Would You Stone Sinners As Required By The Bible If You Lived In Otest

[PhuturePriest]

Your face is a real bastard.

[Credo in Deum]

It's in context. Haydock doesn't explain it in regards to the OP quotes regarding stoning sinners. Don't call it ridiculous unless you can reasonably explain why it isn't related. Jesus is clearly saying he is bringing conflict with those that don't put him and God first. How is that not consistent with t h e admonish from God to stone sinners?
How about explaining what the difference is, tying in and giving examples of other Jesus directives of mercy to sinners, while maintaining a consistent (even some development) of the message from and relationship with God/Jesus who are of the same person/mind.

It's mush easier to ridicule then to defend or explain. Snarkily, I would say it can't be defended or explaied because it fundamentally can't be done, or you're just not up to the task and maybe shouldn't have posted. There are lots of Christians who ould use that to justify stoning, or others to point to it and denigrate the fundamentals of Christianity.

 

Haydock doesn't explain it in the context of stoning sinners because the verses you posted have nothing to do with stoning sinners or punishing opposing family/unbelievers, but rather they deal with the righteous being persecuted by their loved ones because they love Christ.  Our family will hate us because we will prefer His will over theirs.   Jesus is saying the good thing He brings - His Gospel - will end up causing conflict.  Yet the Gospel isn't the source of the conflict, the sinners are the ones that are the source of the conflict because they hate being reminded that they are living sinful lives.  They hate those (even their loved ones) who adhere to Christ's Gospel, because their good lives show the sinner their depravity and trouble their conscience.   Did you read the commentary for verse 34?

 

 

 

Ver. 34. I came not to send, &c. That is, dissension and war, in order that the false peace of sinners may be destroyed, and that those who follow me, may differ in morals and affections from the followers of this world. The sword, therefore, is the gospel, which separates those parents who remain in infidelity, &c. &c. &c. (Menochius) --- It must be observed, that the gospel does not necessarily of itself produce dissensions amongst men, but that Christ foresaw, from the depravity of man's heart, that dissensions would follow the propagation of the gospel. The blame of this, however, does not attach to the gospel itself, since those who embrace it, after their conversion sought more than ever to keep peace with all men, even with their most bitter persecutors; whilst those who rejected the gospel, forgetting even the ties of kindred, persecuted even to death the followers of Christ. (Haydock) ---Send peace, &c. Indeed before Christ became man, there was no sword upon the earth; that is, the spirit had not to fight with so much violence against the flesh; but when he became man, he shewed us what things were of the flesh, and what of the spirit, and taught us to set these two at variance, by renouncing always those of the flesh, which constantly endeavour to get master over us, and follow the dictates of the spirit. (Origen)

 

Please tell me how verses which tell believers to follow Christ and to endure persecution even from loved ones for His sake, relate to punishing sinners by stoning them?

[Winchester]

Your face is a real bastard.

Get your own shtick, you damned fetus.

[picchick]

I am a woman...I don't think I would be allowed to in the Old Testaments time.

[PhuturePriest]

Get your own shtick, you damned fetus.

 

No.

[Anomaly]

I know Anomaly would. He's a real bastard.

My mom vehemently disagrees that I'm a bastard, but those who know me love me regardless. That's a policy I support.

[Anomaly]

Haydock doesn't explain it in the context of stoning sinners because the verses you posted have nothing to do with stoning sinners or punishing opposing family/unbelievers, but rather they deal with the righteous being persecuted by their loved ones because they love Christ. Our family will hate us because we will prefer His will over theirs. Jesus is saying the good thing He brings - His Gospel - will end up causing conflict. Yet the Gospel isn't the source of the conflict, the sinners are the ones that are the source of the conflict because they hate being reminded that they are living sinful lives. They hate those (even their loved ones) who adhere to Christ's Gospel, because their good lives show the sinner their depravity and trouble their conscience. Did you read the commentary for verse 34?


Please tell me how verses which tell believers to follow Christ and to endure persecution even from loved ones for His sake, relate to punishing sinners by stoning them?

Pretty good job getting there, finally. I practically had to make a map for you. Wasn't that more fruitful than dismissing my challenge as ridiculous? As "out there" as dairy seems some times, there is a lot more sincirety than she is credited with.

[Perigrina]

"this  tread of yours is nonsensical and lame, my dear"

 

it's pretty straightforward actually. if you ilved in those days, you'd surely be a jew as was Jesus right? so would you follow biblical commands to stone people? the bible says God commanded many of them, and even Jesus is quoting God as commanding it. so, would you stone people as commanded by "God"?

 

I very well might stone people as commanded, since I tend to be a rule-following sort of person.  If I were an RPG character, I would have a lawful, good alignment.  

 

On the other hand, I was raised Jewish and I was not a rule-following sort of person then.  I was pretty rebellious and wild when I was Jewish.  I was not ready to obey God until I understood that He loved me enough to send His Son to die for me.  I needed to know about the love and mercy of God in order to obey Him and I was not able to get that from the Old Testament alone.

 

Anyhow, I think it is a good question for exploring some important philosophical issues.  I don't think it's lame.

[Credo in Deum]

Pretty good job getting there, finally. I practically had to make a map for you. Wasn't that more fruitful than dismissing my challenge as ridiculous?

http://youtu.be/3Sz-7dH_17M

 

Your "challenges" should come with a disclaimer. 

[Anomaly]

Your "challenges" should come with a disclaimer.

As should your face.

[Credo in Deum]

[Credo in Deum]

:paperbag:

Edited May 31, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[dairygirl4u2c]

i have seen a couple say they would stone them as dictated. but it is still next to no one.

 

the real question then, is how is it acceptable for you to say no? if you claim to be christian and accept its history as given etc, you must be compelled to say yes.

(i personally have reservations about accepting its history, but not to get into that, but more to examine the consistency of people etc)

 

 

how could it be otherwise? and what does it say about you that you would think otherwise?

[Credo in Deum]

i have seen a couple say they would stone them as dictated. but it is still next to no one.

 

the real question then, is how is it acceptable for you to say no? if you claim to be christian and accept its history as given etc, you must be compelled to say yes.

(i personally have reservations about accepting its history, but not to get into that, but more to examine the consistency of people etc)

 

 

how could it be otherwise? and what does it say about you that you would think otherwise?

 

The real question is why do you expect Christians to follow the Torah?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i dont expect them to, today. im asking if they were a jew living in the days of the OT.

 

it is said that the bible is without error, and it says that God dictates that stuff.

Edited May 31, 2014 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

not from others, directly from "God"

 

'Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses. (Numbers 15:32-36)'

[dairygirl4u2c]

and apparently, though i do question its accuracy history etc of this one snippet... jesus said it too. (i would guess he said it as in "if God says" as in "if" "since" "supposedly God says" etc.)

 

''Matthew 15
Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’''

 

================

 

it really makes me wonder about the psychi of people who just ignore it and continue living such conservative and or fundamentalist lives. i can't help but conclude it's mostly social, psychological, culture etc causing them to be as they are.

[Dr_Asik]

This question is pretty meaningless. The death penalty was viewed as acceptable to most people of the time, and stoning was a particular way of carrying that out that was deemed acceptable by Jews of time and codified as law. Therefore, if I or anyone else lived in that society at that time, it is likely we would view it as acceptable. We simply wouldn't have access to our current-day ideas about human dignity and compassion, so it is unlikely we would find good reason to deem it immoral. Mentalities change.

 

If however the question is whether my present self, teleported back in time, would agree with stoning people to death, then the answer is different but equally obvious: no, because my 2000 A.D.-era sensibilities would apply.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Dr_Asik

[dairygirl4u2c]

but it says that God ordered it, so how could you oppose doing it?

 

that sort of argument might work for explaining why women don't have to wear hats in church, as the new testament paul said, but it doesn't work too well for this.

 

is God pro using the death penalty for stupid sh** but we aren't? don't we have to follow God?

 

if God is willing to kill people for that stuff, doesn't that mean it's not wrong to kill them? or in fact mean it's the right thing to do? or that the crimes deserve the death penalty? i mean 'deserves death' in a detached since, maybe, but actually killing someone?

[Credo in Deum]

but it says that God ordered it, so how could you oppose doing it?

 

that sort of argument might work for explaining why women don't have to wear hats in church, as the new testament paul said, but it doesn't work too well for this.

 

is God pro using the death penalty for stupid sh** but we aren't? don't we have to follow God?

 

if God is willing to kill people for that stuff, doesn't that mean it's not wrong to kill them? or in fact mean it's the right thing to do? or that the crimes deserve the death penalty? i mean 'deserves death' in a detached since, maybe, but actually killing someone?

 

You might find this helpful.

 

http://www.umdcatholic.org/Northern%20Cross/OldTestamentLaws.pdf