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.

[Tcg]

You've already admitted your approval of God ordained murder.

No, but rather my approval of the Israelites' prudent observance of God's Law 2500 years ago.

God ordered the hit. Perhaps you haven't read the account?

As for God, I approve of whatever He ordains, because it is right, whether I or any other human being thinks so or not. Then and now. As if He requires my approval or anyone else's... LOL!

That's what I said. You approve of God ordained murder.

All you are revealing here is your confusion over when it should take place.

No, but rather my correct understanding of God's purpose regarding His Law 2500 years ago as opposed to now.

Right, after a short 2,500 years God has evolved into a peace loving hippie.

You're quite the "funny" fellow...

What exactly are you accusing me of. Don't be shy, state it directly.






Tcg

[PinSeeker]

Incidentally the command and punishment for working on the Sabbath is meant to teach that we are not saved by works and that works leads to death.

I've seen some creative defenses for the indefensible before, regarding troublesome Bible passages, but this one is really "creative". Do you think that's what Moses had in mind?

I'll answer this. Absolutely he did. That's why he wrote about it.

If the punishiment should fit the crime, (an ideal professed even by human judicial systems), how does the death penalty for picking up sticks fit this crime?

The death penalty was for working on the Sabbath day (the breaking of Commandment 4), not merely for "picking up sticks."

All this tells me...

In your way of "thinking," I'm not surprised.

... is that Moses seemed incapable of making fine moral distinctions, with his "one punishiment fits all" (or most) retributions...

Moses was just fine in following God's Law.

Evidence not of enlightenment, but of barbarism.

No, but rather prudent fear and obedience of the Lord.

"Enlightenment." "Barbarism." LOL! Again, case dismissed, and kangaroo court adjourned.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 131 by PinSeeker]

The death penalty was for working on the Sabbath day (the breaking of Commandment 4), not merely for "picking up sticks."

Doesn't matter exactly what you here regarding this. Unless I'm misremembering at this point, you were the one who made the claim that this was all about protecting workers, giving them a day to rest, etc.
How does it make sense to find someone who's working on a day of rest, and then kill them in the name of protecting them?

No, but rather prudent fear and obedience of the Lord.

"Enlightenment." "Barbarism." LOL! Again, case dismissed, and kangaroo court adjourned.

Which is the kangaroo court? The one pointing out flaws in divine command theory...or the one consisting of a mob that drags a man out into a field and throws heavy stones at his head, bashing his skull in until he's dead, all for the crime of picking up sticks on what is considered a day of rest? How is it that that doesn't fall under the heading of barbarism in your mind? I've pointed all this out before - yours is the side that is calling the man evil, saying he's a rebel, equating his "crime" with genocide and treason, and all seemingly with none of the niceties of modern law, such as a defense or consideration of mens rea or mitigating circumstances.
Apparently with you, there is one factor, and one factor only. This is a law (supposedly) from God and if God's prophet declares the man guilty, he is guilty, and if God's prophet declares he is to die, then he is to die.
Please explain to me just who is running a kangaroo court again.

[PinSeeker]

That's what I said. You approve of God ordained murder.

You can call it "murder" if you want. Doesn't make you right... or anywhere close to it.

I approve of God's justice. You think it's injustice. You're argument is not with me, it's with God. Let me know how that turns out for you.

Right, after a short 2,500 years God has evolved into a peace loving hippie.

No, about 500 years after that, God gave Himself, in the person of Jesus. In this way, the former commandment was set aside because of it's weakness and uselessness and becoming the guarantee of a better covenant; He gave Himself, thereby paying the wages of sin (death) on our behalf. As Hebrews 7 says. But of course I've been over that.

What exactly are you accusing me of. Don't be shy, state it directly.

Are you trying to get me banned?

[Tcg]

You're argument is not with me, it's with God.

Given that God hasn't bothered to post here, I'm am in a discussion with you. If god ever bothers to show up, I'll address it directly.

What exactly are you accusing me of. Don't be shy, state it directly.

Are you trying to get me banned?

I'm asking you to explain your accusation against me. If you made it clear to start with, I wouldn't have to ask you to explain it.





Tcg

[Wootah]

Incidentally the command and punishment for working on the Sabbath is meant to teach that we are not saved by works and that works leads to death.

I've seen some creative defenses for the indefensible before, regarding troublesome Bible passages, but this one is really "creative". Do you think that's what Moses had in mind?

If the punishiment should fit the crime, (an ideal professed even by human judicial systems), how does the death penalty for picking up sticks fit this crime?

All this tells me is that Moses seemed incapable of making fine moral distinctions, with his "one punishiment fits all" (or most), retributions. Evidence not of enlightenment, but of barbarism.

I know you watch a lot of preachers on tv but currently i am really enjoying Mike Winger on YouTube - watch and learn the perspective Christians come from.

To get in the headspace of how the punishment does fit the crime just imagine the reality we believe. Israel were God's people to represent God to the world. The law condemns but cannot save, working on the Sabbath literally means that in your heart you dont think God can or will provide the rest we all yearn for.

Also I have another good post in this thread about how normal it is to have severe punishments for small things, even in our culture.

[William]

[Replying to post 123 by rikuoamero]

For me the importance of understand the OPQ is to determine whether I as a modern human would resort to ancient acts of tribal in-house barbarism if I were somehow able to transport back to those ancient times.

I could think of worse ways of dying. Being skinned alive as one example. Maybe I would resort to barbarism if that was all that were available to me, if the punishment for not doing so meant being skinned alive, or dispatched in some other excruciating manner...the very thought of time travelling back to such times is enough to make me count my blessings for living in the current one, and hopefully humans will still be around in the future, saying as much about this present time.

I am not convinced the Christians who said that they would condone the actions of the tribal judges and assigned executioners, have thought deeply enough re the OP and they are conflating the actual OPQ with their understanding and acceptance of 'how things were back then' and from that declaring that they would participate in the stoning of 'an offender of the tribe' if it meant their own survival (in relation to the tribe) was assured.

I doubt anything has changed much in that regard. Atrocities have taken on more humane forms, but again, ones way of being executed (or of doing the executing) says something about the Tribe doing it, in ancient days, as in modern.

Also to be considered, the act of executing was not placed upon the shoulders of just the leader. The followers also had to be able to apply the penalty of the law. Not simply be part of a jeering crowd being entertained by the death of the tribally unacceptable.

What is difficult to comprehend is that these present day followers of their assortment of Christian beliefs are happy to go along with stoning someone undesirable, even that they know how Jesus felt about such barbarism, and about the sabbath for that matter.

"Drop you rocks guys, the sabbath was not created for the purpose of controlling a man."

[PinSeeker]

Doesn't matter exactly what you here regarding this.

Um... what? You mean "hear"? That would make more sense grammatically, but still confusing...

Unless I'm misremembering at this point, you were the one who made the claim that this was all about protecting workers, giving them a day to rest, etc. How does it make sense to find someone who's working on a day of rest, and then kill them in the name of protecting them?

Yeah, you're misremembering. I didn't say anything like that. But I will agree that based on what God Himself said, part of his intention in instituting His Sabbath was to give rest.

Which is the kangaroo court?

You're the one putting God on trial (you and your cohorts here), inadvertent as it may be. You figure it out.

The one pointing out flaws in divine command theory...or the one consisting of a mob that drags a man out into a field and throws heavy stones at his head, bashing his skull in until he's dead, all for the crime of picking up sticks on what is considered a day of rest? How is it that that doesn't fall under the heading of barbarism in your mind? I've pointed all this out before - yours is the side that is calling the man evil, saying he's a rebel, equating his "crime" with genocide and treason, and all seemingly with none of the niceties of modern law, such as a defense or consideration of mens rea or mitigating circumstances.

As I told TCG, your argument is with God. Let me know how that turns out.

Apparently with you, there is one factor, and one factor only. This is a law (supposedly) from God and if God's prophet declares the man guilty, he is guilty, and if God's prophet declares he is to die, then he is to die. Please explain to me just who is running a kangaroo court again.

Moses just wrote of the incident, riko. The Righteous Judge was very clear in how His Law was to be administered. If you want to call Him a kangaroo, that's your business.

[William]

[Replying to post 133 by PinSeeker]

You're argument is not with me, it's with God.

Are you saying that you are not arguing for GOD?

Are you aware that you are in a debate setting, so your arguments are your own and that pulling the old "GOD" card in relation to that is therefore superfluous?
People are arguing against your expressed belief in your particular idea of GOD. So their argument is indeed with YOU, not "GOD".

[PinSeeker]

Given that God hasn't bothered to post here, I'm am in a discussion with you. If god ever bothers to show up, I'll address it directly.

Very well. Yes, we'll all see Him, eventually. You can argue with Him then. Like I said, let me know how that turns out.

I'm asking you to explain your accusation against me. If you made it clear to start with, I wouldn't have to ask you to explain it.

I've been very clear, and feel very comfortable concerning your powers of deduction. You just have to use them, that's all, because to this point, you haven't.