FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-17-2001, 10:57 AM   #1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post Paul's guilt feelings

Here's a New Testament passage in which the Apostle Paul talks about his guilt feelings, a passage remarked by some to be one of the most eloquent descriptions of inner conflict in all of literature.

From Romans 7:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.</font>
Paul does seem to be speaking from the heart here, don't you think?


[This message has been edited by Kate Long (edited April 17, 2001).]
 
Old 04-17-2001, 11:05 AM   #2
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Layman wrote, in the thread Jesus talking should have been impossible on the cross:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">On what basis do you believe Paul was racked with guilt? Most scholars have discarded that notion as an inaccurate and theologically naive product of the Protestant Reformation.</font>
On what basis has that notion been discarded, and by whom, given Paul's clear statement quoted above?
 
Old 04-17-2001, 11:20 AM   #3
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Sounds like from vs 25 Paul still continued to sin and feel guilty, hope he wasn't killing infidels during that time and quickly asking forgiveness. From the text and law of the NT he could have. Once you get a taste for blood most serial killers can't stop even when converted. Why should Paul be any different?



 
Old 04-17-2001, 11:26 AM   #4
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Kate Long:
Layman wrote, in the thread Jesus talking should have been impossible on the cross:

On what basis has that notion been discarded, and by whom, given Paul's clear statement quoted above?
</font>
Let me be more specific. Some have argued that before Paul's conversion he was racked with guilt, and Christ offered him a way out, grace.

While I don't deny that grace is an important part of Paul's theology, he was not "racked with guilt." By all accounts he believed himself a rather remarkable Jew who was "blameles" before the law.

And please remember that Romans is a theological treatise, not Paul's personal diary.

As for the scholars. E.P. Sanders, Ben Witherington, and N.T. Wright have all articulated this concept. I hope to be able to research this tonight and get back to you with some of their details.

I would also add that nowhere does Paul show any signs of having a lax moral standard for himself or his converts. Despite emphasizing grace, he also demands a high moral standard for his converts. He explicitly rjects antinomianism.

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited April 17, 2001).]
 
Old 04-17-2001, 12:07 PM   #5
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Most criminals reason they are innocent according to special circumstances that allowed the criminal act to occur. That doesn’t necessitate the absence of guilt. If you did something that the letter of the law says you can do, but that harms another, do you not feel guilt? If not, then you are a sociopath.

Your scholars won't help with this kind of thought and argument, they are like Lawyers, they have no understanding of feelings and emotions. They exist to find loop holes and ways of bending reality. It pays better!

[This message has been edited by critical thinking made ez (edited April 17, 2001).]
 
Old 04-17-2001, 12:11 PM   #6
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by critical thinking made ez:
Most criminals reason they are innocent according to special circumstances that allowed the criminal act to occur. That doesn’t necessitate the absence of guilt. If you did something that the letter of the law says you can do, but that harms another, do you not feel guilt? If not, then you are a sociopath.

Your scholars won't help with this kind of thought and argument, they are like Lawyers, they have no understanding of feelings and emotions. They exist to find loop holes and ways of bending reality. It pays better!

[This message has been edited by critical thinking made ez (edited April 17, 2001).]
</font>
I assure you. Many lawyers understand feelings and emotions. Some of them even have them.
 
Old 04-17-2001, 12:18 PM   #7
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

You lost the argument again, I see. Another win for Freethinkers.

Layman, you must not be very sharp. You can't even flow with a single idea. And you sure as no God, can't argue one.

[This message has been edited by critical thinking made ez (edited April 17, 2001).]
 
Old 04-17-2001, 12:22 PM   #8
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by critical thinking made ez:
You lost the argument again, I see. Another win for Freethinkers.

Layman, you must not be very sharp. You can't even flow with a single idea. And you sure as no God, can't argue one.

[This message has been edited by critical thinking made ez (edited April 17, 2001).]
</font>
Seriously. Your someone's kid brother aren't you? They are just letting you use their account?
 
Old 04-17-2001, 12:28 PM   #9
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Originally posted by Layman:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">By all accounts he believed himself a rather remarkable Jew who was "blameles" before the law.

And please remember that Romans is a theological treatise, not Paul's personal diary.</font>
Nevertheless, that passage in Romans does come across as very heartfelt.

There is really no contradiction between being especially devout and at the same time also being racked with guilt.
 
Old 04-17-2001, 12:35 PM   #10
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

to Layman

When you really lost the argument, resort to ad hominem.

You already have the Red herring tactic down pretty good. I'll give you a few more lessons...later. Gone for the day.
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:39 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.