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]

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.

Let me ask you a follow up question to and for Jagella: if this were a situation being played out in real life, would you answer the situation with language like the above? Would you be pronouncing guilt on the person, who may be your family member, by speaking about the difference between the sinful elect and the sinful non-elect, and about judgement day being postponed? In other words, would you be using flowery theological speak, and not normal everyday speak, or even modern legalese?

[Jagella]

If you were there with the Israelites - having recently seen plagues on the Egyptians, Moses parting a sea, manna from heaven, the voice of God from a mountain top and a pillar of fire leading the way in the wilderness - presumably you would not be an atheist. Or, maybe you would, even then.

There have always been atheists and in all places and cultures. Theism involves belief, of course, and whenever there is belief there is doubt. You can't have one without the other. People who didn't believe in the gods in antiquity probably kept their skepticism to themselves fearing the social consequences. Perhaps the victim in Numbers 15 was an atheist who realized that no perfect god would ever demand that no work be done on one day a week. Maybe that's why he was breaking the sabbath law.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 45 by ttruscott]

You didn't answer my question. 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?

It's easy for some of us to sit back in our armchairs thinking about how easy it is to approve of a man's execution if he is unknown to us having lived long ago and far away. If that man is a loved one living today facing us as we are ordered to execute him, would it be so easy to put him to death as you look into his eyes bulging from his head in terror? Would you be OK killing him knowing the good times you spent with him and the good things he may have done for you? Evil doesn't always happen to "the other guy"; sometimes we must endure it ourselves when we are on the receiving end. It's likely that what we so easily shrugged off as allowable as something that was inflicted on another person will be difficult indeed if it happens to us.

Will you approve of your god then?

[Zzyzx]

.
Consider the foolishness (some might say stupidity) of societies condemning work on one seventh of the year based upon a tale in some ancient book.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]


It is interesting to note that the first 29 verses of this chapter describe the offerings that were to be offered to Bible God. Of course it involved the best livestock and the best grains. Nothing second class for the priests to eat. They wanted to make sure they had the cushiest of lives once Israel had stolen the land promised to them


Then we come to this story of senseless murder. Nothing like a violent scare tactic to make sure the offerings were plentiful and of course the best that could be offered. Who'd risk short changing their offerings after a tale like this?


It's not likely that I'd be involved in the stoning. The census taken earlier in Numbers counted 603,550 men in their prime. There could have been as many as 2 million folks in this crowd. Very few would be needed. I'm sure there were a few psychopathic types among them that would relish an opportunity like this. I wouldn't be surprised if they were notified when Moses and crew needed some hits carried out. I don't fit that description so no one would come looking for me.


This of course is based on the assumption that a murder like this actually took place. This story need not be true to serve it's purpose. Just spread a bit of terror to assure that the priests get the best from the land they'd soon steal. Of course a real murder would serve that purpose even better, so who knows.




Tcg

[ttruscott]

Let me ask you a follow up question to and for Jagella: if this were a situation being played out in real life, would you answer the situation with language like the above? Would you be pronouncing guilt on the person, who may be your family member, by speaking about the difference between the sinful elect and the sinful non-elect, and about judgement day being postponed? In other words, would you be using flowery theological speak, and not normal everyday speak, or even modern legalese?

Theology is not flowery but a striving to be exact - do you have a particular insult in mind? This is a theological forum yet you chastise me for using theological language ??? If I was at home you would indeed hear family language and if I was in a law court you'd hear legal language. Will you really go to any length, say anything, to harass us over trivia???

[PinSeeker]

So your answer to the question for debate is yes, you would have stoned the man to death as a result of your allegiance to the Bible god.

Absolutely. If I was an Israelite at that time, I probably would have been sad to do it -- as I'm sure the Israelites were -- but yes, I would have.

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?

Yes. If I was personally very close to him, I would have been profoundly sad to do it, but I would have approved. And by the way, approval and delight are two very different things. It's very possible to take absolutely no delight in something but approve of it at the same time.

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

Well, first, there was not "law of Moses" except in the sense that Moses was only the conduit through which God handed down His Law. That aside, though, Jesus did not "do away with" any law, but rather fulfilled it. The wages of sin is still death, as Paul tells us in Romans 6:23. But Jesus's atonement -- death -- on our behalf satisfies that law once and for all. And now our "death" is in that of Jesus... we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. Because of Christ.

He said explicitly that he had not come to abolish the law (Matthew 5:17).

Exactly. See above.

So Hebrews 7 contradicts what Jesus is quoted as saying about the law.

Not in the least. Rather, it affirms it. With about a thousand exclamation points. Again, see above.

Hebrews 7 also contradicts what passages like Leviticus 16:29 clearly state:

This shall be a statute to you forever: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall deny yourselves, and shall do no work, neither the citizen nor the alien who resides among you.

Ah, the day of atonement. What a great piece of Scripture that is. A clear understanding of it is very important. This ritual was an acted parable, a copy of what Christ was to do on the great day when He made atonement. The blood of animals is both inappropriate and inadequate to provide the cleansing necessary to approach God. Animal sacrifice could not atone for human sin. Neither could any finite individual atone for sin against the infinite God. Only the blood of the divine image incarnate could cleanse our sin and enable us to enter safely into the presence of God. So yes, the statute is forever, but it has been fulfilled perfectly by Jesus and there is no longer any need for the ritual -- because the ritual never made anything perfect. Only Jesus could do that, and He did it once and for all. This is precisely what Hebrews 7 is saying.

The law of Moses as you see was never to result in "a setting aside of a former commandment" like Hebrews 7 says.

Oh, but there most certainly was. See above. There most certainly was.

There's Stuart Scott again (God rest his soul): "Can I get an amen from the congregation???"

[ttruscott]

Will you approve of your god then?

Years ago I made my peace with my GOD over Matt 10:35 For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ 37 Anyone who loves his father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me;…with Micah 7:6.

When GOD goes to war with HIS enemies, I will not stand in HIS way...

[ttruscott]

.
Consider the foolishness (some might say stupidity) of societies condemning work on one seventh of the year based upon a tale in some ancient book.

Yup, that is the historical secular reaction to the calling of GOD.

[Jagella]

I would NOT kill a man for gathering sticks on the wrong day...but only as a judgement from GOD against a rebellious attitude against the law of both GOD and the culture. Refusing to stand with GOD against the rebellion of evil is what started this whole mess.

So you would kill a man because you believe God wants you to, and God wants that man killed because he is very upset with that man for gathering sticks on the wrong day of the week. Is that supposed to be a better reason to kill a man than just his gathering sticks on the wrong day of the week? Placing a cruel and stupid god into the mix doesn't make the act of killing a man any less cruel and stupid.

And how can anybody blame anybody for rebelling against a god like that? I'd gather sticks to poke that god in the eye.

...your point is a straw man argument against Christianity because you ignore the Christian doctrine that there are NO innocent men, and that the 'story' was not about a man who needed to warm his meal but was about the flagrant in-your-face-rebellion to the law as the introduction to the story tells us: Num 15:30 But the person who sins defiantly, whether a native or foreigner, blasphemes the LORD. That person shall be cut off from his people. 31 He shall certainly be cut off, because he has despised the word of the LORD and broken His commandment; his guilt remains on him.�

I'm well aware that Christianity libels and denigrates people merely for being people. I just wish Numbers 15 had prescribed cutting off from the Israelite people a dictator god who cannot stand the human desire to freely make one's own choices.

And one more thing; why couldn't Yahweh think of providing the Jews with all the sticks they needed on the sabbath? I'd say his not being able to figure that out is what started the "whole mess."