Ravi Zacharias on the Christian View of Homosexuality #Apologetics

Ravi Zacharias on the Christian View of Homosexuality #Apologetics

This video is part of “Answering the Biggest Objections to Christianity,” a live Q&A with author and scholar Dr. Ravi Zacharias on April 12, 2015 at Christ Community Chapel.

For a video of the full event, please visit

For more information about Christ Community Chapel, please visit our website at

More information about RZIM and Dr. Zacharias can be found on their website at and

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


  1. We can have our own opinion on homosexuality. As a Christian I know it is wrong but I also know I'm not here to judge anyone who is different or lives a different life style. I have family and friends who are homosexual and I love them still; I don't agree with their choice but I respect and love them for the person they are. God wants us to acknowledge wrong but not to judge it because that is his job not ours. Now don't get me started on pedophiles because those I would NOT pardon or understand! That's another issue to argue another time…

  2. Well said Mr. Ravi, but you have to also tell the married man and woman that anal sex is still an abomination. Not trying to be gross ,but I have heard so called men bragging about that sick and disgusting act.

  3. God almighty! He gets himself and us completely lost in all kinds of words, definitions and so on. Just rambles on and on in a pseudo-sophisticated way, trying his best to impress his audiences.
    The fact is that the Christian right in America mostly despises the gay life and gay people, and wishes that they would mend their ways. All this superficial idea of loving other human beings and so on is fine and dandy but in real life that's not what happens. There is is such an awful attempt, particularly political, to suppress the LGBT community and deny them all rights of freedom. That's what is really going on.

    I'm a Hindu originally from India like Ravi. Until recently, homosexuality was a CRIME, based on British law that was allowed to continue. But the Indian Supreme court struck down that law, in the past year. Interestingly Hinduism never, in my knowledge, addresses the gay problem! I've read the Hindu scriptures a lot, and never did find any references on it!

  4. Visualize the cross of Christ "only" in your mind when urges happen. It may take minutes to hours until things subside, and soon you will realize you are healed and totally set free. Meditation on Christ and his Cross only, does not allow anything else in that space except holiness and purity. Did this with a situation that brought on PTSD and was able to rest peacefully after a few sessions of this type of meditation.

  5. There is an inherent problem when a theology or spirituality is filtered entirely through the lens of a straight or cisgender person. There is no reason why a marriage to someone of the same gender can’t also be in accordance with Gods will. There are many queer people who fear God and seek constantly to do his will. Many feel specifically guided toward their spouse or towards acceptance and love of their identity. It would be wrong for a straight man to marry a man. If straight men are the ones constantly asked to speak for God that is the answer that they will come up with. When we let queer people ask God for what they should be doing we must allow that queer people have just as strong a connection with the divine. We must respect and trust them that they are doing what God wants for them. This man is so smart but he can’t speak for queer people.

  6. By far the most articulate apologetic presentation I have viewed/heard on this issue. No misinterpretation of scripture or fallacy, just simple WWJD advice for Christians to consider.

  7. It's fascinating to see Christians speak and behave as though they are called to be "God like, " when they clearly commanded to be Christ like. The role of Jesus, is as vastly different as is the role of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was sent to love, not judge.

  8. Absolutely nonsense about Islam, the mullahs aren’t in control. They follow allah swt commandments. Fasting praying charity pilgrimage and firstly having faith in one Allah swt and the beloved prophet pbuh being his prophet all comes from the Allah himself

  9. I don't hate gays either I was a drug addict I don't hate anybody in any color but God hates the sin he loves The Sinner but hates the sin and until we all get back to Christ and what he wants us to do we're going to have problems and even more problems once we die if we don't come back to the Lord or come to him at the end. God bless all.

  10. It's important to understand that fornication , homosexual or heterosexual adultery, even if it is done on the heart…is not of God. When we realize that we can understand how it is a struggle and to have compassion on all. We are all born in sin, whichever ones we struggle with, there is victory in Chrsit Jesus. We just have to resist even unto blood as Hebrews says. That means submit to God resist the devil and he shall flee. Thank you Jesus, he made a way for us through him to be delivered from the spirits against God.

  11. So many dishonest Christians who can’t answer whether homosexuality is right with God. On one side Christians will write an essay to say No very nicely. The other side would rather be seen as loving by homosexuals and the world (non-Christians) than love God and his word. The Bible is clear damnit! Leviticus 20:13 and Romans 1 make it clear. End of discussion. Burn those bundles of sticks

  12. 4:00 ff: I grant him the right to define his own terms. I would say that these are "theonomous" (theistic but relatively structureless, as in ancient Greece), "heteronomous" (theocratic), and "autonomous" (complete religious individualism, with each person trying to impose his beliefs on all others)… except that "autonomous" already has a standard meaning. In his description of "autonomous" he confuses the state in which each person determines and lives by his own rules with the state in which each person attempts to impose his own rules on others. The latter is not "autonomy."

    Contemporary culture in the West is mixed: there are elements of "theonomous" (theistic but structureless, as in "spiritual" but not "religious") and "heteronomous" (theocratic: fundamentalist Christianity and Islam), and "autonomous" — but our "autonomous" ideal is complete religious freedom for all, not each individual's trying to impose his values and practices on all others. (4:36, where he morphs "autonomy" into "autocracy.")

    In effect Zacharias is pulling a theological sleight of hand. My autonomy (in the standard meaning of the term) does not involve my imposing my individual beliefs on others, but rather my being free, like everyone else, from the impositions of others. He does this again when he says to the journalist, "… tell me why you treat race as sacred and desacralize sexuality…" When and how did she desacralize sexuality? She didn't! But his argument needs the fallacy.

    It is the typical bigoted homophobia of fundamental Christians: When they deny a legally-mandated marriage license to a same-sex couple, that is their religious freedom, yet when a same-sex couple kisses in public, that constitutes "shoving their perversion down my throat," and a violation of "my religious freedom." The great failure of fundamentalist Christianity and Islam is that religious freedom means only THEIR religious freedom—no one else has a right to it.

    In conclusion, read "On Human Suffering and the Concept of God," posted June 12, 2018, on — no joke — homoeroticpoems.blogspot.com . No sh*t.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *