So you dont think he gives/tithes money to them or others who support that particular message? Thats hard to believe but if im wrong ill admit it.

Opinion piece on Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-h..._b_924887.html

When you invite a CEO of a major company speak at a conference, which do you think happens:

A) The CEO pays the conference organizers for the opportunity to speak
B) The conference organizers pay the CEO for the opportunity to listen

?

That doesn't answer my question and misses my point.

Also i added to my post. Nothing important though.

Do you know whether he's a Christian?

He is Jewish afaik and they do that tithing thing too.

Look i said i could be wrong.

I think you should reconsider firing uninformed shots in the dark.

Unless you can present something that makes you look remotely informed on the matter, I think it's fair to say that you are wrong.

Edit: To be clear, the "matter" is the original claim you made:

Unless you show me he supports no groups that teach homosexuality is a sin i cant know if im wrong. But ill admit im not informed and should not have made my original post.

Prepare for another uniformed shot.

I do however know it would of been wrong of him to speak at that church and id guess he would of done it without the threat of a boycott. Which means he probably pulled out to save face and protect his interests instead of some moral conviction against the churches teachings.

Funny i still have not heard your view on why the boycott threat was wrong. Maybe we will get there in a few hundred more posts.

Did I say that I thought the boycott threat was "wrong"? I think that in a capitalistic society that people are free to do what they want with their money, which includes withholding it from certain companies as they see fit.

Well if you dont have a problem with it then we can end the thread.

Such depth of thought you've exhibited ITT...

Thanks i try. Still dont know the point of this thread so the felling is mutual.

I'll give you a hint:

And i was curious to here yours. But that has passed.

Definitely agree.

I think the point I would make is this--if Bill Hybels came to visit me, I would be polite and friendly to him. In other words, I would use the standard tools for useful social interaction with strangers. I also think that Hybels's church would probably be friendly and mostly polite to visiting homosexuals. Insofar as that is what you mean by welcoming or accepting, then I don't doubt that Willow Creek meets that criteria.

However, there is another level involved of a church being welcoming and friendly, which is the level of actually joining the church. Here I suspect that Willow Creek is less welcoming of homosexuals, just because they probably don't accept practicing homosexuals as members.

Going to your analogy, on a personal level, becoming a "member" would be more like becoming a friend--where the considerations listed above would become relevant. On an institutional level--well, I suspect it mostly depends on the kind of institution involved. If it was a political party, probably not welcoming. If it was a business, probably doesn't care.

Yeah, I am extremely skeptical about this. I don't think there is a general principle about how institutions will treat these kinds of beliefs as a criterion of membership. I think whether it matters depends on the kind of institution involved. Churches is one kind where it matters. Political parties is another. Social clubs might be another. Business or universities are probably not.

I was having difficulty making the point you respond to here, so let me try again. I of course agree with you that it is possible to fall in love with the wrong person. The problem with your view is that it is incorrect in claiming that all homosexual relationships are a case of falling in love with the wrong person. Thus, for those people who because they are homosexual are going to primarily or exclusively fall in love with members of their own sex, you will incorrectly counsel them to not pursue a relationship, and so they will never experience a full romantic relationship. This seems to me a bad thing, a life less lived than the alternative.

Notice that I don't ever claim that it is a necessary part of fulfillment. I also agree that it is possible for people to have full and complete lives as single and even celibate persons. However, just because it is possible doesn't mean that all single people do have such lives. And for many of them, being in a relationship is one of the best ways for them to live a life of fulfillment (or increase the odds of living such a life). For example, think of the importance of being a father or mother to some people's life-plans, and then realize how much narrower their lives would be if they were not able to have children.

The bolded statement is a rough illustration of my point. Those who view the homosexual lifestyle as a normal and healthy way of life are not being inconsistent in condemning those like you and Hybels that think it is in some way immoral or bad for you as a person. We have deep disagreements about the moral nature of human beings, and our conflicting moral claims flow out of those disagreements.

It seems to me that you are looking for some kind of neutral grounds on which to show that we are wrong for condemning Hybel's attitude towards homosexuals (probably I'm reading too much into your questions, but this seems like a consistent theme for you in some recent threads). However, mostly these condemnations seem to be of actually believing that homosexuality is immoral. There are some related issues, but that is the main problem. We think that belief leads to serious harm on other people's lives. Of course you can disagree with us about the morality of homosexuality, or that it leads to harm, but then you are just saying our moral views are wrong, not that if we were right we shouldn't condemn your views.

Incidentally, I've never said that failing to be in a romantic relationship makes you subhuman. I think it often means that you are not fully actualized (in Maslow's terms) or not fully virtuous (in Aristotle's terms), but of course you would still be fully human.

I actually do think you are less of a person. Sexuality is an important part of our sense of identity (what makes us a person). Failing to come to grips with it, or hiding from it, etc. makes our sense of identity less accurate in describing who we really are. That being said, I think some people genuinely are asexual, or genuinely choose to live celibate lives. If they act in full knowledge of who they are in choosing to be celibate or embracing their asexuality, then I think that does become a part of who they are in similar ways to more common sexual identities or lifestyles.

Actually, I already explicitly said that I am not familiar with the specific practices of Willow Creek and so am only speculating based on my familiarity with similar Christian churches and the comments of Bill Hybels. I take it that the specific details of the case are not really that important to the discussion--but if you think they are or that I've been unfair to Hybels, I'll willing state that I don't really know how they treat homosexual congregants.

I know I'm late to the party, but this is complete crap.

People who do things that negatively affect others are in a completely different category than what you consider to be the immoral behavior of homosexuals.

The degree of that harm is meaningless. Someone who talks too much at work without a doubt annoys the people within earshot. The fact that the only harm done is the other people having thoughts of, "god this guys is killing me today, i wish he'd just stfu!" doesn't somehow downgrade it to the same level as talking endlessly to yourself in your own house when no one is around.

But not with their own bodies.

hmmmm

I think you could benefit from your own advice:

How can you make such claims? Based on what are you saying this? Abstinence leads to depression. It could also lead to feelings of loneliness. And you want to make somebody abstinent for the rest of their life?

Sex makes your immune system stronger, reduces stress, builds your self-esteem, reduces the risk of prostate cancer and heart diseases, makes your sleep-wake cycle better, and much more. You want to take away this from homosexuals and still claim that they will have fulfilling lives?

And you want to take it away from them for what reason exactly? You are a fan of logic, please provide a logical reason why you want to do so.

I think some clarification is needed here. If it's voluntary celibacy, I don't think it will necessarily lead to those things, but if we're talking about involuntary celibacy, besides depression and loneliness, it can also lead to huge frustration and emotional distress, alcohol/drug abuse, increased levels of aggression, etc.

In any case, just because one feels perfectly content with being single and/or not having sexual relations, it doesn't follow that others would feel fulfilled in the same situation. And in a heterosexual Christian's case, we're not even talking about necessarily abstaining for the rest of his/her life, while homosexuals would be required to never, ever, EVER have sex with the person they love/are attracted to.

Aaron, I'm just curious, would you consider something like anal sex between a heterosexual couple as homosexual behavior and therefore immoral? Also, it seems like you're somewhat avoiding getting into the specifics of why you find homosexual behavior immoral. Obviously it stems from your cultural-religious upbringing, but what about it exactly leads you to the conclusion that it's immoral?

The bible, ldo.

If the bible said homosexuality was okay, Aaron would think it's okay.

But the bible says it isn't okay, so Aaron doesn't think it's okay.

Well, involuntary celibacy will also not necessarily lead to those things, we are only talking about tendencies. As I pointed out in my post, sexual abstinence itself is harmful, since it deprives people from the natural benefits of sex. People who abstain from sex for whatever reason will be in worse condition compared to those who don't both mentally and physically.

Also, in this particular case, I would definitely say that the abstinence is involuntary. None of those gays would have stopped themselves from having sex for life if it wasn't for the particular church they want to join.

Abstinence is voluntary if one comes to the conclusion themselves, persuaded by meaningful arguments. For example, "sex is distracting me too much and I can't focus on my studies, therefore I am going to abstain". Would that really help that person with their studies? Doubtful. But the point is that they chose it themselves. This is not the same as "choosing" to abstain because you were made to believe that what you are doing is inherently disgusting and God hates it.

Why would a perfect God have had to make a mistake for their to be gay people?

People's own mortality implies physical weakness and that weakness can be heritable and lead to all sorts of physical conditions.

It's nebulous because "harm" can be understood in so many different ways and levels that it's not a clear standard.

When you get a vaccination, it hurts. That's harm... but wait... you're not talking about *that* harm, you're talking about the long-term harm of avoiding such-and-such a disease.

You can pick and choose "harm" to be basically whatever you want it to be.

They can do whatever they want. By saying that behavior X is immoral in no way prevents them from engaging in behavior X. This is regardless of whether it hurts them, helps them, or whatever.