I write this mainly in response to the first review of this book. The person's first critique of the book was that Ravi had treated Buddha as a god, whereas he was not nor did he claim to be. Two quotes from the book I think will suffice to show how this misrepresents the ideas expressed in the book, and begs the question, has this person read this book, and if so, how carefully did they read it?
On page 5, Ravi refers to Buddhism as a "non theistic, if not atheistic religion." Again on page 90 in reference to Buddha's stance on allowing women as disciples, Ravi says, "Whatever one may make of all this, we must be clear that in a non-theistic system, which Buddhism is...."
Implicit in both of these statements is the realization that Buddha did not claim divine status, rendering the argument made by the first reviewer inaccurate.
I found the book to be compelling, and the information presented, clearly demonstrated the uniqueness of the message of Christ when contrasted against other prevailing worldviews.
In reference to the comment about Ravi's hypocrisy, I would merely point out the lack of differentiation between an argument and a person. If indeed one man fails to live up to the claims of Christ, which the bible clearly states is impossible for man without divine intervention, the message itself is not compromised. Especially when the inability of man to do so is implicit in the message. The message of Christ stands on its own even in light of the attacks of its critics from all sides, and in light of the failure of His followers. (It should be noted that I am not at all implying that Ravi is a failure.)
First, the first reviewer is basing his/her claim of Dr. Zacharias' hypocrisy on a request in a review that he may never see, responding to a person who included no address to which to mail a check.
Second, The argument is based on a person's obedience to a command; not the validity of the one who gave the command, therefore, the criticism fails to disprove the christian message.
Third, the argument seems to be a verbal smokescreen composed of second-hand doubt to hide behind in order to justify the refusal to come to terms with the personal implications of the christian message being true. I mean this in no way to offend the reviewer.
The book, which I think was excellent, discussed how Jesus' claims are unique, and would not have been made by the founders of any other religion. My personal favorite chapter was entitled "a taste for the soul." In this chapter, Ravi points out how Jesus constantly pointed people to a need that was deeper than their physical hunger, to a spiritual hunger that everyone has. He goes on to say that when Jesus says he is the bread of life he is establishing himself as the source of satisfaction, and is actually positing himself as his message. In other words Jesus doesn't point us to satisfaction; he is our satisfaction. As Ravi points out, other founders of religions offer ways to peace or satisfaction, etc., whereas Jesus says," I am the way."
I have consistently found Ravi's writings to be stimulating reading, engaging both the heart and the mind. I would heartily recommend this book to both Christians who are looking for help in learning to defend their faith, and to nonchristians who may be trying to see if the Christian worldview is indeed an intellectually coherent one. As Ravi points out doubt is often a product of ones background every bit as much as faith often is. So the automatic dismissal of anything supernatural often carries with it as many prejudices and presuppositions as faith is accused of carrying. So to anyone who will come and read objectively, I believe you will find a compelling case that the claims of Christ are intellectually tenable, and healing to the soul.
