Monday, September 6, 2010

"Everybody Must Get Stoned!"

As mentioned previously, I have been spending a good bit of time trading comments with atheists at an otherwise Christian blog called “If I became an atheist”. In the latest round of debate, I attempted to challenge the atheist basis for morality if we are nothing but cosmic accidents that will eventually die and turn to fertilizer. This eventually got sidetracked (I am not sure how) into challenges about the consistency of the Judeo-Christian ethic.

Specifically, the Old Testament appears to command practices which seem barbaric from the standpoint of our 21st century moral sensibilities. Even more problematic, many Old Testament commands seem to be downright repudiated in the New Testament. As one commenter named Gandolf put it, the law of Moses included provisions for stoning people to death. Is that still valid? And if not, did God change His mind?




That is a fair question, and here is my response to Gandolf:

***********************************

I must first pose a counter-question: Do you seriously believe that we “moderns” are morally superior to other societies and bygone eras? Do you honestly believe that the 20th century, with its record breaking body count, and the 21st century, which is on the verge of nuclear annihilation; are somehow morally superior to previous centuries? Even if you came up with a laundry list of reasons and examples of why you believe modern societies are morally superior to other ages, societies and cultures, on what basis are you making that judgment?

For example, we condemn stoning as a barbaric way of instituting the death penalty. The Romans came up with the even more barbaric practice of crucifixion. Then someone came up with asphyxiation by hanging, to be followed by progressively more “compassionate” alternatives such as electrocution or lethal injection. Finally, there are those who question the morality of the death penalty at all. But what makes one view morally superior to the other? Says who?

I use the example of stoning and the death penalty because you raised the issue, but in a broader sense, I think it is a bit presumptuous to assume that our concept of morality as developed in the society and circumstance in which we live is somehow superior to that of ancient Israel or of Roman occupied Palestine or the post-Constantine Roman empire or Medieval Europe or Victorian England or nineteenth century America. You can, no doubt, point to some “unenlightened” and “barbaric” practices of those societies, but I would venture to guess that if they could have looked forward in time, they would have had just cause to point some fingers and wring their hands at us. And again, on what basis can fingers be pointed in either direction? Going back to my original premise, if we are just biochemical material that will die and turn to fertilizer, on what basis can we say that our morality is superior?

We both agree that stoning is barbaric. Why do you think so? Is it because it is “cruel and unusual punishment”? What makes it cruel and unusual? Sure, it results in a slow and agonizing, painful death, but so do a lot of other forms of punishment and deterrence that societies have devised throughout the ages. On what objective basis is one more enlightened and compassionate than the other?” Again, don’t hear what I am not saying. I am not defending stoning. I am just asking you to think this through.

My sense is that the reason you consider stoning as cruel and barbaric is… well, just because it is, as if this were somehow self-evident. The problem is that it is not self-evident, just like any of the other moral pronouncements that you or I would make are not self-evident. And people who believe that stoning is just fine might tell us that, though it is admittedly distasteful, it is the right thing to do. Why? Well, in their mind, just because it is. Or they might even trumpet out some good arguments about its obvious deterrent value as part of an overall system of criminal justice.

*****************************

Now to your question: “When did God change His mind about stoning?” I don’t expect my answers to satisfy you or change your mind, but I will do my best.

I am not sure God changed His mind about anything because, as you correctly pointed out, perhaps in a paraphrase of Scripture, God is the same yesterday today and forever. I admittedly gag over passages in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy that call for the death penalty by stoning, in part, for the same reasons you do. It looks like cruel and unusual punishment. But beyond that, it is because I believe the New Testament Scriptures which say, for example, that “[Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” (Colossians 1:15) And when I read passages in the Old Testament where God seems to be advocating death by stoning, or genocidal war, or any other thing in the Old Testament that we might find objectionable, I gag not because it offends my 21st century moral sensibilities, but because it seems to be at odds with the teachings of Jesus, who said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” and “Love your enemies.”

Yet at the same time, Jesus did not repudiate the Old Testament. While He very often challenged His contemporaries’ interpretation of the Scriptures, He seemed to endorse the Scriptures themselves both explicitly and implicitly, saying among other things:

  1. "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35)
  2. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (Matthew 5:17)

That is likely the primary reason why I and other Christians at least see the value of the Old Testament Scriptures, even if some do not believe in their divine inspiration and infallibility along with the New Testament: It is simply because Jesus said so. If Jesus is who He says He is, and I have stated elsewhere why I am convinced that He is, then I must take seriously everything He says, including His testimony about the Old Testament. There are two ways of dealing with this, depending on whether or not you believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. I will present both, not necessarily endorsing one or the other, though I generally lean toward the inerrancy camp.

Christians who do not believe in the inerrancy of the Old Testament nonetheless believe that God was working through Israel as part of redemptive history. They would say that, though there is much truth in the Old Testament and worthwhile history, there is much that is culturally based and/or simply inaccurate. They will point to Scriptures where Jesus seems to say that parts of the Mosaic law were not what God intended, but rather to accommodate the reality of the Israelites’ sinful, human condition. For example, when the Pharisees challenged His opposition to divorce, citing Deuteronomy 24:1, Jesus replied: "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matthew 19:8-9) It could be inferred, then, that there is a human and cultural element to the Mosaic law. The problem is that the same laws are often prefaced by “The Lord commanded Moses…” So are these God’s words or Moses’?

This is part of the “accommodationist” theory, which asserts that Jesus accommodated the Jewish belief in the divine inspiration and inerrancy of their Scriptures, even though He knew better. This theory is fraught with problems, however, because there is much of the Old Testament that is valid and of great value. Jesus said that these Scriptures pointed to Him, that He is the fulfillment of the Law. So how do you divide what is true and good from what is not, and based on what? Again, says who? In any event, it is possible to be a Christian and not necessarily believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures (though it puts you on a bit of a slippery slope), in which case you can dismiss the objectionable passages as a product of the socio-historical context.

Then there is the inerrancy camp, which I subscribe to though it has its own hurdles. First let me explain what inerrancy is not. It does not mean the absolute perfection of the Scriptures. Most Christian statements of faith say that they believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures “as originally given”, which allows for minor textual errors in copying and transmission over time. Neither does it mean that everything is literally true, because there is plenty that is clearly meant to be allegorical and symbolic. This is not quite as slippery a slope as the accommodationist crowd, because it still asserts that the Scriptures are “divinely inspired” as stated in 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” But the question still remains as to why much of the Old Testament does not apply in the New Testament age. Does it mean that God changed His mind? In a word, “No.”

For example, much of the ceremonial law, the sanitary rituals and dietary laws that most Christians skim or sleep through when they try to plow through a “read-thru-the-Bible-in-a-year” plan, were not meant to be permanent but rather instructive for a specific stage in redemptive history. They were meant to point out the holiness and “otherness” of God, that He cannot be approached casually by depraved and sinful human beings.

These laws ceased to be necessary in the New Testament age, because they were fulfilled in Jesus.  When He died on the cross for sinful man, the veil of the temple, which separated the “Holy of Holies” from sinful man, was torn in two. Similarly, the elaborate system of animal sacrifices and accompanying symbolic ceremonies were meant to underscore man’s utter sinfulness and God’s complete holiness. The idea was to sacrifice an “innocent” animal to atone for the guilt of sinful man. These sacrifices are no longer necessary now that Jesus has accomplished the ultimate sacrifice on the cross, to which the Old Testament sacrifices and ceremonies (particularly the Passover meal) had always pointed.

What about the apparent commands to stone people to death? From my perusal of the Scriptures, it seems that, like modern day death penalties, its primary purpose was deterrence. “Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.” That might explain why there are probably only a handful of instances in Old Testament history that it was actually carried out. (Leaving aside the illegitimate lynchings, such as when wicked Queen Jezebel framed Naboth the Jezreelite and had him stoned death in order to take possession of his vineyard, or when a mob of zealous Jews slandered and stoned Stephen, the first Christian martyr. These were obviously gross miscarriages of justice.)

But in general, I would place the commands to stone in the same category as the ceremonial laws, which were meant to be more instructive than anything else. What the Old Testament pointed to in its laws and what the New Testament affirmed, is man’s utter depravity and the fact that, apart from God’s love, mercy and grace, we all deserve death and condemnation, worse than stoning, but similar to what Jesus experienced on the cross on our behalf.

To inappropriately quote Bob Dylan, “Everybody must get stoned!” It is what we all deserve apart from God’s grace. That is why Jesus said: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” effectively abolishing the practice while still affirming the underlying reason behind the original command in the Old Testament.

9 comments:

gandolf said...

Crusty.."I must first pose a counter-question: Do you seriously believe that we “moderns” are morally superior to other societies and bygone eras?"

Well on many fronts id have to say yes i do think things have gotten morally superior.
1,We dont stone people to death.
2,We dont try to kill and obliterate a whole nation of people,when warring with them.
3,Slaves and racism most of us now find abhorrent,and Women and children are no longer owned by men like owning dogs or cattle.
4,More kindness is expected towards rights of animals

5,A man may "not have the right" to offer up his daughters for sex ,to try and save another man from being sexually abused by other men!

Yes i think i could most likely jot down quite a large number of instances where in my "opinion" i would suggest morals have improved .

You might bring up the matter of abortion ,and this might be this matter of "body count" you speak of.For starters personally im pro life.However i understand pro life is not always the best choice for everyone to have to always choose.There is the matter of what causes less ammount of suffering.I can say if it were my choice!, i would that my mother had simply chose abortion, rather than pro life which was in turn subjecting me to a whole "life time" of cult torture.

Christians dont always considder the far bigger picture with these matters.To them body count of abortion is far worse ,than whole life times spent suffering from "torments" imposed by faith practices.To Christians abortion is worse ,than torment of long term hunger and great hardship suffered by many through pro life.

Nuclear annihilation is terrible.But faith sure hasnt done a whole lot to help us hopefully not need suffer it.Squabbles around places like Israel and Palistine have huge undertows of faith schisms, of who be or not be the Godly chosen people.

Crusty say.."on what basis are you making that judgment? "

My judgment is an opinion of being another fellow human being .Would you prefer to point to "your" preffered holy book ,and call it word of God? ...What gives you right of judgement over opinion of anyone else who might also point to their preffered holy book and make the same claims !.

I make my judgement as an opinion as a fellow human ...Faithful folks try imposing their opinion over above others! by simply pointing to holy books written by men ...Containing "opinions" of men.

What honest difference ?.

To be continued.

gandolf said...

Crusty.."For example, we condemn stoning as a barbaric way of instituting the death penalty."

No Crusty lets be a little honest. Stoning people to death is and always was, far more! than just being about a death penality.It was a death penality ,with the nasty addition of great pain suffering and lenghtly torture.They did not ever need to torture and abuse people this way.They could have put people to death quickly ,but instead they chose to add exteme nastiness and torture to the death penality.

I considder it wrong that you try and downplay it as being a mere death penality.

Many people suffered extreme suffering that was plain ignorant nastiness and torture.

We should be honest enough to admit it .And do their sad painful death some decency of being honest enough to admit how very wrong it was.

But in my opinion it proves God was not in any control and was obviously nowhere to be seen.

And being that God supposedly be the same yesterday today and tommorow.Suggestion that Man was honestly guided by God, seems very deceitful! at best.

Crusty says..." but I would venture to guess that if they could have looked forward in time, they would have had just cause to point some fingers and wring their hands at us. "

They may well do so .But it is not me ! who trys claiming morality comes from God .Im not claiming perfection of Humans neither do i suggest humans dont make mistakes
sometimes.In fact it is my opinion humans often learn by experience.

To be continued.

gandolf said...

Crusty say.."And again, on what basis can fingers be pointed in either direction? Going back to my original premise, if we are just biochemical material that will die and turn to fertilizer, on what basis can we say that our morality is superior?"

Who said anything about superior?.

How about we ask what is most honest.You try claim an object type moral point to your christian holy book which also show morals evolving.

That dont suggest objective morals from a God said to be the same yesterday today and tommorow.

Whats best.Honest or dishonest moral?.

1, At least i allow that evolution of human moral allows that naturally through learning by experience humans will always make some mistakes.

2, Faithful try claim objective Godly morals , that in all honesty by looking at their Holy books show blatant mistakes and some very human morals evolving.

Whats best Crusty .Real honesty or trying to bull ourselves?.

Islam struggles to even evolve past the stoning people to death stage, to this very day Crusty..Simply because people have claimed morals are God given .And Gods minds dont change

My family in a cult also struggles to have their morals evolve, because humans have been so deceitful and prone to suggesting morals are objective and God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow.

Humans are not just biochemical material like cabbages .We have a brain do experience and learn and indeed also pass on what we learn.

Why shouldnt we have reason to learn even from our mistakes ,and so then have reason to judge what be moral or less moral?.

You keep trying to wrongfully suggest atheism make humans unable to evolve and learn.And that is both wrong and just baseless faith propaganda! that is little more than being deceitful.

gandolf said...

Crusty.."We both agree that stoning is barbaric. Why do you think so? Is it because it is “cruel and unusual punishment”? What makes it cruel and unusual? Sure, it results in a slow and agonizing, painful death, but so do a lot of other forms of punishment and deterrence that societies have devised throughout the ages. On what objective basis is one more enlightened and compassionate than the other?"

Im not here to argue human havent had cruel punishments down through the ages.I fully accept that humans make mistakes as they evolve and learn whats moral.

Its you that trys claiming objective godly morals given by Gods .Which we obviously dont have!, because instead we actually see morals of men that do evolve.

If we get a group of humans together dont you think there would be some objective decision or vote ,that maybe lethal injection might be more moral than stoning people to a long slow death?.Stoning people was ALL ABOUT applying torture! Crusty

Ancient people "didnt even need" to stone people to a slow terrible death..They purposely chose it!

When you go get another one or two or even three or four Doctors opinions on your sickness ,do you considder the answer you get slightly more objective ?.

Crusty to be honest i think you really know all this stuff,why do we need discuss it this way.Is it because you want to try everything you can to try and make atheism seem all nihilistic and about anarchy etc and without possibility of morality ?.

I really cant believe you think humans are so hopeless we have no way of making decisions that are somewhat objective.I think your faith bias still drives you.

What happens ,say when man decides to go to war Crusty ..Do you really believe Gods arrive and give us some sort of fancy objective guidence?.Or do men discuss and decide ,just as ancient faith men discussed and decided also.

gandolf said...

Crusty say.."My sense is that the reason you consider stoning as cruel and barbaric is… well, just because it is, as if this were somehow self-evident. The problem is that it is not self-evident, just like any of the other moral pronouncements that you or I would make are not self-evident. And people who believe that stoning is just fine might tell us that, though it is admittedly distasteful, it is the right thing to do. Why? Well, in their mind, just because it is. Or they might even trumpet out some good arguments about its obvious deterrent value as part of an overall system of criminal justice."

I disagree .I suggest Stoning people to long slow "torturous" deaths in todays world standard,does seem! extremely self-evident! to be extremely cruel! and barbaric to me and im sure most everyone.

Torture of a tortured people doesnt ever fix anything.I dont care what some freak may try and argue,the stats dont suggest torture or fear tactics have any real effect on humans.If it "honestly" did even evil priests wouldnt dare! ever be evil would they.Specially with suggestion of hell on the cards.

The only places this hasnt become self evident is in places "stuck fast" in the mire of godly morals, that didnt have the chance to evolve .Islamic countries for instance.Places that prove fear doesnt even stop some people even being quite willing and prepared to blow themselves up.

Islamic people might tell us stoning folks is fine ,just as my family and the westboro baptist might suggest their morals are still wonderful.

For Godly morals are the cause! of stagnateing! human morals Crusty.

You faithful folk are so worried about humans making mistakes,and so keen to promote the lie of these godly objective morals .

That People worldwide are still paying for such deceit every day.

Your faithful fear of human mistakes .Continues to promote another human mistake! which some people already pay for anyway.

Why fear morals evolving ? ,when its already so very obvious! the grave danger! and great suffering! that somebody needs to pay for IN THIS LIFE, involved in morals that stagnate! and cant evolve.

gandolf said...

Crusty say..."Jesus did not repudiate the Old Testament."

Jesus could not even dare repudaite the old testament any more than a muslim might be able to get away with trying to repudiate the Koran or a Westboro baptist might get away with trying to repudaite God hating fags or my cult family might get away with trying to repudiate faith matters in their own cult circles.

Do you not realize just how powerful control of faith can be on people Crusty.Have you not seen that modern science has shown good evidence of how "devotion" on "charisma" works to shut off parts of the brain humans need to use to make proper in formed decisions ? ..Do you suppose ancient humans suffered these problem any less ?.

Im sure you find it hard to even believe the Westboro groups acts the way they do,or the Taliban bombers or the Kim Jung-il followers or Hitler followers ...Let me repeat science has proved "devotion" to "charisma" shuts down the parts of the brain people need to use to make proper infromed decisions Crusty.

Jesus could not even dare! try repundiate anything .Best he could do was try and work with what he had and try and make the jig-saw seem like it fitted together.

Crusty say .."He seemed to endorse the Scriptures themselves both explicitly and implicitly"

Yes and new leaders of cults today try and endorse things the other leaders did ,best they can ...Otherwise the group has far more chance! of busting apart ! as the devoted followers ideas of the existence of this supposed "Godly guidence" gets torn to shreds! ...and tossed away!.

Think about it Crusty ..If i as the new leader say all that stuff your previous faith leaders told you ..was utter rubbish!.

Naturally your followers going to be double checking! and become very extra wary! of ever trusting the "new leader" to much too ..huh?.

Yes of course they will !.They will become more of a sceptic ...And Sceptics! just dont make such great faith-believers ..No they dont.Sceptic types make terrible faithful followers

So Jesus had to try and marry everything in! best he possibly could do.And keep scepticism at bay as much as possible

gandolf said...

Crusty say..."They will point to Scriptures where Jesus seems to say that parts of the Mosaic law were not what God intended, but rather to accommodate the reality of the Israelites’ sinful, human condition."

Bingo ! ...Accommodate !

Crusty say.."Jesus said that these Scriptures pointed to Him, that He is the fulfillment of the Law."

Oh yeah ..and new "cult" leaders these days still try and suggest this ministry here is pointing to me ! etc etc .Of course they do

Crusty say.." Does it mean that God changed His mind? In a word, “No.”

For example, much of the ceremonial law, the sanitary rituals and dietary laws that most Christians skim or sleep through when they try to plow through a “read-thru-the-Bible-in-a-year” plan, were not meant to be permanent but rather instructive for a specific stage in redemptive history. They were meant to point out the holiness and “otherness” of God, that He cannot be approached casually by depraved and sinful human beings. "

Well im not surprised you offer this type of excuse .Like Jesus you need to at least try this approach.But im not buying it at all.

Your idea of God is a God that would suggest stuff at certain times, that would then in turn be used by some people to harm and abuse certain people.

I cannot see this is godly .Neither does it seem to match a God said to be the same yesterday today and tommorow.

It bests fits morals of mere men slowly evolving.

You prefer to try and adapt the most amazing mythical story , thats mixed in with history and real places ...And make it seem divine and Godly.

But sometimes that what is maybe more simple , is at least somewhat honest also.

You try to suggest i should be punished for the sins of two humans known as Adam and Eve .You try suggest it was grace that allowed man was created with ability to sin.

You try marrying idea of a abusive creator with a forgiving one.Yet you overlook God honestly had no good reason not to forgive that what he himself was responsible for creating.

Jesus himself realized it!.But best he could do was try and make the jig-saw look like it all fitted .When dealing with such mean nasty faithful folk who had previously only been fed nastiness of ancient godly ideas.

Peace Crusty!....Sorry for such long replys ...And sorry some comments double posted ...The net has been playing up for me also lately.

bob said...

TMC - "Specifically, the Old Testament appears to command practices which seem barbaric from the standpoint of our 21st century moral sensibilities."

Perspective is everything...and I mean EVERYTHING!

From my perspective, the OT practice of stoning sabbath breakers is barbaric, just as I consider the 18th century use of the guillotine to be barbaric.
Most of us today consider the owning of black Africans as slaves in the US from the 1600's through the 1800's to be barbaric, but there was devision on the subject 150 years ago.
From my perspective, the carpet bombing in WWII was barbaric, and looking back now, from my perspective, so was the dropping of the atom bomb.

Perspective!

When I was a bible believer, I considered the idea that God would offer up his only son as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind to be the ultimate example of love.

Now, as an atheist, I consider the idea of a god demanding the blood sacrifice of a lamb, or a human, to be no less barbaric than the sacrifice of a virgin being thrown into a volcano.

The problem with Christians is that they ignore (or modify) their own moral code when it comes to the acts and attitudes of their own God. God can kill thousands, including women and children, and Christians will still worship him. Saddam can kill thousands, including women and children, and they will cry for his head.

Perspective is everything.

TMC, I did an experiment a couple years ago. I took 8 or 10 bible verses from the OT. I removed the words "Lord" and "God" and inserted "Allah". For instance -

"Then I heard Allah say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" Allah commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told."

I sent these verses to several Christian friends, claiming that they were examples of the barbarity of the Muslim god in the Qur’an.

Predictably, every one of them agreed with me as to what these verses proved - that the Islamic faith was barbaric. None recognized the verses (such as the above verse from Ezekiel 9:5-7) as coming from their own bible...until I told them.

Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is evil.

Perspective is everything.

The Maryland Crustacean said...

Gandolf, your comments are fine. The only thing I am deleting are the duplicate and triplicate comments. It seems that the same gremlin that causes our comments to disappear into cyberspace is causing them to appear in triplicate elsewhere. I just dove back into the work week again and won't be able to respond for a few days, I will catch you then. Take care!