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]

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

Because it isn't my homework to look for support for your claims. You claimed the words mean the same and the burden is on you to support that claim. "Look it up" is no way to make an argument.

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.

Fair enough. Regardless, I don't see why it matters if they mean the same? So Adam and Eve were subtle as well? What's wrong with being subtle?

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!

subtle
ˈsʌt(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.
(especially of a change or distinction) so delicate or precise as to be difficult to analyse or describe.
"his language expresses rich and subtle meanings"
synonyms: fine, fine-drawn, ultra-fine, nice, overnice, minute, precise, narrow, tenuous; More
2.
making use of clever and indirect methods to achieve something.
"he tried a more subtle approach"

"Subtle" does not mean "evil" as you claim. "Subtle" did not describe the serpent's evilness. It described his craftiness. The serpent was more subtle (clever, crafty, etc) than the other beasts.

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.

Claiming that calling God evil is a logical fallacy is confirmation bias if I ever saw one.

So no matter what atrocities I point out, you would argue it away with "God did it so it's not evil". Maybe the authors relied too much on the concept of free will, not understanding brain biology and the fact that our drives to sin are caused by biological impulses.

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!

So upon sinning, we suddenly grew an amygdala, a limbic system, orbitofrontal cortex and a pineal gland? These regions are responsible for anger, sexual desire, gluttony and greed. Furthermore, the pineal gland produces dopamine as a reward system, making certain actions more attractive. This production of dopamine is also responsible for our eventual greed and gluttony. Did all of these structures sprout out of nowhere the moment we sinned?

Also, if our sins are "pre-human", how did we commit the sins of lust, gluttony and wrath without the biology that comes with it? Did we biologically procreate pre-earth, involving sex and therefor lust? Did we eat and drink, allowing gluttony?

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

I was waiting for this. I have known hundreds of Christians, almost all of whom claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, yet I have never heard of your version of Christianity. Why did the Holy Spirit not reveal this truth to them as well?

[Justin108]

Oh and where did I ever write that He appeared to us pre-earth as human?

It took me a while to dig this up.

Whether GOD was in our midst talking to us (which I think most likely) or hiding HIMself like HE does now, HE must have hidden HIS divinity and power so as to not coerce our choice.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=100

Maybe I misinterpreted your claim that God "hid" himself and that he "hid" his divinity and power to mean that he appeared as one of the guys. Maybe he was a disembodies voice? I don't know

[dianaiad]

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

......
Wow...I thought we left such shallow thinking back in high school. ......

Moderator Warning


Please address the meat of the post, not the maker of it...and remember that the rules of this forum include the idea that when asked for citations and/or evidence for a claim, one provides them. "Do I have to do your homework for you?" is never a proper response. If you have provided the evidence already in a previous post, simply link to it.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[ttruscott]

...

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.

"...what is the most likely interpretation is an emotionally based conclusion about what you like reality to be more that any other definition. You still haven't added anything of substance to this.

Or are you saying that with a superior understanding of what is most likely that you contend you know reality and accept it no matter what you want but everyone else is interpreting reality to suit their likes?

[ttruscott]

[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.

I did not read this. When you support it with bible quotes like you demanded I give you, then I will argue against the multitude of mis-interpretations you have written about here.

[Goose]

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?

Nope. Why don’t you provide the scripture that says Christians should execute their children for not making their bed, taking a cookie, or coveting a toy.

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

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

In 6:23 he is talking about spiritual death otherwise he’d be saying he literally died from sin in Romans 7:7-13.

I think you may be missing the point perhaps because you are trying too hard to catch me in a contraction when there isn’t one on my part. The point I was making is that Paul uses the word thanatos (death) both metaphorically and literally in Romans and elsewhere in his letters. This is why the context of how he uses it in 6:23 matters and why we need to take care in our interpretation contrary to your problematic methodology of making, “no in depth analysis of what it supposedly actually means.�

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

How is acknowledging Leviticus 20:9 is a physical death contradicting myself?

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.

No where have I argued or even assumed that, "Paul didn't mean physical death on the grounds of it sounding too appalling to be true." My arguments have been based on evidence and reasoning, not my personal sentiments.

I referenced Leviticus to show you that appalling commandments are not uncommon in the Bible.

But by appealing to Leviticus you cut the already very wobbly legs out from underneath your own argument since there are violations of Levitical law which did not have physical death as a punishment. Thereby falsifying your argument that all sin deserves physical death. You can’t refute this counter argument so you are left appealing only to the five or six metaphorical words of Paul in Romans 6:23.

Speaking of which you entirely ignored my counter argument that your argument is itself based upon a metaphorical reading of Romans 6:23 even though ironically you claim a literal reading is to be preferred. Are you conceding the point that your interpretation is not literal either?

Come to think of it, you also ignored my argument regarding Paul’s use of thanatos (death) in the context of sin in his own life in Romans 7:7-13. Was Paul saying he literally died because of sin? Or was he referring to his previous death due to sin as a non-physical spiritual one? Do you have a rebuttal or are conceding the point?

Is there really that big of a difference?

Yes there is a difference. Lev 20:9 deals with cursing one’s parents, your analogy deals with not making the bed when told to.

Death is too harsh of a sentence in both examples.

You opinion is noted but irrelevant to the debate over whether Paul meant all sin deserves physical death or not.

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.

Just as a side note, these are all violations which did not have physical death as a punishment.

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.

Paul didn’t claim “sin deserves death.� That’s your metaphorical interpretation of a passage you want to be read literally. If it were read literally it would be an incoherent scenario where sin is an employer which pays out death for wages.

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.

Red Herrings are generally a good sign one's opponent has run out of cogent counter arguments. You haven’t even come close to establishing that Paul meant all sin deserves physical death. Perhaps you should finish doing that before you start arguing this is a contradiction?

[ttruscott]

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?

Suffering and death is the wages of sin.
No innocent suffers.
Suffering and death proves the sinfulness of the person.

The fact we do not know what sins they might have done pre-earth and their human experience does not mean that because their bodies are new, so are their spirits.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

...

Fair enough. Regardless, I don't see why it matters if they mean the same? So Adam and Eve were subtle as well? What's wrong with being subtle?

The word subtle is to point us to the craftiness of the serpent, that is, his disingenuous evil or it has no meaning in the context. And if it means evil for one then it means evil for others in this cojoined context.

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!

"Subtle" does not mean "evil" as you claim.

Your use of the English language to express the necessary meaning of the Hebrew language is ....what? I reject all apologies for th e devil and need not listen to them...

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!

So upon sinning, we suddenly grew an amygdala, a limbic system, orbitofrontal cortex and a pineal gland? ... Did all of these structures sprout out of nowhere the moment we sinned?

Ride your straw horse elsewhere - you know this answer to this and are just baiting me. I contend we were not human and had no bodies when we first sinned.

I was waiting for this. I have known hundreds of Christians, almost all of whom claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, yet I have never heard of your version of Christianity. Why did the Holy Spirit not reveal this truth to them as well?

Why did HE wait 2000 years to give the Law? Why did HE wait another 2000 years to show the Christ? That is that same reason that HE waited another 2000 years to teach PCEC!

1 Corinthians 3:2 I have fed you with milk and not with meat; for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able,

John 16:12 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.

2 Corinthians 12:2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. 3 And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4 was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.

Your scorn for this method of a periodic revelation to HIS sinful Church or scorning the the need for this method does not prove it was not HIS method nor that it is a deficient method for HIS purposes.

Peace, Ted

[Justin108]

"...what is the most likely interpretation is an emotionally based conclusion about what you like reality to be more that any other definition. You still haven't added anything of substance to this.

Or are you saying that with a superior understanding of what is most likely that you contend you know reality and accept it no matter what you want but everyone else is interpreting reality to suit their likes?

I don't see what's so hard to understand. "I like this" is no reason to conclude that "this is true". "I dislike this" is no reason to conclude that "this is not true".

I interpret reality based on what appears to be true, not what I want to be true. I want to live forever, but reality appears to suggest that life ends at death

[Zzyzx]

.

Suffering and death is the wages of sin.

That is a CLAIM. Kindly show that it is actually true.

Suffering and death proves the sinfulness of the person.

Self-fulfilling prophesy. If a person suffers and/or dies they must have been sinful. That sounds similar to witch testing

A common witch-hunting method was “swimming� or “ducking� (based on the ancient “ordeal by water�) whereby the accused was tied hand and foot and immersed in deep water. If the accused witch floated, the water (God’s creature) had rejected her and she was deemed guilty; if she sank (and drowned), she was deemed innocent.

The fact we do not know what sins they might have done pre-earth and their human experience does not mean that because their bodies are new, so are their spirits.

In fact we do not know that claimed "pre-earth experience" is anything more than overworked imagination.