Lust

[smaller]

Well done fellow hopeful son a very useful pun that you have spun. It clearly means your point points to the point that forever one can put a point between two other points to the point it makes no point.

1 is a point, 2 is a line, 3 is a trend.

Have you stopped sinning in mind lately?

The leaven of the Pharisses is what again? Oh yeah, that's right...

Hypocrisy...

I hate the taste of that stuff, don't you?

 

[smaller]

There is a difference between failing to obey the Lord and believing the Lord was incorrect in his commandments. Sometimes I fail to obey, but I never believe the Lord was incorrect in his commandments.

Noted for point of honesty.

s

 

[childeye]

=smaller;571048]1 is a point, 2 is a line, 3 is a trend.

Have you stopped sinning in mind lately?

Seeing that anything I do can be accounted as sin by the corrupt mind, it is easier to say I never stop sinning and agree with my accuser than argue with him. In this if I am wrong it is a good thing, and if I am right I am not found gnashing my teeth because I was blinded in self-righteousness. God will decide. The devil likes to split hairs but only God can do it right down the middle. It will be no fall for me when I find out God is better than I or no better than I.

The leaven of the Pharisses is what again? Oh yeah, that's right...

Hypocrisy...

I hate the taste of that stuff, don't you?

Yes I've baked aplenty of that bread in my life, making one fat in his flesh but with no real nutritional value for the Spirit. Give me the unleavened wherein my starvation has great value because true thankfulness in is upon my lips.

 

[childeye]

It was meant to be a missile for anyone who thinks Jesus Christ was mistaken in what he told us to do.

Yes Elijah, but you have started a thread that everyone truly enjoys posting on.

 

[childeye]

That's a musical reply.

Thanks Classik, a modest endeavour to ever lever the clever.

 

[smaller]

Seeing that anything I do can be accounted as sin by the corrupt mind,

OR a 'truthful' mind? Done anything with absolute perfection lately?

it is easier to say I never stop sinning and agree with my accuser

I believe the texts have better explanations rather than pinning it on you, but that is not a common form of application...

Believers could really settle this entire matter by simply connecting our own perpetual sins to a source that is not us, that would be the powers of darkness...but to 'do this' means taking it personally and those powers prefer to stay in the dark on the inside of the cup. Those who take the candle within may figure it out, but there is an internal 'blower' on that light.

In some the blower is turbocharged.

than argue with him. In this if I am wrong it is a good thing, and if I am right I am not found gnashing my teeth because I was blinded in self-righteousness.

Did you know that to turn a motorcycle to the right in a curve you move the handlebars left?

I'd say the same thing with 'truth.' To be 'in it' you have to admit to the presence of lying. Strange dichotomy, yet truthful.

God will decide.

It's already a done deal. The presence of the liar(s) within is openly indisputable, already in writing...worked out in reality every day. Read the bottom of my posts lately?

The devil likes to split hairs but only God can do it right down the middle.

A lot of people read 'wherever two or more are gathered in My Name, there Am I in the midst of them' and see themselves and another person.

I picture that fact with myself and the devil, or with the man of the Gergesenes and Legion or any other number of scriptural examples. Why? Because it is much more accurate. The 'two or more' is me and the powers of darkness that are 'not me.' All a question of 'how' one reads 'personally.'

It will be no fall for me when I find out God is better than I or no better than I.

I have found myself no match for Boundless Perfection by comparison. When I look in the mirror I see myself largely as a compilation of wet dust soon to be blowing in the wind. I believe it to be an accurate vision. To deny the fact is to whistle past the graveyard.

Yes I've baked aplenty of that bread in my life, making one fat in his flesh but with no real nutritional value for the Spirit. Give me the unleavened wherein my starvation has great value because true thankfulness in is upon my lips.

Yeah, it's kind of a sharp sword after all. Right down the middle.

enjoy!

s

 

[childeye]

=smaller;571057]OR a 'truthful' mind? Done anything with absolute perfection lately?

AAAH, a new improved definition of accusation. To the pure of heart all is pure and to the impure of heart nothing is pure.

Believers could really settle this entire matter by simply connecting our own perpetual sins to a source that is not us, that would be the powers of darkness...but to 'do this' means taking it personally and those powers prefer to stay in the dark on the inside of the cup. Those who take the candle within may figure it out, but there is an internal 'blower' on that light.

In some the blower is turbocharged.

Yes I get your point, but this does not mean the Truth is impotent otherwise they would not have killed the ones sent by God.

Did you know that to turn a motorcycle to the right in a curve you move the handlebars left?

I'd say the same thing with 'truth.' To be 'in it' you have to admit to the presence of lying. Strange dichotomy, yet truthful.

Absolutely necessary to come into Truth one must admit they are liars or deny they need Truth. Such is the circumstance of our existence in the dark.

It's already a done deal. The presence of the liar(s) within is openly indisputable, already in writing...worked out in reality every day. Read the bottom of my posts lately?

Yes already all is settled in heaven, down here remains. The coming judgment speaking from inside of time is for our benefit not Gods.

A lot of people read 'wherever two or more are gathered in My Name, there Am I in the midst of them' and see themselves and another person.

I picture that fact with myself and the devil, or with the man of the Gergesenes and Legion or any other number of scriptural examples. Why? Because it is much more accurate. The 'two or more' is me and the powers of darkness that are 'not me.' All a question of 'how' one reads 'personally.'

Interesting. A church of Satan in one man?

I have found myself no match for Boundless Perfection by comparison. When I look in the mirror I see myself largely as a compilation of wet dust soon to be blowing in the wind. I believe it to be an accurate vision. To deny the fact is to whistle past the graveyard.

Are you taking issue with me whistling past the graveyard? For the mirror can find both things good and bad yet it is all narcissism. The devil would have us chop off our noses to spite our face.

 

[smaller]

AAAH, a new improved definition of accusation. To the pure of heart all is pure and to the impure of heart nothing is pure.

I might submit that two simultaneous positions are simultaneously true.

A. Pure
B. Not

Practical scriptural examples of fact.

A. Peter
B. Satan speaking from Peter's lips

A. Judas
B. Satan entering Judas

A. Paul
B. Evil present/devil present with Paul

A. Man of the Gergesenes
B. Legion

Starting to get the picture?

Yes I get your point, but this does not mean the Truth is impotent otherwise they would not have killed the ones sent by God.

You do understand that 'they' are still here, right?

Revelation 1:7
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eyeshall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Absolutely necessary to come into Truth one must admit they are liars or deny they need Truth. Such is the circumstance of our existence in the dark.

Thank you. We agree on the existence of the dichotomy. In the examples of A/B above, the explanation of the dichotomy begins to focus on that which is 'not us' but is 'with us.' This is practical understanding of all scripture, every Word of which is fully applicable to all of us meaning A and B above.

B however is the turbocharged blower.

Yes already all is settled in heaven, down here remains. The coming judgment speaking from inside of time is for our benefit not Gods.

A long conversation. I do not believe it is yet settled.

Hebrews 12:26
Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.

Interesting. A church of Satan in one man?

Indeed. An entire legion of entities that were 'not him.'

If you read the Gospels closely you will find that particular man in 'two' locations. Matthew depicts 'two men' from the Gergesenes...meaning 'dweller on clayey soil.' And indeed the occupants of the demonic are of 'one nation' and 'one man' that being the 'man of sin,' Satan. There we see accurately 'two men' do we not?

Mark and Luke however present only 1 man of the Gadarenes. Gadarenes meaning: 'Reward at the end.'

See A/B clearer yet? There are a myriad of other textual examples.

Are you taking issue with me whistling past the graveyard?

The real you has no such need. The other however will whistle. A/B

For the mirror can find both things good and bad yet it is all narcissism. The devil would have us [A] chop off our noses to spite our face.

A/B is a personal matter, as uncomfortable as the finding is for the turbocharged blower that is not you as Gods child.

Perfect Love casts out fear.

enjoy!

s

 

[elijah23]

Yes Elijah, but you have started a thread that everyone truly enjoys posting on.

That both pleases me and surprises me.

 

[Levi]

;)

The puritan road can make things extremely painful and even agonising for the sincere disciple. And the torture comes from an overly stringent application of the words of Mt 5.28.

This can, and has led to all manner of severe mental illness, as experience has shown, and any psychologist will tell you. At the least, it can create extreme discomfort in one's Christian walk.

That is a burden that no man can bear IF WE UNDERSTAND THE WORDS WRONGLY. I'm certain that Jesus had no such intention when He uttered them. He came that 'they may have life and have it more abundantly' and the severe understanding just doesn't fill that bill.

On the other hand, relaxing it too far, can, and will have equally disastrous consequences.

So I see it as a matter which has to be understood very correctly, and the only way to do that is to correlate that verse(s) with what is said elsewhere in Scripture.

I've tried to do that in one of my previous posts, which I don't know if you've read. I was seeking to avoid binding a burden on people's backs which they can in no wise bear without extreme discomfort.

So, can I give a definition of when lust becomes sin?

Beyond saying 'when the desire hardens into a conscious decision to act on it' I regret to say, I cannot.

It's quite simple I feel. The human being is fallen and the 'flesh' so to speak is the generator of all fallen desires, This is why I say that Jesus did not have the same base desires as us because the Bible plainly states that:

"the sins of the father are passed down upon the son"

Jesus had no earthly father, His Father is God and 'God has no sin'

This is how He overcame the temptations, no earthly man could have done that asides from 'Adam in the garden'

This is why 'Jesus is the second Adam'

What complicates stripping it down is the poverty of the language.

But the process is simple.

Lets remove the words lust and desire from the equation because this is where the argument gets very cloudy.

I believe what Jesus was saying was when a married man intentionally looks at another woman other than his wife with sex as the objective in his mind then he is sinning.

It's not an attraction that is sin

It's the intentional looking at another woman for this specific purpose.

Without the power of Christ within, a person has no control over their base lust because they are acting in accordance with their nature, which is fallen.

Jesus amended the law to make it impossible to achieve any form of righteousness to an honest heart. This is what he came to do to 'complete the law'

The way of the physical law is closed and it serves now solely to convict and condemn as a 'school master for grace'

If a person is born again and has the higher power working through him by way of regeneration of the mind then he has a choice in front of him..

I know from experience that initial attraction can be a trigger to the base desires of the old man, but at that second you are faced with a decision, If you decide to honor Christ and the other person you will not pursue it and it will go no further and it will not be able to turn into a sexually objective force in your heart, there is no sin here.

Pursuing a woman with a respectful heart and honoring her within your mind is not sinful should you like the look of her if you are not married, it's not the same as wanting to have sex with her. If you get engaged and you start (inevitably) have sexual desires then I personally don't feel that is sin, but Paul does say you should marry if it gets to much.

1 Corinthians 7:36
"If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong[a] and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married"

But if you should decide to pursue the initial attraction with a woman whom you have no right to 'know' (either because you are married or because you don't have an engagement with her) this is in fact a sin within itself at this point, a sin against what you know to be the right and honorable thing to do.

This force 'emanates from the flesh' exactly as James said.

The more you choose to exercise the mind of Christ and choose Him the easier it gets within your mind, its a matter of training! which as we know is all about exercise .

Wanting to have sex with someone who is not your wife is a sin for a married man.

Simple

It is not an easy world with smut being pumped out of every sewer, but it can and has been done.

 

[smaller]

It's quite simple I feel. The human being is fallen and the 'flesh' so to speak is the generator of all fallen desires, This is why I say that Jesus did not have the same base desires as us because the Bible plainly states that:

"the sins of the father are passed down upon the son"

Jesus had no earthly father, His Father is God and 'God has no sin'

This is how He overcame the temptations, no earthly man could have done that asides from 'Adam in the garden'

This is why 'Jesus is the second Adam'

What complicates stripping it down is the poverty of the language.

But the process is simple.

Lets remove the words lust and desire from the equation because this is where the argument gets very cloudy.

I believe what Jesus was saying was when a married man intentionally looks at another woman other than his wife with sex as the objective in his mind then he is sinning.

It's not an attraction that is sin

It's the intentional looking at another woman for this specific purpose.

Without the power of Christ within, a person has no control over their base lust because they are acting in accordance with their nature, which is fallen.

Jesus amended the law to make it impossible to achieve any form of righteousness to an honest heart. This is what he came to do to 'complete the law'

The way of the physical law is closed and it serves now solely to convict and condemn as a 'school master for grace'

If a person is born again and has the higher power working through him by way of regeneration of the mind then he has a choice in front of him..

I know from experience that initial attraction can be a trigger to the base desires of the old man, but at that second you are faced with a decision, If you decide to honor Christ and the other person you will not pursue it and it will go no further and it will not be able to turn into a sexually objective force in your heart, there is no sin here.

Pursuing a woman with a respectful heart and honoring her within your mind is not sinful should you like the look of her if you are not married, it's not the same as wanting to have sex with her. If you get engaged and you start (inevitably) have sexual desires then I personally don't feel that is sin, but Paul does say you should marry if it gets to much.

1 Corinthians 7:36
"If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong[a] and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married"

But if you should decide to pursue the initial attraction with a woman whom you have no right to 'know' (either because you are married or because you don't have an engagement with her) this is in fact a sin within itself at this point, a sin against what you know to be the right and honorable thing to do.

This force 'emanates from the flesh' exactly as James said.

The more you choose to exercise the mind of Christ and choose Him the easier it gets within your mind, its a matter of training! which as we know is all about exercise .

Wanting to have sex with someone who is not your wife is a sin for a married man.

Simple

It is not an easy world with smut being pumped out of every sewer, but it can and has been done.

The above is largely an excuse for the intrusion of adulterous thoughts that factually transpire in every one in different forms. Those who excuse their lust as 'it is not intentional' are excusing their sin rather than dealing with the fact that it IS sin, even with the smallest of intrusions.

Paul was very adroit in describing how this transpires in all people in Romans 7, and links this action directly to the power of sin in relationship with the Law. Now any 'man' may excuse their lust and deny it was 'intentional' even though we all as men KNOW for no uncertain fact that it IS there and DOES happen, period. One may certainly intervene upon those thought but the intrusion of same is beyond any dispute in those who are even semi-truthful.

The source of those thought intrusions is internal evidence of the fact of sins operations in ALL. There are zero exceptions to the facts and it is pointless to cover or excuse same. It is what it is. SIN. And 'all' sin, period. Those who 'excuse' this fact are in fact blinded by the fact itself working in them to 'cover it up' and to falsely make themselves be more holy then they really are 'inside.'

There is no avoiding the encounter with the facts of sin. This is how it works in 'all:'

Romans 7:
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
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.



The power of sin resides in the flesh of 'all' people. The 'only' exception was God Himself in flesh.


One might even note that Paul described this working as 'sin' but 'not him.'


It was not Paul that sinned, but the power of sin that was and remained operational in Paul. There is simply no avoiding this fact. Sin does what 'it' does. Paul 'disassociated' himself from that operation and found therein his separation from same as he shows us that power is 'not him' nor is it us as Gods children, but it is and remains an operational fact in everyone.


"unintentional" is just a cover up of the existence of the fact.



Jesus had this fact conveyed to Pharisees and showed their internal captivity and denial of what was factually in them all:


Luke 11:39
And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.

We are well advised by Paul not to allow ourselves to be controlled by the fact of sins presence:


Romans 6:12
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

The battle ground is in the mind. Anyone who excuses their sin in mind on any basis is not truthful. Being truthful about these matters is a requirement of legitimate believers.

Even the opening poster admitted to FAILURE. It is not a failure for the fact to transpire within. It is there however that it must be kept 'in checkmate.'
Sin is of the devil. This fact should make everyone somewhat uncomfortable if they don't admit the tempter is actually within their own minds as 'not them.'

enjoy!

s

 

[Asyncritus]

Hi Levi

This is the most balanced post on the subject that I've read so far, and I don't quite understand why Smaller has gone off the deep end at your presentation. It seems perfectly logical and reasonable to me.

It's quite simple I feel. The human being is fallen and the 'flesh' so to speak is the generator of all fallen desires, This is why I say that Jesus did not have the same base desires as us because the Bible plainly states that:

"the sins of the father are passed down upon the son"

I don't think this quote is correct. If it is, I've never seen it. Is this what you have in mind?

Ex 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

This is why 'Jesus is the second Adam'

Um, no ... He is the LAST Adam. 1 Cor 15.45

Lets remove the words lust and desire from the equation because this is where the argument gets very cloudy.

I believe what Jesus was saying was when a married man intentionally looks at another woman other than his wife with sex as the objective in his mind then he is sinning.

It's not an attraction that is sin

It's the intentional looking at another woman for this specific purpose.

That is absolutely correct, I believe.

The rest of this is a perfectly correct and balanced view of the matter, and I wholly agree with you. Thank you for taking the time and thought to produce this.

Without the power of Christ within, a person has no control over their base lust because they are acting in accordance with their nature, which is fallen.

Jesus amended the law to make it impossible to achieve any form of righteousness to an honest heart. This is what he came to do to 'complete the law'

The way of the physical law is closed and it serves now solely to convict and condemn as a 'school master for grace'

If a person is born again and has the higher power working through him by way of regeneration of the mind then he has a choice in front of him..

I know from experience that initial attraction can be a trigger to the base desires of the old man, but at that second you are faced with a decision, If you decide to honor Christ and the other person you will not pursue it and it will go no further and it will not be able to turn into a sexually objective force in your heart, there is no sin here.

Pursuing a woman with a respectful heart and honoring her within your mind is not sinful should you like the look of her if you are not married, it's not the same as wanting to have sex with her. If you get engaged and you start (inevitably) have sexual desires then I personally don't feel that is sin, but Paul does say you should marry if it gets to much.

1 Corinthians 7:36
"If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong[a] and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married"

But if you should decide to pursue the initial attraction with a woman whom you have no right to 'know' (either because you are married or because you don't have an engagement with her) this is in fact a sin within itself at this point, a sin against what you know to be the right and honorable thing to do.

This force 'emanates from the flesh' exactly as James said.

The more you choose to exercise the mind of Christ and choose Him the easier it gets within your mind, its a matter of training! which as we know is all about exercise .

Wanting to have sex with someone who is not your wife is a sin for a married man.

I might have used the word intending instead of wanting there.

Simple

It is not an easy world with smut being pumped out of every sewer, but it can and has been done.

 

[smaller]

Hi Levi

This is the most balanced post on the subject that I've read so far, and I don't quite understand why Smaller has gone off the deep end at your presentation. It seems perfectly logical and reasonable to me.

Citing Paul's statements in Romans 7 about 'how' sin works is far from going off the 'deep end.'

You are welcome to factually respond to any point made.

That being said, 'intentional' or 'unintentional' the tempter, an entirely different entity than mankind is assuredly involved with 'sin in mind.'

Those who 'excuse' the works of the tempter in their minds may in fact be speakings of that same rather than acknowledging the fact that it is sin and it is of the devil operational in that persons mind and 'all' people have this sin problem regardless of their knowledge of the facts or their admittance rather than excuses.

There is in short no excuses available for the tempter 'in any form of thoughts.'

deep end...lol

s

 

[Classik]

I see this thread is going to hit a million posts :D. Anything contrary to the first post... is... ....

The missile just went...and perhaps we need a search party to go gather the shrapnel

Ride on People

 

[Asyncritus]

Citing Paul's statements in Romans 7 about 'how' sin works is far from going off the 'deep end.'

You are welcome to factually respond to any point made.

That being said, 'intentional' or 'unintentional' the tempter, an entirely different entity than mankind is assuredly involved with 'sin in mind.'

I read, factually, the following:

Mt 15.18 But the things which proceed out of the mouth come forth out of the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings:

Mk 7.20 And he said, That which proceedeth out of the man, that defileth the man.
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
22 covetings, wickednesses, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, railing, pride, foolishness:
23 all these evil things proceed from within, and defile the man.

I see nothing of any 'tempter' there.

Nor here:

Rom 7.17 So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which 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 to do that which is good is not.
19 For the good which I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I practise.
20 But if what I would not, that I do, it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me.

James agrees:

1.14 but each man is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then the lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is fullgrown, bringeth forth death.

So does Jeremiah:

17.9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is desperately sick: who can know it?

And Genesis:

6.5 And the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

I think those passages agree fully with what Levi said.

 

[Levi]

The above is largely an excuse for the intrusion of adulterous thoughts that factually transpire in every one in different forms. Those who excuse their lust as 'it is not intentional' are excusing their sin rather than dealing with the fact that it IS sin, even with the smallest of intrusions.

Paul was very adroit in describing how this transpires in all people in Romans 7, and links this action directly to the power of sin in relationship with the Law. Now any 'man' may excuse their lust and deny it was 'intentional' even though we all as men KNOW for no uncertain fact that it IS there and DOES happen, period. One may certainly intervene upon those thought but the intrusion of same is beyond any dispute in those who are even semi-truthful.

The source of those thought intrusions is internal evidence of the fact of sins operations in ALL. There are zero exceptions to the facts and it is pointless to cover or excuse same. It is what it is. SIN. And 'all' sin, period. Those who 'excuse' this fact are in fact blinded by the fact itself working in them to 'cover it up' and to falsely make themselves be more holy then they really are 'inside.'

There is no avoiding the encounter with the facts of sin. This is how it works in 'all:'

Romans 7:
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
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.



The power of sin resides in the flesh of 'all' people. The 'only' exception was God Himself in flesh.


One might even note that Paul described this working as 'sin' but 'not him.'


It was not Paul that sinned, but the power of sin that was and remained operational in Paul. There is simply no avoiding this fact. Sin does what 'it' does. Paul 'disassociated' himself from that operation and found therein his separation from same as he shows us that power is 'not him' nor is it us as Gods children, but it is and remains an operational fact in everyone.


"unintentional" is just a cover up of the existence of the fact.



Jesus had this fact conveyed to Pharisees and showed their internal captivity and denial of what was factually in them all:


Luke 11:39
And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.

We are well advised by Paul not to allow ourselves to be controlled by the fact of sins presence:


Romans 6:12
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

The battle ground is in the mind. Anyone who excuses their sin in mind on any basis is not truthful. Being truthful about these matters is a requirement of legitimate believers.

Even the opening poster admitted to FAILURE. It is not a failure for the fact to transpire within. It is there however that it must be kept 'in checkmate.'
Sin is of the devil. This fact should make everyone somewhat uncomfortable if they don't admit the tempter is actually within their own minds as 'not them.'

enjoy!

s

You missing one very valid point in your post.

The existence of the human sex drive as given by God for the purpose of "going forth and multiplying"

Many a person has flogged and beaten himself with whips a flails for having what is essentially a God given natural drive.

To desire to have sex with someone that you have no right to is a sin (illegal under the law), if you feel attraction to someone to whom its unlawful don't pursue it so that it turns to illegal sexual desire aka lust. Period. Simple

Why complicate that? Its not rocket science

It's not hard!

 

[Levi]

Citing Paul's statements in Romans 7 about 'how' sin works is far from going off the 'deep end.'

You are welcome to factually respond to any point made.

That being said, 'intentional' or 'unintentional' the tempter, an entirely different entity than mankind is assuredly involved with 'sin in mind.'

Those who 'excuse' the works of the tempter in their minds may in fact be speakings of that same rather than acknowledging the fact that it is sin and it is of the devil operational in that persons mind and 'all' people have this sin problem regardless of their knowledge of the facts or their admittance rather than excuses.

There is in short no excuses available for the tempter 'in any form of thoughts.'

deep end...lol

s

Once again you are failing to separate attraction from sexual desire. Attraction does not become sexual desire unless you give credence to it and encourage it, at the point Satan is going to jump on it like lion on a lamb.

This is where intent enters.

The tempter is every where, woman are shaking their booty's and bodies everywhere you look.

And men are doing the same.

You do not sin unless you intentionally pursue it in your mind. It really is that simple.

 

[smaller]

Once again you are failing to separate attraction from sexual desire.

Excuse lust in mind however you care to spin it.

Attraction does not become sexual desire unless you give credence to it and encourage it, at the point Satan is going to jump on it like lion on a lamb.

And of course that 'never' happens with 'you.'

This is where intent enters.

The tempter is every where, woman are shaking their booty's and bodies everywhere you look.

And of course no tempter is involved in your mind there either. I'll wait for the fess up, if it comes.

And men are doing the same.

You do not sin unless you intentionally pursue it in your mind. It really is that simple.

And I would submit the instant any remote thought however spare remains adultery in mind inserted there by the tempter.

Do with that fact what you wish and excuse same if you wish.

s

 

[smaller]

You missing one very valid point in your post.

The existence of the human sex drive as given by God for the purpose of "going forth and multiplying"

OK J. Smith.

Many a person has flogged and beaten himself with whips a flails for having what is essentially a God given natural drive.

You continue to miss the point entirely. The power of sin is prompted into action by the law that says do not commit adultery. No man avoids the power of sin operating in his mind by that law. You are welcome to excuse same as 'natural.' It's a sin, period in any of the slightest forms. Even for just a nanosecond and proves the power of sin enacted by the tempter is within. Natural...ha! Dark supernatural is more like it. You are just an excuser for the tempter in mind.

To desire to have sex with someone that you have no right to is a sin (illegal under the law), if you feel attraction to someone to whom its unlawful don't pursue it so that it turns to illegal sexual desire aka lust. Period. Simple

The point remains. Any honest man will admit to these temptations. Those temptations are assuredly sin in mind and of the tempter. You are welcome to gloss over this fact however you please.

Why complicate that? Its not rocket science

It's not hard!

Giving the thought the brush off and having it are two different matters. I am not saying that the brushoff is not a victory over sins acceleration, but the fact that it happens remains a sin regardless and that sin is of the tempter in your own mind, regardless of your handling it from that point.

s

 

[smaller]

I read, factually, the following:

Mt 15.18 But the things which proceed out of the mouth come forth out of the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings:

Mk 7.20 And he said, That which proceedeth out of the man, that defileth the man.
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
22 covetings, wickednesses, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, railing, pride, foolishness:
23 all these evil things proceed from within, and defile the man.

I see nothing of any 'tempter' there.

If you manage to accept the fact that it's a sin and sin is of the devil, then the tempter is implicated in every sin in 'mind' regardless.

Nor here:

Rom 7.17 So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which 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 to do that which is good is not.
19 For the good which I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I practise.
20 But if what I would not, that I do, it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me.

James agrees:

1.14 but each man is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then the lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is fullgrown, bringeth forth death.

Thoughts of sin inserted by the tempter are sin. Those insertions are yours to deal with. You are welcome to extract the tempter from that equation. I can't honestly do that because sin is of the devil. Even sins in mind. See 1 John 3:8 for reference.

Sin originates from the tempter and from within the heart/mind.

So does Jeremiah:

17.9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is desperately sick: who can know it?

No man changes what the tempter does. The man who blames and accuses or excuses himself simply does not know or perceive his enemy and makes excuses for same at the impetus of that enemy, even speaking those enemy's excuses as a pawn by blaming and accusing himself only. That is also a working of the tempter in that persons mind. They just can't fess up that sin which is of the devil is operational in them, but it remains a fact regardless.

And Genesis:

6.5 And the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

I think those passages agree fully with what Levi said.

If you manage to make sin in mind NOT SIN and excuse the tempter, the devil in that matter you'd have a point, but that is not possible.

There is no excuse for any sin in mind no matter how slight and the tempter is involved with all of it starting THERE, in mind and heart.

You are welcome to let the tempter off the hook and blame yourself and other people. That is in fact what the devil in peoples minds does.

s