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!

[Vanguard]

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!

From my Christian perspective, it's not even a competition - being intolerant as you have defined it is far worse.

[Moses Yoder]

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!

The way you ask this question means you believe both are bad, but one is not as bad as the other. So you ask which is worse. By asking this question you have demonstrated that you believe people who are intolerant of homosexuals are doing something wrong, thus you have publicly shown your intolerance of them. You obviously do not consider this to be a bad thing, and most people don't. Therefore I am forced to say that in most people's eyes it is worse to be a practicing homosexual than it is to be intolerant of someone.

I take issue with definition #2 of discrimination. If you are talking to someone, they are free to leave. If you follow them persistently, that's stalking which is illegal. If you sit there and listen to them talk that is no different fro me telling a drug addict I believe he would be better off not using drugs. Should we start a campaign on how people are intolerant of crack users?

[KCKID]

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

"Being gay" is as natural for the individual as is "being straight" natural to another individual. That said, the Christian perspective of promiscuous homosexual sex (i.e. regularly participating in sexual activity) should be no more frowned upon than promiscuous heterosexual sex.

or
2. Discriminating against gay people regularly (defined below)

You are aware that discriminating against gay people has nothing to do with Jesus or the Bible, aren't you?

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

Discrimination is the greater sin since homosexuality (one's sexual orientation) is not a sin to begin with. Many Christians, for personal reasons and not scriptural reasons, single out gay promiscuity as being a worse 'sin' than straight promiscuity. In fact, in the minds of many Christians "being gay" automatically equates to "promiscuity." "Being Christian" does not necessarily equate to one's being 'moral' or 'ethical' or, for that matter, 'being especially smart'.

What would Jesus say? Well, I think that Jesus would recognize one's motives for their discriminating against another and consequently refer to them as hypocrites, vipers and snakes. I got this from the Bible ...

[Bourne20]

@Vanguard: Thanks for the thought, I understand where you're coming from.

@Moses Yoder: Thank you for your post. You raise some interesting points. You appear to have made some assumptions about my position, based on my wording.

The way you ask this question means you believe both are bad, but one is not as bad as the other. So you ask which is worse. By asking this question you have demonstrated that you believe people who are intolerant of homosexuals are doing something wrong, thus you have publicly shown your intolerance of them. You obviously do not consider this to be a bad thing, and most people don't. Therefore I am forced to say that in most people's eyes it is worse to be a practicing homosexual than it is to be intolerant of someone.

For the sake of argument, I took on a traditional Christian perspective when posing the question, because I am mainly interested in a Christian take on this. In Christianity, homosexuality is generally assumed to be a sin. However, the traditional Christian opinion isn't necessarily my opinion.

You are correct in your assumption that I find discrimination (mistreatment) of gays an evil. You bring up an interesting issue: the paradox of tolerance. You're right, I am, to a certain extent, intolerant of intolerance. However, no belief system is completely tolerant or completely intolerant. Tolerance depends on the action. Obviously, we should tolerate someone scratching their own left elbow. Also obviously, we should not tolerate someone murdering or raping others. The question is, where is the line.

How do we determine which actions to tolerate and which to not tolerate? Some Christians believe the bible is the sole source for this definition. I believe the line is defined by this question: does the action harm someone? If an action causes harm to another person (infringes a right of him/her) it should NOT be tolerated. If an action does not cause anyone harm, it should generally be tolerated. Of course, with this system, individual human rights should be defined. But my question isn't what we should or shouldn't allow, my question is what is more sinful (morally wrong).

You have a good point about definition #2. Is it mistreatment to say what you think of a person or their actions, especially when they can just walk away? Definition #2 is referring to passing a judgement of a person based on their sexuality (and informing them of it). By all means, a person has a right to think what they want. Also, they have a right to say what they want. Society should not stop them. But just because society should legally allow a person to verbally abuse another person (condemnation to hell) does not necessarily make this verbal abuse any less of a sin (morally wrong action) for the accuser.

Also, I am not talking about starting a campaign against anything. This is simply a discussion of which actions are more or less morally wrong (sinful).

@KCKID: Thank you for your reply.

You are aware that discriminating against gay people has nothing to do with Jesus or the Bible, aren't you?

I believe that any action to harm a human being has something to do with Jesus and the bible. But I can see where you're coming from on that.

I agree with you on your other points. I don't think a person's sexual orientation can be a sin. I think you've made a good summary of what Jesus would think as well.

[Choir Loft]

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!

"With no fact as a referent, what is normative is purely a matter of preference."
- Ravi Zacharias (The Real Face of Atheism)

You all know that Christianity promises the pains of hell to those who continue in rebellion against God's law.
Will you also condemn Islam for the same thing?

Read these passage from the Qu'ran;

[23.103] And as for him whose good deeds are light, these are they who shall have lost their souls, abiding in hell
[23.104] The fire shall scorch their faces, and they therein shall be in severe affliction.
[23.105] Were not My communications recited to you? But you used to reject them.

There is divine punishment awaiting the rebellious soul. Be warned oh reader that you tread on very dangerous thin ice when you justify wickedness in your own eyes. Continue in your selfish desires of the flesh and you will surely be lost in it.

But God is faithful and not willing that any should die, for He has provided an escape through the blood of Jesus Christ who died on the cross for the forgiveness of sinners. Repent and be saved in the name of Jesus.

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

[Moses Yoder]

How do we determine which actions to tolerate and which to not tolerate? Some Christians believe the bible is the sole source for this definition. I believe the line is defined by this question: does the action harm someone? If an action causes harm to another person (infringes a right of him/her) it should NOT be tolerated. If an action does not cause anyone harm, it should generally be tolerated. Of course, with this system, individual human rights should be defined. But my question isn't what we should or shouldn't allow, my question is what is more sinful (morally wrong).

Why do you believe it is wrong to harm someone?

I get my blood tested every year for lithium levels and liver function, etc. because of the medication I am on. When they put a needle into my vein, it harms me, therefore should be morally wrong according to your definition. I am sure you are going to say yes but the overall purpose is for good. In the same way, if I were to believe a practicing homosexual is going to hell for his sin and I am warning him about it, would I not be attempting to do good?

To answer the question which is most sinful, the Bible says if I break the least of the law I have broken the whole law. One sin is not worse than another one.

[Choir Loft]

How do we determine which actions to tolerate and which to not tolerate? Some Christians believe the bible is the sole source for this definition. I believe the line is defined by this question: does the action harm someone? If an action causes harm to another person (infringes a right of him/her) it should NOT be tolerated. If an action does not cause anyone harm, it should generally be tolerated. Of course, with this system, individual human rights should be defined. But my question isn't what we should or shouldn't allow, my question is what is more sinful (morally wrong).

THE PROBLEM with the idea that personal harm ought to be the only criteria to define tolerant behavior, is that it's too simplistic and too general. Such rules are fine for three year old kids, but they won't qualify as guide lines for anyone older than that. Proof that the definition is too simple is apparent in your own post.

Right off the bat you wrote "I believe". What if someone else believes differently? In Islam, honor killings of non-believers is justified by the Qu'ran and Sharia law. Your level of morality evaporates once it goes beyond the personal "I". It may well be an endearing quality of your personal character, but basing behavior upon harm won't work. There has to be a higher law at work than the one 'I' determine for myself. The second level is government. The third and highest level is God.

Second, you wrote about rights. Who defines these rights? You? At this point you are appealing to something beyond the personal "I". The next level is government, so let's take a look at that.

We've already established that what 'you' believe isn't valid with regard to community behavior. What about the rights of the community? At some point those rights will supercede those of the individual. They always do and that's when the possibility for real harm enters the picture. Who or what defines 'human rights'? The government? What if the government is as unchecked and debauched as NAZI Germany? If you were a European Jew in the 1930's, or any person who voiced dissent, you'd lose the human right to live. Shall we trust the government to define human rights? Historically, human governments have been extremely fallible in that regard. I'm not ready to give that right over to the government, are you?

We have now arrived at the third level, those definitions and rights originally published by God, and which are reflected in the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Ok, so what are 'inalienable rights'? The clause that follows affirm them as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Thomas Jefferson wrote the words, but he is obviously referring to another source and another, albeit higher source. It couldn't have been the government because that government had not yet been created. The constitution was years away from ratification. The clause 'all men are created equal' is a clue as to what this document and the constitution that followed it was based upon. The gifts endowed by God are those which are to be equally addressed under the law for all men. The ten commandments does not favor one man over other men.

Finally you asked for a definition of 'what is sinful', adding the phrase 'morally wrong'. Those are two different matters and require two different answers.

Although sin is defined by God in the ten commandments, morality is defined by the society in it's customs, regulations and laws. It was once legal for a NAZI to kill Jews. That was socially defined morality. God's law stood above German law and German morality. Under God's law any murder is a sin. How's that for simplicity?

In summary, we see that personal behavior is only a minor level. You may be a fine considerate fellow who I may be proud to call a friend, but that's as far as it goes.
Level two is government definition and execution. We've seen far too many government executions.
Level three is divine. It applies to all men all the time in all places. There are no exceptions and no loopholes.

Morality and sin are not the same thing. The problem is that people don't want to obey all of God's laws all of the time. Some crude individuals don't want to obey society's laws either.

The aberrations of society are ultimately corrected by judgments from heaven. Unfortunately things get real messy when the hammer comes down.
God has provided a way to resolve the lawlessness of sin in the death of Jesus upon the cross. The man who accepts it discovers peace with God and escapes God's wrath.

Those who refuse to accept divine correction and who use government laws to justify sin will find themselves in a tight corner when judgment visits the earth. The Book of Revelation is full of dark imagery about those days. It's not a pretty thing to consider.

God loves life and rightness. The wise man will take advantage of that and make peace with God while the opportunity is still extended.

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

[Bourne20]

Moses Yoder: Thanks for writing back. Fantastic point,

"Why do you believe it is wrong to harm someone?"

You're right to call me out on that. "Harm" is a very general term. You think of harm as physical pain or injury, its most basic definition. When I refer to "harm" I'm talking about the violation of a person's right. A person consenting to physical injury is not a violation of his or her right, so by my definition, it is not harm. This is why I say that, with this system of thought, an individual's rights need to be defined. Once these rights are defined, the ambiguity is more limited. This applies on a governmental or personal level.

You refer to the verse Matthew 5:19:

"Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 5:19 ESV

Does this really state that all sins are equal? Notice Jesus says that whoever relaxes one of the least commandments will be least in the kingdom of heaven, not that they won't enter heaven. Let's look at the verse immediately following:

"For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."- Matthew 5:20 ESV

The Pharisees were scholars of the Jewish law. No doubt they followed the Jewish law (even the least of laws) better than the average man. Why is it Jesus indicated that these "law-followers" wouldn't enter the kingdom of heaven? Let's look at the next verse:

"You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire." - Matthew 5:21-5:22 ESV

So according to Matthew chapter 5, Jesus says a person who relaxes the least of the laws will be least in heaven BUT the person who insults his brother and says "You fool!" will be liable to the hell of fire.


RichardP: Hello, thank you for your reply. Wow, you have much to say on this topic (a lot of good points too). There's a lot to cover here so let's get started.

You raise a striking point, that of individual belief. If a person goes off just what they believe to be right, no doubt they can do wrong (sinful or immoral) things (Nazis and terrorists are examples). I used the words "I believe" because I recognize people have different beliefs, and that I'm speaking only my opinion. I do believe (there I go again) that there is a universal right and wrong independent of societal morality. Many people believe this. But, no doubt, people differ in what they believe this universal right and wrong is. Some believe this is defined by the Christian bible, you seem to believe this too. Perhaps your belief is the truth about universal right and wrong.

I spoke of tolerating actions that are not "harmful" to others and not tolerating action that are "harmful" to others. I would define "harmful" as a violation of another person's rights. To lessen confusion about what it harmful, it is necessary to define basic human rights. This can be done by an individual or the government. I'm only speaking of a system of toleration that anyone can use, I'm NOT talking about who has precedence to decide right and wrong. An individual must decide for them-self what is right and wrong and a government also needs to decide what is right and wrong. It is especially important for government to define human rights (including freedoms), and that these rights are equal to ALL people.

So, I do believe there is universal right and wrong. But how are people to decide what this utter truth of right and wrong is? Does the word of God (the bible) define universal right and wrong? Even in the bible, there is much room for interpretation. The Catholics and Protestants vary much in this interpretation. Each individual must do their best to make the correct interpretation. I believe the bible holds great truth, but I must interpret the text the way I feel is correct and you must interpret it the way you feel is correct.

If you do not feel there is room for interpretation in the bible consider this verse:

“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." - Exodus 21:20-21 NIV

Just 150 years ago, slave-owners used verses such as this to justify slavery, saying God didn't have a problem with keeping slaves. That's how they interpreted this verse. Today, many interpret this verse differently. As for me, I highly doubt Jesus condoned the beating of anyone.

In summary, I believe that there is universal right and wrong that applies to everyone, regardless of society, religion, time, or upbringing. I believe this is defined by God as our creator. It is our job on this human journey to discover what this absolute truth is. The bible can help with this. Jesus, being the savior of mankind, put it most eloquently:

"Do to others as you would have them do to you."

[Choir Loft]

RichardP: Hello, thank you for your reply. Wow, you have much to say on this topic (a lot of good points too). There's a lot to cover here so let's get started.

You raise a striking point, that of individual belief. If a person goes off just what they believe to be right, no doubt they can do wrong (sinful or immoral) things (Nazis and terrorists are examples). I used the words "I believe" because I recognize people have different beliefs, and that I'm speaking only my opinion. I do believe (there I go again) that there is a universal right and wrong independent of societal morality. Many people believe this. But, no doubt, people differ in what they believe this universal right and wrong is. Some believe this is defined by the Christian bible, you seem to believe this too. Perhaps your belief is the truth about universal right and wrong.

I spoke of tolerating actions that are not "harmful" to others and not tolerating action that are "harmful" to others. I would define "harmful" as a violation of another person's rights. To lessen confusion about what it harmful, it is necessary to define basic human rights. This can be done by an individual or the government. I'm only speaking of a system of toleration that anyone can use, I'm NOT talking about who has precedence to decide right and wrong. An individual must decide for them-self what is right and wrong and a government also needs to decide what is right and wrong. It is especially important for government to define human rights (including freedoms), and that these rights are equal to ALL people.

So, I do believe there is universal right and wrong. But how are people to decide what this utter truth of right and wrong is? Does the word of God (the bible) define universal right and wrong? Even in the bible, there is much room for interpretation. The Catholics and Protestants vary much in this interpretation. Each individual must do their best to make the correct interpretation. I believe the bible holds great truth, but I must interpret the text the way I feel is correct and you must interpret it the way you feel is correct.

If you do not feel there is room for interpretation in the bible consider this verse:

“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." - Exodus 21:20-21 NIV

Just 150 years ago, slave-owners used verses such as this to justify slavery, saying God didn't have a problem with keeping slaves. That's how they interpreted this verse. Today, many interpret this verse differently. As for me, I highly doubt Jesus condoned the beating of anyone.

In summary, I believe that there is universal right and wrong that applies to everyone, regardless of society, religion, time, or upbringing. I believe this is defined by God as our creator. It is our job on this human journey to discover what this absolute truth is. The bible can help with this. Jesus, being the savior of mankind, put it most eloquently:

"Do to others as you would have them do to you."

Your wrote:
I'm NOT talking about who has precedence to decide right and wrong. An individual must decide for them-self what is right and wrong and a government also needs to decide what is right and wrong.

You're not writing about precedence, but you should be. Why? Because the individual is subject to it whether he likes it or not. Fair or unfair, just or unjust that's the way it works. Might makes right, every time. Who has more might that the individual? The government. Who has more might than the government? God. The man is, after all, just a cog in the wheel no matter how you define precedence or whether or not you admit to it. The real question, the real truth here is how that man is treated by his culture, by his government and by God.

You also wrote:
how are people to decide what this utter truth of right and wrong is?

Right and wrong is decided for the individual. Any assumption that the individual has any input in the matter is bogus. The culture gives authority to the government which then imposes it upon the individual. If the culture recognizes God as the ultimate authority, then the government will bow to Biblical standards of application - meaning equal application of the law to all.

You also wrote:
slave-owners used verses such as this to justify slavery, saying God didn't have a problem with keeping slaves.

Your quote here is an illustration of cultural attitude, not God's. Your quote from Exodus affirms that fact. For better or worse, the Bible shows man in the light of truth - warts and all.

The ancient text shows clearly that the culture approved of slaves and slave beating. What was God's attitude about it? According to God's law given to the Hebrews, all debts were to be zeroed out -forgiven- every fifty years. All indentured servants and foreign slaves were to be set free at that time. All property that was rented, borrowed or leased was to be returned to its original owner at that time. The end of this fifty year cycle was called the Year Of Jubilee. (We could use that today, don't you think?)

Naturally the priests and leaders found ways to circumvent this law. God's answer was to send prophets to tell the people that they were disobeying the law. They didn't listen and as a result the nation was destroyed. It's people were carried off as servants to foreign countries. As they enslaved and beat others, so they were enslaved and beaten themselves. God entered the picture and balanced the scales as it were. His was the last word and the word was justice.

Slave holders in the old American south justified their wickedness to their fellow man using that verse. The culture approved of sin. Abraham Lincoln once said that the civil war was God's judgment upon that wickedness. Every drop of sweat and blood drawn by the lash was paid for in blood by the nation that approved of it. The entire southern civilization was destroyed and 640,000 men died because of it. Review the lyrics of the Battle Hymn of the Republic. They aren't pretty words, but they speak eloquently of God's justice.

At the end of your post you wrote:
It is our job on this human journey to discover what this absolute truth is. The bible can help with this. Jesus, being the savior of mankind, put it most eloquently: 'Do to others as you would have them do to you.'

You are correct in stating that it is each man's obligation to discover the truth. The caveat here is that once discovered, it is man's obligation to ACCEPT THE TRUTH.

Truly truly it has been said that most men don't even bother to look for the truth. Those that find it quickly turn away from it. Jesus said that men prefer the darkness of lies, deceit and self-justification to the truth.

The golden rule is good religious policy, perhaps even an example of good character, but it won't get anybody into heaven. It is possible to be considered a good old boy and still dance in the dark with one's private sins.

"Of all the enterprises in which the human heart engages, none lends iself more to abuse and manipulation then the activities of religion."
- Jesus Among Other Gods
Ravi Zacharias

that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

[connermt]

connermt: Thanks for your thoughts. You take a different perspective. Rather than with act is the greater sin, which act is easier to conceal. You also state that some Christian groups openly bash gays, which is a good point.

For future reference, my question concerns which act (being gay or being intolerant of gays) is a worse sin, a "worse sin" also meaning "less moral".

From my experience, on a high level, christians would likely say the gay act is just as bad as being intolerant. However, actions speak louder than words. These same people saying this are the ones that, many times, justify their own actions of intolerance to satisfy their own needs, but that don't affect their own personal walk of faith. For example, not allowing gay people in church, voting to keep gay couples from being legally recognized by the state, etc.
What you're seeing here is hypocrisy and it's very popular with people of faith (to be truthful, that includes everyone, but as this is a christian forum....)
After all, it's "fun" to hurt people while hiding behind a supernatural, impossible-to-prove-nonexistant-deity that, at least in the US, is protected by law.