I liked your explanation on the father/hunter, kland. Especially this I found helpful:

Using the gun in the best, safest, and most humane way did not contradict the father's ideal after the son made the choice to use the gun.

In what way are you and I viewing the NC and the OC differently?

That the covenant and promise of God are one and the same thing, is clearly seen from Gal.3:17, where it appears that to disannul the covenant would be to make void the promise. In Genesis 17 we read that God made a covenant with Abraham to give him the land of Canaan--and with it the whole world--for an everlasting possession; but Gal.3:18 says that God gave it to him by promise. God's covenants with men can be nothing else than promises to them: "Who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things." Rom.11:35,36. It is so rare for men to do anything without expecting an equivalent, that theologians have taken it for granted that it is the same with God. So they begin their dissertations on God's covenant with the statement that a covenant is "a mutual agreement between two or more persons, to do or refrain from doing certain things." But God does not make bargains with men, because He knows that they could not fulfil their part. After the flood God made a covenant with every beast of the earth, and with every fowl; but the beasts and the birds did not promise anything in return. Gen.9:9-16. They simply received the favor at the hand of God. That is all we can do. God promises us everything that we need, and more than we can ask or think, as a gift. We give Him ourselves, that is, nothing, and He gives us Himself, that is, everything. That which makes all the trouble is that even when men are willing to recognize the Lord at all, they want to make bargains with Him. They want it to be a "mutual" affair--a transaction in which they will be considered as on a par with God. But whoever deals with God must deal with Him on His own terms, that is, on a basis of fact--that we have nothing and are nothing, and He has everything and is everything, and gives everything. (The Glad Tidings)

Since I made the statement last Sabbath that the view of the covenants as it had been taught by Brother Waggoner was truth, it seems that great relief has come to many minds.-- Letter 30, 1890

Night before last I was shown that evidences in regard to the covenants were clear and convincing. Yourself, Brother B, Brother C, and others are spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother [E. J.] Waggoner has presented. (9MR 328)

Yes. On another note, do you agree God required capital punishment for specific crimes in the law of Moses?

T: I've been saying over and over again that the approach I think should be taken is to form a Model of God's character based on studying Jesus Christ, and only *then* go back and look at the OT. So I wouldn't say you'll never know what I believe about why God "commanded" Moses to kill sinners, unless you refuse to do what I've suggested.

M:Do you trust me to arrive at the correct conclusion? If not, then please tell me plainly why God commanded Moses to kill sinners. You have never done this yet. You keep avoiding it. I don't understand why.

T: I take it from your question that you believe it's possible to do things contrary to God's will without breaking the law, is that right?

M:Yes. Contrary to His *idea* will when He permits it.

I believe His life and teachings represent everything we need to know about God in the OT and NT. Do you?

It seems to me you are doing precisely this, spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother Waggoner has presented. To answer your question briefly, in the points where you differ from Waggoner's view, you and I differ.

M: On another note, do you agree God required capital punishment for specific crimes in the law of Moses?

T: In a sense.