I was reading an article recently where a street preacher is on trial for yelling at gay people that they will burn in hell. He's arguing for freedom of speech. Whether or not that is within his rights is not really my concern here. Rather it got me thinking. I commonly hear christians say that when they condemn homosexuality to the face of gay people or tell people that they need to get right with Jesus or what have you or else there will be a judgement imposed on them and it will not be good, what they are doing isn't bigotry or prejudice, rather it's a warning. They want to save people's souls, and so they warn them. After considering this man's actions I realized that there is an important semantic distinction to what is meant by "warn." A warning can be to prevent an undesirable outcome, or a warning can be a threat that if there is not a change of course, then there is a preferred negative consequence that will occur.
In the first sense, one gives a warning to prevent an outcome that is undesirable, in the second sense, one threatens when they are informing the recipient that their actions must change or a negative consequence will occur, and that while the change is the immediate preference, the negative consequence is the subsequent preference. For example. I could would warn you that a serial killer is on the loose. I warn you to prevent the outcome that you are murdered. But say I tell you that if you don't stop selling drugs to school kids, then I am going to call the police; that would be a threatening warning under the second definition. My first preference may be that you do not sell drugs to kids, but my preference in light of that not occuring would be for the police to intervene and prevent you from doing it.
Essentially there are branching trees of outcomes and preferences. Say for instance a terrorist straps a bomb onto his chest and walks into a classroom and holds a teacher and a bunch of kids hostage. A law enforcement squad of some sort shows up. Initially they attempt to reason with him in an attempt to get him to come out peacefully. When negotiations fail a sniper puts a bullet between his eyes and the situation is resolved. On a tree of preferences and outcomes I would have:
1: People wouldn't act as violent terrorists.
This does not occur, as some one is acting as a terrorist so we move on to preference two
2. The situation is peacefully resolved and the man can be lawfully detained without the loss of any lives.
but this also does not happen, which leads to preference 3
3.No innocent lives are lost, if that necessitates the loss of a hostile life then it must be done.
this is the last preference, but it is my preference. I feel no qualms, shame, or reservations in admitting that I would prefer the terrorist die to the outcome of innocent people dying. This is to prevent the negative outcome
-1:Terrorist self detonates killing innocent children and a teacher.
If a christian was to "warn" (in the first sense) a gay couple that there will be impending negative judgement for their sinful life style, that would imply that the ultimate outcome is in no way preferable and that would imply that the christian themself is in fact opposed to god's judgment. But that isn't the case. For them the preference tree is
1:Gay people don't exist. Homosexuality is a sin, and an imperfection in the world.
given that 1 obviously did not occur that leads to preference two
2:Gay people repent of their homosexual ways, stop practicing their gay lifestyle and make every attempt to align themselves with scriptural morality.
Given that there is no shortage of gay people who are totally not cool with that, and in fact find that deeply offensive, that leads to preference three.
3:God wipes the unrepentant gays off the face of the planet/has adverse judgement on gays with ambiguous but definitely negative consequences for the gay person/god condemns gay person to an eternity of hellfire, depending on the preffered theology.
Number 3 is the ultimate and final preference for it is viewed as the righteous and moral action for god to take, and must be done to prevent the negative outcome
-1:....? I don't know. Gays go on having fullfilling romantic relationships with members of the same sex contra to biblical morality? I guess. Or some extremely unrealistic socially conservative talking point of healthy family units ceasing to exist, mass aids epidemics, plummeting birth rates as everyone "goes gay" or some such.
The negative consequence isn't particularly relevant, the point is in order for it to be a "warning" in the first sense then outcome number three would have to be under no uncertain circumstances a negative outcome, not a positive one. As long as outcome number three is preferable under the circumstance of outcome one/two failing, then it is a warning intended as a threat.
When JWs go door to door and say they don't want anyone to die in armagedon, that may be technically correct and it may be their first preference on the tree. But if you reject the literature then their ultimate preference is that you die a violent death at god's hands, and the crows feast upon the flesh of millions of sinners after god's great day of wrath. Offering somebody literature isn't a warning, it is a threat.
While I have no qualms with saying that I would prefer the terrorist get shot in the head to the outcome of him killing a bunch of innocent kids, can a christian can look me in the eye and tell me with a straight face that their ultimate preference is mass murder or eternal punishment as a consequence of gay people having happy fulfilling relationships? If so then I find that chilling. Absolutely chilling. If a christian finds that notion disturbing as well, then that leaves them either disagreeing with god's views and actions, or having to take a long hard look at their biblical moral compass.