Love your enemies

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

Shoud we hate God's enemies?

Yes
1
14%
No
1
14%
We should not hate anyone.
5
71%
 
Total votes: 7

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Love your enemies

Post #1

Post by Blastcat »

I'm looking for Bible verses that support "love thy enemies" and "Kill whoever God doesn't like today."

In the Bible, I think it was in Matthew 5:44 where it says that we should love our enemies, and in the OLD testament, there are very many passages where people kill people on the command of God.

I think there are about a dozen of those direct commandments...

So, the questions for debate is:


"Are Christians being instructed to not hate their enemies, but to hate to the point of killing whoever God considers to be an enemy?"

P.S.

I owe the idea of Christians having to hate God's enemies from Divine Insight in Post 107: Question for Atheists/Naturalist


:)

agnosticatheist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:47 pm

Post #51

Post by agnosticatheist »

Regardless of whether some, all, or none of the old testament commands apply to Christians today, the fact is, according to the bible, at some point in the past, the SAME god they submit to and worship was ok with the abhorrent garbage in the old testament.

Examples of abhorrent garbage in the old testament:

1. Slavery

2. Stoning people to death (even their own children........)

3. Killing everyone but the virgin girls (whom they "keep for themselves".....gee i wonder what the implication of THAT is, and i wonder how they determined which of the girls were virgins?.....would you be ok with your daughter being subjected to that? if not, then why was it ok for the daughters of a people group back then to be subjected to that? that is the height of hypocrisy. if you want to try to argue the method that they used to determine which girls were virgins was not invasive, like some type of cultural ornamentation, clothing, etc, that method is not foolproof, and you want the method that you are using to determine who gets to live and who dies to be foolproof. ultimately, the text does not tell us how they went about determining who was a virgin, so any suggestion is mere speculation)

4. Pillaging cities

5. Cutting a woman's hand off

6. Putting whole towns to death. Men, women, children, and animals

7. Subjecting a woman to drinking water that contains dust from the floor of the tabernacle and having her hair unbraided by some creepy old priest, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SHE IS GUILTY OF ADULTERY OR NOT. Then, if she turns out to be guilty, her womb swells and her "thigh falls away (Metaphor for her womb shriveling up? it would seem so considering later on it says that if the woman is shown to be innocent, she shall conceive children). Seriously, what kind of man subjects his wife to that??? What if the wife is jealous? Is there recourse like this for her? Can she take her husband to the priest and have him subjected to a test, whereby if he is guilty of adultery, his testicles swell, and then his testicles cease to produce sperm? NOPE. Only the husband gets to subject his wife to this garbage.

What kind of god hands this down to humans?

I ask you Christians: How is this ok? How? Where is your god? Where is your integrity?

On this one issue alone, you should at minimum toss inerrancy out the window, and really, you should toss it all out. But nope, despite what I have presented here, some of you are too stubborn to REJECT THIS EVIL GARBAGE and stand for what is ACTUALLY GOOD. Some of you are too scared of your god sending you to hell for rejecting it. Some of you are flat out evil, you know it's evil, you enjoy it, and so you have no problem with it. For some of you, and you are the one's i feel sorry for, your current belief system is a "security blanket" that helps you keep going, helps you cope with your past, helps you cope with your present, and gives you hope for your future. I encourage you to discard that security blanket, and step out into the light. Reject this evil. You can do it!

If any of you doubt me on what i listed here, i will be glad to cite verses for you.

If anyone besides the Israelites were to treat people the way the Israelites did, Christians would be having a fit, calling it inhumane, evil, etc (they already do this with islam; at least the muslims behead people, which is more merciful and less painful than stoning people to death.......). They give the Isrealites and their god a free pass on this garbage because to take issue with it would mean at least the collapse of their precious doctrine of biblical inerrancy, and perhaps even the total collapse of their security blanket (or, for some, their control mechanism, means of acquiring wealth, influence, perks, etc).

This should be the end of the debate, really. I wish my fellow non-Christians were more active in pointing out what I did here when it comes to debating this issue.

Christians, if your god was actually ok with this stuff and commanded it, I reject your god and refuse to submit. Send me to hell, i'll go down swinging. I'd fight your god if I could, even if it meant certain death. I refuse to submit to this evil bullcrap.

Game over, Biblical Inerrantists. You now have to either stand by the garbage i mentioned, and reveal yourself to be a scumbag, or reject the garbage i mentioned, and toss biblical inerrancy out the window. There is NO escape here.
If it turns out there are one or more gods, then so be it.

If it turns out there are no gods, then thank reality that no one is going to suffer forever.

User avatar
catnip
Guru
Posts: 1007
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:40 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Love your enemies

Post #52

Post by catnip »

Divine Insight wrote:
catnip wrote: The OT is merely background of human relationship with God and testimony for the coming of the Messiah. The NT is authoritative for those who follow Christ.

I know that some conflate the two and pick and choose between them, but that obviously misses the point.
Those who follow Christ should be killing "God's enemies" as per God's Laws in the OT".

Jesus didn't renounce the OT. To the contrary he stood by every jot and tittle of it. So if you plan on "following" Jesus you better Keep God's Commandments. In fact, didn't Jesus himself say that you are supposed to keep God's Commandments? I'm pretty sure he did. And God did command men to kill those who preach of other Gods. So if you're going to follow Jesus instructions you better get out there and start killing those heathens as God commanded thou shalt do!
That is not the Law and the Prophets. Tales of genocide, etc., were always particular to the occasion and not laws. The Law and the prophets are summed up in the Great Commandment and the Second according to Christ. He himself criticized the application of some laws such as "an eye for an eye" and hand washing.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21140
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 794 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Post #53

Post by JehovahsWitness »

agnosticatheist wrote:Examples of abhorrent garbage in the old testament:
One man's garbage is another man's treasure. Many an uneducated has thrown out something that experts have later deemed to be priceless treasures. Although the bible reports the human story, which has been far from pretty, God's laws are treasures and priceless jewells if one takes the time to understand them.

JW
agnosticatheist wrote: 1. Slavery

2. Stoning people to death (even their own children........)

3. Killing everyone but the virgin girls (whom they "keep for themselves"....

4. Pillaging cities

5. Cutting a woman's hand off

6. Putting whole towns to death. Men, women, children, and animals

7. Subjecting a woman to drinking water that contains dust from the floor of the tabernacle
All wise, compassionate and insightful laws that reflect the perfect mind of God. I have written extensively on why (see post #55 below)

agnosticatheist wrote:If any of you doubt me on what i listed here, i will be glad to cite verses for you.
Yes, can you please provide references (this is after all T&D) and a brief explanation why you believe them to be "garbage".
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Sat Jun 11, 2022 5:12 am, edited 5 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21140
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 794 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Post #54

Post by JehovahsWitness »

[Replying to post 51 by agnosticatheist]

agnosticatheist wrote:some of you are too stubborn to REJECT THIS EVIL GARBAGE and stand for what is ACTUALLY GOOD. Some of you are too scared of your god sending you to hell for rejecting it. Some of you are flat out evil, you know it's evil, you enjoy it, and so you have no problem with it. For some of you, and you are the one's i feel sorry for, your current belief system is a "security blanket" that helps you keep going, helps you cope with your past, helps you cope with your present, and gives you hope for your future. I encourage you to discard that security blanket, and step out into the light. Reject this evil. You can do it!

This should be the end of the debate, really. I wish my fellow non-Christians were more active in pointing out what I did here when it comes to debating this issue.
They probably didn't because I suspect (a moderator will be more in a position to say for sure) it is nothing more than a anti-theist rant and a preachy one at that. In any case, you have been invited to support your view with scripture (see above) and hopefully you will chose to do that without blanket condemnations and disrespectful name calling.
agnosticatheist wrote:Game over, Biblical Inerrantists. You now have to either stand by the garbage i mentioned, and reveal yourself to be a scumbag, or reject the garbage i mentioned, and toss biblical inerrancy out the window. There is NO escape here.
Well I believe the bible is the Word of God and there are millions like me that believe it is a book of truth without error. I do hope that you are not implying that I am a "scumbag"; I'm confident its me that has misunderstood what you are trying to say. Can you clarify?
agnosticatheist wrote:Christians, if your god was actually ok with this stuff and commanded it, I reject your god and refuse to submit. Send me to hell, i'll go down swinging. I'd fight your god if I could, even if it meant certain death. I refuse to submit to this evil bullcrap.
Fair enough, thank you for sharing. The bible says God exists and will, on the day of judgement do His best to accommodate each individual's wishes.

Respect,

JW
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Tue Dec 20, 2016 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21140
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 794 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Post #55

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Sat Jun 11, 2022 5:12 am, edited 4 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21140
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 794 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Post #56

Post by JehovahsWitness »

agnosticatheist wrote: 7. Subjecting a woman to drinking water that contains dust from the floor of the tabernacle and having her hair unbraided [...] seriously, what kind of man subjects his wife to that???
The whole point of a trial of any kind is to establish guilt or innocence so obviously both innocent and guilty are subjected to trials. Having a process by which someone can publicly defend oneself against false accusations and clear ones name is highly positive although the accusation is not. In a historical context when men could simply kill their wives and daughters on unfounded suspicions without any legal protection for women, this law shines out heads and shoulders above others of its time.

# What was the Jeaslousy curse?

This law about jealousy is recorded at Numbers 5:12-31. If a man suspected his wife of unfaithfulness he was to bring her to the priest. The priest made her stand before Jehovah, took some holy water or pure, fresh water, sprinkled into it some dust from the tabernacle floor, and washed or wiped into it the cursings he had written down. The priest will then make the woman unbraid her hair, swear an oath before God that she was innocent and drink the water. After swearing her innocence and drinking some water, she could go home.

There was actually nothing in the water that was drunk that could possibly cause the woman any physical harm most water at the time would contain some dust (not dirt) and the traces of ink (which was usually made from organic materials) would not have any physical repurccussions. Unbraiding ones hair doesn't actually cause any pain or physical discomfort. Clearly then the whole process was highly ritualistic.

The water was considered "holy" as it was that used by the priests in temple worship and the writing of the cursings washed off in it represented potent symbolism. That it was drunk before Jehovah (God) and with a solemn oath to Him, indicated that the judgement would be left to God since he alone knew whether the woman was innocent or guilty. If she was guilty Almighty God would cause the drink to have miraculous potency to produce the deserved result (lack of fertility). If she later conceived a child she was considered innocent by the community and the child's parentage was not to be questioned.

QUESTION: What, if any, are the positive aspects having the legal provision for such a Jealousy ritual?

This public ritual had many positive aspects. Firstly it protected an innocent woman from being publicly humiliated without grounds by a suspicious husband. Having her name cleared in front of the community and divinely appointed authorities, meant she and any children she might later bear would not have their heritage called into question.

It also acted as a restraint for husbands tempted to accuse their wives of infidelity on trivial grounds. Since the Israelites believed firmly in divine intervention, swearing before God was not taken lightly, and seeing his wife swear before God that she was above reproach would likely appease a more reasonable man. Finally, for a deeply religious nation that definitely believed in miracles, the existence of this ritual discouraged immorality on a national basis, which again would be beneficial to any children whose paternity might have otherwise been questioned.

CONCLUSION: The law was entirely positive as it gave innocent woman a means of clearing her name from groundless accusations, protecting any offspring born to her and acted as a restraint for jealous husbands whose accusations would be seen as false in the absence of a miracle* (see note below). In a deeply religious society it discouraged adultery, even if the adulterous act could be concealed.

NOTE: *There was actually nothing in the water that was drunk that could physically harm the woman and the process should not be confused with any "trial by ordeal" as practiced during the Dark Ages. Those torturous trials had power in themselves to injure seriously or kill. Whereas the law about jealousy required a miracle to bring about the punishment, (which wasn't death but childlessness); the trials by ordeal during the Dark Ages required a miracle to deliver the woman from punishment.


# Why were men suspected of adultery not subject to the same process?

It's true that if a wife suspected her husband of infidelity she did not have recall to such a public cursing but logically while a husband can question the paternity of any child BORN in his household, there can be no doubt about the maternity of a child born to a woman. In short, such jealousy trial puts on public record any question of paternity and existed to protect the most vulnerable in the relationship (the woman and her children). In any case, since the process essentially amounted to an appeal to Divine justice, there was nothing to stop a woman suspicious her husband guilty of adultery appealing directly to the Almighty to judge matters nor any reason to believe God would not hear and judge the husband accordingly (see Gen 38:9).

The laws for proven adultery were the same for both men and women.




RELATED POSTS
Did the Mosaic Law prohibit ALL sex outside of marriage?
viewtopic.php?p=404057#p404057

Was the "Jealousy curse" that was part of the Mosaic Law comparable to
"trial by ordeal" as practiced during the Dark Ages ?

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 96#p836096

Why did the bible authorize bloodsheet testimony?
viewtopic.php?p=1081153#p1081153

# Why did the Mosaic Law propose punishing women with having her hand cut off
if she'd grabbed a man's genitals during a conflict (Deuteronomy 25:11-12) ?

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 99#p822599[/list]

Why, then is there no law that explicity states "You must not have sex before marriage"?
viewtopic.php?p=780257#p780257
To learn more please go to other posts related to...

WOMEN, SEXUAL IMMORALITY and ... MARRIAGE
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Wed Jun 15, 2022 10:02 pm, edited 12 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 9041
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1237 times
Been thanked: 313 times

Post #57

Post by onewithhim »

Peds nurse wrote:
onewithhim wrote:
Peds nurse wrote: [center]All God wants for Xmas is obedience and trust from us
Part One[/center]

Peds nurse wrote:
The thing about God, is that He is all knowing. He knows how exactly how things are going to work out.
BC wrote:So any wrongdoing should not come as a surprise...
Hello BC!!
I don't think God is surprised by our behavior. How could He be, when He created us?
BC wrote:Didn't he know in advance that humans were just going to do a whole lot of FAILING, when he created all of dat?

Isn't that setting up for FAILURE from the get go?

I absolutely believe that God knew in advance exactly what was going to happen, and how we would be disobedient. This is why from long ago, He knew He was going to send His Son, which was predicted in the OT. The world would be saved through Him.
A perfect plan, for a not so perfect people. That to me is the very definition of love. You know the relationship will be difficult, but you choose to enter into it anyway, because the person (or in this case, the people) are totally worth it!
OWH wrote:I personally don't believe for a second that God fore-knew everything that was bound to happen. He has the ability to know everything, but that doesn't mean that he chooses to exercise that ability at all times. People might know how to ride a bike or juggle, but do they choose to do those things all the time? Come on, now. How boring it would be for Jehovah, if he chose to know everything all the time! If he knew Adam would rebel, why would He have given Adam and Eve a CHOICE? Does God like playing games? I don't believe he does.
Hey OWH!! How ya doing?

I believe He does know exactly everything at all times. Can you imagine that God watches over me, but not you at the same time? If He knows the numbers of hair on our head, what we utter before we utter it, and if He knew us in our mother's womb, in addition to hearing every prayer, and every deed we do, either good or bad, I would say that He is very attentive to what is going on all the time. He doesn't sleep. As for Adam and Eve, I believe He did know exactly what they were going to do. They were going to rebel, and from the beginning of time, his plan to have a people united to himself was in motion.
I believe that He chooses not to know everything. Otherwise He could never legitimately (and without hypocrisy) offer Adam and Eve eternal life if they would not touch a tree; He could not offer ANY of us today eternal life if we would just choose to accept His means of salvation. Jehovah watches us all....but He does not choose to know what we are going to do at all times.

I dare say.....you have not been apprised of the actual unfolding of events in the Garden of Eden. Jesus would never have had to come down here if Adam had obeyed God. When Jehovah created A&E He explained to them that they must not touch one tree. He genuinely offered them unending life if they chose to leave the tree alone. It was genuine because He chose not to know what they would do.

When they disobeyed and took the fruit, it was THEN that Jehovah decided to put into motion the means of salvation from sin and death. That was before "the world" was formed---the world of mankind alienated from God. That world began when Cain was born, because he was the first person born into this "world" alienated from God.

So you see....it wasn't the planet and all the things that were created to be on the planet that comprised "the world" that Paul speaks of in the N.T. "The world" is the corrupt world of mankind, which started with the birth of Cain.


.

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 9041
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1237 times
Been thanked: 313 times

Post #58

Post by onewithhim »

agnosticatheist wrote: Regardless of whether some, all, or none of the old testament commands apply to Christians today, the fact is, according to the bible, at some point in the past, the SAME god they submit to and worship was ok with the abhorrent garbage in the old testament.

Examples of abhorrent garbage in the old testament:

1. Slavery

2. Stoning people to death (even their own children........)

3. Killing everyone but the virgin girls (whom they "keep for themselves".....gee i wonder what the implication of THAT is, and i wonder how they determined which of the girls were virgins?.....would you be ok with your daughter being subjected to that? if not, then why was it ok for the daughters of a people group back then to be subjected to that? that is the height of hypocrisy. if you want to try to argue the method that they used to determine which girls were virgins was not invasive, like some type of cultural ornamentation, clothing, etc, that method is not foolproof, and you want the method that you are using to determine who gets to live and who dies to be foolproof. ultimately, the text does not tell us how they went about determining who was a virgin, so any suggestion is mere speculation)

4. Pillaging cities

5. Cutting a woman's hand off

6. Putting whole towns to death. Men, women, children, and animals

7. Subjecting a woman to drinking water that contains dust from the floor of the tabernacle and having her hair unbraided by some creepy old priest, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SHE IS GUILTY OF ADULTERY OR NOT. Then, if she turns out to be guilty, her womb swells and her "thigh falls away (Metaphor for her womb shriveling up? it would seem so considering later on it says that if the woman is shown to be innocent, she shall conceive children). Seriously, what kind of man subjects his wife to that??? What if the wife is jealous? Is there recourse like this for her? Can she take her husband to the priest and have him subjected to a test, whereby if he is guilty of adultery, his testicles swell, and then his testicles cease to produce sperm? NOPE. Only the husband gets to subject his wife to this garbage.

What kind of god hands this down to humans?

I ask you Christians: How is this ok? How? Where is your god? Where is your integrity?

On this one issue alone, you should at minimum toss inerrancy out the window, and really, you should toss it all out. But nope, despite what I have presented here, some of you are too stubborn to REJECT THIS EVIL GARBAGE and stand for what is ACTUALLY GOOD. Some of you are too scared of your god sending you to hell for rejecting it. Some of you are flat out evil, you know it's evil, you enjoy it, and so you have no problem with it. For some of you, and you are the one's i feel sorry for, your current belief system is a "security blanket" that helps you keep going, helps you cope with your past, helps you cope with your present, and gives you hope for your future. I encourage you to discard that security blanket, and step out into the light. Reject this evil. You can do it!

If any of you doubt me on what i listed here, i will be glad to cite verses for you.

If anyone besides the Israelites were to treat people the way the Israelites did, Christians would be having a fit, calling it inhumane, evil, etc (they already do this with islam; at least the muslims behead people, which is more merciful and less painful than stoning people to death.......). They give the Isrealites and their god a free pass on this garbage because to take issue with it would mean at least the collapse of their precious doctrine of biblical inerrancy, and perhaps even the total collapse of their security blanket (or, for some, their control mechanism, means of acquiring wealth, influence, perks, etc).

This should be the end of the debate, really. I wish my fellow non-Christians were more active in pointing out what I did here when it comes to debating this issue.

Christians, if your god was actually ok with this stuff and commanded it, I reject your god and refuse to submit. Send me to hell, i'll go down swinging. I'd fight your god if I could, even if it meant certain death. I refuse to submit to this evil bullcrap.

Game over, Biblical Inerrantists. You now have to either stand by the garbage i mentioned, and reveal yourself to be a scumbag, or reject the garbage i mentioned, and toss biblical inerrancy out the window. There is NO escape here.
This is perhaps the one point that I and my fellow Christians have different views about. I myself, and only I, do not believe that the Bible is inerrant. There are inconsistencies, and I know that. I have read the Bible from cover to cover, and I study it every day. I do not believe that the God who knows "every hair on our heads" (Matt.10:30) and observes a bird when it falls to the ground (Matt.10:29) would order the slaughter of children. I don't even see Him as ordering the slaughter of thousands of bulls and sheep and goats in one afternoon, or two or three.

But here is my thinking: I do believe that the Bible (all 66 books) was inspired by God. Having said that, I will say that whenever men are used to do anything, there will be errors. The main message is there, in the Bible, but there are also embellishments written in by men who express their own feelings on certain things. I do not believe that God is bloodthirsty. But I believe men are bloodthirsty (most men), and some of the men who wrote the Bible incorporated their own bloodthirstiness into the narratives.

To comment on some of your items in the list above, (1) slavery as we know it today was not the same in ancient Israel. Jehovah provided for the well-being of "slaves" who were not more mistreated that employees today. In fact, they were better taken care of than most employees today. It is men who have made slavery the horror that it has proved to be, outside of God's own organization. Just a couple of points:

(a) A Hebrew "slave" was to be released in the 7th year of his servitude or in the Jubilee Year, whichever came first (Leviticus 25:10; Deut.15:12). The master was to give him a gift to assist him in getting a good start as a freedman (Deut.15:13-15).

(b) The Law protected slaves from brutalities. He was to be freed if he was mistreated by the master and lost an eye or even a tooth (Exodus 21:26,27).


(2) Stoning people to death: "Children" who were stoned were not babies or toddlers or even young teens. They were adult enough to know right from wrong and had to be practicers of wrong-doing. These "children" were called children because we are all children of our parents, no matter how old we are. If these people were allowed to keep on practicing their mean and cruel ways, their parents and others would be tormented, would they not?

(3) Putting whole towns to death: I can't see that. I personally feel that Jehovah did not order the children in any town to be killed. That is, in my opinion, an embellishment by the men involved who didn't wince at having to kill an animal or a human. I couldn't do it, and even today there are men who are trained to kill who come home from the battlefield with their brains fried. Whatever happened to the children, I know that Jehovah will resurrect them during Christ's Thousand-Year Reign. (I want to help with their care.)

Would you provide citations for numbers 5 & 7 please?

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21140
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 794 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Post #59

Post by JehovahsWitness »

agnosticatheist wrote:2. Stoning people to death

Under the Mosaic law the death penalty was demanded for certain crimes. Stoning was the stipulated method of execution.

I'm no doctor, but doubt if there is any truly pain free method to kill someone, especially thousands of years ago when people didn't have access to the electricity (electrocution) and drug related methods (lethal injection) we have today. While decapitation might be relatively quick, prior to the invention of the gulliotine, only a skilled executioner would have a chance of taking someone's head of with a single blow and the time between the first and the second (or third) if one does not have access to the sharpest and most sturdy of swords presents a most gruesome delay. Hanging I read can go wrong and lead to an agonizingly long death. There were no firearms at the time.

In any case, as most people know, a sharp blow to the head usually renders someone unconscious and a huge rock dropped on one's head would mean that there would be a good chance without much skill the individual would not feel anything after that initial impact. In any case, for an ancient people, given their options stoning probably represented the most humaine of executional methods available at the time.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

Post #60

Post by Justin108 »

[quote="JehovahsWitnessHanging I read can go wrong and lead to an agonizingly long death. [/quote]
So because hanging, a relatively painless death might go wrong, it makes sense to instead abandon it as a whole and slowly stoning someone to death instead?

[quote="JehovahsWitnessIn any case, as most people know, a sharp blow to the head usually renders someone unconscious and a huge rock dropped on one's head would mean that there would be a good chance without much skill the individual would not feel anything after that initial impact.[/quote]
What makes you think the people aimed for the head? There is no mention in the stoning laws of "oh and if you could, try your best to aim for the head".

Post Reply