Skip to main content

The Pear Tree Dilemma//Haylee Lynd

     

 Augustine robs a pear tree, but not because he wants the pears. One may ask, and Augustine does ask, what's that about? Augustine robs the pear tree, not for the need nor the want of the material possession of the pears, but because of the pleasure which he finds in the sin. He says, "Our real pleasure consisted in doing something that was forbidden" (Augustine 47). From Augustine's writings, it appears that humans are naturally evil. Humans desire to sin. They possess a rebellious nature. On the other hand, Desmond Tutu, among others, would argue that humans are naturally good. However, I believe Augustine is right; humans are naturally evil, meaning they have a tendency to sin. In Romans 7:18 Paul writes, "For I know that nothing goods lives in me, that is, in my flesh. For the desire to do what is good is with me, but there is no ability to do it." Even if man desires to do good, he tends to do evil; he has a tendency to sin. I see it this way, when man was created, sin had not yet entered the world. Man had the choice to either obey God or disobey God, but there was no tendency to do either. Man simply had free will. When sin entered the world, man began to exist in a fallen state, corrupted by sin. This is commonly referred to as depravity. However, Jesus came to reconcile and redemption us from that fallen state. Once one becomes a believer, once they believe the Jesus came to save and accept Him as their savior, they once again have full free will as they are given the power over sin which the Spirit gives. 

When Augustine robs the pear tree, he is unsaved. He gives into his rebellious nature. His flesh is in control. He does not seek evil or the consequences which come from it, but he find joy in committing the evil, simply because it is evil. He struggles to resist the temptation to do this, even though he neither needs nor wants the pears. He has better ones at home. He is living in the fallen state. He does not have the power to overcome sin and temptation because he is without God. 


P.S. I commented on Kaitlyn Terry's and Brooke's posts.

Comments

  1. I think humans and Christians especially naturally tend to listen to their body because even though some Christians have grown up in church, we all have that inherent sin nature that we can never really kick. And even non-Christians sometimes have a sense of guilt after committing a sin. We’re all guilty of sometimes committing sin just because we can but we have been given the option should we so choose to ask God for help and His forgiveness.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think this dilemma largely comes from us as humans being unable to resist temptation. Try as we might, we are all guilty of something, not the least of which is doing something to see if we can get away with it. I believe that largely comes as a consequence of the original sin

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Aristotle Might Not Like Me...Or Jesus//Haylee Lynd

      Aristotle says that the man who does not get angry at the things he should be angry at "is thought unlikely to defend himself; and to endure being insulted and put up with insult to one's friends is slavish" (Aristotle 41). While he states that passivity is preferred to excessive anger, he still gives great criticism to it.  In contrast to Aristotle, the man who Christians believe to be the most just is Jesus who states in Matthew 5:39-40, "...do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well." Essentially, arguing that one is not to respond in anger when insulted or hurt, to not defend one's self. Most individual's are unable to achieve this. Our natural instinct is to defend ourselves, especially in physical cases. However, Christians strive to be like Jesus in this way. I would also argue that it is a very admirable wa...

Oedipus’ Children/Siblings—Lily Caswell

Ok, so Oedipus is a bit of a train wreck to say the least. I love the fact that even after Oedipus found out about his less-than-appealing relationship with his mother, he still tried to look after his children/siblings. After he gouged his eyes out, his children came to him at which point Oedipus talked about how that when they were old enough to marry, no one would want them due to them being products of incest. He said for the people not to condemn them based on what their father had done. Even after he knew what he had done and what his children were, he still wanted the best for them. I commented on Logan’s and Ian’s posts.

Overanalyzing Everyone's Intentions Here-Rachael Gregson

 First off, I'd like to say this is going to be a two part blog post, because a lot of things happened in this reading assignment that demands to be discussed.  As with any war I've realized, it's tricky not to fall into the initial perspective I am given. I began this book skeptical of Hector because I was bias toward the movie Troy, which was told mostly through the eyes of Achilles, but neither were what I was expecting. It's actually funny that they both hold values completely opposite from one another. Hector represented everything related to city-state pride, honor, and humility whereas Achilles was everything wild, reckless, and unpredictable solitary. This isn't to say that Hector is all good and Achilles all bad. Both had instances where I rooted for the other more or less. I just thought it was interesting how their two personalities represented something that basically causes all wars: the clash between civilization and savagery.  Secondly, I'm not de...