Whats your opinion of Romans?

[Larry]

BTW, FSU has a "stupid guy on a horse", and he throws a spear.

Yeah, but he's not a stupid white guy.

(Actually, I think he is, wearing makeup. But I haven't really cared enough to try to find out.)

[dreamingwolf]

The Romans rocked, my favorite era.

[CrabR]

I think Paul was a self hating homophobe, and his writings reflect that.

Paul needed a few hundred concubines to lighten him up

[Destino]

That would be the difference btw someone who is a christian and someone who is not one.... I guess then.

In your mind perhaps. I think the bible is both literal and not. Adam and Eve for example is a story to explain humanity to people both educated and not.

[chomerics]

This passage I find particularly confusing. Could someone provide an exegesis?

It looks like Thiebear wrote that passage. . . let's ask him

[jpillian]

This passage I find particularly confusing. Could someone provide an exegesis?

[1] 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?

[2] In addition, is what I don't want to do the right thing or the wrong thing?

This is no doubt a difficult passage, AtB -- but perhaps I can provide a few insights (I added numbers to your questions just to make my responses easier to follow):

1) In reality, there is truly no sin that is "more sinful" than another. They are all something outside of the Will of God (the true definition of a sin).

What Paul is refering to is more akin to the guilt associated with sin -- and that we can/and do feel to varying degrees.

Through our nature as Man, we know when we have sinned. Our conscience naturally provides this to us as children. However, over time, we can be de-sensitized to what we should feel guilty about. The Mosaic Law (i.e., the 10 Commandments) was intended to help us in rectifying this situation -- in realizing where/how our natural compass has been broken.

Now, the Law was intended for a holy purpose: to convict our desensitized hearts of how we are wrong, so that we don't continue in our sin.

However, as we saw in the Garden of Eden with the first sin -- our very knowledge that something is forbidden -- can make us want that which is forbidden all the more.

2) Paul is referring to the fact that because of his knowledge of the Law, and his own sin -- he realizes what he does day in and day out is still sinful. Even for a Christian, the sinful nature will not completely disappear in this lifetime.

So in the end, he is acknowldging that despite the fact that he has known what was is right -- he has failed to meet that standard throughout his life (both pre- and -post conversion to Christianity).

(Thankfully, we are not judged on what we DO in this lifetime, but on what Christ has DONE on our behalf)

I'm sure others might have other perspectives on these passages -- that's just my take on it.

[SUNSTONE]

This passage I find particularly confusing. Could someone provide an exegesis?

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?

I think what he was saying is that when the law is put into place, sin becomes all the more determined to have its way in breaking that law/commandment.

Example, try telling a kid to not touch the cookies, and then leave the room.

If he wanted those cookies before, well now he is really going to want those cookies.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Thanks for the responses.

Through our nature as Man, we know when we have sinned. Our conscience naturally provides this to us as children. However, over time, we can be de-sensitized to what we should feel guilty about. The Mosaic Law (i.e., the 10 Commandments) was intended to help us in rectifying this situation -- in realizing where/how our natural compass has been broken.

Now, the Law was intended for a holy purpose: to convict our desensitized hearts of how we are wrong, so that we don't continue in our sin.

However, as we saw in the Garden of Eden with the first sin -- our very knowledge that something is forbidden -- can make us want that which is forbidden all the more.

This does seem in keeping with the first part of the passage. But how, then, does Paul resolve the tension between the Law and good behavior (namely, that knowledge of the Law is an impetus toward bad behavior)?

So in the end, he is acknowldging that despite the fact that he has known what was is right -- he has failed to meet that standard throughout his life (both pre- and -post conversion to Christianity).

This also sounds reasonable. However, Paul then goes on to say, "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."

How does this not contradict the doctrine of free will? Paul appears to be saying that no matter what his intentions are, he is evil by nature--he has no choice but to be evil. Is this true?

Example, try telling a kid to not touch the cookies, and then leave the room.

If he wanted those cookies before, well now he is really going to want those cookies.

Is this, then, an admission that it may have been a mistake to lay down the Law, since it encouraged transgression?

[SUNSTONE]

(This is an answer to post #33)

No, because there is a very good reason for the law.

If the mother doesn't tell the kid to not eat the cookie, he eats it anyways.

If he tells him, he won't eat it unless he wants to get into trouble. But the desire is still there and probably even stronger.

[BlueTalon]

Example, try telling a kid to not touch the cookies, and then leave the room.

If he wanted those cookies before, well now he is really going to want those cookies.

Is this, then, an admission that it may have been a mistake to lay down the Law, since it encouraged transgression?

No, for two reasons.

One: The sinful nature of man had already been established. In the Garden, there were two significant trees -- the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the tree of life. Only one of those trees was forbidden, and I think if Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree of life instead, the Bible would be an awfully short book. But they chose wrong, and we've been paying for it ever since.

Two: If you're really dirty and need a bath (but don't really think so), there's nothing quite like a mirror to convince you. The law has that function. Imagine reading the job description for a job you want but are absolutely not qualified for. "I want to do this, but I don't meet this requirement... I don't meet that requirement... I don't meet those requirements..." Eventually you'll come to the conclusion that you don't meet the requirements. It would have been a really dirty trick, if that was all there was.

The idea is that it will lead you to the question "so what do I do now?" To the person asking such a question, there is the New Covenant. Think of it as God's Plan B -- how to save people who have really mucked it up. Or better, think of the Law as a prequel to the New Covenant. We now live in the age of grace, for which I am eternally thankful.

[Winslowalrob]

Excellent explanation, but instead of an analogy could you use the text itself? Somehow it sounds like the interpretation goes a little farther than the actual words themselves.

[Thiebear]

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.

I always wondered the same about Terrets (sp) syndrome? if you don't know any bad words, does that mean your immunized?

[zoony]

That would be the difference btw someone who is a christian and someone who is not one.... I guess then.

I am a Christian, and I take very little of what the Bible says literally.

I think most of it is highly allegorical.

........

[BlueTalon]

Excellent explanation, but instead of an analogy could you use the text itself? Somehow it sounds like the interpretation goes a little farther than the actual words themselves.

What is it exactly you want me to use the text to try to explain? I'll be happy to try, but I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for.

I am a Christian, and I take very little of what the Bible says literally.

I think most of it is highly allegorical.

That's interesting. (It's also convenient for those who don't want to give up their sin. Not that this necessarily applies to you, I'm just saying...)

Do you consider what the Bible says about Jesus's life, miracles, teachings, death and resurrection to be historical? or allegorical?

[redman]

FYI - my brother, finishing seminary at Princeton, has a (mostly) religiously-themed blog. I'm proud of him as a brother of course, but objectively speaking he's impressed me with his ability to rationally explain a lot of religious concepts and issues.

I don't always agree with him, but it's hard to deny his tremendous depth of knowledge, not to mention interest, on the subject. I can assure you that I wouldn't have mentioned him at all were I in doubt about that.

I mention this to invite you to participate on his blog if you so desire.

[zoony]

That's interesting. (It's also convenient for those who don't want to give up their sin. Not that this necessarily applies to you, I'm just saying...)

Do you consider what the Bible says about Jesus's life, miracles, teachings, death and resurrection to be historical? or allegorical?

I mentioned the Bible, not the NT. The NT is one very small part of the Bible... and the Gospels (the account of Jesus that you reference above) are even smaller.... if I had to guess we are talking about 1/100 of the total book.

But to answer your question... I take much of the Gospels literally when they reference occurences... but most of what Jesus teaches is highly allegorical. He actually says so himself... so you'll have to argue that point with him in your spare time.

Many of the stories in the Old Testament, such as Sodom & Ghomora, Adam & Eve, Jonah and the Whale, Samson, etc. etc. are what I was referring to.

.........