Romans 1:26-27 - Vile Affections

[HuntingMan]

Romans 1:26-27 - Vile Affections

In Romans 1 the state of the persons in Romans there is a RESULT of their idolatry.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 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 recompence of their error which was meet.
(Rom 1:24-27 KJV)

BECAUSE of their idolatry God gave them up TO their vile affections...the affections/desires themselves ARE vile/sinful.
One doesnt have to commit idolatry to commit sexual sin, so the connection between the two, while it DOES exist in Romans 1, doesnt necessarily have to exist in EVERY other instance.

In Romans 1:26 above we see that these were turned over to 'vile affections'.

For this causeG1223 G5124 GodG2316 gave them upG3860 G846 untoG1519 vileG819 affections:G3806...
(Rom 1:26 KJV+)

Here are the definitions of these words.

Vile
G819
ἀτιμία
atimia
at-ee-mee'-ah
From G820; infamy, that is, (subjectively) comparative indignity, (objectively) disgrace: - dishonour, reproach, shame, vile.

NT usage;
G819
ἀτιμία
atimia
Total KJV Occurrences: 7
dishonour, 4
Rom_9:21, 1Co_15:43, 2Co_6:8, 2Ti_2:20
reproach, 1
2Co_11:21
shame, 1
1Co_11:14
vile, 1
Rom_1:26


Affections
G3806
πάθος
pathos
path'-os
From the alternate of G3958; properly suffering (“pathos&#8221, that is, (subjectively) a passion (especially concupiscence): - (inordinate) affection, lust.

NT usage;
G3806
πάθος
pathos
Total KJV Occurrences: 4
affection, 1
Col_3:5
affections, 1
Rom_1:26
inordinate, 1
Col_3:5
lust, 1
1Th_4:5

As you can see the usage of each word in the new testament is quite consistent.

These were given over to these vile affections, and what does the scripture show that these 'vile affections' were being defined as ?

...vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 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...

It is VERY clear that burning with lust for those of the same gender and acting out on that lust is what this 'vile affection'...otherwise the statement has no meaning.

 

[HuntingMan]

quoted for evidence.

Stop being a thread harlot.

Either respond to the thread topic or dont respond at all.

 

[HuntingMan]

Any INTELLIGENT discussion from anyone ?


Romans 1:26-27 - Vile Affections

In Romans 1 the state of the persons in Romans there is a RESULT of their idolatry.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 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 recompence of their error which was meet.
(Rom 1:26-27 KJV)

BECAUSE of their idolatry God gave them up TO their vile affections...the affections/desires themselves ARE vile/sinful.
One doesnt have to commit idolatry to commit sexual sin, so the connection between the two, while it DOES exist in Romans 1, doesnt necessarily have to exist in EVERY other instance.

In Romans 1:26 above we see that these were turned over to 'vile affections'.

For this causeG1223 G5124 GodG2316 gave them upG3860 G846 untoG1519 vileG819 affections:G3806...
(Rom 1:26 KJV+)

Here are the definitions of these words.

Vile
G819
ἀτιμία
atimia
at-ee-mee'-ah
From G820; infamy, that is, (subjectively) comparative indignity, (objectively) disgrace: - dishonour, reproach, shame, vile.

NT usage;
G819
ἀτιμία
atimia
Total KJV Occurrences: 7
dishonour, 4
Rom_9:21, 1Co_15:43, 2Co_6:8, 2Ti_2:20
reproach, 1
2Co_11:21
shame, 1
1Co_11:14
vile, 1
Rom_1:26


Affections
G3806
πάθος
pathos
path'-os
From the alternate of G3958; properly suffering (“pathos&#8221, that is, (subjectively) a passion (especially concupiscence): - (inordinate) affection, lust.

NT usage;
G3806
πάθος
pathos
Total KJV Occurrences: 4
affection, 1
Col_3:5
affections, 1
Rom_1:26
inordinate, 1
Col_3:5
lust, 1
1Th_4:5

As you can see the usage of each word in the new testament is quite consistent.

These were given over to these vile affections, and what does the scripture show that these 'vile affections' were being defined as ?

...vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 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...

It is VERY clear that burning with lust for those of the same gender and acting out on that lust is what this 'vile affection'...otherwise the statement has no meaning.

 

[HuntingMan]

You are on ignore.
I made the error of believing you MIGHT have something intelligent to say. My mistake. Ive reported the posts and hopefully moderation will delete them.

In addition YOU arent in charge here, are you pal .
I will post ANYTHING I want to within the confines of the forum rules here and if you dont want to read what I post you can make the decision that all mature adults can make and NOT read them

Ill be adding a couple more gay threads as soon as Im done putting them together.

THANKS for helping me keep this thread bumped to the top

 

[HuntingMan]

Again

Any INTELLIGENT discussion from anyone ?


Romans 1:26-27 - Vile Affections

In Romans 1 the state of the persons in Romans there is a RESULT of their idolatry.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 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 recompence of their error which was meet.
(Rom 1:26-27 KJV)

BECAUSE of their idolatry God gave them up TO their vile affections...the affections/desires themselves ARE vile/sinful.
One doesnt have to commit idolatry to commit sexual sin, so the connection between the two, while it DOES exist in Romans 1, doesnt necessarily have to exist in EVERY other instance.

In Romans 1:26 above we see that these were turned over to 'vile affections'.

For this causeG1223 G5124 GodG2316 gave them upG3860 G846 untoG1519 vileG819 affections:G3806...
(Rom 1:26 KJV+)

Here are the definitions of these words.

Vile
G819
ἀτιμία
atimia
at-ee-mee'-ah
From G820; infamy, that is, (subjectively) comparative indignity, (objectively) disgrace: - dishonour, reproach, shame, vile.

NT usage;
G819
ἀτιμία
atimia
Total KJV Occurrences: 7
dishonour, 4
Rom_9:21, 1Co_15:43, 2Co_6:8, 2Ti_2:20
reproach, 1
2Co_11:21
shame, 1
1Co_11:14
vile, 1
Rom_1:26


Affections
G3806
πάθος
pathos
path'-os
From the alternate of G3958; properly suffering (“pathos&#8221, that is, (subjectively) a passion (especially concupiscence): - (inordinate) affection, lust.

NT usage;
G3806
πάθος
pathos
Total KJV Occurrences: 4
affection, 1
Col_3:5
affections, 1
Rom_1:26
inordinate, 1
Col_3:5
lust, 1
1Th_4:5

As you can see the usage of each word in the new testament is quite consistent.

These were given over to these vile affections, and what does the scripture show that these 'vile affections' were being defined as ?

...vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 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...

It is VERY clear that burning with lust for those of the same gender and acting out on that lust is what this 'vile affection'...otherwise the statement has no meaning.

 

[OllieFranz]

Ok, lets start with the translation of atimias as "dishonor" in Romans 9:21.

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour (time), and another unto dishonour (atimias)?

A potter does not set out to make a worthless pot. Nor is the fault in the clay, since he used the same lump of clay for both pots. The pot of dishonor is not "dishonorable" or worthless. It serves a purpose, and serves it well, but that purpose is not as honored as that of the first pot. The picture is of the first pot being intended to grace the table of a Patrician, while the second pot is, perhaps, a chamberpot. Either way, the pot is expected to perform the function for which it was designed, and does.

The verses that follow this use of atimias connect this same vessel of dishonor directly to the next appearance of the word in 1 Corinthians 14:42-23:

[What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
(Romans 9:22-23)

So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
(1 Corinthians 15:42-43)

So the vessel of dishonor, our mortal body, is the very same vessel for which God intends mercy and glory.

We could go through all of the occurances and look beyond the simple appearance of the word to the context, and I will if you make it necessary, but I believe that this is enough to show that, in context, atimias does not mean "vile," but "not thought well of." And that the "fault," if fault there be, need not always lie with the despised thing, but may lie within the despiser. And I want to look at the other word, pathos.

But I'm out of time for the moment. I'll continue tonight if i can get online later.

 

[HuntingMan]

hmmm.

So we find no real issue with this 'dishonor' when Romans one and the context therein shows that GOD turned these over to these 'dishonorable passions' BECAUSE of their idolatry ?

Do we claim that we are to settle for and condone dishonor ? That we should cling to it ?....that we should embrace being GIVEN OVER to an act that Gods word shows is indecent ?

Rom 1:26 For this causeG1223 G5124 GodG2316 gave them upG3860 G846 untoG1519 vileG819 affections:G3806 forG1063 evenG5037 (G3739) theirG848 womenG2338 did changeG3337 theG3588 naturalG5446 useG5540 intoG1519 thatG3588 which is againstG3844 nature:G5449
Rom 1:27 AndG5037 likewiseG3668 alsoG2532 theG3588 men,G730 leavingG863 theG3588 naturalG5446 useG5540 of theG3588 woman,G2338 burnedG1572 inG1722 theirG848 lustG3715 one toward another;G240 G1519 menG730 withG1722 menG730 workingG2716 that which is unseemly,G808 andG2532 receivingG618 inG1722 themselvesG1438 that recompenceG489 of theirG848 errorG4106 whichG3739 was meet.G1163

G808
ἀσχημοσύνη
aschēmosunē
as-kay-mos-oo'-nay
From G809; an indecency; by implication the pudenda: - shame, that which is unseemly.

I guess Im confused by the response.
It almost seems to be that your argument is that we should be 'ok' with being dishonorable and indecent ....is that your view ?
Shouldnt FOLLOWERS of Jesus Christ run from that which is dishonorable and indecent ?

We could go through all of the occurances and look beyond the simple appearance of the word to the context, and I will if you make it necessary,

Consider this a challenge to you to make it necessary

Do you somehow mistake me for one who is afraid of context.....because the CONTEXT of this passage is FAR worse than the word itself is.
The CONTEXT shows that God turned these folks over to this sin because of idolatry.
Do you also condone idolatry and find it to be as minor as 'dishonor' ?
Bring on your best poster...please dont hold back.
This is exactly how I find every single shred of argument that can be presented to put my studies together for.....throw everything you can come up with in here

but I believe that this is enough to show that, in context, atimias does not mean "vile," but "not thought well of."

Did you read the definition of 'vile' ? It seems to be a PERFECT match...

a: morally despicable or abhorrent <nothing is so vile as intellectual dishonesty> b: physically repulsive : foul <a vile slum>2: of little worth or account : common ; also : mean3: tending to degrade <vile employments>4: disgustingly or utterly bad

So the vessel of dishonor, our mortal body, is the very same vessel for which God intends mercy and glory.

And that DISHONORABLE body cannot inherit the kingdom of God...so lets not play off like this is some minor point here...

So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
(1Co 15:42-50 KJV)

The corrupt MUST be replaced by the INcorrupt...the dishonorable with the glorious.
Lets not act like things can remain dishonorable...they cannot.
The ACT commited by homosexuals is dishonorable...that HAS to change...

 

[Stinker]

Romans 1:22-28 (King James Version)





22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And 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 recompence of their error which was meet. 28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Straights turned into gays by God? No.

Romans 1:22-28 is dealing with straights that became morally depraved.



The Bible doe not address homosexuality it only addresses heterosexuality. Even though we today know that transgendered, transexuals, hermaphrodites, and homosexual men and women existed in those times.

 

[HuntingMan]

Straights turned into gays by God? No.

Do you know a thing about Roman perversion ?
They werent turned INTO gays by God...they were GIVEN OVER to the sin THEY already were involved in.

Romans 1:22-28 is dealing with straights that became morally depraved.

Romans is dealing with perverted idolators who were into all sorts of sexual depravity including having sex with ones own gender.

The Bible doe not address homosexuality it only addresses heterosexuality.

Fallacious statement...

(Lev 18:22 KJV) Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

(Lev 20:13 KJV) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

[billwald]

>" leaving the natural use of the woman"

At least we now know the natural use of/for woman. <G>

 

[OllieFranz]

Consider this a challenge to you to make it necessary

In that case, I'll have to defer until the weekend when I can devote full time to an examination of Romans 1:18-2:3 with a focus on the Greek words and phrases atimias, aschemosyne, para physis, kata physis, physiken, epithymia, pathos, orexis, ekkaio, and plane, with comparisons to the Hebrew concepts of toevah, zimmah, sheqtets, ta'ab, and cherem, and the prevalent Greek concepts and philosophies. Especially those of Plato whom Paul borrows heavily from in this passage.

 

[HuntingMan]

>" leaving the natural use of the woman"

At least we now know the natural use of/for woman. <G>

Given that the context is 'vile AFFECTIONS' I dont think it takes a rocket scientist to figure it out

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 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 recompence of their error which was meet.
(Rom 1:24-27 KJV)
​

Im very sorry but one has to be purposefully trying not to 'get it' in order to miss the clear intent there.

 

[Stinker]

Straights turned into gays by God? No. [Stinker]
​

Do you know a thing about Roman perversion ?
They werent turned INTO gays by God...they were GIVEN OVER to the sin THEY already were involved in. [HuntingMan]

Romans 1:22-28 is dealing with straights that became morally depraved. [Stinker]
​

Romans is dealing with perverted idolators who were into all sorts of sexual depravity including having sex with ones own gender. [HuntingMan]

The Bible doe not address homosexuality it only addresses heterosexuality. [Stinker]
​

Fallacious statement...

(Lev 18:22 KJV) Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

(Lev 20:13 KJV) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


"They were not turned into gays by God.......they were GIVEN OVER to the sin THEY were already involved in." [HuntingMan]

So in their believing that Aphrodite commanded homosexual sex in their worship of her, these 'straights' were GIVEN OVER to become gay?



You say that the argument that the Bible does not write from the perspective of the homosexual, transexual, transgendered, and hermaphradite, but only the heterosexual perspective....is 'fallacious' and then proceed to quote Lev.18:22 & Lev.20:13..........passages written from the heterosexual perspective!
​

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Why are there so many frothing people out there with a real BUTA about homosexuality, yet no one is trying to take away the civil rights of remarried divorcees?

I mean, the Bible ACTUALLY and specifically shows Jesus condemning divorcees getting remarried, and the best they can come up with to condemn homosexuality is extremely debateable tangential crud. But remarriage for divorcees is utterly unBiblical, no debate required.

But here we are, another thread trying to justify villification of homosexuals because of something Paul said, while the remmarried divorcees go unnoticed.

You guys know that maximum, there are about 10% of the population who self identify as homosexual, yet 50% of ALL marriages end in divorce? You tell me which is the bigger affront to God.

 

[HuntingMan]

So in their believing that Aphrodite commanded homosexual sex in their worship of her, these 'straights' were GIVEN OVER to become gay?

They were given over to the perversion they were already involved in. Its not the only time God has turned someone over to error they wanted.

You say that the argument that the Bible does not write from the perspective of the homosexual, transexual, transgendered, and hermaphradite, but only the heterosexual perspective....is 'fallacious' and then proceed to quote Lev.18:22 & Lev.20:13..........passages written from the heterosexual perspective!

say that 3 times fast boys and girls

Scripture ONLY condones and promotes male/female marriages
THAT is the assertion.
Either you can refute that assertion with evidence or you cannot.
If you need to see some evidence (yet again) for my assertion just let me know and Ill dig something up.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

They were given over to the perversion they were already involved in. Its not the only time God has turned someone over to error they wanted.

say that 3 times fast boys and girls

Scripture ONLY condones and promotes male/female marriages
THAT is the assertion.
Either you can refute that assertion with evidence or you cannot.
If you need to see some evidence (yet again) for my assertion just let me know and Ill dig something up.

One interpretation of the passage about "using people for their 'natural' use", is that its actually a condemnation of forcing homosexuals to act as heterosexuals, since that goes against their nature.

Makes sense to me.

Then of course there's the whole David/Jonathon thing... clearly a pair of homosexual lovers, and yet both considered righteous in the eys of the Lord.

 

[HuntingMan]

One interpretation of the passage about "using people for their 'natural' use", is that its actually a condemnation of forcing homosexuals to act as heterosexuals, since that goes against their nature.

Makes sense to me.

It may make sense to you, sister, but you clearly have to ignore what the passage actually SAYS.

Then of course there's the whole David/Jonathon thing... clearly a pair of homosexual lovers, and yet both considered righteous in the eys of the Lord.

Oh please....this is just another bit of propaganda from the homosexual agenda.
SHOW us where David and Jonathan were having sex
My guess is that you are simply parroting this nonsense off and havent actually READ the account or youd know not to use this absurdity.

 

[HuntingMan]

Just saw this post....

In that case, I'll have to defer until the weekend when I can devote full time to an examination of Romans 1:18-2:3 with a focus on the Greek words and phrases atimias, aschemosyne, para physis, kata physis, physiken, epithymia, pathos, orexis, ekkaio, and plane, with comparisons to the Hebrew concepts of toevah, zimmah, sheqtets, ta'ab, and cherem, and the prevalent Greek concepts and philosophies. Especially those of Plato whom Paul borrows heavily from in this passage.

Thats fine, Im in no rush.
Tho youre wasting your time if you plan on presenting material from philosophers, Ollie.
And I hardly think Paul 'borrowed' his INSPIRED message from any philosopher

 

[HuntingMan]

Why are there so many frothing people out there with a real BUTA about homosexuality, yet no one is trying to take away the civil rights of remarried divorcees?

because its apples and oranges.
the bible DOES recognize divorce and remarriage, EP....see Deut 24:1-4 for starters.
if you want to discuss this particular issue Im fully willing but START another thread because HERE its simply an off topic Red Herring.

I started one myself here
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7307151

I mean, the Bible ACTUALLY and specifically shows Jesus condemning divorcees getting remarried, and the best they can come up with to condemn homosexuality is extremely debateable tangential crud. But remarriage for divorcees is utterly unBiblical, no debate required.

Thats not entirely accurate and please do NOT turn my thread into an MDR debate..if you want to discuss this particular issue Im fully willing but START another thread because HERE its simply an off topic Red Herring.

I started one myself here
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7307151


.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

because its apples and oranges.
the bible DOES recognize divorce and remarriage, EP....see Deut 24:1-4 for starters.
if you want to discuss this particular issue Im fully willing but START another thread because HERE its simply an off topic Red Herring.

I started one myself here
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7307151


Thats not entirely accurate and please do NOT turn my thread into an MDR debate..if you want to discuss this particular issue Im fully willing but START another thread because HERE its simply an off topic Red Herring.

I started one myself here
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7307151


.

I don't see how its apples and oranges... both are considered "unBiblical". S why is one countenanced ant not the other.