Back in 2005 there was a minor furore when Labour MP Ashraf Choudhary stated he agreed with the Koran’s teaching that people who engaged in homosexual conduct or who committed adultery should be stoned to death. In the media spiral that followed, some commentators pointed out that it was not just Islam that held this view; Christians are committed to the same conclusion. Consider Deuteronomy 22:22 “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel” or Leviticus 20:10 “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbour—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death. Often passages like this motivate a rhetorical question “why don’t Christians today stone to death women who commit adultery? After all, this is what the Bible commands isn’t it?”
I’ll make two points in response to this. First, those who press this line of argument assume that these commands are addressed to contemporary Christians. This is a dubious assumption; the laws occur as part of a covenant or vassal treaty between the tribes of Israel and God. While some of the laws expounded in this treaty reflect rules of justice and equity applicable to all people, Gentiles were not parties to this treaty nor were gentile Christians required to be – something the New Testament spends a lot of time elaborating on.
Second, and this will be my main focus, this line of argument assumes that these apparent laws function like modern statute law; the assumption is that they are literal and binding commands to kill people who had committed certain crimes. It is also assumed that the author of these laws expected them to be carried out. Interestingly, it is precisely this assumption which many scholars of these laws have questioned. Here I will spell out some reasons why they do so.
Comparisons between Leviticus and Deuteronomy and other ancient Near Eastern (“ANE”) law codes suggest they are the same genre. One feature of such codes is seemingly harsh penalties. In old Babylonian law, the hand that assaults was severed; a man who kissed another’s wife was to have his lips cut off; a person who stole bees was to be stung by bees; a man who raped another’s wife would be sentenced to having his own wife or daughter raped; a negligent builder whose house collapsed and killed another’s son would be sentenced to having his own son killed, and so on.
ANE expert Raymond Westbrook notes that these prescribed punishments are both inconsistent with the actual legal practice known to have occurred in these cultures and are often inconsistent with themselves. He notes, “some law codes impose physical punishments and others payments for the same offenses, while some codes have a mixture of the two.” The contradiction is only apparent because, “in highlighting one or the other alternative, the codes are making a statement as to their view of the gravity of the offence.” He argues that the laws “reflect the scribal compilers’ concern for perfect symmetry and delicious irony rather than the pragmatic experience of the law courts.” Westbrook concludes that the method used in ANE legal texts was “to set out principles by the use of often extreme examples.”
A similar point is made by Old Testament scholar John Goldingay who suggests that many of these laws “were not intended to be enforced” but rather were “promulgated to indicate the moral and social priorities of the law giver.” They functioned to express certain ideals of behaviour, to denounce actions like adultery as really bad and intolerable rather than to define precise penalties for these actions.
Westbrook points to the practice of “ransoming” an explanation of how this worked in application. In ANE legal practice a person who committed a serious crime would be considered to have forfeited their life or limb but this did not mean they were executed or mutilated. Instead, they could “ransom” their life or limb by making a monetary payment and/or agreeing to some lesser penalty usually set by the courts. These texts were written and read with the background assumption that penalties would often be ransomed and not literally carried out.
Westbrook is not alone in this view. In a study of ANE laws JJ Finkelstein notes the absurdity and impossibility of putting many of these laws into practice. One Babylonian law, for example, stated that a physician whose patient died in surgery or was blinded by treatment was to have his hand cut off. Finkelstein remarks that “it is inconceivable that any sane person in ancient Mesopotamia would have been willing to enter the surgeon’s profession if such a law were literally enforced.” On the other hand,
“if a system of ransom were assumed where the life of the builder or his son could be redeemed and the hand of the physician could be redeemed by pecuniary ransom, these laws would not only have an admonitory function (for which the more graphic statement of the penalty–execution or mutilation–is more effective), but would also be practical as law.”
He concludes that the laws,
“were not meant to be complied with literally even when they were first drawn up, [but rather they] serve an admonitory function. If one would be bold enough to restate Hammurabi’s 230 as a direct admonition it might run to this effect: “woe to the contractor who undertakes construction and in his greed cuts corners.”
Right back to early rabbinical times, commentators of The Torah have noted it appears to operate with the same assumption. For example, Exodus 21: 29-32 deals with a case where if an ox gored another person to death due to negligence on the part of the owner “the owner also must be put to death” but the very next verse states “if payment is demanded of him, he may ransom his life by paying whatever is demanded.” The text literally demanded a person be put to death but assumed the punishment would be substituted for a fine set by the courts.
This is borne out with other examples. Not only is ransoming implicitly assumed in many of the Old Testament laws about homicide but reading the text this way explains many features of the text which otherwise appear inexplicable.
Gordon Wenham observes that “according to Deut xix19 false witnesses were punished with the punishment the accused would have suffered if substantiated”. So the penalty for falsely accusing a woman of adultery was not execution but rather an unspecified punishment alongside a monetary fine. Wenham concludes that a monetary substitution must have been envisaged in this text if it was to be read as coherent and consistent.
This conclusion seems to be strengthened by the fact that only a few chapters later Deuteronomy 24:1-5 deals with a case where a woman was divorced for committing adultery; the woman was clearly not executed as she married another man in verse 2. This makes sense if the capital sanctions for adultery functioned as admonitory devices and in practice a ransom was made as a substitute, but it does not make sense if the woman was required to be executed.
A further example occurs in the book of Kings where a person had committed a capital crime. The sentence was announced as “a life for a life”; however, the immediate context shows what this sentence was: “It will be your life for his life or you must weigh out a talent of silver.” Old Testament scholar Joe Sprinkle notes that “‘life for life,’ in the sense of capital punishment, has an explicit alternative of monetary substitution.”
Perhaps the clearest example is in Numbers 35. At least seven times in close succession the text states, “the murderer shall be put to death”; however, the text proceeds to state ”‘Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death.” Here the text assumes the existence of a practice of substituting capital punishment for a fine exists that there is a risk it might be applied in this instance and so it explicitly forbids it in this circumstance. Sprinkle contends “The availability of ransom seems to have been so prevalent that when biblical law wants to exclude it, as in the case of intentional murder, it must specifically prohibit it”. Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser draws the same conclusion,
“The key text in this discussion is Num 35:31: “Do not accept a ransom [or substitute] for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death.” There were some sixteen crimes that called for the death penalty in the OT. … Only in the case of premeditated murder did the text say that the officials in Israel were forbidden to take a “ransom” or a “substitute”. This has widely been interpreted to imply that in all the other fifteen cases the judges could commute the crimes deserving of capital punishment by designating a “ransom” or “substitute”. In that case the death penalty served to mark the seriousness of the crime.”
So, it is not at all clear that the Old Testament ever commanded Christians to stone to death women who commit adultery. As useful a rhetorical club for contemporary secularists as this claim might be, it involves transposing modern assumptions about law back onto an ancient literary genre and practice. The genre of the passages, in light of the common ANE legal practices and customs, suggests that most capital sanctions functioned as a kind of rhetorical denunciation which expressed, in vivid form, a moral ideal. Further, in practice, a ransom was paid and the punishment was not literally carried out; it was not statute law demanding the killing of adulterers.
I write a monthly column for Investigate Magazine entitled “Contra Mundum.” This blog post was published in the May 2011 issue and is reproduced here with permission. Contra Mundum is Latin for ‘against the world;’ the phrase is usually attributed to Athanasius who was exiled for defending Christian orthodoxy.
Letters to the editor should be sent to:
ed*******@in*****************.com
RELATED POSTS:
Contra Mundum: Why Does God Allow Suffering?
Contra Mundum: “Till Death do us Part” Christ’s Teachings on Abuse, Divorce and Remarriage
Contra Mundum: Is God a 21st Century Western Liberal?
Contra Mundum: In Defence of Santa
Contra Mundum: The Number of the Beast
Contra Mundum: Pluralism and Being Right
Contra Mundum: Abraham and Isaac and the Killing of Innocents
Contra Mundum: Selling Atheism
Contra Mundum: Did God Command Genocide in the Old Testament?
Contra Mundum: Fairies, Leprechauns, Golden Tea Cups & Spaghetti Monsters
Contra Mundum: Secularism and Public Life
Contra Mundum: Richard Dawkins and Open Mindedness
Contra Mundum: Slavery and the Old Testament
Contra Mundum: Secular Smoke Screens and Plato’s Euthyphro
Contra Mundum: What’s Wrong with Imposing your Beliefs onto Others?
Contra Mundum: God, Proof and Faith
Contra Mundum: “Bigoted Fundamentalist” as Orwellian Double-Speak
Contra Mundum: The Flat-Earth Myth
Contra Mundum: Confessions of an Anti-Choice Fanatic
Contra Mundum: The Judgmental Jesus
Tags: Adultery · Ashraf Choudhary · Capital Punishment · Contra Mundum · Gordon Wenham · Investigate Magazine · J J Finkelstein · John Goldingay · Old Testament Ethics · Raymond Westbrook · Walter Kaiser92 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
The fact that those with enough money could get away with these crimes by paying fines, but the poor (who could not pay the substitute) would presumably be still executed makes it more repulsive not less!
What this amounts to is the poor being executed, while the rich rulers could get away with any crime they wanted, while still using the law as a stick to control the less well positioned… how little things change.
Why can’t you just accept that these people lived in a society with a less well thought out and less humane society? What do you think is at stake that you go to such efforts to excuse the often inexcusable?
Matt,
While it is clear that some condemnations for the death penalty in the Old Testament were rhetorical (we were discussing this at the Temple near where I live, as it is a Jewish view as well). No one would really kill a child for not obeying its parents, or we’d have no surviving Jews today, right?
However, the stoning for some offenses seems to have been actually practiced. Jesus is continually avoiding being stoned for blasphemy in the Gospel of John (three times), and Jesus intervenes in the stoning of a woman caught in adultery (though this is in the Joahnnine comma).
James the Just was also stoned by the Sanhedrin, so it did actually occur.
It might also be useful to point out that the Sanhedrin outlawed capital punishment in AD 30, and that in order to be stoned (according to the Talmud), there must be a trial of 23 jurors and the offense must have happened in front of TWO eyewitnesses (it was rare).
Christians are not bound by Torah law of stoning in any case, as Jesus contravened several OT laws (divorce for example).
m, you are continuing to impose 21C assumptions on the economic sideas well.
This wasnt a society of individuals , rather a society of families, collective responsibility was the norm. Provision is made for indentured service where debts cant be paid. Furthermore some of these problems belong primarily to people who have the time and money to indulge themselves.eg if you are so poor that you are out gleaning fields just to eat there really isnt any time in your life for adultery.
You may also like to consider things like cities of refuge, years of redemption and jubilee.I am sure some aspects of the society were less humane than ours, but others were infinitely more humane. Our own society, aborts millions each year for personal convenience, abandons old people, has an economy predicated on greed and conspicuous consumption, and possiblythe highest suicide rates in history. On what basis do you claim we are more humane than any previous society. We just fail in different areas and are blind to our own faults.
Jeremy… No. I am not. And yes you are right that SOME elements of their society were doubtless better. But Matt seems to be on a crusade to whitewash anything negative about this ancient culture – which is just odd…
“We just fail in different areas and are blind to our own faults.”
You are probably right. And it would be foolish to try to whitewash all of OUR problems, and pretend that injustice does not exist where it plainly does. The same standard just needs to be applied to other cultures rather than romanticizing the past.
Very informative article.
It does actually add to the non-Christian critique of the Old Testament ie it is not literally true and is not meant to be read or interpreted as such. It certainly makes far more sense when read in the manner you suggest.
That said there are Christians who do take a literalist and inerrantist reading of the text and who would consequently disagree with your analysis.
I am inclined to think that capital punishments were carried out, though for some crimes the victim may be satisfied with a fine rather than a death.
It is not certain that Deut 24 refers to adultery. It could, but it could be otherwise.
Chris Bowers,
You write as if the Bible is undisputed fact. You say “so it did actually occur”, but where is the evidence? The Bible itself is simply a book as old as time. To say that it is irrefutable truth is naive.
So I inquire, how is it one can come to such a certain conclusion? The obvious answer here is to believe in God. But won’t that bring us back to the Bible again, since it is said to be God’s word? How is it one can be sure that the Bible itself is not a fallacy?
Hi, just found this site, looks very interesting!
Couple of questions about this piece, I’m a little bit confused about your position.
Even if the extreme punishments described didn’t happen very often or even at all, isn’t it implied that they were still thought to be good and fair? They did come from God after all. While ransom was the preferred choice, there was still nothing evil about stoning someone if they chose not to pay?
And now you say that they aren’t morally acceptable punishments? So has God changed his mind about what is right and wrong?
Even if the Old Testament laws don’t apply to Christians (do they?), it is still God who set these Old Testament laws in his covenant with the Israelites. Did He make evil laws back then, or is stoning someone if they decline to pay a ransom still a morally upright course of action in the right context?
I understand that society was extremely different back then and it is meaningless to judge people in the past by todays standards, but God then was the same God that exists today; have His standards changed too?
Disclaimer: I’m an apostatized ex-Christian, currently somewhere between an atheist and an agnostic, but keeping an open mind.
Just looking at some of these comments.
facepalm.jpg
Max, or should that be the writer formerly known as Max 😉 try extending the benefit of the doubt to the people recorded in the Bible. If you wouldn’t gladly execute someone for a minor offence (or even a moderately serious one), what makes you think they would? We already know from the Bible that their laws prescribed only fines/servitude for theft, while other legal codes prescribed maiming, (although again, probably commuted to a fine) because they regarded human life as more valuable than property. They placed a high value on human life, which is why they executed murderers. We don’t, we let murderers live.
Chris, if I recall correctly the Romans deprived the Jews of the right to inflict capital punishment about 11AD. That’s why they had to get Pilate involved to execute Jesus. It was the reason for the catch 22 they offered Jesus over the adulteress. Agree with the death penalty, and show himself a rebel against the Roman law, or reject the judgement and show himself a traitor to the traditions of their fathers stripping him of authority in the eyes of the populace. Of course Jesus was smarter than they were. Blasphemy was a crime against God, and taken very seriously by Jews. It wasn’t covered in Matt’s article above.
Paul, you really have to develop some understanding of the word inerrancy. Basically it means without error according to the standards of the people who wrote it. If they didn’t expect a “literal” set of punishments, but rather exaggerated denunciations that would be reduced to a series of fines under the judgements of the elders, then the interpretation Matt proposes is inerrant.
That’s why Christians should use the term “historical grammatical reading” (rather than “literal reading”) coupled with a study of the historical context in order to try to understand what the texts meant to the writers.
Really, watching people flailing at a strawman (even if it is one believed by a lot of Christians unfortunately) provides both amusement, and a certain amount of frustration.
Belial, duplicate facepalm. As historical records go, the Bible is as good as anything else we have from that era, and better than most. It doesn’t require an assumption of inerrancy or irrefutability. It just requires the same assumptions we’d make of Julius writing of his Gallic wars, that the writers aren’t deliberately trying to deceive us.
Sam, where does Matt say that the punishments weren’t morally acceptable? What he does say is that the wooden literalism applied to them by ignorant twentieth century readers is invalid given the historical context.
Certainly punishments were harsh. The social situation was such that everyone depended on everyone else for survival. There wasn’t room for conscientious objectors when the Amelekites were coming to slit throats. The punishment of a rebellious son might seem brutal, but it makes sense when you realise that there was no social welfare. Your children would look after you in your old age, just as you looked after them in their youth. A young man who showed no respect to his parents was a social misfit that could not be tolerated. I don’t recall any accounts of a son actually being put to death, and it probably was not acted on, but it did act as a reminder to the wayward.
God’s laws, among other things, were concerned with keeping Israel alive and distinct from the surrounding populations. Rules against intermarriage kept out the cultures of the foreigners (something Solomon for all his wisdom forgot) purity laws governed the food they eat, and how they dressed ensuring a degree of difference no matter where they lived.
The moral laws established standards that would keep the Israelites from behaving like the peoples that were being driven out of the land before them. God demanded, and still does demand, a certain level of behaviour from those who profess to be his servants. When the Israelites did break those laws, God drove them out of the land too.
@ Jason:
“Paul, you really have to develop some understanding of the word inerrancy. Basically it means without error according to the standards of the people who wrote it. ”
Is that your definition or do you have some authoritative declaration that says that ?
You see, if you’re right then the discussion really begins, because then we have to compare the past with the present.
I’m all for that. I’m just curious as to who will decide and will that be a gloss on the Biblical text ?
“Belial, duplicate facepalm. As historical records go, the Bible is as good as anything else we have from that era, and better than most. It doesn’t require an assumption of inerrancy or irrefutability. It just requires the same assumptions we’d make of Julius writing of his Gallic wars, that the writers aren’t deliberately trying to deceive us.”
How do you know they were not trying to deceive us? You cannot prove it, correct? So therefore we assume. Thus, we cannot prove that the Bible was not written as fiction, therefore we assume. So, God is an assumption. That is what you are saying. Sometimes when you push your beliefs upon people, it bites the hand that feeds. Your hand.
Also, can I just make another point, what if a book was discovered that was as old as the Bible itself, and in the single page of this ancient book was written “God is a fallacy”. Would you accept THAT as truth, simply because it is as old as the Bible, surely they would not be trying to deceive us? No, of course not, it must be truth. Do you see what point I am trying to get across? The point being that you have no proof.
Belial: Matt (the author) accepts that the Bible is true, at least for the most part, as do I. Biblical accounts are written testimony, and that is a form of evidence. Since Matt and I both accept that the Bible is pretty accurate we are talking to each other. If you don’t agree that the Bible is in any way accurate, then the whole conversation is moot.
Jason: You are correct that execution was against roman law at the time, but that doesn’t mean that mobs didn’t stone people in defiance of that law. It seems they were trying to get Jesus to break that law as you said. Do you dispute that they were trying to stone Jesus repeatedly in John? Adultery was considered just as serious a crime as blastphemy. Are you saying that they would stone for one and not the other? And if so, so what? They’re still stoning people, which is what Matt tries to disprove in his article.
Hi Jason,
Thanks heaps, but I’m still having a bit of trouble getting my head around this.
You’re right, Matt doesn’t say the punishments weren’t morally acceptable, but he does go to lengths to make us understand that they weren’t actually followed literally. If they aren’t bad, how is this relevant? Why defend them?
Was it really a case of ‘this is what the law says, but you’re not really supposed to follow it’?
And then you give the social context as an excuse for the punishments. So as long as there is no social welfare for old people, it is ok to stone disrespectful sons? There are plenty of countries today with no old age pension. That’s probably over simplifying things, but your point is that as long as certain environmental criteria are met, there is nothing wrong with it?
Or is the answer some ugly combination: ‘it’s ok to to have this law because of the social context provided that everyone knows it’s one of those special laws that they aren’t actually supposed to follow.’
Can you see why i’m confused?? What the hell are you saying, people??!
Haha I’ve got it!!
‘The social context means that it’s good to have laws that say you can stone someone, but if you stone someone you’re a bad person’.
What Matt is saying is really simple, these laws have a context which includes the culture they belonged to and the literary conventions the writers wrote within. You cannot understand what is being said without knowledge of both these aspects of context. Trying to understand using late 20C legal, cultural and writing conventions will lead you to wrong conclusions about what was intended, what happened and the humanity and justness of that society.
“try extending the benefit of the doubt to the people recorded in the Bible. If you wouldn’t gladly execute someone for a minor offence (or even a moderately serious one), what makes you think they would?”
Because i know of other societies which exist in the modern world that would do this… it is not as alien as you seem to be implying. We (as 21st century westerners) are the exception not the rule. Oddly I have been accused now of both (i) thinking the ancients were too similar to us and now (ii) (by you) not thinking the ancients were similar enough to us! It seems that whatever justification can whitewash the best will be offered!
“They placed a high value on human life, which is why they executed murderers. We don’t, we let murderers live.”
Well they executed murderers because they did not have a prison system as well… big part of it. And yes they valued slaves as property – sure. And I am not saying they would kill any offender at the drop of a hat – but lets not fall into the trap of being historical revisionists and painting the past in romantic colors. It was a brutal world.
Hi Jeremy, that makes sense thanks, I agree with you entirely.
It seems to me that because times are so drastically different, it is meaningless to speculate about whether or not these old laws are good or bad.
This means that we can’t look to the OT for any sort of moral guidance in our lives today. The best we can say is that if someone is stoned for adultery TODAY, that is bad. It is just an irrelevant historical curiosity that it wasn’t always bad.
However, Christians say that the God who exists now is the same God who existed then, so if something that was good in the past is bad in present, and their moral guidance comes from God, and the ancient Israelites moral guidance came from God, then God’s idea of right and wrong has changed. Funnily enough, it has changed in exactly the same way as societies idea of right and wrong has changed (correlation not implying causation, it could just be coincidental?).
So thanks for trying to explain this to me, but I think I’ll stick with my current theory: God doesn’t exist, and as society has changed, we have changed our definition of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ to whatever the hell suits us at the time, kind of like the definitions of the words ‘democracy’ and ‘terrorist’ in America’s foreign policy. Groups which cling to old interpretations find themselves isolated from society and either eventually either die off, or get throwing in jail for stoning people. This survival of the most socially acceptable interpretations leaves only the new moral standards to be called ‘Godly’.
And if you can point to old ideas of good or bad which haven’t changed because you feel are still good or bad today, this is nice but essentially meaningless, because you have already decided for yourself. You arrived at this decision because you are a product of your time and the society you grew up and live in. If you try to claim that your sense of right and wrong is from God, you are putting your own words in his mouth (figuratively speaking). You have created a new God to suit yourself because you don’t have the rocks (get it?) to stone your son when he get’s stoned (yup, also just tried to make a pun about drug use. sorry, I’ll stop now). This is just like the Israelites who, motivated by economics and tribal politics, created a God who conveniently thought that it was evil to marry non-Israelites.
We have created God in our own image.
Chris,
Your backwards logic is difficult to comprehend. I started the conversation arguing HOW. How can the Bible be proof? You say it’s proof because it’s the Bible. That’s ridiculous. You can’t just say that something is because it is. There needs to be some sort of evidence for it. Evidence that you, and since you brought Matt into this, Matt are lacking.
The Bible in itself is NOT proof. From my point of view I can see your logic is as follows:
The Bible is true because it is the word of God.
so
God is true because he is in the Bible.
so
The Bible is true because it is the word of God.
Do you see? It’s ridiculous and as mentioned before, there is no evidence to suggest that the Bible is real.
As for “written testimony”, now you are just being childish. I too could write anything and claim it as evidence since as you say, it is written testimony.
Now unless you have some proper forms of argument that don’t defy logic, please refrain from speaking with me. Thanks.
@ Jeremy
“What Matt is saying is really simple, these laws have a context which includes the culture they belonged to and the literary conventions the writers wrote within. You cannot understand what is being said without knowledge of both these aspects of context. Trying to understand using late 20C legal, cultural and writing conventions will lead you to wrong conclusions about what was intended, what happened and the humanity and justness of that society.”
No argument from me 🙂
Sam G
you are confusing they way a society recorded and applied laws with what the laws are about
Presumably you are not a fan of being assaulted, killed, raped, having you food stolen from you or you girlfriend cheating on you, or being cheated out of your fair wages etc.
Right and wrong have not changed through out history. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you, seems to be pretty well universal in its application across culture and history. The reason we have had and still need to have law is not that things change but that people really dont. As much as we know perfectly well what we dont like done to us, we still treat other people badly and in ways we wouldnt want to be treated. Go and check out the crime rate in any contemporary western country. I guarantee you nobody being charged with assault, stealing, extortion wants those things done to themselves. If you think about it , this is one of the things so ironically wrong with revenge, doing back to someone what you already didnt like being done to you.
Dont confuse the practical details of a legal system with right and wrong. eg using prison to punish people is not an option to a nomadic people.
The fact that those with enough money could get away with these crimes by paying fines, but the poor (who could not pay the substitute) would presumably be still executed makes it more repulsive not less!
That would be a valid point if I had claimed this is what happened, or if there was evidence that this was what the author of these laws mean’t. But given you have not provided any evidence for this statement, and I certainly did not come across anything suggesting this in the sources I cited, I don’t really see what I am supposed to respond to here.
Why can’t you just accept that these people lived in a society with a less well thought out and less humane society? What do you think is at stake that you go to such efforts to excuse the often inexcusable?
Well I never said anything about there society in general I was talking about how one understands the laws in the torah.
But let me say that I do recoil a bit at modern western superiority complexes. Which suggest that there culture is morally correct and ancient people were less “moral” or “rational” as we are. I am inclined to think that where we have made gains its due to accumulative knowledge from our ancestors, I also think in some areas it could well be other societies have mores we could learn from.
Chris.
I am not sure the torah does command a person to execute a “child” in the sense of a minor for “disobeying”.
My understanding is the case law there probably refers to an adult child and exactly what rebellion mean’t in the case law was probably more severe than mere disobedience.
But two your comments, first I am heartend you are aware that the views I express are a fairly common jewish interpretation that goes back centuries. Because many people I talk to react as though I just made this up.
But to your points.
First, you addressing the issue of wether stonings occurred. But my post was on wether the law commanded people to stone others the vein of modern statute law or served some other illocutionary function such as admonition. Pointing out people did stone does not really answer this.
Second, the cases you mention are almost all extra judical cases, as Judaism was not legally allowed to execute, more over the kind of stonings Jewish avoided were more like mob stonings or lynchings. I think this does not really provide much evidence that the torah correctly interprets commands these things. Its not uncommon today to hear of riots, or brawls where people loose control and stone the police or other peoples cars and so on. Now one would consider this evidence that the laws in NZ allowed this.
As for the example of Jesus, I don’t think Jewish contravened jewish law, his comments in the sermon on the mounts suggest he was not doing this, what he did was interpret it.
His comments on divorce, for example I think were him offering an interpretation of the torah, and his claim is that Deut 24 dealt with a case where a women was divorced for adultery and she remarried. Which is evidence that the laws against adultery were not intended to be literally carried out.
Similarly, Joseph was said to be righteous because he wanted to put mary away “quietly” and not make a public example of her. Which again suggests the law does not command stoning adulterers. I could mention other examples, such as Paul’s interpretation of the stoning passages as demanding some form of exile. Or Jesus’s exposition of the “eye for an eye” which assumes it’s a proverbial statement not a literal tallion But the point is as Christian’s we accept the old testament as authoritative as interpreted by the new testament. Criticisms of Christian ethics which fail to grasp this point attack a straw man.
Paul, you could look at the Chicago Statement of inerrancy which is the standard typically used by more conservative evangelical churches. Here are some relevant sections
Here is the preface
Sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy and held at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare in the fall of 1978. The Chicago Statement was signed by over 300 noted evangelicals, including (in alphabetical order) James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Jay Grimstead, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham. The Chicago Statement established inerrancy of the Bible once again as the accepted, orthodox view within evangelical circles.
This suggests the statement is pretty mainstream among conservative evangelical’s.
Article X
We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the authographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant. …
Article XIII
We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations. …
Article XVIII
We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.
We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.
And
We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of his penman’s milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.
So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: Since, for instance, non chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.
So the extreme literalistic reading that atheists attribute to conservative evangelical Christian’s is, a caricature.
@ Matt:
It seems to me that there are two issues
1) on whose authority was that declaration issued ? ie do the authors and signatories claim divine guidance ?
2) Is there a glossed Biblical text where this is all highlighted appropriately ?
Hi Chris,
Yes, I agree with you. The Golden Rule of treating others as you want to be treated is the best guidance we can have in living our lives today. Thinkers came to this conclusion long before Christ, and you don’t need to believe in the supernatural to think that it is the best way to treat others.
Ian Wishart in The Divinity Code tries to say that this in itself isn’t enough, because some people might have kinky sexual fetishes involving pain, and for them to treat others as they want to be treated themselves would clearly not be appropriate. Because of this the golden rule should be treat others as you would want to be treated IF YOU WERE THEM. I don’t want people to put their hands together and say ‘sawbadee’ to me, but when I’m in Thailand I know it’s what I would appreciate if I was Thai, so I do it to them.
So yup, agree with you entirely, we don’t need the Bible to tell us how to live our lives. But none of this is relevant.
Matt has been talking about the punishment, not the initial offense, from the very start. I agree that I wouldn’t want my partner to cheat on me, but maybe you didn’t notice, but the title of this article is ‘Stoning Adulterers’, not ‘You Probably Don’t Want to be Cheated On’.
So again, your ethics come from practicality. Capital punishment is fine for nomads, because they don’t have facilities to lock up murderers. What about adulterers though? Oh but that’s right, it’s one of those special laws that you’re not supposed to follow anyway.
Or are you saying it is meaningless to even discuss wether punishments are good or bad? Is torturing someone to death for not paying their parking ticket not necessarily better or worse than fining someone a couple of dollars for rape and murder? Is it all relative to the resources available to the judges?
The issue is that these punishments were decreed by God. If a judge today decreed such punishment, he would be a psychopath. But the same God is still alive today, so has he changed his mind about what is a suitable punishment? Or does he still think that death penalty for adulterous women was acceptable back then because the circumstances were different? Do his ethics arise from practicality like yours, and he still thinks death penalty for a cheating wife is acceptable provided certain criteria are met, like if she could cause disharmony in a tight knit tribal community that needs to stay tight knit because it’s fighting for survival? Again, funny how God has changed his idea of suitable punishments in perfect unison to how society has changed its ideas of suitable punishments.
Hi Matt,
Where does this leave us in using the Bible to guide our lives and behaviour today? Doesn’t this mean that if parts of the Bible don’t suit you, you can just say that they need to be interpreted in their historic context? If you are interpreting the Bible like this, then trying to see how these interpretations are relevant to us in todays context, isn’t todays context actually the authoritative source of our morals?? Is this the reason why different Christians can read the same Bible, and still disagree on what it says about issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc? We already know what we think is right and wrong, largely based on whatever suits us, and then can interpret the Bible so that it agrees with us, because its supposed to be looked at in its historic context, not actually taken literally?
Also I think Paul has two very good questions, and look forward to reading your answers to them.
Paul, once again you are demonstrating that you can not see past the caricature of crude fundamentalism.
You ask
1) on whose authority was that declaration issued ? ie do the authors and signatories claim divine guidance ?
No one claimed “divine authority” Protestants never claim that a theological body or council has divine authority. The declaration was made and signed by hundreds of leading Conservative evangelical scholars, therefore it is provides a fairly accurate and representative account of what Conservative evangelical theologians mean when they state the bible is inerrant.
If your going to criticise a theological position you need to accurately represent it.
2) Is there a glossed Biblical text where this is all highlighted appropriately ?
No, but I don’t put any truck on the claim that every theological position people adopt on the basis of scripture and reflection taking into account different pieces of relevant information must be “glossed” in the biblical text. Again apart from a very crude fundamentalism which no body I am aware of holds, no body holds this view.
Matt,
A statement of this calibre should be able to claim to be God inspired to be taken seriously. At least implicitly, and often explicitly, these men and women who lead congregations put themselves forward as helping people to understand Gods will. They are the closest thing the congregation has to being Gods spokesperson. Of course each individual can have a personal relationship with and receive messages from God, but the pastors of churches generally have the final say if there are contradictions.
Perhaps they should have put a disclaimer after the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy, something along the lines of ‘God hasn’t told us this, but we’re guessing that this is probably right because it seems to make the most sense to us, and we’re pretty smart people when it comes to religious stuff.’ To not put this is being deceptive, because people are going to presume that it is divinely inspired. Just like they assume that their pastors sermon each sunday is, if not divinely inspired, at least CORRECT instead of a best estimate.
What else was just a best guess?
I’m not a history buff, and my sole reference here is wikipedia, but the ‘fact’ that Christ and God are two different sides of the same entity wasn’t a fact until after the council of Nicea. This was very controversial because a lot of members of the council thought that Jesus was actually Gods son in a more literal sense, so was distinctly separate and inferior. Is the existence of the trinity actually the truth straight from the horses mouth? Or just what a bunch of people in Nicea thought was probably the case?
It’s blind leading the blind!! It’s like taking an exam with no answer sheet, you can guess, write down whatever seems to make the most sense to you at the time, and it doesn’t really matter because you’ll never know if you actually got it right or not! This is ridiculous!
Which books made it into the Bible and which were apocryphal was decided by men. Were they divinely inspired? Or just picking the books which made the most sense and were the most consistent with their views?
I can actually predict the future:
You are going to say that the selection was divinely inspired.
This answer from you is NOT divinely inspired, though. Or perhaps it is. I don’t know, has God told you directly that the books of the Bible were specifically selected by him?
Even if he doesn’t tell you this, you will say that the books of the Bible were divinely selected, because if you don’t, then you can’t say that the Bible is actually the word of God. It makes the most sense to you, it’s your best guess, that the creation of the bible was divinely inspired, and this keeps things simple.
But how do you know that when they choose which books to put in the Bible, they weren’t using the same thought process you’re using now? How do you know the books of the Bible weren’t chosen because they were the best guess and the general consensus from the people who happened to have the power at the time. That they picked the books which didn’t contradict each other too much because that kept things simple and seemed to be the most likely to what books God would have chosen?
Hat tip to Belial.
The theological differences between the catholic church and everyone else are because of the politics of mad King Henry!! Not because anyone actually heard from God about what was right and what was wrong! Then King James got together with the puritans and both sides made some compromises and chose theologies which seemed to make the most sense to them!! If this isn’t divinely inspired, then what is??!
Grow some balls man, say that the chicago statement of errancy is a direct statement from God to man through the mouthpiece of a council of a few hundred american evangelists.
Sorry, I see you have actually already answered my previous rant:
“No one claimed “divine authority” Protestants never claim that a theological body or council has divine authority. The declaration was made and signed by hundreds of leading Conservative evangelical scholars, therefore it is provides a fairly accurate and representative account of what Conservative evangelical theologians mean when they state the bible is inerrant.”
So this chicago statement and all your columns and theologizing (probably not a word) and apologetisizing (definitely not a word) about what is good and what is bad and true and false is nothing more than your speculation on what is probably true; on what God would probably say about things like the inerrancy of the Bible, if he ever actually bothered to put in an appearance.
Its whatever seems to most logical and irrefutable once you start from the premise that god exists. You don’t actually know if what your saying is true or not, but you enjoy debating it. For you, this is just a hobby with no real significance!
Church leaders really need to explain this to their congregations. You really should have a statement saying that you haven’t heard from God, and all this is just what you think is probably the case. For crying out loud man, there are poor fools out there actually taking all this crap seriously!!
As atheists much smarter than myself (which most are, i’m just a layman) attack logical inconsistencies in your positions, you say ‘oh yeah, that can’t logically be the case. Given that we are operating in a framework where we can’t question the existence of God, then our previous interpretations must be wrong, so we’ll just have to change them to whatever makes more sense, because then that will probably be the truth.’
The irony is that you arriving at a theology that is harder to refute depends on unbelievers asking annoying questions. Your job would be much simpler if a voice spoke from heaven and said ‘the bible should be interpreted in its historical context and you shouldn’t actually stone adulterers, end of debate’. Don’t you think that that would make your position pretty hard to argue against? And anything less is just you guessing about what makes the most sense??
What a joke.
and when all your guessing is taken as the gods honest truth by the masses, you are the mastermind behind the god they all believe in! you have created your own god on whatever makes the most sense to you.
“And on the sixth day Matt created God in the image of what Matt thought Gods image probably was.”
Like I said, what a joke.
Sam G
shooting yourself in the foot with ignorance
“The theological differences between the catholic church and everyone else are because of the politics of mad King Henry!! Not because anyone actually heard from God about what was right and what was wrong! Then King James got together with the puritans and both sides made some compromises and chose theologies which seemed to make the most sense to them!! If this isn’t divinely inspired, then what is??!”
The reformation began with Martin Luther in Germany and had nothing to do with English politics. Furthermore to some extent the Puritam movement was a reform movement within the Church of England but thet didnt gain any traction with James 1.
If you want to be rude and disparaging thats your choice , you only suceed in denigrating yourself, but at least try and be accurate.
Sam pretty much everything you say is based on a simple false dictomoy. Either God reveals X or X is simply some made up guess. Thats pretty obviously a false dictomoy.
The bible does not say you exist, I have receieved no revelation that you do, does it follow I cannot know you exist, or its just a guess.
Newtons laws of gravity were not something he ascertained by divine revelation, but from reflection and research. Does it follow they are just arbitrary guesses.
Its hard to take your claim seriously.
Jeremy, thanks for setting me straight, I actually do appreciate it. I will now scurry away to do some more learning, and in the future will do my homework instead of cutting corners. Out of curiosity was the Nicea summary fairly accurate? And in your opinion, are the histories of any of the denominations and theological beliefs actually divinely inspired? If so which ones? And what about the selection of the books of the Bible? If they aren’t divinely inspired, do you think they have any validity? If so, why? Also, I am still interested in your opinion on an early question of mine to you, regarding the golden rule. Please believe me when I say I am not trying to attack anyone. I am just looking for answers, and beginning to suspect there aren’t any. I realise I did come across quite rude, and for that I apologise.
Matt,
I was under the impression we were discussing the validity of God and the Bible as a source of moral standards and guidance. If this is the case, then I still feel it is perfectly accurate to say that if you don’t get told anything directly from God then the best you can say is that you think you’ve worked out what the Bible probably means.
It’s like discussing what a famous author means in a book which differently people interpret differently. We can speculate and look at the historic context and whatever, but you will never know for sure unless the author is still alive and you can ask them. Actually no, that’s not what it’s ‘like’, thats actually what it is. Dumb analogy.
Might be better to say its like speculating that a painter was trying to capture a certain emotion in his painting. Maybe he was, maybe if you new his context at the time you could understand better, maybe he accidentally mixed that red a shade too dark, who knows? Well, if he’s still alive then you can ask him, otherwise it’s a pretty pointless question. The best you can ever hope to achieve is to get everyone alive at the time to agree that what you think the painter was trying to communicate is the most plausible out of the theories that have been presented to date.
Which is fairly trivial when talking about a painting because it has no practical application, but I’m asking why I should live my live according to the principles of the Bible, what they are, and how do you know that that’s what they are? Surely these should not be too difficult to answer. So no, actually, I don’t see the similarity between seeking guidance from God when deciding whether or not to stone adulterers, and questioning the existence of me or gravity. The only errors I can see I’ve made are from my blatantly inadequate knowledge of religious history, and it remains to be seen if these errors in anyway detract from my questions.
Matt said Either God reveals X or X is simply some made up guess. Thats pretty obviously a false dictomoy.
Not if what you are talking about is an alleged revelation from god. Either it’s a revelation from god or it’s made up.
Thank you Ryan, I struggled to put it so eloquently and concisely.
In his opening address in the Good debate with Harris, Craig said that morals come from God, and if there is no God, there is no objective standard of morals. All I’m asking is if (?) God exists, and all your objective moral standards came from him, how exactly did you receive them?
Not if what you are talking about is an alleged revelation from god. Either it’s a revelation from god or it’s made up.
But we weren’t talking about an alleged revelation, we were talking about the Chicago statement.
Matt said “But we weren’t talking about an alleged revelation, we were talking about the Chicago statement.
Yes, but the Chicago statement is talking about an alleged revelation. Same difference…
“Out of curiosity was the Nicea summary fairly accurate? And in your opinion, are the histories of any of the denominations and theological beliefs actually divinely inspired?”
The !st council of Nicea was primarily about dealing with the Arian heresy which put forward the idea that Jesus was the son of God in only some figurative sense [ in direct contradiction to the teaching of the apostles, including Paul]. This heresy was rejected overwhelmingly. Christian belief was not chosen or decided upon , just expressed formally in what we now call the Nicean creed.
The histories of the denominations are not regarded as divinely inspired in any authorative scriptual sense. Nor is Theology [ at least not in the sense that Theology is a human academic discipline concerning the nature of God etc]. Theology can be defined as the systematic and rational study of knowledge concerning God, as such it is no more or less inspired than the systematic and rational study of knowledge concerning anything else. I dont know of any Christian groups who would claim their history or theology was inspired in the same sense a christian woudl describe the Bible as inspired.
I mentioned “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” not because i claim it as an exclusively Christian idea [although Jesus raised the standard big time with his teaching on who those others might be ie any other human being not just other members of your family or tribe but all other members of the human race even your enemies], but because its a universal concept we can all understand intellectually and emotionally yet its one which we all fail consistantly to live up to. It is so simple, so completely cross cultural, it points clearly to the concept of morality, explains really simply the existance of the “is-ought” dilemma. The golden rule shows quite clearly that all humans know and understand morality and that we all fail to liveup to even this simple and obvious standard.
Matt, your response to Max and Chris is not convincing at all. You say
“That would be a valid point if I had claimed this is what happened, or if there was evidence that this was what the author of these laws mean’t. But given you have not provided any evidence for this statement, and I certainly did not come across anything suggesting this in the sources I cited, I don’t really see what I am supposed to respond to here.”
The fact that you can get away with crime such as murder is indeed repulsive. You did not explicitly claim this was the case, but the passages you cited implied it. If you can pay a fine to get away from a capital offense, isn’t it unfair to people who couldn’t afford to pay the fine?
In response to Chris’ comment, you say:
“First, you addressing the issue of whether stoning occurred. But my post was on wether the law commanded people to stone others the vein of modern statute law or served some other illocutionary function such as admonition. Pointing out people did stone does not really answer this”
Even if the stoning law mainly functioned as admonition, the stoning case in John suggests that people did take the law literally at least sometimes. And even if it only occurs occasionally, one can confidently claim that old testament laws are barbaric. And it would be more barbaric if the stoning occurred because the woman was not able to pay a fine.
“The fact that those with enough money could get away with these crimes by paying fines, but the poor (who could not pay the substitute) would presumably be still executed makes it more repulsive not less!
That would be a valid point if I had claimed this is what happened, or if there was evidence that this was what the author of these laws mean’t. But given you have not provided any evidence for this statement, and I certainly did not come across anything suggesting this in the sources I cited…..”
This is how these laws work out in every society which we know a lot about – both existing ones, and ones we know a lot about historically. Now is the time to do the flip-flop and say I can’t assume there were like us! But if you see 100 societies where the elite take advantage of the law and the downtrodden tend to be the victim of the law in certain instances,… you would have to so some special pleading to get your pet group off the hook.
“But let me say that I do recoil a bit at modern western superiority complexes.”
Yes – but you recoil all the way back into a revisionist fairytale. That is the problem which you seem aware of which is good.
“Which suggest that there culture is morally correct and ancient people were less “moral” or “rational” as we are.”
No no no. We judge them to be less moral in the instances where they do things that are less moral – like stoning people to death. We judge present cultures by the same standards (you too condemn Muslims who stone people to death.. although I wonder whether you would be an apologist for Christian groups who did similar things)
“I am inclined to think that where we have made gains its due to accumulative knowledge from our ancestors”
Fine. But don’t pretend no gains have been made. So I ask again. Why do you practice this revisionism? If you can admit that some moral codes are better than others (which you do) and you can admit that gains have been made (which you do) why can’t you just accept that the ancient nomads who stoned people to death were not as moral as we are?
“The fact that you can get away with crime such as murder is indeed repulsive. You did not explicitly claim this was the case, but the passages you cited implied it. If you can pay a fine to get away from a capital offense, isn’t it unfair to people who couldn’t afford to pay the fine? ”
But Matt will now just claim that they did not really mean this! Anything which seems harsh by our standards is to be reinterpreted to make it line up with 21st century western values… talk about anachronistic Matt! Why don’t you take your Bible seriously for once?
So far I have only had time to read up to Jason’s first comment,
and I have this to say: “Well done Jason”
@ m [did you used to be max whittaker]
“Anything which seems harsh by our standards is to be reinterpreted to make it line up with 21st century western values”
I dont get this from Matt’s comments at all. Rather the opposite, that we misunderstand completely if we insist on trying to line everything up with 21C western values. Trying to understand what people were actually saying and the context they were saying it in, isnt changing the truth to make it more paletable , its trying to find out what the truth was as opposed to making assumptions. The results may be more paletable, they may be less. But knowing at least means we dont get beaten with a stick that doesnt actually exist.
I watch and listen to the way young people use language and some of it is so totally different to my own youth. Even the context has often change dramatically in the last 30 years. Cellphones, internet, facebook, none of these existed when i was young. How much more so across millenia and cultures. I went to school with a girl named “Gay” !!
“The fact that you can get away with crime such as murder is indeed repulsive. You did not explicitly claim this was the case, but the passages you cited implied it. If you can pay a fine to get away from a capital offense, isn’t it unfair to people who couldn’t afford to pay the fine? ”
But Matt will now just claim that they did not really mean this!
No I will tell you to read and accurately present my position instead of making stuff up. Here is what I said about murder in the post
perhaps the clearest example is in Numbers 35. At least seven times in close succession the text states, “the murderer shall be put to death”; however, the text proceeds to state ”‘Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death.” Here the text assumes the existence of a practice of substituting capital punishment for a fine exists that there is a risk it might be applied in this instance and so it explicitly forbids it in this circumstance. Sprinkle contends “The availability of ransom seems to have been so prevalent that when biblical law wants to exclude it, as in the case of intentional murder, it must specifically prohibit it”. Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser draws the same conclusion,
“The key text in this discussion is Num 35:31: “Do not accept a ransom [or substitute] for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death.” There were some sixteen crimes that called for the death penalty in the OT. … Only in the case of premeditated murder did the text say that the officials in Israel were forbidden to take a “ransom” or a “substitute”. This has widely been interpreted to imply that in all the other fifteen cases the judges could commute the crimes deserving of capital punishment by designating a “ransom” or “substitute”. In that case the death penalty served to mark the seriousness of the crime.”
Hi Jeremy, again thank you for your reply.
You say that theology “can be defined as the systematic and rational study of knowledge concerning God”. This does seem to be how it portrays itself. People like Matt put themselves forward as being systematic and rational in their study of God. My concern is that in other circles a systematic and rational study of something requires things like a testable hypothesis, or else is just speculation. I’m an accounting student not a scientist so feel free to correct me again if I have got this wrong.
I do not see what evidence Matt can produce so support his hypothesis that God does not what us to stone people despite the fact the Bible tells us to. Nothing so far has moved past being merely his opinion. Is this not the case with all theological studies? If so, to define theology as a systematic and rational study is misrepresentative and dishonest. Again, if he just says that it’s what he thinks God would PROBABLY say if the big fella bothered to put in an appearance, then I couldn’t fault him. His other alternative as I see it is to say the God came to him in a dream and told him that this was the truth, and there’s no way to dispute that except to question his sanity or honesty.
I agree with you that the golden rule is the closest standard we have to being universally acceptable both intellectually and emotionally. What I don’t get is how you then say that this means there is a greater set of standards and we are failing to live up to even the simplest. To me the golden rule is proof that it’s possible, theoretically at least, to arrive at a universally acceptable standard, something along the lines of what Harris proposes, and in terms of moral guidance God is unnecessary hindrance. Hey! I’ve got a great idea! When a society has a general consensus on something like ‘you don’t want to be murdered, so a fair deal is that we ask you not to murder anyone’, and someone does murder someone, then we could have a group of enforcers, who still come under the control of the democratically elected leaders! These guys would have societies permission to arrest the murderer who has broken his contract with society, and they could then lock him away somewhere! Oh wait, that’s kind of what we already do.
I would like to go back to my earlier questions, if this is ok with you. You may feel you have already answered these by saying that we need to look at everything in it’s historical context, but I am not happy with this answer because God is supposed to be the same God regardless of what time period we are talking about.
Lets say for arguments sake that Matts article here, stating that God does not want us to stone adulterers, is divinely inspired. It is straight from the horses mouth, so to speak, and is unquestionable. As I see it, this then leaves us with several options:
a) The Israelites misinterpreted Gods message. God has never said that adulterers should be stoned. The Israelites said he did because it suited their purposes at the time, due to that fact that they were fighting for survival at in-fighting over a woman could prove lethal. The incorrect statement then made it into the Bible, and the integrity of the old testament (or at least the book which this statement appears in) is called into question.
b) The Israelites knew that because of the genre (see matts latest chocolate cake recipe piece) the statements were never intended to be taken seriously. If they didn’t take them seriously, and we’re not supposed to take them seriously, why are they even in the Bible? They are not Gods message to us, they are a mere historical curiousity. The books in question are a body of literature that has historical importance but no privileged position and can be agreed or disagreed with at will. The validity of the Bible as the living word of God given to his believers is called into question. It is meaningless to talk about divine inspiration of the passages. We are all left to arrive at our own idea of what we think is ‘good’, and why.
c) The Israelites were also divinely inspired. Somewhere in the interim, God has decided that stoning adulterers is probably a bit of an overreaction, and has reneged.
d) The Israelites were also divinely inspired. God has not changed his mind, and feels that given the right historic context, it is perfectly justifiable to issue commands to his believers that all adulterers should be stoned. For us, that fact that God tells us to means that, as I understand it, the divine command theory applies, and something, anything, is good simply by virtue of coming from God. This means that for God there are no objective moral standards, all right and wrong is subjective. For us to use God as a moral standard of all that is good is only semi-objective. God takes the form of ‘National Security’ in American Foreign Policy (second time i’ve used american foreign policy in a bad way, sorry all americans). If it is in the best interest of national security, then it is morally right, regardless of what it is. If God says it, it is right, even if it is to stone adulterers.
Have I missed any options? Or misrepresented any? The alternative is that Matt has just got it wrong, or even that both Matt and the Israelites just said whatever seemed to make the most sense to them at the time, and God never has never had any involvement.
Geez, my comments are getting enormous, this is ridiculous. Sorry guys, I don’t mean to be writing essays, will try to be more concise next time. Actually I could probably sum up my entire opinion on Matts article in six simple letters: WTF LOL
@Sam
“I do not see what evidence Matt can produce so support his hypothesis that God does not what us to stone people despite the fact the Bible tells us to. Nothing so far has moved past being merely his opinion.”
Could you tell me where God tells us to stone adulterers? [ hint read the second paragraph in Matts article]
“My concern is that in other circles a systematic and rational study of something requires things like a testable hypothesis”
Nice theory, just not a fact. How would you do testable hypothesis while studying history? People can be systematic and rational about the way they arrange their tools in the garage, no testing of hypotheses involved,is a tidy garage just speculation? [probably yes in my case!]
Should you choose to keep a diary, i guess you would do so in chronological order [systematic] and in understandable English [rational]. But how would you test the hypothesis that yesterday happened?
“Have I missed any options? Or misrepresented any? ”
Definitely misrepresentation. Matt isnt offereing alternatives. He is showing context. Historical context, literary context, and the context of other parts of the same legal code. Matt is pointing out that without an understanding of context, there will be no understanding of content.
Tell me, is driving at 50 km/hr, too fast?
Sam,
Interesting comments, btw I don’t mind the long-windedness, its gives more clarification on what you have to say on a very complex topic.
But, looking at scholars who’ve studied Theology and Christianity, There has been consensus on some minimal facts about Jesus.
That he was a miracle worker, he was a teacher, the Messiah, He died on the Cross, and appeared to his Disciples. The councils of Nicea, the Athanasian creed affirms this, where the difference lie is what substance in relation to God was he 50/50 or 100? or what sorts of practices are prioritized in the church, these are minor issues and nowhere in the NT does it affirm to kill and beat someone that doesn’t agree with universal or ‘catholic’ consensus of god or petty points of practice.
Analogous wise look at the soccer riots in russia and the G8 ruckus in Canada today, its a similar explanation on why monks in alexandria who’s supposed to be pacifistic ascetics took to the streets and beat people, because they felt compelled to act in defense of something they hold sacred, but its the divisive nature of human personality that’s to be blamed NOT the word of God. People today tend to exaggerate their emotions whenever the opposition criticizes their positions. the heated exchanges of Ruse vs. Dennett or Finkelstein vs. Devers, Non Christians mind you over issues of evolution and biblical archaeology does not mean that the whole of evolution and Biblical Archaeology is unreliable. Its a comparable exchange as Augustine vs. Pelagius over original sin in the past. Christians are human too, just as liable as Atheists and Deists to scapegoat the other (and they did during the Reign of Terror in France) as aberrant to the majority.
Its also heinous to ignore the gravity of the consequences of adultery (broken families, likelihood of kid going into crime) Contemporary society today still feels its effects of trauma and disruptiveness now, it was much more intense then in a collectivist agrarian society such as Ancient Israel where lineage is critically important to land ownership, that’s why the punishment was so harsh.
Ditto to on apostasy, where ‘worshipping other gods’ is not going peacably to houses of worship for fellowship and tea down the street, but soliciting temple prostitutes and making human sacrifices to curry favours with fertility deities, Canaanites are perfectly fine with this, but not Israel this explains why the Mosaic Law only applies to Israelites, resident aliens and slaves under the jurisprudence of Yahweh and NOT to the surrounding Nations
Sure Criminals are human too, but did the offenders ever think of the consequences of their actions and the damages they’ve done to society as a whole before they’ve committing the crime? Why is the punishment of death by stoning pilloried on the offense of adultery or apostasy? Its even more heinous if these crimes were just casually permitted with no strict enforcements to them.
Sure there’s abuse of capital draconian procedures, that’s why the Mosaic law stipulated witnesses, not to perjury and non-discrimination in the courts to counter random baseless accusations, and its not fair to judge a legal procedures morality based on the abuses alone, that’s skewed reasoning.
Sam, you also mentioned the Golden Rule’s effectiveness ‘Do unto others what others would want to do unto you” as a principle. Its questionable, if applied in practice, it would look like an ANE law code, also its unrealistic because of situational and behaviorial complexities, if a masked burglar came to your house and stole your money, its illegal for you to do the same to his belongings, practicality-wise, how would you identify the person who did it to you, because he was masked in the first place? and would you have the balls to even commit the act? given your upbringing.
If a rapist were to do one’s wife, will the victim do unto the rapist his/her wife? this was enforced by the way in the Hammurapi Code
Jeremy, I need to warn you that in the following comment I get a bit worked up, and don’t intend to offend your sensitive disposition again.
@ Jeremy:
Thank you! You’re starting to catch on! Of course there is no way to test an historical hypothesis! Any commentary on the past is speculation! Of course, if you happen to be best mates with someone who was actually there at the time (like God for instance), because then you could always just ask them. Then you’d have something more than just guesswork to base your opinion on!
But this isn’t even an historical hypothesis, it’s the here and now that I’m concerned with. In the Good debate, Craig says that God is the source of all objective morals, if there is no God, there is no objective morals. I’m not even arguing that! I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt! Ask Joe Average Christian ‘how then should we live?’, he’ll say ‘according to Gods principles’. Fine, I’ll accept that too! Next question is how do we then know what Gods principles are? ‘Well God might tell you personally, and he has left us christians his living word, Gods personal letter to the church, to the body of christ. In there it tells us what is right and wrong and how to live our lives.’ Right or wrong, you can’t deny that this is the belief of the overwhelming majority of christians.
But Matt says that the passage concerning stoning adulterers isn’t even TO contemporary christians! (second paragraph). To paraphrase: “Look at that in its historical context, its genre, and it is clearly not intended for us today.” I agree, but then why the hell is it even in there?? So the Bible is all Gods living word to guide christians in living ‘good’ lives, all except for the books of Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, which are just general ‘nice-to-know’ background information for anyone who actually gives enough of a shit to bother reading them? So they are no more significant now in the 21C than any other historical text!
And who says that these passages clearly aren’t aimed at contemporary christians? Matt! (Right there in the second paragraph.) And where does he get this information from? Well, it was the generally accepted consensus in Chicago a while back when some important christian people got together. True and false isn’t decided in democratic election! Why should I even care if 100% of the people at the 1st council of Nicea agreed that God existis in the form of a trinity! What have you got other then the fact that its the opinion of lots of smart people whose word I should just accept? All you have is just bloody speculation. All of this is just what smart theologians think is PROBABLY the way God intends for us to live.
So like Craig says, maybe God does exist and all objective morality emanates from him because his is the embodiment of all the is pure and holy. Maybe he is the absolute standard of right and wrong. But unless you’ve actually heard from him you still don’t have a bloody clue what they are! You’re stuck fumbling round in the dark like the rest of us! And you get your sense of right and wrong from your own reasoning and social context just like the rest of us. Regardless of if God is the source of objective morality, your morals are completely subjective! Then what do you do? Parts of the Bible would obviously be ‘bad’ by the standards we all agree on today, so you reclassify these as ‘not actually relevant today’! ‘Oh no, that part was obviously TO the ancient Israelites, God wouldn’t actually want us to stone adulterers today.’ How the hell do you know he wouldn’t? Have you asked Him? Do you have divine inspiration? If not, how on earth do you propose to test your freaken hypothesis??! Or is it just a matter of faith?! You presume he wouldn’t because you’re imposing your own moral beliefs on him! Your sense of right and wrong is completely independent of God and and scriptures; you got it from the social context you were born into, just like the rest of us. It’s not a coincidence that we can both agree that adultery isn’t a stoning offense!
Paul Baird asked right at the start of this discussion if there was a glossed Biblical text anywhere that highlights which parts of the bible are supposed to guide our lives and which aren’t. Paul, turns out that yes there is, but it’s in Matts head and you’ll just have to take his word for it! Fortunately you and Matt probably agree on what is actually good and bad, so you can guess at what the template says. If you think it is ‘bad by todays morals’ then Matt probably thinks it’s ‘bad by todays morals’, and it is therefore clearly not TO todays christians, because by definition todays christians have good morals.
Matt already had a preconceived idea of what was right and wrong, he read the Bible already knowing that it would be bad to stone adulterers to death! He then reinterpreted the Bible to confirm what he already thought, which is why he can only say it’s what he THINKS the bible says. So where the hell did he get this preconceived idea from? It certainly wasn’t from the bible, which only leaves God. Unless it was from God, his own morals are as subjective and as adrift is a sea of meaninglessness without any firm footing as Craig said Harris’ morals are.
Before this discussion I genuinely did not believe that I had an axe to grind, but it’s pretty apparent to everyone now, including myself, that I do. I’ll tell you what my grudge is. Here in NZ we have had trouble with unregulated financial advisors abusing the trusted position they have in the eyes of mum and dad investors. They arrogantly put themselves forward as having the answers, as being intelligent rational experts in their field, and people take them at their word: “I don’t really know much about about the financial markets, but John sounded so confident, he must know what he’s talking about!” Turns out John was gambling, but because he was so confident he was right he put his hand on his heart, looked Joe Public in the eyes, and told them it was a sure thing. He was so sure he’d worked it out properly that he didn’t think it would ever come back to haunt him.
I don’t see how the leaders of christian theology are any different. You’re all just blind leading the blind. You put yourselves forward and ask people to trust you. Even if you don’t say it explicitly, you most definitely imply that you have have the answers, that you have a strong relationship with God, and that although your congregation might weak or struggling with their faith, you have all the answers. You are so sure that God probably doesn’t think it’s right to stone adulterers that you don’t need to put ‘… at least, I think so…’ in the small print. Guess what, the laypeople in your congregation trust you, they genuinely believe that, although their own lines of communication with God may be blocked by their own sins, or lack of faith, you have a direct clear line with God and know what your talking about. They don’t just trust you with their life savings, they trust you with their lives. They think that what you’re saying is true because God told you so, and you bastards don’t set them straight because you love how smart and special you feel when you say flash words like ‘antecedent’ and mumble crap about genres and historical contexts.
Ok, I’m done.
Ok, I’m calm again.
Alvin, I’m really sure I’ve understood most of your comments because I don’t really see ho they’re relevant. People have different opinions, sometimes discussions gets a bit over -zealous (I think I’ve demonstrated that quite well), criminals being humans, and stoning adulterers was necessary at the time. Yes, yes, yes, yes, and so what?
You’re illustrations ‘of do unto others and you would like them to do to you’, don’t make any sense. Obviously a burgler doesn’t want other people to burgle his own his. That’s why his actions are wrong according to the golden rule. To say that a burglary victim should burgle the burglers house is a case of ‘do unto others as they have done unto you’; its just the old testament ‘eye for an eye’.
Which takes me all the way back to my old original question. There is no doubt that Jesus told us to turn the other cheek, so either the Israelites ‘eye for an eye’ was against Gods objective goodness, or God changed his mind, or it was righteous for the Israelites but evil for us simply because God decreed that the historical contexts of each position justifies them (Is 50km/h too fast?). Given that everyone keeps mentioning historical contexts (you did it too, Alvin) the party line seems to be the from Gods point of view right and wrong is subjective, it’s whatever he thinks is best at the time, again just like american foreign policy.
Anyway, don’t bother answering me because I’m not coming back. I’m getting far too worked up over all this, and it’s affecting my study. Maybe I’ll be back be back in July after exams. Until then may you all live long and prosper unless you’re a respected and trusted elder in your church in which case you can go f*** yourself. Jeremy, it’s been a pleasure, you’re a foolish old man but I like you.
@ m [did you used to be max whittaker]
No. Never have been and never will be “Max Whittaker”
“No I will tell you to read and accurately present my position instead of making stuff up. Here is what I said about murder in the post”
Don’t be coy Matt. I did not “make something up.” basically your argument goes like this… there is a really harsh law which only marbaric people would support – but look I can point to some cases where the harsh law was not used… therefore the law is not harsh. Completely illogical. There is a death penalty in the USA. I think it is barbaric (you disagree – but not importnat). Pointing out that in a lot of cases the prisoner ends up having the sentence commuted to life.. even if you point of 100 instances does not make the original law which allows the execution of humans less barbaric. Your lack of logic as usual astounds me.
Sam
Have you considered there might be a difference between right and wrong and punishment.
Its entirely possible that God doesnt approve of adultery, after all it is cheating on the person who is supposed to be closest to you, its a betrayal of trust. Whats right and wrong doesnt change with time , the punishment might change according to culture time and circumstance.
By the way Christian means one of Christ’s ones, so no i’m not an OT Jew. The OT was not written or directed at me, it does serve to teach us about right and wrong, why we are out of relationship with God and points to what God was going to do about that.
The problem you seem to haveis taking little bits of the whole out of context, ingnoring the big picture and insistingthat a 21C perspective is the only correct way to look at things.
By the way i enjoyed the quip about “foolish old man” but consider the possibiity that you young whipper snapper simple havent lived long enough to gain wisdom or pespective.
And this:
“This has widely been interpreted to imply that in all the other fifteen cases the judges could commute the crimes deserving of capital punishment by designating a “ransom” or “substitute”. In that case the death penalty served to mark the seriousness of the crime.”
Does this mean that the (very real) death penalty in the USA is actually just there to “mark the seriousness of the crime” because a judge is able to “commute the crime” (as you put it)… does this mean that I have been wrong for years and the USA does not actually practice execution. Of course not! Good try – but this is as illogical as your other attempt!
@ Sam
You may also like to consider the difference between Justice and Mercy. What constitutes justice and therefore what would be mercy. Can we understand mercy if we dont first understand justice?
@ m
thanks for the partial clarification, there have been a number of people using similar or identical icons and even having the same name.
To get back on topic though, i dont know about USA but i guess the Death Penalty is the maximum sentence for some crimes as opposed to being a mandatory sentence. So even in the USA the fact that some States still have and use the DP doesnt mean a judge has to use it in any particular case. So yes of course the availability and use of the DP is to “mark the seriousness of the crime”
So yes of course the availability and use of the DP is to “mark the seriousness of the crime”
Yes – but it is not ONLY to mark the seriousness of the crime. People REALLY are executed for these crimes in the USA… and people REALLY were stoned to death for crimes in these barbaric societies… that is the point. To pretend otherwise or to say it is OK because they only sometimes stoned people to death is both illogical, dishonest, and a revisionist defense of immorality,.
I am pretty sure Matt didnt say that people never recieved the death penalty,just that reading these passages from a 21C context would lead to a wrong understanding.
I am not actually sure of the problem here. Life and death are God’s perogative, if He says the DP iwas appropriate for some crimes in ancient times what is the issue, surely as Creator He has ultimate jurisdiction and as God He best knows what will fulfill His sovereign purposes. It all seems to come down to you not liking the idea of stoning, but i know other people who think keeping people caged up in prison is infinitely more cruel than the DP.{Australian Aboriginies used to die when caged} I dont know how you see the OT, but i see it as establishing the seriousness with which God regards sin, [lets face it the penalty for all/any sin is death,] showing us our inability to deal with it ourselves and giving us a framework within which to appreciate the grace and mercy God extends to us in the person of Jesus Christ. As one American i know of is want to say, the Old Testament contains the New Teastament concealed , the New Teastament contains the Old Testament revealed.
Sammy boy,
Jeremy and I was being polite to you, why the fucking insult?
In your previous post you’ve mentioned God being all schizoid in changing his morals from the Old to the New. Yet you do it yourself, you apologized for being rude, then you come off with this fucking trash talk.
Seriously Sam, Grow the fuck up
Max, Paul Baird,
A good analytical resource to examine arguments about the Christian faith and OT/NT
Refer to here: http://www.christianthinktank.com/topix.html
by Glenn Miller
To the moderator, I’m sorry if I used rude language, its just doing unto Sam what Sam did unto me.
“I am pretty sure Matt didnt say that people never recieved the death penalty,just that reading these passages from a 21C context would lead to a wrong understanding.”
He tries his hardest to downplay them for some odd apologetic reason I don’t quite understand.
“I am not actually sure of the problem here. Life and death are God’s perogative, if He says the DP iwas appropriate for some crimes in ancient times what is the issue, surely as Creator He has ultimate jurisdiction and as God He best knows what will fulfill His sovereign purposes.”
Ask Matt. He is the one who is trying to whitewash this practice and say it was not a common occurrence. I am not saying this at all.
“It all seems to come down to you not liking the idea of stoning…”
Yes. i confess. I find the idea of people being stoned to death by their community because of some perceived sexual sin is not to my liking. Do you like this idea?
“but i know other people who think keeping people caged up in prison is infinitely more cruel than the DP.”
Ok so you don’t like the jail system either… that is fine. So we should neither stone people to death nor lock them in cages for breaking a communities sexual taboos. Agreed. But this does not really making stoning your neighbour to death OK does it? Or am I missing something?
What the Old Testament may or may not reveal about God is another question. My claims are simple. People used to get stoned to death for breaking sexual taboos. This is a bad thing… but let me ask this Jeremy – am I to conclude that you support people in the present day who stone women to death. Do you support perhaps throwing acid on the face of a woman who “disgraces” her family.
Max not to be rude, but are your objections to Matt the following?
1.) He’s distorting literalist occurences of death penalty by stoning, by saying its rhetorical jargon.
2.) Punishments like Stoning for offenders who’ve committed the 21C perception of minor offenses (filial disobedience, adultery) are morally wrong, because its exaggerated and barbaric and is not proportionate to the severity of the offense.
On point 1, I agree with you here, but you can’t deny that Matt pointed out instances in the text, where there are exceptions to a seemingly absolutist command. I’m stating that Matt is simply presenting another facet of the Mosaic Law that is subtle. There’s an instance in which a sabbath breaker was put to death for breaking the sabbath and on the other there’s Matt example of a woman divorcee. This is a contradiction
The tensions above on circumstances in which the DP was applied and when it was not highlight a balancing act inherent in all law codes between mercy and justice, Today we have the freedom of expression enshrined in for example Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Should we be lenient then in certain individuals right to say and write whatever they want?, but on the other we have libel and slander laws. Its a topic that is still debated today.
Needless to say, Matt is not whitewashing the severity of the punishments highlighted in the OT There is stuff in the Mosaic Law that Matt didn’t need to mention, because he wants to emphasize on this aspect only.
Point 2: Both you and the ancient Israelite would generally agree that filial disobedience and adultery are wrong. There’s however a difference in saying that you don’t think people should be executed for breaking the Sabbath and that the Israelite who disagrees with you, you call him barbaric.
That’s why Jeremy and Matt keeps coming back onto the situational context of the time, Sabbaths were needed to rejuvenate the land, because they were an agrarian society. We think of the sabbath today as a day-off where we can work ourselves to death by figuring out how to relax, (watch a movie, read a book) since we live in a modern suburban setting.
Its important to note these difference, because Matt and Jeremy as well as apologists like Holding keep getting inevitable Arguments by Outrage from Skeptics and pseudo-christians who assume that all societes and individuals must value what we liberal humanists value and shun what we shun and any society that does not do so, is barbaric and primitive. It smacks of an absolutist principle of a cultural superiority complex,
Not all people groups think like you and me, people in general have a standard of right and wrong, but they differ on the nature and treatment of the offense What makes the liberal democratic culture superior to all other cultures?
Aside from that, why are you bothered that the ancient semites treat adultery as a grievous offense warranting a brutal punishment? but since you were raised up in a society where adultery can be done casually, trivialized and even celebrated in certain circles (celebrities) Why do you want the Ancient Israelites to treat adultery the same way you, or hugh hefner or richard dawkins see it?
You rightly pointed out abuses of the capital punishment system in your comments, ok. But its really moot, because the minimal harm priniciple used in incarcerating criminals and convicts in the western world is also prone to abuse, Canada did a prison audit 4 or 5 yrs back, turns out prisoners get better living conditions than law-abiding senior citizens, all of it paid for by public monies. I could talk about how the patriarchal system still exist here in a liberal democracy manifested in a subtle but damaging forms of porn and glass-ceilings, but you get the idea..
Have you answered what your own outrage demands of the text? Honestly speaking?
For reference purposes,
If anyone interested in NT/OT abrogation studies see this:
http://www.christianthinktank.com/finaltorah.html
“…but you can’t deny that Matt pointed out instances in the text, where there are exceptions to a seemingly absolutist command.”
I acknowledged this and pointed out that it does not really change the situation. It perhaps makes them slightly less barbaric as they will not stone people always and a judge can choose to be lenient (for personal of financial considerations)
The reason I say Matt is white washing is not just because of this article but his general approach where he always tries to minimize the horrors of the past in order to make his religion look good. What he says may well be true in a lot of instances but he presents little cherry picked bits of good stuff in order to whitewash what when looked at as a a whole is a nasty society.
“What makes the liberal democratic culture superior to all other cultures?”
I am not sure why you bring up a liberal democracy. I am stating that stoning your community members to death for minor things is wrong. You seem to have built up an entire picture of my political beliefs from this. Odd. Not sure this is worth responding to. Stick to the issue.
“Aside from that, why are you bothered that the ancient semites treat adultery as a grievous offense warranting a brutal punishment? ”
I am not really bothered by it as such. I just think that we should be realistic about our ancestors and not pretend that they lived in some wonderful utopia. It they were bastards we should acknowledge it honestly.
” Why do you want the Ancient Israelites to treat adultery the same way you, or hugh hefner or richard dawkins see it?”
Again an irrelevant question really. I have no idea what Dawkins’ or Hefner’s views are on the matter so lets just stick to yours and mine.
I will ask you the same questions I asked Jeremy.
Am I to conclude that you support people in the present day who stone women to death. Do you support perhaps throwing acid on the face of a woman who “disgraces” her family. If not – why not? Are the acid throwers justified in torturing and disfiguring their relatives because of their social values? I will assume you will say yes.
“Have you answered what your own outrage demands of the text? Honestly speaking?”
Not sure what this is supposed to mean…
Also – why do people (like Alvin) think that pointing out faults in our own society is a way of answering attacks on another society?
“used to get stoned to death for breaking sexual taboos. This is a bad thing… but let me ask this Jeremy – am I to conclude that you support people in the present day who stone women to death. Do you support perhaps throwing acid on the face of a woman who “disgraces” her family.”
No i dont believe in stoning adulterers etc, but this is primarily because as a Christian [ cf an OT Jew] i believe we are operating under a covenent of grace and mercy rather than a covenent of justice.
The second point here is that you see adultery as breaking a social sexual taboo [ and a fairly minor one here in the early 21C].
Biblically God regards adultery by both men and women as a serious and major issue. It is betrayal of trust and love. Infact adultery amongst humans is the same sin that occurs when we as humans worship false Gods. Taking our love and devotion from one who is entitled to it and giving it to one who is not and breaking our word in the process. In committing adultery you actually committ almost every sin going. You lie, cheat , betray, lust, covet, steal, disobey God and put yourself first, and invariably hurt other people in the process.
The proble isnt really that stoning was harsh but that we as a society so undervalue personal integrity that adultery isnt even illegal , let alone punished even in a minor way.
The fact that we consider stoning for adultery cruel and excessive says far more about how much our societies standards have fallen than it says about the barbarism of ancient Israel.
As a Christian i believe in mercy, but people need to understand justice before they appreciate mercy.
“No i dont believe in stoning adulterers etc, but this is primarily because as a Christian [ cf an OT Jew] i believe we are operating under a covenent of grace and mercy rather than a covenent of justice.”
So presumably it is OK for Muslims/Hindus to stone these people. Because they (like the ancient hebrews) are not under this covenant. Or is yours only a temporal and not a spacial distinction. Also – you seem to be implying that it is JUST to stone people to death in this way. So it is JUST to throw acid in a woman’s face – but one should not do so because although the bitches deserve it you out of the kindness of your heart show them mercy. Still a pretty screwed up world view bud.
“The second point here is that you see adultery as breaking a social sexual taboo [ and a fairly minor one here in the early 21C].”
Please don’t tell me what I see things as. Ask and I will tell you. Conversations with assumptions will not be entered into.
“Biblically God regards adultery by both men and women as a serious and major issue.”
In some sections of the bible this is true. But “Biblically” is a tricky word.
“The fact that we consider stoning for adultery cruel and excessive says far more about how much our societies standards have fallen than it says about the barbarism of ancient Israel.”
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Oh.. you were serious? Scary world view – about which I need say no further. Your words speak volumes.
“As a Christian i believe in mercy, but people need to understand justice before they appreciate mercy.”
Right – which brings it back to the start again. You believe it is JUST to stone women and young girls to death, and presumably you think it is just to throw acid in a woman’s face for disgracing her family… but you put this just way of acting aside out of mercy. Got i
“and presumably you think it is just to throw acid in a woman’s face for disgracing her family…”
“Please don’t tell me what I see things as. Ask and I will tell you. Conversations with assumptions will not be entered into.”
Gee m take you own advice from only a few lines earlier.
Its amazing how thoroughly you have chosen to miss my point.
Let me repeat it , hopefully in simpler ways so you can understand. Here and now in contemporary western society we live in a very liberal age where much that is wrong is taken very lightly , If we are honest with ourselves we know these things are wrong because we dont like being on the recieving end, but equally and very hypocritcally we dont like having our “freedom” constrained. So sex is entertainment, pornography is freedom of expression, boodlust in movies is artistic and so on. I am not advocating stoning and acid throwing but if we took personal integrity, honesty, committment, as seriously as God does then we would have consequences for adultery that reflected that. Instead it is not even nominally illegal. Our society places no value on committment in marriage.
As a Christian i believe God’s moral law applies to all men, this does not mean or imply in any way that punitive aspects of ancient Israel’s legal code apply in contemporary New Zealand. Nor does the Bible teach anywhere that they should. New Zealand sentences for breaking the law do not apply in China or the USA, contemporarily let alone historically.
Justice is very simple really, an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, for a life, full reparation. And yes historically death has normally been the penalty for betrayal.
So to rephrase my previous comments to help you focus on what i was trying to say….
The fact that we consider adultery so minor a sin as to be of no consequence says far more about how much our societies standards have fallen than it says about the barbarism of ancient Israel.
“in some sections of the bible this is true. But “Biblically” is a tricky word.”
really i would be very impressed if you could show me a section of the Bible where God doesnt regard adultery as very serious?
“Gee m take you own advice from only a few lines earlier.”
Which is why I phrased it as a question you bonehead! Think before you try to be clever next time. And how about answering my question? Hmmm?
So it is just to stone people to death or not? (NOTE: this is a question not an assumption)
“I am not advocating stoning and acid throwing but if we took personal integrity, honesty, committment, as seriously as God does then we would have consequences for adultery that reflected that.”
And what would your consequences be?
“Instead it is not even nominally illegal. Our society places no value on committment in marriage.”
Do things have do be illegal before you accept that society places any value in it? Do you think societal views and law are that closely tied? I disagree. We can have opinions about how people should act without having to have a punishment for transgressions mentality.
“As a Christian i believe God’s moral law applies to all men,”
Then why is it women and not men who are getting stoned?
“Justice is very simple really, an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, for a life, full reparation.”
Simple. Indeed. You do have a very simple view! How is stoning someone for a lack of respect full reparation anyway? Even your own twisted view is not consistent with itself.
“The fact that we consider adultery so minor a sin as to be of no consequence says far more about how much our societies standards have fallen than it says about the barbarism of ancient Israel.”
No… it sounds just as silly the second time around!
“really i would be very impressed if you could show me a section of the Bible where God doesnt regard adultery as very serious?”
Ha ha ha. That is funny too. Several spring to mind. But since you are a bible-warrior go find them yourself.
@ m
“Still a pretty screwed up world view bud.”
“Scary world view – about which I need say no further. Your words speak volumes.”
“You believe it is JUST to stone women and young girls to death,”
Silly me, i didnt recognise these as questions, the somewhat definitive nature of these statements must have confused me.
“I am stating that stoning your community members to death for minor things is wrong.”
I agree entirely, i would even support the proposition that stoning members of the community to death for major matters is wrong in this day and age.
What this bonehead will never agree with is that adultery is a minor matter. It does not speak well of your character that you do. That you dont recognise how low your own standards are compared to some primitive ANE culture is also rather sad.
That you seem unable to distinguish between the moral standard [adultery is wrong] and the consequence [ be that stoning or detention or nothing] is perturbing. The fact that you seem to refuse to see that the severity of a punishment indicates how seriously the wrong is viewed is also perturbing. I am fairly sure [assuming you experience normal emotional reactions] that when/if your girlfriend/wife betrays you in adultery , you wont find it a minor matter. But i could be wrong, you may enjoy being betrayed.
“Ha ha ha. That is funny too. Several spring to mind. But since you are a bible-warrior go find them yourself.”
Assertion without evidence, hmmmm. Maybe your arguing and reasoning skills are right down there with your moral understanding, but apparently you find the betrayal of trust, the of dishonesty of marital infidelity and all the lying and promise breaking a “minor” matter. Why would i expect more in other areas?
I expect that in real life that “Even your own twisted view is not consistent with itself.”
@ M
twelve hours later i regret allowing myself being provocted to rudeness. I apologise unreservedly.
“Silly me, i didnt recognise these as questions, the somewhat definitive nature of these statements must have confused me.”
They were generally prefaced with something like “I assume that” with the implication being that you would enter into a debate and answer such questions.
“I agree entirely, i would even support the proposition that stoning members of the community to death for major matters is wrong in this day and age.”
So what changed? How can something be right for some groups and not for others. And again is your dividing line temporal rather than spatial? ie. if you accept that at one time it was OK to stone girls to death – why not in some place as well.
“What this bonehead will never agree with is that adultery is a minor matter. It does not speak well of your character that you do. ”
Again – i never said I thought adultery was a small matter. But there are much greater crimes going on – none of which I think people should be publicly stoned to death for.
“That you dont recognise how low your own standards are compared to some primitive ANE culture is also rather sad.”
I am not sure you know what my standards are because you have not asked yet. What astounds me is that you will go to such lengths to defend the indefensible… particularly when I don’t think you really want to defend stoning people to death any more than I do. It is just a matter of wanting to win some online debate no matter what extremist position it requires you to defend.
“That you seem unable to distinguish between the moral standard [adultery is wrong] and the consequence [ be that stoning or detention or nothing] is perturbing.”
Again – my comments have all been about the fact that stoning your neighbor to death is never an acceptable behavior. If the issue had been stoning people to death for theft, lying, fraud, assault, etc. my response would have been exactly the same. And I assume that then you would conclude that I did not think that theft, lying, fraud and assault etc. were wrong either.
“I am fairly sure [assuming you experience normal emotional reactions] that when/if your girlfriend/wife betrays you in adultery , you wont find it a minor matter. But i could be wrong, you may enjoy being betrayed.”
I have been betrayed in the past – and let me take this opportunity to assure you that not once did murdering my girlfriend enter my mind. I HOPE.. I sincerely HOPE buddy – that when you have been betrayed getting your friends together to stone your former lover to death was not something that entered your mind either. If it did – then please stop preaching morality to me. You have nothing worth hearing to say.
And don’t worry about the rudeness.. all part of online fun right? 🙂
M,
Don’t assume I support throwing acid on women’s faces for adultery. I never said this.
What standard do you judge a particular societies’ punitive laws by?
You asked me a question why I’m committing Tu Quoque, well it goes to show that after all that’s been negatively said about ancients being bastards, turns out moderns too are also bastards.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, especially if one judges ancient law codes according to modernist assumption that criminals must have human rights, that adultery is a minor offense, you pointed out that the ancient legal system can be abused, but I also pointed out the same assumptions applied in policy can be also misused. I’m just attacking your presumption that what we have now is a perfect utopian-like priniciple in incarcerating criminals, when its far from perfect, ancient law codes including. BOTH needed reform and BOTH have done so. (See Chris’ comments)
What’s so wrong about the Taliban today in its execution of women by stoning, is its so one sided and hastey, I’m not for stoning women, as well as trivializing adultery, in biblical times, there were controlling mechanism on determining guilt as well as fairness in the imposition of the punishments and a balanced view of the judge in light of women and divorce as Chris and Matt’s comments refer to. Taliban’s justice is a caricature of this, because its only women who get it and not their male lovers.
Matt didn’t say that Ancient Israel’s Law codes were ideal, I would say its appropriate for a collectivist agrarian society to operate like this. Even though I sympathized with you in calling some practices back then as barbaric, but you’ve got to understand WHY the ancients were such a bastards in our eyes. I pointed out the WHY, the reasons behind the draconian nature of some of the laws, you keep calling it wrong, on the otherhand, but what are your reasons for doing so?
“Don’t assume I support throwing acid on women’s faces for adultery. I never said this.”
Explain why not.
“What standard do you judge a particular societies’ punitive laws by?”
God given intuition most of the time. Like everyone else.
“You asked me a question why I’m committing Tu Quoque,”
Sounds unlikely. I try to avoid pretentious latin expressions when an English expression exists which says the same thing.
“well it goes to show that after all that’s been negatively said about ancients being bastards, turns out moderns too are also bastards.”
Yes. But so what? We know this… but it is irrelevant to the question at hand and a mere distraction technique… even in latin.
“I’m just attacking your presumption that what we have now is a perfect utopian….”
But i never said that… so I am not sure who you are arguing with. Your own shadow?
I don’t know enough about Taliban law to know whether they have more or less restraints than their ancient counterparts – and I don’t know enough about Taliban law to know if they acted more hastily… do you? My initial reaction is that they are quite similar and I would need some convincing that the Taliban were any worse than the ancient Hebrews.
“…what are your reasons for doing so?”
My reasons are simple. To counteract painting the past all rose colored and pretending that it was not horrible at times. You seem to admit this and I doubt you would write lengthy articles excusing the stoning of girls, and genocide.
@ m
“I am stating that stoning your community members to death for minor things is wrong.”
Since you made the above statement in the context of a discussion concerning stoning and adultery, the only inference available to me was that you consider adultery to be a minor matter.
“How can something be right for some groups and not for others. And again is your dividing line temporal rather than spatial?”
I still think you are confusing the moral teaching concerning adultery with the consequence. The consequence would appear to be an indicator of how serious an issue such as adultery is taken to be, here in OT Israel adultery was clearly regarded as seriously as murder, hence they bear the same consequence. {This isn’t all that surprising, in a small semi nomadic community where family and tribe was more important than the individual, adultery was much more than just a sexual taboo, it broke the relationship between families and tribes, quite probably caused far more social disruption than some murders}
To repeat myself God regards adultery by both men and women as a serious and major issue. It is betrayal of trust and love. In fact adultery amongst humans is the same sin that occurs when we as humans worship false gods. Taking our love and devotion from one who is entitled to it and giving it to one who is not and breaking our word in the process. In committing adultery you actually commit almost every sin going. You lie, cheat , betray, lust, covet, steal, disobey God and put yourself first, and invariably hurt other people in the process.
We can have a debate about the Death Penalty [DP] but first lets talk about due process.
Nowhere in the OT does God say its ok to go around stoning your neighbours for breaking sexual taboos. There was a due process, trial before the elders , minimum of two eye witnesses, circumstantial evidence was not sufficient for the DP to be invoked, and both parties male and female were equally involved, rape didn’t count as adultery neither did fornication, statutory rape was also dealt with separately. If the parties were found guilty [ and not ransomed] then the DP was administered by public stoning. It has been suggested that this was for two reasons. 1st to emphasise the seriousness of taking a human life [everyone got to see exactly what was happening] and 2nd so that no one individual was responsible for taking that life, the community did so as a whole.
Please note that none of this bears any resemblance to acid throwing to avenge family shame or the stoning of female victims that occur under Islam. I have no problem saying i am Christian and as such do not regard any Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim text as having any authority whatsoever.
You ask if i believe stoning women and young girls is right and if i don’t is my reason temporal or spatial. Well the answer is neither.
First of all it wasn’t part of OT law. Stoning adulterers was.
Second, the moral wrongness of adultery is quite a separate issue to the legal sanctions of OT Israel. Nowhere in the OT does God ever suggest that Israel’s legal sanctions are addressed to or binding on any other country or people. Unlike His moral law which applies to everyone for all time. Simple examples can be found in inheritance laws or Cities of sanctuary, neither of which can be applied to non-jews who do not live in Israel. Furthermore in the NT Paul the Apostle is very clear that gentiles do not have to become Jews to be Christians let alone become Israeli citizens.
Last question, was stoning adulterers justified in OT Israel?
[leaving aside Matt’s evidence that this penalty served an admonitory function stressing how seriously the issue was regarded and as such would appear to not normally been applied].
In that time and place and culture and by God’s decree, yes.
Was it brutal, probably. Was it barbaric, no more or less so than many things we do today. As previously mentioned some regard caging people as barbaric, i regard aborting defenceless babies as incredibly barbaric. Do we have a higher moral ground from which to judge this particular action, when applied as a result of correct due process. Only if we are pleading for grace and mercy. Certainly not if it is just because we perceive adultery as a minor sin. The fact that we don’t want to see adultery as other than a minor wrong , speaks about us not about OT Israel, and doesn’t alter what God has had to say on the subject .
I trust this answers your questions?
“Since you made the above statement in the context of a discussion concerning stoning and adultery, the only inference available to me was that you consider adultery to be a minor matter.”
Minor compared to a group of grown men standing around a teenaged girl and bashing her skull in with stones until her head is a pussy bloody mess of brains and bone perhaps? It is compared to the barbaric nature of the “justice” (as you call it) that the original crime is minor. Adultery does of cause cause all sorts of problems for individuals and society as a whole, and I personally believe is against God’s plan for us.
“I still think you are confusing the moral teaching concerning adultery with the consequence.”
No. I’m not. We have been through this already.
“Nowhere in the OT does God say its ok to go around stoning your neighbours for breaking sexual taboos. There was a due process, trial before the elders” etc. etc.
Which is why I say they had a twisted legal system – rather than a good legal system with some twisted people who disobey the legal system. This backs up my point.
“Please note that none of this bears any resemblance to acid throwing to avenge family shame”
Does it not? I know very little about traditional law in these societies. Would not surprise me if they stem from the same sort of thought process.
“… or the stoning of female victims that occur under Islam.”
The Taliban and other hard line Muslim groups tend to stress the importance of law and obedience to the law. So again the Taliban and the ancient hebrews are very similar.
“I have no problem saying i am Christian and as such do not regard any Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim text as having any authority whatsoever.”
That’s nice. So what?
“Second, the moral wrongness of adultery is quite a separate issue to the legal sanctions of OT Israel.”
You seem to be missing the point over and over again. I have been talking about the evilness of stoning young girls to death – you are talking about another issue entirely. The wrongness of adultery. Why not address the issue I actually raised rather than this distraction technique?
“…. i regard aborting defenceless babies as incredibly barbaric.”
What on earth does this have to do with anything??? I consider pulling out little puppies teeth to be wrong too. So what? This says nothing about the issue at hand and is another irrelevant diversion.
“I trust this answers your questions?”
Not really. Since you got distracted into talking about other things most of the time. But I got out of it that you think your loving God could not think of a better way to deal with social issues than getting mobs of men to smash in the skulls of young women. Some God you have there…
M,
Explain why I assume this, don’t put words on my mouth.
THIS was your assertion
Its not an irrelevant distraction to point out modern society’s faults, it shows the moral hypocrisy behind your arguments of outrage,
you still haven’t given me what are your standards for judging the punitive actions of a society
you state god-given intuitions, so what?
What makes you special than the rest of the peoples who have studied law and ordered society who know better than you?
Besides you keep on nagging and nagging about how women keeps getting the worse of it, WHEN its NOT just the women, but the men too, its on the biblical text that punishment should be applied on both men and women offenders. For fuck’s sake get it right already!
I already stated the difference between Biblical justice and the Taliban’s, Similarity does not mean their congruent. So you’ve made an epic fail there.
I guess its all emo on your part.
M,
if you can come up with a perfect moral code system of enforcement that’s immune from corruption and false convictions, then by all means judge. but you can only rant and rave with assumptions that the israelites were barbaric because they saw adultery as a major serious breech of social values thus God decreed a brutal punishment for a very major offense in their eyes, but no, you think their society was wrong, because you WANT peoples past, present and future to think exactly like you in punishing adultery with a little tap on the shoulder, and a pat on the back.
Besides, DP by stoning was already stated by Jeremy,myself, Matthew and Chris, that when its actually carried out required very difficult standards of evidence, before something like this is carried out. You then kept on blathering out how the system can easily be abused, but its the misapplication of the DP by stoning that’s caused by false, perjurious jurors and not the system itself that is the problem. something condemned in the Mosaic Law.
Don’t go all reflexive on me and say that it backs your point up, it clearly does not
You keep stating white-wash attempts to try to romanticize the past, on the contrary I don’t do this, rather your committing some anachronistic fallacy that me and Jeremy are trying to defend the practice of stoning TODAY, but I nor Jeremy advocate this for different reasons. Rather I’m trying to defend the reasons why the DP-bystoning back in ancient israel was appropriate in the PAST.
@m
“getting mobs of men to smash in the skulls of young women. Some God you have there…”
I am enjoying the way you keep twisting the words.
Where does it say only men would be stoning, it has been explained multiple times that “mob” behaviour was not acceptable, and why do you believe only young women commit adultery?
Yes, but the Chicago statement is talking about an alleged revelation. Same difference… No its not, a statement by a human being about what God affirms is not the same as what God affirms.
I think there is a sense in which logic is infallible, its impossible for a logically valid argument to have false conclusion. It does not follow from that, that any argument a human being puts forward as being valid is in fact valid.
“Its not an irrelevant distraction to point out modern society’s faults, it shows the moral hypocrisy behind your arguments of outrage,”
Yes it is. Your argument goes like this: You claim X is bad. But Y is bad too! Therefore X is not bad. Utter nonsense. Stick to the issue.
“I already stated the difference between Biblical justice and the Taliban’s, Similarity does not mean their congruent. So you’ve made an epic fail there. ”
Yes and I disagreed and asked for evidence which was not forthcoming. So internet jargon aside I fail to see where I failed.
“Where does it say only men would be stoning”
Where did I say this? I did not.
” and why do you believe only young women commit adultery?”
Where did I say this? I did not.
I was merely painting a picture of the sort of scene you support. Just to give a mental picture of the sort of sick violence you are an apologist for you you can’t hide behind concepts.
The facts remain that when all the fluff and distractions are swept aside some people want to defend mobs of (mainly) men stoning to death (at least sometimes would you admit hmm?) young girls. You can try to avoid it by distractions (Yes but Y is bad too!) or by ignoring the reality and hiding behind concepts rather than reality – but you are defending a sick action. Admit it.
@ M
“but you are defending a sick action.”
So what it really all comes down to is that you personally dont like the idea of the DP especially as administered by stoning.
You think it is “sick” and barbaric irrespective of the seriousness of the crime committed. I think you need to support this judgement with something more than your personal revulsion. I provided my own reasons namely that God showed us a better way in the person and example of Jesus Christ. Of course i think that is the whole point of the OT, God showing us that justice and works and trying to obey in our own strength will never be enough to save us. Hence our need for grace and mercy. I would even suggest that your revulsion is based in your background of a culture heavily influenced by Christian thought and the concepts of grace and mercy. All you need to do is look to your own examples of acid throwing and modern stonings to see what men are like with different experience and world views. Others and myself have raised the point that we are no more humane and no less barbaric, just differently so. Possibly worse, as it is said, to him whom much has been given, from him much will be expected. You asked why people keep bringing this up, i guess the answer is found in Jesus words. “you bunch of hypocrites offering to remove the spec in your brothers eye. what about the log in your own?”
Anyway this does raise some questions…
Is God sick and barbaric when He makes death the penalty for sin?
I assume that you dont accept that ancient Israel’s laws were given to them by God cause that God doesnt fit your image of what He should be like? But you dislike Matt pointing out it might not be as bad as we are inclined to think?
I am confused by this, since you claim Matt is trying to whitewash things and shouldnt do so, but if i say God was justified in setting a penalty in accord with how serious He sees adultery , then you imply i have a horrible God, unworthy, sick, barbaric..
Therefore i also assume you dont accept the OT as part of God’s word.
For me its not a matter of what i like, to paraphrase, “where does the clay get off complaining to the Potter”. I have another issue, Jesus endorsed the OT [ though not 21C literalist interpretations], saying that He came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. This is also a problem cause Jesus said “if you have seen me you have seen the Father” and “I Am”. Possibly it is simplistic but if i start to pick and choose just those bits i like, then why bother at all, if it all comes down to my preference then there is no truth.
“So what it really all comes down to is that you personally dont like the idea of the DP especially as administered by stoning…..”
Well Duh! Clap clap! Do you like people being killed by mobs throwing stones at them?
“I think you need to support this judgement with something more than your personal revulsion.”
No – I don’t. I think my personal revulsion at the image of a bunch of men hurling stones at a young cowering woman begging for mercy until finally her bloody body stops moving is a pretty good guide. Do you not find this idea revolting? Is it just me?
“I provided my own reasons namely that God showed us a better way in the person and example of Jesus Christ.”
He certainly did. But amazingly enough it is possible to come to this conclusion in other ways. What I am getting from you is that you do not find people being stoned to death repulsive – but Jesus’ example has somehow changed your mind. I thank God for this – but I think many many people manage to come to this conclusion without needing tis example.
“Of course i think that is the whole point of the OT, God showing us that justice….bla bla bla”
So I ask again. Do you think the cowering woman being pelted with stones as she begs for her life shows God’s justice? Just asking.
“I would even suggest that your revulsion is based in your background of a culture heavily influenced by Christian thought and the concepts of grace and mercy.”
Doubtless. Ie. I have a more advanced and BETTER moral compass than the ancient Hebrews did.. we seem to agree on this point.
“All you need to do is look to your own examples of acid throwing and modern stonings to see what men are like with different experience and world views.”
Yes… morally worse. Right?
“I assume that you dont accept that ancient Israel’s laws were given to them by God cause that God doesnt fit your image of what He should be like?”
No – it does not fit the experience of how He is. A little different.
“But you dislike Matt pointing out it might not be as bad as we are inclined to think?”
I don’t like avoiding reality and difficult questions.
“Therefore i also assume you dont accept the OT as part of God’s word.”
No you conclude this – not assume it. But it is an incorrect conclusion. The Old Testament is certainly part of God’s word and a description of the development of God’s people.
“….why bother at all, if it all comes down to my preference then there is no truth.”
You are using a particular framework of interpretation – just like I am. But I am not arrogant enough to say that because you see things differently you are making God in your image, not accepting God’s word, that you don’t have any grounding for your moral code, that you don’t take social issues and sin seriously etc etc. You seem happy to make these claims about me though?
Yes it is. Your argument goes like this: You claim X is bad. But Y is bad too! Therefore X is not bad. Utter nonsense. Stick to the issue.
Misrepresentation of the other party’s view, getting a bit tedious here.
“No you conclude this – not assume it. But it is an incorrect conclusion. The Old Testament is certainly part of God’s word and a description of the development of God’s people.”
Good, at last we might be getting somewhere.
So how do you reconcile the OT accounts of God providing these laws and consequences with your belief and experience concerniing the nature and character of God?
“Do you think the cowering woman being pelted with stones as she begs for her life shows God’s justice?”
It is a highly unpleasant picuture. But i flee from God’s justice, its the last thing i want anything to do with. “The wages of sin is death”, i throw myself on His mercy and am dependant on His grace. That is the only option open to me.
This is the whole point. God’s justice is infact terrifying and perfect, i think we all forget the standard that is the perfection and holiness of God. also think we all shrink from it and are scared by it. Which is why i am so grateful that Jesus Christ took upon Himself the just sentence of God so that i can be treated with grace and mercy.
“You seem happy to make these claims about me though?”
No, those point seem to follow logically from what you have said. But for me it is a case of asking, seeking clarification, trying to understand your thought process, because really you havent actually said anything other than that you dislike stoning and that you object to Matt giving reasons for it not being as bad as you think.
Yeah. Bit over this discussion now. We are neither of us saying anything new. I just get mildly offended when people have a theological disagreement with me then define me to be a non-Christian. Let’s stop bringing each other down huh?
[…] POSTS: Contra Mundum: Stoning Adulterers Contra Mundum: Why Does God Allow Suffering? Contra Mundum: “Till Death do us Part” Christ’s […]
[…] POSTS: Contra Mundum: Religion and Violence Contra Mundum: Stoning Adulterers Contra Mundum: Why Does God Allow Suffering? Contra Mundum: “Till Death do us Part” Christ’s […]
On Jerry Coyne and godless morality…
The “abhorrent commands” objections take me beyond the scope of my point of this post, but I do recommend you to these helpful posts on Old Testament Ethics by Matthew Flannagan…
[…] are at odds with contemporary modern understandings of morality. They claim that God commands us to punish adultery with death, women to marry their rapists and parents to execute naughty children. They claim that God condoned […]
Hello There. I found your blog using msn. This is a really well written article.
I will make sure to bookmark it and come back to read more of your
useful info. Thanks for the post. I’ll definitely return.
It seems to me that people just want to debate. It was stated by someone named “McCauley” (or something similar, I’d have to scroll very far up to see it) that Christians are not bound by Old Testament Law. It is merely a book of history for us. Instead, we are bound by the words of Christ, as we believe he’s God and therefore his words are God’s words. Regarding stoning, he said “he who is without sin cast the first stone.” So, unless you can find an absolutely sinless person to start the process,we don’t consider ourselves within his word to stone anyone. Btw, he also said that anyone who claims to be without sin is a liar, practically meaning that we will never find someone to start a stoning process.