christians should reject that stoning so much, was ever ordained by God
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!
Pro claims that stoning as punishment for a myriad of sins has never been ordained by the Judeo-Christian god, Yahweh. She also uses 'God' and 'Jesus' interchangeably, which implies that she accepts the somewhat controversial doctrine of the Trinity.
I feel obligated to point out the many 'crimes' in the Bible that are punishable by death and explicitly call for the method of execution to be stoning. Breaking Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36), failing to scream loud enough while being raped (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), cursing God (Leviticus 24:10-16) and rebelling against your parents (Deutoronmy 21:18-21); just to name a few.    
To defend her position, Pro refers to the story of Jesus and the adulterer in John 8.
Jesus is confronted with a woman who has been accused of adultery. The Pharisees say to Jesus that Mosaic Law-Leviticus 20:10 to be specific-dictate that she be put to death by stoning and ask of him his opinion. Jesus famously says that "He that is without sin among [them], let him first cast a stone at her." The crowd dissipates without stoning the woman." 
This passage has been mistaken by many as a display of mercy on the part of Jesus. This is not the case; he is merely following Leviticus 20:10 which says that:
""If there is a man who commits adultery with another man"s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend"s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."
According the Leviticus 20:10, both the man and the woman are to be put to death without partiality.
Note that in John 8, there is no male adulterer present, only a female one. To carry out the execution would be against the Mosaic Law. 
Furthermore, John 7:53-8:11 isn't even present in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts of the Gospels. 
Jesus was an ardent supporter of Mosaic Law. In Matthew 15:1-4, Jesus chastises the Pharisees for failing to keep the Mosaic Law by not stoning children who curse their parents. Exodus 21:15-17 demands death. So much for gentle Jesus, meek and mild.  
this is your best point. I don't know what to make of it, I cannot deny. I wouldn't neceesarily say he was an ardent supporter though. the best point in your case is tha if you look the verse up it says that Jesus said God said that they are to be put to death, those who dishonor father and mother.
I would have to argue that this could be a typo, or minor mistake, in that Jesus might have meant the OT says that, not necessarily God. I would also have to argue perhaps he meant they are not even fulfilling their own standards, but instead choose to follow the laws they agree and set up for themselves.
otherwise if we assume that passage Is accurate we would have to assume it was God who ordered their death. and from that, if we are to remain Christian, use the other arguents Christians use for why the law no longer applies. as mentioned.
your other points are very weak. no where does the OT say let he who is without sin cast the first stone. it calls for you to cast stones. so Jesus is essntialy changing direction here.
in the case you mention about adultery, it's reading too much into it to say they didn't stone her cause the husband wasn't present. It doesn't say they have to be stoned at the same time or anything else.
Pro alludes to arguments that conclude that the Law is no longer binding. Well, according to Jesus, it does. In Matthew 5:17-19 (The Sermon on the Mount), Jesus says:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." 
In Matthew 15, Jesus chastises the Pharisees for disobeying the Law, which calls for the stoning of deviant children. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says that Mosaic Law is to be obeyed. These are the commandments that Jesus himself gave; he is, according to the doctrine of the Trinity, God.
Pro calls my refutation of her opening argument 'weak'. Well, Leviticus 20:10 says that both the man and the woman are to be put to death. To my opponent I ask: where is the accused man? The Pharisees in the story attempted to misapply Mosaic Law.
Finally, Pro has not even attempted to explain how those direct calls for stoning found in the Old Testament can be anything but.
he didnt says specifically that deviant childrent should be stoned.
you are still reading too much into the passage to think because the man isn't mentined that that was why she wouldnt eb stoned. the man could be taken care of elsewhere.
conventional wisdom and bible context shows let he who is without sin etc shows that Jesus was nt for stoning, at least no longer for it.
"the bible also says that Jesus overthrew the requirements of the nail having "nailed them to the cross". in collassions. most say this means jewish law is no more, but moral law still exists. this could mean stoning is no more, even if God and Jesus were at one time for it. jesus did say let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Bare assertion; I'll just dismiss this.
"he didnt says specifically that deviant childrent should be stoned."
Please refer to Matthew 15:1-4 and Matthew 5:17-19.
"you are still reading too much into the passage to think because the man isn't mentined that that was why she wouldnt eb stoned. the man could be taken care of elsewhere."
I have already addressed this.
My opponent has failed to to meet her burden of proof.
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.