Oh those Vile Affections

[Paul Hazelwood]

Ro 1:26 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:



Any reference to this verse usually is that of sexuality and is also used to promote the cause against lesbianism. I don't think that the emphasis in scripture is largely about such issues, I think it has been steered that way because of religions banner sin syndrome.

I realize that another view point does not inherantly negate one that is disagreed with, I am just saying if this post causes someone to be adamant about bringing it up, PLEASE start another thread and I will participate there.


I want to also clarify that as I explain this that I have resolved the treatment I received a long time ago, I use this for example purposes only.

I was raised in a Christian home that did not "spare the rod" in fact I think I was raised in the factory that made those rod so there was an ample supply, if you get my drift. 

The whole idea was this was pleasing to God and  I believe that child abuse in that fashion is a vile affection, and womens natural use is that of nurturing and I think there are a large number of Christian women who are not nurturing and their vile affection has changed their natural use.   In society in general there are fewer and fewer nurturing women.

I think the emphasis here is the lack of real love and the roles we have in being Love.

[Molly]

Children should never be hurt, much less abused.  The shepherd used his rod for guiding the sheep into the pen, not for beating them--as if a shepherd would ever beat his own sheep or any sheep.  Ridiculous.

Children are precious and should always be treated with the utmost love, affectionate attention, and respect.

Having said that--the Bible is pretty clear about what is meant is something physical, having to do with lust or passion--



[vile] "affections"

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



..for even their women did change the natural use..





"natural"


G5446
φυσικός
phusikos
foo-see-kos'
From G5449; "physical", that is, (by implication) instinctive: - natural. Compare G5591.



"use"


G5540
χρῆσις
chrēsis
khray'-sis
From G5530; employment, that is, (specifically) sexual intercourse (as an occupation of the body): - use.



..into that which is against nature.


"nature"

G5449
φύσις
phusis
foo'-sis
From G5453; growth (by germination or expansion), that is, (by implication) natural production (lineal descent); by extension a genus or sort; figuratively native disposition, constitution or usage: - ([man-]) kind, nature ([-al]).


Those are the words, you can decide the meaning.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Having said that--the Bible is pretty clear about what is meant is something physical, having to do with lust or passion--

Not really,  there is much people do not understand about the physical and make their conclusions based upon tradition and their own opinion.

[Molly]

Having said that--the Bible is pretty clear about what is meant is something physical, having to do with lust or passion--

Not really,  there is much people do not understand about the physical and make their conclusions based upon tradition and their own opinion.

I have no tradition in this regard, other than being a daughter and a mother, and my opinion would be based on trying to read the words in context--

The context and the sentence continues--



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.


--Rom 1

and womens natural use is that of nurturing and I think there are a large number of Christian women who are not nurturing and their vile affection has changed their natural use.   In society in general there are fewer and fewer nurturing women.

I agree that a natural use would be nurturing of the young, and, indeed, there are plenty of stories of mothers who would give up their own lives to protect and save their children.  We even see this most basic of instincts in the animal kingdom.  I would hate to think that there are fewer and fewer nurturing women, but maybe you are right, maybe women have overridden their natural instincts to nurture their children by giving them over to a more or less detached society to raise.  But then, I am one who believes that women should stay home and raise their children.  Yet, you seem to be implying that this is not the problem, that the women themselves are somehow being perverted even if they are staying home and raising them--so I'm willing to listen as to how you think this would happen, other than the obvious conclusion of generational abuse.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Having said that--the Bible is pretty clear about what is meant is something physical, having to do with lust or passion--

Not really,  there is much people do not understand about the physical and make their conclusions based upon tradition and their own opinion.

I have no tradition in this regard, other than being a daughter and a mother, and my opinion would be based on trying to read the words in context--

The context and the sentence continues--



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.


--Rom 1

and womens natural use is that of nurturing and I think there are a large number of Christian women who are not nurturing and their vile affection has changed their natural use.   In society in general there are fewer and fewer nurturing women.

I agree that a natural use would be nurturing of the young, and, indeed, there are plenty of stories of mothers who would give up their own lives to protect and save their children.  We even see this most basic of instincts in the animal kingdom.  I would hate to think that there are fewer and fewer nurturing women, but maybe you are right, maybe women have overridden their natural instincts to nurture their children by giving them over to a more or less detached society to raise.  But then, I am one who believes that women should stay home and raise their children.  Yet, you seem to be implying that this is not the problem, that the women themselves are somehow being perverted even if they are staying home and raising them--so I'm willing to listen as to how you think this would happen, other than the obvious conclusion of generational abuse.

I have not implied anything other than what I intended to write.   I am sorry but posting the definitions of words does not tell me what you have just elaborated about so I thank you for doing so.

Yes, I am saying that a stay at home mother has not done anything natural or of proper use just by staying home if that time is spent emotionally or physically abusing her children.

You ARE partly right however as women forsake their nurturing role in life and kids are raised primarily in day care while they advance their careers.   

In either case the woman who works or the woman who stays at home does not have an inherant position that is superior to the other.

[Molly]

Yes, I am saying that a stay at home mother has not done anything natural or of proper use just by staying home if that time is spent emotionally or physically abusing her children.

I would certainly agree with that.  But, the question is why that would be occurring and if the Bible comments on why that would be occurring.

I'm not sure how you could lay that at the feet of Christianity--did Christ ever abuse children?  No, he said that such are the kingdom of heaven.

So where in the New Testament would you get the excuse to abuse your children?

[Paul Hazelwood]

Yes, I am saying that a stay at home mother has not done anything natural or of proper use just by staying home if that time is spent emotionally or physically abusing her children.

I would certainly agree with that.  But, the question is why that would be occurring and if the Bible comments on why that would be occurring.

I'm not sure how you could lay that at the feet of Christianity--did Christ ever abuse children?  No, he said that such are the kingdom of heaven.

So where in the New Testament would you get the excuse to abuse your children?

The why is because we are subject to imperfection and people seek the comfort with in it.

I'm not sure how you could lay that at the feet of Christianity

Easy,  when this institution of people are so sure that they are "Christ" then their feet is the only place it should go.

[Molly]

Easy,  when this institution of people are so sure that they are "Christ" then their feet is the only place it should go.

I still don't understand.  I've been a Christian all my life, and never was I taught that it was ok to even hit children, much less abuse them.  I was taught the opposite, in fact.

If someone is teaching otherwise, let them justify it from scripture in the New Testament.  I'd like to see that scripture.

You know, just because people are doing the wrong thing, does not make it right. 

[Paul Hazelwood]

Easy,  when this institution of people are so sure that they are "Christ" then their feet is the only place it should go.

I still don't understand.  I've been a Christian all my life, and never was I taught that it was ok to even hit children, much less abuse them.  I was taught the opposite, in fact.

If someone is teaching otherwise, let them justify it from scripture in the New Testament.  I'd like to see that scripture.

Well Molly, I am not sure what else I can say, obviously my points do not apply to you personally. 

Other than that perhaps it is my own experiences and observations and talking with people over the years and their problems and how their parents disciplined them in the name of God that I can make this correlation.

I think if a verse is incorrectly applied to a sect of society then the people it should apply to are not given the proper instruction so it can lead to a false view of what is right.   

[Molly]

Easy,  when this institution of people are so sure that they are "Christ" then their feet is the only place it should go.

I still don't understand.  I've been a Christian all my life, and never was I taught that it was ok to even hit children, much less abuse them.  I was taught the opposite, in fact.

If someone is teaching otherwise, let them justify it from scripture in the New Testament.  I'd like to see that scripture.

Well Molly, I am not sure what else I can say, obviously my points do not apply to you personally. 

Other than that perhaps it is my own experiences and observations and talking with people over the years and their problems and how their parents disciplined them in the name of God that I can make this correlation.

I think if a verse is incorrectly applied to a sect of society then the people it should apply to are not given the proper instruction so it can lead to a false view of what is right.   

Then, it's our obligation to set them right whenever we can, isn't it?   All we can do is witness to the truth as effectively as we possibly can because we are the church--every one of us.  And, it is to God alone to whom we owe our allegiance and responsibility.  If we are right or wrong, then let God deal with us.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Then, it's our obligation to set them right whenever we can, isn't it?   All we can do is witness to the truth as effectively as we possibly can because we are the church--every one of us.  And, it is to God alone to whom we owe our allegiance and responsibility.  If we are right or wrong, then let God deal with us.

Yep and exactly why I made this thread here and speak my mind about it when I see it.

[Molly]

Abuse of children is a terrible problem and it comes in many forms, in some blatant and in many subtle ways.

We all know about the scandal in the Catholic church, but do we blame the church, certain men within the church, Christianity, or the Bible?

Nowhere in the New Testament are such abominations allowed.  So could they justify it somehow?  I think not.  Jesus is very explicit on the subject.


Luke 17:2

2It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Abuse of children is a terrible problem and it comes in many forms, in some blatant and in many subtle ways.

We all know about the scandal in the Catholic church, but do we blame the church, certain men within the church, Christianity, or the Bible?

Nowhere in the New Testament are such abominations allowed.  So could they justify it somehow?  I think not.  Jesus is very explicit on the subject.


Luke 17:2

2It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

We certainly can blame an instutution that falsely props up the quality of celibacy through their use of scripture about it.

[Molly]

Abuse of children is a terrible problem and it comes in many forms, in some blatant and in many subtle ways.

We all know about the scandal in the Catholic church, but do we blame the church, certain men within the church, Christianity, or the Bible?

Nowhere in the New Testament are such abominations allowed.  So could they justify it somehow?  I think not.  Jesus is very explicit on the subject.


Luke 17:2

2It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

We certainly can blame an instutution that falsely props up the quality of celibacy through their use of scripture about it.

well, yeah, they might prop up many things that might be considered erroneous through a [mis]use of scripture.  But, as Paul pointed out, celibacy is not the problem.  In fact, he said it was better to be celibate--if you can.   It's possible to be celibate without developing an unholy attraction to little children, not to mention breaking the laws of God and man.

I think it would be more realistic to say that the guilt lies on men within the church propping up perverts.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Abuse of children is a terrible problem and it comes in many forms, in some blatant and in many subtle ways.

We all know about the scandal in the Catholic church, but do we blame the church, certain men within the church, Christianity, or the Bible?

Nowhere in the New Testament are such abominations allowed.  So could they justify it somehow?  I think not.  Jesus is very explicit on the subject.


Luke 17:2

2It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

We certainly can blame an instutution that falsely props up the quality of celibacy through their use of scripture about it.

well, yeah, they might prop up many things that might be considered erroneous through a [mis]use of scripture.  But, as Paul pointed out, celibacy is not the problem.  In fact, he said it was better to be celibate--if you can.   It's possible to be celibate without developing an unholy attraction to little children, not to mention breaking the laws of God and man.

It is easy to allow a system that corrupts minds off the hook when it's erroneous use of scripture combined with the co dependant and isolated nature of the catholic heiarchy feeds the carnal mind into such things. Not to mention the inherant idea that the instructions given are inerrant.   A vile affection would be trying to be celibate under the instruction that you can over come sexual desire through human ritual disguised as Gods way.

You also have to realize that for the majority of time that the catholic church has been around it has been almost impervious to outside influence.   Only since those barriers have been broken through societal law has these abuses been uncovered.  It is fair to conclude that more have not been caught than anyone wants to admit.


Honestly, my points have NOT been about taking scripture and justifying abuse, it is showing that  what tradition has used a verse for is wrong and using it correctly will uncover what we are talking about through the spirit.

If perhaps someone who may see what they justify in Gods name is a vile affection, maybe they might stop.   I don't know, but I put these thoughts out there because I am not going to be afraid to do so.  

It is exactly what I am talking about that caused me to STOP justifying some ways of teaching my children that I believed was ok in Gods eyes because it was handed down to me.  

Seeing that I was engaging in a vile affection towards my children opened my eyes to greater things and healing took place because it was of Gods spirit that revelation was found, not meaningless tradition.