Stoning people to death

[Bob Crockett]

51 minutes ago, omni said:

It's pretty incredible to see so many people defending the barbaric practice of stoning, even for sins as minor as blasphemy (yes, I consider blasphemy to be minor in comparison to murder or rape).

This one's pretty easy guys, doesn't it make more sense that this was a secular bronze-aged practice that got misinterpreted as coming from God?  Remember, the Bible is fallible, no reason to die on this hill. 

I don't defend the practice of stoning but I defend the Bible.   There is no doubt that stoning is an ancient Semitic practice and used for a variety of infractions, including blasphemy.  The Bible accurately recounts the practice.  Otherwise Jesus wouldn't have used it (in the story of the woman taken in adultery, although many scholars claim that is a late emendation).  There's lots of things in the Bible to trouble the modern believer.  Prominent board members have jousted with me over the story of fire descending from heaven to consume hundreds of the priests of Baal, expressing doubt that such would ever occur despite being discussed in Church manuals.  The walls of Jericho fell and killed men, women and children.  

How to explain this?   (1)  The Bible is false with all these stories that offend us today.  (2)  The stories are allegorical so that Jesus could use them as a foil.  Or, (3)  God doesn't see death the same way we do.  

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, cacheman said:

I'm questioning both of the ideas you mentioned,  but particularly in the context of the types of infractions that were deemed worthy of this punishment. A death sentence by stoning could be brought about by talking the lord's name in vain or gathering wood on the sabbath,  among other petty things. 

In a ceremonial stoning,  you might be right that death could occur quickly.  But,  it often doesn't.  There are plenty of real life examples of that in recent times.  It's a horrific way to die.  

 

I guess people needed to decide how important it was for them to curse God or to insist against their entire society, that they be allowed to use the sabbath day to make money. It seems like such dedicated blasphemers and sabbath breakers could either curb their appetites for money and cursing, or seek their fortunes elsewhere. The Promised Land is a very small part of the world. Was the rest of the world at that time on a crusade against blasphemy and sabbath breaking? I think not. I wonder how much Israel even needed to stone. Probably not much. Do you know if the dedicated blasphemers and sabbath-breakers were prevented from leaving a society which was hostile to those actitivies? I'll bet most of them high-tailed it to friendlier shores or curbed their desires. Anybody who was "martyred" for blasphemy or sabbath breaking only had themselves to blame. 

Stoning for blasphemy or sabbath breaking is an horrific way to die. Living for blasphemy or sabbath breaking is an horrific way to live. Either way its a horror of the person's own making.

Edited November 25, 2017 by 3DOP

[Atheist Mormon]

8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

People have been blaming their actions on their God for a long time now.

It's in the Scriptures, last time I've read......

[omni]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don't defend the practice of stoning but I defend the Bible.   There is no doubt that stoning is an ancient Semitic practice and used for a variety of infractions, including blasphemy.  The Bible accurately recounts the practice.  Otherwise Jesus wouldn't have used it (in the story of the woman taken in adultery, although many scholars claim that is a late emendation).  There's lots of things in the Bible to trouble the modern believer.  Prominent board members have jousted with me over the story of fire descending from heaven to consume hundreds of the priests of Baal, expressing doubt that such would ever occur despite being discussed in Church manuals.  The walls of Jericho fell and killed men, women and children.  

How to explain this?   (1)  The Bible is false with all these stories that offend us today.  (2)  The stories are allegorical so that Jesus could use them as a foil.  Or, (3)  God doesn't see death the same way we do.  

I think we would all be horrified if a modern day Christian pastor commanded his congregation to stone a congregant for blasphemy, so why defend its usage in the Bible?

It's one thing to recognize these barbaric practices existed in the past (and the present) without necessarily assigning moral condemnation on its participants, but it's quite another to believe that said practices were commanded by a perfectly just and loving God.

[Storm Rider]

8 hours ago, cacheman said:

I don't mean to sound smug and elitist.  I'm just trying to get a feel for how people today interpret these scriptures.  I appreciate your willingness to comment.

However, some of the infractions deemed worthy of death by stoning seem petty to me.  I assume that you don't condone the modern practice of stoning.  I wonder if the modern practitioners of stoning, view people like us as smug,  moral elitists. 

Cacheman, I think to our sensitivities today most of us would feel that the punishment for differing things were severe.  As a society, we are not use to this kind of punishment for anything, much less the acts cited in the OT. 

As far as some of the world societies that have some pretty serious punishments, Islamic cultures, conservative ones, think we are pretty immoral - they certainly don't see us as moral elitists.  In their eyes our society has run amok; that we are proud of our immorality. 

If I was to wager a guess, I would think that God was working with the people of the age and had a clear destination in mind. They had proved themselves to be pretty stiff necked and willing to fall away from their God rather quickly.  A lot like some of those who were followers of God today it could be said also. 

[The Nehor]

I do wonder if stoning were the accepted method of capital punishment now and people were expected or even required to participate if our stance on capital punishment might be influenced. There is something to be said about not allowing people to distance themselves from community actions.

[Thinking]

This thread is interesting.

Some are defending the practice of stoning because it allegedly came from God.

10 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Do I think God commanded it? Yes

Others are questioning the accuracy of the Bible because surely God would not command such a barbaric act.

6 hours ago, omni said:

Remember, the Bible is fallible, no reason to die on this hill. 

8 hours ago, Duncan said:

Always remember that the Bible is legit as far as it's translated correctly.

Or

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Does God order such actions?  Or have men attributed their customs to God?

Yes to the second question.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I guess people needed to decide how important it was for them to curse God or to insist against their entire society, that they be allowed to use the sabbath day to make money. It seems like such dedicated blasphemers and sabbath breakers could either curb their appetites for money and cursing, or seek their fortunes elsewhere. The Promised Land is a very small part of the world. Was the rest of the world at that time on a crusade against blasphemy and sabbath breaking? I think not. I wonder how much Israel even needed to stone. Probably not much. Do you know if the dedicated blasphemers and sabbath-breakers were prevented from leaving a society which was hostile to those actitivies? I'll bet most of them high-tailed it to friendlier shores or curbed their desires. Anybody who was "martyred" for blasphemy or sabbath breaking only had themselves to blame. 

Stoning for blasphemy or sabbath breaking is an horrific way to die. Living for blasphemy or sabbath breaking is an horrific way to live. Either way its a horror of the person's own making.

Other societies also had customs and cultural expectations, along with severe punishments to obtain compliance.  The question here is whether the God of Israel could be held to a higher standard, and what that standard should be.  Bear in mind that two angels of the Lord went to Sodom specifically to destroy the city along with all inhabitants -- except Lot and his family.  Abraham even bargained directly with the Lord to obtain mercy for the city.  Later, in Egypt, the Lord brought plagues upon the Egyptians in order to get Pharaoh to release Israel -- culminating in the angel of death being sent by the Lord to kill all the firstborn of the Egyptians.  Is any of that O.K., and, if so, why?

I have met pastors who plainly and frankly hate the Old Testament, and are unable to reconcile it with the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. They are embarrassed by ancient Israel and by the Israel of today.  For them, there is contrast, not continuity.  Are they correct?

[cacheman]

7 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Cacheman, I think to our sensitivities today most of us would feel that the punishment for differing things were severe.  As a society, we are not use to this kind of punishment for anything, much less the acts cited in the OT. 

As far as some of the world societies that have some pretty serious punishments, Islamic cultures, conservative ones, think we are pretty immoral - they certainly don't see us as moral elitists.  In their eyes our society has run amok; that we are proud of our immorality. 

If I was to wager a guess, I would think that God was working with the people of the age and had a clear destination in mind. They had proved themselves to be pretty stiff necked and willing to fall away from their God rather quickly.  A lot like some of those who were followers of God today it could be said also. 

You might be right.  But in my experience,  when someone refers to another as a 'moral elitist', it's not because they actually think the targets of the phrase are moral. 

 

[cacheman]

9 hours ago, omni said:

It's one thing to recognize these barbaric practices existed in the past (and the present) without necessarily assigning moral condemnation on its participants, but it's quite another to believe that said practices were commanded by a perfectly just and loving God.

Exactly.  My questions are really focused on how people view the nature of God...not the morality of ancient people. 

The responses I've received are mixed and interesting.  

[janderich]

12 hours ago, omni said:

It's pretty incredible to see so many people defending the barbaric practice of stoning, even for sins as minor as blasphemy (yes, I consider blasphemy to be minor in comparison to murder or rape).

This one's pretty easy guys, doesn't it make more sense that this was a secular bronze-aged practice that got misinterpreted as coming from God?  Remember, the Bible is fallible, no reason to die on this hill. 

I agree. Take as an example what Jesus said of divorce: 

Quote

They saith unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives; but from the begining it was not so. (Matt 19:7-8)

Note the Pharisees statement, "why did Moses then command us to give a writing of divorcement". But Jesus makes a clear separation between the law of Moses and the Lord's way. He says that from the beginning it was not so and that it was because of the hardness of the peoples hearts that divorce was written into the law. I see stoning in the same way. Because of the hardness of the hearts of the people at that time Moses added it to the law, but we would be foolish to believe the stoning for relatively minor offenses was commanded of God.   

[Bobbieaware]

10 hours ago, omni said:

I think we would all be horrified if a modern day Christian pastor commanded his congregation to stone a congregant for blasphemy, so why defend its usage in the Bible?

It's one thing to recognize these barbaric practices existed in the past (and the present) without necessarily assigning moral condemnation on its participants, but it's quite another to believe that said practices were commanded by a perfectly just and loving God.

Are the following words, spoken by the Lord himself, in harmony with your idea of a perfectly just and loving God?

15 And there shall be weeping and wailing among the hosts of men;

16 And there shall be a great hailstorm sent forth to destroy the crops of the earth.

17 And it shall come to pass, because of the wickedness of the world, that I will take vengeance upon the wicked, for they will not repent; for the cup of mine indignation is full; for behold, my blood shall not cleanse them if they hear me not.

18 Wherefore, I the Lord God will send forth flies upon the face of the earth, which shall take hold of the inhabitants thereof, and shall eat their flesh, and shall cause maggots to come in upon them;

19 And their tongues shall be stayed that they shall not utter against me; and their flesh shall fall from off their bones, and their eyes from their sockets;

20 And it shall come to pass that the beasts of the forest and the fowls of the air shall devour them up.

21 And the great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall be cast down by devouring fire, according as it is spoken by the mouth of Ezekiel the prophet, who spoke of these things, which have not come to pass but surely must, as I live, for abominations shall not reign. (D&C 29)

[cacheman]

41 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Are the following words, spoken by the Lord himself, in harmony with your idea of a perfectly just and loving God?

I can't speak for Omni,  but my answer is no.  It sounds more like a violent and vengeful god. 

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, cacheman said:

I can't speak for Omni,  but my answer is no.  It sounds more like a violent and vengeful god. 

Cacheman, do you envision God trying to teach his children anything? I interpret your comments, and I am connecting dots here, that you think of God as only through rose colored glasses, that she/he is one big bunch of love without ever creating consequences for one's actions. I find this rather often among our society and it surprises me. 

What is sin and does God care about it?

[thesometimesaint]

13 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

It's in the Scriptures, last time I've read......

It predates the Scriptures too.

[thesometimesaint]

45 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Cacheman, do you envision God trying to teach his children anything? I interpret your comments, and I am connecting dots here, that you think of God as only through rose colored glasses, that she/he is one big bunch of love without ever creating consequences for one's actions. I find this rather often among our society and it surprises me. 

What is sin and does God care about it?

I have no problem with God. I do have problems with what men claim he said.

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, cacheman said:

I can't speak for Omni,  but my answer is no.  It sounds more like a violent and vengeful god. 

One of the very reasons I had such a hard time with the OT.  I refused to believe that so much of that was true...and yet I hung on to the words of the apostles in the NT...still lost

[Traela]

I see ancient Israel as the equivalent of that kid (we all know one) who absolutely has to have corporal punishment because nothing else gets through to him.  Stoning was also readily available, involved the community (so reinforced the lesson to the other knuckleheads), and probably relatively humane compared to hanging (could take hours) or burning with faggots (as was Abinadi).

 

 

 

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Traela said:

I see ancient Israel as the equivalent of that kid (we all know one) who absolutely has to have corporal punishment because nothing else gets through to him.  Stoning was also readily available, involved the community (so reinforced the lesson to the other knuckleheads), and probably relatively humane compared to hanging (could take hours) or burning with faggots (as was Abinadi).

 

 

 

Ouch...there is always a child that may need to learn  the hard way...but it doesn't change the fact that they were all children of God.  This whole conversation just blows me away...

[The Nehor]

I do not trust many of the Old Testament writers.

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I do not trust many of the Old Testament writers.

Me neither...but I can't say that I know the prophets of old as I should.  If God is the same today and always..what changed Him? 

[The Nehor]

Just now, Jeanne said:

Me neither...but I can't say that I know the prophets of old as I should.  If God is the same today and always..what changed Him? 

Nothing, I suspect (but am not sure) that some of the writers were more Motivated by political reasons than the Spirit and that others edited the writings of others for similar reasons. Basically the equivalent of those uninspired know-it-alls we have now in the Church who seem willing to declare God’s will on everything without inspiration and are willing to explain how the trials people are enduring can be tied directly to certain sins they indulge in. Thankfully they are largely ignored today.

[Jeanne]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Nothing, I suspect (but am not sure) that some of the writers were more Motivated by political reasons than the Spirit and that others edited the writings of others for similar reasons. Basically the equivalent of those uninspired know-it-alls we have now in the Church who seem willing to declare God’s will on everything without inspiration and are willing to explain how the trials people are enduring can be tied directly to certain sins they indulge in. Thankfully they are largely ignored today.

I have to smile at your reply because it sounds like the very world we live in today...I am willing to be open then that God did not change but our interpretation of Him.  What does this say about the words of Prophets back in the day...milk before meat....and yet...so much was unnecessary before the atonement was to be.  Thank you!

[thesometimesaint]

Personally I'm glad God doesn't deal with us today the way he did in the OT times.

[cacheman]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Cacheman, do you envision God trying to teach his children anything? I interpret your comments, and I am connecting dots here, that you think of God as only through rose colored glasses, that she/he is one big bunch of love without ever creating consequences for one's actions. I find this rather often among our society and it surprises me.

My parents loved me and taught me that there were consequences for my actions.  Not once did they threaten to kill me in any way.... let alone by stoning.  They never threatened to burn all of us kids or our friends.  Their consequences were proportional, fair, and consistent.  I'm not sure how you ever interpreted my comments in the way that you did, unless you feel that punishment by torture and death is a necessary consequence of minor offenses.  I find that kind of thinking a little irrational, and very unnerving.