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]

Did people elect God? Does God represent our values? Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?
In a democracy, the people choose who they want to lead them. The people grant power to their leader. Therefor, the people have a choice in what laws they want their society to uphold.

Then please explain how on earth the “leader of the free world� came to have such “petty� laws regarding walking on their flag if merely being a democracy is enough assurance to prevent “petty� laws from being instated? The bottom line, something you haven’t even attempted to refute after multiple posts, is America has “petty� laws regarding the desecration of their flag. It doesn’t seem to matter one iota that it is a democracy.

This is not the case with God. God didn't go "if you vote for me, I will have those who work on the Sabbath stoned!" to which the Jews replied "yes! We hate those busy bodies! Let's have them killed!". The Jews had no say in their laws. God gave his unquestionable commandments and the Jews had no choice but to obey.

Not exactly. Israel did have a say and did have a choice at the beginning. That’s why it’s referred to as God’s covenant with Israel. It was a mutual agreement.

God made his offer in Exodus 19...

5 Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; 6 and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel.

Israel accepted the offer...

7 So Moses came and called the elders of the people, and set before them all these words which the LORD had commanded him. 8 All the people answered together and said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do!� And Moses brought back the words of the people to the LORD.

See also Exodus 24:1-8.

Then why do you insist on using America?

I’m sorry if this offends you. I’m using America as a substitute for God in your argument because as I’ve shown it logically works just as well as God. You’ve given no logical reason to think otherwise. I’m employing an argumentum ad absurdum to help you see the fault in your reasoning. Using America has a particularly useful rhetorical value in this respect since I suspect you are American. Even if you aren’t American there will likely be more American atheists reading this than North Koreans. I do appreciate your kind invitation to stop using America in this respect and instead use North Korea. But I think I’ll continue to use America anyway.

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

This isn’t a concession on my part. I’ve repeatedly said both arguments are a non-sequitur. I’m trying to help you see the fault in your reasoning by arguing this way. Since America has already instated petty laws we also agree that America will likely instate other petty laws too then, right? Oh but wait, America is different because it’s a democracy and petty laws won’t happen in a democracy because the people have a say in the laws which are made. But then there’s that nagging issue, which you just don’t seem to want to address, of petty flag laws actually existing in America.

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

If the laws of the land in which you live allowed you to kill someone who deeply offended you on the provision you had given warning then yes it would logically follow this was your right. If the laws of the land in which you live didn’t allow for this then it wouldn’t be your right.

You aren’t addressing my explanation for why this is a non-sequitur. The laws for cursing one’s parent in the Bible aren’t connected to bed making, thus your argument is a non-sequitur.

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

The laws came from God and the Israelites agreed to uphold them. Therefore they did not consider working on the Sabbath to be “petty.� Add to this, we do have one example in the Bible of this law being upheld by death (Numbers 15:32-36). This further suggests it was not considered a “petty� law by the Israelites to work on the Sabbath. Just like you no doubt do not consider the American laws regarding the desecration of the American flag to be “petty.� Or do you? You still haven’t answered this question despite my repeated requests. Actually, your silence on the matter speaks volumes anyway. So in a matter of speaking you have answered.

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

Yes, in the argument you gave it’s a-typical for him to beat his wife since he only beats her for a much smaller number of infractions as compared to large number of possible infractions he could beat her for. Even though the vast majority of crimes in America do not call for a death penalty, using your reasoning, we must conclude America “typically� punishes people with death based upon the fact there are around 10 capital crimes in America. You must agree since this is the same logic you are using on the Bible.

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

Your pro-American anti-Bible opinion is noted but you aren’t answering the question I asked. Would you agree it is “typical� of America to punish people by death? After all the U.S.A. has almost as many capital crimes as the OT. Last year alone America executed 35 people. Two of which were women. America has executed almost 1,400 people since 1976. Would you say this is a strong inference that it is typical of America to punish people with death? You must since it is the same logic you are using on the Bible and clearly you think it is a strong argument.

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

We can’t know for sure the precise number but we can certainly get an impression of whether it was typical or not. Since there are very few recorded instances in the Bible this suggests capital punishment certainly wasn’t “typical.�

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com ... killings-i...
...And these are just the recorded cases

Nice try. These aren’t exclusively examples of capital punishment under Biblical law. This over estimate is the broader context of killing and includes large scale acts of war. For example the list includes when God assisted the Israelites in slaying 1Million Ethiopians in battle (2Chron 14:9-14).

But hey, since you are classing acts of war as capital punishment let’s compare this to the United States. This study estimates the U.S. has killed 20-30 Million since World War II. That’s 20-30Million people killed by America in just 70 years! Whereas the estimate in your link of 25 million killed by God was over a period of around 4000 years. Therefore, if it’s typical for the Bible to administer capital punishment based solely on a body count then it is just as typical, if not more so, for America to administer capital punishment. You must agree since it’s the same reasoning you are using on the Bible.

[Justin108]

Then please explain how on earth the “leader of the free world� came to have such “petty� laws regarding walking on their flag if merely being a democracy is enough assurance to prevent “petty� laws from being instated? The bottom line, something you haven’t even attempted to refute after multiple posts, is America has “petty� laws regarding the desecration of their flag. It doesn’t seem to matter one iota that it is a democracy.

I'm growing weary of this. This is the last time I'm going to address this issue so I'll do it thoroughly.

America is a democracy. God is a dictatorship. This has the following crucial implications
- A democratic leader is elected. A dictator is not
- The chosen leader reflects the people and their wishes. A dictator does not
- Democratic laws are instated in a democratic fashion. The people have a say. The leader cannot change the law on a whim. A dictator can.
- The matter of the flag is a cultural one. Americans are very patriotic and it is in the best interest of the public and a reflection of their wishes that the desecration law was instated. If the American public really wanted to, they could lift the desecration law just as they have recently changed the law on gay marriage and marijuana. Note that this process did not rely wholely on Obama deciding to change the law (as would be the case in a dictatorship) but was the process of democracy.
- The desecration law is a product of culture. The Sabbath law is a command from God. Unless you admit that God and his commandments are the product of the Jewish culture?

I'm done with this matter. If you want to use an analogy, use a fitting one. A democracy is not a fitting analogy for a dictatorship. I have given you plenty of reasons why America is a poor example. You have yet to give me a single reason you refuse to use North Korea for this analogy

[ttruscott]

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

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

Since it seems to be impossible to accept a satan or anyone looking at the glory of El Shaddai and deciding that he was equal let alone superior to GOD, it is logical to assume they could not see YHWH's divinity nor power when they rejected HIS claim to divinity and power.

Since such a display of HIS divinity and power would coerce all who saw it to accede to HIS wishes, that is, HIS marriage proposal to all those created in HIS image. Since a forced / coerced marriage is a rape and no marriage at all, HE only wanted to marry those who would accept in good faith HIS proposal of marriage by their free will so HE had to withhold all proof of HIS divinity and power from us before we made these faith based decisions.

But HE did not withhold any information about the natural consequences of our decisions nor HIS response to our choice...but without proof we had to take HIM at HIS word (faith) or reject HIM without proof (faith).

So we have a claim by three people to be our Divine Creator without proof, promising us heavenly bliss once we become totally dedicated to HIM and HIS plan for our futures (holy) AND warning of the natural consequences of losing our free will to the enslaving addiction of evil if we should reject HIM as GOD and reject HIS promises of salvation, the only power that can break our addiction, rendering ourselves as eternally evil unfit to ever fulfil HIS plan for us and fit only to be banished from created reality.

In such a situation it is logical to suppose that the bible rendering of the status of believers and non-believers is natural:

- there are those who accepted YHWH as their GOD, got HIS promise of election to heaven by salvation from all sin and who have followed HIS ways without sin ever since, called the holy angels

- there are those who rejected HIM as a self aggrandizing megalomaniac and they refused to accept that HE was more than they were, becoming the eternally evil tares as warned. They were suspicious of HIS refusal to provide proof. They were self satisfied that they could look after themselves and be as holy without HIM as HE claimed to be. They were miffed that HE claimed to be superior to them, believing deeply that they were in fact the epitome of society.

- and then there are those who at first choice accepted YHWH as their GOD and got (to get?) HIS promise of election to heaven by means of salvation from any and all future sin who later rebelled against HIS plans for the judgment of the eternally sinful out of sympathy for them, idolizing them over GOD, and becoming the temporarily sinful elect, evil until they can be brought to holiness and become heaven ready.

Peace, Ted

[Goose]

America is a democracy.

True.

God is a dictatorship.

False. The early Israelite nation (under which the laws in question were issued) was strictly speaking a theocracy. If we are going to use terms, let's at least use the right ones, eh?

This has the following crucial implications
- A democratic leader is elected. A dictator is not

God was accepted by the people of Israel. So he wasn’t elected per se but he wasn’t a self imposed dictator either.

- The chosen leader reflects the people and their wishes. A dictator does not

God reflected the wishes of his people and cared for his people on many occasions not least of which was their delivery from the hands of the Egyptians. Therefore, under your definition here God isn’t a dictator.

- Democratic laws are instated in a democratic fashion. The people have a say. The leader cannot change the law on a whim. A dictator can.

This is an interesting observation and leads to a point which annihilates your bed making argument even if you won’t accept it is obviously a non-sequitur.

Here’s the argument. Because the laws of the OT were a covenant with Israel God could NOT change them. They were immutable once God made his offer and the people of Israel accepted. If he did change them after, then God would be a liar. The only thing that could have happened is Israel could have chosen to back out of the agreement. Whereas in a democracy new laws can be created and old ones amended. Therefore it is possible that a bed making law, given the right cultural sentiments and political setting, could emerge in America whereas it couldn’t with God because his laws are immutable. In other words, if God was going to make a bed making law it would already exist in the OT and it doesn’t. On the other hand, given enough time Americans may face bed making laws. Can you guarantee they won't?

- The matter of the flag is a cultural one. Americans are very patriotic and it is in the best interest of the public and a reflection of their wishes that the desecration law was instated.

Hold the phone. So you are saying America’s flag laws are not petty? And they aren’t petty because the American people are a deeply patriotic people? Well what about a people who are deeply religious? What about a people who revere their god just like Americans revere their country? What if that religious group agree to enforce a law given to them that says they must have one day a week that honours their god just like Americans accept the law that says you can’t even leave an American flag on the floor? Why would that law be petty whereas the American flag laws are not? I maintain that if the OT Sabbath law is “petty� so are the American laws regarding the desecration of anything that even resembles their flag.

If the American public really wanted to, they could lift the desecration law just as they have recently changed the law on gay marriage and marijuana.

The Israelites could have said no. They also could have backed out after.

- The desecration law is a product of culture. The Sabbath law is a command from God. Unless you admit that God and his commandments are the product of the Jewish culture?

The Sabbath law is a law the Israelites agree to enforce.

A democracy is not a fitting analogy for a dictatorship.

Neither is a theocracy then. That rules out God in your argument, you are left with North Korea.

I have given you plenty of reasons why America is a poor example.

And I’ve given you plenty of logic as to why America fits the argument if God does.

You have yet to give me a single reason you refuse to use North Korea for this analogy

Because I prefer to use America and I explained why.

[Robert Barnes]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

The wages of sin is death, but not physical death but spiritual death. But if Lucy, Timmy and Billy accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour, they ask for forgiveness and will not die. It is not our decision what happens to them it is God's alone.

[Justin108]

God is a dictatorship.

False. The early Israelite nation (under which the laws in question were issued) was strictly speaking a theocracy. If we are going to use terms, let's at least use the right ones, eh?

dic·ta·tor/ˈdikˌt�dər/
noun
a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force.

Yes it was a theocracy, but it was also a dictatorship as this definition fits God perfectly.

This has the following crucial implications
- A democratic leader is elected. A dictator is not

God was accepted by the people of Israel. So he wasn’t elected per se but he wasn’t a self imposed dictator either.

"Accepted" and "elected" are two different things. When did they vote on the matter? Who was the opposition? When is the reelection?

He just saved them from their fate as slaves. From there on they went on a raging conquest, destroying all the nations who opposed him. I could understand if the Jews were scared as hell and had no real choice. Whenever the Jews turned their backs on God, he didn't respond very well.

"Per se" asside, he was not elected and is therefor not a democratic leader.

- The chosen leader reflects the people and their wishes. A dictator does not

God reflected the wishes of his people and cared for his people on many occasions not least of which was their delivery from the hands of the Egyptians. Therefore, under your definition here God isn’t a dictator.

"Cared for his people" and "reflected their wishes" are, again, two different things. Remember the topic here is on law. When did God ever listen to their imput when considering the law?

Specifically, the law I'm most concerend with is the Sabbath. Did the jews have a say in being stoned to death for working on the Sabbath? Or was it the unquestionable command of God?

- Democratic laws are instated in a democratic fashion. The people have a say. The leader cannot change the law on a whim. A dictator can.

This is an interesting observation and leads to a point which annihilates your bed making argument even if you won’t accept it is obviously a non-sequitur.

Here’s the argument. Because the laws of the OT were a covenant with Israel God could NOT change them. They were immutable once God made his offer and the people of Israel accepted. If he did change them after, then God would be a liar. The only thing that could have happened is Israel could have chosen to back out of the agreement. Whereas in a democracy new laws can be created and old ones amended. Therefore it is possible that a bed making law, given the right cultural sentiments and political setting, could emerge in America whereas it couldn’t with God because his laws are immutable. In other words, if God was going to make a bed making law it would already exist in the OT and it doesn’t. On the other hand, given enough time Americans may face bed making laws. Can you guarantee they won't?

The key point is American law is a product of culture while Jewish law is the product of God. Regardless of why the Jews accepted the law, it is still a law from God and not from culture.

Are God's laws immutable? Tell me, do you eat pork?

- The matter of the flag is a cultural one. Americans are very patriotic and it is in the best interest of the public and a reflection of their wishes that the desecration law was instated.

Hold the phone. So you are saying America’s flag laws are not petty? And they aren’t petty because the American people are a deeply patriotic people? Well what about a people who are deeply religious? What about a people who revere their god just like Americans revere their country? What if that religious group agree to enforce a law given to them that says they must have one day a week that honours their god just like Americans accept the law that says you can’t even leave an American flag on the floor? Why would that law be petty whereas the American flag laws are not? I maintain that if the OT Sabbath law is “petty� so are the American laws regarding the desecration of anything that even resembles their flag.

The American laws regarding the desecration is petty. But it is much less petty as no one ends up dead. And America gets to have petty laws because they are a nation made of human beings. Humans understandably make petty laws and observations. This should not be the case with God. God is not bound by culture the way America is. God transcends culture. So why is it that only Jews are stoned to death for working on the Sabbath? Why is a universal God so culture specific?

If the American public really wanted to, they could lift the desecration law just as they have recently changed the law on gay marriage and marijuana.

The Israelites could have said no. They also could have backed out after.

Give the OT another read and see how disobedience usually ended.

- The desecration law is a product of culture. The Sabbath law is a command from God. Unless you admit that God and his commandments are the product of the Jewish culture?

The Sabbath law is a law the Israelites agree to enforce.

The issue is not whether they agreed to it or not. The issue is why it existed to begin with.

"Product" of culture. Culture made it. Not "culture agreed to it"

A democracy is not a fitting analogy for a dictatorship.

Neither is a theocracy then. That rules out God in your argument, you are left with North Korea.

dic·ta·tor/ˈdikˌt�dər/
noun
a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force.

While it is a theocracy, it is still a dictatorship.

You have yet to give me a single reason you refuse to use North Korea for this analogy

Because I prefer to use America and I explained why.

You've explained why you consider America to be fitting. You haven't explained why North Korea is unfitting.

[Goose]

dic•ta•tor/ˈdikˌt�dər/
noun
a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force.

Yes it was a theocracy, but it was also a dictatorship as this definition fits God perfectly.

God didn’t obtain his power by force. The Israelites agreed to be his people.

"Accepted" and "elected" are two different things. When did they vote on the matter? Who was the opposition? When is the reelection?

Irrelevant. The point is God wasn’t a self imposed dictator.

He just saved them from their fate as slaves.

You say that like it’s a bad thing.

From there on they went on a raging conquest, destroying all the nations who opposed him.

Not entirely unlike one democracy in particular with an aggressive foreign policy. Can you guess who that might be?

I could understand if the Jews were scared as hell and had no real choice.

But they did have a choice. That’s what made it a covenant.

Whenever the Jews turned their backs on God, he didn't respond very well.

When Americans turn their backs on their country their country doesn’t tend to respond very well either. (18 U.S.C. 2381)

"Cared for his people" and "reflected their wishes" are, again, two different things. Remember the topic here is on law. When did God ever listen to their imput when considering the law?

The Jews had a chance to offer their input when God made his offer. By the way, when was the last time Obama listened to your input (assuming you are American)?

Specifically, the law I'm most concerend with is the Sabbath.

Your concern for the Jews is noted, but as I said they had an opportunity to reject God’s offer.

Did the jews have a say in being stoned to death for working on the Sabbath?

Yes, the Israelites were expected to control the judicial process.

Or was it the unquestionable command of God?

It was a law. The U.S. legal code are unquestionable commands (laws) as well. Americans don’t get to pick and choose which laws they will obey. You will no doubt counter that America is different because people have a say in the laws instated since it is a democracy. But does the average American really have a say? What about laws that don’t reflect the values of all Americans? Like say the flag desecration laws for example?

The key point is American law is a product of culture while Jewish law is the product of God. Regardless of why the Jews accepted the law, it is still a law from God and not from culture.

Exactly! You are validating my argument. Because American law is a product of current culture, given the right cultural setting and political environment, they might at some point create a bed making law since cultural sentiments change. Perhaps at some point American’s will come to accept the notion that patriotic Americans make their bed just like patriotic Americans don’t leave their flag on the ground. Voila! A new bed making law comes about. Whereas with God he won’t instate such a bed making law since the laws he made are immutable.

Are God's laws immutable? Tell me, do you eat pork?

Tell me, do you murder? The reason I eat pork has nothing to do with God changing his laws.

The American laws regarding the desecration is petty.

Are you American? If Americans think it’s petty and the laws reflect American cultural values why does the law exist? Why don’t Americans eliminate the law if Americans have a say in the laws as you claim they do? Why has congress repeatedly attempted to amend the constitution in regards to this law? I don’t think Americans think it’s petty otherwise they’d do something about eliminating it not attempt to change the Constitution to reflect this law. On the other hand perhaps Amercian’s do think it’s petty but they don’t really have a say in the laws as you claim they do.

But it is much less petty as no one ends up dead.

The lesser degree of punishment doesn’t make the flag laws less petty. It’s our perception of the nature of the infraction itself which makes it petty. Can you guarantee that the punishment for flag desecration won’t be death at some point? All American needs to do is come to point where they associate flag burning with treason. It’s not unthinkable. It is America we’re talking about after all.

And America gets to have petty laws because they are a nation made of human beings. Humans understandably make petty laws and observations.

Right. Which is why we should expect America to one day make a petty bed making law if they are willing to make a petty flag law.

Give the OT another read and see how disobedience usually ended.

Give the U.S. legal code another read and see how disobedience usually ends. Disobedience doesn’t usually end well for anybody.

The issue is not whether they agreed to it or not. The issue is why it existed to begin with.

See Exodus 31:12-17. The Sabbath was a sign. Not unlike the American flag is a sign for the American people.

dic•ta•tor/ˈdikˌt�dər/
noun
a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force.

While it is a theocracy, it is still a dictatorship.

If it’s a theocracy, by definition, it is not a dictatorship.

Theocracy:"a form of government in which a country is ruled by religious leaders."

You've explained why you consider America to be fitting. You haven't explained why North Korea is unfitting.

Feel free to use North Korea. I’ve already said, North Korea, God, and America are all fitting for your argument because the entity which institutes the laws is irrelevant to the argument as each respective entity has shown a propensity to create laws we perceive as “petty.� That’s the bottom line and you can’t refute it. This is why my counter argument is a cogent argumentum ad absurdum.

Further, what’s still missing in your argument after all this time is the logical connection between the first petty law and making the bed.

You may as well be arguing...

If America [God] will punish for leaving a flag on the ground [working on the Sabbath], then it will likely punish for not making the bed, eating ice cream, wearing pink, and going to drive-in theatres.

Your argument is about as good an example of a non-sequitur as they come. I’ll give you that much.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 104 by Goose]

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 696#714696

[Justin108]

Since it seems to be impossible to accept a satan or anyone looking at the glory of El Shaddai and deciding that he was equal let alone superior to GOD, it is logical to assume they could not see YHWH's divinity nor power when they rejected HIS claim to divinity and power.

I'm a super powerful alien that can explone matter with my mind. If you reject my claim, I will destroy you. Do you reject my claim? If so, do you deserve being destroyed? Does your understandable skepticism deserve death? Is it, as you put it, the only infraction that dooms us? Is this justice?

Since such a display of HIS divinity and power would coerce all who saw it to accede to HIS wishes, that is, HIS marriage proposal to all those created in HIS image. Since a forced / coerced marriage is a rape and no marriage at all, HE only wanted to marry those who would accept in good faith HIS proposal of marriage by their free will so HE had to withhold all proof of HIS divinity and power from us before we made these faith based decisions.

So a man displaying his wealth with a Ferrari or his physique on the beach is a rapist since he is "coercing" all who saw him?

- there are those who rejected HIM as a self aggrandizing megalomaniac and they refused to accept that HE was more than they were, becoming the eternally evil tares as warned. They were suspicious of HIS refusal to provide proof. They were self satisfied that they could look after themselves and be as holy without HIM as HE claimed to be. They were miffed that HE claimed to be superior to them, believing deeply that they were in fact the epitome of society.

- There are no "natural consequences" of rejecting God. God made all the rules. God set everything up. A consequence had it's cause because God designed it that way. He cannot appeal to causality if he invented it.
- There is absolutely nothing wrong with suspicion without proof. Anyone who isn't suspicious is an idiot. Since we're dealing with a supposed marriage, would you be willing to marry a woman who sent you an email telling you she is a wealthy, educated model and that she wishes to marry you? She refuses to provide any proof because she doesn't want to "coerce" you and then goes on to tell you what a life with her would be like. Would you accept her proposal?
- You added several unnecessary characteristics to skepticism. One can be skeptic without having a sense of superiority or believing one is the epitome of society.