Is It Sinful for A Man to Be Tempted to Sodomize Another Man?

Warning, the following message may be offensive to some audiences. These audiences may include, but are not limited to, professing Christians who never read their

Bible, sissies, sodomites, men with man -buns, those who approve of men with man -buns, man -bun enablers, white knights for men with man -buns, homemakers who have finished

Netflix but don't know how to meal plan, and people who refer to their pets as fur babies. Viewer discretion is advised. People are tired of hearing nothing but doom and despair on the radio.

Salvation to any hope of heaven. The issue is that humanity is in sin and the wrath of almighty

God is hanging over our heads. They will hear his words, they will not act upon them, and when the floods of divine judgment, when the fires of wrath come, they will be consumed and they will perish.

God wrapped himself in flesh, condescended and became a man, died on the cross for sin, was resurrected on the third day, has ascended to the fists now to make intercession for us.

Jesus is saying there is a group that will act upon them and win the stand.

Welcome to Bible Bash, where we aim to equip the saints for the works of ministry by answering the questions you're not allowed to ask.

We're your hosts, Harrison Kerrig and Pastor Tim Mullett, and today we seek to answer the age -old question, is it sinful for a man to be tempted to sodomize another man?

Now, a little bit of pulling back of the curtain for you guys before we jump into the discussion on this episode.

You guys are hearing this like a normal episode that would come out on a Monday, like we've been doing for a while now, but the reality is we are actually recording this just a few days after last week's video that you guys heard, and so we're kind of cranking them out right now, just a few days removed from the last one.

So we spent a lot of today and yesterday trying to brainstorm a topic that we thought would be helpful, edifying for you guys as always, and so I just think it's amusing to me to think we're recording this just a few days from each other, and you guys are hearing it like a week apart, basically.

But the reason we're doing that is just because at our church, we've got an event going on on the night that we would normally record, so we're trying to get ahead of things so that there's not like a breakup in episodes for you guys.

But anyways, like I said, the topic question for today is, is it sinful for a man to be tempted to sodomize another man?

And the reason we're talking about this is because whether you realize it or not, there's actually a movement within the church where a lot of people— what did you say before we started this episode?

It's called the same -sex attraction movement, right, Tim? Yeah, the same -sex attracted

Christian movement, or it's known as the celibate gay Christian movement. The celibate gay

Christian movement. And basically, if I understand you correctly— They like to pile up oxymorons together.

Basically, they think the act of sodomy is wrong, right?

I mean, on paper, you know. Right, right. I'm sure there's contradictions. I'm sure there's plenty of contradictions up in there when it gets practical, but—

Yeah, I mean, the funny thing about it is, yeah, so they're— On paper, they've said for the past few years that they think that sodomy is sinful, but then that's like a—

It's a position they haven't really been able to maintain, so a lot of the guys that have been involved in that kind of thing have come out and proud since the beginning of that movement.

And so I think it's just a way of softening the consciences of Christians and preparing for the next step, so to speak.

But yeah, I mean, you might call them the celibate gay Christian movement, the same -sex -attracted Christian movement, or even the—

These are the kind of individuals who are advocating for lifelong, committed, celibate friendships between men, covenantal friendships, and that kind of thing.

But yeah, that's just— On paper, they supposedly had believed that sodomy itself is wrong.

But they're typically not very firm on that belief, huh? Yeah, so the idea is essentially you can't help being tempted to want to sodomize someone so long as you don't act on it, essentially.

That's the point. It's not a sin to be tempted with homosexual desires towards sodomy or same -sex romantic relationships.

It's just a sin to act on it, so to speak. Okay, okay.

So that's kind of why we're talking about this, because there is this movement—

I even hesitate to say within the church, because I don't want to communicate anything that would say—

You could say a movement among individuals who claim to be Christians, who are being broadly accepted as actually

Christians by dupes in the evangelical world, or something like that. People who are

Christians, with the air quotes, the very deliberate air quotes around it.

Right. Who are being acknowledged as such by naive and gullible people who should know better.

Right. But essentially, the crux of the issue for them is they're saying,

Hey, look, it's one thing to perform the act, right? But then, just to have the desire, just to be tempted to do it, and not actually following through, that's not sinful, right?

Yep, that's what's essentially being argued. Okay, well, our title question for today is,

Is it sinful for a man to be tempted to sodomize another man? So that's their take,

Tim, that basically, no, the answer is no. What is your take on that question?

Yeah, it's a ridiculous question to think about. The way you worded it, is it sinful to be tempted to want to sodomize another man?

That's trying to bring to light some shameful things that are being smuggled under the door.

And so, it's one of those things where I think Christians, largely because individuals are, the world itself is trying to cram down our throat this idea that gays are essentially normal people just like everyone else, despite all the gay pride parades and the evidence of our eyes to the contrary.

You mean you're not holding parades about your pride in being a heterosexual man?

Yeah, I'm not dressing in the BDSM stuff.

Doing story reading time at the library. Asking kids to put money in my underwear.

That kind of stuff. But despite all that, individuals are trying to normalize the idea that sodomites are just the same as everyone else.

And a lot of Christians basically believe it. And that's the play that progressive

Christians are running on us too. When you word it like that, you're bringing attention to the fact that what we're actually talking about, we're talking about anal sex.

That's what we're talking about. We're talking about something that's gross and disgusting that you're trying to wrap in the language of euphemisms to hide.

If you try to answer that question, part of what's difficult is that as the

Bible speaks about the nature of temptation, there are different types of temptation. So part of me wants to say, no, it's not a sin.

Surprisingly, no, it may not be a sin to be tempted to sodomize another man.

But then in the obvious sense of the expression, yeah, it absolutely obviously is.

And anyone who thinks it's not is crazy. So what I mean is that there are different types of temptations in the

Bible. Part of what's happening with the SSA movement in general and those who are being influenced by that, so you can broaden out this discussion just to a discussion about temptation in general.

And that's part of what we'll do today is just try to talk about what is temptation in general. But there are different types of temptation and every type of temptation is being essentially put in the same category and individuals are refusing to make just basic biblical distinctions.

So meaning, if a, and you've had like, you've had sodomites who have essentially tried to proposition you before.

Oh yeah, it was really uncomfortable. I hated it. You told me this awkward story of a man rubbing his finger on your ear just to gross everyone out, right?

Yeah. But that was essentially tantamount to an offer. And the issue is, were you being tempted by that offer?

Well, no and yes, right? Meaning, you might not want to say yes in any sense because it's so gross to imagine and think about.

Because people's minds immediately jump to like a, oh. Yeah, you were tempted, huh?

No, but the issue is, in the Bible there's external temptations and there's internal temptations.

And so you have to talk about what kind of temptation you're talking about. So there are like, if someone were, and I've been propositioned by sodomites in my life over the course of the years

I've been alive and they're presenting me with an offer. So temptation can mean nothing more than an offer that's being presented to you.

And they're presenting you an offer that you detest and can't stand and the entirety of your being, in terms of mentally, emotionally, physically, literally recoils at the thought of that offer, right?

So that's a temptation towards sin, meaning it's an offer towards sin. But then it's not an internal, it's not a temptation that's arising from your own heart.

It's just a purely external temptation, right? Right. So there's a category for that.

There's a variety of things that individuals could present me with external offers towards.

Hopefully not eternal. Yeah, not eternal. Which I would recoil at, right?

So, hey, you wanna go rob a bank with me? It's like, no, are you dumb? I mean, was

I tempted? Yes, I was tempted and I was given an offer, but it's not something that I really have any interest in doing whatsoever.

So as you think about the categories of temptation, there's external temptation and then there's internal temptation and that's part of what

James is talking about when James says that each person is tempted when he's lured and enticed by his own desires.

So there's a kind of temptation that comes from without, meaning an offer presented towards evil. And then there's a type of temptation that's coming from within, meaning like my own sinful flesh, my own sinful heart is being pulled towards that offer.

So it's not just like an offer that I'm recoiling, like the entirety of my being is recoiling at.

It's an offer that my heart wants and I'm struggling to resist, right?

Does that make sense? So, you know, is it a sin? Like if you're trying to say, is it a sin to be tempted to sodomize another man?

If you're talking about an external offer, no. If you're talking about an internal pull that's coming from a sinful heart, obviously, right?

Like obviously that would be sinful for me to be pulled towards sin. So, you know, depends on what we're saying.

But then what the SSA movement essentially is doing is they are refusing to make that basic distinction and then they're treating all sin, they're treating all temptation as if it's just some purely neutral thing, meaning it's just as if it were just some kind of external offer or something like that.

They're not even working within those categories. They're just treating it all as if it's just completely, like it's not a sin to be tempted, you know, so long as you don't act on it kind of thing.

And that just is a grossly naive view of how sin and temptation actually works.

So, you know, and I don't even know how you get there in your mind where that kind of thing makes sense to you.

It's almost as if you've totally surrendered all personal responsibility for everything that happens in your brain at that point.

Like as if, you know, the Bible had nothing to say about like sinful desires or lust or anything else.

It's just like, how do you get there to where you've now taken, like you've erased the concept of lust, you've erased the concept of like internal sinful desires, and now it's just all about like good behavior and bad behavior.

And it's like, I don't get that, right? Right. So, oh yeah. So do we see like, so you're saying temptation is simply like an offer.

An offer, yeah. It's an offer. And in this context, it would be an offer to sin, right?

And then you're saying there's essentially two, there's two different categories of temptation.

The first one being like an external temptation. And that would be something like, yeah, when, you know, when

I'm trying to like share the gospel with a guy, and he's like, you know, and I'm like telling him to like repent of his, you know, like his being attracted to other men.

And then he makes a move on me during that. That would be like an external offer, right?

The offer or the invitation is coming from the outside purely. Right. And there's nothing in you that, there's not an inward pull towards it.

Right. There's no like, oh, I'd kind of like to see where that goes kind of thing.

Or it's just like, no, like the entirety of your being is like, no, right? And you can imagine any number of scenarios just like that, you know?

I mean, like just to give you a silly example, I'm not like a big fan of heights.

When me and my brother went to the Grand Canyon to visit, you know, I stood behind him on the rail and looked the other way and kind of held onto his shirt, you know, because I don't like heights, you know?

But if someone were to say, hey, you know, you want to go skydiving or something like that, that would be an offer, right?

That I would, no. You would reject immediately. Yeah, there's nothing in me that would ever want to do that.

Like at all, ever, you know, like nothing, like zero, like no pull whatsoever, go have fun, you know,

I'm good. You know, so, but that, so an external temptation is like something that's pure, like you can be both at the same time though, right?

Yeah. Meaning you can have an external and an internal like pull. So there's an external offer and an internal, like your heart is.

Desiring it. Inviting you to do the same thing, right? And then you're conflicted.

So you have like part of you wants to do it, part of you doesn't. There's a pull coming from inside or an invitation from the inside and an invitation from the outside.

So the one from the outside is not, it's neither here nor there, if that makes sense.

Right. Now, I think like from a logical perspective, that makes a lot of sense.

You know, like you have this, the two categories of external and then internal temptation.

External being, you know, being like neutral, right?

In terms of like your own guilt. But then internal being the one that has like a moral, a negative moral consequence.

Meaning you're, it's a sin. Now, so like I said, that makes sense from like a logical perspective.

Do we see these two categories in scriptures? In the scriptures? Yeah. Okay.

What are some examples? Let me clarify like first. Okay. So I think the external one is largely neutral, but I wouldn't want to say it's always neutral.

Always. Meaning like there are times where you're presented with offers that are only coming because you put yourself in a horrible situation.

So like, you know, the foolish man that I think Solomon, you know, sees going down to where he knows like the promiscuous women will be basically.

Yeah. And if you're doing that, then like the issue is, you know, it's probably a little more complicated than like you.

I think there's something in you that's wanting to put yourself in a place where you're going to, you might get that external offer.

Yeah. And then you can, like there is kind of a plausible deniability in the sense of you can say, well,

I didn't know that that would happen, even though you did. And you're just trying to lie about it.

Does that make sense? Yeah. So in that kind of moment, you might have an internal pole to put yourself in a situation where you get an internal and external offer that, you know, on paper you're saying you don't want, but then you kind of wanted to, you did, there was part of you that wanted to get the offer.

Does that make sense? Mm -hmm. Yeah. Even if you're nervous to act on it kind of thing. So, but largely, you know, for the most part, external is external and that makes sense versus internal.

But then you're asking like, well, that's logically that makes sense. Is that biblically true? Do we see both categories biblically?

Yeah, sure. I mean, I, like the only way you come up with those kind of categories is you're trying to make sense of a variety of different kinds of passages in the way that they actually work.

So, you know, the Bible says that Jesus was tempted in all ways like us, except without sin.

And if you think about the nature of Jesus's temptations from the devil, like you have to ask, well, like Jesus was tempted with respect to bodily weakness, like meaning that he is an individual who has, like he's put on, he's, you know, he's

God who's put on human flesh and dwelt among us. And, you know, the God -man did suffer hunger.

He did suffer from sickness. You know, he did suffer from, you know, being cold and, you know, hot and...

Tired. Tired and all that. So he, with respect to bodily weakness, he was tested in all the ways that were tested.

And then when you look at his, like temptation by the devil, the devil is certainly presenting offers to, like the

Bible says he went into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil, right? Right. And so Jesus is certainly, like, being, he's in a situation where the devil is presenting him with offers to sin, okay?

And so the word in that passage is clearly being used in, at the, you know, it could mean more, but at the very least it, like the primary sense of it is the external offer, right?

And Proverbs says, like, my son, if sinners entice you, right? Do not consent.

So like this idea of being enticed or tempted in the Bible, there are plenty of examples that are talking about an external offer.

Does that make sense? Yeah, yeah. So you don't have to, like, now, like that's just, like, those are scenarios where the word itself is being used as an offer from the outside, okay?

Okay. Right. But then when you get to James, James says, let no one, you know, when he is being tempted, say he's being tempted by God.

For God can't be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one, but each one is tempted when he's lured, essentially, and enticed by his own desires.

And so that kind of temptation is, like the only way to describe that is an internal temptation.

It's a temptation that comes from the desires, right? Yeah, you can't say, like, if you use, if you read temptation in that passage the same way as the other one, then essentially the

Bible is contradicting itself at that point, right? Because you have one that's saying he was tempted in every way and Jesus is

God, and then in the other passage, it's saying God is never tempted, right?

Yeah, I think, you know, essentially the contradiction would involve, like, if you think that Jesus, like, so it's like a contradiction if you have to harmonize a variety of passages, meaning, so, like, meaning, like, okay, when

Jesus went out into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil, like, that, on the surface it reads external temptation, right?

Yeah. And then, like, when you read the narrative itself, you know, Satan says, like, you know, all the nations of the earth

I'll give to you if you bow down and worship me. And, you know, Jesus' response is, like, you know, essentially to say, you know, like,

I'm trying to think through which response he had to which temptation, you know, but, you know, it's written, you should not put the

Lord in God your test. He says that when he asked him to throw him off the temple, or throw himself off the temple because the, you know, angels will bear you up.

And then, you know, when, like, he tempts him with the food, you know, he says, man shall not live by bread alone.

I can't remember the other one off the top of my head, but essentially Jesus, he doesn't sound like he's being pulled from the inside in those, right?

But if temptation always meant that, then you could read it in, so to speak, to say, well,

I guess he was tempted, like, because that's what tempted means. But then you do, you know, where that would be a contradiction would be, like, the

Bible tells us in Colossians 3, 5, to put to death what is earthly in you, and what's earthly in you is, you know, sexual immorality, and then evil desire, even, okay?

So, like, there are desires that are evil. The Bible tells us to hate the evil and love the good, right?

Like, there are passages which say that desires can be sinful. And so, if Jesus, if his temptation inherently meant he desired all the evil, then he's violating his own character at that point.

And so, at that point, it becomes a contradiction. But then there's other passages, too. You know, like, my son, if sinners entice you, do not consent.

Like, that's, like, there's nothing intrinsic to being enticed that is, like, an internal pull from the inside.

You can just have individuals trying to pressure you to do something. And you can either want to do it and resist, or you not want to do it and tell them to get, you know, go away kind of thing.

So, I don't know if that makes sense. Yeah, yeah, no, no, that makes sense. I guess the question then becomes, well, thinking about that passage in James, specifically, you know,

I know I've talked to a lot of people who aren't even necessarily, you know, they think that temptation, internal temptation, is not a sin.

Only the action is a sin. Or, I think I might have met some people, too, who, they have a variation of that, where they essentially say, you know, if you dwell on it for too long, it becomes a sin, whatever that means.

I've never, no one's ever been able to give me, like, what, is it, like, five minutes?

Or is it, like, per thought? This isn't a discussion that's unique to the

SSA movement. It's also kind of a, there's a lot of platitudes that are thrown out related to just what you might describe as heterosexual lust in order to help people feel better about, like, the presence of remnant lust in their own heart.

And part of it is, like, an effort to redefine, like, the nature of lust itself in order to, you know, not make people feel so bad about themselves.

But, yeah, I understand where you're going. Yeah, and oftentimes, they go to that.

Like, if you picture the woman naked in your brain, you know, and you think about it for a few minutes, you know, just, you know, if at that point you say, you know, get that thought out of my brain, you did an okay job, right?

Right, yeah, like, if it's a, you know, like, you have the brief fleeting moment of, like, the thought that you know you shouldn't have, even though you're telling yourself that it's okay to have that thought, you know, it's okay to have that thought, you know, you shouldn't have it.

And so, like, you try and get it away really quick, well, then they would just say, well, no, that wasn't sinful because I got it away.

You know, if I wanted it, I wouldn't have gotten it away, right? And often,

I mean, I've had that kind of conversation so many times with a lot of people. And what is always brought up is that passage in James, right?

Because it seems like if you're just reading it at surface, you know, if you're just, like, read it at a glance, it does seem like James has different categories for desire, temptation, and sin.

You get what I'm saying? Well, I know what you're saying, but...

You don't think I said it carefully enough? No, you did. It's just... I disagree with the premise.

Okay. But I understand what you're saying is the text says, then desire, when it conceives, it gives birth to sin.

Right. Sin, when it's fully formed, brings forth death, right? Right, and so they...

When I talk to these people, they're telling me, Hey, see, look, there's different categories. Well, it's a different step process, yeah, is the way they're saying it.

But, yeah, the only thing I'm objecting to is I don't think that the natural reading of the text is what they're saying.

Okay. Like, the natural reading of the text is different than what they're saying.

It's just a pervasive confusion about the nature of language at that point.

Okay, yeah. If that makes sense. Meaning, the straightforward reading of the passage is not saying,

Okay, there's a neutral desire that is going to grow and grow and grow at some point and give birth to sin.

Right? So that's what they're saying. They're saying you can't help the desire. Desire is neutral.

But then once it grows to a certain point, it gives birth to sin. That's not actually what it's saying.

That's just the common misunderstanding of what's being said. If you look at the passage, it's saying,

Desire, when it's conceived, gives birth to sin.

So notice the timetable. So think about the timetable there. When the desire is conceived, it says it gives birth to sin.

Meaning, all that's collapsed into one event.

Do you understand what I'm saying? Probably not. The way that you read that passage is basically, once the desire is conceived, it's giving birth to sin.

It's giving birth to sin. So you have to ask, when is the desire conceived?

So you think about the normal birth metaphor. The normal birth metaphor is, there's a, well, we're doing a birds and a bees lesson here.

Should have put a TVMA rating on this episode. Think about the normal, when a man's sperm and a woman's egg come together and are fertilized, that's what you call conception.

So the normal process is, after conception, you have this fertilized egg, essentially implanting in a uterus, and then over the course of nine months, it grows and grows and gives birth to sin.

Or it gives birth to a baby. A sinful baby. The issue is, that process is a long process.

What this passage is actually saying is, when the desire is conceived, when desire is conceived, it gives birth to sin.

Meaning it's collapsing the whole birthing process into a single event.

And that's the most straightforward way to actually read it. Do you get what I'm saying? That's not trying to save a position, that's just what it's saying.

When the desire is conceived, it gives birth to sin. And then when sin is fully grown, it brings forth death.

So it's taking the growth part and not putting it like pre -birth, it's putting it post -birth.

Does that make sense? So when desire is conceived, it brings forth sin.

Sin, when it's fully grown, brings forth death, essentially. So it's taking the birth metaphor and modifying it in that way.

I don't mean to cut you off, but I want to say this before you move on. I guess the extra proof that that's the way to read it, is when you think about Adam and Eve and their sin.

It's not like they sin and then the first time they face death is when their lives end, literally.

The first time they face death is immediately afterwards, when God curses them.

Which is why God said, the day you eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you will surely die.

So he's saying that day. So James is confirming that aspect of it.

The moment you sin, you face death. That's not to get into original sin and whatnot, but you see a consistency there.

So if that's the way that you read one half of the statement, then you should probably read the other half of the statement that way as well.

When I'm talking about James, the one half of the statement is death immediately comes when you sin.

Like you're saying, he's using a lifelong example as a metaphor, but he's compressing it down into essentially one single event.

When the desire conceives, it immediately brings forth sin.

And sin, when it's fully grown, it brings forth death. When desire is conceived, it gives birth to sin.

Sin, when it's fully grown, brings forth death. That metaphor, the birthing metaphor, is just being altered in terms of at the moment of conception, the moment of the conception of desire, you're giving birth at the moment of conception to sin.

So you're saying men can give birth? In a metaphorical sense.

In a metaphor. It's the sin. The sin and the men can give birth.

Even if you're confused there, I can propose an alternative interpretation that doesn't make sense to me, but it's the interpretation that other people are using.

Let's go with it for a second. It doesn't change anything. Meaning, let's say that when desire conceives, it gives birth to sin.

Somehow means you have a desire for a period of time that is growing and growing and growing.

I don't know how you get this grammatically, but then all of a sudden, at some point, when the desire gets really big, then it gives birth to sin.

It's missing the change of metaphor. All you would have to do at that point is just say they're talking about external sin at that point.

The passage is limiting itself to external sin. Right, because the issue is you have so many other passages which describe internal sin.

Covetousness is an evil desire. Lust is an evil desire.

You're told not to... You agree to the Ten Commandments. You're not supposed to desire your neighbor's property.

You're not supposed to desire anything that belongs to your neighbor. That desire itself as covetousness is wrong.

As you read through the Bible, we're told to put to death what's earthly in us, and that includes evil desires.

We're supposed to love the good and hate the evil. The good man out of the good treasure of the good heart brings forth good.

The evil man out of the evil treasure of an evil heart brings forth evil. We're talking about evil desires.

The Bible over and over again has a category for evil desires. You don't want to read

James in such a way as to remove this category of evil desires and then pretend that sin only happens once it's acted upon.

Jesus says if you look at a woman with lust, you've committed adultery in your heart. I don't know how you get from that to this category that it's okay to want to do bad things so long as you don't externally act on it.

There's two dimensions to every sin.

There's an internal desire and there's an external desire. You can think through different passages that are going to talk about these two different aspects.

Sometimes it's like you have different types of sin. When Uzzah steadied the ark, you probably wouldn't describe that as an internal evil desire.

I don't think Uzzah had any idea what the law said that he wasn't supposed to touch the ark.

When the cart starts to move, he reaches over to steady the ark and as far as the desire component of that act,

I don't have anything to fault that desire. Does that make sense? That would be a good desire, right?

To protect God and to protect His glory and to protect the ark and to keep it from being defiled by falling on the ground.

That's a fine thing, but the issue is the external act itself was forbidden.

You can come up with a scenario like that where you have an external action with a good desire that still means

Uzzah's dead. In the opposite, you can think of a bad desire that's restrained and doesn't lead to the bad behavior.

There's plenty of times where you can grit your teeth and do the right thing even though you don't want to.

You have a lot of people who come along and they're looking at that transaction where you're gritting your teeth and doing the right thing and they're saying, that's a victory, right?

The issue is, is it a victory? Yes, but it's not a total victory. It's better than not doing it at all.

That's not what Jesus did. Yes, I would rather if an individual is tempted to have gay sex with a man,

I would rather any day of the week that he say no to that even though everything in him is drawn towards that perverted act.

The Bible doesn't just stop at the behavior and it's only behavior that's bad.

The Bible also addresses what's going on in the heart and it's more complicated than that. That's why you have commands against covetousness.

That's why you have commands against lust. There are evil desires in our heart and a lot of the sins that are in the

Bible are not just external actions. We're told to rejoice in the Lord always. Again, I say rejoice. You can grumble outwardly or you can grumble inwardly.

I don't understand the kind of Christianity where someone can essentially just assault the character of God in their mind and dwell upon all sorts of evil things and think, oh, well, that's okay as long as I don't act on it.

That isn't biblical and that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The broader point being, even if you go with what

I think is just not an obvious reading of James, then there still is this category for evil desire you still have to think through.

At the very least, at that moment, James would simply be just talking about desire when it's conceiving, meaning, using conceive in a nonconventional way to describe the whole birthing process.

At that point, it's giving birth to sin. It must just be talking about the external sin component, not the internal at that point.

Does that make sense? I think it pretty much ignores

Jesus' teachings, for example, where he's calling out the

Pharisees basically like... Your whitewashed tombs, you're full of dead man's bones.

He's accusing them of... For a pretext, you make long prayers and all that.

All of these things. Even going so far as to say looking at a woman.

Desiring. Even just being angry and not acting on it. You've already committed murder.

That's the thing that's so strange about this discussion. You would think that the individuals must not have ever read the

Sermon on the Mount. Normally, that's a pretty popular passage. That seems to be the whole point of the

Sermon on the Mount. The whole point of the Sermon on the Mount is that you think that you're okay just because you didn't murder or just because you didn't commit adultery.

But if you're angry or if you're full of lust, you're still condemned before the law of God.

Paul makes that very point in terms of just his own experience. He kept the external commands, but the command to not covet is the one that undid him because that dealt with the desires.

This is what's really strange about it. I don't understand how the individuals who are making this point, it just feels like they've never read the

Sermon on the Mount before. I don't get how you could go there with it. What's the explanation from them on those passages?

Oh, I don't know. Do they have one? I haven't heard an explanation in terms of a direct...

The best I've heard is just that they're trying to distance they're trying to basically point out the fact that part of our title question is we're reducing what you might describe as a homosexual orientation that unfortunate phrase to a desire to physically sodomize another man.

The way they try to get out of that is to say it's more complicated than that.

That's an oversimplification of what they're talking about essentially. Meaning there's a little bit more to it than raw sexual desire.

In the case of men you want to pretend like... Just a quick response and then more explanation.

The issue is that men who are tempted towards sodomy that's a very different kind of thing than women who are tempted towards lesbianism or whatever you want to call that.

For the women it's more about a rejection of men and it's more about the relationship components of things.

With men it's just obviously much more about the sex than it is anything else which is why the average homosexual has hundreds of partners so to speak.

That is a predominant driving factor that people don't want to acknowledge that are actually happening.

That's why HIV and monkey pox now is running through those kind of populations the way that they do is because of how promiscuous two men can be if you don't have any mitigating brakes on that with a woman.

What they're trying to do is say it's more complicated than that meaning there are other desires going on too it's not just for the intercourse it's for a relationship we're all made to be created and desire companionship and desire relationships and desire love and desire all these kind of things so they're reading the men in a very feminine way does that make sense?

Then they're pretending even those desires for companionship they're not viewing them as lust raw does that make sense?

It's not necessarily all about the anal sex it's more about this broken individual who is desiring companionship that he can never have because that's how he's made.

Then pointing to the experience of an individual in that a heterosexual person doesn't choose to be attracted to women it just is what it is.

What they're doing is they're drawing parallels from that a person can't help that they're attracted to members of the same sex they find them desirable and they just don't need to dwell on it so what you're having is that same kind of bad counsel to men you can't help it if you want to sleep with every woman you see just don't do it or the moment you start wanting to sleep with every woman you see then you need to get rid of those thoughts so they're taking that and carrying it over into this kind of category as well if that makes sense.

I think that does bring up something that I want to be able to talk about for a second and that's this idea that when you go down this was there more that you wanted to say before I changed it?

No, go for it. It seems like if you go down this path where you say yes, the action itself is sinful there's no denying but just the desire is not sinful that's not bad, just don't act on it it seems like you're just setting people up to fail at that point you're losing a whole line of defense that line being the filter for the way you think do you get what

I'm saying here? Essentially if you just try to change the metaphor for a minute it can bring up how inconsistent this line of thinking actually is if I were just to have thoughts that come into my mind about wanting to stab you through the eyeball with a knife or something like that that was very specific let's say

I did okay let's say that I confess that to you

I just keep on having this strong recurring desire to pull my knife out and stab you in the eye don't worry,

I restrained myself I didn't do it every time

I came around you I'm just like I just want to stab you so bad I just keep on picturing your eyeball on the end of my knife with the cord still attached and all the blood man,

I can't but don't worry I don't think

I'll do it I don't think I'll do it I think at a certain point you'd probably be like we're not friends anymore

I'm not coming over to your house but then just to bring it up a level if that wasn't enough imagine you have a daughter imagine someone saying

I just keep on having all these sexual thoughts about your daughter and you know

I'm not going to act on them but I just have all these sexual thoughts about her you probably would be you're probably ticked off at me even saying it now do you see my eye twitching a little bit?

I'm bringing up a hypothetical here but then the issue though is instantaneously that comparison brings the whole subject into moral clarity meaning you don't those desires, they're not neutral they're not neutral if someone were to just say your wife is so attractive

I just want to have sex with her that dude wouldn't be in your life anymore he wouldn't the issue though is everyone knows that it just depends on just to make it even more to the point let's say you have a white supremacist who had mental fantasies about harming black people in their mind all the

SSA people would have instant moral clarity about that subject it would be not only is it wrong for you to talk about that it's wrong for me to talk about it as a hypothetical in their minds it's wrong to think about it and that's part of I can't remember if it was

Brave New World or 1984 to where they're essentially having facial scanners that are reading a person's body language to try to figure out if they had wrong think there's all sorts of wrong think out there that people would accuse you of and wouldn't even allow you to have wrong think let alone wrong action we have whole categories of things you're not even allowed to think in our society we don't believe that the thoughts are off limits to your point the issue is the bible says as a man thinks in his heart, so is he as a man thinks in his heart, so is he and the good man out of a good treasure of a good heart brings forth good and the evil man out of an evil treasure of an evil heart brings forth evil and what that means is those thoughts are not off limits and not only are they not off limits they grow and they grow so they start out as sin like these evil thoughts but the more you feed them it's very logical that one day it will actually transition into you doing the thing that you keep on thinking about doing but then your point is if you declare the thought off limits then what you're doing is you're taking away the person's ability to fight that desire what you don't need to be doing is fighting just the behavior you need to be fighting the desire, that's the point it starts with the desire so all the behavior starts with the desire and if you feed the desires, they get bigger the issue is think about a murderer that doesn't come from nowhere and that's what the exterminal amount is telling us if you're angry with your brother, that's essentially heart murder and what that means is not that you put people to death for anger what that means is that if you cultivate that anger it starts out small, it starts out with frustration and irritation and annoyance and being bothered that's all baby anger,

I'm frustrated, I'm irritated I'm annoyed, I'm bothered but then notice how people who are always talking about how irritated and how bothered they are notice how they're also the kind of people who are typically tempted with the next step of it which is the yelling and the screaming and what happens is they'll say, hey guys, snapped like I just snapped

I got out of control here, it's like no, you've been feeding anger in its baby forms and the more you feed it, one day it transitions into a bigger form which is yelling and then the more you do the yelling stuff then it's going to transition into you're hitting someone and then the more that you hit them then one day you're going to strangle them to death that's the way it goes it just gets bigger and bigger and bigger and if you say, hey, you can't fight it at the desire level then essentially the issue then is pretty soon it's going to turn into yelling because you have no check so where do you want to fight it?

You want to fight it when it's bigger or smaller? and it seems to me that individuals who are struggling with SSA whatever that means giving into it whenever they have a desire but if they were actually struggling with it what they should be doing is every time they feel that pull towards a member of the opposite sex they should be saying,

Lord, forgive me they should be saying, Lord, forgive me I'm sinful, wash me, wash my heart, make it clean take away this vile, wicked affection that's here and cleanse me and make me a new person, make me a new creation and obviously you pray that once or twice or three times, it's probably not going to instantaneously go but that's just the battle you fight until it's finally gone

I think it goes without saying but the longer that you feed that the longer that it's going to take normally to really fully get to a place where it's not even an internal temptation anymore

Well that's the thing that's the heresy in the minds of many people I think Rosaria Butterfield used to describe reparative therapy essentially as a heresy a form of prosperity gospel but then

I think she recently issued a statement saying that that was one of the most ignorant things she's ever said as a

Christian and I praise the Lord that she recognizes how ignorant that actually is because the Bible does promise that God can cleanse us to the uttermost and the issue is such were some of you but you were washed and you were cleansed and we don't have to be dominated by bioaffections and disordered desires we don't have to be dominated by any sin but then

I think the more that people make these the issue is the more that you take these desires you make them off limits you're not being sanctified at that point and part of the problem is that the church doesn't have a doctrine of sanctification and so we just don't know what we're doing we are largely engaging in behavior modification and I think a very stunted view of how we should be fighting the

Christian life in general but the Bible tells us to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ and surely that means those evil thoughts towards evil actions if you're to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ that means if you have a thought that says

I would like to do evil things to that man as a man that would be a thought you need to take captive and the way you take captive that thought is to repent of it and if you tell people they don't have to repent of that that's just who they are don't be surprised if they're going to want to have a celibate gay friendship with someone that involves cuddling and some lifelong commitment to them that's short of some sort of sexual union and then when they do that don't be surprised when it actually turns sexual it's because you're cutting off their ability to turn from it essentially and going even further than that it seems like we've been talking about basically when you view temptation this way internal temptation when you view evil desires this way you're essentially undermining the doctrine of sin that the

Bible gives us that God's revealed so not only are you really handicapping people massively in their fight against sin through the power of the

Holy Spirit not only are you doing that doesn't it seem like you're almost minimizing the need that we have for the gospel in the first place

Jesus was the one that said the one who has been forgiven much loves much so when you're denying that certain sins are actually sins in a sense you're saying

I don't need the gospel that much I think it's definitely one of those things that people do that they definitely have a stunted view of what sin actually is there's different heresies that have happened one of those heresies is the doctrine of Christian perfectionism the only way an individual could ever come up with the idea that they're sinless is to redefine sin in such a way that it's only the kind of things that they would never do we all have these temptations when you look at the bible standard the issue is the bible standard is so much it's just so impossible we don't just miss miss is not even a helpful enough word sometimes to explain how far off we are we're so far off the more you read the bible the more you should come away thinking

I am so wicked that's contrary to the self esteem movement that's contrary to what most popular christian evangelicals are trying to do is minimize the blow at every point as you read the bible you should come away thinking this standard is if the lord would count iniquities who could stand it's beyond me

I can't even go a few minutes without sinning in some way whether it's a sin of omission or a sin of commission it's just that bad that doesn't have to cripple a person that can lead to you glorifying god meaning his grace is perfect in our weakness the one who's been forgiven much loves much all the things you're saying the more you are toying with in the minds of many people it really is the case they define sin by what they think is reasonable for a human being to be able to do but then the biblical view of sin is not about what's reasonable for some kind of human being to do the standard is you can't do it but then when you minimize that and you try to redefine it in such a way that it feels reasonable to you you are minimizing your need for the gospel you're minimizing your understanding of what grace actually is and you're minimizing your view of god in terms of his actual holiness so you're doing violence to the bible in a wide variety of ways but then just thinking about the biblical prescription

I remember Christopher Hitchens in his debate with Douglas Wilson essentially talking about how monstrous the god of the bible is because the god of the bible can accuse you of thought crime and it's like yeah, that's the god of the bible the god of the bible is concerned not only about your behaviors but also about your thoughts and also about your desires and not only that, he's concerned about your emotions too none of it's off limits and that's where with most

Christians they basically got the external behavior kind of down but I would say that with most of the people who are making that kind of case the behavior is entirely optional too some of it they'll hold on to but most of it they really the kind of individual who's arguing for celibate gay

Christian movement is going to be the same kind of individual who thinks it's ok to miss church for 6 months in order to go do whatever you're going to do these commands aren't commands because we're under grace as far as that goes there's an attempt to minimize it at every point we do have to get back to what is sin is it a sin to be tempted those kind of questions it seems like God's standard is so sky high from our perspective it seems like a lot of people just assume there must not even be one so let's make up our own standard but then the standard becomes whatever that person thinks is reasonable because God is obviously loving and God obviously wants you to be happy and God is obviously there to serve you whatever it is it can't possibly be that he would be unreasonable and ask you to do things that are beyond you right and you know when you do that grace just doesn't it's not that appealing when you think that way versus what we're saying even the things you think no matter how fleeting they are it could be a millisecond there's been things that have come up in my mind and they come up in my mind immediately what in the world is that no,

I would never want that even there it's even before that too in Hebrew you read through the

Hebrew Bible and there's an expression that comes up it's a euphemism for anger if you were to read through Jonah in Hebrew there's times where it says

Jonah's nose became hot that's a

Hebrew idiom that is translated he became angry it's an idiom you can imagine the cartoon bull that has the steam coming out of his nose that's a good word picture if you think about it there's been plenty of times in your life where someone said something you didn't like and your body tenses up just imagine your body tensing up they said something you didn't like your body tenses up and maybe you bite down on your jaw for a second that kind of thing that's anger and it might not be that you even in that moment had a conscious thought a conscious angry thought but you did react in terms of your bodily emotion you're reacting to something it might be that you tense up and then you have to take a deep breath but that itself is coming from a sinful heart what you have to do in that moment is say

Lord, forgive me for my anger you may not even have an angry thought but that was anger you can either play the naive route where you just try to redefine it and as long as you keep from yelling at someone you're ok or if you actually want it all gone like the

Bible says let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you along with all malice if you want it all gone because the wrath of man doesn't produce the righteousness that God requires then what you're going to do is any thought, any emotion any pull any temptation you feel you're going to be confessing it and asking forgiveness taking it deadly serious you're going to say if you're an individual who you're on the internet and you see something you didn't want to see and your hand stops and you're trying to muscle your hand away to get it to click away and you're physically

I think in that moment you do have to say Lord, forgive me that's not coming from a pure heart that's not coming from a pure heart that's coming from a defiled heart and I long for the day when you can make that to where I don't want that at all

I don't want to even want it I want to just laugh at that and chuckle at that and move on but part of how you do that is you learn to repent of these things in a more comprehensive way you can imagine in your own marriages your own marriage or that kind of thing

I didn't mean to suggest you're a polygamist I'm not by the way

I didn't tell him about that Utah thing you can imagine in your own marriage there are times where your wife you do something your wife doesn't like your wife does something you don't like and your response is to give them the cold shoulder and that needs to go it may not be any words, it may not even be any thoughts but it needs to go that's bitterness we just have a stunted understanding of what sin actually is we've tried to downplay it the consequence is you are cutting people off their ability to actually turn from these things with a whole heart

I think that's a good place for us to wrap up the episode

Tim, is there anything you want to say in closing? I think that's good hopefully this has been a helpful episode for you guys the main takeaway here at the end of the day we as Christians really have to take our own sin seriously and the more that we view sin the way

God does which means we don't just look at our actions we look at our actual desires we look at the internal temptations that come from our hearts and view those as things that we need to take to God and ask for forgiveness number one, just like we were talking about earlier the more you'll see victory in those different areas when you make it a practice to actively repent of even the thoughts and the desires but then number two it really puts into perspective just what exactly

God is doing when He's forgiving us it helps us understand how far short we fall and just how much

God is forgiving us which then tells us God loves us this much that He's forgiving all these things

He sent His Son to die for all these things even the thoughts, even the actions we need to take this seriously for ourselves and our own sin and we need to take it seriously for the people around us that we're witnessing to, that we're sharing the gospel with and not be afraid to just call sin what it is even if it's not being physically acted upon because hiding that from people is not doing them any favors in terms of their eternal destination and so hopefully this has been a helpful episode for you guys it's so much fun to be able to sit down and talk about these things and knowing that we're able to encourage you guys in this way and it's encouraging to see all the support we get from you week in and week out so we want to thank you for all that again we hope this has helped equip you to have these conversations yourself and until next time we look forward to seeing you on the next one