christians should just reject 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!
In your opening statement, you seem to be saying the following three things.
1. Stoning is barbaric
2. Jesus and God is loving so...
3. Stoning (and the Bible) is wrong
I will take each of these as they have been given.
1. Stoning is barbaric
As both you and the Muslim you have posted has said, stoning is barbaric and savage act. For those who don't know, stoning is the act of throwing stones at a criminal until death. I say that this is not right. The Muslim and you have not taken into account the changing times. Even the Muslim wrote ( me paraphrasing) if stoning in the old times is okay, why is it not today. The point is that stoning may have been the most reasonable execution method in those days. The only other option was either to banish and let them die a slow miserable death, or bladed death. However, blades were not made for the chopping of heads back than, so you could live through three or more chops, feeling them all. At least stoning you could be knocked out and quickly killed.
2. Jesus and God is loving
This statement is very true, but misleading. God is loving, but he is also a right one. God can not allow sin, so there much be punishment for such. He wasn't going to allow a sinful person to continue to live in his people, sine the Bible gives us several examples of one bad person making a huge bad family. Jesus, on the other hand, is a different story.
3. Stoning ( and the Bible) is wrong
Jesus brought into this world a new law. Many people is confused by what this law implies, but the main thing is that moral laws are still in place, but social laws are not. That's why we don't have the diet or clothing laws any more, but murder and stealing is still a sin. This also brought about the idea that we as a people have no right to judge someone on their sins, that's God's job.
So in closing: Stoning WAS right. In the old times, since sin would escalate to effect the whole group. Stoning was also the most humane way to kill someone back then. Stoning ISN'T right now since Jesus brought a new law that got rid of the old ways.
for example, he says God cannot allow sin, and he says it was a reasonable executino method or not the worst. problem, is that we shouldnt think God would kill everyone for everything under the sun. that's just not loving. you can argue it is, but it's based on yoru own sordid understanding if so. con did show how it was no longer our place to stone given the new law but how it was once our place. it may not be but how was it before?
1. I would like to say that several times in the Bible it talks about stoning being right. You have even posted some in your first comment. I would also like to state the several times in the Old Testament does it speak of God killing sinners to prevent their sins from going on. How can you ask for "Biblical Proof" if it says it very clearly in the Bible.
2. As I have stated, Jesus coming brought about a new law. The old law was in place to show individuals and the nation how to STAY pure. With the death of Jesus, we ARE pure, and the law is meant to show you how to spread the word. That's why social laws, which was meant to keep us pure, is gone but the moral laws, the ones saying what's right and wrong, is still in existence.
3. So just to put this into easier terms ( as I have wrote it difficult) I have examples.
A. Old Testament- someone commits the sin of murder. They are stoned because 1. Stoning is the best way to kill and 2. His sins can affect the whole nation as sin tends to be contagious. So to keep themselves pure, they stone him.
B. New Testament- someone commits the sin of adultery. They are not stoned because 1. The new law allows them a way out of sin permantly and 2. We no longer have to worry about trying to be pure, as we already are pure. His sins will only affect sinners.
moral v other laws. i concede you have a plausible argument for why some rules are no longer in effect and some are. problem, goes back to Jesus saying stoning is wrong, essentially, and the general notion that stoning is barbaric to begin with anyway, which in itself should be presumed something to be rejected by christians, just because of the nature of it and circumstances that it was done in.
as to your examples, i repeat what i said above in this post. id always point out that the OT had stoning for far more than just murder, but more trivial sins too, like dishonoring one's parents, etc.
1. Whether we should put more emphasis on Jesus or the Bible is a impossible question since they are both right. Jesus never says that the Old Testament is wrong, just that things are different. Stoning could have been the best thing in old times, but Jesus changed that.
2. You state that stoning was also done for more trivial things, so I will give you this. James 2:10 says that if you keep the whole law, but stumble in one point, you are guilty of the whole law. There is no such thing as a trivial sin. They can all ruin the nation. Look at David and Bathsheba. David's first sin was not going to war like he should have, and that escalated to adultery and murder.
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.