Stoning

[QuestionMark]

The reason I say it had to be quick is pretty easy to understand.

The death penalty had to be carried out by the High Priest, according to the Law.
The High Priest lived in Jerusalem.
The High Priest was supposed to get everyone to participate.

Before they lived in Jerusalem, that was the congregation of Israel wandering, and they all lived in one tent city. So the High Priest would be getting a ton of people together.
After they lived in Jerusalem the High Priest would have gotten a ton of people together in Jerusalem.

I can't see how I would survive even 20 people throwing rocks at me for very long. I'd get hit in the head and become unconscious probably very early.

[Captain Luke]

I can't see how I would survive even 20 people throwing rocks at me for very long. I'd get hit in the head and become unconscious probably very early.

Maybe, but there is no guarantee that you would get hit in the head. How many people can throw something heavy accurately enough to hit someone in the head from anything more than 10 yards away? And who's to say that people would even aim at the head?

[QuestionMark]

I know it's gruesome, but practically, if twenty able bodied men are throwing rocks at me, they're going to render me unconscious quickly, in my estimation.

[Assyriankey]

QM, what's more humane - beheading by sword or death by stoning?

[QuestionMark]

If by humane, you mean less painful, then beheading.

[Assyriankey]

Yes.

QM, what's quicker - beheading by sword or death by stoning?

[QuestionMark]

Beheading

[Assyriankey]

So stoning is unnecessarily tortuous.

[QuestionMark]

If the only purpose was to destroy the person yes.

[Assyriankey]

Thanks.

[QuestionMark]

You're welcome.

[Assyriankey]

QM, you're now going to say there is another purpose to stoning rather than merely executing the person.

The floor is yours...

[QuestionMark]

Well of course there is, otherwise they could have hanged people, like mentioned elsewhere in the law of Moses. Not all executions were by stoning.

[Assyriankey]

[Assyriankey]

Well of course there is, otherwise they could have hanged people, like mentioned elsewhere in the law of Moses. Not all executions were by stoning.

So why stoning?

[jill]

For group participation I believe - per his earlier post.

[Fit2BThaied]

God is not love and Jesus, as the Word, oversaw every OT atrocity.

Nah. Jesus wept - he's always been Prince of Peace.

[Assyriankey]

For group participation I believe - per his earlier post.

My question is more like "Why is group participation required?"

[Former Believer]

Your stance in this thread is a bit peculiar to me, QM.  Essentially, you are saying that stoning isn't as bad as some people make it out to be and that the Bible doesn't advocate doing it frequently.  That's kind of like saying sodomizing a child isn't so bad so long as one doesn't do it too often and that the perpetrator makes sure to use lubricant.

What I would have expected of you is something to the effect of:

God is righteous.  We are wicked.  His punishments are righteous.  Any pain or suffering incurred during the punishment of sin is the just reward of a willful sinner.

[QuestionMark]

FB,
     That last line is correct. However, God also doesn't give wanton commands. You should notice that there are subtleties to the Old Testament Law. I don't expect you to think that they are meaningful, but I do, and I've seen amazing and wonderful things in the subtleties. God made man in His image, so mutilating a man was illegal(They whipped a man's back, or they beat his back, but never more than 40 times. A contrast was the injustice of beating a man with a cat o nine tails, in the times of Jesus. That was illegal according to Jewish Law.). Burning people to death was illegal(Molech). The Jews did not prescribe cutting off limbs or digits as the other people of the day. There is a broad consensus in the Scripture that even penal actions were not to destroy the image of God in a man. If a man was put to death, it could have been by hanging(as there are other Scriptures which mention this). Murder, if I am to understand some implications, was punished by whatever means was most expedient(The Jews didn't always have the roman influence, crucifixion was meant as a supreme torture). So if God stones someone it wouldn't fit for it to be long, drawn out, torturous. It may be bad, very bad, something that everyone would want to avoid. But it wouldn't be degrading or torturous.

     SoM mentioned stoning a while back and it caught my attention because it doesn't fit. Then recently I've been reading a lot more OT and it still doesn't fit. The Law of Moses does not say much about stoning except that it is done by a lot of people, approved only by the High Priest, and done right outside the camp(or outside the city). I cannot see this lasting long, or being particularly painful compared to other means of killing someone. And I can't see a way that is communal otherwise. I know that these are gruesome discussions, but I want to know what the Scriptures are saying.

[Son of Man]

You're only saying that stoning was not horrific to avoid admitting that the Bible is not consistent.  If the Bible says that God is ok with stoning someone for something as petty as cursing, and it also says that God doesn't like mutilation, then the book is inconsistent.  You're trying to make the facts fit your conclusion of a loving God, but it's not working.  A quick death is a blade.  Stoning is horrific, slow, and painful.

[QuestionMark]

No, I'm not. Last time I checked you couldn't read my mind. (If you can, I think that we can have some interesting debates on the supernatural)

[Son of Man]

No, I'm not. Last time I checked you couldn't read my mind. (If you can, I think that we can have some interesting debates on the supernatural)

Are you saying that you would be defending the practice of stoning if God wasn't ok with it?  Would you say that a man should be stoned for something as petty cursing Zeus?

[Assyriankey]

QM, why do you think the communal aspect of the execution (by stoning) was important to God?

[Former Believer]

That last line is correct. However, God also doesn't give wanton commands.

The good thing about you, QM, (and I mean this sincerely) is that you do notice and consider troubling aspects about the Bible that other Christians would more or less accept with far less, if any, contemplation.  The problem is that, in the end, your faith always leads you to a justification of unjustifiable and and a reconciliation of the unreconciliable.  It incapacitates you from seeing the truth.  It seems to me that you keep seeing evidence that contradicts your thesis (the validity of the Christian God and the Bible) but, because you like your thesis, you keep trying to frame the evidence in a manner that will keep your thesis alive.  It's like forcing the wrong piece into a jigsaw puzzle.  You can do it, but it doesn't make the puzzle accurate.

If there was a good and loving God, he wouldn't give wanton commands.  However, the God of the OT does, and does repeatedly.  If you could remove the goggles of faith, that are disabling your vision, I believe you could see this clearly.

[Auz]

A quick death is a blade.  Stoning is horrific, slow, and painful.

It depends, a blade can be used so that it is far, far worse than a stone. Beheading was rarely "one swift stroke"... it wasn't until the guillotine that it could be performed "properly" ever time.

[Son of Man]

A quick death is a blade.  Stoning is horrific, slow, and painful.

It depends, a blade can be used so that it is far, far worse than a stone. Beheading was rarely "one swift stroke"... it wasn't until the guillotine that it could be performed "properly" ever time.

The problem with the axe was that the blade was aimed at the back of the neck, where the spine was located.  It took a lot of force to cut clean through, so it often took many attempts.  On the other hand, a small sharp blade (it doesn't even have to be that sharp) to the throat will kill someone instantly. When rocks are employed, it's for the purpose of making someone suffer and creating a bloody spectacle. OJ Simpson's method was better than God's.

[Auz]

The problem with the axe was that the blade was aimed at the back of the neck, where the spine was located.  It took a lot of force to cut clean through, so it often took many attempts.  On the other hand, a small sharp blade (it doesn't even have to be that sharp) to the throat will kill someone instantly. When rocks are employed, it's for the purpose of making someone suffer and creating a bloody spectacle. OJ Simpson's method was better than God's.

When you're slicing a throat, it's not instantaneous... it's a horrible way to die actually.
It's only considered "instant" because the victim can't react outwardly. They drop, they suffocate and their brain is starved of blood very quickly. To kill someone "instantly", you need to cease all brain activity, which can only really achieved by extreme forces. If it's painless you're after you're better off knocking them out first, then inflicting a lethal wound...

[QuestionMark]

Are you saying that you would be defending the practice of stoning if God wasn't ok with it?  Would you say that a man should be stoned for something as petty cursing Zeus?

SoM,
     To cut to the chase I'm saying that I wouldn't care about stoning at all if I were not a Christian. I'm a Christian, therefore I'm not my old self(who would be playing video games, drinking vault, and eating pizza right now). Stoning matters to me because I want to understand God, and God has an opinion on stoning.

I think that a man should get whatever God judges he should get.

[QuestionMark]

QM, why do you think the communal aspect of the execution (by stoning) was important to God?

So that no one would be seen as the judge except the high priest, and that they would all be seen as agreeing with the judgment.