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

[dairygirl4u2c]

again, i dont have issue with why we dont follow the OT laws now. i have issue with why wouldnt you folks as a jew living in the OT days stone people?

[Credo in Deum]

I can't speak for the others.  If I was a Jew back then, then I would follow the Torah. 

[Perigrina]

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?

 

 

This is why people do not like the question, because either answer feels wrong.  It is quite similar to an incident in the life of Christ.  People brought a woman to Him and she was someone to whom the stoning penalty applied.  They were trying to trap Him because He would look bad if He said to obey the Law but He would also look bad if He said to stone her.  As you may recall, He did not answer the question directly.  So it is not so surprising that people do not want to answer you.  

[Dr_Asik]

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?

 

Present-day Jews and certainly all Christians would agree that God doesn't actually encourage lapidation. But God doesn't change his mind. So how come it's written in Leviticus that God ordered Jews to stone people for certain crimes? I guess there are basically two ways to go about answering this:

 

 - The Jews were widely paraphrasing God when writing Leviticus. God might have said something to the effect of "Worshipping other deities is abhorrent to me", and then the Jews codified that into a set of precise rules and punishements in accordance to the mentalities of their time. That meant stoning people that commited the worst offences. So God never ordered a cruel punishment, but that's how the Jews interpreted His commands.

 

 - God actually told the Jews to stone people to death for the worst offenses, but only for temporary and pedagogical purposes, i.e. that was the only way Jews of the time would have understood that he was really serious about it. Later, God sent Jesus to give out better moral principles and evolve beyond this temporary set of laws.

 

Regardless, in both cases, it was morally right for a Jew of the time to stone people to death for certain offenses, either in a relative sense because that was considered moral at the time, or in an absolute sense because that was what God actually told them to do. I personally lean towards the first explanation because I find it repugnant that God could actually order acts of cruelty, but I don't exclude that possibility because if God orders something then that makes it morally right, if only in that specific case. I don't think we need to go into that debate however, because the first explanation is perfectly acceptable and presents much fewer difficulties.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Dr_Asik

[Credo in Deum]

 

Regardless, in both cases, it was morally right for a Jew of the time to stone people to death for certain offenses, either in a relative sense because that was considered moral at the time, or in an absolute sense because that was what God actually told them to do. I personally lean towards the first explanation because I find it repugnant that God could actually order acts of cruelty, but I don't exclude that possibility because if God orders something then that makes it morally right, if only in that specific case. I don't think we need to go into that debate however, because the first explanation is perfectly acceptable and presents much fewer difficulties.

 

For me I think if we could see the effects of sin then we would probably see the death penalty as an act of mercy and maybe it was to the Old Testament Jews. Like today, some think it is unfair to spend an eternity in Hell for one mortal sin.   I just look at it as we do not fully comprehend the utter depravity and seriousness of sin, which is why we cannot at the present time understand God's ways of dealing with obstinate sinners.   

[Benedictus]

again, i dont have issue with why we dont follow the OT laws now. i have issue with why wouldnt you folks as a jew living in the OT days stone people?

 

Maybe because they're not Jews lving in OT times :detective: They don't have the same culture, upbringing, ideas, culture, politics, religion, social problems and so on. You're expecting them to have an alien and generational tranplant back in time frankly. Of course they don't think the same. You're also taking a very literal fundamentalist view of the texts, without the grounding in Judaic studies to inform what did happen (rather than what the text implies to you).

[Perigrina]

Well said. Basically the question is "if you were not you, what would you do?"  I have enough trouble knowing what I'm doing when I am me.

[Justin Netzel]

If i was a Jew living in the Old Testament you can bet I would stone people. That was their culture. Look at St. Stephen and how quick they were to stone him. I posted this part in the other forum but maybe its better here lol ..If you look at the rather strict OT laws they were all a precursor to Christ. It showed how strict man had to be in regards to sin as it brought the wrath of the Creator down upon mankind. It also showed a justice that we can't understand fully because we can't understand how sin distorts our nature and thereby offends God. When He came He fulfilled the law so that sin no longer brought the wrath of God on man as God Himself through Christ took all of the wrath upon Himself through His ignominious death on the cross. Take for example the law of scourging the bondwoman and the man after they fornicate and then the man has to go offer a sacrifice. Christ fulfilled this precept through the scourging at the pillar and then offering himself as the Spotless Lamb. There are also numerous other laws that when you look through the schema of the Passion you see the fulfillment of the Mosaic law. Hence the famous "I will have mercy and not sacrifice". Now we get the Mercy of God merited through Christ's passion when we faithfully confess our sins to Jesus as he is our advocate for the Father. Gotta love me my Jesus

[Selah]

We aren't under the old covanent.

 

Question are moot.

[Ice_nine]

I just stoned three people last week.

 

Does that answer your question?

[Credo in Deum]

I just stoned three people last week.

 

Does that answer your question?

[Selah]

I just stoned three people last week.

 

Does that answer your question?

 

[Mark of the Cross]

Fortunately I've been enlightened by the New Testament. So the question is easy whether I'm stoned or not. :hehe2:  That is if I were living in a society where such an action were dictated by a book, I hope I would have the good sense and the conscience to reject those things which if misinterpreted would cause inner conflict with the spirit that resides within. :spike:

[Credo in Deum]

I just stoned three people last week.

 

Does that answer your question?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[maximillion]

Jesus came to fulfill the Law. He did so mostly in 'replacing' it with the Law of Love.

 

Love supersedes everything else. 

 

So  I guess I find the question a bit pointless, we don't live in OT times, we live post Jesus and I can't see the point in busting a gut over trying to make a decision I will never be called upon to make in reality.

Edited June 6, 2014 by maximillion