Stoning

[QuestionMark]

Anyone know where stoning is in the Law of Moses?

[QuestionMark]

I noticed this last night. It is rare. Cursing God publicly, and offering your children to Molech in a molten tub, are the only standard crimes I've found so far that end in stoning. For some reason(because of people who don't like God) I was under the impression that it was a lot more common. Still reading though.

[Kerlyssa]

 

[Son of Man]

Capital punishment(I prefer quick, and painless, the best means at the time was probably stoning) should be used on those who have committed crimes worthy of death. I think that murder and non-statutory rape are two cases.

Here's an actual stoning video.  Not only was it never quick, painless, or the best means of death, it's one of the most disgusting ways for a person to be put to death.  Watch how the crowd goes wild as limp, squirming bodies are pummeled in the dirt, and white sheets soak up the blood that God demands.  This is God's punishment for cursing???

WARNING - VIOLENT, HORRIFYING, OLD TESTAMENT KIND OF BRUTALITY!

[Kerlyssa]

Beating someone to death with thrown rocks? Slow? Painless?

You are one special individual.

[QuestionMark]

Kerlyssa,
    The examples I'm finding are of the entire congregation of Israel all throwing rocks at once. Who could live long under that?

[leese]

I couldn't watch it past the talking part. Where is the vomit emoticon? One of the reasons I ended up here, on this forum, was that I have a Christian friend that also vocally advocates this, and graphically worse. I was so appalled...  I had hoped to gain insight into that mindset. It still eludes me.

[Kerlyssa]

Kerlyssa,
    The examples I'm finding are of the entire congregation of Israel all throwing rocks at once. Who could live long under that?

Did you watch the videos? Or would you prefer to keep on redefining stoning until it fits your argument?

[Auz]

Whatever happened to a good ol' sword in the neck? Breaking someone's neck (manually if necessary) is a more efficient form of execution. The idea was public involvement, not leniency.

[QuestionMark]

Kerlyssa,
    The examples I'm finding are of the entire congregation of Israel all throwing rocks at once. Who could live long under that?

Did you watch the videos? Or would you prefer to keep on redefining stoning until it fits your argument?

I watched the video, and I'd like to find what the Bible is saying when it says stone. It is not relevant to me what Muslims do at this time.

[Kerlyssa]

Ah. So the biblical version of 'stoning' may be 'death by obesity related illness due to overfeeding of sweets'. Got it. Keep on searching for whatever answer lies waiting in your own skull, QM, and keep on ignoring reality.

For as long as you can.

[QuestionMark]

I'm not understanding this. The scene where I thought someone was being stoned was less than thirty seconds long and I don't actually see anyone being stoned. I just see lots of people lined up. Then I see a man being whipped. Then buried. The brutality is less than is seen in a bull fight, the pain less than someone shot in a war, and the duration is tiny compared to people who have a terminal infection. I'm not saying that stoning is something small, I'm saying that stoning from this video doesn't look like the worst way in the world to go. Am I missing something?

Here are my thoughts simply.

Stoning in the Bible is probably not what Muslims do.
Stoning is probably painful, but very short.

I'd like someone to show me how stoning in the Bible is unnecessarily torturous, and not only a form of execution.

Key words being IN THE BIBLE. If you can help me with this, thanks. I'm not seeing it.

[leese]

^While someone is at it, could they find, in the bible, how torturous crucifixion is? I have no clue. Thanks.

[QuestionMark]

^While someone is at it, could they find, in the bible, how torturous crucifixion is? I have no clue. Thanks.

leese,
    Your desire to sarcastically mock me is noted.

I read large portions of the Old Testament last night and it made me realize that stoning is rarely mentioned. Where it is mentioned it is the entire capital city of Israel, or the entire congregation of Israel in the desert, stoning one person.

When you have a hundred thousand people throwing rocks at you, how long does it take to die?

Jews were not permitted to put anyone to death without the appointment of the High Priest after careful investigation. The High Priest resided in Jerusalem. Stonings were to be carried out by all the people(which according to the law does not include women, children, and the infirm). So all of the men you can find are doing the stoning. They are all throwing stones at once at one person.

I don't see how this could be torturous. I do see clearly that you are being sarcastic and mocking me, but I don't see any substance to what you are saying.

[Auz]

QM's at least partly right... it wouldn't quite be like an avalanche, but close. Now, I know avalanches are survivable, and they trap people and whatnot, but you're focussing it all in one short instant, in one small location.

You'd be very dead, very quickly.

[Son of Man]

I'm not understanding this. The scene where I thought someone was being stoned was less than thirty seconds long and I don't actually see anyone being stoned. I just see lots of people lined up. Then I see a man being whipped. Then buried. The brutality is less than is seen in a bull fight, the pain less than someone shot in a war, and the duration is tiny compared to people who have a terminal infection. I'm not saying that stoning is something small, I'm saying that stoning from this video doesn't look like the worst way in the world to go. Am I missing something?

The video was 15 1/2 minutes long.  Did you watch all of it?

Here are my thoughts simply.

Stoning in the Bible is probably not what Muslims do.
Stoning is probably painful, but very short.

I'd like someone to show me how stoning in the Bible is unnecessarily torturous, and not only a form of execution.

Key words being IN THE BIBLE. If you can help me with this, thanks. I'm not seeing it.

QM, you're coming off as extremely dishonest by suggesting that Jews had a humane form of stoning and that it was quick.  A quick death would be cutting someone's throat with a sharp blade, or snapping their necks with a hangman's noose.  Even strangulation is a better way to die.  The only reason that rocks would be used is to make the person suffer a horrible death. 

[leese]

^While someone is at it, could they find, in the bible, how torturous crucifixion is? I have no clue. Thanks.

leese,
    Your desire to sarcastically mock me is noted.

QM, it wasn't sarcastic. I just don't see how you can ask for proof for one, and not the other. I often hear Christians lament how awful it was for Christ on the cross. I really don't know if there is scripture that refers to it. Is there?

[Son of Man]

QM's at least partly right... it wouldn't quite be like an avalanche, but close. Now, I know avalanches are survivable, and they trap people and whatnot, but you're focussing it all in one short instant, in one small location.

You'd be very dead, very quickly.

Wishful thinking.  A quick death would not involve throwing rocks. 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.

[Auz]

You'd be very dead, very quickly.

Wishful thinking.  A quick death would not involve throwing rocks. 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.

As I said...

Whatever happened to a good ol' sword in the neck? Breaking someone's neck (manually if necessary) is a more efficient form of execution. The idea was public involvement, not leniency.

You can't have community involvement in the dispensation of punishment with a single executioner. Trust me, a rock is a blessing.

[Son of Man]

You can't have community involvement in the dispensation of punishment with a single executioner. Trust me, a rock is a blessing.

The part that I took issue with was the part about it being quick.  This is nonsense.  It was slow and painful.  It's the kind of thing that Hannibal Lecter would enjoy watching.  What makes it worse is the point that QM mentions, that God commands this just for cursing.

[Airyaman]

I noticed this last night. It is rare. Cursing God publicly, and offering your children to Molech in a molten tub, are the only standard crimes I've found so far that end in stoning. For some reason(because of people who don't like God) I was under the impression that it was a lot more common. Still reading though.

Other than the two you listed above, here are more:

1) Enticing people to serve other gods, Deu 13:6-10

2) Worshiping other gods, Deu 17:1-5

3) Being a rebellious child who will not respond to parent's discipline, Deu 21:18-21

4) Not being a virgin female when married, Deu 22:13-21

5) Being a rapist (male) and failing to cry out while being raped (female) -- or being caught in intentional consensual sex when the female is betrothed, Deu 22:22-24

6) Being a necromancer or medium, Lev 20:27

[Assyriankey]

When you have a hundred thousand people throwing rocks at you, how long does it take to die?

Where do you get that number from?

[Sita]

I don't see how this could be torturous.

If you don't see how stoning is tortuous then I don't understand you and I don't think I ever will.   

[Captain Luke]

It would be physically impossible for 100,000 people to stone someone.  ||rolleyes|| How would they all get close enough for everyone to hit the victim with a big enough rock to kill them quickly? What about all the "friendly fire". You would end up killing half the people unfortunate enough to get in the way.

Maybe 50 people in a close ring could do it reasonably quickly, but you would have to get in an early headshot to make sure that it was painless.

[Assyriankey]

QM asserting that stoning was one of the best options (quick, less suffering, etc) available to Man 3,000 years is retarded.

As others have already said, stoning allows for community involvement and it was probably only this aspect that made it 'sensible'.

[Captain Luke]

This is just a ridiculous attempt at rationalising how something that is fundamentally horrible and painful can be the recommended punishment from a loving god.

[Assyriankey]

This is just a ridiculous attempt at rationalising how something that is fundamentally horrible and painful can be the recommended punishment from a loving god.

Before any rules were proscribed by God (to Moses) stoning was already part of his tribe's culture because Moses pleads with God to give his people some answers 'lest they begin to stone him'.

[Assyriankey]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Joshua...

Ai is surveyed and pronounced weak, so the Israelite army sends only a small group to attack them. However they are defeated, causing Joshua and the people to despair. But God announces that the people have sinned: someone has stolen some of the spoils from Jericho which are meant to be for the temple. Consequently the Israelites set out to discover the sinner by casting lots, whittling them down first by tribe (Judah), then clan (Zarhites), then sept (Zabdi), then finally detecting it as Achan. Achan admits having taken a costly Babylonian garment, besides silver and gold, and his confession is verified by the finding of the treasure buried in his tent, so Achan is taken into the valley of Achor, where he and his household are stoned and burned to death. Afterwards, 30,000 Israelites set an ambush of Ai overnight, and in the morning another Israelite force attack and then feign retreat, drawing the forces of Ai far away from the city. When Joshua raises his lance, the 30,000 men preparing the ambush strike, while Joshua starts attacking again, thus surrounding Ai's forces. The entire city is burned and its inhabitants slaughtered. The king of Ai, however, is taken alive and delivered to Joshua. He is then impaled on a stake for public display before being buried outside the city gates, following Hebrew guidelines for the guilty. (see Deuteronomy 21.23).

[Fit2BThaied]

John McCain learned about torture, and he insists it's cruel, unusual punishment that cannot be tolerated.. He's Southern Baptist. This is relevant to this topic.

Before signing off for the night: since God is love, and Jesus commands loving enemies, some things such as stoning are no longer righteous, if they ever were, for God's servants.

[Assyriankey]

Before signing off for the night: since God is love, and Jesus commands loving enemies, some things such as stoning are no longer righteous, if they ever were, for God's servants.

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

Good night.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Assyriankey]

To whom is DT 17 addressed?

###

And DT 17 is not the verse I am thinking of (that details the elders being suitable judges for determining the correctness of stoning).

[Assyriankey]

Breaking the sabbath was another crime which was penalised by stoning.

[Assyriankey]

Deut 22:13 has the elders deciding whether to stone someone or not.

But this is not the verse I referred to earlier.

[QuestionMark]

It is the crimes which are offenses against God(as far as I can tell) which result in stoning...

Idolatry, Blasphemy, breaking the sabbath, breaking the covenant of marriage...

Deuteronomy is addressed to the people of Israel in general... but to their lawmen in specific.

DT 1:16 ?Then I charged your judges at that time, saying, ?Hear the cases between your fellow countrymen, and judge righteously between a man and his fellow countryman, or the alien who is with him.

DT 4:1 ?Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I am teaching you to perform, so that you may live and go in and take possession of the land which the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you.

DT 10:6 (Now the sons of Israel set out from Beeroth Bene-jaakan to Moserah. There Aaron died and there he was buried and Eleazar his son ministered as priest in his place.

Then 17... where ambiguities come before the ruling authority, be it a judge or a high priest or later a king(DT 17:18 ?Now it shall come about when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests..)

I am not contesting that deaths couldn't be carried out elsewhere(it's not perfectly clear, so I can't say one way or the other), but they had to be ordered by the elders after inquiring thoroughly into the testimony of two or three witnesses(whose testimony and person were scrutinized). When there was any doubt as to what kind of crime or what kind of punishment should be done they were to go to the high priest. I also think(though I'm not sure because I need to read more) that the High Priest carried out the penalty for offenses against God. This isn't explicitly stated so far as I see, but the reference to the High Priest's authority seems to be correlative to offenses against God.

[Assyriankey]

My NAB says the elders were more commonly involved in judging secular crimes and the priests non-secular crimes.

[QuestionMark]

Oh, and I'm getting into a study of the age of accountability... people under the age of 20 weren't really held to the whole law, and people under the age of 12 or 13 less, and people under the age of 5 or 6 less, etc. Women were not held accountable for a LOT of the laws... etc etc etc

[QuestionMark]

My NAB says the elders were more commonly involved in judging secular crimes and the priests non-secular crimes.

Makes sense.

[QuestionMark]

My NAB says the elders were more commonly involved in judging secular crimes and the priests non-secular crimes.

The elders were specific authorities taken from the people (elected) because they were wise and experienced, then approved by the High Priest. It's not like any two men could put someone to death.

[Assyriankey]

My NAB says the elders were more commonly involved in judging secular crimes and the priests non-secular crimes.

Makes sense.

Not really.  I quote above the example of the elders determining judgment for breaking the sabbath.

[Assyriankey]

My NAB says the elders were more commonly involved in judging secular crimes and the priests non-secular crimes.

The elders were specific authorities taken from the people (elected) because they were wise and experienced, then approved by the High Priest. It's not like any two men could put someone to death.

Where does the bible say that the elders were ever approved by the high priests?

[QuestionMark]

Not really.  I quote above the example of the elders determining judgment for breaking the sabbath.

Where?

[QuestionMark]

NU 11:16 The LORD therefore said to Moses, ?Gather for Me seventy men from the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people and their officers and bring them to the tent of meeting, and let them take their stand there with you.
NU 11:17 ? Then I will come down and speak with you there, and I will take of the Spirit who is upon you, and will put Him upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, so that you will not bear it all alone.

Deuteronomy 1 especially for the selection and appointment of elders and judges.

[Assyriankey]

Not really.  I quote above the example of the elders determining judgment for breaking the sabbath.

Where?

Deut 22:13, about virgins and marriage.