When God created "everything very good" during Creation Week, that included Eve with sinful flesh? She must have inherently had sinful flesh, because she was the first to goof:
1Ti 2:14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
But doesn't it read:
1Co 15:21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead?
Does not that mean that by male men death came?
Wrong, Mistranslation Breath!
The actual Greek Text word for "man" is none other than: anthr(o)pou....and means humanity - not males nor husbands. It is the Greek root from where we get the word: anthropology, or the scientific study of humankind.
So getting back to Eve's evil flesh right from the start, we have Luther's concept of "original sin." Passed on to Saint Paul, who lamented:
Ro 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it.
Well, yes and no. Anyone who authors half the New Testament has done something right, whether he said he could or could not do it, and how.
Is Paul to blame for wanting such "can't-to-it" fleshly addiction in his assertively sinful-flesh members (including his inspired penmanship fingers)?
One wonders - being that God, right from the start, inserted into His "all-things-were-VERY-good," new-and-"perfect" creation both the Tempting Serpent and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Praise his Name for imposing such devastating Stumbling Blocks.
If neither had being around, "sinful"-flesh Eve would have innocently continued being sinless and birthday-suit naked....completely without any enticing and seducing duress, bad influence, and lying disinformation.
Come to think of it, it seems sad the way Scripture promotes the pseudo-favorability of that Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil:
Ge 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.
Thank Moses for that one. WAS the tree "good" for food? WAS it really a "delight" to the eyes? WAS it "desired to make one wise?" ARE such pseudo-admirable qualities in hindsight pathetically inane and inaccurate?
But it was God's plan to be the Divine Detonator and Blasting Cap - with His notorious Serpent and Tree - that set off the Explosion of Wickedness which has been engrained into every fabric of human existence ever since, with all the resulting pain, disease, misery, and death. Of course, that is - in no way - the end of the story, with Jesus being humiliated and humiliating Himself by being confined and confining Himself as an infinestesmal frail human form (a helpless tits-sucking diaper-soiling infant, no less), and then even worse being brutally murdered in public view on a criminal cross as an alleged anti-Roman traitor and purported blasphemer, to boot....as our human-sacrifice Atonemen a.k.a. Redeemer involving acquisition and guarantee of our blessed entrance into and eternal residence within never-ending Heavenly bliss. That, of course, more than compensates for past puzzling Tempter-and-Tree-addition grievances anyone might harbor against the LORD.
The expression: "The Devil made me do it" is sorely lacking, and in serious need of rewording.
"The Devil suggested that I do it, enticed or seduced me to do it, etc." is what should be stated instead.
There is no coercion nor forcing nor exploitive extortion involved, but instead: irrational human choice to do wrong - another one of God's questionable gifts to humankind. [But remember the rest of the story stated previously].
So, leave it to a woman to screw things up?
But was it not Sarai who told Abraham to impregate Hagar, with the presumptive strange and weird excuse that the child born to Hagar would be Sarai's?
Was it not Lot's daughters would faithlessly resorted to incestuously fornicating with their father rather than waiting for out-of-the-cave husbands of their own?
Was it not Tamar who concocted the incest thing by playing the disguised? roadside harlot involving Judah?
Was it not Rebekkah who told Jacob to lie to Isaac by pretending to be Esau?
Was it not Leah who consented to Laban's request for her to sneak in and sleep with Jacob, even though Laban and not Leah got the blame?
Was it not Leah who told Jacob to engage in polygamy with that strange and weird presumption that the child from Leah's maid would be Leah's?
The one-man-with-one-woman scenario noticed and promoted by Jesus is logical for a man who can insert only one penis into only one of three holes of one woman's body at a time. However, the three bodily holes of a woman can be stuffed with the appendanges of up to three men simultaneously at a time. Thus, her status as being the "weaker" sex, or merely being at a non-solicitingly-created disadvantage?
God never specifically called the multiple-wives/concubines polygamy of Old-Testament patriarchs "sin," and even Saint Paul in his Timothy and Titus epistles restricted only bishops and deacons to monogamy (i.e. being "the husband of one wife" - whether concurrently or sequentially by spousal death). However, for a woman, God through Paul allowed remarriage for widows only once:
Ro 7:2 Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband.
Ro 7:3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
but [more or less] disallowed it twice:
1Co 7:40 But in my judgment [a widow is] happier if she remains [a widow]. And I think that I have the Spirit of God.
1Ti 5:12 and so [widows who remarry] incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge.
KJV's rendition of First Timothy 5:14 advocates younger women [Gr. ne(o)teras] marrying, but NOT widows [Gr. cheras] remarrying in view of the wording and context.
No such remarriage prohibitions for males.
Was it not Rahab of Jericho who was the spies-hiding lying prostitute?
Was it not eager-to-climb-the-corporate-ladder exhibitionist Bathsheba who deliberately bathed in view of the stay-at-home-this-time king David, causing him to adulterate with her and conspire to murder her husband, with David getting the blame?
Was it not Deborah who got on her feminist-sexist high horse as judge, rather than encouraging pussywimp Barak to take charge?
Was it not Delilah who caused Samson to be overpowered and lose his sight?
Was it not Naomi who told her previously-married widowed daughter-in-law Ruth to seductively uncover the feet of sleeping Boaz?
Was it not Jezebel who assassinated the Lord's prophets?
It should be clear that biological sexual desire is a given, and cannot realistically be suppressed. It can be controlled and directed, but not ignored, disregarded, nor obliterated. The first spoken command by God the Creator to humans was: "Be fruitful and multiply" and therefore we homo sapiens are internally programmed to seek, find, and coitacopulate to fulfil the progenie-producing Divine Primal Directive.
Two of the causes men turn to same-gender homosexual companionship are:
1. The random seasonal public-view immodesty of frequently-anonymous or at least non-arrested mopheaded, naked-armed, nude-legged, toes-exposed women, which is forced on males and which they cannot really do anything against, even though they desperately would like to, (and on that subject study the particulars of RSV's and NASV's Numbers 5:18, Second Samuel 13:18, Isaiah 20, Isaiah 47:1-4, and Jeremiah 2:25).
2. The placement of women in charge over men, whether as legislators, judges, attorneys, politicians, clergy, bankers, investors, realtors, educators, law enforcement, etc. which is forced on males and which they cannot really do anything against, even though they seriously would like to.
Because such irresponsible women so carelessly or deliberately alienate men, some men turn to those of their same gender in retributionary retaliation, with the disfortunate consequence of substituting the sights of male body parts somewhat reminiscent of erotically-appealing body parts of womenkind who have aliented them....minus the moodiness, menstrual messiness, headaches, etc. indigenous to the inferior gender.
Relating to that, the definition of what is "natural" is skewed.
Consider the following in the partly-accurate Revised Standard Version rendition:
Ro 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
Ro 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
Ro 6:19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification.
Consider such in the KJ21 translation:
Ro 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.
Ro 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet.
Ro 6:19 I speak in the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh. For as ye have yielded your members as servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity, even so now yield your members as servants to righteousness unto holiness.
Both translations are similar, except that the KJ21 has the phrase: "infirmity of your flesh" instead of RSV's phrase: "natural limitations."
The two different meanings of: "natural" are further found in these passages:
Ro 2:14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
Ro 11:24 For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree.
Eph 2:3 Among these we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of body and mind, and so we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
So the "by nature" is something good in Romans 2:14 and 11:24.....but rather evil in Ephesians 2:3.
When told by someone to "just" 'Do what is "natural,' our response might be either Yes or No.
It is natural and normal for Christians totally submitted to Christ (and not under wicked duress, seduction, enticement, and/or lying suggestion) to simply and always do only what God wants. Such absolute and impeccable holiness might actually be possibly performed for a single solitary Christian living alone on some non-inhabited dwarf planet (or planetoid) such as Pluto - with no outside influence to cause disobedience against anything in God's entire Word. But on Earth, the poor duressed saint "does not stand a snowball's chance in Hell" (so to speak) to live error-free.
It is not natural to homosodomize, as long as reasonably-compliant non-sexist and non-feminist women are available. And for potential lesbians, it is not natural to homosodomize as long as reasonably-loving men are available. In fact, an arrogant atheistic-like rebellion and defiance against God and His Bible is why some women and men pervert themselves into being effeminate [Gr. malakoi] and sodomites [Gr. arsenokoitai].
Part of the "mystery of lawlessness." A different type of mystery as to why God created grass green, dirt brown, the sky blue, and other specific and precise phenomena of our unique Privileged Planet.
Many falsely self-justify themselves because they feel they have a bound conscience to get and continue homoqueer, blame God for Him supposedly forming them that way congenitally, and make believe that they will remain monogamous or loyal to the same-gender partner forever. It is like promising to keep smoking forever, drink to get drunk forever, and cuss forever. Whoopie.
One's emotionally-changeable conscience is not a reliable standard to depend upon:
Ro 2:15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them [EXCUSE them? What does THAT mean?]
Of the following New-Testament references to "conscience" (e.g. Ac 23:1, Ac 24:16, Ro 2:15, Ro 9:1, Ro 13:5, 1Co 8:7, 1Co 8:10, 1Co 8:12, 1Co 10:25, 1Co 10:27, 1Co 10:28, 1Co 10:29, 2Co 1:12, 2Co 4:2, 2Co 5:11, 1Ti 1:5, 1Ti 1:19, 1Ti 3:9, 2Ti 1:3, Heb 9:9, Heb 9:14, Heb 10:22, Heb 13:18, 1Pe 3:16, 1Pe 3:21, etc.), it seems obvious that although one's goal should be a clear and good conscience, one cannot trust one's conscience to be a reliable gauge without such being sufficiently influenced both by the Word of the Lord and His Spirit resulting from obedience to that Word.
Scripture-twisting is a danger for those interested more in themselves and what they deviantly imagine they want then what they know the Lord wants, in sometimes stark contrast. For example, consider the altered text:
1Ti 4:4? For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected - including sodomizing same-gender children and then, cutting them up or burning them alive - if it is received with thanksgiving;
Php 4:13? I can do all things in him who strengthens me, like becoming and being a homofaggot, robbing banks, blowing up Trade Towers, and lacing the city water supply with lethal germ-warfare military toxins.
Heterosexuality is God's norm, and even requirement. But homosexuality is not only an inadequate response to aversion against female-human immodesty and dominance (see Isaiah 3:12, Nahum 3:13 in the RSV, First Corinthians 11:1-16, First Corinthians 14:33-38, First Timothy 2:12-15, and First Peter 3:7), it is a damnable deviancy selfishly depriving some lonely left-out female human of the full-time/full-power erotic love she needs and deserves (study Proverbs chapters 5-7).