The Death Pentalty

[sparow]

The whole Judeo/Christian faith has as a central theme a blood covenant. Because Atheists use this thread for this discussion it is assumed God exits and the issue is whether this abstract correctly reveals the overall morality of the Bible and the role of the death penalty in God's way.

A blood covenant is where the party who breaks the covenant has his blood shed or receives the death penalty.

God modified the blood covenant concept for His use to allow redemption or a reprieve for some. Some people are able to use Christ's blood as a substitute for their own otherwise they face the second death at the second resurrection.

The penalty of sin is death unless a person receives a reprieve from the penalty.

Jesus was the Lamb of God since the foundation; I presume this means the foundation of the covenant; this would make all the Lambs killed, surrogates for Jesus providing conditions were met, repentance etc.

 

[SkyWriting]

The penalty of sin is death unless a person receives a reprieve from the penalty.

This is why God created "Time"
as a reprieve for deserved death.

 

[Locutus]

The whole Judeo/Christian faith has as a central theme a blood covenant. Because Atheists use this thread for this discussion it is assumed God exits and the issue is whether this abstract correctly reveals the overall morality of the Bible and the role of the death penalty in God's way.

A blood covenant is where the party who breaks the covenant has his blood shed or receives the death penalty.

God modified the blood covenant concept for His use to allow redemption or a reprieve for some. Some people are able to use Christ's blood as a substitute for their own otherwise they face the second death at the second resurrection.

.

my highlights:

1) it is not assumed gods exist at all. we argue the BELIEF that gods exist.

2) god changes his mind? what, did he get it wrong the first time? and if so, how is it that an eternal entity has 'times'? and how does an all-knowing entity get something wrong? did you plan to get it wrong?

 

[sparow]

This is why God created "Time"
as a reprieve for deserved death.

You seem to b changing the subject; I don't think God created time as a part of creation; He makes time available to man when He breathes His spirit into man; time is a function of the mechanics of the mind.

 

[sparow]

my highlights:

1) it is not assumed gods exist at all. we argue the BELIEF that gods exist.

2) god changes his mind? what, did he get it wrong the first time? and if so, how is it that an eternal entity has 'times'? and how does an all-knowing entity get something wrong? did you plan to get it wrong?

my highlights:

1) it is not assumed gods exist at all. we argue the BELIEF that gods exist.

2) god changes his mind? what, did he get it wrong the first time? and if so, how is it that an eternal entity has 'times'? and how does an all-knowing entity get something wrong? did you plan to get it wrong?

I am sorry you are not able to participate. There are a couple of times God has repented but it was not good when he did.

 

[Sammy-San]

I am sorry you are not able to participate. There are a couple of times God has repented but it was not good when he did.

not able to participiate in what?

 

[sparow]

not able to participiate in what?

I guess that didn't come out the way I meant it. I meant I was sorry because he wasn't able to participate. He implied this when he said he couldn't assume that God existed for the purpose of the discussion.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

1) it is not assumed gods exist at all. we argue the BELIEF that gods exist.

You argue, we don't.

2) god changes his mind? what, did he get it wrong the first time? and if so, how is it that an eternal entity has 'times'? and how does an all-knowing entity get something wrong? did you plan to get it wrong?

There are some things that God won't budge on, but he can be quite flexible.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You seem to b changing the subject; I don't think God created time as a part of creation; He makes time available to man when He breathes His spirit into man; time is a function of the mechanics of the mind.

I think he means time as a space to repent. Without it the death penalty would be imposed immediately upon the transgression. Time is implicit in the patience of God.

"Time is nature's way of ensuring that everything doesn't happen all at once."

 

[sparow]

I think he means time as a space to repent. Without it the death penalty would be imposed immediately upon the transgression. Time is implicit in the patience of God.

"Time is nature's way of ensuring that everything doesn't happen all at once."

So undefinable is time that the ignostics should refuse to wear a wrist watch. As for skywriting I am not sure what he means because Berean is a double positive, Universal Universal.

Time is a subject that greatly interests me; time is a function in God's seven thousand year plan; whether time exists outside of God's eternal plan; changing Law and time is what Satan (Rome) does; but time is not physical, it is the mechanics of the mind that enable the perception of motion; in substance is no different to 2+2=4; these can be projected outside of the mind and applied but as soon as the mind is switched off both cease to exist.

I don't disagree with what you say; but we seem to have created an unnecessary deviation; time is implicit in all aspects of reality. I don't know anything about atomic bombs but logic tells me that uranium normally breaks down slowly as if controlled by a clock; an atomic explosion is where a pin is pulled and time passes instantaneously or no motion is observed; obviously there is more to an atomic explosion that time or observed motion.

 

[Locutus]

There are some things that God won't budge on, but he can be quite flexible.

is that a yes or a no?

 

[Locutus]

I meant I was sorry because he wasn't able to participate. He implied this when he said he couldn't assume that God existed for the purpose of the discussion.

discussions I enter are either a) to argue the existence of gods, and/or b) to, 'assuming' a particular god exists, argue the merits of said god.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

is that a yes or a no?

Please narrow it down to one question.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

discussions I enter are either a) to argue the existence of gods, and/or b) to, 'assuming' a particular god exists, argue the merits of said god.

Have you ever heard of the poem, "Young man, Young man, Your Arm's Too Short to Box with God."

 

[sparow]

discussions I enter are either a) to argue the existence of gods, and/or b) to, 'assuming' a particular god exists, argue the merits of said god.

This thread is about the death penalty and the possibility of a reprieve from it are central to the covenant and indeed the whole Judeo/Christian paradigm; you need to start your own thread.

 

[Cearbhall]

The whole Judeo/Christian faith has as a central theme a blood covenant. Because Atheists use this thread for this discussion it is assumed God exits

Even if a god existed and I acknowledged it, I would still think that the Bible is mostly false, so I'm not sure how to discuss the topic within these parameters.

and the issue is whether this abstract correctly reveals the overall morality of the Bible and the role of the death penalty in God's way.

I guess my answer is no? If I'm understanding your question correctly.

 

[Locutus]

This thread is about the death penalty and the possibility of a reprieve from it are central to the covenant and indeed the whole Judeo/Christian paradigm; you need to start your own thread.

No, I don't need to start a thread. I just need to stay out of the echo chamber you'd like to turn this one into.

And here I was thinking these were 'debate' threads.

 

[quatona]

A blood covenant is where the party who breaks the covenant has his blood shed or receives the death penalty.

To my knowledge, a covenant requires consent (particularly of the person receiving a certain responsibility).

God modified the blood covenant concept for His use to allow redemption or a reprieve for some.

When was the "convenant" introduced, who invented it, and who subscribed to it?

Some people are able to use Christ's blood as a substitute for their own otherwise they face the second death at the second resurrection.

The penalty of sin is death unless a person receives a reprieve from the penalty.

So unchanging God changed His rules.
I still don´t see a reason to use the word covenant.

Jesus was the Lamb of God since the foundation; I presume this means the foundation of the covenant; this would make all the Lambs killed, surrogates for Jesus providing conditions were met, repentance etc.

If God wants a person to live, one would assume he could just let him live - without employing all this weird stuff like making arbitrary rules and then creating arbitrary loop-holes.

What was your question, btw?

 

[Cearbhall]

God modified the blood covenant concept for His use to allow redemption or a reprieve for some. Some people are able to use Christ's blood as a substitute for their own otherwise they face the second death at the second resurrection.

The penalty of sin is death unless a person receives a reprieve from the penalty.

I'm not really seeing a question here. You seem to be stating that the death penalty is acceptable by default, but God may also choose to be merciful in certain cases. Ok.

 

[sparow]

To my knowledge, a covenant requires consent (particularly of the person receiving a certain responsibility).


When was the "convenant" introduced, who invented it, and who subscribed to it?

So unchanging God changed His rules.
I still don´t see a reason to use the word covenant.


If God wants a person to live, one would assume he could just let him live - without employing all this weird stuff like making arbitrary rules and then creating arbitrary loop-holes.

What was your question, btw?

To my knowledge the English word "covenant" was to do with witchcraft and later used broadly; the word doesn't bother me except without the word blood, it does not automatically carry the Biblical concept of death resulting if the covenant is broken; God's blood covenant allows for a possible reprieve. The death penalty referred to is not the death that everyone dies but the second death which only the wicked die which essentially is exclusion from the Kingdom of God. One enters into the covenant when one seeks a reprieve.

Blood Contracts have always been around; even the American red Indians used it; God boroughed the concept. Circumcision was the first blood covenant mentioned in scripture and if you were not circumcised you were excluded from the Kingdom of God; but the circumcision had to be part of the contract made with Abraham.

I am not aware that God has changed His rules and I would insist that He hasn't which means a lot of Christians are in trouble.

Jesus has established that regardless of what He did people would always say why didn't He do something else. Still there is an interesting question you (who doesn't seek a reprieve) raise that the Bible doesn't answer. Why all this fuss about Adam and Eve eating apples?