

    As far as grammar/typographical errors. I’m pretty picky when it comes to typos on my blog (ask Kathi, my co-blogger), yet when we are casually talking together, I am Typo Queen. I don’t even correct them most of the time because I know she’ll be able to decipher my words. And I’m terrible when texting messages on my phone (ask Kathi again – lol). I know of quite a few people who do the same. RZ is a busy man and I suspect he was just careless (like me).

    Your second question about extorting a pastor – I have inquired about that case as well. Evidently the victim and her husband used their own money to support that pastor/church and the pastor made some very foolish investments with their money. They sued him to recoup their financial loss. This seems to be a legitimate case from what my sources have told me. I do see how it could appear as though they have a track record for suing, though. I believe both the lawsuit and the attempted lawsuit were legitimate and necessary.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. I’m not saying that Zacharias is innocent, but that I don’t think either side is telling the whole story – neither the court filing nor the letter from the accuser’s lawyer is telling the full truth.

    You are correct, roscuo. I believe Ravi Zacharias’ attorney told a fabricated story, and you certainly haven’t heard the victim’s story because she hasn’t been given the opportunity to share hers. The only thing that has been made public about her side is what I have shared in comments and/or the emails which were posted (and then removed by request).

    Trust me, there is much more to the victim’s story, but the settlement prevents her from sharing it. That is why it is imperative that people demand that Ravi Zacharias give account. It is not acceptable to just pay someone off for silence and yet have all of these unanswered questions. I hope you will contact RZIM and encourage them to do so!

    Like

  16. I find it hard to believe YouTube is run by a bunch of minions in pay of evangelicals–corrupt or otherwise. Ravi Zacharias is successful, but he’s not rich enough to bribe the folks who run Google or YouTube. Get a grip! Do you realize how paranoid this sounds?

    Like

  17. I’ve dealt with this before, Rachel. There are all kinds of methods people use to silence the truth. One way is through search engine manipulation, another way is through firewalls, social engineering, etc. This is our new world. We need to get used to it.

    Julie Anne Smith (who is on track to receive her BAS in Cyber Security Spring 2018)

    Liked by 1 person

  18. JA, I didn’t see those emails before they were taken down, but emails in and of themselves, aren’t definite proof, since email address lines can be faked – those phishing emails that look like they come from a friend’s address are a case in point.

    Although I have been hearing Zacharias’ name mentioned in my church circles for many years, I haven’t paid much attention to him. It wasn’t until I saw the excitement among those who came to the church to hear him speak that I realized how much of a following he had. At the time, I felt somewhat uneasy – it seemed to me to be risky that a mere human should be so adulated, and I’ve had enough experience with para-church ministries under leadership unaffiliated with a community church to know that it doesn’t usually turn out well (coughATIcough).

    Like

  19. Yes, any time there is celebrity worship, I get concerned. When followers fail to use common critical thinking skills, that’s when abusers can continue in their path.

    Like

  20. If these accusations are true, RZIM is in an incredible difficult position

    If they reveal the truth. This will cause catastrophic damage to the ministry. Many employees will quit and have their reputations smeared. Not to mention all the people across the world who respect him.

    Is it possible RZIM would use the “ends justify the means” method? They would rather take the guilt of covering it up than expose wrong doing? By doing this they would protect the many innocent people who would be caught up in this.

    I am not saying this is the right thing to do. However I am afraid with the termination of the lawsuit. This whole situation will be swept under the rug.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. From the RZIM response in the CT article:

    …Ravi personally does not brandish his credentials and routinely asks not to be referred to as “Dr. Zacharias”…

    The pastor of the church, where I heard Zacharias speak, said the same thing, that Zacharias does not like having his credentials touted in introductions. I heard the pastor say this before I read anything about the possibility of Zacharias’ credentials being inflated, and the pastor made the observation in a lighthearted conversational context, so this part of RZIM’s statement seems sound from my experience.

    Also from the statement: In Ravi’s homeland of India, for example, honorific titles are customary and are used frequently out of respect for elders, including by the RZIM India team when addressing Ravi.
    I don’t know about India specifically, but I have witnessed the use of honorific titles that we would consider needing a degree or other special qualification in Western culture being used for those without those qualifications in another (West African) culture. I’m not saying it was right of RZIM to do so – Christ warned us not to take the higher position (Luke 14:7-11) – but our Western titles do not necessarily carry the same associations in other cultures.

    Like

  22. My thoughts on the video not showing properly in YouTube searches is that perhaps there was a complaint to YouTube but since it wasn’t a copyright infringement (where they are removed and will not be reinstated), they put it back up after he challenged its removal. YouTube may have then made it so that the video would not show as before in searches, which would partly appease whoever may have made a complaint.

    Like

  23. We know something is going on and Steve Baughman’s videos are on the radar, because Steve had one taken down and had it put back up after he appealed. That means he’s on YouTube’s radar. It would not surprise me to find out that Zacharias’ lawyers have sent YouTube a DMCA takedown request or something similar.

    But beyond the sex scandal, there’s the whole issue of Zacharias promoting that he had earned doctorates when they were actually honorary doctorates. I’m thinking he’s hoping that if the sex scandal goes away, people won’t ask about his credentials. But the fact is, and I’ve tweeted this at Christianity Today–if Ravi Zacharias will lie to people about his doctorates, then how can I trust him to tell me the truth about God? He needs to come clean.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. I am sorry to say this article is the straw that broke the camel’s back for me. In the past several months I have watched the quality of this blog go downhill, relying on speculation and conspiracy theories and highly questionable evidence answered only with (in essence), “trust me, I’m a good person. I promise I vetted this.” I believe you are a good person, but anecdotes alone are not enough evidence for me, and I am deeply concerned about the very real possibility of libel and slander lawsuits, as I’ve mentioned before. It may be the internet, but you can’t just spread unverified information that hurts someone’s reputation. That is, in fact, illegal.

    I am, therefore, leaving this community with a heavy heart. I still thank you and appreciate you for helping me several years ago when I struggled so much with church PTSD. You let me know I was not alone, and you helped me find my voice again. I will never forget that.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Julie Anne said “Trust me, there is much more to the victim’s story, but the settlement prevents her from sharing it. That is why it is imperative that people demand that Ravi Zacharias give account. It is not acceptable to just pay someone off for silence and yet have all of these unanswered questions. I hope you will contact RZIM and encourage them to do so!”

    How are you coming to the conclusion that he paid her off? The only lawsuit involved in this entire thing is Ravi suing the husband and wife. And he filed a lawsuit because they tried to get him to pay them off for $5 million (extortion) and he would not do it!

    It is disgusting to me that you would do this to someone without the proper evidence. You owe him a public apology. What team are you working for?

    Like

  26. Mirele – isn’t calling this a ‘sex scandal’ similar to the allegation Ravi inflated his credentials? You would think he had actually committed adultery. This aspect has always bothered me – Ravi was in no position to force the wife in this instance to send what are euphemistically called ‘inappropriate’ photos, so she must take responsibility in whole or in part for this, surely?

    I am not indending to victim blame here, it’s just if you ever get into or watch a debate on complementarianism and equality (I would advise against this!) you will be told in no uncertain terms how strong women are, only to be confronted with the opposite – they are weak and vulnerable – when it comes to pastors who abuse their claimed ‘authority’. Do you see what I am getting at? If find this to be confused thinking and tbh contradictory.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. You’re missing something here, KAS. This was a relationship with a power differential and he was in a position of power/trust. He was most certainly in a position to influence her to do things that she would not have ordinarily done.

    Like

  28. KAS–we don’t know what is going on with the lawsuit because of the settlement and I am unwilling to speculate on what happened. However, we DO have evidence that Zacharias fudged his credentials and he needs to answer to that. But the Evangelical Industrial Complex has deemed Ravi Zacharias to be one of their Golden Boys, so they will protect him. That’s disgusting.

    Like

  29. I have a problem with calling Ravi’s partner in adultery a “victim.” Did he rape her? No. Did he sneak into her house to take nude photos while she was unconscious? No. They were selfies. Did he threaten her, to force her to send them? “Hey doll-face, send nude pics or I’ll send Iggy and Ziggy over to burn your house down while you’re in it!” Seemingly she sent those pics willingly. Just because he requested them did not mean she had to send them.

    A man may be an artful seducer, a player. But you can always say “No.” She’s well over 18 I assume. She knows right from wrong. Would you call Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina a “victim?” Count Vronsky marked her out for seduction and was great at sweet talk, etc.

    Ravi Zacharias should not be in the ministry if this is proven true. He would be guilty of moral failure. But this woman is his accomplice. Not a victim.

    Like

  30. “Ravi Zacharias should not be in the ministry if this is proven true.“

    Ravi isn’t in ‘the ministry’.

    Ravi gets paid to do what he does. He makes millions of dollars out of Jesus’ name.

    I wouldn’t call him a servant (what a minister is).

    I can think of lots of words which are more appropriate.

    If he was a servant he’d be doing it for free.

    But he’s not, is he?

    Like

  31. KAS,
    It is not an allegation that he inflated his credentials. It is a fact that he did… there are lots of documents and books floating around for decades that say he has a Ph.D., and prestigious associations, that RZIM now admit are incorrect.

    To us in the academic world, this is a big deal. I do not car if Billy Graham did it, it was wrong for him also. I for one, was deceived by all of this in an early Veritas Forum.

    It is time we stand up against this FRAUD.

    Liked by 2 people

  32. PS. The new statement on RZIM’s web site on RZ bio’s says that RZ never knowing missrepresented his credentials… yet if you click on the International Board of Directors, it list RZ as Dr. Ravi Zacharais. It does not say “honorary”….

    Liked by 2 people

  33. Salty, according to the Schedule J, page 3 on Ravi Zacharias International Ministries Form 990 for 2014, it says, and I quote: “As an ordained minister of the Gospel, the CEO receives a board-approved housing allowance in accordance with Internal Revenue Code section 107.” So he IS in the ministry, otherwise he wouldn’t be allowed to take this tax exemption.

    Nonprofit Explorer has the Form 990s here: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/133200719

    Like

  34. I am not indending to victim blame here, it’s just if you ever get into or watch a debate on complementarianism and equality (I would advise against this!) you will be told in no uncertain terms how strong women are, only to be confronted with the opposite – they are weak and vulnerable – when it comes to pastors who abuse their claimed ‘authority’.

    KAS, have you even been listening people’s stories here? Anyone — male or female — can be “weak and vulnerable” in the face of someone who abuses authority or power of any kind. If you happen to see more stories of women suffering in this way, it’s likely because men have disproportionately held those reins of power for many, many years, and continue to insist on doing so. That doesn’t mean that women are inherently weaker than men, or that every woman needs a man to protect her.

    No contradiction here, no matter how hard you might try to look for it.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. AMEN Salty! Yes!

    “Ravi’s Ministry”……yes indeed, it certainly is the ministry of Ravi pointing to himself on a consistent basis, rather than to Jesus, LORD of all.

    One of the preacher men that I was “highly recommended” to me by my former Baptist “leaders,” was Mike Murdock. So I looked him up via the internet and called his “ministry hotline.” Since I was going through a long period of illness (that eventually led to surgery), I asked the staff member if they wouldn’t mind praying for me, and she said, “Yes, we will put your name on our list.”

    Then she asked if I would be willing to donate to “their ministry” and receive a free gift devotional book written by Mike himself! Wow, just what I’ve always wanted and needed! So I shared with her my financial circumstances and asked her if their “ministry” would be willing to help me fund my medical bills as they were becoming increasingly expensive.

    The “staff” member’s response was, “No, we don’t do that here.” Exact quote. Then she hung up on me.

    So much for the “ministry” of Mike Murdock! Funny how these folks use the Name of our Savior for personal gain……a mockery of Christ Jesus.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. @JeffreyChalmers:

    PS. The new statement on RZIM’s web site on RZ bio’s says that RZ never knowing missrepresented his credentials…

    Because that is now The Party Line, Comrades.

    Oceania has always been at Peace with Eurasia, the Chocolate Ration has been Increased from 20 grams to 10, and Two Plus Two Equals Five.

    Like

  37. @JulieAnne:

    Trust me, there is much more to the victim’s story, but the settlement prevents her from sharing it.

    Standard gag order attached to the settlement amount?

    No Signee, No Payee.

    Like

  38. Quote by KAS
    (who I try to avoid reading or replying to, but saw this):

    you will be told in no uncertain terms how strong women are, only to be confronted with the opposite – they are weak and vulnerable – when it comes to pastors who abuse their claimed ‘authority’.
    Do you see what I am getting at? If find this to be confused thinking and tbh contradictory.

    No, there’s no contradiction.

    You’re just buying into the premises of the Complementarian Kool-Aid.

    Complementarians generally assert that all women for all time are inherently designed by God to be weak all the time and need men to protect them.

    Non-complementarians such as myself think that is incorrect. (I used to be a complementarian, by the way.)

    It’s not true that all women are weak, vulnerable, easily deceived all the time in every situation.

    There may be times when an otherwise strong woman goes through a stressful time in her life and becomes vulnerable to be taking advantage of.

    The same holds true for men. There are times when some men are sometimes easily deceived or vulnerable.

    Same holds true for….
    Elderly people, who, if they get dementia or become senile, may become vulnerable to con artist scams and lose their money. Would you argue that because SOME elderly people fall prey to con artist scams that ALL elderly people are idiots, dupes, easily deceived, so that the elderly – ALL of them – were designed by God to be that way, and so they should not hold leadership positions in churches? Probably not. Yet complementarians make this very argument about ALL women.

    The post I published last night on my Daisy blog:
    _Contradictory Expectations For Both Sexes by Christian Gender Complementarians_

    Like

  39. By the way, KAS, or someone else here, has brought that point up before on previous threads on this subject.
    They seem to feel this is a real “gotcha” argument by which to disprove non-complementarian positions, but it’s not.

    Like

  40. Julie Anne, as to your concern about the video in question not appearing on You Tube.

    I went to You Tube’s main page last night and pasted in the exact title of the video by the Atheist Banjo guy, and the video itself did not appear in the search results.

    However, I searched for Friendly Atheist Banjo’s name, his account showed up in the results.

    I clicked his name, and when I was taken to either his main You Tube account page or his video play list page – I forget where exactly I was directed by You Tube after I clicked his name – a list of his video titles appeared, and the one you were asking about was at the top.

    So, I was seeing his newest video showing up on his You Tube account, if you go to his account, but it was not appearing in the general search results.

    Like

  41. Julie Anne, I have a post for you sitting in moderation right above this one, where I tell you about looking for the Banjo Atheist guy’s video on You Tube the other night.
    – – – – – – – – – ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    I can maybe see how a few of the people above find Julie Anne’s post paranoid-sounding or a little nutty, however,

    I’ve been on the internet a long time, I’ve been a moderator at a heavily visited forum for several years (this was years ago).

    I’ve also been a lurker or a participant at many political groups and blogs over the years, and I saw all kinds of games people played.

    People will indeed try to shut you down if you post material they hate, especially political or religious material they disagree with.

    They will flag your tweets, posts, videos or whatever, to get the host (in this case You Tube) to remove the content.
    They will lie about your content to the host provider and say it violates some terms of another of the hoster, even if it does not, just because they hate you are posting material that disagrees with their opinions.

    Like

  42. (My part 1 is sitting in moderation right above this post)
    Part 2 –

    About the people above saying they don’t like this blog any more, won’t visit, etc. because this post was just too much for them.

    I think Julie Anne is an honest person who vets her information. She isn’t sloppy.

    I’ve been visiting this blog for years and she (like D and D at the other blog) have a consistent track record of being honest and accurate in their reporting.

    On the other hand, blogs such as this one are not professional level journalist enterprises.
    This isn’t the Washington Times, Washington Post, St. Louis Post Dispatch, or New York Times, so I don’t know if it’s fair to hold a blog like this to those same standards.

    One reason some stories do break to main stream publications by the way is because they do break on blogs like this one first. Blogs like this will get ahold of information faster than MSM outlets.

    I remember Johnson of Little Green Footballs blog broke the Dan Rather Memo Gate story years ago, and the MSM picked up on it and ran with it.

    This blog and/or Dee’s TWW blog have been the first to break stories of victims that –MSM didn’t know about,
    -didn’t care to investigate (until AFTER these blogs ran with them), or,
    -the victims felt more comfortable approaching Julie Anne (or Dee) rather than go to a New York Times type publication.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. Yes, Daisy, and that is not right. Normally, all you have to do is even type some of a title in the search field, and then YouTube will list the videos with those words in the title. Friendly Atheist’s movie will not come up on the title search, and that is concerning.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. Most of us bloggers have had issues like this happen to us. One time someone reported my blog as dangerous, and so anyone who used a particular software and came to my site got a warning notice saying my site was unsafe. I had an attorney appeal on my behalf and the restriction was removed. But this kind of thing happens a lot when we are reporting cases like this. I don’t know if it is from defenders of RZ, or people who work with RZ, but someone is clearly at work trying to silence Friendly Atheist. His is not the only video that has been taken down on YouTube.

    Liked by 1 person

  45. (My last three or so posts are sitting in moderation above in this thread.)

    How Legal Agreements Can Silence Victims of Workplace Sexual Assault – from The Atlantic

    The law forbids sexual harassment and assault on the job. But it can also discourage employees from speaking up.

    Quote from HUG’s post:

    Julie Anne said:
    Trust me, there is much more to the victim’s story, but the settlement prevents her from sharing it.

    HUG said:
    Standard gag order attached to the settlement amount?

    No Signee, No Payee.

    This settlement pay off and N.D.A. (Non Disclosure Agreement) stuff kept coming up in the Hollywood sex abuse stories I kept seeing reported on news sites.

    Women feeling they had little choice but to sign NDAs (or NDAs are standard in sex abuse settlements with some companies, apparently?), or they have to take pay outs, was one reason guys like Weinstein got away with doing what he did for so many years.

    A few weeks ago, there were starting to be conversations in the media about this, some were saying that legally, from this point forward, there should be no “shut up clauses” in settlements, no NDAs, related to sex assault or harassment situations, precisely because the predator continues on his merry way, to harass MORE victims.

    Everyone was shocked about a week ago to find out that the U.S. Congress has a Hush Up Slush Fund, where after these pervy Congressmen get done sexually harassing women interns, they dip into the Money Box, pay those women off to make them shut up and go away.

    Part of how the sex abuse / harassment situations are dealt with, IIRC, is that the women are not allowed to go public afterwards. The predator gets to remain anonymous.

    So, I saw two Representatives (from the U.S. Congress) on TV the last few weeks saying they are going to put new rules in place (or try to) that publicizes who these Anonymous Gropers are, and prohibit such guys from remaining Anonymous in the future.

    The American tax payer should not have their tax dollars go into a Hush Fund. Better yet, U.S. politicians should not be sexually harassing women to start with, then there would be no supposed need for such as Hush Fund to start with, der!

    Liked by 1 person

  46. @Daisy:

    This settlement pay off and N.D.A. (Non Disclosure Agreement) stuff kept coming up in the Hollywood sex abuse stories I kept seeing reported on news sites.
    Women feeling they had little choice but to sign NDAs (or NDAs are standard in sex abuse settlements with some companies, apparently?), or they have to take pay outs, was one reason guys like Weinstein got away with doing what he did for so many years.

    I remember something similar when Michael Jackson came under scrutiny years ago. Paid settlements with his underage accusers (said to range up to seven figures), all details under a gag order/cone of silence. Hush Money carrot backed with the stick of 24/7 phone/net harassment by fanatical MJ fanboys.

    Like

  47. I am glad to see my last post made it.

    Just as I hit the “post comment” button, the electric in my home cut out, my computer went off. I thought I had lost it.
    Thank you for taking my other posts out of mod status, Julie Anne.

    When I kept saying above, “my post above is in mod” I was just informing you, I did not mean it in a “pushy” way.

    I was thinking they’d be approved some time later this evening, but you approved them quick like a bunny!

    Like

  48. Julie Anne said,

    I don’t know if it is from defenders of RZ, or people who work with RZ, but someone is clearly at work trying to silence Friendly Atheist. His is not the only video that has been taken down on YouTube.

    Yes, I would not put it past people to do such things.

    That suggestion may sound crazy to some of the other commentators here, but not to me.

    I’ve been on the web too long and on too many religious and political sites where some people hold very strong feelings about things. I’ve been a moderator on religious forums with tons of visitors, and I’ve seen this happen before.

    About a year or more ago, I remember that people of one political persuasion where reporting harmless Tweets of people of the opposing political side for bullying or violating Twitter TOS, or whatever (and these Tweeters were doing no such thing), which was causing Twitter to just blindly block or suspend accounts.

    Flagging people’s accounts, by dishonestly reporting them as being bullies, or violating TOS, was a tool being used by some on Twitter to silence opponents.

    You do have people who, if they are “fans” or supporters of someone, go totally bonkers and get dishonest and try to have other people’s content removed.

    You had one lady show up here on a previous Ravi Z thread spewing all sorts of far out there support for Ravi Z, and I honestly could not tell if she was a sincere die-hard Ravi Z. fan, or being a Poe, if she was trolling, because her commentary was so incredibly wacky.

    I would not put it past fans of Ravi Z. to report “Friendly Banjo Atheist,” or his videos, to You Tube, to try and get You Tube to delete, ban, or suspect his account or certain videos.

    I’ve already seen a handful of Ravi Z. “fans” show up here on this very blog, or have seen them Tweet you or other Ravi critics on Twitter, and some of them are extremely wacky. They sound positively unhinged.

    It’s fine to soberly state concerns about what you’re doing, for folks to ask you, “are you sure you’re information is accurate” and the like, but some of them…

    Their amount of devotion to Ravi sounds totally overboard and crazy to me. I cannot imagine investing ANY Christian public figure with THAT much uncritical, slobbering devotion as some of them are doing. It’s creepy.

    If it’s not Ravi’s staff monkeying around with You Tube, maybe some of those “fan” types, the really looney, too- devoted Ravi fans, who think he’s on par with Jesus of Nazareth, are reporting Banjo’s videos to You Tube.

    I’ve seen flakes, or very passionate people, do that sort of thing before in other contexts, with other religious figures or with political topics.

    So I do see it as plausible that Ravi Z’s staff or really, nutty, devoted Ravi Z supporters are unfairly reporting Banjo’s videos to get them deleted or censored. It’s not that far fetched, when you’ve been on the internet since the 1990s and have seen it happen to other people on other sites!

    Liked by 1 person

  49. Google and other companies have been in the news the last few months for rigging search results or censoring certain political content, so this is not unheard of.

    (If I’m not mistaken Google either owns You Tube or is affiliated with it in some fashion.)

    Years ago, I submitted a site I made to Google – to have their site index it, so it’d show up in search results – and all sorts of weird things happened over the next few weeks regarding that site and its search results on Google.

    I don’t want to say what the site was about. It was nothing bad.

    Let’s just say it was a site critical about a certain politician, as an example, and let’s call the politician “Mr. Smith.”
    I just made a site with several pages criticizing this politician’s views, let’s say.

    At first, after I submitted my site and gave Google time to index it, then my site showed up just fine when I ran a search for the name “Mr. Smith politician” and other related search terms via Google’s search.

    Then my site disappeared from their search results for days, then it showed up again, but had been moved from the number one result where it had previously been to number two (at one point, Google started listing Mr. Smith’s official site above my negative site about him).

    Then, days later, my site got totally removed from search results again, then re-appeared, etc. All very weird. That strange Google behavior went on for a few weeks.

    My gut feeling is that the people at Google were not comfortable with my site and didn’t REALLY want to list it, but went ahead. Maybe they had internal debates at Google staff meetings about what to do with it, I don’t know.

    Facebook, like Google, has also been in the news a lot for removing or censoring content they don’t like, whether political or whatever.

    Headline from New York Post:
    “How Apple and Google are censoring the mobile Web”

    From US News (opinion/editorial):
    “Google Is the World’s Biggest Censor and Its Power Must Be ”

    From Hollywood Reporter:
    “Google Responds to Lawsuit Accusing YouTube of Censoring Conservatives”

    _Confirmed: Google punishing conservative websites with search engine ranking penalties_

    Like

  50. @ Julie Anne.
    Re: posts going into mod. That’s okay. It can be a little frustrating when a post gets stuck in moderation, but that’s OK. 🙂
    I have no idea what words I’m using that may be triggering whatever your blog’s filter is set to.

    I just published this (on my Daisy blog), to respond to KAS’ point above:

    _Part 2: Contradictory Expectations For Both Sexes by Christian Gender Complementarians: Are Women Weak, Vulnerable, Or Strong?_

    At that bottom of that post on my blog are two links to other people’s resources about C.S.A. (Clergy Sex Abuse). One is a You Tube video, the other is a link to an article about the subject.

    Liked by 1 person

  51. HUG said,

    It’s called “Doing the LOOOOOORD’s Work”.

    Oh yes, I saw a lot of this back in the day on Christian forums.

    There was one group especially who felt it was just fine lying about people whose work they disagreed with, because they were Serving the LOOOOOORD, and the ends justified the means.

    They felt they were defending Jesus, Mom, Apple Pie, and The Bible, so it was more than okay to intentionally, knowingly fudge facts, misquote their opponents, etc.

    Total intellectual dishonesty by that crowd.
    It never ceases to amaze me when people think the are doing something good and godly but abusing people in the midst of doing so, or lying, being purposefully misleading and deceitful.

    Like

  52. I don’t think RZIM is interfearing with the videos. The damage is done. Them taking it down won’t really do anything.
    My guess it’s people who don’t like his videos flagging them.

    I read Ravi’s response, and there are still two major questions that need to be answered.

    Why did he decide to mediate? By doing this, it looks like a cover up, whether intentional or not.
    Those emails that were supposedly his, were they real or fake?

    Until this is answered, I will sadly always have doubts in my mind.

    Like

  53. Mirele said,

    if Ravi Zacharias will lie to people about his doctorates, then how can I trust him to tell me the truth about God? He needs to come clean.

    I see what you’re saying, but as I said on one of the first thread on this, I am sort of torn on this topic.
    I am put off by Christians who don’t apparently even TRY to consistently live up to Christ’s teachings, ethics, but, that Ravi Z. may, say, cheat on his income taxes or commit adultery or steal candy from babies or whatever skeezy thing he’s done, doesn’t mean everything he’s ever said or done is wrong or a lie.

    I have seen Ravi on television a time or two, and I think I’ve heard a few podcasts with him as a guest. He, in my opinion, actually made some pretty decent apologetics arguments.
    But it is, or can be, hard to swallow that and given him a fair shake on his apologetics if one finds out he’s not so ethical in other areas of his life.

    Like

  54. As Jesus said, “Do as they say, but don’t do as they do.” He was referring to the Pharisees. I have gleaned some nuggets of truth from a Bill Gothard sermon. Not the one about Abigail and Nabal’s umbrella. 🙂

    Like

  55. Serving Kids: bestowing honor on the woman as the weaker sex

    This from 1 Peter does point to the truth that at least physically, women are on average weaker than men, and this puts a responsibility on men in how they treat them, especially if you look at the context. Paul talks about ‘weak women’ who become prey to men. Whether women are more prone to emotional manipulation or more prone to deception is a big question, and there are arguments both for and against this. It’s not something I have any desire to get into. Generates more heat than light.

    I would stand by my observation of the contradiction in feminist ideology that portrays women as strong whilst simultaneously complaining at abuse on a mass scale. Of course this is speaking in generalities. It’s sad when Christians, who ought to know better, follow this line of thinking.

    In the particular case here, it seems to me from the information available that Zacharias could only have as much power over the women as she was prepared to give him. Why didn’t she tell her husband? I would suggest that this is true of any abuse of authority – that pastors or whatever only have as much power as we are prepared to give them. I used to be vehemently against this idea, but with hindsight now recognise it does have a fair amount of truth in it, even if it is not the whole story.

    Like

  56. Julie Anne

    So what is keeping you from releasing them? If you do, then he will be forced to respond.

    You are not bound by the settlement. The victim wins, she keeps the money and we hear her side of the story.

    Like

  57. I’ve been responding all over the place. I thought I already answered that, Carl. I took the emails down because my first responsibility is to protect the victim and that was her request.

    Like

  58. You posted two pages, they have made their rounds. However, you claim you have pages and pages. That’s what I am talking about.

    Like

  59. KAS said

    I would stand by my observation of the contradiction in feminist ideology that portrays women as strong whilst simultaneously complaining at abuse on a mass scale.
    Of course this is speaking in generalities. It’s sad when Christians, who ought to know better, follow this line of thinking.

    It’s not a contradiction. I responded to you on my blog in this post:
    Part 2: Contradictory Expectations For Both Sexes by Christian Gender Complementarians: Are Women Weak, Vulnerable, Or Strong?

    Feminists do not say all women are strong all the time.

    It’s complementarians and anti-feminism types who argue that all women are weak all the time (were designed by God to be as such), or should act weak. See my post, link right above, for more.

    Like

  60. Also, KAS, sexism against women does exist.
    You make it sound as though there is no such thing as widespread abuse of girls and women, and that anyone who is not anti-feminism or pro-complementarian is making it up or exaggerating it.

    I did another post or two on my blog about that as well:
    Women (and the men) Who Argue Against Feminism, Who Claim Men and Masculinity Are Under Attack, Or Who Insist That There is Little, to No, Sexism In The U.S.A.

    (I actually have a few posts on my blog that deal with that topic, that is just one.)

    Like

  61. Carl said,
    “You posted two pages, they have made their rounds. However, you claim you have pages and pages. That’s what I am talking about.”

    The victim doesn’t want any of the private information or documents publicized is my understanding, and Julie Anne is trying to honor her wish.

    Like

  62. Perhaps a different tact is in order. How many predators have only one victim? (Not many, perhaps not any.) Maybe it’s time to advertise for others to come forward… But maybe there’s someone out there, or many someone’s just waiting for the 1st one to speak up… Time to solicit their stories… And are there lawyers available to protect them?

    Liked by 1 person

  63. Excellent point, Sister. Thanks! If someone contacted me, I can certainly contact my network of friends and see if we can find someone to help with legal matters, or any other issues. We are definitely here to help.

    Like

  64. Thanks Julie Anne…maybe it would also help to solicit through Twitter & through the Deebs & with the churchtoo hashtag…. If there are more victims, I hope they come forward.

    Liked by 1 person

  65. Daisy – “You make it sound as though there is no such thing as widespread abuse of girls and women.”

    I said “… feminist ideology that portrays women as strong whilst simultaneously complaining at abuse on a mass scale.” (Emphasis added.)

    That’s why I not angling for a discussion of this beyond making the observation.

    Like

  66. Julie Anne and Sister – isn’t it dodgy (from both a moral and legal point of view) to imply RZ is a serial predator, with other victims? is there any evidence of this? Soliticing other witnesses to any wrong-doing is starting to sound like identity politics. I’m sure Ravi supporters would see it that way.

    Like

  67. That’s why I not angling for a discussion of this beyond making the observation.

    If you don’t want a reaction, then you shouldn’t go making ignorant comments that invite reactions, KAS.

    You complain about discussions generating “heat”, and yet you make incendiary remarks. How’s that for a contradiction?

    I repeat: There is no contradiction between the strength and dignity of women, and the many stories of abuse against them. If you want an example of an incredibly strong woman who was horribly abused for years, I recommend “The Unbreakable Miss Lovely” by Tony Ortega. I defy you to read what was done to Paulette Cooper, and still claim that she was weak, or that she didn’t suffer abuse.

    Liked by 1 person

  68. KAS said,

    I said “… feminist ideology that portrays women as strong whilst simultaneously complaining at abuse on a mass scale.” (Emphasis added.)

    That’s why I not angling for a discussion of this beyond making the observation.

    You got one.

    Have no idea what is meant by the emphasis on “mass scale.”

    Sexism exists. Abuse against women and girls exists. And it is widespread, systemic, and often institutionalized, as well.

    The God of the bible predicted this would be the case back in Genesis, when he said women would turn to men and men would rule over them.

    Like

  69. Serving Kids said,

    I repeat: There is no contradiction between the strength and dignity of women, and the many stories of abuse against them. If you want an example of an incredibly strong woman who was horribly abused for years, I recommend “The Unbreakable Miss Lovely” by Tony Ortega. I defy you to read what was done to Paulette Cooper, and still claim that she was weak, or that she didn’t suffer abuse.

    Yes, KAS did not address my comments or the post I linked him to which explain that non-complementarians (or feminists) have never said all women are strong all the time in all cases.

    It’s complementarians and guys like KAS, (not feminists), who argue that all women are “X” all the time, and that God designed them to be so.

    One of my blog posts again:
    Part 2: Contradictory Expectations For Both Sexes by Christian Gender Complementarians: Are Women Weak, Vulnerable, Or Strong?

    Like

  70. Post Script. Earlier –

    KAS said,

    I said “… feminist ideology that portrays women as strong whilst simultaneously complaining at abuse on a mass scale.” (Emphasis added.)

    That’s why I not angling for a discussion of this beyond making the observation.

    I think this response is confusing things.

    Speaking in general terms (I am not saying ALL men are sexist here), but most nations and cultures since the beginning (remember God predicted this back in Eden) have ruled over women.

    Most women some or much of the time are capable, smart, and strong, but we’ve all been living in a patriarchy, and patriarchies limit women.

    Men are in control. Men want to stay in control. They’re not interested in seeing women as equals, or allowing women a seat at the table.

    Some of these men have a vested interested in seeing all women as weak all the time.

    Women can be strong, but the system, gender norms, cultural expectations, are in opposition to them. Men control the system and always have, and a lot of men do not want to see women as equals or give them an equal shot.

    The feminists are pointing to the inequalities in or of cultures, nations, laws, and asking for women to be allowed a seat at the table.

    The American slave holders (or those sympathetic to defending the practice) back in 19th century America held deeply held biases against black people as well.

    Some Christians back then used to defend slavery, and sometimes did so by appealing to the Bible, and by arguing that black people are innately flawed.

    Had KAS been around in 1860, and had we had the internet in 1860, he’d be arguing that racism against black people by whites is not on a “mass scale,” and finds it a puzzling “contradiction” that blacks claim to be strong and capable but at the same time claim abuse on a mass scale.

    Individuals within a group (women, black people, whomever) can be smart or strong, but they can be living in a culture that has prejudices and obstacles in place against them.

    Like

  71. I know my legal rights and restrictions, KAS. I also know the information that I have in my possession which leads me to believe there is a strong possibility that this victim is not RZ’s first victim based on the classic predator methodology with which he was able to “win” her spiritually, emotionally, and physically.

    This is not the place to debate whether she is or is not a victim, period. You can do that elsewhere.

    Like

  72. Serving Kids: I’m sorry you found my comment ignorant and incendiary. It comes from years of interacting with ideological secular feminists, with whom, you might be gobsmacked to know, I got on with fairly well. It can be done.

    I’m not going to get into a dogfight with Daisy over this, and I hope you will at least give credit for pointing away from a fruitless discussion of this only partly thread-related theme.

    Like

  73. Julie Anne – you are reacting very defensively. I asked a couple of questions, they were not statements saying you were wrong. I wasn’t attacking you.

    I don’t think that would count ‘as arguing with victims and their stories’. You need to be more consistent on this – Rachel Nichols above said “I have a problem with calling Ravi’s partner in adultery a “victim.” I think she gave good reasons for this. Why didn’t you pick her up on this questioning of a victim’s status? What if I had mistakenly taken my cue from her?

    I don’t know to what extent the complainant in this case really is a victim. The whole thing seems to be a sorry mess on both sides. I think Steve Hays has said some sensible things on this:

    Ravi’s out-of-court settlement is counterproductive in the sense that it doesn’t lay suspicions to rest since, being confidential, outsider observers don’t know which side admitted to wrongdoing.

    Out-of-courts settlements are hard to assess. On the one hand, the accuser might fold because they can’t back up their allegations, and they risk a defamation suit. On the other hand, the accused might settle to avoid having embarrassing details come out in court.

    It’s hard to believe Ravi is quite such a babe-in-the-woods. He’s 71. He’s a man of the world. He hasn’t led a cloistered life.

    Like

  74. KAS,

    I know you like to read. PLEASE take the time to read the book Why Does He Do That? by Lundy Bancroft.

    Remember that Ravi went after this couple for a large donation. Then reading those emails—Ravi has a very subtle way of putting all the blame on her while at the same time pressuring her to do what he wants. He’s trying to play the sympathy card while also making everything be her fault.

    The wording follows the same pattern of manipulation that is so subtle it can be hard to recognize. But its more damaging than physical pain.

    Liked by 1 person

  75. KAS,

    The subconscious mind is a powerful thing. Remember that June has probably been raised in the church her whole life to believe that her whole purpose in life is submission. Comp theology trains women to give up decision making to someone else. To never trust our own discernment.

    Then after pressuring us to be led by others—Comp leaders get upset at women for being led astray. It’s a catch-22. They won’t let us make our own decisions. Then they blame us for allowing someone else to make our choices for us. They blame us for not using our discernment when they were the very ones who trained us to ignore our discernment in the first place.

    Then there’s the overwhelming flood of Christian teaching that blames women for everything. No wonder commentators here are blaming her while letting him off the hook. Fits right in with their theology.

    Liked by 2 people

  76. Pingback: Ravi Zacharias: Email Threat and Ongoing Lack of Response About Reportedly Inflated Credentials | Spiritual Sounding Board

  77. Pingback: Ravi Zacharias Responds | GiveMe Chocolate

  78. Pingback: Unravelling Ravi Zacharias’ Recent Revelations of Sexting and Impropriety – Coercion Code – "Dark Times are upon us"

  79. KAS, “I would stand by my observation of the contradiction in feminist ideology that portrays women as strong whilst simultaneously complaining at abuse on a mass scale.”

    The same contradiction was inherent in slavery. Slaves did physical labor all day long. They were very strong, but part of slavery was systemic emotional and physical abuse that taught slaves, from birth, whatever was necessary to keep them in subjection.

    My Evangelical background was that women were to be treated as the weaker sex. Opening car doors, opening entrance doors, helping ‘old ladies’ across the street. Not asking girls to do man’s work. It all sounds nice and quaint, but there was a lot attached to that. For example, the idea that men are better at “man’s work” (math, science, engineering) and women are better at “women’s work” (cleaning dishes, cleaning floors, social work, counseling). Of course, along with that was the presumption that women’s work was somehow “less” because women were inherently less capable. There’s a lot to the concept of a fixed vs growth mindset where feedback from a fixed perspective often encourages people to stop trying while feedback from a growth mindset encourages people to try harder.

    So, a teacher with a gender bias in high school math may subtly hint to the girls that they aren’t able to figure out a problem because they aren’t “smart enough” whereas the boys are told that they “didn’t try hard enough”. You can call that whatever you want, but I experienced that sort of thing firsthand in an engineering program. There were few enough women in the program and after what I thought was sexist treatment by at least some of the professors, many of those dropped the program.

    Liked by 1 person

  80. Avid Reader – We come at this with different backgrounds and experience. I was struck by your complaint of women being brought up to do nothing but ‘submit’.

    Now I do not doubt the basic framework of complementarianism is the correct understanding of the NT. Please bear with me … but I freely admit there are complementarians especially in the States who never seem to get beyond the word ‘submission’; it figures too prominently in their thinking, and their expertise in it is limited to wives.

    In Eph 5 : 22 Pauls immediately qualifies the general principle of submission he wants to discuss by saying ‘wives (submit) to your OWN husbands’. This rules out submission (whatever you understand by that) being given to other husbands or men in general or her father or … “Dr” Celebrity Ministry. Or interfering relatives!! It liberates them from this, and I use the word deliberately.

    Incidentally, egalitarians who espouse the phrase ‘submit to one another’ means everybody should submit to everybody else are equally guilty of a sloppy reading of the NT as careless complementarians can be. It will result in the same wrong thinking about submission.

    Now I believe men and women are justified by faith in the same Christ in the same way. They can be ‘baptised in the Holy Spirit’ (and with fire!) on an equal basis with men and receive all of the gifts of the Spirit, experimentally – scripture is quite emphatic about this. Exercise ministries. Co-workers. Women should have the word of Christ dwelling in them richly (“Let a women learn ….”), have the right and responsibility to learn and think about doctrine for themselves.

    This is my expectation with evangelical women in a ‘sound’ church, largely confirmed in experience, although to varying degrees depending on how good the church teaches the bible and how much effort both men and women put into knowing and living out the faith.

    Hence when a situation arises as in the Ravi case, I would expect an evangelical Christian women to be clued up enough to know she it not obliged to submit to anyone but her husband. In practice of course I have to admit this will not always be the case for the reasons just given, but it should be.

    Since the couple in this case do not seem to be aware of the apostle Paul pointing us away from taking legal action with other believers, they may not be well clued up on the NT.

    This is also why I would initially tend to look at this issue, on the information available, as six of one and half a dozen of the other until and unless more information becomes available to get beyond reserving judgment.

    But then I have never grown up in a culture where ‘women submitting’ has been such a big issue. The culture on this side of the Pond in any event abandonned any notion of this decades ago.

    Like

  81. Pingback: Resource Archive and FAQs on the Ravi Zacharias and RZIM Situation | Spiritual Sounding Board

  82. ​New post up at Spiritual Sounding Board: “Resource Archive and FAQs on the Ravi Zacharias and RZIM Situation.” It includes numerous links to primary source documents, plus links to posts with observations, analysis, and interpretations. This was developed in response to what look to be the most frequently asked questions about all the parties involved. So far, concerns addressed include about the prior lawsuit by the couple involved, the current legal documents and follow-up statements by Mr. Zacharias and RZIM, Zacharias family members on the RZIM board of directors and staff employees, Mr. Zacharias’ use of credentials and titles, updating of his biographies and titles, and the impact of the non-disclosure agreement.

    If you’ve got concerns about some of these issues, you will likely find sources to study so you can come to your own informed conclusions.

    https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2017/12/08/resource-archive-and-faqs-on-the-ravi-zacharias-and-rzim-situation/

    Like

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s