UPCI Mega Churches???

[votivesoul]

All of these examples, and more, are just as perverse and unnatural same sex attractions.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

All of these examples, and more, are just as perverse and unnatural same sex attractions.

Uh, nobody that I saw was arguing there weren't perversions between heterosexuals, it doesn't negate that the Bible explicitly calls out homosexuality as unnatural, and an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.

[n david]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

All of these examples, and more, are just as perverse and unnatural same sex attractions.

Perverted, yes. Unnatural, no, since male and females are naturally attracted to one another.

Again, you cannot scripturally equate natural heterosexual attraction with that of unnatural homosexual attraction. Regardless if there is lust or action or just simple attraction. It is unnatural and sinful.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by n david

Perverted, yes. Unnatural, no, since male and females are naturally attracted to one another.

Again, you cannot scripturally equate natural heterosexual attraction with that of unnatural homosexual attraction. Regardless if there is lust or action or just simple attraction. It is unnatural and sinful.

Natural that a man should want to rape his sister? Natural that a son would bed his father's concubines on the rooftop of the royal palace for every eye in Jerusalem to see after usurping the throne? Natural that a young man would fornicate with his stepmom? Natural that a man would commit incest and impregnate his own mother?

Just because it is natural and normative for men to be attracted to women, and vice versa, does not mean that all forms of attraction between the sexes are natural.

Paul wrote in Romans 1 that women gave up the natural use of their bodies, a sure reference to sodomy committed against them by men. It is not natural or normal for a man to want to sodomize a woman, even though it is natural for a man and woman to be attracted to each other sexually.

The fact is, the reason these lusts and sins exist is due to the law of sin within each one of us. To sit here and say that one person's lusts and sins are more natural than others is a cop out, in my opinion, and causes unjust judgment against those we think are more "unnatural" in their lusts and sins than others.

See, the ideal situation, the utopia of righteousness in this life, is that no heterosexual man would be lustfully attracted to any woman in order to sin with her.

And in the resurrection, when corruption puts on incorruption, that ideal will be permanently realized. So, I submit to one and all that there is no difference between any kind of sexual lust and sin. All are damning. All destroy the soul. All eat away at and mar the image of God created in us. All will be judged by the Most High.

There won't be a different line into hell for unrepentant, but no less, "lesser" heterosexual sinners. That's just not the case anywhere in Holy Scripture. Anyone involved in any kind of sexual lust and sin will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

[n david]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Natural that a man should want to rape his sister? Natural that a son would bed his father's concubines on the rooftop of the royal palace for every eye in Jerusalem to see after usurping the throne? Natural that a young man would fornicate with his stepmom? Natural that a man would commit incest and impregnate his own mother?

Just because it is natural and normative for men to be attracted to women, and vice versa, does not mean that all forms of attraction between the sexes are natural.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. The examples you gave were perverted. It's perversion which caused Amnon to rape Tamar. It was perversion which caused Lot's daughters to have sex with him. It was perversion which caused incest in the Bible. I would agree perversion is not natural.

I should have separated the issue, instead of combining in the same sentence.

It is natural for a man to be attracted to a woman.

It is not natural for a man to be attracted to a man. Period. It doesn't matter if he holds the attraction inside and doesn't act on it. It is unnatural according to the Bible and it is sin.

You cannot equate the natural attraction between a man and woman to that of the same sex.

Originally Posted by votivesoul

There won't be a different line into hell for unrepentant, but no less, "lesser" heterosexual sinners. That's just not the case anywhere in Holy Scripture. Anyone involved in any kind of sexual lust and sin will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Agreed. Lust is sin. Any man/woman who lusts after another man/woman is in sin. Our disagreement in that you believe it's okay for a man to be attracted to another man. It is not. The bible is clearly against it. It's sin, regardless of whether the homosexual acts on his attraction or not.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by n david

Perhaps I wasn't clear. The examples you gave were perverted. It's perversion which caused Amnon to rape Tamar. It was perversion which caused Lot's daughters to have sex with him. It was perversion which caused incest in the Bible. I would agree perversion is not natural.

I should have separated the issue, instead of combining in the same sentence.

It is natural for a man to be attracted to a woman.

I am in alignment with the above.

It is not natural for a man to be attracted to a man. Period. It doesn't matter if he holds the attraction inside and doesn't act on it. It is unnatural according to the Bible and it is sin.

It IS natural (in the sense of normal/typical) to a human whose law of sin in their members has not been crucified and who is not walking in the Spirit.

Any form of sinfulness is natural to the natural, unregenerate person.

And I do not think you can prove that the attraction is "sin". Experiencing an attraction doesn't equal transgression. Acting on the attraction and allowing it to entertain the mind until the thoughts and intents of the heart lead one into sin, is.

It is only until lust has conceived, that sin is born. Simply having lust enter the heart, in any way, doesn't mean a person has sinned. Only when one attempts to sate their lust, that they enter into sinfulness.

Agreed. Lust is sin. Any man/woman who lusts after another man/woman is in sin. Our disagreement in that you believe it's okay for a man to be attracted to another man. It is not.

I do not believe it is "okay", but rather normal, in many circumstances, due to the law of sin in our members. Many are the young children who were abused, exposed, or misled into a sexual identity crisis and grew up confused and tempted and, due to environmental circumstances, possibly allowed to explore that crisis and act in unseemly ways with the same sex. For such a young child later growing up under that condemnation, walking in that darkness, homosexuality is "only natural", as the saying goes.

Natural doesn't equal God ordained/created. It means something that is normal, or comes naturally in a given situation. And since the given situation is sinful humanity, it's quite a normal thing, even for people in the Church, to experience same sex attraction. Most never dare speak a word of it to anyone, for fear of humiliation and condemnation, and so, never get any help from the Body, and just go on living with it, trying and crying and praying and seeking God, but never quite overcoming, eventually giving up because from the church-world's pov, they are nothing but abominations.

The bible is clearly against it.

Quite right. Clearly against it. Where have I given any indication I believe otherwise?

It's sin, regardless of whether the homosexual acts on his attraction or not.

You can't prove that from the Holy Scriptures. Heterosexual attraction between a married man and a coworker isn't sin, but a temptation waiting to become sin, if the man isn't careful.

Attraction is merely being drawn to something. We can be attracted to a new church, a different ministry, a new job, a new car, or whatever. None of that is sin, even if it's not God's will for us to have any of the above. It only BECOMES a sin when we refuse God's will, disobey His instruction, shrug off His admonishment, and go after that which attracted us.

The drawing to isn't a transgression. But one needs must be careful, that they don't allow their own lusts to draw them away into sin.

Is this really so contrary to how most people understand things? This seems the only sensible way to approach these things, to me, at least.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

So, I submit to one and all that there is no difference between any kind of sexual lust and sin. All are damning. All destroy the soul. All eat away at and mar the image of God created in us. All will be judged by the Most High.

There won't be a different line into hell for unrepentant, but no less, "lesser" heterosexual sinners. That's just not the case anywhere in Holy Scripture. Anyone involved in any kind of sexual lust and sin will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

In God's eyes, all sin is sin. Period. Unrepentant sin of any kind will not be tolerated by the Lord.

However, there are consequences of sins that involve acting on se*ual lust of any kind. The consequence of one acting on se*ual lust involves consequences. God forgives, but consequences still follow the sin, as we see in the case of King David.