How to speak to a gay Christian friend

  • Thread starter Thread starter rptort
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You are in a tough situation. You two have different expectations from the intimacy of your relationship. You can’t address some of his deeper questions about what to do with his feeling because of your beliefs.

I think you have to ask yourself a question, is helping him maintain his relationship with God or trying to moderate his wrestling with being gay more important? Personally, I’d side with God. He knows your feelings, it probably doesn’t need to be said again. Clearly church teaching upholds the humanity of and feelings of being gay, so I’d work from there. You don’t have to affirm any actions he might take, but the best thing you can do is just listen. In the end this is between himself and God and your job is to keep God in the equation.
 
Correct. I’m not sinless. Meaning, I am a sinner. What’s confusing you?

And who am I “casting a stone” at?
 
Last edited:
2towers said:
I am a bit more troubled by your wife’s reaction than the situation with your friend. I myself would want to explore that. Why is she threatened by your friend?
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is concerning. I would only be troubled if I thought my husband would stray and for her husband to stray he would likely be gay or bi. Or thinks her husband can be turned.
 
Last edited:
BoomBoomMancini said:
And who am I “casting a stone” at?
Click to expand...
BoomBoomMancini said:
No one. You should condemn homosexuality the act, but not condemn or turn your back on the homosexual the person.
Click to expand...
The adulteress was to be stoned for committing adulterous acts. It was the act of adultery that was being punished. The crowd probably didn’t even know the woman as a person, as an individual.

Still convinced you haven’t cast any stones?
 
@PaladinSword I appreciate the feedback. I certainly lean towards slowly distancing myself further but still wonder if the “right thing” might be to continue support. I do understand your martyr comment though. I’ll need to pray on this further.

@2towers I’ve tried to explore it each time it comes up. She eventually comes around to understanding in the moment but always reverts when it comes up again. I honestly think she sees it no different than me having a private conversation with an unmarried woman, which I must agree would be a bit inappropriate. It’s not the same, but it helps see the other side.
 
@PJH_74 I appreciate that. I think I feel an obligation to “explain the teaching” whenever this stuff comes up, but I already have. So, it sounds less like a friend speaking and more like a teacher or something. It’s just a tough boundary I’ll have to continue to pray on and establish.

@TheLittleLady I’ve heard of it but haven’t looked into it much. Thanks for the reminder!
 
@BoomBoomMancini I’m not quite following @JeremiahB either for what it’s worth.

JeremiahB you were the one who first said “cut the cord” specifically because my friend is gay. How can you call out BBM?
 
JeremiahB said:
The adulteress was to be stoned for committing adulterous acts. It was the act of adultery that was being punished. The crowd probably didn’t even know the woman as a person, as an individual
Click to expand...
And Jesus short-circuited the stoning, by showing mercy to the woman as an individual but still condemning adultery itself as sinful. How is that at all inconsistent with what I’ve been saying?
JeremiahB said:
Still convinced you haven’t cast any stones?
Click to expand...
Yes, at least in this discussion. Frankly, I can’t follow your logic, and from the looks of it a lot of others are having trouble as well.

What is it you think I’m doing that is inappropriate? Just say it as plainly as possible, no rhetorical questions, because we’re just not getting anywhere with those.
 
Last edited:
rptort said:
I’ve tried to explore it each time it comes up. She eventually comes around to understanding in the moment but always reverts when it comes up again. I honestly think she sees it no different than me having a private conversation with an unmarried woman, which I must agree would be a bit inappropriate. It’s not the same, but it helps see the other side.
Click to expand...
It might be that she has abandonment issues. Could be a few different things. It might bear watching, and if followed by more “flags” it might not hurt to consider some future family counseling. Just a thought. We all come with baggage.
 
BoomBoomMancini said:
What is it you think I’m doing that is inappropriate? Just say it as plainly as possible, no rhetorical questions, because we’re just not getting anywhere with those.
Click to expand...
I will put it simply.
I started at the extreme end of fundamental Christianity, completely opposed to anything homosexual. “Cut the cord.”
I promoted that the purity of Christ and even the inclination of homosexuality which, according to Pope Benedict XVI, is objectively disordered, are incompatible.
Both were disagreeable. Christ-like purity and homosexuality can co-exist, came the response.
I said that Christ’s purity required a man to become a hermit.
You said that was not in human nature.
You said you were not sinless.
I used the “let he without sin cast the first stone” verse.
You said you don’t cast stones at anyone.
You condemn the homosexual act and therefore you simultaneously condemn the person doing them.
I put the “cast a stone” verse in context, stating that the punishment of the adulteress was for her actions. The individual was to be stoned for her actions.

Stone the perpetrator of adulterous acts.
Stone the perpetrator of homosexual acts.

Where is the difference?

What would Jesus say?

We have spiralled down from the extreme to the less extreme.
The same has happened through history.

Where the Church is at now is not the final step. There are many more.
 
JeremiahB said:
40.png
on_the_hill:
So let me say that a Christ-like purity can co-exist with a homosexual inclination.
Click to expand...
So Christ-like purity is objectively disordered? I think not.
Click to expand...
Yes. That’s exactly what I meant. Of course.
 
JeremiahB said:
You condemn the homosexual act and therefore you simultaneously condemn the person doing them
Click to expand...
This is where your logic fails. Jesus explicitly demonstrated a way to condemn one but not the other.

As an aside, it’s hard to have a discussion if you’re going to take extreme positions different than ones you actually hold. If you’re going to say something that you want to be taken rhetorically, you should clue others in. It’ll make your posts easier to follow.
 
Read the story from the Gospel that you posted.

Christ explicitly tells the woman that He does not condemn her but He also tells her not to sin any more (meaning, He still condemns the act of adultery itself as sinful).
 
Last edited:
BoomBoomMancini said:
Christ explicitly tells the woman that He does not condemn her but He also tells her not to sin any more (meaning, He still condemns the act of adultery itself as sinful).
Click to expand...
You got me there. Still, she wasn’t stoned the first time. Or was it her first?
 
Last edited:
Depression is hard to deal with and I’m worried that something might go wrong.
 
Last edited:
You mean by the crowd? I mean, they were clearly planning to.

And I think it was her first offense unless I’m misremembering.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top