She wasn't suggesting we express condolences. She suggested we become friends with, and emotionally support them.
Problem?
2 John 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
Read it in context, and you will see that it refers to specific people who were bringing false doctrine to church. Furthermore, it talks about welcoming them at home, not becoming friends with them. The Bible never prohibits being friends with homosexuals or, for that matter, non-Christians.
That isn't what Paul says:
Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Granted! But that does not mean that it is right to kill them. We are never instructed to kill sinners, nor to approve such acts of killing. As you should know, this death (of which sinners are worthy) is to be inflicted by God, not by us — as it is written in Romans 12:19, which reads:
‘Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.’ Nowhere in the Bible are we instructed to kill sinners or approve of it. Rather, we are instructed to spread the Gospel to them (Matthew 28:18-20), because
‘[God our Saviour] wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth’ (1 Timothy 2:4).
Furthermore, even you are worthy of death, because
‘all have sinned’ (Romans 3:23) and
‘the wages of sin is death’ (Romans 6:23). So, even you are worthy of death, and not only homosexuals. In fact, you are just as worthy of death as them. However, does that mean that it is OK for you to die? Does that mean that I should not mourn over you? Does that mean I should kill you?
Yes, they are all believers.
And is it because you just do not happen to trust in any non-Christian, or because you have imposed, as a matter of principle, that you would never have non-Christian friends? If it is the latter, why? (I personally have a few non-Christian friends who respect me and are trustworthy, and I see no problem with it.)
I'm not sure what you were trying to say here. Someone's life is made up of their actions. To support someone's life, is to support their actions.
I will proceed to explain what I meant. All people have the right to live. By ‘supporting their lives’, I meant supporting and upholding their right to live. We must lament this tragedy which resulted in the deaths of these people, regardless of their sexual orientation. Their sexual orientation does not matter when it comes to defending their lives. Their lives are worth as much as the lives of heterosexuals. This tragedy is just as disastrous as a tragedy which kills the same number of straight people.
Evidently, we must not support their actions. Their actions are immoral and condemnable, which is absolutely biblically clear. We must never show any sort of endorsement for what they are doing. However, this does not mean that we must despise their lives and overlook such massacres. When their lives are in danger, although we may disagree with them, we ought to strongly defend them.
How about here:
James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
1 John 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
The verses you have quoted tell us that we must not love
the world or
the things that are in the world, but it says nothing about loving
the people that are in the world. They are warning against the worldly things — deceit, theft, murder, sexual immorality, etc. —, but not against sinners themselves, who ought to receive our love and help. Friendship with such people is acceptable.
In the book of 1st John, he says that they are sharing the gospel to bring people to the faith. And that once converted, they can enjoy fellowship with the church. Hence, those that are not of the faith do no enjoy fellowship.
1 John 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
In Acts, Peter states that those that work righteousness are accepted with God. Thus, those that do not work righteousness are rejected.
Acts 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
Such verses do not prohibit fellowship with non-Christians. Nothing is said about it. Your conclusion, which you attempt to retrieve from these verses, is not in them.
You can see from the verses I quoted above, that friendship with the world is forbidden.
Yes, but, again, friendship with the world does not mean friendship with the people of the world.
Thus, Paul must be speaking of something less than fellowship/friendship. Which makes sense, given his statement of "for then must ye needs go out of the world.". It's clear that he is speaking of something that simply cannot be avoided if we are to exist in the midst of a nation full of unbelievers. So let's turn our brains on for a second, and consider whether it's impossible for us to survive among unbelievers, without becoming friends with them. The answer is obviously no. Nothing that perpetuates our survival necessitates being friends with a godless person.
Do we need to be friends with a godless person in order to eat, have a roof over our heads, maintain a job, run a successful business, or pursue God's Word? No. We do however need to interact with the world on a regular basis for these things to happen. We buy our food from the world, we rent or buy a place to live from the world, we may work at a company owned by the world, we sell a product to the world, and buy supplies from the world.
This being the case, logic would suggest that these are the things he was speaking about.
If you acknowledge (as you now have) that Paul is not talking about friendship in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11, then you must no longer utilise 1 Corinthians 5:11 to attempt to show how the Bible prohibits friendship with unbelievers.
Once again, Paul disagrees with you. He didn't say they were innocent, he said they were guilty:
Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
I was speaking of innocence in human terms, not in godly terms. Think about it. If anyone is guilty of breaking any human law, humans have the right to judge him and condemn them. And, if anyone is guilty of breaking any godly law, God has the right to judge him and condemn him. But, if anyone breaks any godly law (which is not also a human law), then humans have no right to judge or condemn, but only God. If anyone breaks a commandment from God, that person is to be judged by God, because he is seen as guilty only in God's eyes, and not in Mankind's eyes. To our eyes (that is, the eyes of society, the government and human laws), that person is innocent, because no human law was broken.
Let me make an analogy. If two countries have two different sets of laws, breaking a law in Country A (if doing the same would be permitted in Country B) does not give Country B the right to judge or condemn a man who has broken a law which only exists in Country A, because he is innocent in the eyes of Country B. For example, in Portugal, drug consumption and possession for personal use is legal, but not in the United States, meaning that the Portuguese Government has no right to condemn a man who consumes drugs (anywhere), but the United States Government has the right to do it if the same man does the same thing in US soil.
Similarly, homosexuality is prohibited by God's law but permitted by human law (there are countries in which it is also prohibited, but, to simplify, let us ignore them). Therefore, no human has the right to punish anyone who commits such acts, because they are innocent in our eyes (that is, our eyes as a society — you yourself may see them as guilty [and so do I], but that is irrelevant, because they are no under our authority and we cannot impose on them our own law). As such, it was wrong for that man to kill them. However, they are also under God's law, and it will be right for God (not for us) to kill them when the time comes. The only circumstance in which it would be right for us to kill them would be if God had specifically placed us in charge of accomplishing his will and, thus, of judging and condemning anyone who breaks his law — but he has not done it.
I confuse homosexuality with homosexuals? What are you smoking? Am I confusing a murderer with murder as well? Should we punish the act of murder, and let the man go free then?
Your analogy to the murderer fails in that murdering is illegal per government law, but homosexuality is not.
By the way, just to clarify,
we ourselves (as in, you and I) have no right to punish any murderer. Only the government has, because the murderer has broken a law of the government, under whose authority he is. (The murderer, however, is not under our own personal authority, so we have no right to punish him.) The only circumstance in which we would have the right to do so would be if the government employed us to.
Unjustified hatred? God hates them, so take it up with Him.
Psalms 11:5 God trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence His soul hateth.
Proverbs 8:17 I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me. (Wisdom)
The Messiah stated the same, only those that love the Father will be loved in turn.
John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
God's ‘hatred’ (which, as you can see, is only partial, if you compare those verses with other ones, such as John 3:16) does not justify your hatred. God has instructed you to love and never to hate.
And as for your rant about me being no better than the killer in Florida, I'm not even going to grace that with a response.
Well, you should. Based on your statements, I have just accused you of being willing to kill sinners. You should either accept or reject my accusation.
Yes, God commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves. What you fail to understand, is what the word love means.
1 John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
Matthew 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
John and the Messiah stated that loving others is accomplished by keeping God's law. What is written in God's law in regards to others? Don't steal from them,
don't murder them, don't covet their property, don't slander them, etc. So, by keeping the law, we are not sinning against our neighbour. Which scripture defines as love.
You included ‘don't murder them’ in the list (which is correct). Now, if we ought to love our neighbours and if loving them includes not murdering them, does that not mean that we should condemn murder when it happens? Are you showing love by failing to condemn the terrorist attack and even by seemingly supporting it?