Post Reply
Page 1 of 5  •  1 2 3 4 5 Next
Switch to Forum Live View People don't commit sins
2 years ago  ::  Jun 29, 2012 - 10:47AM #1
Kwinters
Posts: 21,954

Romans 7:14-20

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.


I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 
And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.

As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.


For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.  For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.
For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.

Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

Jesus had two dads, and he turned out alright.~ Andy Gussert

“Feminism has fought no wars. It has killed no opponents. It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, practiced no cruelties. Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions…for safety on the streets…for child care, for social welfare…for rape crisis centers, women’s refuges, reforms in the law.

If someone says, “Oh, I’m not a feminist,” I ask, “Why, what’s your problem?”

Dale Spender
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 29, 2012 - 11:14AM #2
Ed.W
Posts: 9,441

Jun 29, 2012 -- 10:47AM, Kwinters wrote:


Romans 7:14-20

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.


I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 
And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.

As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.


For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.  For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.
For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.

Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.




It's really the best way to look at it, otherwise I'd write people off as a dark, lost souls.




‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 29, 2012 - 11:25AM #3
tfvespasianus
Posts: 2,074
At first glance, it does kind of seem 'dissociative'.

 

However, as a person that is not in perfect health, it also strikes me as something akin to saying "That's not me, it's my disease." I think there's a strong impulse to separate our 'self' from infirmity, and in this case, the author is doing something similar with sin. With respect to a malfunctioning organ(s), I don't like to construe that part of a person being part and parcel of their self-image, but I do see that it's a little more difficult to do with sin if we consider sin something akin to moral choice.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant - Tacitus
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 29, 2012 - 11:27AM #4
Burnman
Posts: 3,313

Jun 29, 2012 -- 10:47AM, Kwinters wrote:


Romans 7:14-20

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.


I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 
And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.

As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.


For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.  For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.
For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.

Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.





CONCUPISCENCE - Human appitites or desires which remain disordered due to temporal cosequences of original sin, which remain even after Baptism,and which produce an inclination to sin.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 29, 2012 - 11:31AM #5
Kwinters
Posts: 21,954

Jun 29, 2012 -- 11:25AM, tfvespasianus wrote:


At first glance, it does kind of seem 'dissociative'.

 

However, as a person that is not in perfect health, it also strikes me as something akin to saying "That's not me, it's my disease." I think there's a strong impulse to separate our 'self' from infirmity, and in this case, the author is doing something similar with sin. With respect to a malfunctioning organ(s), I don't like to construe that part of a person being part and parcel of their self-image, but I do see that it's a little more difficult to do with sin if we consider sin something akin to moral choice.



But if someone has Tourette's and they swear because the disorder impels them we don't hold them morally accountable for what was done beyond their control.


If Paul is right and we actually want to do good but the sin takes over and does ill, then it is sin that is morally accoutable and not us.

Jesus had two dads, and he turned out alright.~ Andy Gussert

“Feminism has fought no wars. It has killed no opponents. It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, practiced no cruelties. Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions…for safety on the streets…for child care, for social welfare…for rape crisis centers, women’s refuges, reforms in the law.

If someone says, “Oh, I’m not a feminist,” I ask, “Why, what’s your problem?”

Dale Spender
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 29, 2012 - 11:32AM #6
lope
Posts: 11,654

Jun 29, 2012 -- 10:47AM, Kwinters wrote:


Romans 7:14-20

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.


I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 
And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.

As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.


For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.  For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.
For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.

Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.





Sin is failing to be loving to someone.  We all if we are in normal mental health and have reached the age  of accountability have failed to do that.  If Paul is saying no one fails to make the wrong choie in dealing with other people, Paul was wrong about that.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 29, 2012 - 11:33AM #7
Kwinters
Posts: 21,954

Jun 29, 2012 -- 11:14AM, Ed.W wrote:


Jun 29, 2012 -- 10:47AM, Kwinters wrote:


Romans 7:14-20

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.


I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 
And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.

As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.


For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.  For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.
For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.

Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.




It's really the best way to look at it, otherwise I'd write people off as a dark, lost souls.




But if but it is sin living in me that does it, then the person is not morally responsible nor accountable.

Jesus had two dads, and he turned out alright.~ Andy Gussert

“Feminism has fought no wars. It has killed no opponents. It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, practiced no cruelties. Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions…for safety on the streets…for child care, for social welfare…for rape crisis centers, women’s refuges, reforms in the law.

If someone says, “Oh, I’m not a feminist,” I ask, “Why, what’s your problem?”

Dale Spender
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 29, 2012 - 11:35AM #8
lope
Posts: 11,654

Jun 29, 2012 -- 11:31AM, Kwinters wrote:


Jun 29, 2012 -- 11:25AM, tfvespasianus wrote:


At first glance, it does kind of seem 'dissociative'.

 

However, as a person that is not in perfect health, it also strikes me as something akin to saying "That's not me, it's my disease." I think there's a strong impulse to separate our 'self' from infirmity, and in this case, the author is doing something similar with sin. With respect to a malfunctioning organ(s), I don't like to construe that part of a person being part and parcel of their self-image, but I do see that it's a little more difficult to do with sin if we consider sin something akin to moral choice.



But if someone has Tourette's and they swear because the disorder impels them we don't hold them morally accountable for what was done beyond their control.


If Paul is right and we actually want to do good but the sin takes over and does ill, then it is sin that is morally accoutable and not us.





Sin is not an independent entity.  Sin is how we act if we do not act lovingly.  We can say the devil made me do it, but it is not true and never true, therefore does not allow us to avoid responsibilty for our own wrong choices.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 29, 2012 - 11:51AM #9
Kwinters
Posts: 21,954

Jun 29, 2012 -- 11:35AM, lope wrote:


Jun 29, 2012 -- 11:31AM, Kwinters wrote:


Jun 29, 2012 -- 11:25AM, tfvespasianus wrote:


At first glance, it does kind of seem 'dissociative'.

 

However, as a person that is not in perfect health, it also strikes me as something akin to saying "That's not me, it's my disease." I think there's a strong impulse to separate our 'self' from infirmity, and in this case, the author is doing something similar with sin. With respect to a malfunctioning organ(s), I don't like to construe that part of a person being part and parcel of their self-image, but I do see that it's a little more difficult to do with sin if we consider sin something akin to moral choice.



But if someone has Tourette's and they swear because the disorder impels them we don't hold them morally accountable for what was done beyond their control.


If Paul is right and we actually want to do good but the sin takes over and does ill, then it is sin that is morally accoutable and not us.





Sin is not an independent entity.  Sin is how we act if we do not act lovingly.  We can say the devil made me do it, but it is not true and never true, therefore does not allow us to avoid responsibilty for our own wrong choices.





That is fine if that is your view, but what we are examining here is what Paul thought of sin and how that relates to Christian theology.

Jesus had two dads, and he turned out alright.~ Andy Gussert

“Feminism has fought no wars. It has killed no opponents. It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, practiced no cruelties. Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions…for safety on the streets…for child care, for social welfare…for rape crisis centers, women’s refuges, reforms in the law.

If someone says, “Oh, I’m not a feminist,” I ask, “Why, what’s your problem?”

Dale Spender
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 29, 2012 - 11:59AM #10
lope
Posts: 11,654

Jun 29, 2012 -- 11:51AM, Kwinters wrote:


Jun 29, 2012 -- 11:35AM, lope wrote:


Jun 29, 2012 -- 11:31AM, Kwinters wrote:


Jun 29, 2012 -- 11:25AM, tfvespasianus wrote:


At first glance, it does kind of seem 'dissociative'.

 

However, as a person that is not in perfect health, it also strikes me as something akin to saying "That's not me, it's my disease." I think there's a strong impulse to separate our 'self' from infirmity, and in this case, the author is doing something similar with sin. With respect to a malfunctioning organ(s), I don't like to construe that part of a person being part and parcel of their self-image, but I do see that it's a little more difficult to do with sin if we consider sin something akin to moral choice.



But if someone has Tourette's and they swear because the disorder impels them we don't hold them morally accountable for what was done beyond their control.


If Paul is right and we actually want to do good but the sin takes over and does ill, then it is sin that is morally accoutable and not us.





Sin is not an independent entity.  Sin is how we act if we do not act lovingly.  We can say the devil made me do it, but it is not true and never true, therefore does not allow us to avoid responsibilty for our own wrong choices.





That is fine if that is your view, but what we are examining here is what Paul thought of sin and how that relates to Christian theology.





I really do not think Paul thought of sin as a stand alone entity that can exist separate from the sinner.  I think Paul was tallking here about our inability to be as good as we can think.  I heard someone say one time that if we are doing as good as we can think, we are just not thinking.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 5  •  1 2 3 4 5 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook