God gave them over to shameful lusts?

JimiTime

God gave them over to shameful lusts

This is from Romans chapter 1. What does it mean 'Gave them over'? Any idea's?

BrianCalgary

JimiTime wrote: »

God gave them over to shameful lusts

This is from Romans chapter 1. What does it mean 'Gave them over'? Any idea's?

I just think that God allowed them to do what they wanted.

JimiTime

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I just think that God allowed them to do what they wanted.

Yeah, I always understood it so. Just reading it there though, it seems to have more.....umph about it. Maybe it doesn't now, but it just seems like there is more to it. I don't want to look for something thats not there now, but I'd like to see if thats the consensus, or if anyone thinks something else.

Rowley Birkin QC

What are the "shameful lusts" in question?

JimiTime

bigkev49 wrote: »

What are the "shameful lusts" in question?

Here is the passage in question.

BrianCalgary

Romans 1
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.


I see it as a moral decline. That men knew God and ignored Him. And in the end God just said right there you go, do as you desire.

BrianCalgary

JimiTime wrote: »

Yeah, I always understood it so. Just reading it there though, it seems to have more.....umph about it. Maybe it doesn't now, but it just seems like there is more to it. I don't want to look for something thats not there now, but I'd like to see if thats the consensus, or if anyone thinks something else.

I agree JT, there may be more to it. I llok forward to see what anyone else has to say.

It also imparts the foolishness of seemingly wise people.

sorella

Same as He did when Israel pestered for a King.
.
And in the end God just said right there you go, do as you desire.[/quote]

studiorat

Paradwken : to give over to , to allow to follow a natural course of events...

Cybeline priests at the time in Rome practiced ritual sex during their ceremonies. They believed that cross dressing an male-male and female-female sex trancended the boundries of gender thus bringing them closer to their God.

During the 2nd and early 1st millennia BCE we find evidence of sacred sex practices by the cultures that would have impacted the growing Jewish nation. Such an impact can be seen in the commands attributed to Yhvh to banish the vdq from the land and to avoid all of their non-Israelite practices. Placing the prohibitions on same-gender sex, as found in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, into the context of sacred/ritualized sex, becomes a distinct possibility in light of the surrounding cultures

L. Scanzoni and V. Molenkott

Romans 1 is Paul's diatribe against idolatry and pagan practices in Rome at that time. The Cybeline temple was on top of the Palatine hill and was one of the most venerable shrines of Greek/Roman pagan gods of the day. It is no accident that Paul specifically refers to their ritual all through out Romans.

The references in Romans 1 evoke clear images of the Cybele Religion and the primary context for Paul's discussion in the passage is specifically the Godess religions. His attack is against the sacred-sex practices of godess worship and pagan idolatry. The Romans 1:26-27 reference, which has been used to condem homosexuality, therefore has no bearing on that issue. Rather, the point of Paul's reference is to evoke vivid and commonly known images of cultic practices and to condem those practices which lead to the adoration of false gods.

Julius Firmicus wrote:

In their very temples one may see scandalous performances, accompanied by the moaning of the throng: men letting themselves be handled as women, and flaunting with boastful ostentatiousness this ignominy of their impure and unchaste bodies. They parade their misdeeds in the public eye. ... Next, being thus divorced from masculinity, they get intoxicated with the music of flutes and invoke their goddess to fill them with an unholy spirit so that they can ostensibly predict the future to fools. What sort of monstrous and unnatural thing is all this? They say they are not men, and indeed they aren't; they want to pass as women. (The Error of Pagan Religions, 4.2)

wolfsbane

studiorat wrote: »

Paradwken : to give over to , to allow to follow a natural course of events...

Cybeline priests at the time in Rome practiced ritual sex during their ceremonies. They believed that cross dressing an male-male and female-female sex trancended the boundries of gender thus bringing them closer to their God.

L. Scanzoni and V. Molenkott

Romans 1 is Paul's diatribe against idolatry and pagan practices in Rome at that time. The Cybeline temple was on top of the Palatine hill and was one of the most venerable shrines of Greek/Roman pagan gods of the day. It is no accident that Paul specifically refers to their ritual all through out Romans.

The references in Romans 1 evoke clear images of the Cybele Religion and the primary context for Paul's discussion in the passage is specifically the Godess religions. His attack is against the sacred-sex practices of godess worship and pagan idolatry. The Romans 1:26-27 reference, which has been used to condem homosexuality, therefore has no bearing on that issue. Rather, the point of Paul's reference is to evoke vivid and commonly known images of cultic practices and to condem those practices which lead to the adoration of false gods.

Julius Firmicus wrote:

That's called eisigesis - reading ino the text.

What Paul actually says is that God gave the original idolators over to homosexual practices as a punishment. It does not say He gave them over to cultic practices. The cultic practices came to incorporate the degenerate sexuality of the idolators.

wolfsbane

JimiTime wrote: »

God gave them over to shameful lusts

This is from Romans chapter 1. What does it mean 'Gave them over'? Any idea's?

The word for 'gave up':
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3860&t=KJV

The meaning is clear: in an act of judicial punishment, God allows their corrupt hearts and minds to degrade themselves sexually, to dishonour themselves sexually just as they had dishonoured God spiritually.

Zombrex

Genuine question, something I'm not following

You are all saying that this was God allowing or leaving these people to their sin, perhaps as punishment.

My question is - As opposed to what exactly?

Doesn't God "allow" everyone to give into their sin if they wish, isn't this what the nature of God giving us free will is?

Do you guys believe God holding back some people back from sinning? If so I'm not sure where this fits in with the whole idea of of our sinful natures, Jesus and heaven. Why does God not just stop us all from sinning? Why does he let us sin a little bit?

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Genuine question, something I'm not following

You are all saying that this was God allowing or leaving these people to their sin, perhaps as punishment.

My question is - As opposed to what exactly?

Doesn't God "allow" everyone to give into their sin if they wish, isn't this what the nature of God giving us free will is?

Do you guys believe God holding back some people back from sinning? If so I'm not sure where this fits in with the whole idea of of our sinful natures, Jesus and heaven. Why does God not just stop us all from sinning? Why does he let us sin a little bit?

This is a good question, and it is exactly why I wouldn't share Brian's view on the matter. How it actually works is debatable, but I would think that instead of directly holding people back - which in itself would be a barrier to free will - God may have used subtler means to get His will across. So instead of being the voice of reason and morality - Christian reason and morality - God stepped back and said 'You won't listen to me, so it's all yours, lads. Do as you will'.

Dave147

He was allowing them indulge in their homosexuality.

JimiTime

Just a note guys. Can we please not turn this into a 'homosexuals' discussion. Whatever the sexual appetites, this question is about the phrase 'Gave them up' rather than what they were given up to.

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

The word for 'gave up':
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3860&t=KJV

The meaning is clear: in an act of judicial punishment, God allows their corrupt hearts and minds to degrade themselves sexually, to dishonour themselves sexually just as they had dishonoured God spiritually.

I'm sorry but just I don't see any reference to Romans 1 in that link. Romans 4 and Romans 6 but not 1...

I found "Paradwken" regarding Romans 1 to mean "let run the natural course of events". The word also turns up as Pilate releases Barabas.

JimiTime wrote: »

Just a note guys. Can we please not turn this into a 'homosexuals' discussion. Whatever the sexual appetites, this question is about the phrase 'Gave them up' rather than what they were given up to.

It's actually 'Gave them over'. It's a small point but an important one none the less. The line before the one we are discussing says "And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." .

This is a clear reference to the practices of the Pagan temples in Rome, many temples had doves and other animals roaming freely in them. Indeed even Herods temple in Jeruselem sold sacrificial doves and other livestock. Paul just as Jesus had done (at the temple) called for an end to entire cultic system.

I think the discussion should be about whether we should be using exegisis or eisigesis.

Personally I prefer a rational exegtic approach and would look at the text in conjunction with unbiased contemporary commentary and other commentators of the era.

Eisigesis means to read one's own interpretation into the text, and imo is a sterile pursuit. It's obvious that some would rather read their own interpretation into the texts to allow the bible to fit into their own personal point of view.

I think all would agree that the Bible has no single message. However, when editors fixed the cannons of both Jewish and Christian testaments, they included competing visions and placed them, without comment, side by side. From the start, biblical authors felt free to revise the texts they had inherited and give entirely different meaning.

Later exegetes held up the bible as a template for the problems of their own time. Sometimes they allowed it to shape their world-view but they also felt free to change it and make it speak to contemporary conditions. They were not usually interested in discovering the original meaning of the biblical passage.

The Bible was 'proved' to be holy because people continually discovered fresh ways to interpret it and found that this set of documents cast light on situations that their original authors could not have imagined.

Jews and Christians developed a method of Bible study that linked texts that had no intrinsic connection. By constant breaking down of barriers of textual difference, they achieved and ecstatic coincidentia oppositirum, also present in other scriptural traditions.

refs: Karen Armstrong, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong

Ched Myres: Binding the Strong Man.

wolfsbane

studiorat said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The word for 'gave up':
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...gs=G3860&t=KJV

The meaning is clear: in an act of judicial punishment, God allows their corrupt hearts and minds to degrade themselves sexually, to dishonour themselves sexually just as they had dishonoured God spiritually.

I'm sorry but just I don't see any reference to Romans 1 in that link. Romans 4 and Romans 6 but not 1...

Try again: select the link; go down to Continued Search Results and see under it 4. (Jhn 18:30 - Rom 4:25). Select that. There you will find:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G3860&t=KJV&page=4

It has the references to 'Gave them over' in Romans 1:24, 26, 28.

I found "Paradwken" regarding Romans 1 to mean "let run the natural course of events".

Why would you find that meaning here? Do you not agree the text shows the homosexual practices were meant as a judicial punishment on the idolators?

The word also turns up as Pilate releases Barabas.

It is used of giving Jesus over to the Romans to execute. A handing over, giving over/up to. It is not used of releasing Barabas.

It's actually 'Gave them over'. It's a small point but an important one none the less. The line before the one we are discussing says "And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." .

This is a clear reference to the practices of the Pagan temples in Rome, many temples had doves and other animals roaming freely in them. Indeed even Herods temple in Jeruselem sold sacrificial doves and other livestock. Paul just as Jesus had done (at the temple) called for an end to entire cultic system.

I think the discussion should be about whether we should be using exegisis or eisigesis.

Personally I prefer a rational exegtic approach and would look at the text in conjunction with unbiased contemporary commentary and other commentators of the era.

Eisigesis means to read one's own interpretation into the text, and imo is a sterile pursuit. It's obvious that some would rather read their own interpretation into the texts to allow the bible to fit into their own personal point of view.

I think all would agree that the Bible has no single message. However, when editors fixed the cannons of both Jewish and Christian testaments, they included competing visions and placed them, without comment, side by side. From the start, biblical authors felt free to revise the texts they had inherited and give entirely different meaning.

Later exegetes held up the bible as a template for the problems of their own time. Sometimes they allowed it to shape their world-view but they also felt free to change it and make it speak to contemporary conditions. They were not usually interested in discovering the original meaning of the biblical passage.

The Bible was 'proved' to be holy because people continually discovered fresh ways to interpret it and found that this set of documents cast light on situations that their original authors could not have imagined.

Jews and Christians developed a method of Bible study that linked texts that had no intrinsic connection. By constant breaking down of barriers of textual difference, they achieved and ecstatic coincidentia oppositirum, also present in other scriptural traditions.

refs: Karen Armstrong, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong

Ched Myres: Binding the Strong Man.

Your understanding of how the Bible arose is pure conjecture - and contrary to the testimony of the Bible itself and of the historic position of the Church. In other words, liberal unbelieving story-telling, as your use of Karen Armstrong indicates.

As to Romans 1 being about cultic religion in Paul's day, that is not what it argues. Paul is giving history, what had happened in the in ancient times when idolatry first arose:
Romans 1:20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

All past tense.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Genuine question, something I'm not following

You are all saying that this was God allowing or leaving these people to their sin, perhaps as punishment.

My question is - As opposed to what exactly?

Doesn't God "allow" everyone to give into their sin if they wish, isn't this what the nature of God giving us free will is?

Do you guys believe God holding back some people back from sinning? If so I'm not sure where this fits in with the whole idea of of our sinful natures, Jesus and heaven. Why does God not just stop us all from sinning? Why does he let us sin a little bit?

No, God doesn't allow everyone to give into their sin if they wish - thankfully. God restrains man's evil desires. When He lifts His hand from the sinner, Satan can do as he pleases with him: the 'respectable' citizen sinks into depravity.

Why does He not stop us all from sinning? He doesn't say. He does say He created man perfect but man sinned. We might speculate as to why God permited that, but we won't get anywhere, for He doesn't say. Same for why He let's us sin today.

He does say that one day He will stop man sinning completely. The Day of Judgment will end all sin forever.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

God restrains man's evil desires.
...
He does say He created man perfect but man sinned. We might speculate as to why God permited that, but we won't get anywhere, for He doesn't say.

To me the more interesting question is why did he create man with evil desires that must be restrained by him in the first place?

But I imagine the response will be He doesn't say A discussion for another time perhaps.

MatthewVII

Wicknight wrote: »

To me the more interesting question is why did he create man with evil desires that must be restrained by him in the first place?

But I imagine the response will be He doesn't say A discussion for another time perhaps.

On the topic of God setting man up for evil, I've always wondered why God set up the Garden of Eden the way he did.

-Making man capable of temptation, listening to evil, sin etc
-Allowing the devil to take up residence in the garden
-Telling them they could have anything except the fruit of one tree. I mean, come on, what else were they going to do? Why not just not put the tree there (No-one else was going to eat from it, what was the purpose of its existence other than to tempt man?)

Fanny Cradock

That is best discussed in another thread - and probably only for those who believe in a literal reading of Genesis.

MatthewVII

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That is best discussed in another thread - and probably only for those who believe in a literal reading of Genesis.

Good point. What is the non-literal take on original sin? Or is there one?

Húrin

MatthewVII wrote: »

Good point. What is the non-literal take on original sin? Or is there one?

Original sin is an abstract concept anyway - surely all takes on it are non-literal?

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

studiorat said:

Your understanding of how the Bible arose is pure conjecture - and contrary to the testimony of the Bible itself and of the historic position of the Church. In other words, liberal unbelieving story-telling, as your use of Karen Armstrong indicates.

I disagree. However I firmly believe yours is entirely made up to support your own point of view. As your eisigesic approach has proved.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

To me the more interesting question is why did he create man with evil desires that must be restrained by him in the first place?

But I imagine the response will be He doesn't say A discussion for another time perhaps.

No; the answer is He didn't create man with evil desires.

wolfsbane

studiorat wrote: »

I disagree. However I firmly believe yours is entirely made up to support your own point of view. As your eisigesic approach has proved.

I repeat: no honest scholar can say Romans 1 does not condemn homosexuality. It is the plain meaning of the text, and has been understood as such by countless scholars down the years.

Even if one held the Bible to be entirely man-made and erroneous in its teachings, one cannot honestly deny it is teaching such 'error'.