Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death

Post #1

Post by 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?

lefillegal
Student
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 8:55 pm

Re: Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death

Post #41

Post by lefillegal »

[Replying to Justin108]

First, I'm glad you chose to stress "deserve". I understood your point completely. Yet it is an invalid one. We don't always get what we deserve. Yes, someone diagnosed with terminal stomach cancer, deserves to live, but that doesn't mean they will. You state your point like people always get what they deserve. Yes those "deeds" deserve death, but that doesn't mean those are the "deeds" which would get them killed. Secondly, I don't have to "suppose" anything, God already gave me the "presupposition". It would make no sense to "suppose God asked me to kill those children" when the pressuposition is "vengeance belongs to God", meaning why would God use me to act out vengeance, when he already said that he himself would take vengeance? Therefore, it would not be logical to suppose, when there is already a presupposition in place. Which means I can't suppose, because I know God will not, have me do the thing in which he said that, he himself would do. Now I'm sure you feel that I deserve to be set straight, but as you'll soon learn, we don't always get what we deserve.

lefillegal
Student
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 8:55 pm

Re: Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death

Post #42

Post by lefillegal »

[Replying to post 21 by Hamsaka]

I don't take your position as disrespect. Its plain to see we share different worldviews, I believe you are more interested in why I believe what I do. Unlike your friend, i wont try to convince you of my belief, nor shall i push it upon you. I will only attempt to clarify my belief. Coming to defense only when i feel something is being attributed to me incorrectly. With that said I am very interested in answering any question you have about my belief.

Hamsaka
Site Supporter
Posts: 1710
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:01 am
Location: Olympia, WA

Re: Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death

Post #43

Post by Hamsaka »

Goose wrote:
Hamsaka wrote: In your belief system, your God created this universe. He set it up with some pretty severe conditions, ie, even simple disobedience to him results in your death.
Are you talking about physical death as a punishment? Or are you talking more along the lines of spiritual death as in the sense of separation from God?

The author of this thread seems to be arguing that, under the Christian paradigm, a child deserves to be punished by death on the grounds they sinned all because Paul wrote the words, "...the wages of sin are death..."
This may have already been clarified. Under the Christian paradigm, the wages of sin is death. You tell ME if Paul meant spiritual or physical death, of the two of us, you are the expert on your belief system.

Either way -- the ANALOGY of children sinning and being condemned to death is a very straightforward and remarkably complete analogy for God the Creator creating this universe with the conditions such that a person deserves to die for disobeying this God. Puleeeeeze. Step outside the paradigm for a second, it's a pretty big deal :)

Looking at God's intentions like this is not something people are gonna learn in Sunday School, so we grow up just swallowing the Christian picture whole, accepting this jealous and vindictive God and then his son who thankfully is only bringing a sword rather than Sodom and Gomorrah, an epic Flood, and lightning bolts from the sky. I offer that you, Goose, have not considered it from this angle -- and if you had, the questions you ask for clarification would be very different ones than you are asking. Not trying to put you down or make a value judgment on your intelligence. Clearly, people's questions are formed from their assumptions, and if purely pro-Christian assumptions are what a person has, the questions they ask will indicate what they DON'T think about as much as what they DO think about.

Who would worship a God that created such a cold and cruel system of justice?

That's a question no believing Christian would ask.

Hamsaka
Site Supporter
Posts: 1710
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:01 am
Location: Olympia, WA

Re: Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death

Post #44

Post by Hamsaka »

lefillegal wrote: [Replying to post 21 by Hamsaka]

I don't take your position as disrespect. Its plain to see we share different worldviews, I believe you are more interested in why I believe what I do. Unlike your friend, i wont try to convince you of my belief, nor shall i push it upon you. I will only attempt to clarify my belief. Coming to defense only when i feel something is being attributed to me incorrectly. With that said I am very interested in answering any question you have about my belief.
I appreciate your understanding, you are correct :)

This is a debate forum (I'm fairly new too, so it's not like I'm an expert) and there is no issue with convincing anyone of any belief, or pushing it. We are debating the veracity of claims (the major claim is the basis of your belief system).

I know it feels like being shoved around and personally criticized, but we are supposed to do that -- to the ideas, not the person. Separating your self from your Christian world view, for the purposes of debate, is not easy, no one thinks it is. But in this format, where no one is evangelicizing or thumping people into or out of a belief system, the tenets of Christianity are questioned, criticized, and held up to reason and logic. Why? There are problems, inevitable ones, when a religious majority devalues the civil rights of those outside the bounds of their religious morality.

I have a question for you (going back to the OP); conceding for the moment there is a God and the Bible is his revealed word (for the most part, in case you agree some of it is metaphor/literature), do you wonder at the intent and qualities of your God, that he would create such a draconian, punishing system where the wages of sin is death? When all possible 'systems' could be chosen by an omnipotent, omniscient supreme God, what is UP with Yahweh to set it up in a way that is so antithetical to human nature (we don't LIKE to die!), the human nature that is supposedly made in his image?

lefillegal
Student
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 8:55 pm

Re: Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death

Post #45

Post by lefillegal »

[Replying to post 42 by Hamsaka]

Let me state i totally understand your question. And although my answer may not be pleasing, and i admit its also, repetitive, I'll try my best to reveal my position. Yes ive given much thought to Yahwehs system. Ive came to what i conclude as two logical positions.
1. A creator can do whatever it wants, however it wants, whenever it wants with its creation. Therefore who am i to tell the creator he was wrong for creating. Then go further and accuse the creator of being malicious for using his creations the way he chose. As unfair as it may seem to me(the creation), my personal satisfation should never outweigh the creators satisfaction. In plain english, if i created a tool which did not perform to my satisfaction, dont i have every right to discard it? Ask any computer programer is he unjust for deleting the programs he wrote, which didnt work as expected. Did he not design a program to interact with the computer in a specific manner? If said program is not responding, what crime is there in deleting that program? Is that program owed some type of moral responsibility just because it was created? I could go on, but i myself conceded that a creator is allowed to do amything it wants with its own creation.
2.In my belief, i have accepted the possibility there is a God. As you know, with that presupposition, I also presuppose that this God is The Big Alls (powerful, knowing, just, mercy, etc). Therefore i have to presuppose that this God knows infinitely more than i know. Leading directly to the belief that if he says something is good, then it must be good, even if i cant know it. Now placing myself in the criminals shoes(sinners), which Yahweh says everyone wears, i can now see, how sometimes the criminal doesnt see the good in the police officer(God) carrying out his duty. Not because the officer is hiding his intentions, but because; as a criminal, those are the very intentions I am against. For they are the ones that make me a criminal. Realising this, I see I am a sinner, and if God only demonstrates righteousness, then anything he does, even if I deem it as unrighteous, it must in fact be righteous. I myself, readily admit I have no problem with that. Can you explain why I should?

Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

Re: Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death

Post #46

Post by Justin108 »

lefillegal wrote:
First, I'm glad you chose to stress "deserve". I understood your point completely. Yet it is an invalid one. We don't always get what we deserve. Yes, someone diagnosed with terminal stomach cancer, deserves to live, but that doesn't mean they will. You state your point like people always get what they deserve.
But people should get what they deserve. If life was just, the man with terminal stomach cancer would not die, but (if the claims that the wage of sin is death is true) the children who commit these deads should die. If I could save the man with cancer, I would. I am eager to do justice. And if sinning deserves death, I would be serving justice if I killed these children.

lefillegal wrote: Yes those "deeds" deserve death, but that doesn't mean those are the "deeds" which would get them killed.
I'm not taling about "woulds" I'm talking about "shoulds". A man who committed mass murder yet escaped authority "would" not see justice done but "should". If I had the means to bring justice to this man, I would. If the afore mentioned children deserve death, I "should" logically kill them in the name of justice.



lefillegal wrote: Secondly, I don't have to "suppose" anything, God already gave me the "presupposition". It would make no sense to "suppose God asked me to kill those children" when the pressuposition is "vengeance belongs to God", meaning why would God use me to act out vengeance, when he already said that he himself would take vengeance?
He did so all over the Old Testament.

1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Numbers 21:3 The Lord gave the Canaanites over to Israel, who completely destroyed them and their towns.

Numbers 31:17-18 God commanded Moses to kill all of the male Midianite children and "kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Not to mention the Leviticus laws that commanded people to stone homosexuals, non-virgin women and those who curse their parents among many others. So no...commanding we bring death to others is not beyond God.

Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

Re: Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death

Post #47

Post by Justin108 »

ttruscott wrote:
2. People are born in sin, that is, with a sinful nature: Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Even Adam and Eve are declared to be naked by using the same word as is used to describe the evil of the serpent - naked and subtle is the same word!
Is the Hebrew word for "naked" and "subtle" the same? Do you have a citation to support this claim? Because the English for "naked" and "subtle" mean very different things

ttruscott wrote:
So IF GOD cannot create us evil and yet we are sinful when conceived, it is obvious that our conception cannot be our creation and the hints about the sinfulness of Adam and Eve before they ate also supports only their body was new in the garden, not them. So where did they come from?
I notice you used the word "cannot" a lot, which is strange considering God's omnipotence. If I understand correctly, what you're saying is our sinful nature is the product of our original sin. Now in a real-world sense, our sins are the product of brain biology. Each sin can be attributed to the natural function of a specific brain region.
The amygdala, for example, is responsible for anger and those with anger management issues often have an inflated amygdala. Are you suggesting that our sins somehow had an influence on our eventual biology? Or did God create our brain structure along with the accompanying sin?
ttruscott wrote: 3. The scripture says that we are sown into the earth and sown does not mean to create but to take an already created seed from a place of storage and to spread it where it can grow: Matt 13:36 Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.�

37 He answered, “The one who SOWED the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who SOWS them is the devil.
This is obviously about how people, all sinful but some from GOD and some from the devil, get to earth, that is, become human. Sown can't refer to our creation here because the devil gets to do it and he cannot create people.

Now this does not suggest we came from Sheol as our place of creation (though it does suggest we came from somewhere else) and there is no direct reference to coming from sheol elsewhere either but there are many references to our going back to, that is, returning to sheol after death.

In ordinary usage return means: “to go or come back; revert; bring, give, send, hit, put, or pay back; a going or coming back, a happening again.�

Psalm 9:17 The wicked shall return to Sheol ...
Kiel - Delitzsch(#16) - Yea, back to Hades must the wicked return IF the wicked came from sheol, it is only a small step to accept that the sinful elect came from there also. Indeed, the pre-eminent holy man of antiquity, Job, declared: Job 1:21 - And Job said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb and naked shall I return thither. Do you suggest he is actually claiming to go back to the womb or is he rather claiming he is going back to where he was before he was born?

And then there is 1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray: but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. which is written to every new convert suggesting that they were once in GOD's flock but got lost. Did GOD lose them? Did Christ fall asleep or something? Or Were they wilfully going into sin, that is, lost, until they repented and returned? So, when did this "being in HIS flock" occur if their being lost started with their conception? Impossible right, so they must have been lost before conception so they could return upon conversion after conception. This is also supported by a similar interpretation of the parable of the prodigal son...

4. The necessity of free will. The heavenly state is likened to the marriage between GOD and HIS holy creation. NO marriage that is forced on the bride is a true marriage. IF it is forced with no opportunity to reject it, it is rape and if it is forced by an induced condition of being unable to reject, it it is a fraud and therefore a rape.

Only by a free will acceptance of the marriage proposal can the marriage be considered true and not a rape against someone's consent.

Not only is our free will necessary for our marriage to Christ to be real, it is also necessary to keep GOD at arm's length from the creation of evil and to make us guilty for our choice to sin rather than HIM, though these arguments are not directly supported by scripture, they are accepted by me as a necessity for GOD to conform to HIS attributes revealed in scripture.

Jesus said we do not have a free will here on earth since we are enslaved to evil on earth: John 8:34 Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. IF we do not have a free will after our conception on earth because we are conceived as sinners, then when did we become sinners by our free will if not in sheol pre-earth?

Once this is established that we lived with GOD and became sinners before we came to earth, the details may be logically deduced, but that is another long chapter.

I do not write this to convince you but to answer your question. I do not care to read another lengthy dissertation of what the verses really mean and if you write one I will not read it having moved on from all that long ago...even if it was from a Christian and not an atheist demanding I follow orthodoxy only because it suits his incriminating analysis of Christian doctrine better than my PCEC.

Peace, Ted
This is all fine and dandy, but I don't see the part where God came to us in human form pre-earth, offered us salvation without evidence and us rejecting his offer. The specifics that your doctrine relies on - that God appeared before us as a human and without evidence - is entirely absent.

Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

Re: Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death

Post #48

Post by Justin108 »

ttruscott wrote:
Justin108 wrote:
...

If you're going to make the claim that Romans 6:23 is meant to be understood metaphorically as apposed to literally then you would have to support that claim. It seems to me the only reason you insist it is metaphorical is because you dislike the literal version.
Can you provide me with a reason that anyone would choose a metaphorical interpretation because they DO like the literal interp???

This sentence is a tautology...
The point is that preference is an illogical means of interpretation. One has to look at what is the most likely interpretation, not what is the nicest. I cannot say that Paul meant X over Y because I like X more than Y.

Hamsaka
Site Supporter
Posts: 1710
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:01 am
Location: Olympia, WA

Re: Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death

Post #49

Post by Hamsaka »

lefillegal wrote: [Replying to post 42 by Hamsaka]

Let me state i totally understand your question. And although my answer may not be pleasing, and i admit its also, repetitive, I'll try my best to reveal my position. Yes ive given much thought to Yahwehs system. Ive came to what i conclude as two logical positions.
1. A creator can do whatever it wants, however it wants, whenever it wants with its creation. Therefore who am i to tell the creator he was wrong for creating. Then go further and accuse the creator of being malicious for using his creations the way he chose. As unfair as it may seem to me(the creation), my personal satisfation should never outweigh the creators satisfaction. In plain english, if i created a tool which did not perform to my satisfaction, dont i have every right to discard it? Ask any computer programer is he unjust for deleting the programs he wrote, which didnt work as expected. Did he not design a program to interact with the computer in a specific manner? If said program is not responding, what crime is there in deleting that program? Is that program owed some type of moral responsibility just because it was created? I could go on, but i myself conceded that a creator is allowed to do amything it wants with its own creation.
This was the logic given to me by a friend who was encouraging me (and trying to affect my conversion, which I was fine with). It made sense! A creator has every right, his/her/its whim is law.

Your analogy about a poorly performing tool or bugged up computer program, though, are disturbing to me, anyway. Is that how God sees us? As worthless as a crappy 'tool'? If that's the way God really is, there's not anything we can say about it, that's for sure.

We are purportedly created in God's image, yet we are very different, too. We value each other as real beings, but God has no moral responsibility to us if we are created poorly by him? Hey, if this is the God of the universe, I might as well be shouting in the wind :D , and calling God 'unfair' is simply my human side coming out.

Yet we must regard each other with a helluva lot more respect than God himself needs to (do not murder, abortion is murder, and so forth). Thank goodness we have each other to (hopefully) cherish life with.

But this is IMO overall quite logical, and I appreciate you really spelling it out here.

2.In my belief, i have accepted the possibility there is a God. As you know, with that presupposition, I also presuppose that this God is The Big Alls (powerful, knowing, just, mercy, etc). Therefore i have to presuppose that this God knows infinitely more than i know. Leading directly to the belief that if he says something is good, then it must be good, even if i cant know it.
Have you heard of Euthyphro's Dilemma? What you wrote above describes this very old philosophical argument attributed to Plato, ie: "Is that which is good commanded by God because it's good, or is it good because God commands it?"

Here is the dilemma spelled out in the form of a formal argument: (all from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma ).

Another way to state the argument is in the form of a constructive dilemma:
I. Is something good because God commands it so or does God command it so because it is good?
II. If something is good because the God commands that it is so, then what is morally reprehensible to us can be good.
III. If God commands that it is good because it is good, then the good is greater than God.
IV. So, either the good is arbitrary or good is greater than God.

Now placing myself in the criminals shoes(sinners), which Yahweh says everyone wears, i can now see, how sometimes the criminal doesnt see the good in the police officer(God) carrying out his duty.
I spent the first 17 years of my nursing career working in psychiatric units. The psychiatric patient often does not see the good in our attempts to carry out our duty either, so I get what you are saying here personally lol.
Not because the officer is hiding his intentions, but because; as a criminal, those are the very intentions I am against. For they are the ones that make me a criminal. Realising this, I see I am a sinner, and if God only demonstrates righteousness, then anything he does, even if I deem it as unrighteous, it must in fact be righteous. I myself, readily admit I have no problem with that. Can you explain why I should?
Not necessarily.

If I am suddenly arrested, and believe I've done nothing wrong, disagreeing with the SWAT team that just took me down (see, I'm also a ninja, but that's a secret), in your logic, my sinful nature is responsible for my refusal to accept that I'm guilty.

But what if I really am not guilty?

It sounds to me like this; God created Creation, and created us humans, who are sinful as decided (somehow) by God. It is a sin to consider oneself NOT guilty of sin, we are like criminals without much of a conscience, when we deny guilt or sin.

User avatar
Provoker
Scholar
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:46 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

`Some context for Romans 6:23

Post #50

Post by Provoker »

Justin108 wrote: 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?
Hi Justin:
To be relevant, and in context, Lucy, Timmy, and Billy, must be seen as metaphors for God's chosen nation. "God's chosen nation" is not a reference to individuals known as Jews, but to a great everlasting nation made up of "believers in God's everlasting, unconditional, good news promise". According to God, this great nation will inherit everlasting possession of all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt, and will bless all nations with everlasting world peace.
The nation chosen to fulfill God's good news promise, fell into non-existence after a relatively short period of time, causing a great falling away from faith in God('s good news promise).
The only law which God ever made was "the ten commandments", and it was clearly given as a national policy for the maintenance of the national unity necessary to make a nation great and everlasting. Because the Decalogue was God's only law, and it was only given to a national assembly, the only sin which could be committed against God, was national. God's chosen nation broke the 10 commandments(it sinned), and suffered the wages of (national)sin, which was (national)death.
However, the gift of God, is national everlasting life through "the new covenant" which God will make with the resurrected chosen nation.
God's chosen nation must be resurrected from the dead, to everlasting life, in order to fulfill God's everlasting, unconditional, gospel promise. God's new covenant with resurrected Israel, will write God's laws on all the hearts of resurrected Israel. Israelites will then do by nature the things contained in God's law. Israel will not break God's law again, and therefore Israel will not fall again. Israel will have everlasting life through God's gracious gift of the new covenant.
As long as no nation of God's faithful is in possession of all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt, the goal of God's faithful is to convert enough people to faith in God('s gospel promise), to occupy(possess) all that land. The evangelical aspect of scripture comes from the need for enough believers to possess the land of God's promise. The problem is that Rome established the universal church of Rome in order to change the goal of God's faithful(apostolic) assembly. The reason Rome did that is because the land of God's promise just happened to be part of the Roman Empire. God's good news promise, which Jesus and Paul preached, was a clear threat to the national security of the Roman Empire. Rome created a new pagan religion(Catholicism) which pretended to accept the Jewish bible, and forced God's faithful apostolic assembly to join it.
While the post-Nicaean church is busy preaching, and converting people to, a thinly disguised pagan religion, God's everlasting, unconditional, good news promise goes completely ignored by people who think they have faith in God...LOL

Post Reply