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.

[William]

[Replying to post 66 by ttruscott]

Lets all be equal about this.

"Pearls and dust time" is a play on the "pearls and swine" insult, and is unnecessary. Posts using religions script to insult others with should be regarded as unacceptable by all of us.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 23 by Elijah John]


QUESTION Why was there such a severe penelty for breaking the Sabbath law


♦ANSWER Because breaking the Sabbath could lead to the slaughter of parents and innocent children and had to be discouraged with the strongest measires possible . The Mosaic legal system was based on spiritual principles, principles which not only protected both workers but more importantly protected the religious system which was essential for the nations survival.. The Sabbath breaker, by performing an act that defied the basis upon which the welfare of the nation rested, was putting all its citizens in danger, it was then an act of treason.

• Unlike other nations, the Israelites had agreed to theocratic rule ('theocratic' literally mean "rule by God"). God cannot have dealings with that which is unclean according to His standards, so if He (God) was to continue to protect them (keep them all alive) against surrounding nations, they had to reflect his righteous standards and continue to focus on pure worship. The Sabbath contributed to this end. It meant one day a week was set aside by every Jewish family to be devoted to worship and Learning God's laws. It enabled them to realize that they were dépendent on their Creator. If they failed to do this, they would lose God's favor, and without his protection they would all be conquered by surrounding nations leading to their enslavement and death for themselves and their children. In short digregard of the Sabbeth would lead to the annialation of their nation, it was therefore rightly and justly a capital offense.
  
  Further the Sabbath laws and the entire religious code was the means by which God would enable his people to identify the Messiah. The Messiah would be the means not only of saving the Jews but the entire human race from sin and premature death. Thus undermining the Sabbath could contribute to the death of billions of people. The Jews as "the keepers of the word" had a moral responsibility to safeguard it for humanity and stamp out rebellion that could lead to disregard for divine principles.

CONCLUSION: The Sabbath law was ahead of its time in that it protected every laborer from being worked and slaves into the ground. More importantly it enabled the nation never to lose sight of the principles that were keeping them alive. Someone that broke that law then was willfully endangering the welfare not only of himself but of the nation itself. Any act that deliberately and in a premeditaed manner endagers the lives of innocent children should be severly punished and naturally an act of treasont which endangered the entire nation had to carry the death penalty.


RELATED POSTS

Should the Sabbath breaker have been executed for picking sticks? [ page 2 of the is thread]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 269#956269

Why was stoning ascribed as a method of execution in bible times?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 113#836113



NOTE All posts I write represent my personal faith based beliefs as one of Jehovah's Witnesses

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 72 by JehovahsWitness]

Firstly the Sabbath law wasn't "cruel" or "unreasonable" because working 7/7 is not a human right. On the contrary modern laws reflect this principle of giving workers time off and in many countries it is illegal o make employees work without time off. That the crime carried the death penelty was reflective of the fact that the legal system was based on spiritual priinciples, principles which not only protected both workers

It protects the workers...by killing them.
Try again, JW.

so if He (God) was to continue to protect them (keep them all alive) against surrounding nations, they had to reflect his righteous standards and continue to focus on pure worship.

And the best your god can come up with to do this is to command that people hurl rocks at each other's faces for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week.

I dare you to watch the video in this link, and then come back to explain to us how this is good or holy or just or righteous or any other positive attribute.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... death.html

The Sabbath law was ahead of its time in that it protected every laborer from being worked into the ground.

And you don't think the sentence contradicts this supposed goal? What's the point of protecting laborers from over-work if they get their skulls bashed in by rocks merely for picking up sticks?
You might as well be saying that God was protecting the people from fire hazards by commanding that if one lights a campfire on the wrong day of the week, the community is to douse them in gasoline and light a match.

More importantly it enabled the nation never to lose sight of the principles that were keeping them alive. Someone that broke that law then was willfully endangering the welfare not only of himself but of the nation itself. Naturally such a treasonous act carried a severe penalty.

And we're right back to thinking the guy is evil. You're just like 1213, who equated the "crime" with genocide and treason.

[Jagella]

I answered the OP in regards to the actual situation which occured in the bible, where a grown man disobeyed the rules and was judged. With that in mind, I will not answer in regards to if children did this, as I'm not sure what would have happened to them and if they're held to the same accountability. So my answer to your further questions is: with regards to them being adults (like described in the original passage) and I was in a part of the congregation that made it necessary for me to participate, then yes.

So if Moses commanded you to stone a child (how young?), then you would refuse to do so?

In any case, thank you for the answer. I can use responses like yours in my future debates with Christian apologists. One of the inspirations I had for this thread is the claim made by many apologists that atheism can lead to violence while Christianity is peace loving. Your answer is good evidence that that claim is at best half true.

[PinSeeker]

Obviously there's no way of reconciling modern sensibilities about law with executing someone even for shoplifting, let alone a seemingly-trivial religious violation...

'Seemingly trivial' being the key here. It was not "trivial" in any way, to any degree. There were ten commandments over-arcing the entire body of the Law. Not violating the Sabbath was the fourth. And it could be argued that it was one of the four most important, not merely because it's the fourth, but because the first four are about how the people are mandated to act in relation to God (as opposed to the other six, which are about how the people are mandated to act in relation to other people).

Law and order is maintained in our societies by a variety of approaches including extensive socialization and education of children outside their immediate families...

Is this why our government-run educational system is so awesome, right? As evidenced by our problem-free and crime-free society...

...social workers, safety nets and targeted programs mitigating the incidence of criminality in the most at-risk groups...

Yes, and look how effective it is...

...professional police forces working to actively prevent and investigate crimes; and a sophisticated justice system increasingly emphasizing rehabilitation over punitive punishment.

Ah! So THIS is why folks are taking a knee during the national anthem. I had it all wrong, I guess...

If we assume that being a 'good' god involves creating a paradise on earth with little effort...

Uh oh. Stop right there. Aside from this being a silly assumption, why would you assume that? That's not why God gave the Israelites the Law. I mean, not even close. Where did you say you used to go to church again, Mithrae?

On the other hand if we assume that being a 'good' god is something more along the lines of being a good parent, providing lessons and guidance appropriate to the culture's or individual's current stage of development...

This is a little closer to the case, but still quite a good distance off.

[Bust Nak]

A bit of book keeping, as of this post, theists have answered:

4 definite yes.
1 personally no, but Numbers 15 is just.
1 Maybe.
2 definite no.

[1213]

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

I think 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?

I think the reason for the judgment was not the picking up sticks. I think the reason was unrighteousness. The person who pick up sticks didn’t have wisdom of the just and was not righteous, that is why he died. And I believe same is in all times, unrighteous people don’t live forever.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

Picking up sticks just showed that the person was not righteous. The person rejected God and didn’t appreciate the one who had saved them from Egypt.

But now you may ask, is unrighteousness enough reason for the judgment. And I think it is, unrighteous person would do all kind of bad things and could lead the whole nation to destruction. That is why I can understand the judgment. And I think it is not really about punishing, but about ending evil. I think the idea of death penalty is not actually to punish, but to get rid of evil.

[1213]

We have nothing at all to tell us about the state of mind of the man.

I think we have. They had rule not to do so, from God who had just saved them. The person could have done it earlier and there was no good reason to leave it to the Shabbat day. The person ignored it all and so didn’t appreciate his savior. His actions speaks volumes of what he is. And the same is with all people, actions tell very much of what kind of person he is.

For you apparently, there is no such thing as a concept of extenuating circumstances, or compassion for a first offender.

If I testify about myself, my witness is not valid.
John 5:31

I think compassion is also in the Bible, because:

Thus has Yahweh of Hosts spoken, saying, 'Execute true judgment, and show kindness and compassion every man to his brother.
Zechariah 7:9

That is the reason why I believe the stick picker got right judgment and not mercy. If he would have been righteous, the judgment would have been different.

In the Bible the question is really about is person righteous. If person is righteous, it will be seen in the actions. And if person is not righteous, it also will be seen in the actions. Actions are only the result of the mind and not the actual cause. That is why I believe the judgment is really about the state of mind, not about the actions.

By their fruits you will know them. Do you gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree produces good fruit; but the corrupt tree produces evil fruit. A good tree can't produce evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree produce good fruit. Every tree that doesn't grow good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire.
Mat. 7:16-19

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

[1213]

How is gathering sticks on Saturday attempted genocide?

The law was given to Jews with promise, if they obey it, they get blessings and if they disobey it, things will go badly. The person who disobeyed without good reason, call destruction on the whole nation by not obeying the law.

And I think it is obvious also in secular country, if people begin to ignore the law, whole order collapses and when the order collapses, also the nation vanishes and then there is just group of people acting for their own good, without really caring what happens to others. Or what do you think would happen, if people in your country would ignore the law? Would your nation exist after that?

[William]

[Replying to post 79 by 1213]

I think this reasoning is skewed as we are hearing this from a perspective of Christian belief systems and these have always sought to 'explain' the Jewish culture.

We can see plainly that Jews don't go around stoning other Jews they feel threatened by.
Not even Jewish religions demand such laws are in place and acted upon.

Whatever changed all that old time religious stuff, did a good job of it, except in certain countries where resistance to change is enforced through individuals willfully remaining in a state of ignorance and clinging on to superstitious nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs - such as the example given in the OP.