What Does This Mean?

[DMagoh]

What do you think this verse means?

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Romans 1:27

 

[UberLutheran]

What do you think this verse means?

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Romans 1:27

Does it really matter what "we" think it means?

I believe fundamentalists hold to the view that Scripture is to be read absolutely literally; and even if we go into another discussion of what the text means in context with the rest of the Epistle of Romans, and in the social, political, religious, historical and linguistic context of the time it was written -- you and your fundamentalist friends will simply turn around and say, "No -- you're wrong."

Sorry, but this Charlie Brown is through kicking footballs.

 

[Brieuse]

What do you think this verse means?

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Romans 1:27

referring to ancient pagan practices

 

[HaloHope]

What do you think this verse means?

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Romans 1:27

In the cultural context of the time? Id say it was reffering to pagan practices that were taking place.

 

[HaloHope]

referring to ancient pagan practices

beat me to it

 

[Der Alte]

And lo a great multitude walketh in darkness chanting their false mantra, over and over again, "pagan practices,""pagan practices."

Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it. (Note, if this quote is not exact, talk to my lawyer, M. Shylock, Esq.)

Here is how the early church interpreted that passage, in the 2d and early 3d century. I'm sorry, I see absolutely no mention of "pagan" anything.

Tertullian The Chaplet, or De Corona. Chapter VI. [145-220 AD]

Demanding then a law of God, you have that common one [law] prevailing all over the world, engraven on the natural tables to which the apostle too is wont to appeal, as when in respect. of the woman's veil he says, "Does not even Nature teach you? " -as when to the Romans, affirming that the heathen do by nature those things which the law requires, he suggests both natural law and a law-revealing nature. Yes, and also in the first chapter of the epistle [Rom 1.] he authenticates nature, when he asserts that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature into that which is unnatural, by way of penal retribution for their error. [Rom 1:27]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.iv.vi.html

Origen Against Celsus Book 8 [185-254 AD] [student of Clement of Alexandria]

and that they often exhibit in their character a high degree of gravity, of purity, and
integrity; while those who call themselves wise have despised these virtues, and have wallowed in the filth of sodomy, in lawless lust, “men with men working that which is unseemly.” [Rom 1:27]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.ix.viii.html​

 

[Time4AChange]

What do you think this verse means?

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Romans 1:27

It obviously doesn't mean exactly what it's saying....how could you even suggest that? There's a hidden, secret meaning in that verse because God is a God of confusion, and when He says "This is wrong" thru His word, He's really trying to say "This is not wrong"? But sometimes when He says "This is wrong", He really does mean "This is wrong". It's just a toss up on what we should believe and not believe, dont you know that?

Don't you know that you have to be at a certain age of maturity and be highly intellectual before you can read the Bible? If you try reading the Bible at a young age, you'll end up believing what it says, and that's the worse possible thing you could do...you might even end up being a "conservative" Christian. Dont you know that when Jesus said that "unless we come to Him as little children, we wont inherit the Kingdom", He really meant that "unless we come to Him as intelligent, over analizing adults, who don't accept His word by faith...we wont inherit the Kingdom".

See? That verse means nothing that it says....That's like one of the Revelation verses that's written in code. Besides, im probably to young and inexperienced to understand what it means, so i wont vote.

Sorry for the sarcasm, i know im being badBut this seriously is ridiculous now.

 

[invisible trousers]

DMagoh, what does this mean?

Paul's Letter to the Romans, Chapter 1, Verses 18-32

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known of God is revealed in them, for God revealed it to them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse. Because, knowing God, they didn't glorify him as God, neither gave thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and traded the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.[/b]
For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error. Even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil habits, secret slanderers, backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them.

Why do you completely ignore all the context which explains what's going on?

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]DMagoh, what does this mean?

[SIZE=-1]Paul's Letter to the Romans, Chapter 1, Verses 18-32[/SIZE]

Why do you completely ignore all the context which explains what's going on?[/SIZE]

Did the 2d century early church fathers whom I quoted/linked to in this post, 2 posts above yours, also "ignore all the context?"

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=35835225&postcount=6

Or is it you who is ignoring the context, trying to make the passage fit your assumptions/presuppositions?

 

[UberLutheran]

DMagoh, what does this mean?



Why do you completely ignore all the context which explains what's going on?

Because in this case, Romans 1:26-32 is a "proof-test" used to justify hating gays. It's why the verse you presented, and the verse I've presented (Romans 2:1-4) are irrelevant. They're not part of the fundy PC lexicon.

Excuse me -- "justifying hating gays" should be, "loving the sinner and hating the sin".

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Because in this case, Romans 1:26-32 is a "proof-test" used to justify hating gays. It's why the verse you presented, and the verse I've presented (Romans 2:1-4) are irrelevant. They're not part of the fundy PC lexicon.

Excuse me -- "justifying hating gays" should be, "loving the sinner and hating the sin". [/SIZE]

I guess the early church fathers, Tertullian and Origen, in the 2d century, were also "Fundys" citing, "Romans 1:26-32 is a "proof-test" used to justify hating gays"

See post Post #6 above.

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

UberLutheran covered it pretty well (which is why Der Alter skipped over him. You know when the anti-Gays here know they're wrong when they can't even find a way to put words in your mouth).

 

[Brieuse]

Did the 2d century early church fathers whom I quoted/linked to in this post, 2 posts above yours, also "ignore all the context?"

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=35835225&postcount=6

Or is it you who is ignoring the context, trying to make the passage fit your assumptions/presuppositions?

Ignore context? lol. You you you.