Stoning

[QuestionMark]

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.

FB,
     Thanks for your sincere words. I am a thinker, and for this reason I have understood that even if God were evil in the sight of every man who ever existed, that man's unity would not mean transcendent objectivity. Humans by nature CANNOT make judgments on what right and wrong are. We constantly try and fail, for this reason many godless people state that objective morality is impossible, and that all morality is subjective(and in this they approve and disapprove of whatever behavior pleases them at the time). Relativism ensues.

     Now, in the case of judging God all these relativists come back to me with the zeal of a thousand fideists saying that God is evil. Not only did that not make sense when I did it to God and He rebuked me, but it makes less sense every time I tick off another name on the list of relativists who think that God is evil.

     Further, in a very real sense, and to me the only sense that matters(because it is real-ity), it is impossible for the Creator to be evil, because He made all things. If the Creator made all things, and holds absolute power over them, then might really does make right, and the Creator defines righteousness even as an evil person.
     It just so happens! That I am convinced that even as a creator may be evil(like the evil genius theory) the Creator is actually righteous. He is Jesus Christ the Lord, and His righteousness is from everlasting to everlasting, and every man will see that all glory and honor and power belongs to Him. That is to say, that He has done all things well, and every judgment has been perfect, and in the last day in which all the dead are raised and Jesus judges them, we will all see that God is true and every man a liar.

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.

If you had the passion and zeal I have for knowing God you would see things through the goggles of faith that persist even when you take them off, things which were hidden but in faith have now been revealed.

RO 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith...

Amen and Amen

[Son of Man]

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...

It's pretty close.  True, cuts are painful, but your blood pressure drops instantaneously and you're quickly unconscious.  Compare that to the long, slow death of being pummeled by rocks.  Imagine being pounded over your entire body.  It's like what happened to Rodney King, only the beating doesn't stop until you die.  It's very similar to what a group of chimps do when they catch an outsider by himself.  Only the apes have a better reason, they're competing for food.  God's excuse is that people curse.

[Kerlyssa]

QM, you don't believe in good, only force. And that's a very sad and troubling thing.

[Assyriankey]

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.

Are you saying that the high priest never orders execution by means other than stoning?

Concerning "they would all be seen as agreeing with the judgment", are you saying that everyone threw stones at a stoning or only those who agreed with the judgement?

I think your reasoning is starting to unravel.

[Airyaman]

Hey, stoning is better than being burned with fire!

Lev 20:14  If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you.

Lev 21:9  And the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by whoring, profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire.

Actually, the word for "whoring" is not that strong. It can mean simply "fornication" or "committing adultery".

(Judaica Press)9. If a kohen's daughter becomes desecrated through adultery she desecrates her father; she shall be burned in fire.

[Assyriankey]

Lev 20:14  If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity

Sure is! 

[Airyaman]

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.

Do you have any passages to support this?

[QuestionMark]

More information... the witness is supposed to cast the first stone. Then they are all supposed to cast stones, and the intent is clearly stated: to put the person to death. So it is not intended as torture(though it is brutal and probably painful[I say probably because I think that one would get hit in the head quickly], admittedly not for a long duration).

Air,
   If the type of homicide was clear the elders of that city could carry it out, but if it was unclear then they had to appeal to the High Priest.
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.
    Adultery(Except in the case of unmarried youths), idolatry, an adult cursing his parents, and some types of sabbath breaking, were examples of capital crimes that resulted in stoning.

DT 13:9 ? But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
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.

So it's a good clarification, that not all the stonings have to be done by the High Priest, but if they are not clear violations then they must be decided by the High Priest. I made a poor assumption corrected by reading more.

[QuestionMark]

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.

Are you saying that the high priest never orders execution by means other than stoning?

Nope, I'm saying that not all crimes are as heinous as to merit stoning.

[Kerlyssa]

So stoning is not supposed to be torture, but you have to do something REALLY BAD to deserve to die that way and not another, less painful way.

Lol? QM's non-explanations never cease to amuse. He would have done great in the waterboarding defense brigade.

[QuestionMark]

Kerlyssa,
    You're a troll. Go hide under a bridge or something. :) You notice in your posts that you don't try to communicate with me, you just mock me and appeal for public support? Your posts are not directed at my posts, but at my person, and that is how they are the vast majority of the time. In my opinion you do not contribute to thoughtful discussion.

[IrishMauddib]

QuestionMark - A slightly strange answer to your question but you might find it useful is to read "My year of living biblically" by AJ Jacobs.
In this book he read the bible and wrote down everything it mandated one to do, and got over 700 results. Without picking and choosing he tried to live for a year following all 700 as best he could.

However he did not just follow the laws, he researched them and he had a panel of spiritual advisors along side.

The mandate on stoning adulterers was one he focused on for example. So maybe he will have come across some information that might actually answer some, if not all, of your question.

Interestingly, while he was doing his research on stoning he did come across some scholars who suggest that "stoning" might not have always been carried out exactly like we think when we hear the phrase.

[Not my words ? Don?t shoot the messenger]

What they were basing this on I do not know to be honest but they said that the reason we do not do this today is you require an established Biblical Theocracy in order to enforce it and no such society exists today. They also claimed that in ancient times stoning was ?not barbaric?. One did not just heave the stones, but the idea was to minimise suffering. They claim the victim would be pushed off a cliff for example, so they would die instantly on impact. They also claim that stoning was incredibly rare, occurring once every 7 years, or even 70 years according to some Rabbis. Finally in addition the person being executed was given strong drink to dull the experience.

[/Not my words ? Don?t shoot the messenger]

I do not know how much of that, if any, I believe but suffice to say it is enough to tell one that there is some issues there worth exploring. I am also interested in the history of it and how it was actually enforced in reality back in those times. I like to find areas where I assumed I knew what something means and then found out there might be a whole depth of history and meaning behind it I never knew.

So anything you find out, pass on if you would.

[Son of Man]

That all sounds well and good, but stoning that is not barbaric defeats the whole purpose.  It's like non-barbaric burning at the stake.  If they were interested in preventing suffering, they could have given people a lethal dose of poison before the stoning instead of "strong drink", assuming that they even did that.  The fact that the Bible calls for people to be stoned for pettiness such as cursing makes me think that people weren't too concerned about suffering.

[Captain Luke]

Just to add a bit of personal experience into the melting pot:

When I was 17 I was attacked by a group of guys. The first punch came from the side, and I didn't expect it or see it. It caught me smack in the right temple and put me on the floor immediately. While I was on the floor and in a state of semi-conciousness, I was still aware of being kicked in the head and in the body, but I couldn't seem to move my hands up to protect myself. I felt the kick that broke my nose but was completely helpless to prevent it. I saw the foot coming that left a trainer logo stamped on my cheek for the next month, but I couldn't move my hands up to stop it.

Even though I was poleaxed with the first punch, I then had to endure a period of time (I guess a minute at most but it seemed like an awful lot longer) where I was aware of being beaten and kicked, I felt the pain of being beaten and kicked, but was completely paralysed and unable to protect myself. I won't try and describe how that felt, I'll leave it to your empathy.

Imagine being stood with your hands tied, in a crowd of people, screaming and shouting at you. One person throws a rock at you. You see its arc as it comes towards you, seemingly in slow motion. You try to move out of the way and it crashes into your collar bone, breaking it instantly and leaving you in agony as you see the next rock slash a glancing blow across your forehead. As the blood turns your vision red, another rock hits you square on the knee, dislocating your kneecap and sending you headlong onto the floor, landing on your broken collarbone which sends further agonising waves of pain down your body. A score more lumps of stone batter various parts of your body, one cracking into the bony part of your hip and another smashing into your face and dislodging half a mouthful of teeth. After another tortuous 30 seconds of pummelling, you finally sink into the blessed relief of unconsciousness and then death.

Of course, the first stone could kill you instantly and you would feel no pain and fear whatsoever, but I reckon you would be one of the lucky ones.

[jill]

Of course, the first stone could kill you instantly and you would feel no pain and fear whatsoever, but I reckon you would be one of the lucky ones.

Excellent point.

I'm really sorry you had to endure that attack.  I hope the guys were caught and punished! 

[Assyriankey]

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.

Are you saying that the high priest never orders execution by means other than stoning?

Nope, I'm saying that not all crimes are as heinous as to merit stoning.

I don't understand...

If the High Priest can order executions by alternative means without fear that people other than the High Priest will be blamed for the judgement (you suggested this as a reason for stoning) then why stoning?

As I said earlier, your illogic is started to show.

[Fit2BThaied]

QM, thanks for researching this.

More information... the witness is supposed to cast the first stone. Then they are all supposed to cast stones, and the intent is clearly stated: to put the person to death. So it is not intended as torture (though it is brutal and probably painful)[

I don't know the technical debate term, but your reasoning is fatally flawed, since stoning is fatally torture. Intent is no defense of torture. It is brutal; surely it is painful (duh).

Adultery (Except in the case of unmarried youths), idolatry, an adult cursing his parents, and some types of sabbath breaking, were examples of capital crimes that resulted in stoning.

You do not even know the definition of adultery, and I wonder how old the unmarried youths were, if they could commit adultery. An adult gets stoned to death for cursing his parents? I live in an old-fashioned Buddhist democracy that retains the death penalty, but it's seldom imposed, and then only for especially ultra-heinous crimes like mass murder or regicide - not for breaking the sabbath.

Yhis post took me over 20 minutes, including numerous lengthy typos, correcting 2 of your typos, etc.

[QuestionMark]

If the High Priest can order executions by alternative means without fear that people other than the High Priest will be blamed for the judgement (you suggested this as a reason for stoning) then why stoning?

It's not for fear that they will be blamed, they have to AGREE with the judgment, they have to become participants. Like I tell modern day Christians you can't pick and choose which parts of God's character you will cherish, that is idolatry.

[QuestionMark]

Fit,
     Thanks for addressing the topic mostly, instead of going on some wild tangent about sex, pacifism, or Anabaptists of various sorts. Thanks also for taking the time to type.

Stoning is fatal torture, but the intent is to put someone to death in a brutal and painful way. Yet, if it is consistent with the rest of the Law of Moses, it is not permitted to be used as a way to mutilate the human body. (Because men were made in the image of God, to mutilate a man is to insult God). There is only one case in the Law of Moses in which you can mutilate a man, and it is when a woman seizes the genitals of a man when two men are fighting. This strange situation which I don't quite understand doesn't fit the Law of Moses, that kind of perversion is usually judged a crime worthy of death. So once in the entire Law of Moses there is mutilation of a human body, and it is a form of mercy. Strange.

Anyway, the intent of stoning is to put someone to death, for it to be communal, and for it to somehow match the heinous nature of the few crimes in which stoning is required by the Law.

As for adultery, it is you who are an unrepenting homosexual that does not know the definition of adultery. For Christ says to lust after a woman in your heart is adultery, and a divorcee is an adulterer. The youths in Scripture who were to be married instead of put to death for adultery could be anywhere from 12 to about 20 years old in order to fit the usage of the words.

[Fit2BThaied]

And thanks to QM for ''addressing the topic mostly, instead of going on some wild tangent about sex" and homosexuality, which you were compelled to do by perverse homophobia. +1  anyway.

[Son of Man]

And thanks to QM for ''addressing the topic mostly, instead of going on some wild tangent about sex" and homosexuality, which you were compelled to do by perverse homophobia. +1  anyway.

Given that QM thinks that you should be put to death, I think he was very polite.  : )

[Fit2BThaied]

And thanks to QM for ''addressing the topic mostly, instead of going on some wild tangent about sex" and homosexuality, which you were compelled to do by perverse homophobia. +1  anyway.

Given that QM thinks that you should be put to death, I think he was very polite.  : )

Au contraire. He seems to be our only poster so blinded by hatred toward gays that he has to bring it up instead of addressing my valid arguments on non-gay issues,

[QuestionMark]

I bring it up when we talk about topics relating to sex and romance and you are saying something unbiblical.

On the other hand, you wantonly refer to sex, homosexuality, anabaptists, etc. I think there is a meaningful difference between our habits.

I am not blinded by hate, by the way. I see in hate, the righteousness of God, for He will not let one sin go unpunished.

[Fit2BThaied]

I mention sex when you misdefine adultery, when you mention my sex practices, and when it's directly related to an OP. I mention Anabaptists when I think it's germane to German speakers.

[Assyriankey]

If the High Priest can order executions by alternative means without fear that people other than the High Priest will be blamed for the judgement (you suggested this as a reason for stoning) then why stoning?

It's not for fear that they will be blamed, they have to AGREE with the judgment, they have to become participants.

I don't understand.  If the high priest makes the judgement then of course the high priest agrees with the judgement.

You have admitted that stoning is intentionally tortuous rather than being merely being an execution.  Your reasoning for why God proscribes stoning is still unknown.

[JustMyron]

I see in hate, the righteousness of God, for He will not let one sin go unpunished.

Hate and punishment are not good in themselves. Hate, as far as I have ever seen, is not good under any circumstances. Punishment is only good if someone learns something from it, and should be the minimal punishment required to teach someone the desired lesson.

The idea of righteous punishment is... faintly nauseating, really. It is not right to punish someone unless it is in an effort to do them some good. I would never want to see someone punished for something they had done against me, out of revenge. I want to be a positive influence in the world, and that sort of righteous revenge-punishment just starts a cycle of violence and retributive hate. I spend my life breaking such cycles, wherever I can.

If I can (happily) let people's wrongs against me go unpunished many times, because I know in the end I'm doing what's best both for me and for them, why can't God do the same? Why is God so vicious? Whenever I see someone wanting to hit back, I try to get them to analyze the situation logically, because not hitting back makes the most sense a lot of the time. Returning kindness and generosity for "sin" would only demonstrate God's greater glory. Why do this sometimes, for some people, but then for the rest they go to hell?

Oh, and it's not true he won't let any sin go unpunished. Your worldview says everyone sins, and yet some get into heaven because God forgives them. Does that mean he isn't righteous in regard to those people?

[QuestionMark]

I don't understand.  If the high priest makes the judgement then of course the high priest agrees with the judgement.

Try to understand then, instead of repeating that you don't understand that I'm wrong.

The entire congregation of Israel has to agree with the judgment, for they are to be a righteous PEOPLE.

[QuestionMark]

Hate and punishment are not good in themselves. Hate, as far as I have ever seen, is not good under any circumstances.

If you're an American you live amongst one of the most lawless and immoral people on earth, statistically. Maybe you should consider how hatred of evil could be beneficial to us.

Punishment is only good if someone learns something from it, and should be the minimal punishment required to teach someone the desired lesson.

Discipline is only good if someone learns from it. Punishment is to set a standard of right behavior, so that others will not transgress the Law, and justice is satisfied.

I want to be a positive influence in the world, and that sort of righteous revenge-punishment just starts a cycle of violence and retributive hate. I spend my life breaking such cycles, wherever I can.

Slippery slope argument. If this were the case then you would have people searching out and harming or killing cops, judges, and politicians every time they pay a penalty.

If I can (happily) let people's wrongs against me go unpunished many times, because I know in the end I'm doing what's best both for me and for them, why can't God do the same? Why is God so vicious? Whenever I see someone wanting to hit back, I try to get them to analyze the situation logically, because not hitting back makes the most sense a lot of the time. Returning kindness and generosity for "sin" would only demonstrate God's greater glory. Why do this sometimes, for some people, but then for the rest they go to hell?

Blessings and curses are both necessary. As for why God saves some and not all, is a difficult question that I only understand sometimes. And I understand it less than why God saves any one at all, or more importantly why God would let a sinner exist(knowing beforehand that they would be a sinner) and get justice(when He could go beyond justice to unjust vengeance). They are statements about the character of God, that the elect should meditate on. Jonathan Edwards considered it the last quest of his faith(a quest bent on gaining a confident joy in all that God does, so that he does not have to fear that his faith is a fake, insight there) to be satisfied in God's election of 'many' --but not all-- to salvation.

Oh, and it's not true he won't let any sin go unpunished. Your worldview says everyone sins, and yet some get into heaven because God forgives them. Does that mean he isn't righteous in regard to those people?

The punishment was poured out on Jesus. Christianity 101, God Himself suffers the sin in our stead.

[JustMyron]

Hate and punishment are not good in themselves. Hate, as far as I have ever seen, is not good under any circumstances.

If you're an American you live amongst one of the most lawless and immoral people on earth, statistically. Maybe you should consider how hatred of evil could be beneficial to us.

I'm a Canadian. A lot of us think the reason many Americans are so nasty is the individualism. When you look out for your fellow men and women (even when they make mistakes) they are less likely to want to kick your ass.

Hatred, beneficial...



No.

Hatred blinds people and causes them to be unable to see the alternative solutions which are both kinder and more effective. It stops people from asking why someone did what they did, and fixing the causes.

Punishment is only good if someone learns something from it, and should be the minimal punishment required to teach someone the desired lesson.

Discipline is only good if someone learns from it. Punishment is to set a standard of right behavior, so that others will not transgress the Law, and justice is satisfied.

Semantics, but OK, let's go with your definitions.

I understand that punishment can be to teach others a lesson/make an example of someone. That's why I said "if someone learns from it" rather than "if the perpetrator of an undesirable behaviour learns from it". Even so, the principle remains: punishment and/or discipline is only good if someone learns from it, and the negative aspects of the punishment and/or discipline should be minimized as much as possible while still teaching the desired lesson.

As for "justice being satisfied"... this is where I think you've got it wrong. At least for us as human beings, it is not possible to be just, because anything we think of as just or fair, another person will think of as unfair. Watch two small children fighting and you'll see this dynamic come out: One person does something, and another person does something back which they think is fair, but the first child thinks is unfair. So the first child will hit back, just a little harder, to give this person what s/he thinks is justly deserved. And so the cycle repeats. When it comes to God, who is supposedly an impartial judge and can determine what's fair, firstly God would have to do this without hate, because hate and impartiality just don't mix. And secondly, if God dispenses justice and the person does not understand that this is justice, then the problem is a lack of understanding on the part of men, for which we ought not to be held culpable. Sending someone to hell who didn't know any better is not justice by any reasonable sense of the word. So in order for God to dispense true justice, the person he's dispensing it to would have to understand that the punishment received is fair. And if the person understands that the punishment received is fair, then, having learned this lesson, the punishment is gratuitous. God could then (and should, benig kind and loving) forgive this person their sins, knowing they would not sin again.

I want to be a positive influence in the world, and that sort of righteous revenge-punishment just starts a cycle of violence and retributive hate. I spend my life breaking such cycles, wherever I can.

Slippery slope argument. If this were the case then you would have people searching out and harming or killing cops, judges, and politicians every time they pay a penalty.

It is not punishment, but the credible threat of punishment, which does some good, in that it acts as a deterrent. Punishment itself is incompatible with kindness.

If I can (happily) let people's wrongs against me go unpunished many times, because I know in the end I'm doing what's best both for me and for them, why can't God do the same? Why is God so vicious? Whenever I see someone wanting to hit back, I try to get them to analyze the situation logically, because not hitting back makes the most sense a lot of the time. Returning kindness and generosity for "sin" would only demonstrate God's greater glory. Why do this sometimes, for some people, but then for the rest they go to hell?

Blessings and curses are both necessary.

I disagree. What is required is a variation in the level of "blessing", such that "good" behaviours are rewarded more than "bad" behaviours. Punishment, which aims to do harm, is not necessary, and a loving god would bless his creation to the greatest extent he possibly could. So the variation in blessing from 10/10 to some lower level would only occur to the minimum extent required to whip us into shape and get us headed in the direction God wants.

When you're looking at raising a child, do you punish this child to the extent you think he/she deserves, or, because you love him/her, do you punish/discipline to the minimum extent possible provided s/he learns what you want from the experience? If you could manage to never punish or discipline your loved ones because they were smart enough that when you said "look at what you've done" they could look, see their mistakes, and never make the same mistake again, would you curse them every time they slipped up, disown them and force them to live on the street, because given the gravity of some mistakes, that might be just? Or just talk to them and say "look at what you've done" and then forgive the transgression?

Oh, and it's not true he won't let any sin go unpunished. Your worldview says everyone sins, and yet some get into heaven because God forgives them. Does that mean he isn't righteous in regard to those people?

The punishment was poured out on Jesus. Christianity 101, God Himself suffers the sin in our stead.

Why was that punishment required? Was God unable to contain his rage? If so, I think that's sick. The idea that if I do something, someone has to react negatively, is wrong - they can always choose kindness. And if I see someone choose kindness when they could quite justifiably choose retribution, that's amazing. It is those acts of unmerited kindness that heal the problems in the world. It is when people choose, willingly, to take a harm without striking back, that serious positive change in the world becomes possible.

This idea that God must punish sins... it's barbaric. Human beings can do better, and if we can, so can any true God. Even when someone wrongs you you are not obligated to harm them in return. The whole idea that it is "right" to hurt someone back if they hurt you, that this is justice, and that just retribution should be praised... that idea is at the root of what is f**ked up about humanity.

Also, why was it just for Jesus to suffer in our stead? And if it wasn't just, and it wasn't kind (because clearly it wasn't - if God can forgive us without harming himself or someone else, that would be the kind thing to do) how can you call it good?

I have never understood how someone else being murdered = I get forgiven for everything I've done wrong. If I was angry at you, and I took it out on someone else, and then I wasn't angry at you any more, would you be OK with that? Would you think that is fair or just? Would you think it was merciful? It would be none of these things, as far as I can see. And I started a thread about it a while back, and nobody was able to give me a coherent answer. Maybe you can.

[Son of Man]

I suppose the one good thing about this thread is that QM has learned that stoning is not quick, but a slow, painful, torturous, and bloody way to die.  His only defense now is the one-size-fits-all apologetic answer to everything that religious people use when all else fails, the defense that whatever God says or does must necessarily be good and right, because God is good and never does wrong. 

What's really disturbing is that if had God said that molesting children was good, QM would defend it as such, because, in his mind, it's good if God says so.  While this may seem like an extreme example, it's really isn't, for QM already defends in this thread something much more sick and heinous than child molestation. 

QM is an extreme example, so this does not condemn all Christians, but it certainly shows how religion can strip a man of his humanity.  In another thread, QM said that he'd be ok with gays being executed.  If there were enough people like QM, there could be a genocide in America, only against the gays this time.  Whether QM naturally had those beliefs already or if he got them from reading the Bible is not certain.  But, whatever the case, his religion reinforces those beliefs. If QM did not have the religious belief that God can do no wrong to fall back on, he would have already given up defending the practice of stoning and would not have a good argument that gays should be put to death.