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]

[Replying to post 56 by ttruscott]

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???

This isn't an attempt at an insult on my part. There is a difference between writing what you believe in theological matters here on a forum and what you would do in real life. Jagella asked you what you would do if this were a situation in real life, to which I asked what type of language you would use.
I ask what type of language because it seems to me that simply the type of language one uses seems to change the very way a person thinks, or views and comprehends the world.
It's all well and good (well, not really!) to write a theological treatise here on a forum about killing someone, but it's another thing altogether to do it in real life, as you're staring down the face of your family member, pronouncing sentence and getting oneself ready to carry it out. My suspicion is that if you said in simple every day terms "You were ordered not to pick up sticks, you did so therefore you deserve to die" would in a sense shock you into realising just how frikkin' stupid that sounds.
Instead, if one talks in theological speak, talking about the sinful elect and the sinful non-elect, about judgement day being postponed and all the rest of the things...my suspicion is that this alters your very perception of reality, somehow causes you to lose focus on the fact that this is your own family member who is about to die, causes you to think you are doing something grand and holy and righteous, when again, in normal everyday speak...you're about to bash in your family member's skull simply for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week.

Take this as an example. I hand you a biscuit and I tell you it's my flesh, and this bottle of red soda is my blood. Well, they're still biscuits and soda, but they transform into flesh and blood, even if to you they still look, feel, taste and smell like biscuits and soda.
However, get a bunch of Roman Catholics into a church for Sunday Mass, and where they ordinarily would not believe such a thing in their everyday life...now they do. Now this cup of red wine, that looks, tastes, smells and feels like wine has been physically transformed into blood. What has happened prior to their imbibing of the wine? They have gone through a whole elaborate series of rituals and chanting and readings.
Designed to, in my suspicion, alter their perception of reality.

[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?

Yes, religion will pull a lot of dirty tricks to get wealth out of people. Let's just hope you're right about this story being merely a myth to scare people into giving Moses their goods.

[Mithrae]

And apparently, there's no point or thought spared for questioning the sentence, or its severity. The man did something, no need to consider his reasons, just label him a criminal and flagrant rebel, and oh hey...God says to stone the man, so let's go pick us up some nice heavy stones.
Surely an actual God would be better than this, and not have us succumb to mob mentality.

There's a dash of irony here; seems some folk are unwilling to consider the possibility that he was a first offending simpleton who didn't really understand the law and just wanted to keep his kids warm, while others are equally unwilling to consider the possibility that he was a rebellious brute who committed all kinds of vicious and violent crimes and just happened to be caught in this one.

Here's a question for you, derived from modern sensibilities about law: do we consider a person who has been caught violating a petty law to be all sorts of evil? I shoplifted in my youth: if I had been caught, would it have been reasonable to consider that I'm also a cannibal?
I see no reason at all to consider that the man was a "rebellious brute who committed all kinds of vicious and violent crimes". All we know about him is that he picked up sticks. Sure, it's a possibility, but is it one we should be acting on?

Modern sensibilities is the key phrase there. There's about five different ways of looking at the OP question, ranging from "If you, as you are today, used your time machine to go back and spend that day with the Israelites" through to "Should the incident described be considered barbaric given its period and circumstances?" Obviously there's no way of reconciling modern sensibilities about law with executing someone even for shoplifting, let alone a seemingly-trivial religious violation. Law and order is maintained in our societies by a variety of approaches including extensive socialization and education of children outside their immediate families; social workers, safety nets and targetted programs mitigating the incidence of criminality in the most at-risk groups; professional police forces working to actively prevent and investigate crimes; and a sophisticated justice system increasingly emphasizing rehabilitation over punitive punishment.

All of these would have been difficult to even conceive or implement (or both) in a largely non-urban or even semi-nomadic bronze age society. Interestingly the Pentateuch does prescribe a primitive form of social safety net which was possibly quite advanced for its time, and does seem to promote a sense of national identity and common ancestry to encourage the fellow feeling and respect which is an incidental benefit of our childrens' broad socialization. At least in part the unitary Yahweh cult itself, and the shared weekly day of rest specifically, may have been intended to cement that sense of common identity and purpose. But ultimately it seems likely that in the absence of all or most of our more sophisticated methods, a harsher and more punitive approach would have been necessary. In particular, if someone were to wilfully flout one law it would not be a legitimate assumption to suppose that they are respecting all the others merely because they hadn't been caught out on them (there not being much in the way of professional policing and investigation at the time): Even beyond the mere deterrent aspect, a good case could be made that in a less sophisticated society the penalty for wilfully flouting one law should not be viewed as a penalty for just that one action.

Some folk might describe the incident portrayed in the story in terms of 'stupidity' or 'barbarism,' but without also providing some kind of grounds for concluding exactly what level of punitive punishment associated with which laws would provide an optimal level of deterrence and social cohesion for the kind of bronze age society we're looking at, such attitudes run the risk of being interpreted as little more than self-righteous virtue signalling. How much deterrence is too much in such a society? Almost certainly the authors of the Pentateuch didn't really know the answer to that question either, though they probably had a much better idea what was needed for their circumstances than you or I do. They also obviously had a strong vested interest in not killing off their own people needlessly! Presumably they did the best they could and (as we know from later Jewish development if nothing else) continued to refine the approach over the generations, if a little haphazardly.

Finally we come to the question of whether the story provides any grounds for concluding in favour or against the authorship or inspiration of those books by a God. If we assume that being a 'good' god involves creating a paradise on earth with little effort, thought or consequence on humanity's part, then I think we can all agree that the story was not in any way written or inspired by that kind of deity. 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, then without a good answer to the question above the story really doesn't tell us anything one way or the other about divine inspiration.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 63 by Mithrae]

It might surprise you to learn that I actually agree with pretty much everything you said there. I can certainly understand the harshness of life 'back then', and how social cohesion was such a paramount concern that any threat to it would be met with harsh reprisals.
The reason people like myself call this "stupid, barbaric" or other similar terms is to highlight how it would most certainly be the case coming from an all knowing and all powerful god who is supposedly there to love and protect his chosen people.
If I had a group of people who worshipped me, obeyed my laws and were eager to learn from me, I'd do a better job at teaching law than what Yahweh in Numbers 15 apparently taught - give a command against a mundane action and declare the simple but harsh punishment of death by stoning.
If I was in any way going to go for a death penalty I would at least look for a painless option.

They also obviously had a strong vested interest in not killing off their own people needlessly.

Wouldn't killing someone over picking up sticks fall under that heading anyway, of killing needlessly?

If we assume that being a 'good' god involves creating a paradise on earth without any effort, thought or consequence on humanity's part, then I think we can all agree that the story was not in any way written or inspired by that kind of deity.

That is the world described in the first few chapters of the book called Genesis. A paradise on Earth without any effort, thought or consequence on humanity's part.

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,

The analogy falls apart though because parents generally speaking don't kill their kids for violating petty commands. Indeed it is the killing that would prevent the learning.
It is the stupidity of rule-through-fear and petty authoritarianism that indicates to me the childish level of thought involved in this legal situation. I wouldn't believe Trump was displaying grand intelligence and wisdom if he said that US citizens had to obey even the most petty and mundane of his orders or they'll be put in front of a firing squad.

[Tcg]

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?

Yes, religion will pull a lot of dirty tricks to get wealth out of people. Let's just hope you're right about this story being merely a myth to scare people into giving Moses their goods.

I of course could be totally wrong about that. Given the genocide, or rather multiple genocides, the Israelites were about to commit (according to the story), what's a murder, or many murders, to assure the comfort of the priests.


It seems that a few people around today would be willing to use stones to murder a fellow worshiper who made a minor error. There's no reason to think that wouldn't have been the case back then as well.





Tcg

[ttruscott]

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.

You ask why Christians don't debate you and then you ignore what they say to beat your dead straw horse over and over...Pearls and dust time...

[rikuoamero]

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.

You ask why Christians don't debate you and then you ignore what they say to beat your dead straw horse over and ov...Pearls and dust time...

Except that's what you said. You require that the situation be "a judgement from God against a rebellious attitude against the law of both GOD and the culture"
or to put it another way
"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."
I'm not seeing ANY difference between what you said and what Jagella said. The only difference is yours is in flowery theological speak, whereas Jagella uses mundane everyday language.

[Tcg]

The only difference is yours is in flowery theological speak, whereas Jagella uses mundane everyday language.

Exactly. No matter what type of language is used, it boils down to, "Yes, I'd kill a dude for picking up sticks on the Sabbath."




Tcg

[jgh7]

If I was with the Israelites fresh out of Egypt with Moses, and God told us to kill someone who disobeyed rules which explicitly stated that the penalty for breaking such rules is death, then yeah I would.

It looks like I was wrong--many Christians have answered the question for debate in apparent honesty.

Would you stone the man regardless of who he was or how you may have known him, though? What if he was your son? Would you stone to death your own son?

Hello Jagella, I gave a long response in the other thread about why I answered yes. Your further questions are about whether the person is a close friend/loved one/child of mine.

I'll answer like this: 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.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 69 by jgh7]

We should be aware that a son need not be a child. My son is near sixty.