Could inappropriate content be considered as adultery?

Could inappropriate content be considered as adultery?

  • Yes

    Votes: 29 78.4%
  • No

    Votes: 5 13.5%
  • I'm not sure

    Votes: 3 8.1%

  • Total voters
    37

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,317
13,523
72
✟370,054.00
Faith
Non-Denom
What do you think concerning the thousands of romance novels which are lustily consumed by a willing public?

They are inappropriate contentography.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you on this point entirely, yet, as evidenced by the post following yours, inappropriate contentography is defined as "provocative nude photos" and not as written material, as well.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Psalm 27
Upvote 0

Psalm 27

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2020
1,078
515
Uk
✟117,243.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
I would define inappropriate content as provocative nude photos.
bbbbbbb is actually correct. Erotic romance novels have the same powerful effect as inappropriate contentographic images. It is adultery of the heart, either way
 
Upvote 0

Psalm 27

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2020
1,078
515
Uk
✟117,243.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
You are mistaken concerning women and inappropriate content. Granted the women are not the visual creatures that men are. However, women prefer their inappropriate content in a written format which enables them to mentally fantasize. Most women's inappropriate content is in the form of romance novels and can be generally categorized as soft inappropriate content, but some of it is quite explicit, albeit not illustrated, except for the lurid cover illustrations.
I was talking about internet inappropriate content, but you’re right. I started out on erotic romance.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,660
7,392
Dallas
✟889,694.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
bbbbbbb is actually correct. Erotic romance novels have the same powerful effect as inappropriate contentographic images. It is adultery of the heart, either way

I wouldn’t know I’ve never read any before. It’s not something that I would consider as inappropriate content although I would agree that it is sinful.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,317
13,523
72
✟370,054.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I was talking about internet inappropriate content, but you’re right. I started out on erotic romance.

Thank you. When I was in high school there was a girl (I will call her Shirley) in my class who was the quintessential dumb blonde. Her mother was a professional hooker, which was quite a startling revelation in 1968 when such things were never discussed or known. However, I digress.

One day prior to English class Shirley was chatting with us and mentioned that she had just come from her civics class where they had been discussing inappropriate contentography laws. She had not understood the discussion because she did not know what inappropriate contentography was. Wise guy that I was, I told her to ask our English teacher, who was a proper elderly spinster. We will call her Miss Smith. When Miss Smith came to the class Shirley told her about her problem. Miss Smith handed her a dictionary and told her to look it up. Shirley said she didn't know how to spell it. Miss Smith then told Shirley to give the dictionary to me because I knew how to spell it (I was the best student in the class). I looked it up and handed it to Shirley. After reading the definition she said, "Ooooooh, that's not so bad. I thought it was really something awful."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Psalm 27
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,317
13,523
72
✟370,054.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I wouldn’t know I’ve never read any before. It’s not something that I would consider as inappropriate content although I would agree that it is sinful.

I don't recommend reading them, primarily because they are really boring and formulaic once you eliminate the soft inappropriate content from them. Their chief function seems to be to titillate women's sexual imaginations.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: BNR32FAN
Upvote 0

Sabertooth

Repartee Animal: Quipping the Saints!
Site Supporter
Jul 25, 2005
10,509
7,068
62
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟961,695.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
One of the difficulties we face in our culture is that we naturally define inappropriate content as visual stimulation. In fact, it entails far more than the visual aspect. There are multitudes of inappropriate contentographic forms of literature which do not have a single illustration. Some is soft inappropriate content such as the pulp romances and other can be quite hard core - completely without illustrations.
The fact that non-visual forms of inappropriate content exist does not somehow clear its visual component of being virtual, Matthew 5:27-28 adultery.
The Song of Solomon is somewhere in between IMO.
The God Who condemns adultery would not have included SoS if it failed in that regard.

Can you really not distinguish between sanctified and illicit expressions of sexuality...?
(Or are you hoping that, if you blur the line between the two, God won't notice?)
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,317
13,523
72
✟370,054.00
Faith
Non-Denom
The fact that non-visual forms of inappropriate content exist does not somehow clear its visual component of being virtual, Matthew 5:27-28 adultery.

The God Who condemns adultery would not have included SoS if it failed in that regard.

Can you really not distinguish between sanctified and illicit expressions of sexuality...?
(Or are you hoping that, if you blur the line between the two, God won't notice?)

It is quite possible to fantasize about sexuality even with the most unintentional environment. Much European art depicts human nudity. For some individuals this nudity is erotic (and, therefore, inappropriate contentographic). For art connaseurs the art is not erotic in the least. As they say, smut is in the mind of the beholder.
 
Upvote 0

Sabertooth

Repartee Animal: Quipping the Saints!
Site Supporter
Jul 25, 2005
10,509
7,068
62
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟961,695.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
...is erotic (and, therefore, inappropriate contentographic).
That is where you are continually wrong.
inappropriate contentography is only illicit erotica, just like
adultery is only illicit sexuality.

Get your own spouse and your sex drive will be blessed.
For art connaseurs the art is not erotic in the least. As they say, smut is in the mind of the beholder.
Do you actually believe that God is going to judge the matter, based on the opinion of fallen "art connoisseurs...?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,317
13,523
72
✟370,054.00
Faith
Non-Denom
That is where you are continually wrong.
inappropriate contentography is only illicit erotica, just like
adultery is only illicit sexuality.

Get your own spouse and your sex drive will be blessed.

Do you actually believe that God is going to judge the matter, based on the opinion of fallen "art connoisseurs...?"

Licit or illicit, smut is still in the mind of the individual. Whether it is enhanced by visual or verbal media it results in the same end.

Now, I suppose you will advocate for the use of inappropriate contentography within the marriage. When does inappropriate contentography play a positive (licit) role within marriage?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sabertooth

Repartee Animal: Quipping the Saints!
Site Supporter
Jul 25, 2005
10,509
7,068
62
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟961,695.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Now, I suppose you will advocate for the use of inappropriate contentography within the marriage.
That is an incorrect supposition.
 
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,841.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If so, then the OT book 'Song of songs' also is inappropriate content.

The Song of Songs is not inappropriate contentographic.
"May he kiss me with the kisses of his mouth!" "Your two breasts are like two fawns, Twins of a gazelle Which feed among the lilies."
If kissing and some praise of her breasts is considered to be inappropriate contentography we had better walk around with our eyes shut and never ever visit a beach. It is romantic poetry highlighting the love between a husband and wife.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,317
13,523
72
✟370,054.00
Faith
Non-Denom
The Song of Songs is not inappropriate contentographic.
"May he kiss me with the kisses of his mouth!" "Your two breasts are like two fawns, Twins of a gazelle Which feed among the lilies."
If kissing and some praise of her breasts is considered to be inappropriate contentography we had better walk around with our eyes shut and never ever visit a beach. It is romantic poetry highlighting the love between a husband and wife.

Jesus apparently did not advocate walking around on beaches with scantily clad babes lolling in the sun.

Matthew 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
 
Upvote 0

Reluctant Theologian

אַבְרָהָם
Jul 13, 2021
279
157
QLD
✟71,408.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The Song of Songs is not inappropriate contentographic.
"May he kiss me with the kisses of his mouth!" "Your two breasts are like two fawns, Twins of a gazelle Which feed among the lilies."
If kissing and some praise of her breasts is considered to be inappropriate contentography we had better walk around with our eyes shut and never ever visit a beach. It is romantic poetry highlighting the love between a husband and wife.

I have to contest that, Song of Songs goes way beyond talking about kisses of the mouth, and praises of breasts. The metaphors used reveal a deeply erotically explicit text (see Erotic Poetry, Song of Solomon) - much more than just 'romance'. So my proposition was that IF someone would define inappropriate content to be 'erotically explicit material', than Song of Songs would fall into that category.

That is why I find the term 'inappropriate content' not really useful in conversations in this context - it's not well defined by Christians who try to fight 'against' something. There's plenty to fight 'against' but we need the usable definitions.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,291
20,290
US
✟1,476,962.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have to contest that, Song of Songs goes way beyond talking about kisses of the mouth, and praises of breasts. The metaphors used reveal a deeply erotically explicit text (see Erotic Poetry, Song of Solomon) - much more than just 'romance'. So my proposition was that IF someone would define inappropriate content to be 'erotically explicit material', than Song of Songs would fall into that category.

That is why I find the term 'inappropriate content' not really useful in conversations in this context - it's not well defined by Christians who try to fight 'against' something. There's plenty to fight 'against' but we need the usable definitions.

Then for a Christian, see my post #76 for a useful option.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,317
13,523
72
✟370,054.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I have to contest that, Song of Songs goes way beyond talking about kisses of the mouth, and praises of breasts. The metaphors used reveal a deeply erotically explicit text (see Erotic Poetry, Song of Solomon) - much more than just 'romance'. So my proposition was that IF someone would define inappropriate content to be 'erotically explicit material', than Song of Songs would fall into that category.

That is why I find the term 'inappropriate content' not really useful in conversations in this context - it's not well defined by Christians who try to fight 'against' something. There's plenty to fight 'against' but we need the usable definitions.

Thank you for making my point. It is the same problem the U. S. Supreme Court has struggled with. We are dealing with an amoeba which has no clear cut boundaries.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,191
5,710
49
The Wild West
✟476,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Paul also said it is no longer I who sin, but the sin within me that sins O wretched man that I am.

The body is carnal and won't be saved anyway. Cultivate the divine nature and outgrow the carnal - guilt re-inforces the addictive cycles anyway.

Whereas you are correct in saying that inappropriate contentography is obviously adulterous lust, and our Lord even condemns lascivious conduct using the Greek word inappropriate contentea, from which the word inappropriate contentography is derived, I think it is potentially misleading to say the body is carnal and not subject to salvation, and to suggest that the divine nature exists apart from the carnal nature, and indeed, I am fearful that such an approach could lead to an inadvertently Docetic soteriology.

So, begging your pardon @Michael Collum , as I do enjoy your posts greatly, let me expound upon, or in contemporary vernacular parlance, break down, my concern:

1. Jesus Christ, the only begotten son and Word of God, who in the beginning was with God, and was God, became incarnate for our salvation, taking onto Himself our carnal, physical nature so as to reveal to us the spiritual, incorporeal, invisible and transcendent Father, through the Immanence of his assumed humanity. (John 1:1-18)

2. Having put on our mortal and carnal human nature in the Incarnation (the Latin word Incarnate, derived from Incarnare, from which the verb incarno and the ecclesiastical Latin verb Incarnatio, from which Incarnation is derived, literally means “to become carnal,” or, to express in more pure English, “to be given flesh.”), our Lord, the New Adam, saved, sanctified and glorified our humanity in His triumphant passion on the mystical Tree of Life, the Holy Cross, and in his burial, his Harrowing of Hell, and Resurrection, trampled down death by death and exalted our human nature to a level superior even to that of Adam and Eve. To quote Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, “God became man so we could become god.”

3. The flesh will be therefore be saved, and our resurrection will be a bodily one, as Scripture and the Fathers attest, because the Incarnation of God the Son sanctified, restored and transfigured our human nature into something holy.

4. Because Jesus Christ in His incarnation united the human and divine natures in one person and one hypostasis, without change, confusion, separation or division, we apply the Christological principle of communicatio idiomatum, wherein statements addressed to one nature can be applied to the other. Thus, it is entirely correct to say that Mary gave birth to God (to say otherwise is to embrace the grave theological error of Nestorianism), that God wept, that God fasted in the wilderness, that He hungered and thirsted, that He experienced childhood and adolescence, that He was baptized, that God laid down his life for us as a ransom for many, so that death could be swallowed up in victory, and to this end, God suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and buried, resting in the tomb on the seventh day, and that he arose on Sunday, an event foretold by the prophetic Psalm “Let God Arise, and let His enemies be scattered.”

Therefore, rather than focusing on the divine nature, which is by definition transcendent and incomprehensible, we should focus on How our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ redeemed our corrupt humanity, by uniting it with His divinity, and we should focus on this great and wondrous mystery, that we have a God so infinitely loving and full of love that He would, in the person of the Son, endure unspeakably brutal humiliation and suffering at the hands of the Romans, before rising again so that we who have faith in Him might rise with Him and be deified, not as uncreated persons of the Trinity, but as participants in His uncreated energies by which He reveals Himself, and that to aid us in our faith, God further condescended to send His Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who spoke by the prophets, the third member of the Trinity, to dwell in us and serve as our paraclete, and to make it possible for fallen humanity to elect for salvation, which would otherwise be an impossibility.

So, in summary, we will not leave our flesh behind, but rather will for a time be separated from it, before God in his omnipotence restores and reassembles it, purifying it from all corruption, so that we may stand before the judgement seat of Christ Pantocrator, and those of us with a genuine, living faith, as defined in the Epistle of James, shall dwell with Him forever. This is why we should avoid inappropriate contentography, sodomy, inappropriate behavior with animals, incest and other acts of sexual depravity, because these acts desecrate our bodies, which have been consecrated at our baptism and confirmation or Chrismation as temples of the Holy Spirit. We should strive to avoid any conduct which defiles the image of God in which we are created, for all of us are sacred icons of the Lord.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Will Joseph
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,191
5,710
49
The Wild West
✟476,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
The Song of Songs is not inappropriate contentographic.
"May he kiss me with the kisses of his mouth!" "Your two breasts are like two fawns, Twins of a gazelle Which feed among the lilies."
If kissing and some praise of her breasts is considered to be inappropriate contentography we had better walk around with our eyes shut and never ever visit a beach. It is romantic poetry highlighting the love between a husband and wife.

Indeed, the suggestion that the Song of Songs is inappropriate contentography is strange, bizarre, unwarranted and represents the worst kind of Puritanism - indeed, even when my church tradition, the Congregationalists, were practicing Puritans, we did not reject the Song of Songs. We did hang witches on the basis of “spectral evidence”, for example, nightmares children had featuring certain persons in them, which was insane, because the early church fathers repeatedly warned the faithful to ignore dreams because of the risk of demonic deception, but for all the hypocrisy, stupidity and evil we did commit, there is some extremely slight consolation one can derive from the fact that we did not (so far as I know) expurgate any books, chapters or verses from our Bibles, except for the Deuterocanonical Books, which was also a really bad decision on our part (every Christian should read the prophecy of our Lord, written around the time of the First Triumvirate of Caesar, Crassus and Pompey, 60-70 years before His incarnation, and 90-100 years before his ministry, that is known as the Book of Wisdom, or the Wisdom of Solomon (which consists of sayings attributed to Solomon, written down in Greek for the benefit of Hellenic Jewry). And likewise, every Christian should read the Wisdom of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus, and the Book of Tobit, which prefigures the Gospel narrative, and the account of divine intervention in the history of the Maccabees, who resisted an attempt by the evil governor Antiochius to suppress Second Temple Judaism. And the Book of Esther is not complete, in my opinion, without the Prayer of Manessah and other spiritual elements which are strangely missing from the Masoretic Text.

Also, here is a fun fact: Saint Athanasius, who introduced our current New Testament canon, also proposed an Old Testament canon which lacked Esther but included Judith, among other peculiarities. Needless to say, this canon, unlike his New Testament canon, was not received by the universal Church, although it was for a time in force in the Patriarchate of Alexandria and All Africa.
 
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,369
7,745
Canada
✟722,927.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Whereas you are correct in saying that inappropriate contentography is obviously adulterous lust, and our Lord even condemns lascivious conduct using the Greek word inappropriate contentea, from which the word inappropriate contentography is derived, I think it is potentially misleading to say the body is carnal and not subject to salvation, and to suggest that the divine nature exists apart from the carnal nature, and indeed, I am fearful that such an approach could lead to an inadvertently Docetic soteriology.

So, begging your pardon @Michael Collum , as I do enjoy your posts greatly, let me expound upon, or in contemporary vernacular parlance, break down, my concern:

1. Jesus Christ, the only begotten son and Word of God, who in the beginning was with God, and was God, became incarnate for our salvation, taking onto Himself our carnal, physical nature so as to reveal to us the spiritual, incorporeal, invisible and transcendent Father, through the Immanence of his assumed humanity. (John 1:1-18)

2. Having put on our mortal and carnal human nature in the Incarnation (the Latin word Incarnate, derived from Incarnare, from which the verb incarno and the ecclesiastical Latin verb Incarnatio, from which Incarnation is derived, literally means “to become carnal,” or, to express in more pure English, “to be given flesh.”), our Lord, the New Adam, saved, sanctified and glorified our humanity in His triumphant passion on the mystical Tree of Life, the Holy Cross, and in his burial, his Harrowing of Hell, and Resurrection, trampled down death by death and exalted our human nature to a level superior even to that of Adam and Eve. To quote Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, “God became man so we could become god.”

3. The flesh will be therefore be saved, and our resurrection will be a bodily one, as Scripture and the Fathers attest, because the Incarnation of God the Son sanctified, restored and transfigured our human nature into something holy.

4. Because Jesus Christ in His incarnation united the human and divine natures in one person and one hypostasis, without change, confusion, separation or division, we apply the Christological principle of communicatio idiomatum, wherein statements addressed to one nature can be applied to the other. Thus, it is entirely correct to say that Mary gave birth to God (to say otherwise is to embrace the grave theological error of Nestorianism), that God wept, that God fasted in the wilderness, that He hungered and thirsted, that He experienced childhood and adolescence, that He was baptized, that God laid down his life for us as a ransom for many, so that death could be swallowed up in victory, and to this end, God suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and buried, resting in the tomb on the seventh day, and that he arose on Sunday, an event foretold by the prophetic Psalm “Let God Arise, and let His enemies be scattered.”

Therefore, rather than focusing on the divine nature, which is by definition transcendent and incomprehensible, we should focus on How our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ redeemed our corrupt humanity, by uniting it with His divinity, and we should focus on this great and wondrous mystery, that we have a God so infinitely loving and full of love that He would, in the person of the Son, endure unspeakably brutal humiliation and suffering at the hands of the Romans, before rising again so that we who have faith in Him might rise with Him and be deified, not as uncreated persons of the Trinity, but as participants in His uncreated energies by which He reveals Himself, and that to aid us in our faith, God further condescended to send His Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who spoke by the prophets, the third member of the Trinity, to dwell in us and serve as our paraclete, and to make it possible for fallen humanity to elect for salvation, which would otherwise be an impossibility.

So, in summary, we will not leave our flesh behind, but rather will for a time be separated from it, before God in his omnipotence restores and reassembles it, purifying it from all corruption, so that we may stand before the judgement seat of Christ Pantocrator, and those of us with a genuine, living faith, as defined in the Epistle of James, shall dwell with Him forever. This is why we should avoid inappropriate contentography, sodomy, inappropriate behavior with animals, incest and other acts of sexual depravity, because these acts desecrate our bodies, which have been consecrated at our baptism and confirmation or Chrismation as temples of the Holy Spirit. We should strive to avoid any conduct which defiles the image of God in which we are created, for all of us are sacred icons of the Lord.
I appreciate you bringing this up, and thanks for sharing that.

However, I meant the flesh of this body cannot be saved, (wherein the works of the flesh are obvious) the resurrected body is a separate body.

The resurrected body is a new body, in the sense that the old is gone (the one we currently have now) and the new has come.

That's the main difference in how I read it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,317
13,523
72
✟370,054.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I appreciate you bringing this up, and thanks for sharing that.

However, I meant the flesh of this body cannot be saved, (wherein the works of the flesh are obvious) the resurrected body is a separate body.

The resurrected body is a new body, in the sense that the old is gone (the one we currently have now) and the new has come.

That's the main difference in how I read it.

In the meantime we can echo Paul's lament in Romans 7.


7 Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2 For the married woman is bound by law to her a]" style="font-size: 0.625em; line-height: normal; position: relative; vertical-align: text-top; top: auto; display: inline;">[a]husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law b]" style="font-size: 0.625em; line-height: normal; position: relative; vertical-align: text-top; top: auto; display: inline;">[b]concerning the husband. 3 So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.

4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in c]" style="font-size: 0.625em; line-height: normal; position: relative; vertical-align: text-top; top: auto; display: inline;">[c]the members of our body to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the d]" style="font-size: 0.625em; line-height: normal; position: relative; vertical-align: text-top; top: auto; display: inline;">[d]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; 10 and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; 11 for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

13 Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.


14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.
 
Upvote 0