Paul Of Tarsus

[PierreGringoire]

For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.
Paul is saying that he doesn't sin willingly.
Socrates also said that no one *sins* willingly. (He really said no one willingly does evil.)-in the Republic.)
Both cocepts proclaim that sin (evil) is done out of ignorance. Ignorance gives birth to sin, therefore, since we do not 'know' all the answers, our condition is always in sin.
"God calls us not 'to not be sinners' ".
"He calls us to be brothers."
As if the difference between those two statements is the difference between night and day. Yet they both seem to say the same thing.
Are they saying the same thing? Where do they differ?
It begs the question Is "evil" the same as "sin"?

[Turk]

As i know Paul (Saulus) is actually biggest treator to Christianity. He was a guy who tried to change Christianity, and he was successful unfortunately. I don't know if this is unrelated to subject.:)

[Thorwench]

I don't often agree with Turk but here I do. Paulus is a very strange man, a misogynist who would have liked to turn the church into some sort of fanatic sect like the Essenians. He well perceived though that it would die out eventually then, and this was the only reason, as far as I am concerned, why he allowed women to exist. Some of my former theology professors claimed he had to be particularly ardent because he came too late, thus over- compensating for not having been part of the real thing.
Anyways I should talk about the issue of the thread. To be a sinner is part of human nature not only when you follow Socrates and presuppose that humans cannot know everything, are often ignorant in terms of what is truly good; but also when you follow Aristotle who argued that even when you know what's good you still may not do it because of, for instance, your weakness of will (Akrasia). There are several reasons why people don't do what they know to be good but I think Akrasia is one of the most insightful ideas I have ever seen. Since humans are sinners they should aspire not to sin but will have to live with the fact that their cannot compeletly achieve their goal. They are also sinners by defintion in having been marked by a sin they cannot wash off, a sin they have been born with as children of Eve, i.e. the original sin (which essentially is the sin of wanting to know, paradox, isn't it?). Because they cannot escape their sinfulness but can only be redeemed by Christ, they should do and achieve what they truly can, i.e. trying to be brothers (not as Abel and Cain I gather). Paulus probably implies that in brotherhood you sin less because you form a community, are brotherly - well, as I've said, the first biblical pair of brothers was not that good an example. Note, Paulus, as always, doesn't talk about sisterly behaviour but it's THEM WOMAN who are always curious and nosy and disobedient and listen to the devil (who, admittedly, is probably more entertaining than good ol' Paul).

[mtpspur]

Which Paul are you reading? The Paul I read about in the New Testament comes across extremely pro women. He constantly mentions women in his opening and closings of his letters. He often was a houseguest of ladies. His principles of marriage vs bachelorhood are based on how well the Lord can be glorified and served in very stressful times. Go read 1 Corinthians again with an eye to the human experience and not broad theological statements.

I own belief and experience is that when Adam fell mankind (and ladies) inherited the sin nature (first manifesting as the terrible twos and coming to full blossom at the 5th to 6th grade level--mostly in gym class.

My life experience has been that whenever I forget the Lord Christ is the author and finisher of my faith then my course of activity is usually dancing close to flames to see how 'strong' in the Lord I'm getting and (usually) receiving a quick revelation of my own vanity and corrupt nature. This year hit rock bottom and the Lord has graciuosly lifted me from a deep pit and a huge chip removed from my shoulder. Hope this helps.

[byquist]

Paul was also kind to a mother when he brought a kid back to life after he fell from a third loft onto the floor and was determined to be dead. And that chapter in II Cor. about "charity" has, in terms of succinctness, not been matched in any literature before or since. He may have mentioned about ladies wearing hats, but that might merely show how in tune he was with such fashion as found in Madmoiselle or Vogue.

[mtpspur]

I've only heard it once (from a pastor that I respected but can't remember who and no it wasn't my beloved Spurgeon) that women without headgear in Paul's times were perceived as prostitutes which is why Paul gave it some attention.

[bhekti]

.... Ignorance gives birth to sin, therefore, since we do not 'know' all the answers, our condition is always in sin.

Or is it vice versa (Sin gives birth to ignorance, therefore, since we are all sinners, we can't find the right answers) ?

[PierreGringoire]

Sin does give birth to ignorance.

But in order to "sin" one has to be ignorant of what "sin" yields. What it yields no one would want to desire because, indeed, it is untruth.

It works both ways. But saying "sin gives birth to ignorance" and then saying "ignorance gives birth to sin" is two different subjects, were just using the same words and making it seem like were contradicting ourselves when we say that both apply.

[bhekti]

But in order to "sin" one has to be ignorant of what "sin" yields. What it yields no one would want to desire because, indeed, it is untruth.

Considering what happen around me, contemplating dostoevsky, looking at myself, I believe, I'm afraid, the above presupposition is only seemingly unquestionable.


... It works both ways. But saying "sin gives birth to ignorance" and then saying "ignorance gives birth to sin" is two different subjects, were just using the same words and making it seem like were contradicting ourselves when we say that both apply.

I think, pierre, those propositions do tell different subjects. If it is true that ignorance gives birth to sin then we aren't responsible of our being sinners. On the other hand, if it is sin that gives birth to ignorance, then we have no excuse. And, I do believe we have no excuse.

What do you think, pierre?

[PierreGringoire]

Perhaps ignorance gives birth to more sin if already ignorant because of a previous sinful act?
Otherwise I think the initial deviation from the truth is because of sin.
What a lousy supposition. It doesn't give me any motivation
(read my question, analyze it, prove me wrong; I'd like to be proven wrong, if I'm wrong Or at least find more insight on the subject)
Can it be that sin always gives birth to ignorance? So that we are constantly held responsible for our actions?
Obviously, I just answered it myself. I proved myself wrong. Don't you just hate it when that happens :brickwall

[Whifflingpin]

"And, I do believe we have no excuse."

How sad - we have many excuses, and we even have reasons. Very few people are actively and deliberately evil. Most of us try to muddle along and survive in a fairly hostile world, which is outside our control and beyond our understanding.

So-called sin is mostly a kind of animal response to fear and our own inadequacy. Or maybe sin is simply the dark side of being almost continuously in a state of unsolvable dilemma - through no fault of our own, there is no right path - if you stop to let someone out in front of you, you hold up the person behind you.

[bhekti]

Can it be that sin always gives birth to ignorance? So that we are constantly held responsible for our actions?

Mmm, I think so.

I have something in my mind. I am thinking about doing something. I know that the thing I'm going to do is not right. But, I really want to do that thing, and I have my reasons, strong reasons. It feels like hell if I don't do that thing. It feels like I'm lying to myself, not being what I am. So I try to make some excuses in many forms (philosophical, practical, theological, historical, biological, psychological, etc, etc..). I deliberately ignore what I already know, the fact that the thing I want to do is not right. Hence sin gives birth to ignorance.

One example, that is. What do you think?


Obviously, I just answered it myself. I proved myself wrong. Don't you just hate it when that happens :brickwall

Oh trust me. I know how it feels!:crash:

[bhekti]

"And, I do believe we have no excuse."

How sad - we have many excuses, and we even have reasons. Very few people are actively and deliberately evil. Most of us try to muddle along and survive in a fairly hostile world, which is outside our control and beyond our understanding

Sad, indeed. But, it's inevitable. At least for me, Whiff. I am always conscious of my making excuses. So that in the end I always find myself without excuse. Everytime I made an excuse, I always knew inside that I was deceiving myself, that it was only an excuse, an attempt to deviate from the truth. I could do it well sometimes. But it wasn't for long. The consciousness is always stronger. It's like a headache ( in fact, I have a headache like a routine).

Sad, indeed.

I'm on my way out of it all now, Whiff. And, so far so good. I make excuses not too often now.