Would you stone the man described in Numbers 15?

[Jagella]

Consider this story from Numbers 15:32-36(NRSV):

When the Israelites were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day. Those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses, Aaron, and to the whole congregation. They put him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him outside the camp.� The whole congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.

Question for Debate: If you were there with these Israelites, would you stone this man in obedience to Moses and to Yahweh?

Keep in mind that this man may have been gathering sticks to build a fire to cook for for his family and to keep them warm. After the Bible god had him killed, any wife he had would be left a widow and any children he had would be left without a father to provide for them. They would be left cold, hungry, and facing poverty. Any friends he had among the Israelites would be obligated to kill their friend.

Despite these consequences of Yahweh's order to stone the man to death, all the Jews and by extension all Christians coming later must obey the Bible god. Any objections you have to this cruel act are nothing to Yahweh and may even result in a similar punishment for disobedience to him. You have a god you must believe in and obey without question and without reason.

I predict that few if any of the Christians here will answer this question honestly and sensibly. To post such an answer is to expose Christian beliefs for what they are.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 39 by Jagella]

n that case the Jehovah's Witnesses sent to the concentration camps in Hitler's Germany were getting what they deserved. As you argue, they were to obey the law of the land. They had an unspoken agreement to comply with the Nazi laws or face the consequences.

Doesn't JW have a thread complaining about the oppression of his fellows in Russia? One that he updates every so often? Surely he isn't being hypocritical, complaining there of laws being passed against his fellows, but here saying that people should obey the 'law of the land' or face the consequences...

Another possibility is that he did not know what was meant by "work." The law doesn't spell out what constitutes work.

Which is why today, Jews observant of this law sometimes go to all sorts of ridiculous measures in workarounds to do things that would be in violation of it.

LOL--if you want to argue common sense, then how can you see any sense in a law that prohibits people from doing what they need to do?

Good catch. Common sense, and throwing stones at someone for picking up sticks, never the twain shall meet.

Can you really blame anybody for rebelling against a god so stupid that that god demands no work on Saturday? If the man was rebelling, it cost him his life, and unlike you I can see the tragedy in his being murdered.

And here's where the poison of religion seeps in. It has JW thinking the man must have been some sort of evil rebellious man, who flagrantly flouted God's laws for some sick twisted purpose. It's created an Us v Them, situation, a divisive situation. Disobeying is worthy of death, no need to consider a defence for the man like one would in a modern-day court. Things like mens rea...not even considered. Just...he did it and that's that. The man is now evil, wicked, rebellious, he must die for what he did.

In any case, he that breaks the law must pay the price. We don't usually call such people "victims" the word is ... "criminal"

And apparently, there's no point or thought spared for questioning the sentence, or its severity. The man did something, no need to consider his reasons, just label him a criminal and flagrant rebel, and oh hey...God says to stone the man, so let's go pick us up some nice heavy stones.
Surely an actual God would be better than this, and not have us succumb to mob mentality.

[ttruscott]

We are talking about a man who picked up sticks and then had rocks hurled at his face, and whether people today would be willing to do that.

This is the second time this has been mentioned...so I've decided to report what I've learned are the historical elements of such stoning as having the criminal stand on the edge of a high cliff (later a roof of at least 2 stories). The executioner must use a stone of at least 10 pounds and struck the criminal on the back of the head. Then everyone threw a small stone onto his corpse to prove they accepted the execution as righteous. Later on lt the community of elders were all that was necessary to cast approval for the justice against the blasphemer.

The modern methods of the Arab communities is NOT the methodology of the ancient Hebrews.

[ttruscott]

@ 1213 and JW. Do either of you believe in the principle that the punishment should fit the crime?

How does killing someone in such a cruel way as stoning fit the "crime" of picking up sticks on the Sabbath?

Why ignore the intro? It was not about sticks but blasphemy...

[Mithrae]

Can you really blame anybody for rebelling against a god so stupid that that god demands no work on Saturday? If the man was rebelling, it cost him his life, and unlike you I can see the tragedy in his being murdered.

And here's where the poison of religion seeps in. It has JW thinking the man must have been some sort of evil rebellious man, who flagrantly flouted God's laws for some sick twisted purpose. It's created an Us v Them, situation, a divisive situation. Disobeying is worthy of death, no need to consider a defence for the man like one would in a modern-day court. Things like mens rea...not even considered. Just...he did it and that's that. The man is now evil, wicked, rebellious, he must die for what he did.

In any case, he that breaks the law must pay the price. We don't usually call such people "victims" the word is ... "criminal"

And apparently, there's no point or thought spared for questioning the sentence, or its severity. The man did something, no need to consider his reasons, just label him a criminal and flagrant rebel, and oh hey...God says to stone the man, so let's go pick us up some nice heavy stones.
Surely an actual God would be better than this, and not have us succumb to mob mentality.

There's a dash of irony here; seems some folk are unwilling to consider the possibility that he was a first offending simpleton who didn't really understand the law and just wanted to keep his kids warm, while others are equally unwilling to consider the possibility that he was a rebellious brute who committed all kinds of vicious and violent crimes and just happened to be caught in this one.

[ttruscott]

But would you really? If the man to be executed was your father, brother, son, or good friend, would you still stone him? And what if that man was you--would you approve of your being executed?

The historical attitude of the difference of life between the sinful elect and the sinful non-elect is summed up in the call to the sinful elect to come out for among the unbelievers in their hearts so the judgment could commence without condemning (pulling up) the sinful elect with the non-elect; the moral of the parable of the sinful good seed and the tares.

The reason the judgement day is still being postponed is proof that you are right, most Christian folk are indeed NOT willing to be holy at the expense of their love for, that is, or idolatry of, their sinful friends.

[ttruscott]

Are you saying that Jesus did away with the cruel law of Moses?

While I agree that we are not under the Sabbath law any longer, it was not due to any cruelty issues.

GOD has been teaching HIS sinful people (HIS sheep, those who can hear HIS voice) that NO worldly system can bring their friends who are NOT HIS people to repent and be holy; no wise men and elders (Moses), no Judges, no Kings, no prophets, or even those who have been banished and then returned, ie the experienced...only a holy following of GOD will bring us to paradise.

Now we are under the lessons of Christ and it is still same old, same old... The world cannot be changed, it can only be cleansed.

[ttruscott]

Frankly, any nation that treats its people like the man in Numbers 15 deserves to be destroyed.

Oh, so you have the right to call for the destruction of a whole nation but they have no right to destroy a blasphemer... ???

[ttruscott]

Again and again, I keep getting evidence from you and others that this religion is NOT from a superior mind. Surely a superior mind would understand little things like nuance, extenuating circumstances, mercy or compassion. Surely it wouldn't be so simplistic and naive as to go all or nothing.

And they surely did understand the nuances as shown by the culture they had that dealt with the law socially. No one was so simplistic and naive as to go all or nothing...

The whole culture of the rabbis is a testament to this. The Talmud is very interesting...and should put pause to any willingness to judge a whole culture by one verse after ignoring the introduction to the story.

[Jagella]

Frankly, any nation that treats its people like the man in Numbers 15 deserves to be destroyed.

Oh, so you have the right to call for the destruction of a whole nation but they have no right to destroy a blasphemer... ???

We destroyed Japan under the theocracy of Hirohito, did we not? I'm not saying that we should destroy a people but only their ability to destroy other people. If Moses was dictator over Israel today ordering the execution of Jews for breaking sabbath laws, I would favor the destruction of his version of Israel and freeing the Jews living there from his tyranny.

[rikuoamero]

Can you really blame anybody for rebelling against a god so stupid that that god demands no work on Saturday? If the man was rebelling, it cost him his life, and unlike you I can see the tragedy in his being murdered.

And here's where the poison of religion seeps in. It has JW thinking the man must have been some sort of evil rebellious man, who flagrantly flouted God's laws for some sick twisted purpose. It's created an Us v Them, situation, a divisive situation. Disobeying is worthy of death, no need to consider a defence for the man like one would in a modern-day court. Things like mens rea...not even considered. Just...he did it and that's that. The man is now evil, wicked, rebellious, he must die for what he did.

In any case, he that breaks the law must pay the price. We don't usually call such people "victims" the word is ... "criminal"

And apparently, there's no point or thought spared for questioning the sentence, or its severity. The man did something, no need to consider his reasons, just label him a criminal and flagrant rebel, and oh hey...God says to stone the man, so let's go pick us up some nice heavy stones.
Surely an actual God would be better than this, and not have us succumb to mob mentality.

There's a dash of irony here; seems some folk are unwilling to consider the possibility that he was a first offending simpleton who didn't really understand the law and just wanted to keep his kids warm, while others are equally unwilling to consider the possibility that he was a rebellious brute who committed all kinds of vicious and violent crimes and just happened to be caught in this one.

Here's a question for you, derived from modern sensibilities about law: do we consider a person who has been caught violating a petty law to be all sorts of evil? I shoplifted in my youth: if I had been caught, would it have been reasonable to consider that I'm also a cannibal?
I see no reason at all to consider that the man was a "rebellious brute who committed all kinds of vicious and violent crimes". All we know about him is that he picked up sticks. Sure, it's a possibility, but is it one we should be acting on?