Firing Sqads?

[durangodawood]

I see no logical, or theological reason why you can't reject parts of the bible that I'm sure you would consider completely unacceptable today whilst accepting those that are still valid today.

Who on earth is going to accept that stoning women would be acceptable? Jesus didn't.

Yeah its pretty clear that the Bible records an evolving human morality.

 

[durangodawood]

Yeah its pretty clear that the Bible records an evolving human morality.

Really this seems like a credit to everyone involved, God, the Hebrews, the documents editors, etc.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

How about bringing back crucifixion while we are contemplating the issue? I still think hanging or lynching if you prefer. Will make America Great Again. Is that what this is all about?

 

[JSRG]

How about bringing back crucifixion while we are contemplating the issue? I still think hanging or lynching if you prefer. Will make America Great Again. Is that what this is all about?

We don't need to "bring back" firing squad--it's been done for a while. Multiple people last year were executed by it in the United States.

But in regards to your comparison points, I don't see the logic there. Crucifixion is a method of execution that is done to cause pain. It's quite inefficient at actually killing someone, but it certainly makes them suffer for a lengthy period before they expire. Firing squad, on the other hand, is supposed to cause instant (and as a result painless) death.

As for hanging, I believe one of the reasons that lost popularity was how it could often get "botched"--that is, instead of someone immediately dying, they'd end up alive and asphyxiated to death. That seems to be less of a problem with firing squad.

As for lynching, that's not a method of execution (though it often involved hanging), but rather a term used to describe extrajudicial killings, generally by a mob. A government can't sentence someone to death by lynching, that's an oxymoron.

 

[Tuur]

I see no logical, or theological reason why you can't reject parts of the bible that I'm sure you would consider completely unacceptable today whilst accepting those that are still valid today.

Who on earth is going to accept that stoning women would be acceptable? Jesus didn't.

On the contrary, Jesus Christ said:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

-Matthew 5:17-18

What Jesus did in John 8 was grant a reprieve. Nowhere did Jesus say anyone should not be stoned. On the contrary, He told them for the one without sin to cast the first stone. And often overlooked is that when Jesus told the woman "Neither do I condemn you," He also said "Go and sin no more."

 

[Tuur]

How about bringing back crucifixion while we are contemplating the issue? I still think hanging or lynching if you prefer. Will make America Great Again. Is that what this is all about?

Unfortunately, since the Romans learned it from the Carthaginians, and the Carthaginians weren't necessarily considered barbarians by the Romans. We can call it terrible. The Romans thought it so terrible that it was usually reserved for the lower classes or in cases of treason. Note that Peter is said to have been crucified upside down, but Paul is said to have been beheaded. Paul was a Roman citizen and Peter was not.

It does show that, for all the cringing about firing squads, there are far worse execution methods.

 

[Bradskii]

What Jesus did in John 8 was grant a reprieve. Nowhere did Jesus say anyone should not be stoned. On the contrary, He told them for the one without sin to cast the first stone. And often overlooked is that when Jesus told the woman "Neither do I condemn you," He also said "Go and sin no more."

OK. So you support women being stoned for adultry. How about working on the Sabbath?

I really didn't think we'd need to go so far as to list all the OT passages with which we'd both disagree. But if you're going to suggest that Jesus was only granting a reprieve and you think the punishment is suitable, then...here we go.

 

[Tuur]

OK. So you support women being stoned for adultry. How about working on the Sabbath?

I really didn't think we'd need to go so far as to list all the OT passages with which we'd both disagree. But if you're going to suggest that Jesus was only granting a reprieve and you think the punishment is suitable, then...here we go.

You left out two important things:

1. It is part of the Mosaic Law given to Israel.

2. Acts 15 underscores that gentiles are not required to follow the Mosaic Law. The issue was whether gentiles needed to convert to Judaism in order to become Christians. Since the Mosaic Law was not given to the gentiles, and since salvation is through Christ and not the Law, then gentiles need not follow it.

Now, the interesting thing is that you've framed stoning in it being applied to women, but it was also applied to men. Note that Stephen was stoned. So is this a question of whether stoning is acceptable, only where it applies to women. If the latter, it seems like an appeal to emotion to make a point. To put this in perspective, it's like asking if women should get the electric chair rather than asking if the electric chair should be used at all.

As deaths go, stoning is essentially bludgeoning to death, not a particularly nice way to die, but neither was the first execution by electrocution. For that matter, neither was hanging when it didn't break the neck.

 

[Bradskii]

Now, the interesting thing is that you've framed stoning in it being applied to women, but it was also applied to men.

No, we've covered stoning women for adultry. That's been accepted. Well, you actually refuse to reject it so it remains a valid punishment as far as you are concerned. Now we're on to killing people (by the same method) for working on the Sabbath. Are you refusing to reject it as well, or can we cross that one off?

 

[Tuur]

No, we've covered stoning women for adultry. That's been accepted. Well, you actually refuse to reject it so it remains a valid punishment as far as you are concerned. Now we're on to killing people (by the same method) for working on the Sabbath. Are you refusing to reject it as well, or can we cross that one off?

No, you've framed it as stoning women for adultery. In doing so you've given a pass to stoning men, as happened to Stephen. Is it your contention that stoning men is acceptable but stoning women is not? For certainly you had to be aware that under the Mosaic Law:

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

- Leviticus 20:10.

As to work on the Sabbath, capital punishment for violating it was mandated to Israel by God. The question you've conveniently overlooked is whether we have just come over Jordan to the Promised Land and were among the ones given this law. Also conveniently overlooked is Acts 15. Be that as it may, are the commands of God so trivial that they can be discarded on a whim? For those who don't believe in God, perhaps so; for those who do, it isn't easily done. Or can you cite a verse where Jesus said the commands of God are only valid if we agree with them?

 

[Bradskii]

No, you've framed it as stoning women for adultery.

Look, we've covered stoning women for adultery. You apparently are not going to reject it. So it remains on the books as it were. Now we've moved on to stoning anyone (male of female) for working on a Sabbath.

Are you going to keep that on the books as well or reject it?

 

[Bradskii]

Look, we've covered stoning women for adultery. You apparently are not going to reject it. So it remains on the books as it were. Now we've moved on to stoning anyone (male of female) for working on a Sabbath.

Are you going to keep that on the books as well or reject it?