Should I Have My New Wife Stoned to Death ...?

[StuartJ]

My new Christian wife recently broke ten (10) biblical laws.

One Sabbath, she put on my shirt and jeans (1) - the shirt was wool and the jeans cotton (2) and headed into town while she was menstruating (3). On the way, she picked up some sticks for the bbq (4) and cooked up a mess of cheeseburgers (5) and calamari (6) then let it slip that she had slept with other guys before we married (7).

One of the guys was at the bbq, and when I got into a brawl with him my wife rushed up and grabbed him forcibly by the testicles (8). She then turned and abused her parents who had tried to intervene (9) and took Yahweh's name in vain during her tirade (10).

If Jesus is "God", he was co-author of these biblical laws in the first place and did not rescind them during his visit to this planet ... and we shouldn't try to dodge the ones we just don't like anymore.

So, should I take my new wife before the elder men of my people and - in true biblical tradition - have her stoned to death ...?

[StuartJ]

No, I'm neither Jewish nor a judge.

Then I have to wonder, why you ask, if you are not even a Jew? Why follow their rules, if you are not a Jew? And if you admit that you are not judge, why do you want to judge?

You have missed quite a few points here.

We Atheists have evolved an irony gene.

You may have been created without one.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 38 by bluethread]

You didn't mention forgiveness, and mercy and love ...

You went on and on about "laws".

That is because you framed it as a legal question. As I pointed out, you have no obligation under HaTorah, because you have not committed yourself to it and are not living in a community that has. That said, forgiveness, mercy and love are in HaTorah. Not everything that you claim your wife did is a capital offense. Different offences carry different penalties that are appropriate for the specific crime. There is also due process that calls for a thorough examination and for two or more witnesses to come forward at the risk of death, if they commit perjury in a capital case. There are also commandments that require a husband and the rest of the community to make sure that a wife is fully aware of each and every one of those commandments.

It was only some godforsaken Atheist who wrote earlier that I should probably spare her.

Did I not say that you have no obligation, because you are not a party to the covenant and are not living in a nation that recognizes that covenant?

If I answered YES to your points ...

Should we be true biblicists and have her stoned to death ...?

Should a citizen of these United States abide by the laws of these United States? If the answer is yes, why should a citizen of another culture not abide by the laws of that culture?

Or should we find "scriptural" loopholes to wriggle out of what are the barbaric, primitive laws of barbaric, primitive, superstitious, bigoted men ...?

Nice of you to take such an unbiased view of the practices of another culture. Isn't that a rather paternalistic and imperialistic approach? I am sure that the non-Greco-Roman cultures(Barbarians) also considered Greco-Roman culture to be quite ridiculous. Also, primitive, at least in this context, is a rather jingoistic term, presuming that one's own culture is somehow inherently superior to cultures that have preceded it. Finally, the use of the terms superstitious and bigoted appear to indicate presumptions that have not been established as yet in this discussion.

Or shall we just continue to pretend that the "laws" came from "God" on Mt. Sinai without a tiny scrap of evidence to back that fantastical notion up ...?

We do not have to do any such thing. What one should do is examine the society and note how each law works within the context of that society. Three advantages of a covenant based society are that one is on notice, one can choose to not be party to that covenant and one avoid living in that society. What one should not do is to judge the tenets of a culture out of the context of that culture and consider that culture to be "primitive" simply because some of those tenets do not fit well in one's own preferred culture.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 42 by bluethread]

Not everything that you claim your wife did is a capital offense.

But some is ....

And if we DID live in a society bound by the "covenant" (propaganda) of your version of "God" ...

I take it you would be amongst those willing to cast the first stone.

And I really do hope you do not think the OP story was any more real than the Mt. Sinai story.

I put it to you we are dealing with evidence-free fantasy.

And some of us are more capable of distinguishing between fantasy and reality.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 42 by bluethread]

Not everything that you claim your wife did is a capital offense.

But some is ....

Yes, a few are. So, it would probably be good too focus on those and not muddy the waters with lesser accusations.

And if we DID live in a society bound by the "covenant" (propaganda) of your version of "God" ...

I am not sure why you are labeling the Covenant propaganda. It is a written code and it has been agreed to by some. That is the nature of a covenant, regardless of whether it involves a deity or not.

I take it you would be amongst those willing to cast the first stone.

No, because I did not witness the things to which you are referring. The first stones are to be caste by the witnesses and only after conviction at a proper trial.

And I really do hope you do not think the OP story was any more real than the Mt. Sinai story.

I put it to you we are dealing with evidence-free fantasy.

And some of us are more capable of distinguishing between fantasy and reality.

I accepted the story as stated for the sake of this discussion. Since, as I stated, I never witnessed any of this, all I can do is take your word for it and compare your assertions regarding how one would hypothetically act with nature of the commandments in the proper cultural context. Whether your wife actually did any of those things is really not relevant to this discussion.

[StuartJ]

The Jewish Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) serves as a common religious reference for Judaism. Stoning is the method of execution mentioned most frequently in the Torah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning

The Talmud describes four methods of execution: stoning, pouring molten lead down the throat of the condemned person, beheading, and strangulation op. cit.

One may examine a culture with as independent and indifferent a mind as possible.

It is not bias to develop opinions based on evidence.

[StuartJ]

The late American Calvinist and Christian Reconstructionist cleric Rousas John (R. J.) Rushdoony, his son Mark and his son-in-law Gary North, supported the reinstatement of the Mosaic law's penal sanctions. Under such a system, the list of civil crimes which carried a death sentence by stoning would include homosexuality, adultery, incest, lying about one's virginity, bestiality, witchcraft, idolatry or apostasy, public blasphemy, false prophesying, kidnapping, rape, and bearing false witness in a capital case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning

Some righteous Christians would also be only too willing to see my (hypothetical) wife stoned to death.

And if I look closely at the list, I too would need to duck for cover on at least two counts ....

[bluethread]

The Jewish Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) serves as a common religious reference for Judaism. Stoning is the method of execution mentioned most frequently in the Torah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning

The Talmud describes four methods of execution: stoning, pouring molten lead down the throat of the condemned person, beheading, and strangulation op. cit.

One may examine a culture with as independent and indifferent a mind as possible.

It is not bias to develop opinions based on evidence.

Yah, wikipedia is where I go when I want to get an in depth understanding of a culture.

First, can you direct me to the non-Jewish Torah. I haven't seen a copy of that yet.

Second, the most mentioned form of execution is indeed stoning. If that was the point of this thread, why didn't you say so? What is this mucking about with ten different offences, most of which do not involve execution, let alone stoning?

Third, the Talmud is not Scripture. It is commentary and I treat it as such. I see no support in HaTorah for such things as pouring molten lead down the throat of the condemned person, beheading, and strangulation. If you have references that support these things from HaTorah, please provide them. That would be the "Jewish" Torah and not all of those other Torahs.

That said, if you wish to consider the Talmud as overriding HaTorah, I hope you noted, in the wiki article, that the Talmud standards for stoning are:

(A) while about to do the crime were warned not to commit the crime while in the presence of two witnesses (and only individuals who meet a strict list of standards are considered acceptable witnesses); and
(B) having been warned, committed the crime in front of the same two witnesses.

Also, I hope you noticed that, in the commentary of the Mishnah, "A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called destructive."

It is also noteworthy that it is Maimonides who wrote the oft quoted principle, "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death."

In short, you might be overstating your objection "a tad bit".

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 44 by bluethread]

The Hebrew term for covenant is berit, meaning “to bond or fetter.� It is translated into the Greek as syntheke, “binding together� or diatheke, “will, testament.� In the Bible, then, a covenant is a relationship based upon mutual commitments. It typically involves promises, obligations, and rituals. The terms testament and covenant can be used interchangeably, though covenant tends to be used for the relationship between Jews and God. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-covenant-248630

No one ever offers the smallest scrap of any sort of evidence that any biblical covenant/testament involved any version of "God".

Which leaves us with them being nothing more than the work of humans.

Humans, who, in the biblical case, will stone people to death - or pour molten lead down their throats - if they break these human-written laws.

And - because stoning is prohibited in all but a handful of religion-ridden jurisdictions - we may see that a culture that has or does advocate stoning is considered primitive and barbaric ... (and I'm going to throw in superstitious as well. It's my personal view).

And I'd say Maimonides (and others) was of the same opinion as most of the rest of the world is now about the barbaric practices of his culture ...

Because he - like most people of faith I know - looks like he is trying to wriggle out of what is clearly written in his "scriptures".

And it looks to me like you too are trying to whitewash your "scriptures".

Biblically, my hypothetical wife should be stoned to death ...

Wriggle and omit and obfuscate as people of faith may ...

It's clearly there in "The Word of God" for all to see ...

And obey ....

[Bust Nak]

Moderator Comment

Please avoid accusing another of distorting a reply.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

It looked blatant to me too ...

Moderator Comment

Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 44 by bluethread]

The Hebrew term for covenant is berit, meaning “to bond or fetter.� It is translated into the Greek as syntheke, “binding together� or diatheke, “will, testament.� In the Bible, then, a covenant is a relationship based upon mutual commitments. It typically involves promises, obligations, and rituals. The terms testament and covenant can be used interchangeably, though covenant tends to be used for the relationship between Jews and God. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-covenant-248630

No one ever offers the smallest scrap of any sort of evidence that any biblical covenant/testament involved any version of "God".

Which leaves us with them being nothing more than the work of humans.

Sure, the presumption of the Torah Covenant is theistic. However, that is not inherent in the concept of a covenant. If your objection is that the Torah Covenant is theistic, we can discuss that. However, I have not argued that point so far on this thread. I think it might good if you were to settle on what it is we are discussing here. You started with a specific legal question, then wondered why I would give a legal answer directed at that specific question. You then wondered if I knew that the specific legal question was based on a hypothetical situation, as if that would change the way the law was applied. Then you shift the focus to the death penalty followed by equating commentary with the tenets of a covenant. Now, you are arguing that there is no covenant, because parties to the covenant can not verify the existence of the party with whom they say they have made the covenant to your satisfaction. If that latter is the case, then your hypothetical is irrelevant. No covenant, no hypothetical. So, what is it you are asking about? How a covenant, that you say does not exist, applies to a specific hypothetical situation? The ethics of the death penalty? The discussion of Torah culture in the Talmud and Mishnah? Whether a society can have covenant even if they can not verify one of the parties to that covenant? Or, something else. It is rather difficult to address the question of the OP, if you continue to change that question.

Humans, who, in the biblical case, will stone people to death - or pour molten lead down their throats - if they break these human-written laws.

As I noted before. There is nowhere that I know of in the bible where pouring molten lead down someone's throat is even mentioned, let alone mandated.

And - because stoning is prohibited in all but a handful of religion-ridden jurisdictions - we may see that a culture that has or does advocate stoning is considered primitive and barbaric ... (and I'm going to throw in superstitious as well. It's my personal view).

Yes, you and a majority of modern cultures do see it that way. So, if that is your point, why the listing of offences, most of which do not carry the death penalty, let alone stoning?

And I'd say Maimonides (and others) was of the same opinion as most of the rest of the world is now about the barbaric practices of his culture ...

Because he - like most people of faith I know - looks like he is trying to wriggle out of what is clearly written in his "scriptures".

Yet, you are using the Talmud and Mishnah as sources regarding the meaning of HaTorah. Which is it? Are the Talmud and Mishnah authoritative, or are they just attempts to "wriggle out of what is clearly written in his "scriptures""? As I clearly stated, I see them as commentary and not conclusive.

And it looks to me like you too are trying to whitewash your "scriptures".

How so, what I have not accurately presented with regard to HaTorah?

Biblically, my hypothetical wife should be stoned to death ...

Wriggle and omit and obfuscate as people of faith may ...

It's clearly there in "The Word of God" for all to see ...

And obey ....

You say it is clearly there. So, please provide the reference in the Scriptures where a woman married to a man who is not part of the Covenant, living in a community that is not part of the Covenant, is subject to the penalties of the Covenant, without regard for the due process stipulations of the Covenant? In short, what specifically is it you are saying I should obey?