Jesus didn't advocate for helping a sinner commit more sin. He advocated for repentance and corrections.
I appreciate that you respond to me. This shows you're no coward about defending your convictions which I have necessarily challenged.
However, I'm still waiting for some indication that you acknowledge what scripture says about God giving mankind over to the lust of the flesh to become homosexuals and many other undesirable things as a penalty, and as a lesson for not esteeming God as God. I have no idea if you understand there is a lesson to be learned by all of us, which I would articulate as acknowledging that it is God who makes us Holy, and not ourselves. So can you please answer yes or no whether you understand this lesson and the fundamental implication that comes with it, that Homosexuals didn't choose to be homosexuals according to scripture and therefore cannot choose not to be, apart from God's Spirit.
Above, your use of the term "advocate" is to me a misguided application. If homosexuality is a penalty, then of course it's not a reward by God and therefore not a desirable thing. Therefore Jesus advocates for sinners not so that sin can be promoted but so that mercy and understanding can be appealed to for the purpose of reconciliation.
How can you as a believer not tell them its wrong and not try to help them?
First off, before I can help them, I must not be deceived in thinking that I'm any better than them or anyone else in that I don't need help or to presume I know what help even looks like. Who needs another hypocritical Pharisee saying sin is wrong so don't do it? After all I am flesh also, and I therefore have lusts also, even though they manifest in different forms and/or degrees according to Romans 1. This is what in the context of judging I take Jesus' teaching to mean when he says, that I must first remove the beam from my own eye before I can see clearly to remove the speck from my brothers eye.
From what I'm seeing in the replies most tend to think what they are doing is just fine.
I don't see it that way. There are semantics that form when discussing a picture within a picture. So keeping in mind that I believe scripture teaches that homosexuality is a penalty for a greater offence of not being thankful to God for godliness, I need to find the act of any sin disgusting or there's no reason to be thankful for God's attributes. But I also must refrain from expecting the homosexual to be able to change their affection apart from God, otherwise again there is no reason to be thankful to God for His attributes.
I'm by far not perfect but ignoring the word of God to me seems like a move in the wrong direction.
Of course ignoring God's word is moving in the wrong direction. But it's also not correct to misunderstand and then misrepresent what God says or is doing. We need to truly understand what God's Word is saying and the intentions therein, before we can claim whether or not it's being ignored.
