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:

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).]

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?

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?

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).]

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).]

I assure you. Many lawyers understand feelings and emotions. Some of them even have them.

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).]

Seriously. Your someone's kid brother aren't you? They are just letting you use their account?

Originally posted by Layman:
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.

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.