Is Same Sex Attraction a Sin? Or Only Homosexual Behavior?

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The title is rhetorical and is answered by the article.   The point is that same sex attraction is as sinful as being a practicing homosexual.   I wasn't asking for anyone to answer the question.

Then make your opening a statement, not a question. Questions invite responses, statements do not. I'm not questioning your point in the article. I just gave my biblical based opinion to your opening questions. Rhetorical or not, which you did not specify by the way.

[Guest shiloh357]

17 minutes ago, Rick_Parker said:

Then make your opening a statement, not a question. 

I didn't make my opening statement a question.  The question was in the title.   The article didn't leave it open as a question.    You were trying to answer a question I wasn't asking.   I provided the answer to the title in the article.   You should be responding to the article, not the title, anyway.

I think it has less to do with the title than it does with he fact that I had the nerve to contradict your opinion.   If you don't want your opinion challenged, then don't bother offering one. 

[4LdKHVCzRDj2]

12 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Is Same Sex Attraction a Sin? Or Only Homosexual Behavior?

I believe it is something to rebuke, stay away, burn, and throw in the garbage.

"Abstain from every form of evil." - 1 Thessalonians 5:22

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

I didn't make my opening statement a question.  The question was in the title.   The article didn't leave it open as a question.    You were trying to answer a question I wasn't asking.   I provided the answer to the title in the article.   You should be responding to the article, not the title, anyway.

I think it has less to do with the title than it does with he fact that I had the nerve to contradict your opinion.   If you don't want your opinion challenged, then don't bother offering one. 

OK. Your title then. You know what I meant. You know I was referring to your title. I couldn't care less if you think that you can contradict "my opinion." You see, you can't contradict an opinion. It's like a thought. You can't contradict it. You can have a different one, but that is yours. My opinion is my opinion and it doesn't matter whether your opinion is different or not. It is still yours and you own it.  I think that your issue is that my opinion doesn't exactly agree with your article so you want to attack my opinion. My opinion doesn't have any effect on the validity of your article so I don't understand your objection to my opinion other than the fact that you feel challenged. And that is your problem, not mine. I'm done trying to reason with you as it seems that you want to be beyond reason. Be Blessed.

[1to3]

Same sex liking comes from early life trauma*sin.

It comes from confusion, not knowing were true love comes from.

we are to love the sinner and not the sin.

What the bible states is truth, yet many,many people are needing Gods love to be at work through them for better understanding of what clear wholesome  love is all about to come to them. We are living in dark times when so much is being perverted and where perversion is accepted as norm.

Only the Holy Spirit of God can be of help in healing a sick aching, broken mind/soul.

As christian we need to love the sinner , hate the sin and point towards the right direction through Gods plan of Mercy and Grace and through His Holy word found in the Holy Bible.

Attraction can come forth for a like of what a person, thing, offers such as exuberance for life, a way of being , something that is bringing life to a situation, something that dare to be different, something that shows artistic creativity, something that conveys intelligence, something that seems attractive to another.

No there is nothing wrong in being attracted to another.

The danger lies in SEXUAL ATTRACTION to something that is NOT good for us.

And that if going further with that "feeling" can damage us

 

 

 

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by 1to3

[Retrobyter]

On 2/14/2018 at 4:19 AM, shiloh357 said:

These days, it seems that almost every week social media uncovers another eruption along the Presbyterian Church in America’s (PCA) volcanic fault line between social accommodation/compassion and biblical obedience. This week, a conference promoting strategies to address same sex attraction (SSA) has raised heads and provoked comment. This particular event seems to be a laudable attempt to balance the tension: while calling for a compassionate acceptance of SSA Christians it also makes clear statements in support of biblical marriage and takes a position against homosexual behavior that most people in our society would consider fundamentalist. Conservatives should therefore refrain from drawing the worst possible implications from what seems to be a thoughtful and responsible attempt to address this major cultural touchstone.

While avoiding hysterical division, we can at the same time note that a major question mark hangs over the normalization of SSA as a Christian category. It seems that there is a growing consensus in the PCA that we can and must distinguish between one’s sexual orientation and sinful desires. The alternative would seem to be that we tell men and women struggling with homosexuality that what they consider a part of who they are is sinful and (as some would have it) subject them to tortuous rehabilitation techniques that probably include electric shock. The bridge, therefore, between compassion and biblical fidelity is to embrace “gay in Christ” as a normal and wholesome category and then help our LGBTQ brothers and sisters live celibately with these desires.

One problem with this love-motivated strategy is that it collapses under the weight of Scripture. The biblical argument in favor of SSA acceptance goes like this: we always distinguish between desire and temptation. A heterosexual may sinlessly experience an attraction to a member of the opposite sex without giving in to lust. The same must therefore be the case for a homosexual. The orientation is not necessarily sinful, while the desire represents a temptation to be avoided. The key issue is behavior: does the person (heterosexual or homosexual) give in to temptation and commit the sin?

A first criticism of this approach will note that it fails to apply the Bible’s vastly different approach to homosexuality versus heterosexuality, only one of which can ever be sinless. But the major problem is that the Bible does not distinguish between orientation and desire, while instead categorizing desire as temptation. Biblically, temptation is the outward circumstance that prompts desire into sin. But desire for sin itself is an expression of our sinful nature. Bible-believing churches take this approach to virtually every sin other than homosexuality (it is often pointed out that we would never take the pro-SSA approach to racism, for instance). A biblically accurate approach to homosexuality must therefore be congruent with our understanding of sin in general.

One key text is James 1:14-15: “each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.  Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” Notice that James does not equate desire and temptation but distinguishes them. Desire is the inward disposition toward a given sin. As James sees it, the key issue is not temptation but desire: until desire is sanctified by the grace of Christ, temptation is going to produce sinful behavior. Epithumia, the Greek word translated as “desire” identifies an inward impulse and almost always has a sinful connotation (see Rom. 7:7-8, Gal. 5:17, Col. 3:5, and 1 Thess. 4:5). Therefore, to isolate orientation from sinful desire in simply contrary to Scripture.

Theologically, the key term is concupiscence, which comes to us from Roman Catholic theology. The Latin Vulgate translated epithumia with concupiscentia, viewing it as a pre-sin orientation or disposition. The Protestant Reformation found no biblical support for a sinless orientation to sin and equated concupiscence with original sin. So, as is usually the case, we are not left to ourselves to sort out the question of SSA. Both biblically and in Reformed theology, orientation and desire cannot be separated; together, they must be cleansed by Christ and mortified by the Christian. (For valuable articles on the topic of concupiscence, see R. Scott Clark and Derek Thomas). Herman Bavinck pointed out that the rooting of sin in the will, apart from the fallen nature, is the impulse of rationalism, not the Bible. He noted that under secular humanism, “the basic idea was always that sin is not rooted in a nature and is not a disposition or a state, but always an act of the will.”1 As for any idea that God approvingly endorses any orientation to sin, Bavinck responded as follows:

“Not only does Scripture testify against this view, but the moral consciousness of all humans rises up in protest against it. Sin may be whatever it is, but one thing is certain: God is the Righteous and Holy One who prohibits it in his law, witnesses against it in the human conscience, and visits it with punishments and judgments.”2

This leads to the second problem with the loving attempt to embrace SSA but deny homosexual behavior: it collides with reality. If the desire for sin is unmortified (Col. 3:5), then it will produce sinful behavior when presented with temptation. Here is the quandary well-meaning pro-SSA churches are going to have to face: can you really embrace the desire as unsinful and persist in condemning the behavior as sinful? For some churches today, the answer is No. Indeed, this is the testimony of those PCA churches who have left our denomination for LGBT-affirmning communions. They argue that it is unloving to consign people who for no fault of their own are same sex attraction to a life of sexless loneliness and they can no longer bring themselves to refuse church membership (and, with it, leadership) on this basis. Yet the biblical and practical reality is that desire and behavior cannot be separated. This is why Solomon urged us never to rest comfortably with corruptions in the heart, but urged: “Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life” (Prov. 4:23).

So what is the alternative? Must we choose between biblical fidelity and Christ-like compassion? The answer is No – a thousand times, No! For refusing this alternative, we should appreciate PCA churches who seek to minister to the homosexual community while still upholding biblical marriage and sexual behavior. Their problem is that affirming SSA as a Christian category – “gay in Christ” – is both biblically inaccurate and humanly unrealistic. What else, then? The what else for the homosexual question turns out to be the same as for every other sin. I know of no one who would affirm an orientation toward idol-worship, blasphemy, violence, laziness, stealing, lying, or covetousness (I’m perusing the Ten Commandments, you will observe). So why would we take a more positive position towards homosexual desire than any other sinful desire, especially when the Bible speaks with particular stridence when it comes to sexual sins against the created order? The answer is that for the love of God and man we should not.

You can read the rest of the blog post here>>> www.reformation21.org/blog/2018/02/looming-debate-over-ssa.php

Read more at http://pulpitandpen.org/2018/02/13/sex-attraction-sin-homosexual-behavior/#XjjCBqXeTdlGjmLZ.99

Shalom, shiloh357.

Y'know, Rick_Parker was NOT wrong. An attraction of any kind is a weakness toward sinning in a particular area. It's like alcoholism. Many people have a weakness in that area, and once they ACT upon that desire, THEN it becomes a problem in their lives. The TEMPTATION is not itself a sin, otherwise Yeshua` Himself would have been labeled a sinner when haSatan came to Him during those 40 days in the wilderness. It's GIVING IN to the temptation that is the sin. Even the LUST for a particular sin may itself be a sin, but the LUST is simply a reaction to the temptation.

So, the progression is...

nothing - no sin
temptation - no sin (attraction is here)
lust - sin in the thoughts only
act - overt sin
habitual acts - addiction to that sin

Different people have different propensities to sin in different areas of life.

Some have a weakness for alcohol; others have a weakness for overeating food! Which is worse? Neither one, and neither are sins! It's only when one drinks to excess or eats to excess that one is sinning against his own body.

If someone has an attraction to the same gender, that in itself is not a sin, but if the person allows himself or herself to escalate that attraction to a desire, a lust, for that attraction, then he or she has entered the realm of sin. And, when one ACTS upon that lust, that desire, then he or she has involved another person in that sin! And, should that person continue in that practice, then he or she has become addicted to that "lifestyle."

It's really no different than fornication or adultery. If someone has an attraction for someone else of the opposite gender, that in itself is not a sin. But, if that person allows himself or herself to DWELL on that other person and allow it to escalate to lust for that person, then he or she has entered the realm of sin. Then, one must make a choice: IF one is available and that other person is also available, then let them marry. However, to act outside of marriage (fornication) or to act when one is not available (adultery), then one is sinning overtly and has also involved another person in that sin. And, should that person continue in that practice, then he or she has become addicted to that "lifestyle," as well.

[Guest shiloh357]

40 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

An attraction of any kind is a weakness toward sinning in a particular area. It's like alcoholism. Many people have a weakness in that area, and once they ACT upon that desire, THEN it becomes a problem in their lives. 

 

Would you live next to someone whom you knew had a desire to murder you and your family, but simply wasn't acting on it?   Would you be okay with that as long  as he didn't act on it?   

Jesus said that lusting after a woman, even if you are not acting on it is the same as adultery.   He said that having a murderous hate for someone without acting on it was the same as murder.

An alcohol addiction isn't an analogous to sinful desires.    Sin begins in the heart long before it is carried out in the flesh.   That's why looking at porn is so sinful.  

There is no context in which same-sex attraction is pleasing to God, or completely innocuous and non-sinful.  There is no non-sinful way to desire to commit a sin without actually acting on it.

[simplejeff]

And how can anyone be "wholeheartedly" serving YHVH(God) if

their heart is full of perversion ?   It is written that YHVH hates those whose hearts are full of perversion (lies, etc).  

[Retrobyter]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

 

Would you live next to someone whom you knew had a desire to murder you and your family, but simply wasn't acting on it?   Would you be okay with that as long  as he didn't act on it?   

Jesus said that lusting after a woman, even if you are not acting on it is the same as adultery.   He said that having a murderous hate for someone without acting on it was the same as murder.

An alcohol addiction isn't an analogous to sinful desires.    Sin begins in the heart long before it is carried out in the flesh.   That's why looking at porn is so sinful.  

There is no context in which same-sex attraction is pleasing to God, or completely innocuous and non-sinful.  There is no non-sinful way to desire to commit a sin without actually acting on it.

Shalom, shiloh357.

Sorry, bro', but you didn't read the rest of my post. The DESIRE to murder is a lust and is sin. The PROPENSITY to belittle life is not a sin, per se, but it shows a weakness of character. Learn to separate the WEAKNESS - the PROPENSITY - for a particular sin from the LUST or the DESIRE to sin. You're right; the LUST or the DESIRE to sin is as bad as DOING or COMMITTING the sin itself, but the weakness or the propensity for that sin is NOT the sin itself!

There IS such a thing as being born with the propensity to have a same-gender attraction; it just means that he or she needs to be on their guard all the more against falling into the lust or the desire for that attraction! And, like I said, it's just like the potential alcoholic who was born with the propensity to become a drunk to be all the more on guard against taking that first drink! Don't let it become a desire, a lust!

God does indeed hate the sin, but do remember that He LOVES THE SINNER, IN SPITE OF HIS OR HER SIN!

Edited February 15, 2018 by Retrobyter
to correct my grammar

[Guest shiloh357]

2 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, shiloh357.

Sorry, bro', but you didn't read the rest of my post. The DESIRE to murder is a lust and is sin. The PROPENSITY to belittle life is not a sin, per se, but it shows a weakness of character. Learn to separate the WEAKNESS - the PROPENSITY - for a particular sin from the LUST or the DESIRE to sin. You're right; the LUST or the DESIRE to sin is as bad as DOING or COMMITTING the sin itself, but the weakness or the propensity for that sin is NOT the sin itself!

There IS such a thing as being born with the propensity to have a same-gender attraction; it just means that he or she needs to be on their guard all the more against falling into the lust or the desire for that attraction! And, like I said, it's just like the potential alcoholic who was born with the propensity to become a drunk to be all the more on guard against taking that first drink! Don't let it become a desire, a lust!

God does indeed hate the sin, but do remember that He LOVES THE SINNER, IN SPITE OF HIS OR HER SIN!

I am not talking about a "propensity" toward something.   We are talking about sexual attraction.   That is far more than the notion of someone having a propensity.  I don't have a "propensity" toward being attracted to women.   I AM attracted to women.   There are men who are sexual attracted to men and there is no sinless way for that to happen.   I can be attracted to women and not lust.  God hardwired that attraction. There is no godly, sinless way to  be attracted to the opposite sex.