As a Christian, is it better to be gay or to be intolerant?

[Bourne20]

I'm more looking for a Christian perspective on this, but everyone is welcome to answer.

Assuming a person HAD to do one of the following options, which would be worse:
1. Being gay, as in, regularly participating in homosexual activity
or
2. Discriminating against gay people regularly (defined below)

Which is a greater sin? Which is more moral or ethical? What do you think Jesus would say?


To define #2 a little more, by "discriminate against gays" I mean one of four severity levels:
1. Calling them by derogatory names and mocking them (in front them and/or their family)
2. Telling them they are committing a sin and/or are going to hell unless they change (not as a mockery, but serious)
3. Taking (non-violent) action against them, such as firing them based on sexuality
4. Taking violent action against them, or encouraging others to do so

Your can answer can take one or more (preferably all) discrimination levels into consideration.

Thanks for your thoughts everyone!

[Nickman]

@RichardP
To add, if the passage is not actually from Jesus, then what does it mean is kinda moot. I guess you could argue that it means something to the forgerer or you, but in the discussion, are you not trying to figure out Jesus' intent and how that applies to tolerance of homosexuals? If Jesus didn't say it, then it is not part of god's revelation and means nothing to the discussion. It should have no bearing on Christian thought, since Christian thought comes from this book.

[Bourne20]

@Nickman, that article is well-sourced. Thanks for posting it. It seems there may be a strong possibility this incident didn't take place.

However, I doubt many Christians will dismiss this story. The common belief is that the holy spirit guided the writing of the bible and all/most of its subsequent translations.

But you are right. If this incident didn't really happen, it changes things. If Jesus did not actually say or do this, this passage (and my interpretation of it) means nothing in determining Christ's message.

Myself, I'm not sure what to think about the validity of the passage.


@RichardP,

Thanks for the reply. You've been sporting in your continued participation (unrelated to your tennis match comment).

You wrote:

You appear to be a learned person and have the ability to search previous posts to determine a Biblically based standard for my remarks. I've already done that and am convinced of no need for it. Instead I intend to reiterate what I've already written.

That's just it. I can't find a biblical basis to justify mistreatment/social ostracism of gays.

The old testament calls for homosexuals to be killed.

Jesus said the to follow the commandments. However, Jesus said the main idea of the law was to love each other as you love yourself. He said, that before, we were told an "eye for an eye" was the proper response. Then he said, "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person." He says to turn the other cheek, to love your enemies. Jesus didn't change God's law, but he did change something. How we carry out the law.

He said the law IS to love one another (Matthew 7:12).

Does this mean homosexual activity is not a sin? No. Not necessarily. Homosexual activity may well be a sin.

Does that mean it is NOT a sin to socially ostracize the sinner? No. Jesus said that "everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment"(Matthew 5:21-5:22). Whoever says to his brother, "you fool" is liable to the hell of fire.

When Jesus talks about love, he talks about forgiving debts, turning the other cheek, feeding the poor, etc. He NEVER talks about social ostracism or mistreatment as "love" for one's neighbor. Where do you get that telling someone they are evil is love?

You have failed to produce evidence (biblical verses) to support the view that Jesus condones mistreatment/ostracism of anyone as a form of love toward them. I cannot find verses supporting this viewpoint.

Paul, not Jesus, says that homosexuals and drunkards will not enter the kingdom of heaven. But not even Paul says that we should try to mistreat gays and legally prohibit homosexual activity.

You wrote:

The issue, the real issue here isn't a theological one. It's the desire to corrupt the revealed will of God - that being to refrain from sin. In modern times the manipulation is to create a foundation for a license to sin. There is no scripture in the Bible to justify such an attitude or action before God.

You indicate that I am corrupting God's revealed word. Tell me, how is repeating what Jesus said about love a corruption? How is applying the verified summary of God's law (to love others like oneself) to one's life a corruption?

Here is what I think is the corruption. Placing value on a small point (punishing gays) while ignoring the blatant main point (loving others). This is the corruption.

You say I'm trying to justify sin. I'm not. I'm just saying it is a sin itself to mistreat or socially ostracize anyone. How are we to bring people to the light? Punishment? Fear? The bible says there is no fear in love (1 John).

Anyway, I think we've just about taken this particular discussion to it's logical conclusion. If you'd like to go on, please, feel free keep posting. Otherwise have a merry Christmas.

[The Ex-Mormon]

Many years ago I was the LDS church in Zurich during a stake meeting. One of the speakers talked about his son who had committed suicide because he was gay. The father said analogously: "It is better that he had killed himself but to lead a sinful homosexual lifestyle".
I agreed with him at that time although even then I knew that I am lesbian.
Yes, brainwashing works well in every religion or party.
I see it naturally a little in greater detail today.
I think today; the behave this man that; only this repeated this one what he learnedly got of his church leaders; ws inhuman, homophobic and overly pious.
What does it is so bad, to prefer the sex/gender of one's own? What is so bad to love? There is so little love in the world!

[The Ex-Mormon]

Intolerance is more often practiced by the gay community than by Christian. The amount and severity of criticism and open bigotry expressed by gays is extreme. The amount of reaction by Christians is miniscule in comparison.

Richard, may I ask you some questions? All of them are hypothetical:

Section 1:
What would it be if there would be a proof, that Jesus Christ would be homosexual? Would Christians then have still to threaten the self-appointed right to insult homosexuals and to violate them physically (until the murder)?


Section 2:
What would be if you would die; and would come to God in heaven; and you would see there heterosexual and homosexual folks nearby God?

Section 3:
What would be if there would be a convincing biblical proof, after what homosexuality was not condemned to itself? But only what is called "temple prostitution" and adoration of heathen divinities? Then still could a Christian good conscience to condemn homosexuality?

Think about it once.
There by the way is proof for section 1 and 3.

[The Ex-Mormon]

Another lie upon which to base all previous assertions. Gayness is a choice. One chooses to perform the act or not. It's as simple as that.

Can you choose it to be a left-handed person? No! Can you choose it to be heterosexual? No! Can you choose it to be homosexual? No!
It so simply is if one deals with science a little.
I have heard of somebody that you can speak German well. Here a source which show you about homosexuality this:

Die Frage zu stellen, was die Ursachen von Homosexualität sind, ist bereits ein Urteil ueber Homosexuelle. Wenn Sie nach den Gruenden fragen, weshalb jemand homosexeull ist, unterstellen Sie schon, dass Homosexualität eine Störung ist und erklärt werden muss. Es ist besser, herauszfinden, welche Einfluesse und Prozesse sexuelle Interessen bestimmen, ob das nun Heterosexualität oder Homesexualität oder etwas anderes sein mag.
Source: http://web4health.info/de/answers/sex-homo-causes.htm

"Translation":

Asking the question; what the causes of homosexuality are, ia already a judgement on homosexuals. If you ask for the reasons why somebody is homosexual; insinuate that homosexuality is a disturbance (mental illness?) and must be explained. It is better to find out; which influences and processes sexual interests determine; whether this may be heterosexuality or homosexuality or something else now.

There are different theories about the cause of homosexuality. Is common to all theories that an interplay of genes, hormones and the social education of early childhood play a role.
All grave researches also say that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not curable.

[KCKID]

GOD'S LOVE IS NEVER UNQUALIFIED and IT IS NEVER LICENSE TO SIN.

Well, it would appear from the zeal and, let me say, the arrogance of your posts that you believe that you have attained perfection and can therefore stand in judgment of those of us whose righteousness is still, as Paul says, 'as filthy rags'. I've got news for you ...the Bible is NOT God regardless of whether one's interpretations of the scriptures are correct or incorrect. Either way, the Bible is A BOOK and should NEVER be used as a 'mouthpiece for God' in a manner that is demeaning in any way, shape or form to another individual. But, that's just me hollerin' from the choir loft . . .

[The Ex-Mormon]

GOD'S LOVE IS NEVER UNQUALIFIED and IT IS NEVER LICENSE TO SIN.

Well, it would appear from the zeal and, let me say, the arrogance of your posts that you believe that you have attained perfection and can therefore stand in judgment of those of us whose righteousness is still, as Paul says, 'as filthy rags'. I've got news for you ...the Bible is NOT God regardless of whether one's interpretations of the scriptures are correct or incorrect. Either way, the Bible is A BOOK and should NEVER be used as a 'mouthpiece for God' in a manner that is demeaning in any way, shape or form to another individual. But, that's just me hollerin' from the choir loft . . .

I would never claim that Richard is arrogant. For this I know him too little. I also would not say that his comment is arrogant. Because he is convinced to be in the right with his interpretation of the Bible.
It is only the problem that one can differently translate and interpret the Bible.
So e.g. be in Leviticus; that homosexuality is a sin which is punished with death. Many Christians "forget" or "oversee clearly" these lines were written to whom and under which circumstances. And, what "abomination" really means (Hebrew "To'ebhah"). The death penalty was valid everything and for what at that time. Here a little incomplete list:

Meal of forbidden animals
Touching of pigs
clothes of mixed fibers
Children sacrifice to heathen gods
Tatoo
Disobedient children

Leviticus was written for Jews. And only for Jews, primarily for Jewish priests. It was about the pure preservation of the temple and the Jewish people. By the sacrifice of Christ, the law of Mose was fulfilled, as Paul wrote into his letter to the Galatians (chapter 2 and the followings).
However, what does "abomination" mean? Here one link from the Internet:

http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/A/ABOMINATION/

In it you can find this statement:

It is to be noted that, not only the heathen idol itself, but anything offered to or associated with the idol, all the paraphernalia of the forbidden cult, was called an "abomination," for it "is an abomination to Yahweh thy God" (Dt 7:25,26). The Deuteronomic writer here adds, in terms quite significant of the point of view and the spirit of the whole law: `Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thy house and thus become a thing set apart (cherem = tabooed) like unto it; thou shalt utterly detest it and utterly abhor it, for it is a thing set apart' (tabooed). To`ebhah is even used as synonymous with "idol" or heathen deity, as in Isa 44:19; Dt 32:16; 2 Ki 23:13; and especially Ex 8:22 ff.(...)
To`ebhah is even used as synonymous with "idol" or heathen deity, as in Isa 44:19; Dt 32:16; 2 Ki 23:13; and especially Ex 8:22 ff.
Everything akin to magic or divination is likewise an abomination to`ebhah; as are sexual transgressions (Dt 22:5; 23:18; 24:4), especially incest and other unnatural offenses: "For all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you" (Lev 18:27; compare Ezek 8:15). It is to be noted, however, that the word takes on in the later usage a higher ethical and spiritual meaning: as where "divers measures, a great and a small," are forbidden (Dt 25:14-16); and in Proverbs where "lying lips" (12:22), "the proud in heart" (16:5), "the way of the wicked" (15:9), "evil devices" (15:26), and "he that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the righteous" (17:15), are said to be an abomination in God's sight. At last prophet and sage are found to unite in declaring that any sacrifice, however free from physical blemish, if offered without purity of motive, is an abomination: `Bring no more an oblation of falsehood--an incense of abomination it is to me' (Isa 1:13; compare Jer 7:10). "The sacrifice of the wicked" and the prayer of him "that turneth away his ear from hearing the law," are equally an abomination (see Prov 15:8; 21:27; 28:9).

So, to me it is quite clear, that homosexuality is NOT a SIN lke rape or murderer, it is a taboo, an offensive and tasteless behavior (in jewish eyes at that time).