Christians should just forsake their religion's history of stoning
Debate Rounds (3)
my guess is that that muslim, given his emotional investment, decided to continue thinking stoning is okay. his emotional response shows he probably has an issue with it too, but decides to compare notes and rationalize his beliefs, despite how obviously barbaric they are.
it seems ironic he took the route of justifying his complicitness with stoning in his culture. he was able to do this by comparing himself to chrisnitanity. he as a follow up asks for where stoning was every over turned explicitly, but doesn't note that Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". to me it seems that God never was for stoning. if the bible says that he was, as it does, and as he points out, then the bible is wrong. i'd argue it was jesus himself who said it was wrong, and who essentially points out the bible is wrong too.
one could try to argue as colassians says, that the requirements of the law have been done away with having "nailed them to the cross". and from this, that things like stoning are no longer required. i'd argue though, that from what Jesus said, and what we can gather about a loving God, stoning is wrong. otherwise a Christian would be forced to admit that stoning was one time okay, the will of God.
that's just ridiculous.
Stoning in the Bible
One can often find Christians attacking Islam due to the issue of stoning, they claim that this proves that Islamic law is barbaric, and is backward! For instance Christian apologist David Wood has released a new blog thread on his answeringmuslims.com site concerning a stoning that took place in Somalia:
David Wood posts the story as a bad thing; and it obviously works since the comments from his Christian fans show that they obviously disliked what happened, and this can be seen from many other Christian apologists and their supporters.
All of this brings me to the main point, what in the world are these Christians talking about? Have Christians failed to read their Bible? If one were to read the Bible, then one would know that the stoning that took place in Somalia is 100% Biblical!! So it makes you wonder, are these Christians hypocrites? Or are they simply ignorant?
In fact, the Bible doesn't just call for stoning on adultery, but calls for stoning on a whole range of issues! Here are the Biblical passages on stoning:
anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death. (Leviticus 24:16)
If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death?the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)
If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5)
If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
'A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.' (Leviticus 20:27)
While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 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)
But seat two scoundrels opposite him and have them testify that he has cursed both God and the king. Then take him out and stone him to death." (1 Kings 21:10)
Now Christians may give us the same usual response, that the verses on stoning come from the Jewish Bible, so it doesn't apply for them. Okay, that's fair enough, but the question remains, why do you attack Islam for supposedly being barbaric because it calls for stoning? Stoning laws may not apply to modern day Christians, but they're still in the Bible, and stoning laws from the Bible did apply in one point in history! So if stoning laws are barbaric and backwards, then the same should apply to the Bible, the Bible was backward and barbaric for establishing stoning laws in one point in history!
Furthermore Christians have a problem with the issue of stoning, the reason they oppose it is not because stoning doesn't apply to them anymore, and rather Christians have a major issue with the stoning itself. They see it as savagery, barbarism, and something terrible. So if Christians want to be consistent, then they should also condemn their Bible for having stoning laws, because I repeat, Christians have a problem with the stoning itself, their problem isn't because stoning laws was for the Jews only! If Christians are honest enough they will even admit it, that they're main problem is with the stoning itself, not that the time of stoning is no more.
So Christians just prove their double standards, they will savagely attack stoning in Islam, calling it barbaric, brutal, and backwardness. Yet they will completely ignore it when it's in their own Bible, and they will continue to praise their God for being so holy and lovely!
I accept. I would like to clarify one thing before we begin. I am not too familiar with the teachings of Islam, and therefore do not pass any shape or form on it.
1) Pro states: "In fact, the Bible doesn't just call for stoning on adultery, but calls for stoning on a whole range of issues! Here are the Biblical passages on stoning:" I would like to point out that all of the Bible references Pro used were from the Old Testament. First let us define Old Old Testament:
Old Testament: "The first part of the Christian Bible, comprising thirty-nine books and corresponding approximately to the Hebrew Bible." 
The Old Testament pertains to the Jewish history of Christianity. Now let's define Christian:
Christian: "A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings." 
A Christian is a follower of Christ. Christians do not follow everything the Old Testament taught. Instead, they follow after Christ and the New Testament.
Christ did not teach that sinners should be stoned. Pro mentions that the Bible teaches that adulterers should be stoned, so let's use that example. In St. John chapter 8, the Pharisees brought an adulterous woman before Jesus. They asked: "Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?" (John 8:5).
Jesus essentially said that she should not be stoned and instead, be forgiven. If Jesus taught that sinners should not be stoned and Christians follow the teachings of Jesus, Christians do not believe that stoning sinners is right.
In fact, Christians believe that they should love their neighbor as Jesus taught. Stoning people is not a loving act. Therefore, it is not a belief of a Christian.
In conclusion, since all of the Bible verses you quoted are from the Old Testament, they no longer pertain to Christian beliefs.
2. Pro states: "So it makes you wonder, are these Christians hypocrites? Or are they simply ignorant?" Pro ends by saying: "So Christians just prove their double standards, they will savagely attack stoning in Islam, calling it barbaric, brutal, and backwardness. Yet they will completely ignore it when it's in their own Bible, and they will continue to praise their God for being so holy and lovely!"
Pro seems to think that Christians are hypocrites. But do Christians meet the definition of hypocrites? Since Pro did not define hypocrisy, I will define it for him.
Hypocrisy: "The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense." 
Once again, Christians follow Christ's teachings. Jesus taught to love your neighbor, and that sinners should be forgiven, not stoned (see point #1). Pro claims that Christians criticize Muslims for stoning people. I do not know if this is true or not either way. Therefore, I shall assume some Christians criticize some Muslims for still practicing stoning. I have shown that Christians have the moral standards they claim to have. Therefore, they can criticize Muslims for stoning people (if they do), as Christians don't believe stoning is morally right.
3) Pro states: "if Christians want to be consistent, then they should also condemn their Bible for having stoning laws, because I repeat, Christians have a problem with the stoning itself, their problem isn't because stoning laws was for the Jews only! If Christians are honest enough they will even admit it, that they're main problem is with the stoning itself, not that the time of stoning is no more."
In ancient Israel, religion was the law. More specifically, the Law of Moses was the law. After Christ came along, and the Church of Jesus Christ was founded, the Law of Moses was no more for its members. Instead, they have the New Testament. As I have stated before, Jesus did not believe in stoning, and its members did not.
I am Christian, and I do not believe in stoning, and I believe that "the time of stoning is no more." Once again, Christians live the New Testament. They no longer live the Law of Moses.
Pro has failed so far to prove his point that Christian logic is flawed, and that they are in fact hypocrites. Christians do not believe that stoning is right, and have never practiced stoning. Therefore, they have every right to criticize those who still practice it if they have a problem with it.
it is an issue for them. even con says Christians "no longer live under the laws of Moses". if he acwknowleeges that it was once their religion, then there must be a history there with practices to reject. so, they should reject it. con seems to say Christians aren't into stoning anymore, so he must agree it's something worth rejecting.
also, the bible says that Jesus said he did not come to overturn the laws, but to fulfill them. that means that he is acknowledging his history, which most say is the law of Moses. which includes stoning etc. that means there's something to reject, and something some might say is a valid part of their history.
if the bible says this, it is giving credibility to at least being th way things used to be, God ordained. this is why a fundamentalist even if he isn't into stoning as it's no longer the way things are, would still give the arguments I listed above for why it was God directed and such. con doesn't really address bible fallibility issues or whether it was God to begin with. he just seems to be saying Christians don't believe in it, but not what that means per the history of stoning.
it's hard to follow what exactly con is getting at and why.
I would like to thank Pro for their arguments.
To begin I would like clarify something. Pro believes that Christians should reject stoning. I am arguing that they already have rejected it, as they don't agree with stoning, nor do the practice it. Let me elaborate.
Pro states: "if he acwknowleeges that it was once their religion, then there must be a history there with practices to reject. so, they should reject it."
Yes, Christians do have a Jewish history. Christians already have rejected it; they've rejected it since Christ started the church. I am a Christian and I know several other Christians. None of us used to be Jewish, as we do not practice the Law of Moses. I'll expand on this later.
Pro then states: "the bible says that Jesus said he did not come to overturn the laws, but to fulfill them. that means that he is acknowledging his history, which most say is the law of Moses. which includes stoning etc. that means there's something to reject, and something some might say is a valid part of their history."
Yes you are correct, Jesus came to fulfill the laws. However, he didn't come to fulfill the Law of Moses. He came to fulfill the higher law, also known the New Testament. "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood." (Luke 22:20) Everything in the Old Testament was preparing, and prophesying of the New Testament.
The resolution states: "Christians should just forsake their religion's history of stoning."
My argument is not that they should, it is that they already have. 'Should' and 'already have' are two different things. If one were to argue that they should forsake stoning, that would mean that they still practice and agree with it. I am arguing however, that they already have forsaken it. This means that they don't practice it, or agree with it.
In fact, the Christian church has never stoned one sinner. The Christian church does not endorse stoning. Never has never will.
Although Christianity may have Jewish roots, they no longer practice them. They instead follow after Jesus their savior. As I have established earlier, the Old Testament testified of the coming of Christ, and his church. Christians follow after Christ's teachings. Christ did not teach that stoning was acceptable. Instead, he taught that they should instead be forgiven and loved. Christianity has never endorsed stoning. Therefore, Christians have already rejected the act of stoning.
but that aside, the point is that the christian should acknowledge that it was never God who ordered the stuff to begin with. if that means the bible isn't infallible, so be it. even though i made these points before and the last post, the heart of it all, con hasn't addressed it but just reverts back to saying that christians already forsake stoning in the modern age. he misses the point.
It appears that I have mistaken the argument. I would like to apologize for not having the debate go as intended, and I appreciate your concession of the resolution. It seems as if the debate was a whole misunderstanding. I was arguing against the resolution while Pro was arguing something completely different.
For these reasons, I urge users to let the debate pass as a tie, as the whole thing was a big misunderstanding. I would like to thank Pro for having this debate with me, and although it was a misunderstanding, it was worthwhile.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.