Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death

[Justin108]

Little Lucy was told by her mother to make her bed. Lucy didn't listen to her mother and decided to go play outside instead. Lucy committed a sin

Timmy wanted to have a cookie but his mother said no. Timmy sneaked into the kitchen and grabbed one out of the cookie jar. Timmy committed a sin

Billy's friend Jimmy brought his new Megaman action figure to school. Billy's family is poor and can't afford to buy Billy any toys. Billy covets Jimmy's new toy. Billy committed a sin


Do these three deeds deserve death?

[Justin108]

...

I never said the devil was a good guy... I'm merely saying the word "subtle" does not mean "evil"

...

I often say that the word subtle is used of or to describe the serpent's evil since the context supports that his intentions were evil in his theological debate with Eve. And used just one verse after A 7 E were called arm` is telling.

But I am not alone in equating subtle with evil as John Gill's Exposition of the Bible on Genesis 3:1 relates:

...besides, the Scriptures always ascribe the seduction of man to the devil; who, because he acted his deceitful part in and by the serpent, is called the serpent, and the old serpent, and the devil and Satan, ( 2 Corinthians 11:3 ) ( Revelation 12:9 ) . The Targum of Jonathan restrains this subtlety to wickedness, paraphrasing the words

``but the serpent was wise to evil.''

OR

“And they were both naked (`arowm; עָרוֹ�), the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Now the serpent was more subtle (`aruwm; עָרוּ�) than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.� (Genesis 2:25-3:1)

Oddly enough, the author here makes a connection between the nakedness (“smooth-skinned�; `arowm) of Adam and Eve and the subtleness (“smooth-tongued�; `aruwm) of the serpent’ words. While many scholars have noticed this obvious connection, I’ve yet to read a commentary that offers and [sic.] explanation.

I shall have to write one I guess...

The interpretations of subtle as cunning, crafty and devious and wise to evil support my thoughts so that I am comfortable thinking this word refers to his evil. That the rabbis (and Church Elders who followed the rabbis) ) missed the connection to Adam is not unusual either as they missed Christ for 4000 years when all the Scripture speaks of Him.

Peace, Ted

Cunning? Yes. Crafty? Yes. Wise to evil? No. You are adding an attribute that is not part of the meaning of the word in its singularity.

Yes the serpent used his subtlety in evil ways, but concluding that "subtle" now means "evil" is not a valid conclusion.

Basically, your argument is;
- The serpent was subtle
- The serpent was evil
- Therefor, subtle means evil.

This is not a logical argument.

[Goose]

Very well. I concede. Paul is not referring to a physical death but a spiritual death.

Thank you. In light of your concession I do hope you don’t try using this argument again.

So the new question for debate is does petty infractions deserve a spiritual death?

Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread? We've already covered a lot of ground here.

Classic non-sequitur. It’s like me arguing this...

If the American government will throw people in jail for walking on the flag it is quite likely they will throw people in jail for not making their bed.

There are far too many variables for this example to be applicable.

The logic in my counter example is the same as yours.

Let’s look at your reasoning again this time substituting the American Government (TAG) for God.

[TAG] punishes certain petty infractions. This indicates [TAG]’s character of one who punishes petty infractions. Therefor[sic], it can be expected that [TAG] punishes other petty infractions. I'm not saying [TAG] punishes all petty infractions. I'm saying that [TAG] punishes some and is therefor[sic] likely to punish others.

[TAG] punishes people who [keep a flag on the ground and/or walk on it] It is therefor[sic] quite likely that [TAG] would punish people who don't make their bed.

Do you agree this is a non-sequitur? Do Americans make their beds for fear of going to jail for a year if they don’t?

To substitute your example, would this be a non-sequitur?

if my dad killed my sister for cursing him it is quite likely he will kill me for not making the bed
- This example is far more applicable as it uses pretty much the same components (cursing parents / making the bed) while the father in this scenario is God. Is it still a non-sequitur?

Yes, it’s a non-sequitur. There are any number of reasons why it doesn’t follow he would kill you for not making your bed. He may not live with you and would therefore be unaware of your bed keeping habits. He may have some long standing issues with your sister that have finally come to a head with an intense argument where he killed her, not for cursing him but because there was some other reason – the cursing was merely the final straw. Perhaps for some reason cursing is extremely offensive to your father and he had repeatedly warned your sister that cursing him would result in her death – she persisted in cursing him despite his warnings. Whereas not making your beds is not something that offends him. I could go on.

1. Would justify the laws in North Korea where killing someone for disrespecting Kim Jong-Un is acceptable. Would you agree that this law is acceptable?

If "they didn't consider it petty" is justification for killing someone then what's stopping me from killing someone who drove into my car? Damaging my car isn't petty to me so with your reasoning I am justified in killing the one damaging my car.

This doesn’t demonstrate the Israelites thought the OT laws were “petty.� Hey, I think the American laws regarding flag desecration are "petty"? What does that prove? Does that mean they are "petty"?

2. If a man beats his wife because she didn't prepare dinner in time, didn't iron his clothes and didn't do the dishes, is it typical for him to beat her over petty infractions? Again, with your reasoning it isn't because her husband doesn't beat her over not cleaning the toilet, not mopping the floor, not helping the kids with homework, not shining his shoes, not watering the plants, not changing the sheets, etc. I only mentioned three examples of him beating her over petty infractions yet the majority of petty infractions remain unpunished.

Is the fact that the majority is unpunished make it atypical of him to beat her over petty infractions? Or are these three examples sufficient to establish that beating her for petty infractions is typical of him?

This doesn’t demonstrate that at least the vast majority of OT laws were actually punishable by death.

3. Irrelevant. If a king sentences you to death for making eye contact with him but would forgive you on the condition that you allow him to sleep with your wife, it doesn't change the fact that the initial charge was a death sentence for a petty infraction.

But it does change the fact that there was no punishment by death in your example. Provisions for forgiveness in the OT are hardly irrelevant. They suggest that punishment by death was not "typical of the Bible."

[ttruscott]

...

Very well. I concede. Paul is not referring to a physical death but a spiritual death. So the new question for debate is does petty infractions deserve a spiritual death?

...

imCo
The only infraction that dooms a person to banishment to hell is the free will decision to put their faith in the idea that YHWH is a false god who is telling manipulative lies about heaven and hell to build worshippers for his own ego KNOWING that if HE is indeed GOD then they have sacrificed all their future to their own ego.

GOD's purpose for us was a communion of love and communication called a heavenly marriage. No marriage can be true if it the marriage proposal is not accepted by free will, the ability to reject the suitor and say no.

But once the person freely says no, when the consequences they had rejected as real are proven in fact to be real, a change of mind cannot be accepted as they are not freely choosing their Spouse but in fear they are choosing to avoid their fate, a dramatically different scenario. As well, there is an addicting quality to evil that impels the sinful person to not only convince themselves they are correct but (even if they know it is wrong) makes it impossible for them to truly repent, quit evil choices and be free from this addiction by their own strength...the natural consequences they rejected as real.

So between their having lost the free will ability to choose YHWH as their Spouse (since they are driven by fear to seek HIM after HE has proven HIS deity to them) and from being eternally addicted to evil because they rejected as evil the only help that could save them, they have no ability to achieve nor hope of eternal life within the heavenly marriage.

This state of being without eternal life in heaven is called eternal death in hell, aka the spiritual second death.

Now, as to these being petty infractions - I assume you are referring to sins by people that are not the worst things people do to each other but are minor in comparison to the big ones, murder, torture, etc. But the petty sin of unbelief, of not putting faith / hope in an unproven GOD, though it is arguable minor in immediate suffering compared to murder, is in fact immeasurably worse since 1. it is the CAUSE of all the minor and major sins and atrocities of all human history 2. it is the only sin that completely severs a person from the purpose of GOD of HIS heavenly marriage and renders the person eternally evil. All human sin stems from a rejection of faith in GOD that enslaves the soul.

Peace, Ted

[Justin108]

Let’s look at your reasoning again this time substituting the American Government (TAG) for God.

[TAG] punishes certain petty infractions. This indicates [TAG]’s character of one who punishes petty infractions. Therefor[sic], it can be expected that [TAG] punishes other petty infractions. I'm not saying [TAG] punishes all petty infractions. I'm saying that [TAG] punishes some and is therefor[sic] likely to punish others.

[TAG] punishes people who [keep a flag on the ground and/or walk on it] It is therefor[sic] quite likely that [TAG] would punish people who don't make their bed.

Do you agree this is a non-sequitur? Do Americans make their beds for fear of going to jail for a year if they don’t?
[/quote]
America is a democracy. This makes it a poor comparison as the public has a say in legislation. The American government does not have free roam to make up laws as they please.

God, on the other hand, is a dictator, making a comparison with another dictatorship such as North Korea a better comparison. I would not be surprised if North Korea made not making your bed illegal. It is typical of North Korea to instate such a petty law just as it would be typical for God to instate such a petty law.

To substitute your example, would this be a non-sequitur?

if my dad killed my sister for cursing him it is quite likely he will kill me for not making the bed
- This example is far more applicable as it uses pretty much the same components (cursing parents / making the bed) while the father in this scenario is God. Is it still a non-sequitur?

Yes, it’s a non-sequitur. There are any number of reasons why it doesn’t follow he would kill you for not making your bed. He may not live with you and would therefore be unaware of your bed keeping habits. He may have some long standing issues with your sister that have finally come to a head with an intense argument where he killed her, not for cursing him but because there was some other reason – the cursing was merely the final straw. Perhaps for some reason cursing is extremely offensive to your father and he had repeatedly warned your sister that cursing him would result in her death – she persisted in cursing him despite his warnings. Whereas not making your beds is not something that offends him. I could go on.

This is a hypothetical scenario. You're adding variables that aren't there. In this hypothetical scenario, both children live with their parents so he does live with his father. I assumed this would be clear enough. In this scenario there are no long standing issues or an intense argument. I clearly stated he killed her for cursing him. You can't just change the scenario to "he killed her not for cursing him but for some other reason". Don't edit the scenario. Address it as is. He killed her for cursing him.

1. Would justify the laws in North Korea where killing someone for disrespecting Kim Jong-Un is acceptable. Would you agree that this law is acceptable?

If "they didn't consider it petty" is justification for killing someone then what's stopping me from killing someone who drove into my car? Damaging my car isn't petty to me so with your reasoning I am justified in killing the one damaging my car.

This doesn’t demonstrate the Israelites thought the OT laws were “petty.� Hey, I think the American laws regarding flag desecration are "petty"? What does that prove? Does that mean they are "petty"?

My point is I don't need to comply to your first condition for the reasons stated above.

2. If a man beats his wife because she didn't prepare dinner in time, didn't iron his clothes and didn't do the dishes, is it typical for him to beat her over petty infractions? Again, with your reasoning it isn't because her husband doesn't beat her over not cleaning the toilet, not mopping the floor, not helping the kids with homework, not shining his shoes, not watering the plants, not changing the sheets, etc. I only mentioned three examples of him beating her over petty infractions yet the majority of petty infractions remain unpunished.

Is the fact that the majority is unpunished make it atypical of him to beat her over petty infractions? Or are these three examples sufficient to establish that beating her for petty infractions is typical of him?

This doesn’t demonstrate that at least the vast majority of OT laws were actually punishable by death.

It doesn't need to demonstrate that the vast majority of OT laws were punishable by death. I'm demonstrating that something need not be the "vast majority" to be considered "typical". In short, I need not comply to your second condition.

3. Irrelevant. If a king sentences you to death for making eye contact with him but would forgive you on the condition that you allow him to sleep with your wife, it doesn't change the fact that the initial charge was a death sentence for a petty infraction.

But it does change the fact that there was no punishment by death in your example. Provisions for forgiveness in the OT are hardly irrelevant. They suggest that punishment by death was not "typical of the Bible."

This is in response to your third condition that the infraction should not have a condition for forgiveness. As I've demonstrated, a condition for forgiveness does nothing to the fact that the punishment does not fit the crime.

[Justin108]

Edit.

[Goose]

America is a democracy. This makes it a poor comparison as the public has a say in legislation. The American government does not have free roam to make up laws as they please.

This doesn’t change the outcome of my counter argument since the American government is comprised of elected officials who represent the American people. Therefore the laws these representatives create are by extension a reflection of the values of Americans. The fact remains American laws regarding flag desecration are “petty.�

God, on the other hand, is a dictator, making a comparison with another dictatorship such as North Korea a better comparison.

The logic between both arguments is identical even if you were to use North Korea instead of the American government or God. Who is making the laws is irrelevant since, like God, the American government has the power to create and enforce laws and has shown a propensity to create and enforce “petty� laws. Whether the entity creating the laws was elected or not is irrelevant. It’s the logical connection between the first “petty� law, walking on the flag in the case of America and working on the Sabbath in the case of God, and making the bed which is missing in both arguments. Thus both arguments are a non-sequitur. This is basic logic.

I would not be surprised if North Korea made not making your bed illegal. It is typical of North Korea to instate such a petty law just as it would be typical for God to instate such a petty law.

And I wouldn’t be surprised if America did the same since it's typical for America to create petty laws. Apparently America would throw someone in jail for a whole year (in addition to fining them) just for leaving the flag on the floor.

This is a hypothetical scenario. You're adding variables that aren't there. In this hypothetical scenario, both children live with their parents so he does live with his father. I assumed this would be clear enough. In this scenario there are no long standing issues or an intense argument. I clearly stated he killed her for cursing him. You can't just change the scenario to "he killed her not for cursing him but for some other reason". Don't edit the scenario. Address it as is. He killed her for cursing him.

I gave you a very good reason which is somewhat analogous to God and cursing parents for why this is a non-sequitur. I’ll give it again since you seemed to have missed it. Perhaps for some reason cursing is extremely offensive to your father and he had repeatedly warned your sister that cursing him would result in her death – she persisted in cursing him despite his warnings. Whereas not making your beds is not something that offends him.

My point is I don't need to comply to your first condition for the reasons stated above.

Yes you do. You need to demonstrate the Israelites thought these laws were “petty.� If you can’t you are merely asserting they are “petty� from an unjustified sense of superiority. Do you think the American laws regarding walking on the American flag are “petty�? Do you think the American reverence for their flag is irrational? If you are an American, I suspect you don’t.

It doesn't need to demonstrate that the vast majority of OT laws were punishable by death. I'm demonstrating that something need not be the "vast majority" to be considered "typical". In short, I need not comply to your second condition.

And your counter argument is irrational. No one can rationally argue something is “typical� when that thing is usually not the case. It needs to be the case the vast majority of the time – it needs to be normally the case -- to be “typical.� If it isn’t it is by definition a-typical.

For example, there currently are about ten crimes in the U.S.A calling for the death penalty, nine of which don’t even involve actual murder. By comparison the OT has about 16 capital crimes, not many more than the U.S. and less than China which has about 55. Some of these American capital crimes are also somewhat analogous to OT laws calling for the death penalty in cases such as rape, murder, and kidnapping. Heck, you could even be put to death in America for merely advising the killing of another person even if that person isn’t actually killed (18 U.S.C. 3591(b)(2)). Using your reasoning above I can rightly argue it is “typical� of the United States to punish people with death. Would you consider my inductive argument a strong one? Would you agree this is typical of America?

This is in response to your third condition that the infraction should not have a condition for forgiveness. As I've demonstrated, a condition for forgiveness does nothing to the fact that the punishment does not fit the crime.

Whether the punishment fits the crime is irrelevant to our discussion. The issue is whether it really was the case that it was typical of the Bible to punish people by death. Provisions in the OT for forgiveness mitigate the administration of the death penalty and reveal something about the heart of God since he created the provisions. This is why, considering the time frame over which the Bible was written, there are relatively few recorded instances of capital punishments actually being carried out in the Bible. Thus you can’t rightly argue this is typical of the Bible any more than I can argue it’s typical of America.

[Justin108]

This doesn’t change the outcome of my counter argument since the American government is comprised of elected officials who represent the American people. Therefore the laws these representatives create are by extension a reflection of the values of Americans. The fact remains American laws regarding flag desecration are “petty.�

Did people elect God? Does God represent our values? Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?

In a democracy, the people choose who they want to lead them. The people grant power to their leader. Therefor, the people have a choice in what laws they want their society to uphold. This is not the case with God. God didn't go "if you vote for me, I will have those who work on the Sabbath stoned!" to which the Jews replied "yes! We hate those busy bodies! Let's have them killed!". The Jews had no say in their laws. God gave his unquestionable commandments and the Jews had no choice but to obey.

God, on the other hand, is a dictator, making a comparison with another dictatorship such as North Korea a better comparison.

The logic between both arguments is identical even if you were to use North Korea instead of the American government or God.

Then why do you insist on using America? If the logic applies to both, then why not go with the one we both agree on?

North Korea as an example
- you agree
- I agree

America as an example
- you agree
- I don't agree

If we both agree that North Korea is a fitting example then why not use it?
If you insist on using America rather than North Korea then clearly you don't consider them as equal examples. You insist on using America because if you used North Korea you would not be able to argue my point.

I would not be surprised if North Korea made not making your bed illegal. It is typical of North Korea to instate such a petty law just as it would be typical for God to instate such a petty law.

And I wouldn’t be surprised if America did the same since it's typical for America to create petty laws. Apparently America would throw someone in jail for a whole year (in addition to fining them) just for leaving the flag on the floor.

This is the point I've been making this whole time... You admitted it yourself. You wouldn't be surprised if a country making petty laws were to instate other petty laws. So the Bible instating petty laws would likely instate other petty laws. Glad we agree.

This is a hypothetical scenario. You're adding variables that aren't there. In this hypothetical scenario, both children live with their parents so he does live with his father. I assumed this would be clear enough. In this scenario there are no long standing issues or an intense argument. I clearly stated he killed her for cursing him. You can't just change the scenario to "he killed her not for cursing him but for some other reason". Don't edit the scenario. Address it as is. He killed her for cursing him.

I gave you a very good reason which is somewhat analogous to God and cursing parents for why this is a non-sequitur. I’ll give it again since you seemed to have missed it. Perhaps for some reason cursing is extremely offensive to your father and he had repeatedly warned your sister that cursing him would result in her death – she persisted in cursing him despite his warnings. Whereas not making your beds is not something that offends him.

"Perhaps for some reason wearing too much cologne is extremely offensive to me and I warned you repeatedly that wearing too much cologne would result in your death - you are persisting in wearing too much cologne despite my warnings. Therefor I am within my rights to kill you"
- does this follow?

My point is I don't need to comply to your first condition for the reasons stated above.

Yes you do. You need to demonstrate the Israelites thought these laws were “petty.� If you can’t you are merely asserting they are “petty� from an unjustified sense of superiority. Do you think the American laws regarding walking on the American flag are “petty�? Do you think the American reverence for their flag is irrational? If you are an American, I suspect you don’t.

Ok let me get this straight...because the Israelites thought working on the Sabbath should be punished by death, therefor it became law? Are you saying these laws came from the Israelites? I thought they came from God.

It doesn't need to demonstrate that the vast majority of OT laws were punishable by death. I'm demonstrating that something need not be the "vast majority" to be considered "typical". In short, I need not comply to your second condition.

And your counter argument is irrational. No one can rationally argue something is “typical� when that thing is usually not the case. It needs to be the case the vast majority of the time – it needs to be normally the case -- to be “typical.� If it isn’t it is by definition a-typical.

So you would say the man in my example is not typically abusive? He only beats her sometimes, not the majority of the time. So by your definition, abuse is a-typical in his case.

Using your reasoning above I can rightly argue it is “typical� of the United States to punish people with death. Would you consider my inductive argument a strong one? Would you agree this is typical of America?

Yes. America uses capital punishment more than most developed countries. Would I say they use capital punishment for petty crimes? No. Some may be less severe than actual murder, but they are vastly more reasonable than killing someone for working on a Saturday.

... there are relatively few recorded instances of capital punishments actually being carried out in the Bible. Thus you can’t rightly argue this is typical of the Bible...

How can you possibly know how many cases of capital punishment there has been?

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com ... e.html?m=1
...And these are just the recorded cases

[Zzyzx]

.

Did people elect God?

It seems as though people DO elect their gods -- with a popularity contest in various societies and at different times.

The Bible God is declining in popularity in technologically advanced, educated nations of Europe and North America while increasing in popularity in underdeveloped areas of Africa, Asia and South America.

Does God represent our values?

Gods are imagined to represent the values, agendas, opinions and objectives of those in religious power positions -- which are extended into public law unless checked by opposing views.

Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?

Heck no. Religion reflects the power of those in its hierarchy. They make up the rules and claim they came form supernatural entities. Believers / followers take them seriously. That's the way the game is played.

[Justin108]

imCo
The only infraction that dooms a person to banishment to hell is the free will decision to put their faith in the idea that YHWH is a false god who is telling manipulative lies about heaven and hell to build worshippers for his own ego KNOWING that if HE is indeed GOD then they have sacrificed all their future to their own ego.
nge of mind cannot be accepted as they are not freely choosing their Spouse but in fear they are choosing to avoid their fate, a dramatically different scenario. As well, there is an addicting quality to evil that impels the sinful person to not only convince themselves they are correct but (even if they know it is wrong) makes it impossible for them to truly repent, quit evil choices and be free from this addiction by their own strength...the natural consequences they rejected as real.

So between their having lost the free will ability to choose YHWH as their Spouse (since they are driven by fear to seek HIM after HE has proven HIS deity to them) and from being eternally addicted to evil because they rejected as evil the only help that could save them, they have no ability to achieve nor hope of eternal life within the heavenly marriage.

This state of being without eternal life in heaven is called eternal death in hell, aka the spiritual second death.

Now, as to these being petty infractions - I assume you are referring to sins by people that are not the worst things people do to each other but are minor in comparison to the big ones, murder, torture, etc. But the petty sin of unbelief, of not putting faith / hope in an unproven GOD, though it is arguable minor in immediate suffering compared to murder, is in fact immeasurably worse since 1. it is the CAUSE of all the minor and major sins and atrocities of all human history 2. it is the only sin that completely severs a person from the purpose of GOD of HIS heavenly marriage and renders the person eternally evil. All human sin stems from a rejection of faith in GOD that enslaves the soul.

Peace, Ted

[Justin108]

imCo
The only infraction that dooms a person to banishment to hell is the free will decision to put their faith in the idea that YHWH is a false god who is telling manipulative lies about heaven and hell to build worshippers for his own ego KNOWING that if HE is indeed GOD then they have sacrificed all their future to their own ego.

What are some of the possible reasons why someone would choose to not put their faith in YHWH?