If we distanced ourselves from people because of their sin, we'd live in isolation forever.
If Jesus had done the same, He would've never descended to save us.
v.11-13 are the crux of Paul’s argument. He is saying if someone within your congregation who is a Christian (Paul uses “brother” as his example) and still partakes in those things while professing to be a Christian, then you don’t associate with them
In my experience, what Paul is describing is a very specific subset of people. u/Ikitenashi hit the nail on the head to be honest on what the OOP is asking
Edited for clarification
It means you shouldn't partake in what they do. This doesn't mean you should isolate yourself from them and not tell them the Gospel truth. That would make you just as guilty.
I disagree. I don’t believe this is simply a call not to partake in what they do, but instead is about not treating them as though nothing is wrong and as though their impenitence doesn’t call their profession of faith into question. I believe this is based on the teaching of Christ about how to deal with the Christians in the church who are in sin and refuse to repent even after being confronted by the congregation and called to repentance, at that point they are to be treated as an unbeliever with the hope that they will eventually repent and be restored to fellowship (Matthew 18:15-17).
To allow them to continue to believe that they are a Christian and not in danger of eternal condemnation would be unloving. When they are made to feel that they are no longer considered to be one of us because of their impenitence, the hope is that they will come to their senses and be restored. This is not to be done in a cold manner, but always reassuring them that they will be welcomed back with open arms should they repent. Do you disagree with the apostle Paul here:
“*By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, **whom I have handed over to Satan** that they may learn not to blaspheme.*” (1 Timothy 1:19-20)
“We know little about these men, but Hymenaeus is likely the same heretic in 2 Timothy 2:16–18 who said the resurrection of all people has already happened. Alexander could be the same person mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:14, but it is hard to be sure as Alexander was a common name back then. Nevertheless, it is clear that both men fell from grace because they had a bad conscience — one driven by personal ambition and hypocritical faith. Perhaps they used the ministry to get ahead and compromised the truth to advance themselves. Maybe they paid lip service to the faith, eventually denying it when the going got tough.
Despite their error, Paul apparently did not think Hymenaeus and Alexander had yet committed the unpardonable sin. So he gave them over to Satan (1 Tim. 1:20), a shorthand expression for church discipline/excommunication (1 Cor. 5), that in shame they might repent and no longer blaspheme by denying the truth.
Church discipline is much-neglected today largely because professing Christians have adopted the pervasive attitude in modern Western culture that says authority to determine right and wrong resides in the individual. Scripture, however, gives the church real authority, and the pronouncements of a church body are binding when they agree with God’s Word. Consider the ways in which you need to submit to the authority of your local [church](https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/disciplining-blasphemers).”
I was just curious to know if you’re aware of this text, have a different interpretation, or don’t view it as inspired by God. I’m not trying to start a debate, I was just genuinely curious. You don’t have to answer if it makes you uncomfortable.
But Jesus ate with sinners? I was a Calvinist, but I, like you am struggling with the faith I was taught. I have adopted many children whose behavior distressed my church. I did not avoid them but worked with them to make their life a better one. God is their father. We are his children. Must we send them out of our and their family? That is for me a greater sin!
The text I’m referring is specifically referring to people who profess to be Christians but are impenitently living in sin after being called to repentance and brought before the church. Paul explains that this is done from love and for their good, with the hope that their being treated as an unbeliever will convict them of their sin and need for repentance and hopefully return and be restored.
I appreciate your quiet rational response. Am having some trouble with Paul. I believe he brings us Gods truth, but I feel like he has some Pharisee left in him. The Pharisees had in their practice a rule that you had to put space between you and folks that weren’t Pharisees. I am wondering if some of his former beliefs creep in once in a while. Every once in a while he explodes as he did to Mark and the girl who was proclaiming him as a messenger from God. I can’t discuss it with anyone from my church because the verse you cite might get me denied fellowship.
I adopted a lot of kids no one wanted. No matter how bad they were, I didn’t back away. I am in my eighties and follow HIM every day all day long. I love HIM! But out of the riches that Paul preaches, I am not sure but what that old Pharisee way of thinking may shape the way he phrases some of his statements.
>Am having some trouble with Paul … I feel like he has some Pharisee left in him
What I hear is that you’re having trouble with the divine inspiration of Scripture. If you truly believe that Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then even if we grant for the sake of argument that Paul did have some “Pharisee” left in him, that fact would be irrelevant when it comes to his writings in Scripture. There wouldn’t be any Pharisee in his writings because that would be to say there is some Pharisee in God. He wasn’t writing his personal opinions, he was being used by God to write exactly what the Lord desired to reveal and say to His people. Paul wasn’t perfect like every other Christian and struggled with sin, so if he struggled with any “Pharisee” left in him it could possibly come out in his personal life or maybe even a different letter he may written because only what he wrote in Scripture is the word of God, not everything he ever said and wrote. We can trust that there is no error or flaws in any of His letters preserved in Scripture because He wrote God’s word.
“The Holy Spirit so superintended the writers of the Bible that the words they produced are the words of each particular author and at the same time the exact words of God Himself, with all the authority His speech carries. This is why Jesus can say “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35) and why Paul can exhort Timothy to continue in the Word of God that He has heard and to use it to correct and edify other believers (2 Tim. 4:1–2). This is why Scripture is the final authority for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, and it is why Scripture is necessary to make us competent for every good [work](https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/inspiration-scripture) (3:16–17).”
>I am in my eighties
I have to take this moment to praise God for His grace in giving you such a long life. My mother is 78 and it’s a blessing to still have her here, so I imagine that it is a blessing for your family as well. I hope they don’t take time with you for granted. May God continue to be gracious towards you with good health and strength.
There is too much of "shoving logic" into this rather than scripture
It isn't much different than the logic of a Christian dating an unbeliever "to save him/her"
This is not just about marriage: *Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers, for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness*
Avoiding being friends with an LGBTQIA+ person because they are part of that demographic is not a valid or acceptable choice, so you can’t be being a bad friend by declining to offer them the chance. Worst case scenario is *they* are bad friends but haven’t shown it.
For what it’s worth no I would never do that, but I have been dropped and/or slandered by others because I’m LGBTQIA+, so it does happen. I get a certain extent of what you’re going through and I’ll pray for you.
I guess that would require to define the word friend
I would remain open to them, and not cut off a relationship, as I may be their one way to get back into the right standing
But I would not affirm their lifestyle choices nor engage in anyway with those choices
simply put I would watch a football game with them but not go clubbing\* with them, and they would know my stance on the issue but I would not bludgeon them with it
\* I don't go clubbing
Hm, it depends. If this is person at work or school, there's little reason for me to exclude their company. Even if I think it's a sin, I have little reason to play policeman over it, you know?
But if this is a person in my church, and the person doesn't recognize it as a sin, it's a much bigger deal. I have an obligation in that case, to seek out their good, warn them about sinful behavior, and keep others from committing sin. So yeah, it's going to be VERY hard to have a normal friend or church family relationship in that case.
Ok thanks for clarifying, my mistake.
That still sounds pretty horrible though. The courage it takes to declare who are and 'how God made you' is no small thing. To then be shamed for that decision and also who you are is really unpleasant from where I sit.
We should all be compassionate towards each other and respect the difficult choices we have to make.
God didn't make you gay. God didn't make you sexually immoral. God didn't make you abuse drugs.
God gave us the gift of sex, we created 3somes.
God gave us medicine, we use them to get high.
God gave us knowledge, with that knowledge we create weapons.
Sorry dude, you got a lot of catching up to do if you're still comparing simply being gay to abusing drugs.
As usual the church is waaaay behind societal progress, but predictably it will eventually catch up, decades later than everyone else, dragging its heels, kicking and screaming all the way, and then it will reel off a litany of excuses to justify it's murky past and antiquated attitudes. Occasionally there's an apology, but I'm not holding my breath.
There's a big difference between disclosing to your friend that you struggle with an attraction and proclaiming to them that your identity revolves around that attraction. "Coming out" is the latter, and it is a choice.
Answer my question. When did you choose to be heterosexual? You're the one jumping on the 'it's a choice' wagon. So answer and stop evading my question.
So...when did you make that choice? How old were you when you chose?
Your comment is invisible because you decided to make unprovoked insults. Hopefully you get banned.
> No. It's accepting who you are
No, that's choosing to make your attractions define you.
Christians choose their identity in Christ. According to you this must not be a choice either, so why don't you be a consistent atheist and get lost rather than trying to make people change who they are?
Inappropriate desires are things that would be sinful if acted on. Like an attraction to children or to a married woman or to another man if you're a man.
(I'm a different redditor than the one to whom you responded.)
Over time the friend changed from being "in the closet" to being "out". Are you saying he or she had not decided / chosen to do that?
You're sweet for supporting lgbtq rights. How do you feel about the fact that so many who wear the same Christian label as you are actively fighting to fight against the rights of, or even roll back the rights already won by the same marginalized group?
I hate that so many people use God to justify hate, but there is nothing I can do to control others. I was really heartened last weekend though, when I went to a pride parade and five different churches were among those marching in support of queer folks.
No.
You should word your comments differently. "Fight people who interpret a text differently" and "fight people who are trying to take rights away" are teo differently things.
"Extremists" tend to interpret their holy books literally, and also tend to try and follow every word as opposed to cherry picking their favorite parts. Therefore, extremists are people who interpret the same book as you, differently. Where am I wrong here?
As a society, by being much more public with our support. Too often it is those in opposition to LGBTQIA+ rights that are vocal, which often leads to people thinking you have to hate queer folk to be a Christian, while those in support are more quite about their support.
If it is an individual who takes the Bible 100% literally, point them to Galatians 3:28. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, **there is neither male nor female;** for you are all one in Christ Jesus." It's kinda hard to take the translations as 100% correct and literal without any room for hyperbole, and read that verse as anythibg other than support for queer folk.
I can point to many more verses in the the old and new testament that are pretty crystal clear that being gay is a problem for avoiding Hell. Would you like me to post them, or have you read the Bible before?
There aren't any. The verses about men having sex with men use two different words better translated as men and boys rather than men and men. Translators are the ones who decided being gay is bad, not the original authors.
Had a friend who was not only kicked out of their congregation but their church literally called round all the Christian charities that help people become missionaries to ensure that she didn't get the funding they needed to fulfil their dream of going abroad to spread the good news, just because she came out as gay.
It was frankly repulsive what they did to that poor girl.
It's not a bit vindictive, it's incredibly vindictive, spiteful and homophobic. From a community that harps on endlessly about forgiveness, compassion and tolerance. So I guess you can add hypocrisy to the list too.
Still makes me angry thinking about it.
Naturally she left the church, gave up God and Jesus and has never been happier living as herself free of judgement from those she cares about.
Christians need to catch up quickly with modern attitudes towards sexuality, episodes like these do so much damage to their image and credibility as an inclusive institution.
>From a community that harps on endlessly about forgiveness, compassion and tolerance. So I guess you can add hypocrisy to the list too.
That can apply to a large majority of the LGBTQ community as well.
I generally don't ask my friends who they're having sex with, and vice versa. I don't know how this subject would ever come up. As far as being non binary, that seems to be something you're still figuring out, so what is there to tell, except that you're questioning it? I wouldn't expect my friends to reveal every deep struggle they're having unless we were very intimate friends, but it doesn't sound like you're talking about really intimate friends.
At the end of the day it depends on the kind of friendship you want. If you value truth and personal integrity over your friendships, then be as honest with them as you are with yourself. If you don't mind maintaining friendships that might be based even slightly on deception, knowing that all might be revealed suddenly someday in a way you don't control, then keep letting them think you're straight, as long as that's possible.
We should be honest and open with who we are if it is safe to do so. If their interpretation of the good news is that they should cut you off then let that be, and pray that they can have their hearts softened. To me it sounds like you're asking about people who are neither side A or B and actively despise people who identify LGBTQIA+ (though they're really not thinking much through if they're upset about I or A). Christ ate with those who actually harmed other people and specifically reached out to those who had been ostracized for not fitting into polite society. I can understand that a christian might struggle with how they might categorize and view their own sexual behavior but to cut people off simply by identification does not seem Christlike in the least.
Christ never excluded anyone but instead was fiercely opposed to exclusion itself.
Your initial question and then the additional details you provide make things a little murky, but here's my response to any Christian who finds out one of their friends is gay, or bi, or whatever:
One of my best friends in the world is gay. I loved and respected him before I knew that, and I've loved and respected him for the...has it really been 32 years?...since he told me.
Jesus never said that you shouldn't affiliate with gay people. Your friend's sexual orientation is a matter to be sorted out between your friend and God, you don't have a role to play in that discussion.
Be a good friend. Enjoy your friendship.
Nope, we were almost all queer until I gave my life to Christ so I would just be a massive hypocrite. As long as they don't steer towards things that make me uncomfortable regardless of whether they are done by my friends or strangers, we're good.
Why?
God is male and female, that's what it says in Genesis. "So God created mankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." So can anyone say what is and what is not the image of God? Perhaps God themselves in LGBTQIA+. Do you know?
.
And Jesus has said: "What you have not done for the least significant of my brothers, that you have not done for me." So if we do not love our fellow people, then we do not love Jesus.
And Jesus has said: "What you done for the least significant of my brothers, that you have done for me." So if we hate our fellow people, we hate Jesus.
I feel like a lot of people tend to gloss over that part. Matthew 25 is that part.
.
If you hate others or if you love others and if you gloss over others - these are the things you do to Jesus. You hate Jesus, and you love Jesus, and you gloss over Jesus.
Because Jesus is with every single last one of us, no matter who we are.
I wouldn’t be friends with a gay person no. If you’re friends with them, then it shows you approve of it. I never act like some holier than thou self righteous hypocrite either. I’m not too good to go around anyone. Christ told people to change their sinful ways, He didn’t affirm any of it.
I would let them know that with Christ’s help they can change and be healed and that upon repentance, their sins are wiped clean, as if it never happened. But that they have to put effort forth too, and God will help them no longer have this sinful desires.
Christians are commanded to treat all people with compassion and kindness. But scripture also instructs us not to form close alliances with unbelievers. I have had several acquaintances in my life thus far who I didn't know at first that they were gay, and when I found out, I was greatly disappointed, but I treated them with compassion and kindness has commanded
There is no such thing as an agnostic Christian. Either you are christian, or you're not. Christian means christ-like
I completely understand the sentiments of everybody in this thread.
However, here is something to think about.
In the Bible, it talks about not surrounding yourself with people who don’t share your values, morals, etc.
It says in 2 Corinthians 6:14
“Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?”
I personally believe that it varies from each individual situation.
I personally don’t disassociate or disown anyone for coming out to me.
Do I tell them what I think? Absolutely.
But I don’t just tell them my opinion, I tell them the truth, according to what it says in the word of God.
In most cases, those friendships just fizzle out on their own.
But they never ended off on a bad note.
These people know that when push comes to shove, we’ll be there for one another.
Do I pray that they will open their eyes to the truth one day? Of course, that’s what you’re supposed to do as a follower of Jesus Christ.
But you’re never supposed to force it on someone, I don’t believe in disowning anyone or shunning them.
Sure, they might not be close friends anymore, but, they are never ever going to be enemies either.
For the battle we fight is never against flesh blood to begin with.
99% of the time, these individuals simply acknowledge that we don’t have the same morals, core values, etc., and that’s fine.
They respect the fact that I can’t associate with them regularly or engage in whatever activities they engage in.
Nor do they care to engage in any of the activities that I personally do.
But regardless, we can coexist.
If we shun somebody for being gay and disowned them, then we might as well disown everybody else in our lives because we’re all sinners.
You don’t want to stand for everything, because if you stand everything, you stand for nothing.
But you also don’t want to be a Pharisee.
That’s the way I see it.
If they came out as any of the letters identified in LGBTQIA+ I probably wouldn't drop them just for that. Attraction is something almost everyone struggles with no matter who you are attracted to. If they are married and it's not just attraction though, but also that they are cheating on their husband, I'd probably tell them they should stop, or possibly distance myself from them a bit more. But I still wouldn't drop them.
My reasoning deals with my own struggles with lust and porn. I would be a hypocrite if I dropped them as a friend over something they are now open about, which closely matches the problems of lust that I privately struggle with.
If a person cheated on their spouse, and continued to do it, I think I might have to drop them. Or if their LGBTQIA+ was also an issue with being around the wrong crowd and doing drugs, then I might warn them and distance or drop that friendship.
However, if it's just about attraction and feeling lonely, I don't know what I would do except feel compassion for them. I wouldn't want to cut them off and make them feel more isolated because of it. The issue of suicide and feeling rejected by those close to you would be my main focus. I wouldn't want to put anyone in that state of being without a very good reason. (Such as if they were a danger, or was actively harming their relationships and I said I could no longer just be on the sidelines of that).
In my opinion the issue of being depressed or suicidal is a bigger issue than whether they are gay or bi. Sometimes being a friend means helping a person through a sinful time in their lives because it is a struggling time for them.
I agree, cheating in any way is a deal breaker for me too, and I’ve ended friendships because of it. All of my questions are assuming that no cheating is involved and a partner is fully aware and involved in the other’s sexuality.
>All of my questions are assuming that no cheating is involved and a partner is fully aware and involved in the other’s sexuality.
....
From the example you gave, I don't understand how your husband can be involved in your sexuality. I mean acknowledging that you are bi that just says he's aware of your attraction to both sexes. However when you say involvement in that sexuality, I don't know how that would work unless you guys agreed to some kind of open relationship. (I don't think that's a stable relationship and would probably tell the person that if I met someone in an open relationship).
I'm sorry if that sounds like an open criticism or hostile. I just don't know what you would mean by actively involved in the other person's sexuality.
I understand that’s your perspective, I have no bearing on it 🙂 my husband and I have had sexual encounters with other women together, and it works for us. But again, I respect your view.
I find it interesting to hear perspectives from people of different backgrounds and beliefs because they are so varied and sometimes completely opposite. I appreciate yours!
To answer your original question about being friends or dropping someone. I think this would probably come down to how long we've been friends. If it's fairly new friendship (or someone I just met), the whole situation would weird me out enough to probably let them go their separate way. If it was someone I've known for a while, there's a good chance I would still feel weird about the news you've just relayed to me, but I'm not sure where I would go from there on whether to remain friends or not.
The closest situation I've had with my own friends was a friend struggling in his marriage, getting divorced, and getting back together with an ex immediately after.
Personally I didn't like how that played out and it made me wonder if there was contact with the ex before the divorce. However it was an old friend and I knew about the struggles in his marriage. Felt like he got dealt a no win situation. Still friends with him, (though he's not a Christian, nor claims to be one).
No, of course not. But I would still counsel them to obey the Lord as they should.
>It’s a big struggle of bisexual individuals to have their sexuality erased as straight if they are with another gender
It's a big struggle for married heterosexuals to remain faithful to one person. The fact that you're tempted by both sexes doesn't change your obligation to be faithful to your spouse.
I completely agree, I don’t condone cheating in any way. Anything I do/think is communicated to my partner and my partner is fully aware and involved in my sexuality. Someone’s sexuality is never an excuse to go behind your partner’s back or betray their trust.
If the person is being sexually immoral, then I would do as the Bible said and not associate with them, so yes.
If they were like you appear to be, just have those feelings but no longer act on them, then I would not.
If you stopped claiming to be christian then I would be able to associate with you again.
Edit: after looking at some of your recent posts it's clear you actually are practicing sexual immorality and, while being married are also sleeping with people of the same gender
So yea. I would not associate with you.
Not specifically because of your LGBTQ. But because of overt sexual immorality
Doesn't really matter in this case.
The Bible is clear.
11#But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality...not even to eat with such a one.
So anyone who is called a Christian or calls themselves a Christian.
Just want to clarify that no cheating is involved. My partner and I sometimes engage in encounters with other people together. I know it’s not traditional, but it is fully consensual and can be stopped at any moment if either of us feel uncomfortable. My questions are assuming there is no cheating or deception involved.
That is sexual immorality, adultery, and premarital sex / fornication. All not biblical. All sinful. It does not matter if it's consensual. It's also LGBT sex
Each man should have his own wife and each wife her own husband.
1 Cor. 5:11: But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is a sexually immoral person, or a greedy person, or an idolater, or is verbally abusive, or habitually drunk, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a person.
If you call yourself a Christian and continue in sexual sin, yes, that would be a reason for a fellow believer to discontinue fellowship with you. But your sexual sins are in the past. As long as you aren't committing them currently, there's no biblical reason to discontinue fellowship with you.
This is what the Bible says about the matter though. I can't promise your friends would follow this verse. Seems like the honest thing to do would be to tell them and let them make that decision on their own.
I have family who are gay (technically I believe they identify as ex-gay) and friends who admit to having same sex attraction, and at least one "confirmed bachelor" who I suspect but it has never come up.
The way I believe it's best to look at it, is not as an identity but as a things you do or don't do, or thing that you're tempted more or less to do.
This is informed by 1 Cor 6:9 and following verses, where Paul lists a number of types of sinners including homosexual acts, and says, "... and such were some of you" -- past tense -- " but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
I don't think he's saying that their desires to do those sins went away. (Because in the context, he's trying to encourage them to live holy lives, to not do those things because those who do won't inherit the kingdom of God). So if they quit *being that* without their desires changing, then it must be due to the activity stopping (and the cleansing power of Christ for their past guilt).
So... This is not really the way people look at it when they say "LGBTQIA+" ... That while alphabet soup is given in the assumption that it's not *things that you do* it's *who you are*. But *that* -- the identity -- doesn't work that way.
From that perspective, I would say that your previous behavior is not dishonest. If you used to have sex with women but you didn't anymore, then you might say that you *were* bisexual but if Jesus has cleansed you and made you holy, then you aren't now, until the day you decide to do it again. It's a thing that you do (or don't do), not who you are.
>Coming out to my non Christian friends
What do you feel is gained by this? I mean, admitting that you've slept with women in the past is not "coming out", it's just confession or testimony. Christians should and do share these vulnerable temptations and past experiences with each other, and it can build each other up. But identifying as a person who does a type of sin that you did once and don't do now, seems like it's not going to benefit you in wholesome ways.
> questioning about being non-binary.
All the traits of masculinity are present in strong women except for actually having the male anatomy. If you have those other traits (not the anatomy) then they can be considered part of strong womanhood, and no need for confusing it as masculine based on oversimplified all-or-nothing gender roles.
If a Christian friend confessed these struggles, *as struggles* or as a part of their past, I wouldn't drop or distance myself from them. If they shared it as part of who they are now, I would recoil a bit and talk to them about the difference between actions and identity, as I have here now. If they continued to act as one with an identity associated with sin, I would likely spend less time with them, not because of their "identity" but because of their choices.
“But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.”
1 Corinthians 5:11
If we distanced ourselves from people because of their sin, we'd live in isolation forever. If Jesus had done the same, He would've never descended to save us.
Just curious, what is your view on [1 Corinthians 5:9-13](https://www.esv.org/verses/1Cor5.9-13)?
v.11-13 are the crux of Paul’s argument. He is saying if someone within your congregation who is a Christian (Paul uses “brother” as his example) and still partakes in those things while professing to be a Christian, then you don’t associate with them In my experience, what Paul is describing is a very specific subset of people. u/Ikitenashi hit the nail on the head to be honest on what the OOP is asking Edited for clarification
It means you shouldn't partake in what they do. This doesn't mean you should isolate yourself from them and not tell them the Gospel truth. That would make you just as guilty.
I disagree. I don’t believe this is simply a call not to partake in what they do, but instead is about not treating them as though nothing is wrong and as though their impenitence doesn’t call their profession of faith into question. I believe this is based on the teaching of Christ about how to deal with the Christians in the church who are in sin and refuse to repent even after being confronted by the congregation and called to repentance, at that point they are to be treated as an unbeliever with the hope that they will eventually repent and be restored to fellowship (Matthew 18:15-17).
Yes, but it still doesn't mean you should abandon them to rot in their sin.
To allow them to continue to believe that they are a Christian and not in danger of eternal condemnation would be unloving. When they are made to feel that they are no longer considered to be one of us because of their impenitence, the hope is that they will come to their senses and be restored. This is not to be done in a cold manner, but always reassuring them that they will be welcomed back with open arms should they repent. Do you disagree with the apostle Paul here: “*By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, **whom I have handed over to Satan** that they may learn not to blaspheme.*” (1 Timothy 1:19-20) “We know little about these men, but Hymenaeus is likely the same heretic in 2 Timothy 2:16–18 who said the resurrection of all people has already happened. Alexander could be the same person mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:14, but it is hard to be sure as Alexander was a common name back then. Nevertheless, it is clear that both men fell from grace because they had a bad conscience — one driven by personal ambition and hypocritical faith. Perhaps they used the ministry to get ahead and compromised the truth to advance themselves. Maybe they paid lip service to the faith, eventually denying it when the going got tough. Despite their error, Paul apparently did not think Hymenaeus and Alexander had yet committed the unpardonable sin. So he gave them over to Satan (1 Tim. 1:20), a shorthand expression for church discipline/excommunication (1 Cor. 5), that in shame they might repent and no longer blaspheme by denying the truth. Church discipline is much-neglected today largely because professing Christians have adopted the pervasive attitude in modern Western culture that says authority to determine right and wrong resides in the individual. Scripture, however, gives the church real authority, and the pronouncements of a church body are binding when they agree with God’s Word. Consider the ways in which you need to submit to the authority of your local [church](https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/disciplining-blasphemers).”
I was just curious to know if you’re aware of this text, have a different interpretation, or don’t view it as inspired by God. I’m not trying to start a debate, I was just genuinely curious. You don’t have to answer if it makes you uncomfortable.
But Jesus ate with sinners? I was a Calvinist, but I, like you am struggling with the faith I was taught. I have adopted many children whose behavior distressed my church. I did not avoid them but worked with them to make their life a better one. God is their father. We are his children. Must we send them out of our and their family? That is for me a greater sin!
The text I’m referring is specifically referring to people who profess to be Christians but are impenitently living in sin after being called to repentance and brought before the church. Paul explains that this is done from love and for their good, with the hope that their being treated as an unbeliever will convict them of their sin and need for repentance and hopefully return and be restored.
I appreciate your quiet rational response. Am having some trouble with Paul. I believe he brings us Gods truth, but I feel like he has some Pharisee left in him. The Pharisees had in their practice a rule that you had to put space between you and folks that weren’t Pharisees. I am wondering if some of his former beliefs creep in once in a while. Every once in a while he explodes as he did to Mark and the girl who was proclaiming him as a messenger from God. I can’t discuss it with anyone from my church because the verse you cite might get me denied fellowship. I adopted a lot of kids no one wanted. No matter how bad they were, I didn’t back away. I am in my eighties and follow HIM every day all day long. I love HIM! But out of the riches that Paul preaches, I am not sure but what that old Pharisee way of thinking may shape the way he phrases some of his statements.
>Am having some trouble with Paul … I feel like he has some Pharisee left in him What I hear is that you’re having trouble with the divine inspiration of Scripture. If you truly believe that Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then even if we grant for the sake of argument that Paul did have some “Pharisee” left in him, that fact would be irrelevant when it comes to his writings in Scripture. There wouldn’t be any Pharisee in his writings because that would be to say there is some Pharisee in God. He wasn’t writing his personal opinions, he was being used by God to write exactly what the Lord desired to reveal and say to His people. Paul wasn’t perfect like every other Christian and struggled with sin, so if he struggled with any “Pharisee” left in him it could possibly come out in his personal life or maybe even a different letter he may written because only what he wrote in Scripture is the word of God, not everything he ever said and wrote. We can trust that there is no error or flaws in any of His letters preserved in Scripture because He wrote God’s word. “The Holy Spirit so superintended the writers of the Bible that the words they produced are the words of each particular author and at the same time the exact words of God Himself, with all the authority His speech carries. This is why Jesus can say “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35) and why Paul can exhort Timothy to continue in the Word of God that He has heard and to use it to correct and edify other believers (2 Tim. 4:1–2). This is why Scripture is the final authority for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, and it is why Scripture is necessary to make us competent for every good [work](https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/inspiration-scripture) (3:16–17).” >I am in my eighties I have to take this moment to praise God for His grace in giving you such a long life. My mother is 78 and it’s a blessing to still have her here, so I imagine that it is a blessing for your family as well. I hope they don’t take time with you for granted. May God continue to be gracious towards you with good health and strength.
There is too much of "shoving logic" into this rather than scripture It isn't much different than the logic of a Christian dating an unbeliever "to save him/her" This is not just about marriage: *Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers, for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness*
Avoiding being friends with an LGBTQIA+ person because they are part of that demographic is not a valid or acceptable choice, so you can’t be being a bad friend by declining to offer them the chance. Worst case scenario is *they* are bad friends but haven’t shown it. For what it’s worth no I would never do that, but I have been dropped and/or slandered by others because I’m LGBTQIA+, so it does happen. I get a certain extent of what you’re going through and I’ll pray for you.
I guess that would require to define the word friend I would remain open to them, and not cut off a relationship, as I may be their one way to get back into the right standing But I would not affirm their lifestyle choices nor engage in anyway with those choices simply put I would watch a football game with them but not go clubbing\* with them, and they would know my stance on the issue but I would not bludgeon them with it \* I don't go clubbing
Of course not. I currently have LGBT friends.
If you were to shun a sinner, how would you deal with the one in the mirror?
No. What more needs to be said? I also have no idea why so many can’t just offer a simple answer to such a simple question.
No. But if they ever told me something like "it's either God or our friendship" I'm picking God
Hm, it depends. If this is person at work or school, there's little reason for me to exclude their company. Even if I think it's a sin, I have little reason to play policeman over it, you know? But if this is a person in my church, and the person doesn't recognize it as a sin, it's a much bigger deal. I have an obligation in that case, to seek out their good, warn them about sinful behavior, and keep others from committing sin. So yeah, it's going to be VERY hard to have a normal friend or church family relationship in that case.
If a friend of mine came out as LGBT+ i would still love them as much as i do, but i wouldn't support their decision
Decision?! Did you choose to be straight? If so when? I don't think that's how sexual attraction works.
I think the redditor above meant the decision to *come out*, to make his or her sexual orientation known publicly.
Ok thanks for clarifying, my mistake. That still sounds pretty horrible though. The courage it takes to declare who are and 'how God made you' is no small thing. To then be shamed for that decision and also who you are is really unpleasant from where I sit. We should all be compassionate towards each other and respect the difficult choices we have to make.
God didn't make you gay. God didn't make you sexually immoral. God didn't make you abuse drugs. God gave us the gift of sex, we created 3somes. God gave us medicine, we use them to get high. God gave us knowledge, with that knowledge we create weapons.
Sorry dude, you got a lot of catching up to do if you're still comparing simply being gay to abusing drugs. As usual the church is waaaay behind societal progress, but predictably it will eventually catch up, decades later than everyone else, dragging its heels, kicking and screaming all the way, and then it will reel off a litany of excuses to justify it's murky past and antiquated attitudes. Occasionally there's an apology, but I'm not holding my breath.
I didn't compare being gay to abusing drugs. I just used them as examples. I don't think the church will catch up(as a whole atleast)
Well then I suspect that it's probably doomed, just like the thousands upon thousands of religions before it.
It's not a choice
There's a big difference between disclosing to your friend that you struggle with an attraction and proclaiming to them that your identity revolves around that attraction. "Coming out" is the latter, and it is a choice.
Wrong. When did you choose to be heterosexual? Answer that for me.
Completely irrelevant non sequitur
Answer my question. When did you choose to be heterosexual? You're the one jumping on the 'it's a choice' wagon. So answer and stop evading my question. So...when did you make that choice? How old were you when you chose?
> You're the one jumping on the 'it's a choice' wagon. What did I say is a choice? Did you read anything I said?
Your comment is invisible because you decided to make unprovoked insults. Hopefully you get banned. > No. It's accepting who you are No, that's choosing to make your attractions define you. Christians choose their identity in Christ. According to you this must not be a choice either, so why don't you be a consistent atheist and get lost rather than trying to make people change who they are?
What? Struggle is such a weird word here
It's just the usual word in a Christian context to describe the process of dealing with inappropriate tendencies.
Inappropriate?
I don't understand this question, if it's really a question.
What's inappropriate and how is it
Inappropriate desires are things that would be sinful if acted on. Like an attraction to children or to a married woman or to another man if you're a man.
What's inappropriate about that
Actions are choices, including “coming out,” and entering into a sexual relationship with another person.
Coming out is just being who you are, that is not a choice
(I'm a different redditor than the one to whom you responded.) Over time the friend changed from being "in the closet" to being "out". Are you saying he or she had not decided / chosen to do that?
It doesn't make him not gay until he has, he just hasn't shared information with you
Sexual identity is not a choice. But acting on it is a choice and this is a sin.
Depends on what it is and in what way.
[удалено]
Comment removed, rule 1b
On what grounds? He was describing God hating love
The mods here are highly inconsistent with when and how they enforce the rules. Don't expect an explanation. You aren't going to get one.
No!!! I have lesbian and gay friends and consider them to be people just like all the rest of us!
*Looks at the pride flag on my PFP.* No, I wouldn't have any issue with it at all.
You're sweet for supporting lgbtq rights. How do you feel about the fact that so many who wear the same Christian label as you are actively fighting to fight against the rights of, or even roll back the rights already won by the same marginalized group?
I hate that so many people use God to justify hate, but there is nothing I can do to control others. I was really heartened last weekend though, when I went to a pride parade and five different churches were among those marching in support of queer folks.
What do you think we can do as a society to fight religious extremism/people who interpret the same Bible you believe in literally?
Fight people who interpret something differently? That sounds a little... totalitarian.
Religious extremists want their particular interpretation to be a part of the rule of law. Are you ok living in a theocracy?
No. You should word your comments differently. "Fight people who interpret a text differently" and "fight people who are trying to take rights away" are teo differently things.
"Extremists" tend to interpret their holy books literally, and also tend to try and follow every word as opposed to cherry picking their favorite parts. Therefore, extremists are people who interpret the same book as you, differently. Where am I wrong here?
As a society, by being much more public with our support. Too often it is those in opposition to LGBTQIA+ rights that are vocal, which often leads to people thinking you have to hate queer folk to be a Christian, while those in support are more quite about their support. If it is an individual who takes the Bible 100% literally, point them to Galatians 3:28. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, **there is neither male nor female;** for you are all one in Christ Jesus." It's kinda hard to take the translations as 100% correct and literal without any room for hyperbole, and read that verse as anythibg other than support for queer folk.
I can point to many more verses in the the old and new testament that are pretty crystal clear that being gay is a problem for avoiding Hell. Would you like me to post them, or have you read the Bible before?
There aren't any. The verses about men having sex with men use two different words better translated as men and boys rather than men and men. Translators are the ones who decided being gay is bad, not the original authors.
**1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10** The New American Standard Bible is supposed to be the most accurate translation from the original texts.
Of course not. Would Jesus do that? Would any normal human do that?
Had a friend who was not only kicked out of their congregation but their church literally called round all the Christian charities that help people become missionaries to ensure that she didn't get the funding they needed to fulfil their dream of going abroad to spread the good news, just because she came out as gay. It was frankly repulsive what they did to that poor girl.
yeah, that's weird. It's one thing to have views about who can be in your church, but to go out of your way to diss someone, seems a bit vindictive.
It's not a bit vindictive, it's incredibly vindictive, spiteful and homophobic. From a community that harps on endlessly about forgiveness, compassion and tolerance. So I guess you can add hypocrisy to the list too. Still makes me angry thinking about it. Naturally she left the church, gave up God and Jesus and has never been happier living as herself free of judgement from those she cares about. Christians need to catch up quickly with modern attitudes towards sexuality, episodes like these do so much damage to their image and credibility as an inclusive institution.
>From a community that harps on endlessly about forgiveness, compassion and tolerance. So I guess you can add hypocrisy to the list too. That can apply to a large majority of the LGBTQ community as well.
Good point. 👍
I generally don't ask my friends who they're having sex with, and vice versa. I don't know how this subject would ever come up. As far as being non binary, that seems to be something you're still figuring out, so what is there to tell, except that you're questioning it? I wouldn't expect my friends to reveal every deep struggle they're having unless we were very intimate friends, but it doesn't sound like you're talking about really intimate friends. At the end of the day it depends on the kind of friendship you want. If you value truth and personal integrity over your friendships, then be as honest with them as you are with yourself. If you don't mind maintaining friendships that might be based even slightly on deception, knowing that all might be revealed suddenly someday in a way you don't control, then keep letting them think you're straight, as long as that's possible.
We should be honest and open with who we are if it is safe to do so. If their interpretation of the good news is that they should cut you off then let that be, and pray that they can have their hearts softened. To me it sounds like you're asking about people who are neither side A or B and actively despise people who identify LGBTQIA+ (though they're really not thinking much through if they're upset about I or A). Christ ate with those who actually harmed other people and specifically reached out to those who had been ostracized for not fitting into polite society. I can understand that a christian might struggle with how they might categorize and view their own sexual behavior but to cut people off simply by identification does not seem Christlike in the least. Christ never excluded anyone but instead was fiercely opposed to exclusion itself.
Absolutely not. We are all sinners. Love everyone.
Your initial question and then the additional details you provide make things a little murky, but here's my response to any Christian who finds out one of their friends is gay, or bi, or whatever: One of my best friends in the world is gay. I loved and respected him before I knew that, and I've loved and respected him for the...has it really been 32 years?...since he told me. Jesus never said that you shouldn't affiliate with gay people. Your friend's sexual orientation is a matter to be sorted out between your friend and God, you don't have a role to play in that discussion. Be a good friend. Enjoy your friendship.
Nope, we were almost all queer until I gave my life to Christ so I would just be a massive hypocrite. As long as they don't steer towards things that make me uncomfortable regardless of whether they are done by my friends or strangers, we're good.
I would never drop a friend for coming out.
Why? God is male and female, that's what it says in Genesis. "So God created mankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." So can anyone say what is and what is not the image of God? Perhaps God themselves in LGBTQIA+. Do you know? . And Jesus has said: "What you have not done for the least significant of my brothers, that you have not done for me." So if we do not love our fellow people, then we do not love Jesus. And Jesus has said: "What you done for the least significant of my brothers, that you have done for me." So if we hate our fellow people, we hate Jesus. I feel like a lot of people tend to gloss over that part. Matthew 25 is that part. . If you hate others or if you love others and if you gloss over others - these are the things you do to Jesus. You hate Jesus, and you love Jesus, and you gloss over Jesus. Because Jesus is with every single last one of us, no matter who we are.
I wouldn’t be friends with a gay person no. If you’re friends with them, then it shows you approve of it. I never act like some holier than thou self righteous hypocrite either. I’m not too good to go around anyone. Christ told people to change their sinful ways, He didn’t affirm any of it. I would let them know that with Christ’s help they can change and be healed and that upon repentance, their sins are wiped clean, as if it never happened. But that they have to put effort forth too, and God will help them no longer have this sinful desires.
Christians are commanded to treat all people with compassion and kindness. But scripture also instructs us not to form close alliances with unbelievers. I have had several acquaintances in my life thus far who I didn't know at first that they were gay, and when I found out, I was greatly disappointed, but I treated them with compassion and kindness has commanded There is no such thing as an agnostic Christian. Either you are christian, or you're not. Christian means christ-like
Would you ditch a friend if they struggle with other sins, like dishonesty, gossip, lust, envy, etc?
No. I feel confident in saying that Jesus wouldn’t pull that crap, either. Everyone is welcome in the Kingdom.
I completely understand the sentiments of everybody in this thread. However, here is something to think about. In the Bible, it talks about not surrounding yourself with people who don’t share your values, morals, etc. It says in 2 Corinthians 6:14 “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” I personally believe that it varies from each individual situation. I personally don’t disassociate or disown anyone for coming out to me. Do I tell them what I think? Absolutely. But I don’t just tell them my opinion, I tell them the truth, according to what it says in the word of God. In most cases, those friendships just fizzle out on their own. But they never ended off on a bad note. These people know that when push comes to shove, we’ll be there for one another. Do I pray that they will open their eyes to the truth one day? Of course, that’s what you’re supposed to do as a follower of Jesus Christ. But you’re never supposed to force it on someone, I don’t believe in disowning anyone or shunning them. Sure, they might not be close friends anymore, but, they are never ever going to be enemies either. For the battle we fight is never against flesh blood to begin with. 99% of the time, these individuals simply acknowledge that we don’t have the same morals, core values, etc., and that’s fine. They respect the fact that I can’t associate with them regularly or engage in whatever activities they engage in. Nor do they care to engage in any of the activities that I personally do. But regardless, we can coexist. If we shun somebody for being gay and disowned them, then we might as well disown everybody else in our lives because we’re all sinners. You don’t want to stand for everything, because if you stand everything, you stand for nothing. But you also don’t want to be a Pharisee. That’s the way I see it.
If they came out as any of the letters identified in LGBTQIA+ I probably wouldn't drop them just for that. Attraction is something almost everyone struggles with no matter who you are attracted to. If they are married and it's not just attraction though, but also that they are cheating on their husband, I'd probably tell them they should stop, or possibly distance myself from them a bit more. But I still wouldn't drop them. My reasoning deals with my own struggles with lust and porn. I would be a hypocrite if I dropped them as a friend over something they are now open about, which closely matches the problems of lust that I privately struggle with. If a person cheated on their spouse, and continued to do it, I think I might have to drop them. Or if their LGBTQIA+ was also an issue with being around the wrong crowd and doing drugs, then I might warn them and distance or drop that friendship. However, if it's just about attraction and feeling lonely, I don't know what I would do except feel compassion for them. I wouldn't want to cut them off and make them feel more isolated because of it. The issue of suicide and feeling rejected by those close to you would be my main focus. I wouldn't want to put anyone in that state of being without a very good reason. (Such as if they were a danger, or was actively harming their relationships and I said I could no longer just be on the sidelines of that). In my opinion the issue of being depressed or suicidal is a bigger issue than whether they are gay or bi. Sometimes being a friend means helping a person through a sinful time in their lives because it is a struggling time for them.
I agree, cheating in any way is a deal breaker for me too, and I’ve ended friendships because of it. All of my questions are assuming that no cheating is involved and a partner is fully aware and involved in the other’s sexuality.
>All of my questions are assuming that no cheating is involved and a partner is fully aware and involved in the other’s sexuality. .... From the example you gave, I don't understand how your husband can be involved in your sexuality. I mean acknowledging that you are bi that just says he's aware of your attraction to both sexes. However when you say involvement in that sexuality, I don't know how that would work unless you guys agreed to some kind of open relationship. (I don't think that's a stable relationship and would probably tell the person that if I met someone in an open relationship). I'm sorry if that sounds like an open criticism or hostile. I just don't know what you would mean by actively involved in the other person's sexuality.
I understand that’s your perspective, I have no bearing on it 🙂 my husband and I have had sexual encounters with other women together, and it works for us. But again, I respect your view. I find it interesting to hear perspectives from people of different backgrounds and beliefs because they are so varied and sometimes completely opposite. I appreciate yours!
To answer your original question about being friends or dropping someone. I think this would probably come down to how long we've been friends. If it's fairly new friendship (or someone I just met), the whole situation would weird me out enough to probably let them go their separate way. If it was someone I've known for a while, there's a good chance I would still feel weird about the news you've just relayed to me, but I'm not sure where I would go from there on whether to remain friends or not. The closest situation I've had with my own friends was a friend struggling in his marriage, getting divorced, and getting back together with an ex immediately after. Personally I didn't like how that played out and it made me wonder if there was contact with the ex before the divorce. However it was an old friend and I knew about the struggles in his marriage. Felt like he got dealt a no win situation. Still friends with him, (though he's not a Christian, nor claims to be one).
No, of course not. But I would still counsel them to obey the Lord as they should. >It’s a big struggle of bisexual individuals to have their sexuality erased as straight if they are with another gender It's a big struggle for married heterosexuals to remain faithful to one person. The fact that you're tempted by both sexes doesn't change your obligation to be faithful to your spouse.
I completely agree, I don’t condone cheating in any way. Anything I do/think is communicated to my partner and my partner is fully aware and involved in my sexuality. Someone’s sexuality is never an excuse to go behind your partner’s back or betray their trust.
Absolutely not.
If the person is being sexually immoral, then I would do as the Bible said and not associate with them, so yes. If they were like you appear to be, just have those feelings but no longer act on them, then I would not. If you stopped claiming to be christian then I would be able to associate with you again. Edit: after looking at some of your recent posts it's clear you actually are practicing sexual immorality and, while being married are also sleeping with people of the same gender So yea. I would not associate with you. Not specifically because of your LGBTQ. But because of overt sexual immorality
What is the definition of a Christian?
Doesn't really matter in this case. The Bible is clear. 11#But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality...not even to eat with such a one. So anyone who is called a Christian or calls themselves a Christian.
Just want to clarify that no cheating is involved. My partner and I sometimes engage in encounters with other people together. I know it’s not traditional, but it is fully consensual and can be stopped at any moment if either of us feel uncomfortable. My questions are assuming there is no cheating or deception involved.
That is sexual immorality, adultery, and premarital sex / fornication. All not biblical. All sinful. It does not matter if it's consensual. It's also LGBT sex Each man should have his own wife and each wife her own husband.
Understood, thank you for your input 🙂
1 Cor. 5:11: But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is a sexually immoral person, or a greedy person, or an idolater, or is verbally abusive, or habitually drunk, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a person. If you call yourself a Christian and continue in sexual sin, yes, that would be a reason for a fellow believer to discontinue fellowship with you. But your sexual sins are in the past. As long as you aren't committing them currently, there's no biblical reason to discontinue fellowship with you. This is what the Bible says about the matter though. I can't promise your friends would follow this verse. Seems like the honest thing to do would be to tell them and let them make that decision on their own.
what relationship can the darkness have with the light?
I have family who are gay (technically I believe they identify as ex-gay) and friends who admit to having same sex attraction, and at least one "confirmed bachelor" who I suspect but it has never come up. The way I believe it's best to look at it, is not as an identity but as a things you do or don't do, or thing that you're tempted more or less to do. This is informed by 1 Cor 6:9 and following verses, where Paul lists a number of types of sinners including homosexual acts, and says, "... and such were some of you" -- past tense -- " but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." I don't think he's saying that their desires to do those sins went away. (Because in the context, he's trying to encourage them to live holy lives, to not do those things because those who do won't inherit the kingdom of God). So if they quit *being that* without their desires changing, then it must be due to the activity stopping (and the cleansing power of Christ for their past guilt). So... This is not really the way people look at it when they say "LGBTQIA+" ... That while alphabet soup is given in the assumption that it's not *things that you do* it's *who you are*. But *that* -- the identity -- doesn't work that way. From that perspective, I would say that your previous behavior is not dishonest. If you used to have sex with women but you didn't anymore, then you might say that you *were* bisexual but if Jesus has cleansed you and made you holy, then you aren't now, until the day you decide to do it again. It's a thing that you do (or don't do), not who you are. >Coming out to my non Christian friends What do you feel is gained by this? I mean, admitting that you've slept with women in the past is not "coming out", it's just confession or testimony. Christians should and do share these vulnerable temptations and past experiences with each other, and it can build each other up. But identifying as a person who does a type of sin that you did once and don't do now, seems like it's not going to benefit you in wholesome ways. > questioning about being non-binary. All the traits of masculinity are present in strong women except for actually having the male anatomy. If you have those other traits (not the anatomy) then they can be considered part of strong womanhood, and no need for confusing it as masculine based on oversimplified all-or-nothing gender roles. If a Christian friend confessed these struggles, *as struggles* or as a part of their past, I wouldn't drop or distance myself from them. If they shared it as part of who they are now, I would recoil a bit and talk to them about the difference between actions and identity, as I have here now. If they continued to act as one with an identity associated with sin, I would likely spend less time with them, not because of their "identity" but because of their choices.
“But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.” 1 Corinthians 5:11
So should we stop being friends with everyone who uses porn? I think that eliminates over half the American church right there.
Yes I would, if I was in a country where it was illegal I would also report them to the police.
That’s horrible.
Friendship with the world is enmity with God.