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?

[lefillegal]

[Replying to post 44 by 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.

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.

What does anyone deserve? Secondly, life itself isn't just, but God is. Okay, what is just? Not your definition but Gods. If we can't even agree on what justice is, how could you possibly serve it? And since we are now talking shoulds, should you ignore that life is unjust, in preference of your "in a just world" scenario?

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.

What christian believes one can escape Gods authority? Even beyond that, we arrive at, what exactly is justice to God? How do you know whether or not he's employing his justice, if you don't understand it? How can you employ his justice if you have your own perception of what justice is?

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.

Is not Jesus the end of the law, especially most of the Leviticus laws? To be fair, I know that's an entirely different debate. So i wont rely on that. What i will rely on is the commandment that Jesus gave me. To love thy enemy. So i refute your statement. I never said, God would not command us to do a "work" for him, i said the "work" he said he will do, he alone does. When jesus atoned our sins, he said all the work needed was "now" accomplished. In the old testament God indeed called for all the things you pointed out. Again here comes the New testament, which reiterates over and over again that we are to love the enemies and also that God, has and will, always have his vengeance. There is no longer a need for mankind to carry out Gods vengeance. What you really want to know is why, if I was born during old testament times, commit these seemingly unjust acts? The answer is simple and one intellects consider foolishness. I believe in God and would have tried my best to follow his instructions. Nothing more and nothing less. Us Christians often refer to this type of commitment as faith. My faith to do as God said is the same always. In the past, that faith would have called for stoning, etc,but as of now that faith doesn't. Iim sorry if that bothers you, but I! Trying to please God, not man

[Zzyzx]

.

Secondly, life itself isn't just, but God is.

Does this apply before or after the new and improved God concept introduced by Christianity modifying the Jewish concepts from which Christianity evolved?

Who, exactly, knows that God is just? NT writers speak of a different God concept than OT writers. Which of the writers, if any, knew God? If they did not know God personally, where / how did they learn about God? Did someone tell them? Who?

Okay, what is just? Not your definition but Gods.

Does anyone KNOW God's definition of just?

Is not Jesus the end of the law, especially most of the Leviticus laws?

Jesus didn't seem to think so according to words attributed to him. Paul/Saul evidently did think so – and his ideas dominate the NT.

Again here comes the New testament, which reiterates over and over again that we are to love the enemies and also that God, has and will, always have his vengeance.

A religion teaching people to love their enemies (as irrational as that may be) must have appealed to Roman authorities as an alternative to Judaism which fostered rebelliousness, for they made Christianity the official religion of the empire during its declining phases.

[lefillegal]

[Replying to post 50 by Zzyzx]

Secondly, life itself isn't just, but God is.

Does this apply before or after the new and improved God concept introduced by Christianity modifying the Jewish concepts from which Christianity evolved?

Who, exactly, knows that God is just? NT writers speak of a different God concept than OT writers. Which of the writers, if any, knew God? If they did not know God personally, where / how did they learn about God? Did someone tell them? Who?

Both religions teach God is just, you are arguing "what" is just. If one believes as I believe, then one must say all the writers knew God. How else could scripture be inspired? You are only attempting to attack the credidibility of its writers.

Okay, what is just? Not your definition but Gods.

Does anyone KNOW God's definition of just?

I now know for a fact, you don't know, yet you speak against my belief as if you do. Which serves to prove my point, if you don't know Gods definition of just, how then can you even begin to go on and criticize its effectiveness? That is to say, by WHOSE definition do YOU determine what is and isnt just? If there are differing opinions of just, how then do you say your opinion is of more value than Gods? You admittedly dont know of his definition, yet youre trying to refute it, how?

Is not Jesus the end of the law, especially most of the Leviticus laws?

Jesus didn't seem to think so according to words attributed to him. Paul/Saul evidently did think so – and his ideas dominate the NT.

Please finish my quotes. I continued to say more. Furthermore, if i believe all scripture is inspired, then i also believe those werent Pauls ideals but Gods. Also Jesus himself did put an end to law. He said he alone is the truth, the way, and the light. What is his claim of being "the way" mean?

Again here comes the New testament, which reiterates over and over again that we are to love the enemies and also that God, has and will, always have his vengeance.

A religion teaching people to love their enemies (as irrational as that may be) must have appealed to Roman authorities as an alternative to Judaism which fostered rebelliousness, for they made Christianity the official religion of the empire during its declining phases

Your point is? Was not Rome the same authority who brought many Jewish revolutions to nought? Why not do the same with Christians, a new and much smaller threat at the time? Rome's subsequent submission to Christianity proves nothing for your point

[ttruscott]

...

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?

...

The problem I have with this as a Christian is that if the tool does not work as it it was created to work, or if the program does not work as expected...WHO IS AT FAULT for the failure? AND since we are talking about people, not tools or programs, then it is every important to know who is at fault because the way you describe it, GOD is at fault for their failure!

And if GOD is at fault, where is their sin?

In Christian terms this idea is outrageous and blasphemous by having GOD creating evil in HIS creation then wiping that creation out for being less than what HE wanted...???

Think again, eh?

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

...

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.

...

Who decides the justice of the man with cancer dying??? YOU? Ahem, but I don't accept that, nor have you proven you have the moral acuity nor the understanding of his inner nature to make that decision.

Nor does the fact that sin deserves death make you the executioner for that death. Prove where it says that you have that right... Justice is the Lord's not yours and usurp that as a chosen peril.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

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

Why must I do your homework for you after giving you all the facts you need to know to reach understanding? <sigh>

Gen 2:25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Naked: Strong's H6174 - `arowm עָרוֹ�
naked, bare

From עָרַ� (H6191) (in its original sense)
Pronounced ä·r�m'

Genesis 3:1Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made.

crafty: Strong's H6175 - `aruwm עָרוּ�
Pronunciation ä·rüm'

subtle, shrewd, crafty, sly, sensible
crafty shrewd, sensible, prudent

As you can see the Hebrew is the same. The pronunciation is different but the pronunciation marks were not added into the text until after 600AD and were not in this text at all so differences of meaning based on pronunciation were interpretations of the word, not as it was written.

Naked, עָרוֹ� is the same as crafty עָרוּ�...

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.

Wow...I thought we left such shallow thinking back in high school. GOD cannot go against HIMself nor that which HE has created... HE cannot make the proverbial rock HE can't lift nor make a square circle nor any other logical impossibility... HIS omnipotence has nothing todo with it but in this case is a logical red herring, meaningless.

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.

You obviously understand me not at all - even after all this. Our sinful nature cannot be a matter of our brain biology because as I keep telling you over an over I believe we sinned in sheol before we had any biology!

NO sin can be attributed to the the natural function of a specific brain region. This blanket statement without proof is useless and against the rules.

Are you suggesting that our sins somehow had an influence on our eventual biology?

Oh, you do remember what I wrote about our sins being pre-human...are you trying to waste my time? Of course I contend that our biology is a result of our free will choices to be sinful!

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.

Gee, ain't that a downer, You have to talk to GOD through the Holy Spirit and fid out these 'missing details' for yourself, eh, since you reject my suggestions? Oh, kind of hard when you reject HIM, though, sigh.

Oh and where did I ever write that He appeared to us pre-earth as human? This it is your interpretation of my words and I tell you now it is false. Good luck with this,

Peace, Ted

WoW...

[lefillegal]

[Replying to post 52 by ttruscott]

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?

The problem I have with this as a Christian is that if the tool does not work as it it was created to work, or if the program does not work as expected...WHO IS AT FAULT for the failure? AND since we are talking about people, not tools or programs, then it is every important to know who is at fault because the way you describe it, GOD is at fault for their failure!

And if GOD is at fault, where is their sin?

In Christian terms this idea is outrageous and blasphemous by having GOD creating evil in HIS creation then wiping that creation out for being less than what HE wanted...???

Think again, eh?

Peace, Ted

With the utmost respect Ted, you are not Christ. Do you fully understand Gods ways and his justice? The above was an example of ownership. And what one has a right to do as an owner. I did not intend to attribute God with any mistake. But let me clarify my belief since you have misunderstood my position. First, I dont care who YOU blame, God blames man. How outrageous and blasphemous is it when God DID create a creation, then wipe it out for being less than he wanted. Is not this recorded all throughout our Christian Bible? You found my words offensive simply because you believed somehow, i was equivilating God with evil. That is because you do not fully understand his ways. I would have thought that, as a Christian, you would have known or presupposed; that God (our programmer) left ALL of his created programs( us,christians, etc) , which he knew would fail, with a failsafe plan. Most of the rest of us Christians call that failsafe Jesus. I also believe God when he said that option was always and is always available to those who accept it. So now I ask you, as a Christian, how can YOU blame God if someone doesnt accept it? How is God deemed evil by YOUR standards? I didnt think i needed to mention this failsafe to fellow Christians, i assumed they read the same Bible i have. My mistake for not mentioning it in my programmer scenario, but please do not interject YOUR own, understandimg of my words. One thing is for sure, I am alive and here, and can clear up any discrepancies you think you find in my words. You will never have to guess what I mean because I will clarify it. Thank you Ted, for making me aware of the extant, i must take each argument or position I hold.

[Justin108]

What does anyone deserve? Secondly, life itself isn't just, but God is.

God designed life. If life isn't just then God isn't just.

Not your definition but Gods. If we can't even agree on what justice is, how could you possibly serve it? And since we are now talking shoulds, should you ignore that life is unjust, in preference of your "in a just world" scenario?

justice
ˈdʒʌstɪs/Submit
noun
1.
just behaviour or treatment.
"a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people"
synonyms: fairness, justness, fair play, fair-mindedness, equity, equitableness, even-handedness, egalitarianism, impartiality, impartialness, lack of bias, objectivity, neutrality, disinterestedness, lack of prejudice, open-mindedness, non-partisanship;

Arguing that God has a different definition of "justice" is special pleading. Humans invented language. We get to decide what words mean. If God has a different definition in mind then he shouldn't be using the word "justice" in the first place. If you disagree with "justice" meaning "fairness" then it suggests you don't believe fairness is a good thing. Do you believe fairness is bad?

Why should I ignore that life is unjust?

What christian believes one can escape Gods authority? Even beyond that, we arrive at, what exactly is justice to God? How do you know whether or not he's employing his justice, if you don't understand it? How can you employ his justice if you have your own perception of what justice is?

"I guess God has a different idea of justice and I suppose it's better than our own" is special pleading and an empty argument. Can you explain God's justice to me or do you just assume he has a better system of justice than our own?

Is not Jesus the end of the law, especially most of the Leviticus laws?

That's not the point. The point is your supposition that God would not order us to kill in his name is wrong as there are examples of him doing so in the past. It is something God would do. If your argument is "yes but God changed all that when Jesus ended the law" - if God can change his mind about the law then what's to say he won't change his mind again?

What you really want to know is why, if I was born during old testament times, commit these seemingly unjust acts? The answer is simple and one intellects consider foolishness. I believe in God and would have tried my best to follow his instructions. Nothing more and nothing less. Us Christians often refer to this type of commitment as faith. My faith to do as God said is the same always. In the past, that faith would have called for stoning, etc,but as of now that faith doesn't. Iim sorry if that bothers you, but I! Trying to please God, not man

That you admit you would kill children in the name of God is disgusting. I hope you realize that this mentality is what fuels Muslim extremists to kill in the name of Allah.

[Justin108]

Who decides the justice of the man with cancer dying??? YOU? Ahem, but I don't accept that, nor have you proven you have the moral acuity nor the understanding of his inner nature to make that decision.

Are you suggesting that everyone with cancer deserves it? A child born with cancer deserves the pain, suffering and death?

Nor does the fact that sin deserves death make you the executioner for that death. Prove where it says that you have that right... Justice is the Lord's not yours and usurp that as a chosen peril.

Peace, Ted

With that logic the state does not have the right to imprison criminals since justice supposedly only belongs to God.

Regardless of whether I have the right to bring justice, justice would still be served. I might be punished for taking justice into my own hands but the result would still be that they received justice if God remains consistent in what he claims deserves death.

[Justin108]

I don’t see how it follows that a universe where sin deserves death reveals either an incompetent God or an immoral one for that matter. Surely you aren’t suggesting it is immoral to punish wrong doing. So I’ll assume you believe the punishment is immoral because you feel it is too severe perhaps? If that is the case, I’ll be curious to see if you can mount anything more concrete than a personal argument from outrage here.

So you believe the aforementioned sins deserve death then? So if a child is caught lying to their parents, it would be justice to have them executed?

Paul writes of death in Romans in a metaphorical sense as well as a literal one. Here are some metaphorical uses by Paul.

You're contradicting yourself. Here you clearly stated that...

...Paul is dealing with the spiritual, not the physical.

So is he not talking about physical death, or is he talking about physical death as well as spiritual death?

You're contradicting yourself. Here you clearly stated that...

I’m willing to grant that Leviticus 20:9 refers to a physical death -- the context demands it. But appealing to Leviticus here doesn’t help you.

Firstly, 20:9 is specifically in reference to cursing one’s parents. It’s not in reference to making the bed when told. So it doesn’t support the examples in your OP.

Now who's taking things out of context?

Occam's razor annihilates your own argument. Do really think Paul meant children deserve to die because they didn't make their bed when told too? You really think that's the simplest answer?

You proved my point. You base your interpretation of what you want Paul to mean.

Leviticus 20:9 - Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.
[/quote]
My reference to Leviticus is an argument against your assumption that Paul didn't mean physical death on the grounds of it sounding too appalling to be true. I referenced Leviticus to show you that appalling commandments are not uncommon in the Bible.

Firstly, 20:9 is specifically in reference to cursing one’s parents. It’s not in reference to making the bed when told.

Is there really that big of a difference? Death is too harsh of a sentence in both examples.

Secondly, Leviticus undermines the broader context of your entire argument since there are violations of the Levitical law that do NOT result in death (e.g. having sex with a concubine 19:20). Thereby falsifying your interpretation that all sin deserves death. Like I said, Occam’s razor annihilates your argument.

According to most Christians, Jesus did away with the Old Testament laws which is why Christians are perfectly fine with eating pork, mixing fabrics and working on the Sabbath. In which case, Paul's claim that sin deserves death would not be a contradiction as it could simply be a part of the New Testament laws.

Another possibility is that this is a contradiction in the Bible. Interpreting it in such a way as to deliberately avoid contradiction is selective interpretation. If you wish, I can list the contradictions of the Bible? It's not at all unlikely that this is just another one.