Would you stone the man described in Numbers 15?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
historia
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm

Re: Would you stone the man described in Numbers 15?

Post by historia »

Zzyzx wrote:
Isn't there a story about the same tribe killing by crucifixion another man who 'thumbed his nose at the tribal rules'?
No, crucifixion was carried out by the Romans, not the Jews, and usually only on people they perceived as enemies of the state or runaway slaves.

User avatar
ElCodeMonkey
Site Supporter
Posts: 1586
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:49 am
Contact:

Post by ElCodeMonkey »

Mithrae wrote:You seem to struggle with the concept of time; you don't seem to understand that we're talking about judicial codes from ~3000 years ago.
I don't think time is a great excuse for an infinite God to change his moral compass.
I'm Published! Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress
My Blog: Friendly By Nurture
The Wisdom I've gleaned.
My Current Beliefs.

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Contact:

Re: Would you stone the man described in Numbers 15?

Post by Jagella »

historia wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:
Isn't there a story about the same tribe killing by crucifixion another man who 'thumbed his nose at the tribal rules'?
No, crucifixion was carried out by the Romans, not the Jews, and usually only on people they perceived as enemies of the state or runaway slaves.
But many Christians believe the Jews instigated the crucifixion of Christ and are to be blamed for Christ's death. So Zz's point is correct in that a person thumbing their nose at the rules of the Jews and then executed by them can be in some cases justified. If Jesus was right in neglecting Jewish law, then why blame the man in Numbers 15 for neglecting Jewish law?

tam
Prodigy
Posts: 4188
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Would you stone the man described in Numbers 15?

Post by tam »

Peace again to you,
Jagella wrote:
tam wrote:Peace to you.
There is no peace when murder is glorified.
Did you read my post, Jagella? By this comment I have to suspect not. Where in my post did I glorify murder?


I do not know how anyone answers this question so absolutely, considering all the variables involved. Different time, different place, different needs for the survival of an entire community, possible errors in the text from the erring pen of the scribes, a definite lack of details from two sentences in a manuscript describing an event that took place three thousand-ish years ago.


Tam, we have a story of Yahweh/Christ ordering that a man be brutally murdered;


You have an incomplete story of God (not Christ) ordering a man be executed for violating one of the ten commandments.

Some of the variables are listed above.


as a result a crazed mob bashed his head in with rocks.
If your position was so strong, you would not need to add your own spin and details to the tale. I suspect a crazed mob might have simply stoned the man then and there, rather than bring him to Moses because they did not know what should be done.


But this is a detail not mentioned in the story.

Like I said, variables.

I don't care about "variables."
Obviously.

But if you want me to answer a question honestly and absolutely, then those variables matter.
The place and time make no difference.
The time and place and circumstances absolutely make a difference as to how a person or a people react, think, feel.


Although I might point out that the OP suggests that the reader keep in mind that this man might have been gathering sticks to keep his family warm...
Why else would he gather sticks other than to do the work he needed to do? The man did nothing wrong.
Since the story does not say, you are guessing. You are guessing at the expense of the previous verse which speaks of a man DEFIANTLY breaking the law, and that man would be the one who is supposed to be cut off from his people.


If the man defiantly broke the law, then of course he did something wrong.

If it was the other case (he had to help his family or something like that), then I gave you an example of where Christ said that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath (such as healing a person). This is one of the reasons I would question this story (or at least acknowledge that there are extenuating circumstances and variables).

I notice that you ignored all of those examples from Christ in your response to me.

...when this cautionary tale actually comes directly after the warning about a person defiantly breaking the law.
So brutally murdering a man is justified if he's warned? Any person with a bit of compassion would defy such a wicked god. The man is a hero for obeying the stupid sabbath law.
It is ridiculous to call a man a hero for disobeying the law, especially when he agreed to obey it to begin with.


You don't know enough about the man to call him anything. The fact that you proceed to do so anyway, shows your bias, not mine.
Then there are questions about me: Would I have been the same person at that time? How might events have shaped me differently? Would I have known then what/who I know now?
Your religion binds you to absolute obedience to Yahweh/Christ. No matter how wicked, cruel, or stupid the injunction might be, you must do it.
Perhaps this describes you when you were religious, Jagella.

But it has absolutely nothing to do with me, my faith, or my post. Where in the world did you even come up with that? Or is it just that you had no response to my actual words?

If you want to know what I would (hope to) do in a situation like that, then ask me a question that is going to pertain to me in the here and now (or at least in my future).


Fine. If Christ ordered you to butcher me, would you do it?
A - Christ would never order me to do such a thing. It goes against everything He has taught me (by His words and by His deeds).

B - I would not. It would go against the love and the mercy that He has taught me (and He teaches what He learned from His Father). It would go against the spirit He has given me. I would in fact be disobeying Him to carry out such a command (though He would never give me such a command to begin with).



And of course we also have Christ saving the life of the woman caught in adultery.
Isn't that weird? Christ orders that women be murdered only to "save" one.


The only weird thing is that you claim Christ ordered women to be murdered. He ordered no such thing.


We have that example from Him as to what HE would do in a situation where a person is brought to him to be stoned... and so we have an example from Him as to what God TRULY desires.


Mercy, not sacrifice.

Christ is the One who reveals God to us as God truly is.
So we see!
Apparently you do not see.


I gave you multiple examples of Christ's words and deeds regarding the Sabbath. He speaks just as His Father has taught Him to speak; so He is showing us in that what God truly desires, and who God truly is.

See Christ, and you see God.

Know Christ, and you know God.


Not because they are the same person, but because Christ is the image (and truth) of God. He reflects His Father, shows us His Father as His Father truly is.


I feel very strongly about this issue because I have been a victim of Christian violence and abuse.

You have been the victim of violence and abuse, regardless of what religion those people who abused you claimed to belong to. They were certainly not listening to Christ or to His Father, to be able to abuse you. Those who abused you were wrong of course! But their actions are on them.
When apologists lie to white-wash their religion, they hurt people, and it appears that they don't care if they hurt people.
Why are you directing this comment toward me? I have not lied. Nor do I white-wash religion - I have no religion TO whitewash. I have faith - and faith and religion are two very different things.



May you have peace,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

tam
Prodigy
Posts: 4188
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Would you stone the man described in Numbers 15?

Post by tam »

Peace to you all,
Jagella wrote:
historia wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:
Isn't there a story about the same tribe killing by crucifixion another man who 'thumbed his nose at the tribal rules'?
No, crucifixion was carried out by the Romans, not the Jews, and usually only on people they perceived as enemies of the state or runaway slaves.
But many Christians believe the Jews instigated the crucifixion of Christ and are to be blamed for Christ's death. So Zz's point is correct in that a person thumbing their nose at the rules of the Jews and then executed by them can be in some cases justified. If Jesus was right in neglecting Jewish law, then why blame the man in Numbers 15 for neglecting Jewish law?

The two are not really comparable. Christ was innocent of any wrongdoing; He did not break the law.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

User avatar
Mithrae
Site Admin
Posts: 3855
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia

Post by Mithrae »

ElCodeMonkey wrote:
Mithrae wrote:You seem to struggle with the concept of time; you don't seem to understand that we're talking about judicial codes from ~3000 years ago.
I don't think time is a great excuse for an infinite God to change his moral compass.
Actually, setting aside orthodox Judaism/monotheism for the moment I've often wondered how a supreme being - alone in the cosmos for the better part of forever and not on an even remotely relatable level with his creations even after making them - could possibly be imagined to have a moral compass resembling our own?

The trinitarian concept is actually a rather neat answer to the otherwise-incomprehensible notion of a strictly monotheistic god who is 'good,' but I still wonder whether it's enough. Even a trinitarian god would have no experience of weakness, vulnerability or power disparities. Unless he somehow became a human of course, but who'd think of a crazy idea like that!

Granted, we can imagine him cheating by sneaking a peek into the future or learning morality from interaction with far older civilizations elsewhere in the universe (thiough that needn't be anything like human morals anyway). But otherwise, if there were a eeal god I actually would half expect her to learn and develop her earth-morality over time.



But more to the point, as I've argued earlier in the thread, if we assumed more of a 'guiding parent' notion of god rather than a 'hand everything over on a silver platter' notion, the key question is simply was the 'law of Moses' better or more optimal than contemporary surrounding cultures' in terms of social cohesion,deterrence, overall societal wellbeing and so on. If it was (and since it's impossible to prove any boast that we could come up with something that would work even better for those people), then it would follow that it's consistent with a good god to have taken the Israelites a few steps forward even if parts of it are primitive by modern standards.
Last edited by Mithrae on Sat Mar 02, 2019 3:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Tcg
Prodigy
Posts: 4171
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone

Post by Tcg »

ElCodeMonkey wrote:
Mithrae wrote:You seem to struggle with the concept of time; you don't seem to understand that we're talking about judicial codes from ~3000 years ago.
I don't think time is a great excuse for an infinite God to change his moral compass.

Exactly, and as you so accurately point out, we aren't discussing judicial codes from ~3000 years ago, we are discussing a direct order from a "loving" God. A God that some claim never changes. Time would be irrelevant for such a God.




Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Contact:

Post by Jagella »

Tcg wrote:Exactly, and as you so accurately point out, we aren't discussing judicial codes from ~3000 years ago, we are discussing a direct order from a "loving" God. A God that some claim never changes. Time would be irrelevant for such a God.
Many of the followers of Christ here still believe those "judicial codes from ~3000 years ago" are still binding, and in fact they believe Christ never abolished those barbaric laws but "fulfilled" them. So today we have billions of people who worship and love a god like that.

No wonder there is so much cruelty in the world.

In the words of Richard Dawkins:
Yahweh: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unplesant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

AgnosticBoy
Sage
Posts: 563
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm

Re: Would you stone the man described in Numbers 15?

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Jagella wrote: 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?
My decision would be based on following objective moral standards which are independent of my opinions or feelings about them as I'd expect them to be. If it is objective to not work on the Sabbath then that is absolutely wrong no matter what I or anyone else thinks. It seems that many don't get this first step right, and instead express some dislike of the moral standard itself or use that to argue against the punishment.

The same logic goes for the punishment.

Anything else that avoids the point of 'objective' moral standards is obviously just an argument based on one's subjective/cultural influences.

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 24793
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA

Re: Would you stone the man described in Numbers 15?

Post by Zzyzx »

.
AgnosticBoy wrote: My decision would be based on following objective moral standards which are independent of my opinions or feelings about them as I'd expect them to be. If it is objective to not work on the Sabbath then that is absolutely wrong no matter what I or anyone else thinks. It seems that many don't get this first step right, and instead express some dislike of the moral standard itself or use that to argue against the punishment.

The same logic goes for the punishment.

Anything else that avoids the point of 'objective' moral standards is obviously just an argument based on one's subjective/cultural influences.
Does this assume that an 'objective moral standard' exists?

If so, where?

Originated by what agency or entity?

Verified by whom?
.
Non-Theist

If you stop claiming knowledge of invisible, undetectable unicorns, I will stop challenging your claim. Same goes for gods

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

For a quick tutorial on science vs. religion, compare modern internet weather radar to ancient religious beliefs and superstitions about weather

"Demand money with the threat of violence and you'll get arrested. Do it with the threat of eternal damnation and it's tax deductible"

Post Reply