Stoning

[QuestionMark]

SoM,
    You do not believe in God. Let me remind you again, you do not believe in God. The person above you who sometimes believes in objective morality, just told me that punishment only works if someone learns, and that there is no such thing as justice being satisfied because of moral relativism. So let me remind you again, you don't believe in God.

   Which means, that what is heinous today wasn't 30 thousand years ago, and what is normal today will be heinous thirty thousand years from now. Relativism strips YOU of your humanity, because it means that human and humane are ever changing concepts that have no anchor in reality. Yes, no anchor in reality, because this is just a glimpse of a movie, and a snapshot of a movie about growing up that only concentrates on a momentary showing of a school bus is a poor representation. Your morals then are not the representation of what is good, or righteous, or moral, even according to your own standards. Because you yourself change over time, and can't say with absolute confidence that 'right' exists, let alone that you know what it is.

So I will say again, you don't believe in God. Your morals are relative, child molestation being wrong is relative in your worldview. In the worldview of the Bible you'd get stoned, or hanged for it, and in God's you'd go to hell for thinking it.

I have not learned that stoning is slow, painful, and torturous way to die. I think it probably is, and by slow I mean a few minutes, painful I mean until you're unconscious, and torturous in that you suffer pain in a penal sense. This is justice, that those who do the worst evil suffer the worst deaths, and that everyone should agree with the eradication of that evil.

JM is blind because he does not hate. Whereas you see, but call yourself blind. You two should work together. I hate child molestation. See that? I hate child molesters. I hate sin, and I hate sinners. And hate allows us to see that sin deserves to be destroyed. Hate what is evil, cling to what is good. Hate sin and sinners, yet have hope that God can save even the chief of sinners and turn them into something beautiful. Recognize the righteous and true judgment of God that we are condemned, yet love your enemy as yourself. God's morality is perfect.

If my humanity has been stripped it has been living in a world corrupted by sin, and by sinning myself, not by studying the goodness and mercy of God.

[Son of Man]

It's funny when you claim the moral high ground while espousing views not too different from Hitler.  That you claim to get your superior morals from a storybook that condones brutally killing people for cursing makes it all the more funny.  : )

I'm glad that you hate child molestation, but I suppose I should credit the Bible for that, not you.  As for JM, you can what you want about him and criticize him for his lack of hatred, but he would never condone a genocide.  I've always like that about him. 

[Fit2BThaied]

LOVE YOUR ENEMY

A Christian who does not love everybody, while hating their sin, is not a True Christian.^TM

[QuestionMark]

It's funny when you claim the moral high ground while espousing views not too different from Hitler.  That you claim to get your superior morals from a storybook that condones brutally killing people for cursing makes it all the more funny.  : )

I'm glad that you hate child molestation, but I suppose I should credit the Bible for that, not you.  As for JM, you can what you want about him and criticize him for his lack of hatred, but he would never condone a genocide.  I've always like that about him. 

SoM,
     God has not condoned genocide in thousands of years, because God has not permitted an entire tribe of people to fill up the measure of their sins, God is preserving every nation tribe and tongue to praise Him.

[Son of Man]

It's funny when you claim the moral high ground while espousing views not too different from Hitler.  That you claim to get your superior morals from a storybook that condones brutally killing people for cursing makes it all the more funny.  : )

I'm glad that you hate child molestation, but I suppose I should credit the Bible for that, not you.  As for JM, you can what you want about him and criticize him for his lack of hatred, but he would never condone a genocide.  I've always like that about him. 

SoM,
     God has not condoned genocide in thousands of years, because God has not permitted an entire tribe of people to fill up the measure of their sins, God is preserving every nation tribe and tongue to praise Him.

Yes, but what's a few thousand years to an eternal God, anyway? 

[QuestionMark]

Yes, but what's a few thousand years to an eternal God, anyway?  

A few hundred million years. Or a day.

[Assyriankey]

Yes, but what's a few thousand years to an eternal God, anyway? 

A few hundred million years. Or a day.

QM, why do you think it's relevant how long ago God last committed an act of genocide when He is eternal?

[Kerlyssa]

It ties into the, as you put it, battered housewife approach to religion. God isn't down here killing us right now, so he loves us.

[JustMyron]

The person above you who sometimes believes in objective morality, just told me that punishment only works if someone learns, and that there is no such thing as justice being satisfied because of moral relativism.

No, QM. What I said was one person can say that something is just while another disagrees and we don't necessarily know who's right. That doesn't mean that neither are right or both are right, or that there is no such thing as right, just that (as I've been trying to get across to HE) we human beings are really quite bad at discerning the truth.

I'm not a moral relativist, I'm just very aware of my own fallibility and ignorance. There are many things I think are right, but my thinking it so doesn't make it so. And there are various things I think might be justified to hate, but again, my thinking it so doesn't make it so. And there are many things the bible says are right or wrong, but a book saying it's so doesn't make it so, either.

SoM says I would never approve of a genocide. And he's right. But the reason might be a little different than he's expecting. I think if you can hate one person, you can hate a group of people, and if you can find killing one person justified, you can do it for groups, which is genocide. And there are various times when I might consider a murder, and by extension potentially a genocide, justified. The classic example is "would you kill Hitler?". If I knew the future, and I knew the effect of killing him (knew that by doing this I could prevent a holocaust, that nobody else would step up in his place and let the holocaust continue, rendering his death meaninless) then yes. But if I was in that place and time, I wouldn't know the future, and even if I could travel back in time, I wouldn't know for sure what effects my actions would have. So, although in principle sometimes murder might be justified, in practice it's serious enough that I'd have to be sure. And I can never picture myself being sure enough to murder someone.

The same deal with hate. Hate is destructive. If you hate something, you want to kill it if it's alive, break it if it's unbroken, make it suffer, maybe, if you can... remove it from existence, and be satisfied in the destruction you have wrought. And so if you're going to let yourself be ruled by hate for a bit, you better be absolutely 100% certain it's the right move. Because if your hate is unjustified, it'll lead you to do some seriously wrong things.

With love, or positive/caring emotion, this is not the case. If caring for someone, treating them like another human being and attempting to help them, is misplaced, no harm is done. And more often than you might realize, that sort of emotional response can lead to change you wouldn't have thought possible.

You say it's OK to hate sin, but hope that God can somehow redeem it. But how would God do this? It would be through love. How has he (you hope) redeemed you? Through unmerited kindness, which you call grace. It is not only God who can give unmerited kindness. You can do it too. And if, by demonstrating the concept of grace to another person, rather than hating them, you can help to change them in a positive direction, shouldn't you do so? If, in other words, you follow God's example in your own life and and love even where you consider it just to hate, and walk in humility knowing that your hate can be wrong, there's a chance you can do some good that your current (I would say somewhat arrogant) assertion that you know when it's OK to hate others would prevent you from doing.

Given human fallibility, it's best never to hate. Not even child molestors or murderers. Why should God do the work of redemption, when you can do it? If you choose to hate others instead, do you really think a loving God will approve?

[Assyriankey]

QM, Leviticus Chapter 20 gives further insight into the punishment of stoning, and when burning to death is preferred over stoning.

Hmmmm....

Leviticus 20:6 seems to contradict the death penalty (described elsewhere) for someone who follows mediums and fortune-tellers 

[Happy Evolute]

QM's 100,000-man stoning squad is apologetic fantasy.  If you want to kill someone quick, it just takes one man with a sharp blade.  If you want someone to suffer, you let an angry mob throw rocks at him.

... and besides, 100,000 men would need to stand in a circle of circumference 50km so would be 17km from the victim, and wouldn't be able to throw the rocks far enough.  Or maybe they used magic rocks, nothing in Scripture says the rocks weren't magic, does it now?


LOL

[QuestionMark]

QM, why do you think it's relevant how long ago God last committed an act of genocide when He is eternal?

I think the implication of those who hate God is that He is unconditionally genocidal, desiring that masses of people die as a rule rather than a pointed exception.

[QuestionMark]

QM, Leviticus Chapter 20 gives further insight into the punishment of stoning, and when burning to death is preferred over stoning.

Leviticus 20:6 seems to contradict the death penalty (described elsewhere) for someone who follows mediums and fortune-tellers 

It does contradict, because the people are not obedient to earlier commands. It describes a situation in which the people are not obedient and do not kill idolaters. It says that God Himself will set his face against the idolaters and cut them off from their people(As He did with Cain)

Also, burning
LEV 20:14 ? If there is a man who marries a woman and her mother, it is immorality; both he and they shall be burned with fire, so that there will be no immorality in your midst.

The only place I know about in Scripture that you burn someone, when a man marries a woman and her mother.

[Assyriankey]

QM's 100,000-man stoning squad is apologetic fantasy.  If you want to kill someone quick, it just takes one man with a sharp blade.  If you want someone to suffer, you let an angry mob throw rocks at him.

... and besides, 100,000 men would need to stand in a circle of circumference 50km so would be 17km from the victim, and wouldn't be able to throw the rocks far enough.  Or maybe they used magic rocks, nothing in Scripture says the rocks weren't magic, does it now?

The number of men led out of Egypt by Moses who were fit for military service was 603, 550, not 100,000.  Numbers 2:45-46.

How big does this number make the circle? Yes, magic rocks.

[meya]

Don't forget Achan in Joshua 7:25
Stoned for taking silver, gold and a garment after war, causing Israel to be defeated at Ai.

[Happy Evolute]

Don't forget Achan in Joshua 7:25
Stoned for taking silver, gold and a garment after war, causing Israel to be defeated at Ai.

Don't forget Achan's family either.

[Onesimus]

The only place I know about in Scripture that you burn someone, when a man marries a woman and her mother.

Does the execution happen after the honeymoon, or right at the moment they say "I do"?... or, as I suspect, somewhere in the middle?  Maybe the throwing of the bride's bouquet, or perhaps right after the obligatory Electric Slide?

[Assyriankey]

Stoning could be approved of and carried out by any two or more Jewish men - this is biblical.

Elders also had a special role to play in determining when to stone someone in more circumstantial situations.

Stoning most certainly was not at the sole discretion of the High Priest.

[Happy Evolute]

Stoning could be approved of and carried out by any two or more Jewish men - this is biblical.

Elders also had a special role to play in determining when to stone someone in more circumstantial situations.

Stoning most certainly was not at the sole discretion of the High Priest.

When, exactly, is all this supposed to have been going on? Do we have any judicial records of actual stonings from these supposed times?

[QuestionMark]

Stoning could be approved of and carried out by any two or more Jewish men - this is biblical.
Elders also had a special role to play in determining when to stone someone in more circumstantial situations.
Stoning most certainly was not at the sole discretion of the High Priest.

Where did you find this?

[Assyriankey]

Stoning could be approved of and carried out by any two or more Jewish men - this is biblical.
Elders also had a special role to play in determining when to stone someone in more circumstantial situations.
Stoning most certainly was not at the sole discretion of the High Priest.

Where did you find this?

Lev, Numbers and Deut.

[QuestionMark]

Lev, Numbers and Deut.

Could you give me something more specific? I'm interested.

[Assyriankey]

Lev, Numbers and Deut.

Could you give me something more specific? I'm interested.

Not without me re-reading those books.

[QuestionMark]

Not without me re-reading those books.

Well I'll keep reading them too :) When I find what you might have been thinking of I'll get back to you.

[Assyriankey]

Not without me re-reading those books.

Well I'll keep reading them too :) When I find what you might have been thinking of I'll get back to you.

Tracking down the verse about the Elders' involvement (as judges) should be pretty easy.

The 'two or more men' had to do with acceptable witnesses.

[QuestionMark]

The 'two or more men' had to do with acceptable witnesses.

You worded this in a way that is easily misunderstood... two witnesses are required, they are not the sole requirement to carry out the law. The witnesses testify before the elders, and in crimes that require the death penalty unless the crime is specifically written in the law(that is, if it is an ambiguous case) it must go before the high priest...

[Kerlyssa]

You'll notice he doesn't mention the whole magic rocks thing, eh?

[Assyriankey]

The 'two or more men' had to do with acceptable witnesses.

You worded this in a way that is easily misunderstood... two witnesses are required, they are not the sole requirement to carry out the law. The witnesses testify before the elders, and in crimes that require the death penalty unless the crime is specifically written in the law(that is, if it is an ambiguous case) it must go before the high priest...

Have you found the verse about acceptable witnesses?

And if it's an ambiguous case, it only needs to go before the elders, not the high priest.

[QuestionMark]

DT 17:2 ? If there is found in your midst, in any of your towns, which the LORD your God is giving you, a man or a woman who does what is evil in the sight of the LORD your God, by transgressing His covenant,
DT 17:3 and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the heavenly host, which I have not commanded,
DT 17:4 and if it is told you and you have heard of it, then you shall inquire thoroughly. Behold, if it is true and the thing certain that this detestable thing has been done in Israel,
DT 17:5 then you shall bring out that man or that woman who has done this evil deed to your gates, that is, the man or the woman, and you shall stone them to death.
DT 17:6 ? On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness.
DT 17:7 ? The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
DT 17:8 ? If any case is too difficult for you to decide, between one kind of homicide or another, between one kind of lawsuit or another, and between one kind of assault or another, being cases of dispute in your courts, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the LORD your God chooses.
DT 17:9 ?So you shall come to the Levitical priest or the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall inquire of them and they will declare to you the verdict in the case.

The place where your Lord chooses is where the Levitical priests, the tabernacle/temple, or the High Priest is ministering. If it wasn't the time, then a judge (as in the book of Judges, a ruling prophet) was in the priest's stead.

[Happy Evolute]

When, exactly, is all this supposed to have been going on? Do we have any judicial records of actual stonings from these supposed times?