My Issues With Romans One

[Shadow Wolf]

No, rather the passages you refer to @idav in your discussion with @Shadow Wolf and the entire letter itself is written as a subversive treatise designed to undermine, subtly and without incurring the punitive action of the Roman state, the intellectual foundations of the Roman "imperial cult" which elevated a mere human being to divine status (a priest-king) and mandated his worship as a living god.

You haven't addressed the hubris and arrogance of Paul over such things where he claims those that deny the existence of god are basically lying to themselves and denying things they know.

 

[Vouthon]

We've already cited Bible verses that state otherwise.

People do not choose their sexual orientation. Homosexuals choose to be homosexual no more or less than a heterosexual chooses to be heterosexual.

It has not been established that this "free will" exists. Even some Christian denominations reject it.

In terms of the "free will" debate in relation to that article by two psychologists, there is no consensus in the relevant academic disciplines either way.

Some scientists are firm in upholding the concept of conscious agency, as in the quantum physicist Nicolas Gisin:

[1011.3440] Are There Quantum Effects Coming from Outside Space-time? Nonlocality, free will and "no many-worlds"


And the physicist Anton Zeilinger (who was awarded the Bell Prize last year):

Zeilinger : That's right. I call that the two freedoms: first the freedom of the experimenter in choosing the measuring equipment - that depends on my freedom of will; and then the freedom of nature in giving me the answer it pleases. The one freedom conditions the other, so to speak. This is a very fine property. It's too bad the philosophers don't spend more time thinking about it.

Interviewer : I'd like to come back to these freedoms. First, if you assumed there were no freedom of the will – and there are said to be people who take this position – then you could do away with all the craziness of quantum mechanics in one go.

Zeilinger : True – but only if you assume a completely determined world where everything that happened, absolutely everything, were fixed in a vast network of cause and effect. Then sometime in the past there would be an event that determined both my choice of the measuring instrument and the particle's behaviour. Then my choice would no longer be a choice, the random accident would be no accident and the action at a distance would not be action at a distance.

Interviewer : Could you get used to such an idea?

Zeilinger : I can't rule out that the world is in fact like that. But for me the freedom to ask questions to nature is one of the most essential achievements of natural science. It's a discovery of the Renaissance. For the philosophers and theologians of the time, it must have seemed incredibly presumptuousness that people suddenly started carrying out experiments and asking questions of nature and deducing laws of nature, which are in fact the business of God. For me every experiment stands or falls with the fact that I'm free to ask the questions and carry out the measurements I want. If that were all determined, then the laws of nature would only appear to be laws, and the entire natural sciences would collapse.

Interviewer : Are there physicists who advocate complete determinism?

Zeilinger : I've met one. At the time I was a lot younger and cheekier than I am today, and I intentionally insulted him publicly at a conference. He was incensed. I said to him: "Why are you getting so upset? Neither you nor I are free in what we do."​

Others are firm in their conviction that subconscious processes determine the contents of our consciousness, with "executive" determination on the part of awakened mind being an illusion.

So, its contested as it always has been.

You see, the neuronal basis of conscious activity and decision-making have not yet been located in the brain, as the authors of that study referenced by @Sunstone make clear in the paper:

Chasing the Rainbow: The Non-conscious Nature of Being

Our account does not aim to explain, the other feature of the “hard problem”—namely the question as to why we have subjective experience at all.

A major challenge for the future lies however in the discovery of the neural mechanisms underlying personal awareness...

A related problem for any line of research that takes personal awareness as its focus is that of devising an objective means of determining its presence. Currently, we infer the existence of personal awareness in others by virtue of a commonality we share in belonging to the same species and having the same neural apparatus and mental states...​

The researchers try to skirt around this but its actually the key question, which would result in the discoverer being awarded the Nobel Prize. Until the neural correlates are positively identified, the question will continue to be highly debatable - indeed, perhaps even after since consciousness is such a subjective area of study and exceedingly difficult to scrutinize using objective scientific tests.

 

[Faithofchristian]

We've already cited Bible verses that state otherwise.

People do not choose their sexual orientation. Homosexuals choose to be homosexual no more or less than a heterosexual chooses to be heterosexual.

It has not been established that this "free will" exists. Even some Christian denominations reject it.

Romans 1:28--"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge.

Those like Atheists, homosexualls do not like to retain God in their knowledge,

"God gave them over to a reprobate mind"

If Atheists or homosexualls wants to live that life style, Then God will let you go for it.
"To do those things which are not convenient"

Meaning of Convenient, to fit in one's activities or plans.

Therefore those things are not convenient in God's plans.

You really think I care what other Christians believe's. Other Christians will go long with what ever the world will go long with.

I have no issues with Romans one.
But Atheists and homosexualls will.

 

[Vouthon]

You haven't addressed the hubris and arrogance of Paul over such things where he claims those that deny the existence of god are basically lying to themselves and denying things they know.

Actually, I did allude to it:

Understood in context, Romans is not arguing in favour of a "God who gets angry at atheists for "denying the truth" and turns them into the most wicked people", nor is Paul even referring specifically to atheists or even all idol-worshipping pagans, even less declaring that divine judgement is coming to condemn them all. Indeed, if you read just a little later into the epistle, you will find that Paul explicitly praises non-believing Gentiles who adhere to their God-given conscience as earnestly as possible (comparing them positively with Jews, and presumably Christians, who know the revealed law of God yet do not live in accordance with it) and opines that their sincerity may lead God to excuse their idolatry/rejection of the Judaeo-Christian God on Judgement Day...

No, rather the passages you refer to @idav in your discussion with @Shadow Wolf and the entire letter itself is written as a subversive treatise designed to undermine, subtly and without incurring the punitive action of the Roman state, the intellectual foundations of the Roman "imperial cult" which elevated a mere human being to divine status (a priest-king) and mandated his worship as a living god.

The author of Wisdom argues that this cult, justifying absolutist rule in the form of a supremely all-powerful God-Emperor, arose from imperial misappropriation of "mystery cults" where practitioners engaged in all manner of sordid and debased behaviour that originally arose from human beings becoming inconsolable at the untimely death of their children and then fashioning idols of stone, which they then worshipped and passed on to others in the form of secretive rites.
​

Paul isn't talking in generalized terms about "atheists": that's just not who his words are directed against. If you go back to the source of his thought in Wisdom and in the wider context of the entire message of his letter, it becomes clear that he is condemning the beliefs of the practitioners of the "divine emperor" cult as part of his message of the alternative kingship of Christ.

I would love to hear how many atheists you know worship emperors or political leaders as living gods, in the form of idols? I don't know any, perhaps you can enlighten me. You cannot properly interpret a single verse by plucking it entirely out of context, oblivious as to its source material and situation as part of a wider argument.

He is speaking about a group of specific "idolaters" belonging to the mystery cults first described in a specific source Wisdom (his base text) and worshipping the emperor, a creature, as a god (also described in Wisdom). Atheists do not worship graven images of human beings as gods - obviously. Atheists don't worship any divinities, so attempts to link it to them are nonsense - as are all pagans, anywhere and everywhere, since the base text makes distinctions and Paul himself recognises the sincerity of other Gentile pagans. So the passages in Romans are not applicable to atheists, as their corresponding base text in Wisdom of Solomon isn't either.

I will also be writing more on his theology in respect of that verse about "giving them up to passions" later.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I have no issues with Romans one.
But Atheists and homosexualls will.

 

[idav]

I have no issues with Romans one.
But Atheists and homosexualls will.

Not so fast, Romans suggests atheists don't really exist, and that people are turned to depravity for purposely denying Truth.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In terms of the "free will" debate in relation to that article by two psychologists, there is no consensus in the relevant academic disciplines either way. I am myself undecided as far as the question goes scientifically.

The notion of free will is crucial to many denominations of Christianity, in that either we have the free will to accept Jesus as Savior, or we have no will to do so and it's all predetermined by god.

Those like Atheists, homosexualls do not like to retain God in their knowledge,

Many homosexuals are religious; a good number of them are even Christian.

You really think I care what other Christians believe's. Other Christians will go long with what ever the world will go long with.

It's the idea that there has never been a real agreement as to what Christianity entails. In this case it's a disagreement as to whether or not free will actually exists or not. A Calvinist would argue that because sin so corrupted us, we cannot even freely express faith in Christ. And not only that, God ultimately decides what happens in Earth, meaning we would have no free will because it could potentially contradict and conflict with god's will.

 

[Vouthon]

The notion of free will is crucial to many denominations of Christianity, in that either we have the free will to accept Jesus as Savior, or we have no will to do so and it's all predetermined by god.

Yes, that's true - but I was referring to your claim that science is now suggesting we don't have volition over the contents of our consciousness. There is actually no consensus either way in the relevant academic disciplines about this, and the study provided by our friend @Sunstone didn't try to grapple with the neuronal basis of consciousness (which remains unknown), nor did it offer any new evidence: it rather summarized past research and offered further explanations of the researchers' particular "model".

In terms of Christian denominations: it should be noted that Sirach, a deuterocanonical book composed circa 200 to 175 BCE and which is regarded as sacred scripture by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox (collectively accounting for a majority of the world's Christians), has an uncompromising position on the "free will" debate that is so clear that exegetes can't really get around it:

Sirach 15

Freedom of Choice

11 Do not say, “It was the Lord’s doing that I fell away”;
for he does not do what he hates.
12 Do not say, “It was he who led me astray”;
for he has no need of the sinful.
13 The Lord hates all abominations;
such things are not loved by those who fear him.
14 It was he who created humankind in the beginning,
and he left them in the power of their own free choice.
15 If you choose, you can keep the commandments,
and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice.
16 He has placed before you fire and water;
stretch out your hand for whichever you choose.
17 Before each person are life and death,
and whichever one chooses will be given.
18 For great is the wisdom of the Lord;
he is mighty in power and sees everything;
19 his eyes are on those who fear him,
and he knows every human action.
20 He has not commanded anyone to be wicked,
and he has not given anyone permission to sin.​

So, as a matter of faith (as opposed to science), Christians who regard Sirach as sacred scripture are basically bound to have belief in human free will.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Not so fast, Romans suggests atheists don't really exist, and that people are turned to depravity for purposely denying Truth.

Maybe you should read all of Romans one again it's very plain to see that Atheists are spoken about also.
So by all means explain, "For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes" Romans 1:16
Atheists are known not to believe in God.

Romans 1:20--"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"
Atheists are known not to believe in the creation or the Godhead.

It looks very plain to see, that Atheists are spoken of in Romans one.

 

[Faithofchristian]

The notion of free will is crucial to many denominations of Christianity, in that either we have the free will to accept Jesus as Savior, or we have no will to do so and it's all predetermined by god.

Many homosexuals are religious; a good number of them are even Christian.

It's the idea that there has never been a real agreement as to what Christianity entails. In this case it's a disagreement as to whether or not free will actually exists or not. A Calvinist would argue that because sin so corrupted us, we cannot even freely express faith in Christ. And not only that, God ultimately decides what happens in Earth, meaning we would have no free will because it could potentially contradict and conflict with god's will.

That just goes to show, that you have no clue or idea what makes a Christian to be a Christian.

 

[idav]

Maybe you should read all of Romans one again it's very plain to see that Atheists are spoken about also.
So by all means explain, "For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes" Romans 1:16
Atheists are known not to believe in God.

Romans 1:20--"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"
Atheists are known not to believe in the creation or the Godhead.

It looks very plain to see, that Atheists are spoken of in Romans one.

The "godless" are spoken of as in people purposely denying what is "clearly seen". That's not someone who doesn't believe it is someone denying the truth. Romans claims atheist can't exist because people can plainly see so they are "with no excuse".

 

[Vouthon]

The "godless" are spoken of as in people purposely denying what is "clearly seen". That's not someone who doesn't believe it is someone denying the truth. Romans claims atheist can't exist because people can plainly see so they are "with no excuse".

But idav...the passage is not talking about something called "atheism" or questioning the existence of atheist belief.

The "godless" you refer to are the same "godless" mentioned in Wisdom, and in both that text and Romans they are polytheists belonging to the mystery cults who worship the emperor as a living god. Both texts also clearly state that there are gentile pagans - polytheists - who will not be held accountable for their "idolatry". So it isn't meant to be a blanket statement either.

To treat the text as a denial of the existence of atheism is to completely de-contexualize it.

My prior posts went into significant detail regarding the source material Paul used for the very passages of Romans that you are discussing, and their place in his overall argument throughout the epistle.

 

[idav]

@idav and @Shadow Wolf : in order to engage in an informed exegesis of the introductory chapter from the Epistle to the Romans, it is essential for you both to have some familiarity with the source of Paul's thinking in these passages.

The relevant material can be found in the deuterocanonical Wisdom of Solomon, a Hellenistic Jewish text composed circa 150 BCE - early 1st century BCE that is considered to be sacred scripture by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christians, whilst being included in the apocrypha section of most Anglican and Lutheran bibles. Martin Luther translated Wisdom in 1529 for inclusion in his German Bible, penning a lengthy preface to the book. Luther rejected the canonicity of Wisdom but placed a very high value on the book itself for Christian growth. Here is a selection from his much more extensive preface:

“[T]here are many good things in this book, and it is well worth reading . . . It pleases me beyond measure that the author here extols the Word of God so highly, and ascribes to the Word all the wonders God has performed, both on enemies and in his saints.

This is the foremost reason why it is well to read this book: one may learn to fear and trust God. To that end may he graciously help us. Amen.” (Luther’s Works, vol. 35, pp. 343-345).
​

Accordingly, I would strongly urge you to read a translation of this text from the NRSV Bible, here:


Bible Gateway passage: Wisdom 1 - New Revised Standard Version


Now, as to its influence upon Paul's theology in Romans, here are some snippets from the extensive scholarly literature:

Stephen Barton., Where Shall Wisdom Be Found? Wisdom in the Bible (2005) p. 112:

"Wisdom of Solomon is an important background source for Paul's thought in Romans, especially in his condemnation of human sin and idolatry in Rom 1.18-32. Likewise, his account of the ruler's authority as God-given in Romans 13 owes much to Wisdom 6.1-11"

Linebaugh, A.J. God,. Grace, and Righteousness: Wisdom of Solomon and Paul's Letter to the Romans in Conversation (2011)

"The lexical and thematic parallels between Wisdom 13-15 and Romans 1.18-2.5, and to a lesser extent Wisdom 10-12 (or 10-19) and Romans 9-11, have often been noted"

Watson, F., Paul and the Hermeneutics Of Faith (2004):

"Romans 1:18-32 follows Wisdom 13-14 not just at individual points but in the whole construction of the argument. Both writers argue that the true God might have been known by way of the created order, but that the opportunity has been wasted; that the most fundamental error is the manufacture and worship of idols; that idolatry is the root of all other evils; and that those who commit such sins are subject to divine punishment. While the differences are real and important, there appears to be little or nothing in either text with which the other of the other would have disagreed." (408)

​

There are many studies by biblical scholars - of all theological persuasions, or lack thereof - which have argued for a close relationship (literary dependence, or at the very least significant allusion and familiarity), between Pauline epistles like Romans, 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians on one hand and the Wisdom of Solomon on the other.

St. Paul must have been very familiar with Wisdom of Solomon and obviously valued it as a reference point, or source of inspiration, for his theology - especially in his condemnation of sin. This is such that in his chapter on "Natural Theology in the Jewish Tradition" in the book Biblical Faith And Natural Theology (1994), the Scottish Old Testament scholar James Barr averred that he would "give pride of place to one particular document, the Wisdom of Solomon; for it shows an unusually high similarity to aspects of Paul's language and thought", stating moreover:


https://www.giffordlectures.org/boo...-theology/4-natural-theology-jewish-tradition

Since he came so close to its diction at a number of points, the probability is that that he knew the book [Wisdom of Solomon], and, if he knew the book, that it did count for him as an authoritative religious text. If not, it does not matter much for our immediate purpose, because it means only that Paul belonged, though independently, to a very similar tradition of thought. That this was so can be demonstrated from another aspect shared by Wisdom and by Paul, an aspect which by common consent should belong very definitely to revealed theology: namely the understanding of the first man, Adam, in relation to death and immortality. To this therefore we have to devote some attention....But all these things, which are lacking in the Genesis text itself, and which are found in Paul and are essential to his argument, are found first in the Wisdom of Solomon and found there together.​

Indeed, Paul appears to make allusions to this intertestamental text throughout his letters - even to the extent of basing his introductory argument in Romans upon it. Both texts progress by means of the exact same movement of thought: i.e. the idolaters should have been capable of perceiving God through knowledge from created things, rather than worshipping the creature and so are "without excuse" (Wisdom 13.1-9; Romans 1.19-20); the Gentiles rather turned to the idolatrous worship of created things as gods (Wisdom 13.2,7; Rom. 1.22-23, 25). Their ignorance of God (Wisdom 14.22; Rom. 1.21) in turn resulted in them going on to perpetrate all manner of sinfulness, including murder, theft, deceit and sexual promiscuity (Wisdom 14.22-27; Rom. 1.24, 26-31). God's righteous judgement therefore remains on those who practice such abominable deeds (Wisdom 14.30-31; Romans 1.32).

Dr. Richard Goode of the Newman Research Centre for the Bible has calculated using a "wordcloud" derived from Appendix IV in Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edn that Paul alludes to Wisdom of Solomon throughout his epistles far more than to any other apochryphal/intertestamental text:


Which book of the Apocrypha did Paul use most?

Which book of the Apocrypha did Paul use most?

Bearing in mind Paul’s theology and his mission, as with his use of the Tanakh, it is not particularly surprising to find that he makes the most allusions (by a very long margin) to the Wisdom of Solomon...

The Wisdom of Solomon shares with Paul an inclusive theology in which God is concerned with all human beings (including those outside the Jewish nation) and is universally active. It also explicitly develops the idea of immortality. Importantly, immortality is expressed here as being a gift from God to the righteous, rather than being an inherent quality of the human soul (as in Greek thought)...

Which of Paul’s letters contain most allusions?

By far, the most allusions are found in Paul’s letter to the Romans with a total of 76 instances. The Wisdom of Solomon is particularly prominent, especially within the first few chapters – perhaps reflecting their shared belief that wisdom (and the divine) can be learnt through an observation of creation. In the first chapter it has been claimed that there are ten intertestamental allusions...

It is probably not unexpected that the only letter to contain no allusions is Philemon. It might also be significant that the disputed and Pastoral letters tend to have far fewer instances, perhaps indicating a greater distance between Christian thought and language, and non-canonical Jewish literature.

​

In other words: should you aspire to properly interpret "Romans" in its first century intellectual context, then you need to read and understand Wisdom of Solomon as a pretext for this exercise, since it is the base text around, or rather upon which, the Apostle Paul frames his argument.

In my next post, I'm going to explain what a contextualized reading of Wisdom and Romans in parallel tells us about how to understand what is being communicated.

This is interesting that Paul was actually referencing something, I will look at those wisdom verses thanks.

 

[Faithofchristian]

The "godless" are spoken of as in people purposely denying what is "clearly seen". That's not someone who doesn't believe it is someone denying the truth. Romans claims atheist can't exist because people can plainly see so they are "with no excuse".

When Atheists deny's the existence of God.they are also denying the truth of God.

Atheists are godless, Atheists do not believe in God, so they are godless.

 

[idav]

When Atheists deny's the existence of God.they are also denying the truth of God.

Atheists are godless, Atheists do not believe in God, so they are godless.

It's actually a reference to pagans and their idolatries. The atheism romans is referring to sounds more like someone who still thinks god exists but is angry and chooses evil over good.

 

[Deeje]

Romans 1:1-13 is pure hubris IMO but we can discuss that further if you like. Who is claiming Paul an apostle and why is it assumed Paul would be the greatest thing to hit Rome, because he has followers?

Accusing Paul of hubris means what? Was he proud and arrogant like he was as a Pharisee persecuting the followers of Jesus? Or was he confident because he was brought to his knees by the son of God and shown exactly what he was doing from God's perspective? (Acts ch 9) His experience on the road to Damascus gave him that confidence.....heaven knows he had nothing to gain by converting to Christianity. He suffered greatly because of it, mostly from his own people. Jesus made him aware of what he would suffer.

Also, in these verses it is important to understand what an "apostle" is. It simply means "one sent forth". There were many apostles that were not part of "the Twelve" ; these were specifically chosen by Jesus to be his initial disciples and the ones who would instruct others after Jesus' departure.
These were chosen after a whole night in prayer with his Father. Paul was not one of the Twelve, but chosen as "an apostle to the nations", (Romans 11:13) meaning that his was a special assignment.

Unlike those who became apostles later, Paul was not instructed by the Twelve, but by the resurrected Jesus Christ himself...."a chosen vessel" (Acts 9:15-16) and an extreme example of an arrogant Pharisee bent on silencing the followers of Jesus who was brought to his knees by the very one whose teachings he was trying to stamp out.

In 2 Peter 3:15 we have one of the Twelve calling Paul a "beloved brother". Since the Twelve were close companions of Jesus and guided by holy spirit, Paul's credentials are not to be questioned, otherwise we would have to question the credentials of all the apostles. It was prophesied that one of Christ's closest companions would betray him....it wasn't Paul, who never met Jesus in the flesh. He was used to write more contributions to the Christian scriptures than any of the other apostles, some of whom wrote nothing at all.

Since Paul was an educated Pharisee, (Philippians 3:5...unlike the uneducated ones chosen initially) his education and his knowledge of scripture, as well as his Roman citizenship were utilized to serve the interests of the Kingdom to those of the Gentile nations. His own people saw him as an apostate and tried to do away with him on many occasions.

In Romans 1:18 however it quickly becomes about god showing its wrath on the wicked. This claim in this verse however says more than evil wickedness, it claims that god shows wrath because of "godlessness and wickedness" and that "truth is suppressed by wickedness". All this is an interesting claim regarding. The part that really gets interesting is in Romans 1:24 where it says, "therefore god gave them to sinful desires". This IMO seems problematic for many reasons. First off it makes god the one creating evil for being rejected. That actually supports other scripture that god hardens hearts.

Romans 1:18..."For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness"

Can God get angry? You bet! But what makes him angry? What makes any parent angry?

"Ungodliness" means what?......It means behaving in a way that ignores the laws of God. How do people do that....especially in our day? Do many of them even acknowledge that they might be "ungodly"? Do they know what it means.....and do they care?

What is "unrighteousness"? It is defined as ....

1. injustice, of a judge
2. unrighteousness of heart and life
3. a deed violating law and justice, act of unrighteousness

Genesis 1:1 (NASB)

So again, do people know what "unrighteousness" is from the Biblical standpoint...and do they care?

It isn't ignorant wickedness.....it is knowing the right thing to do and then deliberately NOT doing it.

Continuing in its rejection of "godlessness" Romans 1:28-29 says that god turns those depraved people to "every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity"

Romans 1:24-27....is especially interesting given the situation in which this world now finds itself.

"Therefore, God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, so that their bodies might be dishonored among them. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the Creator, who is praised forever. Amen. 26 That is why God gave them over to uncontrolled sexual passion, for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 likewise also the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full penalty, which was due for their error."

This is very specific in its content. In a world where many people are now finding themselves accepting of all the things Paul mentioned as condemned by God....even so-called 'Christians' are siding with those who are committing acts that God calls "obscene". Condoning the conduct, even if you do not commit the wrong yourself, makes you equally guilty before God.

Romans 1:32....
"Although these know full well the righteous decree of God—that those practicing such things are deserving of death—they not only keep on doing them but also approve of those practicing them."

'Giving these ones over' to their own sinful desires is what allows God to judge us individually.....being caught in the act of being who we truly are with no fear of punishment because it is not immediate. (a slow death of course, comes with STD's like AIDS or other sexually transmitted infections....which are a natural result of illicit sex)
If we accept as "normal" what the Creator considers as 'obscene', then we have condemned ourselves. Its not like we can claim ignorance.

As the Creator, he has the right to set limits and to make rules for free willed beings.....otherwise things end up just like they are now....no limits....out of control....the will of one overriding the will of others.

All this doesn't sound like a god that gives people choices but gets angry at atheists for "denying the truth" and turns them into the most wicked people. Why would God release these evil people on the world allowing such "evil wickedness"? Also why would God turn women and men to lesbian and homosexuals if it's so incorrect Romans 1:26-27? That really sounds like the writers obsession with what Romans were doing.

God gives all humans the choice of obeying him or not. Some do it naturally because they are spiritually minded by nature. Others have to be convinced and once they see the wisdom of God's rules will comply. Still others will never comply no matter how much evidence you give them. They don't care about what anyone says...they just want to do what they want, but then complain if there's a dissenting voice or a penalty.

God turns no one into anything...we do that ourselves. We have all the knowledge and we all have the same choices.

 

[Faithofchristian]

It's actually a reference to pagans and their idolatries. The atheism romans is referring to sounds more like someone who still thinks god exists but is angry and chooses evil over good.

Show just one verse in Romans Chapter one, as to where Pagans are mention of.

There's a list in Verse's 29--31, Notice in Verse 30 haters of God = Atheists?

 

[Vouthon]

This is interesting that Paul was actually referencing something, I will look at those wisdom verses thanks.

If I might ask, you should read in particular Wisdom chapters 14 and 15, although the other chapters mentioned and the book as a whole are also important to read.

 

[Vouthon]

Show just one verse in Romans Chapter one, as to where Pagans are mention of.

There's a list in Verse's 29--31, Notice in Verse 30 haters of God = Atheists?

Romans 1: 22 - 23

22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools; 23 and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
​

Its about people belonging to the Roman mystery cults who worship images of the "emperor" (a mortal human being) and gods in animal-form. Not atheists. The people he is referring to worship "gods", they are polytheists - and not even meaning all idolaters, for he later notes that there are ones who will be excused on the day of judgement for living morally in accordance with their conscience.

Paul's description above is derived from chapters 13-15 of the Wisdom of Solomon, which is specifically about pagan idolatry in those specific chapters (although the earlier chapter 2 also refers to Jewish mortalists and Greek atomists who reject belief in an afterlife). Wisdom 13 states, in part:

But miserable, with their hopes set on dead things, are those
who give the name “gods” to the works of human hands,
gold and silver fashioned with skill,
and likenesses of animals,
or a useless stone, the work of an ancient hand...
He forms it in the likeness of a human being,
14 or makes it like some worthless animal,
giving it a coat of red paint and coloring its surface red
and covering every blemish in it with paint;
15 then he makes a suitable niche for it,
and sets it in the wall, and fastens it there with iron​

Ancient cities were full of temples and shrines with images of gods and goddesses worshipped in the form cats, jackals, crocodiles, serpents: Isis, Osiris, Anubis, Mithras with his sacred bull and so on. Mystery cults like Mithraism.

His discussion of alleged sexual debauchery must also be understood in the context of these idolatrous cults. These are exactly the sort of things that went on in and around some (not all, obviously) pagan temples throughout the Mediterranean world in Paul's time, as at the time of the writer of the Book of Wisdom, which goes into rather more detail than Paul does:

Wisdom 14

For a father, consumed with grief at an untimely bereavement,
made an image of his child, who had been suddenly taken from him;
he now honored as a god what was once a dead human being,
and handed on to his dependents secret rites and initiations.
16 Then the ungodly custom, grown strong with time, was kept as a law,
and at the command of monarchs carved images were worshiped....
Then the ambition of the artisan impelled
even those who did not know the king to intensify their worship...
and the multitude, attracted by the charm of his work,
now regarded as an object of worship the one whom, shortly before,
they had honored as a human being....

Then it was not enough for them to err about the knowledge of God,
but though living in great strife due to ignorance,
they call such great evils peace.
23 For whether they kill children in their initiations, or celebrate secret mysteries,
or hold frenzied revels with strange customs,
24 they no longer keep either their lives or their marriages pure,
but they either treacherously kill one another, or grieve one another by adultery,
25 and all is a raging riot of blood and murder, theft and deceit, corruption, faithlessness, tumult, perjury,
26 confusion over what is good, forgetfulness of favors,
defiling of souls, sexual perversion,
disorder in marriages, adultery, and debauchery.

27 For the worship of idols not to be named
is the beginning and cause and end of every evil.
28 For their worshipers either rave in exultation,
or prophesy lies, or live unrighteously, or readily commit perjury;
29 for because they trust in lifeless idols
they swear wicked oaths and expect to suffer no harm.
But just penalties will overtake them on two counts:
because they thought wrongly about God in devoting themselves to idols,
and because in deceit they swore unrighteously through contempt for holiness.
​

Both texts, Wisdom and Romans, are therefore talking strictly about idolatrous pagan worship of kings/emperors as living gods in the form of carved images (as well as animal images) in the context of mystery cults with secretive rituals characterized by sacrifices, violence and frenzied sexual debauchery.

I would be very interested to hear about any atheists who "worship kings/emperors as living gods in the form of carved images (as well as animal images) in the context of mystery cults with secretive rituals characterized by sacrifices, violence and frenzied sexual debauchery"... I must admit that I've yet to come across any but maybe I just haven't hung around (yet!) with such fun people

 

[idav]

Show just one verse in Romans Chapter one, as to where Pagans are mention of.

There's a list in Verse's 29--31, Notice in Verse 30 haters of God = Atheists?

A hater of god is a maltheist, a person that believes in God but thinks they are evil or has reason to hate God.