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?

[Goose]

I never said the Bible gives direct instruction to kill children. I'm saying the Bible claims that children deserve to die.

Okay then, where is the Bible passage that claims children deserve to die? Let’s look at that one and let's see if you can offer anything more substantial than your personal outrage.

I agree. Roman's 7 clearly refers to metaphorical death. But Romans 6:23 is not so clear. But I'll meet you half way. These children are still deprived of eternal life due to their petty sins. In the grand scheme of things, this is like depriving these children from an antidote to a deadly virus. They all end up "dying" from not receiving salvation.

Another Red Herring. What Christians believe will happen to the soul of a child (or adult for that matter) after they die is irrelevant to the argument regarding whether or not all sin deserves physical death. Please try to stay on topic.

If you agree Romans 7 is a metaphorical death I don't see how you can continue to argue 6:23 is a physical death since 1) both passages have metaphorical indicators 2) both passages speak of sin and death in the same context 3) both passages use the very same Greek word for death ( thanatos) and 4) Romans 7 is a continuation of Paul's thoughts in Romans 6.

You're not giving me any logical reason to immediately reject the notion of Paul damning the slightest sin to death.

You mean aside from the fact Paul never said all sin, even the slightest ones, deserves physical death?

My point in posting the Leviticus laws is that petty crimes have "deserved" death in the Bible before, so why not now?

Your argument is a non-sequitur. It runs like something like this...

If some petty infractions were punishable by death in the OT, then all infractions should be punishable by death now.

But there were “petty� infractions as well as crimes that we might call “severe� which were NOT punished by death. Not to mention the majority of violations did not result in death anyway. Not to mention Leviticus also dedicates four whole chapters (4-6, and 16) to provisions for forgiveness of sin. So why would we jump to the conclusion that all violations, even the ones which seem petty to us, deserve death? It doesn’t logically follow.

Again, you're missing the point I make by referencing the Leviticus laws. Leviticus doesn't support my claim that "all wrong-doing deserves death". I does however support my claim that even petty wrong-doings (cursing your parents, not being a virgin, being a homosexual) deserves death. Then there's Exodus 31:14 that kills people for working on a Saturday. My point is, the Bible sentences the pettiest of crimes (half of which aren't even crimes) to death.

Undermined by the fact that there were “petty� wrong doings and some “severe� ones which were not punished by death in the OT. Thus you cannot appeal to the OT to make the argument all sin deserves physical death. Thus appeals to individual laws you find personally offensive in the OT are nothing more than Red Herrings.

So killing a child for not making his bed is not beyond something the Bible would say.

But the Bible does not say kill your child for not making his bed. So you are relegated to taking Paul’s words in Romans 6:23 out of context to make your argument. And since that argument has been failing miserably you've recently moved to introducing the Red Herring of Bible contradictions.

How is my reading of Romans 6:23 not literal? I am consistently stating that he is referring to a LITERAL death. I have never said otherwise.

Your interpretation is not literal because you take “the wages of sin is...� and make it say “sin deserves...� But Paul doesn’t say “sin deserves...� So, on the one hand you insist on reading one word (death) literally but read the remaining words in the verse metaphorically.

Ok so if a rebellious teenager yells at her father that she hates him, you would be perfectly fine if he had her hanged for it?

Are you going to argue from your personal outrage now? Personal sentiments are irrelevant to how Lev 20:9 applies to a child not making the bed when told to.

Exodus 31:15 - For six days work is to be done, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day is to be put to death.

You are correct, my oversight on the Sabbath sin. But the salient point remains. There are other infractions you would no doubt probably consider “petty� which were not punishable by death under OT law. If they were not punishable by death we have no reason to assume all other sins, even every “petty� sin, was punishable by death.

This is just a ridiculous reading of my claim. "Sin deserves death" is said in the same manner as claiming "theft deserves imprisonment". If this is your idea of refuting my claim that Paul meant physical death because "look you're using 'sin' in a metaphorical sense" then you're just being desperate. I never said metaphor doesn't exist and I never said Paul never speaks metaphorically. I'm saying that Romans 6:23 lacks any indication that it is meant as metaphorical.

I know you are saying that but the irony is that you continue to contradict yourself by arguing for a metaphorical interpretation of the verse. On the one hand you want a literal reading of thanatos to mean “physical death,� but on the other hand you argue for opsōnion (wages, as in a soldier’s pay) to be interpreted metaphorically as “deserves.�

red herring
noun
a clue or piece of information which is or is intended to be misleading or distracting.

How is interpreting information contrary to your interpretation misleading or distracting? The Bible, as you yourself are arguing, is very much open to interpretation. My interpretation is that this may be another contradiction within the Bible

The Red Herring was your attempt to turn this into a Bible contradictions debate.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 78 by Hamsaka]

I don't regard a god as a source of such things, but if we use the Bible as evidence that God is the source of morality and ethics, then we'd have to agree that it is moral and ethical to kill in the name of God,

I know I didn't finish your sentence...but this is the part I want to address.

History has a way of shaping our world. Things that were done 200 years ago, are obsolete in this day and age. We no longer light a lantern to find our way through our house (on a regular basis). Most don't ride a horse and buggy to get to work, or use an outhouse to go to the bathroom. Technology, factories, and the invention of the automobile, has changed the way we live drastically. The chances of everyone throwing their technology away, pulling the wiring from their home, and trading the sedan in for a quarter horse, are pretty much nonexistent.

I do...I REALLY do understand the hang up with God and the Old Testament, and the killing of tribes. When I first read it, (and I am such a compassionate person), I thought, probably what you do...WHAT? I am not going to make excuses for God, or even quote scripture to justify His actions. But, I will compare history.

There were many wars, and some needless way back when. Reason, was not always offered when tribes attacked each other. Now however, we are under a new covenant, no more do we live under the old law of, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. We live under grace...grace where all things can be forgiven. This grace not only is for us personally, but we gladly share the joy of it with others. To go back to "What if God tells you to wipe out a family," or what ever it is that happened in the Old Testament, is like going back in history and living in the dark ages, and applying its rules to our current laws. It doesn't make much sense to me. There is wonderful information in the Old Testament, and some of the lessons are applicable to me personally, but it I really want to know God...I go to Jesus, in the New Testament. I do hope this makes some kind of sense.

[Zzyzx]

.

History has a way of shaping our world. Things that were done 200 years ago, are obsolete in this day and age. We no longer light a lantern to find our way through our house (on a regular basis). Most don't ride a horse and buggy to get to work, or use an outhouse to go to the bathroom. Technology, factories, and the invention of the automobile, has changed the way we live drastically.

Agreed. Science and technology has changed radically how we live compared to two hundred years ago and drastically from two thousand years ago.

Perhaps it is past time to update religious beliefs to remove dependence upon the opinions of ancient Bible writers. Is there assurance that they knew more about God than anyone else?

The chances of everyone throwing their technology away, pulling the wiring from their home, and trading the sedan in for a quarter horse, are pretty much nonexistent.

Old Order Amish and Mennonites demonstrate willingness to do exactly that.

I do...I REALLY do understand the hang up with God and the Old Testament, and the killing of tribes.

Isn't the OT God supposedly the same one as the NT God?

Was there a change of gods? Isn't Jesus said to be part of that OT God?

When I first read it, (and I am such a compassionate person), I thought, probably what you do...WHAT? I am not going to make excuses for God, or even quote scripture to justify His actions. But, I will compare history.

Perhaps that original reaction was appropriate.

There were many wars, and some needless way back when. Reason, was not always offered when tribes attacked each other.

There are needless, senseless wars throughout history – before and after the New Testament.

Now however, we are under a new covenant, no more do we live under the old law of, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Wasn't Jesus, himself, a Jew who followed Jewish law? Isn't he quoted as saying that he did not come to abolish the law?

We live under grace...grace where all things can be forgiven.

Is that the teaching of Paul/Saul rather than Jesus?

This grace not only is for us personally, but we gladly share the joy of it with others.

This often seems like a one-way street wherein Christians attempt to share their "joy" but refuse to listen to the "joy" of competing beliefs or non-belief.

To go back to "What if God tells you to wipe out a family," or what ever it is that happened in the Old Testament, is like going back in history and living in the dark ages, and applying its rules to our current laws.

Thus, we should ignore what the Bible said back in the Dark Ages that does not apply to modern life. Right?

It doesn't make much sense to me.

I agree

There is wonderful information in the Old Testament, and some of the lessons are applicable to me personally,

Yes, there is some useful information in the OT (and in the NT) along with a lot of useless or downright terrible information. Evidently the process is to pick out what appeals and disregard the rest.

If a person picks out a few things from the Bible (and avoids killing, stealing, etc for example) can they legitimately claim to be following the Bible? If they pick out many things but ignore many more, do they have more credible claim to be followers?

but it I really want to know God...I go to Jesus, in the New Testament.

Very few seem to have a direct line to Jesus or God.

I do hope this makes some kind of sense.

What you say probably makes sense to people who believe as you do – to others perhaps not so much.

[Justin108]

I agree. Roman's 7 clearly refers to metaphorical death. But Romans 6:23 is not so clear. But I'll meet you half way. These children are still deprived of eternal life due to their petty sins. In the grand scheme of things, this is like depriving these children from an antidote to a deadly virus. They all end up "dying" from not receiving salvation.

Another Red Herring. What Christians believe will happen to the soul of a child (or adult for that matter) after they die is irrelevant to the argument regarding whether or not all sin deserves physical death. Please try to stay on topic.

This is not off topic. We are dealing with two different paradigms. The atheist paradigm is that we live one life and die. The Christian paradigm is we are all immortal until God kills those who disobey him.

Under the Christian paradigm, God stripping away our mortality is virtually the same as someone physically killing someone under the atheist paradigm. A life is being removed and under the Christian paradigm, a life is being removed over petty sins. In fact, I would argue that under the Christian paradigm, stripping someone of immortality is far worse than killing someone in the atheist paradigm. Killing someone in the atheist paradigm is simply hastening a death that would have occurred anyway. Under the Christian paradigm, someone is needlessly destroyed when they could have continued living indefinitely.

My point in posting the Leviticus laws is that petty crimes have "deserved" death in the Bible before, so why not now?

Your argument is a non-sequitur. It runs like something like this...

If some petty infractions were punishable by death in the OT, then all infractions should be punishable by death now.

This is not my argument. My argument is;


If some petty infractions were punishable by death in the OT,it proves it isn't beneath the biblical God to punish other petty infractions.

Let me put it this way... If I heard that a new American law is being passed that would sentence anyone with a negative opinion of Obama to death, I would be absolutely shocked. However, if I heard a law is being passed in North Korea that would sentence anyone with a negative opinion of Kim Jong-Un to death then I would be much less surprised as I'm used to messed up laws like this in North Korea.

Leviticus shows me that just as North Korea have nonsensical laws, so does the Bible and so it is not beyond my expectations of the Bible to suppose that Paul is referring to a physical death. In short, all I'm demonstrating is that sentencing someone to death over petty infractions is rather typical of the Bible.

But there were “petty� infractions as well as crimes that we might call “severe� which were NOT punished by death.

This just shows how backwards Biblical ethics is. If you work on the Sabbath you're sentenced to death, but if you rape a virgin you're allowed to force her to marry you on the condition that you pay her family.

Your interpretation is not literal because you take “the wages of sin is...� and make it say “sin deserves...� But Paul doesn’t say “sin deserves...� So, on the one hand you insist on reading one word (death) literally but read the remaining words in the verse metaphorically.

We have reached an impasse. I interpret it as being literal while you interpret it as being metaphorical. In the end it is ambiguous so unless we as Paul himself, it will simply be a clash of opinions. So setting aside the notion of a literal interpretation, I contend it is just as despicable if it refers to a spiritual stripping of immortality as I addressed earlier in this post.

Ok so if a rebellious teenager yells at her father that she hates him, you would be perfectly fine if he had her hanged for it?

Are you going to argue from your personal outrage now? Personal sentiments are irrelevant to how Lev 20:9 applies to a child not making the bed when told to.

Unfortunately it is impossible to argue about ethics without it being personal. Strip all humanity and personal connection to the topic of ethics and all of a sudden ethics doesn't matter anymore.

[lefillegal]

[Replying to ttruscott]

How can you say I misinterpreted scripture when i quoted none? Nor did I ask you to provide scripture for your position. I must ask that you now present to me the scriptures you claim I demanded, and I myself shall attempt the same. If you could clear up what point of mine you were referring to, I'd be glad to present scripture which supports it. It is of my understanding, that you werent happy with my initial scenario because YOU felt it implied God was at fault, so now i ask you to please support that with scripture also. See the problem yet? Its going to be hard to use scripture to support what you felt I implied. I myself don't believe God is at fault. You just felt as if I implied so. Therefore if you can use scripture to prove i do believe God is at fault, then I'll concede. Good luck with that. Also to say God wouldnt create a creation, and then destroy that creation is blasphemous and outrageous confuses me, what is one to think of sodom and gommorah, or what of noah and the flood. Were not these stories about God destroying his creation? If those are some of the misinterpretations you speak of, please enlighten me. Again. I just want to clear up my position since you seem to take offense.

[Goose]

This is not off topic. We are dealing with two different paradigms. The atheist paradigm is that we live one life and die. The Christian paradigm is we are all immortal until God kills those who disobey him.

Under the Christian paradigm, God stripping away our mortality is virtually the same as someone physically killing someone under the atheist paradigm. A life is being removed and under the Christian paradigm, a life is being removed over petty sins. In fact, I would argue that under the Christian paradigm, stripping someone of immortality is far worse than killing someone in the atheist paradigm. Killing someone in the atheist paradigm is simply hastening a death that would have occurred anyway. Under the Christian paradigm, someone is needlessly destroyed when they could have continued living indefinitely.

When you finally concede that Paul did not mean all sin deserves physical death we can go ahead and run down your rabbit trail of debating the morality of damning a soul to eternal punishment.

My argument is;

If some petty infractions were punishable by death in the OT,it proves it isn't beneath the biblical God to punish other petty infractions.

But since we have record of other “petty� infractions not punishable by death the argument is a non-sequitur – it doesn’t logically follow. It’s back to the drawing board, I’m afraid.

In short, all I'm demonstrating is that sentencing someone to death over petty infractions is rather typical of the Bible.

But you haven’t demonstrated this was actually typical of the Bible you are merely assuming it all the while ignoring the reasons which show this wasn’t typical.

This just shows how backwards Biblical ethics is. If you work on the Sabbath you're sentenced to death, but if you rape a virgin you're allowed to force her to marry you on the condition that you pay her family.

You can assert your opinion the ethics of the OT laws were backwards all you want. But that’s all you really have at this point, an opinion. An opinion grounded in a presumption of moral superiority expressed in the form of an argument by outrage. That’s all you really have and it has no bearing on whether or not Paul meant all sin deserves death in Romans 6:23. Thus it’s nothing more than a Red Herring to our debate.

Just as a brief side note on this point, you haven’t even shown these laws were “petty� and “nonsensical� or “backwards� to the people who lived under them anyway. And that’s the important thing otherwise you are arguing from an unjustified sense of assumed moral superiority.

Here’s a brief illustration of my point. Take the laws surrounding flag desecration in some countries. I live in Canada and there are no laws prohibiting the burning of the Canadian flag in public. In fact it’s an act protected under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Frankly, I could care less if someone wanted to burn a Canadian flag in public or wear it as a diaper. It would be very easy for me to look at countries like China and the United States (and others) which have actual codified laws that prohibit the desecration of the flag and say, “that’s nonsensical, petty, backwards, and immoral to send someone to jail and fine them for burning a flag. It’s just a flag for crying out loud!� But who am I to impose my perceptions of what is and isn’t important to the people who live in these countries and societies?

[Justin108]

This is not off topic. We are dealing with two different paradigms. The atheist paradigm is that we live one life and die. The Christian paradigm is we are all immortal until God kills those who disobey him.

Under the Christian paradigm, God stripping away our mortality is virtually the same as someone physically killing someone under the atheist paradigm. A life is being removed and under the Christian paradigm, a life is being removed over petty sins. In fact, I would argue that under the Christian paradigm, stripping someone of immortality is far worse than killing someone in the atheist paradigm. Killing someone in the atheist paradigm is simply hastening a death that would have occurred anyway. Under the Christian paradigm, someone is needlessly destroyed when they could have continued living indefinitely.

When you finally concede that Paul did not mean all sin deserves physical death we can go ahead and run down your rabbit trail of debating the morality of damning a soul to eternal punishment.

Like I said, we have reached an impasse on the topic of the correct interpretation. Just as I cannot conclusively call your interpretation wrong, neither can you conclusively call mine right. But for argument sake, let's suppose your interpretation is the correct one. Now we can go ahead and run down my rabbit tail.

My argument is;

If some petty infractions were punishable by death in the OT,it proves it isn't beneath the biblical God to punish other petty infractions.

But since we have record of other “petty� infractions not punishable by death the argument is a non-sequitur – it doesn’t logically follow. It’s back to the drawing board, I’m afraid.

It does logically follow. Let me spell the logic out for you

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

God punishes people who work on the Sabbath. It is therefor quite likely that he would punish people who don't make their bed.

Let's use North Korea as an example again. North Korea punishes petty infractions with death. North Korea is likely to punish other petty infractions with death. The fact that North Korea doesn't punish all petty infractions with death is irrelevant as it has sufficiently been established that it is within the character trait of Kim Jong-Un to punish petty infractions.

In short, all I'm demonstrating is that sentencing someone to death over petty infractions is rather typical of the Bible.

But you haven’t demonstrated this was actually typical of the Bible you are merely assuming it all the while ignoring the reasons which show this wasn’t typical.

Should I list all the petty things the Bible punishes by death? If I can list many, it indicates that it is typical of the Bible to punish petty things with death.

This just shows how backwards Biblical ethics is. If you work on the Sabbath you're sentenced to death, but if you rape a virgin you're allowed to force her to marry you on the condition that you pay her family.

You can assert your opinion the ethics of the OT laws were backwards all you want. But that’s all you really have at this point, an opinion. An opinion grounded in a presumption of moral superiority expressed in the form of an argument by outrage.

You cannot have a debate on ethics without appealing to emotion. Ethics isn't a purely logical matter.

Just as a brief side note on this point, you haven’t even shown these laws were “petty� and “nonsensical� or “backwards� to the people who lived under them anyway. And that’s the important thing otherwise you are arguing from an unjustified sense of assumed moral superiority.

Here’s a brief illustration of my point. Take the laws surrounding flag desecration in some countries. I live in Canada and there are no laws prohibiting the burning of the Canadian flag in public. In fact it’s an act protected under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Frankly, I could care less if someone wanted to burn a Canadian flag in public or wear it as a diaper. It would be very easy for me to look at countries like China and the United States (and others) which have actual codified laws that prohibit the desecration of the flag and say, “that’s nonsensical, petty, backwards, and immoral to send someone to jail and fine them for burning a flag. It’s just a flag for crying out loud!� But who am I to impose my perceptions of what is and isn’t important to the people who live in these countries and societies?

You're arguing in favor of subjective morality? Isn't objective morality one of the cornerstones of theism?

[Goose]

Like I said, we have reached an impasse on the topic of the correct interpretation. Just as I cannot conclusively call your interpretation wrong, neither can you conclusively call mine right. But for argument sake, let's suppose your interpretation is the correct one. Now we can go ahead and run down my rabbit tail.

It’s not a question of who’s interpretation is correct. It’s a question of whether or not you have established your argument that in Romans 6:23 Paul meant all sin deserves physical death. And I think you know your argument has failed which is why I suspect you want to run down this rabbit trail.

Where are going to go with your rabbit trail anyway? What can you argue aside from expressing personal outrage?

It does logically follow. Let me spell the logic out for you

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

Still irrelevant to the debate if you are not arguing that all sin, even the petty ones, are punishable by death.

But to address the argument again. It’s falsified by the fact that those “other petty infractions,� if not most, were not punished by death. An inference further hindered by the provisions for forgiveness. Your inductive argument is hampered by evidence to the contrary.

God punishes people who work on the Sabbath. It is therefor quite likely that he would punish people who don't make their bed.

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.

Should I list all the petty things the Bible punishes by death? If I can list many, it indicates that it is typical of the Bible to punish petty things with death.

Go right ahead and while you are at don’t forget to do a few other things to make your list actually meaningful...

• 1. Demonstrate those things were considered “pettyâ€� by the people who lived under those laws.
  2. Demonstrate that at least the vast majority of laws were actually punishable by death.
  3. Demonstrate that there were no provisions for forgiveness.

You cannot have a debate on ethics without appealing to emotion. Ethics isn't a purely logical matter.

But what can you offer other than your emotions?

You're arguing in favor of subjective morality? Isn't objective morality one of the cornerstones of theism?

You are dodging the argument. The main point I’m arguing here with the flag desecration example is that one’s personal sentiments are not sufficient grounds to argue another societies laws are “petty.� Do you have a rebuttal to the example?

[ttruscott]

...

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

[Justin108]

It’s not a question of who’s interpretation is correct. It’s a question of whether or not you have established your argument that in Romans 6:23 Paul meant all sin deserves physical death. And I think you know your argument has failed which is why I suspect you want to run down this rabbit trail.

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?

Where are going to go with your rabbit trail anyway? What can you argue aside from expressing personal outrage?

If you were to form an argument against the ethics of rape, what can you argue aside from expressing personal outrage?

If you were to form an argument against the ethics of murder, what can you argue aside from expressing personal outrage?

Still irrelevant to the debate if you are not arguing that all sin, even the petty ones, are punishable by death.

But to address the argument again. It’s falsified by the fact that those “other petty infractions,� if not most, were not punished by death. An inference further hindered by the provisions for forgiveness. Your inductive argument is hampered by evidence to the contrary.

I've repeated my argument several times already. If you still don't get my point then you never will so I'm moving on from this point.

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. 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?

Should I list all the petty things the Bible punishes by death? If I can list many, it indicates that it is typical of the Bible to punish petty things with death.

Go right ahead and while you are at don’t forget to do a few other things to make your list actually meaningful...

• 1. Demonstrate those things were considered “pettyâ€� by the people who lived under those laws.
  2. Demonstrate that at least the vast majority of laws were actually punishable by death.
  3. Demonstrate that there were no provisions for forgiveness.

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.

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?

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.

You cannot have a debate on ethics without appealing to emotion. Ethics isn't a purely logical matter.

But what can you offer other than your emotions?

"Raping children is perfectly acceptable"
- Do you agree with this statement?
- Can you offer an argument other than emotion for your disagreement with this statement?