Is it a sin to befriend a gay person?

MasterYourLife said:

"Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good character.”
1 Corinthians 15:33

James is writing to Christians. He calls them adulterous people, because they are in sin (but still Christian), which interlaces with their friendship of the world. They are in sin, because their sin is either directly or indirectly a result of friendship with the world (unbelievers).

"You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God."

James is not saying, "a friend of sin". He is saying, a "friend of the world". Sin and world are not synonymous in this case.
Sin: transgression of the law.
World: inhabitants of earth (in context refers to unbelievers).

"You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you." John 15:14-15

How many unbelievers do what Jesus commands? Which is: repent and be baptized? Therefore, Jesus is not friends with unbelievers.

Click to expand...

Do you believe the entire law of God is to be followed now?

Kaon said:

Do you believe the entire law of God is to be followed now?

Click to expand...

The moral law, yes.

I can’t believe that there are posters saying that it would be a sin to befriend someone who is homosexual.

Archivist said:

I can’t believe that there are posters saying that it would be a sin to befriend someone who is homosexual.

Click to expand...

I've followed the discussion. I'm convinced that, doing exegesis in the usual conservative way, that's actually a reasonable conclusion. The net effect of "let Scripture interpret Scripture" is that rather than looking at the intent shown broadly throughout Scripture, the most explicit passages control. Those are usually the least typical and most extreme.

There were certainly situations common in the early Church where there was a significant danger of Christians being compromised by the surrounding pagan culture. I think warnings like this actually made some sense. Some of the other passages cited come from the usual Christian problem that we're our own worst enemies. Christians who disagree are the enemy. This problem started very early. Paul tried to combat it, but looking at the results I think he largely failed.

Of course if Rodney Stark is right, Christianity spread largely because non-Christian friends found the lives of their Christian friends attractive. So that can't have been universal practice. (I think this is still common today. Indeed his models suggest that this is the case. I'm pretty sure most of our new members are friends of current members.)

I'm also not convinced that this is a bad outcome. I think I would prefer it if Christians who can't keep themselves from condemning gays stayed away from them. Gays need Jesus just as much as anyone else, but friends who condemn them for being gay are not likely to make them want to follow Jesus.

MasterYourLife said:

The moral law, yes.

Click to expand...

You don't believe we should follow everything that the Most High God said?

Who said we only have to follow the Moral Law, as it were?

Incidentally, the NIGTC commentary on 1 Cor (by Thiselton) says this about 15:33

"ὁμιλίαι deserves a carefully nuanced translation. It does indeed denote association, intercourse, company, and then by extension a speech or sermon.250 However, it conveys the notion of a clique, a group, or a “gang” who regularly do things together and to which people “belong.” Hence we translate belonging to bad gangs for ὁμιλίαι κακαί. The usual translation is bad company (NRSV, REB, NIV, NJB; as against AV/KJV, evil communications). But this loses the force of the peer pressure experienced from an “in” group with which a person’s life has become closely bound."

This probably doesn't refer to individual friends of the kind the OP is thinking of.

hedrick said:

I've followed the discussion. I'm convinced that, doing exegesis in the usual conservative way, that's actually a reasonable conclusion. The net effect of "let Scripture interpret Scripture" is that rather than looking at the intent shown broadly throughout Scripture, the most explicit passages control. Those are usually the least typical and most extreme.

There were certainly situations common in the early Church where there was a significant danger of Christians being compromised by the surrounding pagan culture. I think warnings like this actually made sense in those situations.

Of course if Rodney Stark is right, Christianity spread largely because non-Christian friends found the lives of their Christian friends attractive. So that can't have been universal practice. (I think this is still common today. Indeed his models suggest that this is the case. I'm pretty sure most of our new members are friends of current members.)

I'm also not convinced that this is a bad outcome. I think I would prefer it if Christians who can't keep themselves from condemning gays stayed away from them. Gays need Jesus just as much as anyone else, but friends who condemn them for being gay are not likely to make them want to follow Jesus.

Click to expand...

Most Christians don't condemn gays. We are commanded to judge. As a Christian, I would hope you don't use those terms ignorantly.

Give us scripture to defend your side, rather than your opinion.
What you said is, "let's not interpret verses, but rather make an assumption".

Nowhere in scripture is there believers who were friends with unbelievers.
The opposite is true: we are told to stay away from the world and be holy (separate).
If you are friends with the world, then you are part of it.
If you are part of the world, then you can't be a light.

You don't have to be friends with an unbeliever, in order to be a light to them.

Kaon said:

You don't believe we should follow everything that the Most High God said?

Who said we only have to follow the Moral Law, as it were?

Click to expand...

Jesus taught the moral law and commanded us to follow it.
"You were told an eye for an eye, but I tell you, turn the other cheek".

hedrick said:

Incidentally, the NIGTC commentary on 1 Cor (by Thiselton) says this about 15:33

"ὁμιλίαι deserves a carefully nuanced translation. It does indeed denote association, intercourse, company, and then by extension a speech or sermon.250 However, it conveys the notion of a clique, a group, or a “gang” who regularly do things together and to which people “belong.” Hence we translate belonging to bad gangs for ὁμιλίαι κακαί. The usual translation is bad company (NRSV, REB, NIV, NJB; as against AV/KJV, evil communications). But this loses the force of the peer pressure experienced from an “in” group with which a person’s life has become closely bound."

This probably doesn't refer to individual friends of the kind the OP is thinking of.

Click to expand...

A group of friends (bad company). Doesn't change the message of the verse.

MasterYourLife said:

Jesus taught the moral law and commanded us to follow it.
"You were told an eye for an eye, but I tell you, turn the other cheek".

Click to expand...

Do you agree the Redeemer (the literal Word of God) would also never tell us that any part of His Father's Law is void?

MasterYourLife said:

If you are part of the world, then you can't be a light.

You don't have to be friends with an unbeliever, in order to be a light to them.

Click to expand...

So, you do believe that you are to be a light to them?

MasterYourLife said:

Jesus taught the moral law and commanded us to follow it.
"You were told an eye for an eye, but I tell you, turn the other cheek".

Click to expand...

He told us this, as well as not stone the woman unless we were sinless, because we are spiritually backward.

We sin without regard, forget His Law and call out the convenient sins of others without considering mercy, or our own hypocrisy. He was showing us how to be proper judges; would you want a judge to judge your innocence as a murderer when the judge indiscriminantly breaks the law and ignores it when it suits him? That isn't justice; it is closer to schadenfreude. The justice laws are still active, but there is a King that will do the judging via condemnation - alive now (not any of us.)

Kaon said:

Do you agree the Redeemer (the literal Word of God) would also never tell us that any part of His Father's Law is void?

Click to expand...

"For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Tone said:

So, you do believe that you are to be a light to them?

Click to expand...

Yes.

MasterYourLife said:

Nowhere in scripture is there believers who were friends with unbelievers.

Click to expand...

Many in Scripture have or desired to lay down their lives for unbelievers. (Exodus 32:32; Romans 9:3; Luke 23:34)...if this isn't being a friend...I don't know what is.

Kaon said:

He told us this, as well as not stone the woman unless we were sinless, because we are spiritually backward.

We sin without regard, forget His Law and call out the convenient sins of others without considering mercy, or our own hypocrisy. He was showing us how to be proper judges; would you want a judge to judge your innocence as a murderer when the judge indiscriminantly breaks the law and ignores it when it suits him? That isn't justice; it is closer to schadenfreude. The justice laws are still active, but there is a King that will do the judging via condemnation - alive now (not any of us.)

Click to expand...

Jesus was teaching forgiveness. We must forgive, because we were once of this world and we were forgiven. He was teaching that they were hypocrites. They throw stones at a sinner, yet they were in sin.

MasterYourLife said:

Yes.

Click to expand...

Well, if you truly are being a light to them...you are their friend.

MasterYourLife said:

"For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Click to expand...

So you must understand the Socratic point: we don't put nearly enough terror and emphasis on the other hundreds of possible sins and abominations from the Most High God - we embrace those abominations. Why not honisexuality?

In other words, either we need to condemn it all, or embrace it all - lest we look like improper judgmental hypocrites.

I agree that sinful people can be stumbling blocks, and no one has to be friends with anyone, but we need to apply that pressure evenly. Homosexuality already hurts the sinner more than other sins, so we should be a lamp and candlelight for those seeking to come OUT of that.

Anyone who wants to stay there can do so, as they are sovereign humans under the Most High God.

Tone said:

Many in Scripture have or desired to lay down their lives for unbelievers. (Exodus 32:32; Romans 9:3; Luke 23:34)...if this isn't being a friend...I don't know what is.

Click to expand...

Those verses have nothing to do with laying their life down for unbelievers.
The only person to lay their life down for unbelievers, was Jesus.
But Jesus said, he will be their friends only if they obey his commands.

Tone said:

Well, if you truly are being a light to them...you are their friend.

Click to expand...

Flawed conclusion.