Thinking Skins Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Romans 7 & 8 That is how it is with you, my friends. As far as the Law is concerned, you also have died because you are part of the body of Christ; and now you belong to him who was raised from death in order that we might be useful in the service of God. For when we lived according to our human nature, the sinful desires stirred up by the Law were at work in our bodies, and all we did ended in death. Now, however, we are free from the Law, because we died to that which once held us prisoners. No longer do we serve in the old way of a written law, but in the new way of the Spirit. Shall we say, then, that the Law itself is sinful? Of course not! But it was the Law that made me know what sin is. If the Law had not said, "Do not desire what belongs to someone else," I would not have known such a desire. But by means of that commandment sin found its chance to stir up all kinds of selfish desires in me. Apart from law, sin is a dead thing. I myself was once alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life, and I died. And the commandment which was meant to bring life, in my case brought death. Sin found its chance, and by means of the commandment it deceived me and killed me. So then, the Law itself is holy, and the commandment is holy, right, and good. But does this mean that what is good caused my death? By no means! It was sin that did it; by using what is good, sin brought death to me, in order that its true nature as sin might be revealed. And so, by means of the commandment sin is shown to be even more terribly sinful. We know that the Law is spiritual; but I am a mortal, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do; for I don't do what I would like to do, but instead I do what I hate. Since what I do is what I don't want to do, this shows that I agree that the Law is right. So I am not really the one who does this thing; rather it is the sin that lives in me. I know that good does not live in me---that is, in my human nature. For even though the desire to do good is in me, I am not able to do it. I don't do the good I want to do; instead, I do the evil that I do not want to do. If I do what I don't want to do, this means that I am no longer the one who does it; instead, it is the sin that lives in me. So I find that this law is at work: when I want to do what is good, what is evil is the only choice I have. My inner being delights in the law of God. But I see a different law at work in my body---a law that fights against the law which my mind approves of. It makes me a prisoner to the law of sin which is at work in my body. What an unhappy man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is taking me to death? THANKS BE TO GOD, WHO DOES THIS THROUGH OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST! This, then, is my condition: on my own I can serve God's law only with my mind, while my human nature serves the law of sin. There is no condemnation now for those who live in union with Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit, which brings us life in union with Christ Jesus, has set me free from the law of sin and death. What the Law could not do, because human nature was weak, God did. He condemned sin in human nature by sending his own Son, who came with a nature like our sinful nature, to do away with sin. God did this so that the righteous demands of the Law might be fully satisfied in us who live according to the Spirit, and not according to human nature. Those who live as their human nature tells them to, have their minds controlled by what human nature wants. Those who live as the Spirit tells them to, have their minds controlled by what the Spirit wants. To be controlled by human nature results in death; to be controlled by the Spirit results in life and peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 I think the stupid guy on the horse looks so gay, I'm actually going to cheer for Texas to stomp 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shallow1 Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 So this is your second post................... Good intentions wrong presentation...... People dont want to see words they want to see fruit.... Got any fruit??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 I think the stupid guy on the horse looks so gay, I'm actually going to cheer for Texas to stomp 'em. Their band looks pretty gay too imo, but I will spare the cheerleaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted November 29, 2005 Author Share Posted November 29, 2005 So this is your second post...................Good intentions wrong presentation...... People dont want to see words they want to see fruit.... Got any fruit??? I can take this many different ways. I have a lot of opinions on it. I had a few people in mind when I read this. And I'm curious to see if they take this anywhere, and moreso where will they take it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty P For The Pulitzer Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 I think the stupid guy on the horse looks so gay, I'm actually going to cheer for Texas to stomp 'em. USC? Wouldn't they be the men from Troy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 USC? Wouldn't they be the men from Troy? yeah but they dress up like Romans and they call their stadium the colosseam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Nostril Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 I really liked them early on. Especially their first two albums. They had some great songs as they went through the years though, just not as frequently. I still like "Bonzo Goes to Bittburg(My Brain is Hanging Upside Down)," "Pet Cemetary" and of course "I Wanna Be Sedated" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUNSTONE Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Romans is a strong book. Definitly a challenge to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty P For The Pulitzer Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 yeah but they dress up like Romans and they call their stadium the colosseam True. Bunch of idiots. I'd love to see the Texas starters be introduced at the Rose Bowl, and a big horse comes out, and the player jumps out as his name is called (since it basically will be played in USC's house). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prophet Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Probably would get more response if the question wasn't so vague. Other than that the passage seems pretty self explanatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raub Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Wow....anonymous spelled backwards...that's clever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted November 29, 2005 Author Share Posted November 29, 2005 Wow....anonymous spelled backwards...that's clever... I know! when I learned my name, I felt the same way. I went to my parents and said thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 I'm a little confused. It seems this passage says that it is the naming of the sin that creates the sin. Thus if we never had a law saying not to do something, we would never have thought to do it. I have a hard time believing I would never think of another maried woman if only the Ten Commandments didn't exist. I would never have thought to steal bread when I was hungry if only that pesky law hadn't put the evil thoughts in my head. I note that many of the "Laws" were put forth in the 10 commandments. I didn't say first because I believe the code of Hamurabi (sp?) was before this. Or is it saying that if we just made everything okay to do, we wouldn't be sinners? Yay anarchy! No thanks. It seems to be a renunciation of part of that which puts us above animals: our ability to reason and make our own choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 The gentleman who posted the thread, apparently, is a Biblical literalist. Not judging that one way or another, just making the observation. Assuming that to be the case ... once that is established, what exactly are those who are not Biblical literalists supposed to say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted November 29, 2005 Author Share Posted November 29, 2005 The gentleman who posted the thread, apparently, is a Biblical literalist. Not judging that one way or another, just making the observation. Assuming that to be the case ... once that is established, what exactly are those who are not Biblical literalists supposed to say? Whats a Biblical literalist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 That would be someone who take the Bible literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 The gentleman who posted the thread, apparently, is a Biblical literalist. Not judging that one way or another, just making the observation. Assuming that to be the case ... once that is established, what exactly are those who are not Biblical literalists supposed to say? When I encouter a literalist I usually don't say anything at all. I just close the door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prophet Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 When I encouter a literalist I usually don't say anything at all. I just close the door. Do you do that with all history as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Most of us don't take the bible as a litereal history anymore than the Aneid, the Illiad, or stories of Romulus and Remus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted November 29, 2005 Author Share Posted November 29, 2005 Its funny to see the opinions being made of me based on my first post. I was having a conversation with a guy about men in society and the guy told me to read this verse. I found it kinda interesting, but I'm just curious to see what other people have to say about it. Like i posted earlier, I dont even know what a Biblical Literalist is, so I'm gonna need some more clarification before I start to claim that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted November 29, 2005 Author Share Posted November 29, 2005 I'm a little confused. It seems this passage says that it is the naming of the sin that creates the sin. Thus if we never had a law saying not to do something, we would never have thought to do it. I have a hard time believing I would never think of another maried woman if only the Ten Commandments didn't exist. I would never have thought to steal bread when I was hungry if only that pesky law hadn't put the evil thoughts in my head. I note that many of the "Laws" were put forth in the 10 commandments. I didn't say first because I believe the code of Hamurabi (sp?) was before this.Or is it saying that if we just made everything okay to do, we wouldn't be sinners? Yay anarchy! No thanks. It seems to be a renunciation of part of that which puts us above animals: our ability to reason and make our own choices. But the other side of that is that, the bad boy in me wouldn't think that going 130 in the interstate makes me a bad boy until I'm told not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 I think the stupid guy on the horse looks so gay, I'm actually going to cheer for Texas to stomp 'em. So Trojans = Romans on your planet? BTW, FSU has a "stupid guy on a horse", and he throws a spear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prophet Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 Most of us don't take the bible as a litereal history anymore than the Aneid, the Illiad, or stories of Romulus and Remus. That would be the difference btw someone who is a christian and someone who is not one.... I guess then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 This passage I find particularly confusing. Could someone provide an exegesis? But does this mean that what is good caused my death? By no means! It was sin that did it; by using what is good, sin brought death to me, in order that its true nature as sin might be revealed. And so, by means of the commandment sin is shown to be even more terribly sinful. We know that the Law is spiritual; but I am a mortal, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do; for I don't do what I would like to do, but instead I do what I hate. Since what I do is what I don't want to do, this shows that I agree that the Law is right. How is sin shown to be "more sinful" by the commandment? What are we judging sin against, if it can be more or less sinful? In addition, is what I don't want to do the right thing or the wrong thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.