Ravi Zacharias on the Christian View of Homosexuality #Apologetics

this is a question from the Stow campus and it'll say it says how do you respond to non-believers who accuse Christians of being hateful to people who support lifestyles that are according to the precepts of our faith. I think this is a very important question and they all are really I'd be a dishonest person if I said to you that that question doesn't worry me that I don't even think about it in fact we as a team our entire team people like Nabeel Qureshi Michel Ramsden oz Guinness a Maori Ewing aren't ice because too often sat around a table and said you know how do we deal with this very trying social issue of our time and even though the word is not used here the idea is you know the homosexual lifestyle and all that has come about in our time how do we as Christians deal with it? So Joe if you don't mind I'd like to take an extended answer in this you know let me give you about three panels of an answer the first panel is the logical problem the second panel is what I call the theological problem and the third panel is what I would call the relational problem how you communicate it so let me take first of all the sociological issue here what is the problem now we talked about tolerance so when I was at one of the prestigious universities somebody went to the microphone and asked this question and I said to the person I said I will be glad to answer your question if you will first answer mine what kind of a culture are we living in you have to define it for me I said as far as I know there are three cultures in relation to absolute the first quest the first culture is called a thick anima sculpture where the law of God is supposedly so embedded into our hearts that we all emotive ly or otherwise think in the same categories once upon a time we would talk about the natural law in those categories natural law we believe these truths to be self-evident the early framers believed in the natural law we don't believe in natural law anymore but we used to talk about and that's a thick anima sculpture theros god no mas law sometimes the Indian culture will get close to that it's not always the case but they sort of Darth Academy is what they will say there are people of the soil and the idea of respect for parents and all of that they consider to be self-evident ingrained in the heart of man and so on but we don't believe in the Theon immerse culture in the West so what's the second kind of culture the second kind of culture is a heteronomous culture heteros meaning another No Mas meaning law so we have another law what does that mean the mainstream of the culture is dictated to by the leadership at the top if you look at Marxism in secular terms it is a heteronomous culture the handful and the top will control the masses if you look at Islam it's a heteronomous culture if you go to Saudi Arabia or you go to Iran which are supposed to be truly Islamic countries the mullahs or the sheiks or who are the ayatollahs at the top will tell the masses when they must fast when they can eat what they must wear what they must not wear who they can be seen with who they cannot be seen with all of the dictates even to the discipline of how you wash your hands and feet before you worship and so on it's a heteronomous culture the few at the top dictated for the masses below so I looked at the question and I said a really enormous culture I said no I said are we a heteronomous culture I said no we don't want the few to dictate it for the money I said so that leaves us with the third which is an autonomous culture our toss meaning self namaz meaning law which means each person dictates their own moral prerogatives in the set I said are we on autonomous culture he said yes I saw right now tell me this if we are on autonomous culture and I answer your question are you going to give me the privilege of my autonomy too or as soon as you disagree with my answer you will switch to a heteronomous mode and dictate for me what I must believe as well that is the sociological dilemma that is the sociological dilemma because if a disagrees would be it's not just that is being enforcing his or her principles upon being but B wants to enforce his or her principles upon a so there's a mutual autocracy being sought here but it is never going to be consistent in a culture that is neither phenom us nor heteronomous autonomous cultures run into a conflict where everybody has their own autonomy that's the law that's a sociological issue you move beyond that then to the theological issue the theological issue is this way years ago I was doing some open forums at Indiana University and the press reporter was I was there with Dallas Willard we were both to debate doing the defense of the Christian faith and press reporter came and said she was filming some religious actions on campus for their network and so on do you mind if we take what you're going to talk about tonight I said no that's all right you're welcome but she then she startled me by saying we'll only be there for about five minutes and then we'll be packing up and leaving I hope we won't disturb you and I thought this is what the news does with the talk takes five minutes of it and then tells people that this is what was said you know I thought okay but I wasn't gonna argue with I said ma'am you're welcome to leave just tell your crew to be very quiet because once I get into the thick of it I really don't like the distraction and they'll be quiet slipping out I'll be okay she stayed the whole time stayed for the whole talk stayed for the Q&A and then she said can I walk you back to where you're staying I was staying on the campus I said right and she was walking to me it's quite dark at this time and she says I have a question for you I said is this on the record or is this an off-the-record question she said no this is for me I said so you promise me this is just between you and me in order to print these answers and okay that's all right I just want to know and so she said you know I have a problem with Christianity and here's my problem Christians are generally against racism but when it comes to the homosexual they discriminate against the homosexual how do you explain that I said I find your comments so interesting in the first part of the question it's an ism you're talking about the second part of the question you particular eyes it with individual some just fascinated by that that's okay I said here's what I want to say to you the reason we believe that discrimination ethnically is wrong is because the race and ethnicity of a person is sacred you do not violate a person's ethnicity and race it is a sacred gift and the reason we believe in an absolute nester sexuality is because we believe sexuality is sacred as well and that's why we make a choice that same way I said you will help me if you will tell me why you treat race as sacred and desacralized sexuality she was very quiet she said I've never thought of it in those terms here's what I want to say view marriage as God has given it to us and if you take the whole corpus of the world view is the most sacred relationship into which you will enter because love is given one word in English but there are four words in the Greek agape eros storge and agape filler Oh storge and eros agape is God's love filler who is friendship love or brotherly love story is protective love of parental love eros is romantic love I said do you realize marriage is the only one that pulls these four together agape Follette Oh storge and eros I said and if you take agape out of that eros is gone for whatever you want to do romantic love becomes redefined and to us the Bible gives the sacredness of marriage as Christ is to the church the bridegroom and the bride and in that sacredness the beauty of a consummate relationship between a man and a woman as it is shown in the singular commitment of the marital vow I do I will when you say I do to the one you say I don't do all of the others and you say I will to one you're saying I won't to all of the others so any departure from that beauty and sacredness of the four confluences of love is a biblical notion of what it really means to be married and to just take one behavior and make it look like it's aberrant is not right all departures from that are not acceptable in the sight of God the theological position is a consummate relationship between a man and a woman in the procreative Act and in the sacredness and paying each other the ultimate compliment of taking each other at their word so theologically this is the way we see it sociologically we've been put into a conundrum so we come then in relationally how do we deal with it and here's the hard part but you know what and my wife will tell you this others will tell you this who know me I accept people with a love and a genuineness regardless of what their view is on anything if it's different to mine I have learned to love humanity I can put my arm around a person who has a different view on marriage or a different view on politics of water and just say you know God gives you the most sacred Drifter gift of the prerogative of choice but God does not give you the privilege of determining a different outcome to what the choice will entail the consequences are bound to the choice and you go right back to the book of Genesis and it tells you you do what is right will not you will you not be accepted but if you don't sin stalks a veil at the door desires to have you and so when I look at the sacredness of marriage any change from it from the biblical point of view is a departure from the biblical mandate but at the same time the Bible commands us to love even those with whom we disagree and our responsibility as the church is never to eight the individual our privilege is to love and only God can change the heart of a person and God is the ultimate judge and anaplerotic society let us as Christians be both light salt and learn to love one another and let God be the judge over all of us he is the one who is pure in his judgments we can make errors those are the three panels I want to leave with you

Channel: Christ Community Chapel

Views: 3,363,504

Rating: 4.8101459 out of 5

Keywords: Christ Community Chapel, Christ Community Chapel Hudson, Christ Community Chapel Hudson Ohio, CCC, ccchapel, ccchapel.com, CCC Hudson, CCC Hudson Ohio

Id: nPYRXop7aPA

Length: 11min 21sec (681 seconds)

Published: Wed Apr 29 2015

Reddit Comments

[u/iwontbeadick]

The reason we don't discriminate ethnically is because the race of a person is sacred...A person's ethnicity is a sacred gift...We believe sexuality is sacred as well…

Ethnicity and sexuality are sacred gifts? He accuses this journalist later on of desacralizing sexuality; when he does it right from the start. Is a homosexual not created as well? Was a homosexual’s deeply ingrained attraction to their own sex not part of their creation? Was it not god given? Was it given by something else less sacred, and that is how he is able to compartmentalize them out of the type of sexuality he has allowed into his world view?

Why do you treat race as sacred, and desacralize sexuality?

Who said that this journalist treats race as sacred? She treats it only as something to not be discriminated against, as race is not a choice. Likewise, she considers homosexuality to be something we should not discriminate against. She never said either was sacred.

love is given one word in English, but there are 4 words in the greek…

His conclusion from this point seems to be procreation and marriage “as Christ is to the church, the bridegroom and the bride”. Because the 4 words of love from greek can be attained by a homosexual couple in marriage as well as a hetero couple, so this 4 greek words of love had nothing to do with his argument except to make him sound smarter.

Without god’s love, romantic love is gone? Where does it say this in the bible? It sounds nice, but where is his basis for this? And why is god’s love gone, taken out of the equation, when a couple is homosexual? Is there some source for that as well? He creates them as homosexual, but does not then grant them his love, because they deviated from his son’s example of the bridegroom and the bride? It sounds like the typical father disappointed his second son didn’t live up to his first son’s example, well then he shouldn’t have created them as such.

Then again, all of this is moot since I doubt many homosexual couples are looking for god’s approval in their marriages. They just want equality in the eyes of society and the government, and the Christian view matters to nobody in that instance. Christians can continue in their echo chamber of god’s love and the bridegroom and bride of Christ, so long as they don’t prevent homosexuals from attaining equality in the real world due to their personal beliefs, because, as he said himself, this is not a theonomous culture, thankfully.

God gives you the most sacred gift, of the prerogative of choice, but god does not give you the privilege of determining a different outcome to what the choice will entail

I think this all boils down to Ravi thinking it is a personal choice of homosexuals to prefer their own sex. As if humans can control what turns them on. We all know what seems natural, men and women together can create life, but that doesn’t preclude people being born with feelings different from that. Go out and ask people if it was a personal choice, if they made an educated decision when they were 12 years old that they wanted to spend their lives with their own sex; that they decided to be sexually attracted to their own sex. Has Ravi asked that question? It sounds like he just assumed that based on christ’s example of the bridegroom and the groom, that we must all have been created in that way, and any deviation is by choice.

---