What is the greater evil?

[Elijah John]

What is the greater evil, picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Or Stoning that person to death for doing so?

[Elijah John]

Anyone care to defend the stoning to death of someone who picked up sticks on a Saturday as "just" rather than cruel? Any Bible literalists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Evangelicals or Fundamentalists want to make the case that this was "justice"?

Does the punishment fit the "crime"? If it was actually God who told Moses to do this, how is that tempering justice with mercy? Make the case.

Where do you think Jesus would have come down on this one? Assuming there is a God for the sake of argument, should we believe that God told Moses to do this? Or is it more likely that "Moses" was using God as a pretext for doing so.?

[Zzyzx]

.

Or is it more likely that "Moses" was using God as a pretext for doing so.?

It seems as though this characterizes organized religion rather well -- whatever you want, claim it is 'from God'. Killing people (even genocide), demeaning women, denying rights to anyone, slavery, greed and gluttony, special status for clergy -- whatever you want, claim that's what God wants.

[Diogenes]

What is the greater evil, picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Or Stoning that person to death for doing so?

Good example of the folly of a religion designed for control rather than good.

[Elijah John]

.

Or is it more likely that "Moses" was using God as a pretext for doing so.?

It seems as though this characterizes organized religion rather well -- whatever you want, claim it is 'from God'. Killing people (even genocide), demeaning women, denying rights to anyone, slavery, greed and gluttony, special status for clergy -- whatever you want, claim that's what God wants.

Ancient religion? Maybe, modern? Hardly. Who advocates slavery or stoning anymore, or where does any religion advocate "gluttony"? But atrocious ancient passages are still with us, unfortunately. But Christians and Jews today reject stoning, though it amazes me that some Fundamentalists still defend that and slavery when practiced in ancient times.

The fact that some defend these things should be an embarrassment. Defense of passages and events like this are an indictment, not of religion in general, but of Fundamentalism.

[Overcomer]

It's about disobedience and how, if left unpunished, it could spread and lead to chaos. Here's a good comparison:

Often, disobedience to the commands of one who is in a position to know more about a particular situation could result in harm or death for multiplied thousands. For instance, why does the United States military insist on obedience to officers even in the minutest details? After all, “we all agree” that wearing a pair of boots that is not shined properly is a “harmless” activity, and folding a shirt incorrectly is no great crime. Why, then, does the military insist upon obedience even in the most minuscule ordinances? The simple truth is that laxity in obedience to small regulations breeds laxity in obedience to other ordinances. And if that laxity is not punished quickly and decisively, it has the potential to be contagious, and spread throughout the entire group or organization. And while inadvertent missteps in dress might not receive extremely harsh punishment, openly rebellious behavior to those of higher rank certainly would carry a significant punishment.

This quotation comes from an article here which explains it in greater detail:

https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent. ... ticle=1259

[Diogenes]

"It's about disobedience and how, if left unpunished, it could spread and lead to chaos."
Exactly! It's about control, not 'what is good, virtuous, honorable.' The Greeks understood this.
The Hebrews did not. The philosopher asks, "What is right?" The Puritan asks, "What is proper?"

[Zzyzx]

.

.

Or is it more likely that "Moses" was using God as a pretext for doing so.?

It seems as though this characterizes organized religion rather well -- whatever you want, claim it is 'from God'. Killing people (even genocide), demeaning women, denying rights to anyone, slavery, greed and gluttony, special status for clergy -- whatever you want, claim that's what God wants.

Ancient religion? Maybe, modern? Hardly.

Doesn't modern religion claim direct descent from ancient religion? Doesn't modern religion claim that ancient literature is 'The word of God' and/or the basis for modern morals and decisions?

“We used to do it but we don't any more” rings pretty hollow.

Who advocates slavery or stoning anymore,

The modern watered down versions, racial and gender discrimination, are alive and well – particularly here in the Bible Belt (and elsewhere as well).

or where does any religion advocate "gluttony"?

What are 'feasts' if not promotion of gluttony? What does a US overweight / obesity rate of 71.6% say about gluttony?

But atrocious ancient passages are still with us, unfortunately.

Agreed. Christianity saddled itself with Jewish literature when it grafted itself onto Judaism and adopted its literature.

But Christians and Jews today reject stoning, though it amazes me that some Fundamentalists still defend that and slavery when practiced in ancient times.

Fundamentalists and Evangelicals comprise 25% of the US population.

The fact that some defend these things should be an embarrassment.

Agree with should be but here in the Bible Belt such things are held in reverence – with an apparent longing to return to the old days.

Defense of passages and events like this are an indictment, not of religion in general, but of Fundamentalism.

I might agree IF religion in general purged such things from its literature and openly denounced ancient practices – but it does neither.

[VVilliam]

What is the greater evil, picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Or Stoning that person to death for doing so?

Abuse is abuse. Once we categorize scale of abuse, some abuse can be overlooked or have a blind eye turned to, in relation to ones higher up the scale.

Generally the Scales which have evolved tell us that Stoning a person to death picking up sticks on any day of the week is wrong action. The same shows us that picking up sticks on the Sabbath is only wrong for those who believe it to be wrong, and their ability to enforce a sentence on the offender largely determines whether it matters or not.

Do I think such laws came from the mind of The Creator?

Perhaps - but the mind appears also to have moved on...

[Mithrae]

What is the greater evil, picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Or Stoning that person to death for doing so?

This topic came up last year, and I don't think that you responded to my comments - in particular the conclusion in blue below:

• I would expect such and attempt to defend the indefensible from a Fundamentalist, and am surprised to read this coming from you. Or perhaps I am missing something?

  Mithrae wrote:
  It's a little strange when a follower of YHVH attacks the Torah as brutal and barbaric and a non-Christian sceptic defends it, I agree After twenty-six pages I'm losing a lot of interest in the discussion to be honest, and most of what I could say would really just be repeating stuff I've mentioned a dozen times previously in any case:
  > That there does seem to be a plausible framework of social order behind Numbers 15 and the law of Moses generally, appropriate to their level of technological and social sophistication;
  > that no-one has really shown that the extreme rhetoric against that kind of legal system is justified or appropriate, beyond our intuitive emotional reactions as folk raised and living in a more comfortable era;
  > that by comparison it would seem very strange to see such vehemence and viciousness in attacks on 'idiotic' technologies like chariots, relatively primitive though such may be, as we're seeing in the attacks on their "brutal and barbaric" social order;
  > and that even for the question of whether a god was behind those laws, mere emotionalism or the self-righteousness of three thousand years' further technical and social progress (building on those earlier generations' supposed "barbarism") really are not rational substitutes for actually showing that the Israelites hadn't received an improvement on surrounding contemporary cultures.
  
  But there's something I've only really considered in my last couple of posts which relates to a comment you've made a few times:

  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?

  Disproportionate punishment, in whatever era, is an intrinsic evil.

  How is such a severely disproportionate punishment "just"? Or kind? Seems too, that Moses and Micah were on different pages.

  Why are you/others so fixated on proportional punishment, as if that were some kind of self-evident or God-given natural law? Surely it would be just as valid to say that two wrongs don't make a right, that inflicting any kind of harm/retribution is an "intrinsic evil"? But assuming for the sake of argument that some punishment is good, what is it that defines an appropriate level?
  
  If a thief steals $100, presumably 'proportional punishment' would be something like returning $100 to the victim and being fined $100 of their own money. But the prospective criminal must then consider that there is only a mere risk that they will be linked to the crime and then found guilty in a fair trial. If there were only a 40% risk of being caught and convicted, then morals aside it would be entirely rational for them to pursue that life of crime - from ten thefts they'd steal $1000 and getting caught four of those times they'd pay back only $800.
  
  Most likely the risk (or perceived risk) of a reasonably competent criminal being caught and convicted is lower than 40% even in our modern countries with professional policing and advanced investigation techniques, particularly for petty crimes. How much less would it be in a mostly rural/semi-nomadic bronze age society!
  
  So is proportional punishment really just, or is it an open door for the scourge of crime against a society? Failing to take appropriate measures to protect the innocent could be considered a form of injustice or moral failing in itself. So arguably any society has a moral imperative to enforce punishment that is disproportionate to the specific crime, but rather weighted according to that society's ability to prevent, catch and convict criminal behaviour. Or more broadly (as I've suggested earlier), perhaps even a moral imperative to identify antisocial individuals if possible and, rather than waiting for them to commit murder or rape before giving them a 'just' punishment, to remove their threat to society in advance; by targeted programs, counseling, medication and so on in our more sophisticated age, but even in less advanced societies still no less of an imperative to remove the threat somehow.