Is Stoning Immoral?

[Rose]

Stoning is not only immoral, but it is SICK, Sick, sick and any god that would command stoning as a form of capital punishment is obviously the invention of barbaric, primitive minds.

I am utterly astounded that Christians so easily overlook the fact that stoning is the preferred form of punishment in the Bible that is instituted by Yahweh.

I am at a loss for words that are strong enough to express my total condemnation and disdain of any religion that has within the pages of its sacred text the horrendous abomination of stoning!

Rose

[David M]

Stoning is not only immoral, but it is SICK, Sick, sick and any god that would command stoning as a form of capital punishment is obviously the invention of barbaric, primitive minds.

I am utterly astounded that Christians so easily overlook the fact that stoning is the preferred form of punishment in the Bible that is instituted by Yahweh.

I am at a loss for words that are strong enough to express my total condemnation and disdain of any religion that has within the pages of its sacred text the horrendous abomination of stoning!

Rose

Good morning Rose.

I have some questions for you.

Q1. Do you support the death penalty for some crimes?

Q2. What crimes do you think deserve the death penalty?

If you support the death penalty, would you;

Q3. administer the punishment upon criminals who under the law should be put to death?

Q4. personally kill the criminal punishable by death, whether that be by hanging, electric chair or the method of your choice? Note. You will be seen publicly to be the one performing the death penalty.

Q5. prefer anonymity? Note: Throwing stones gives anonymity, and is not a slow death but quick. You perceive it to be slow.

Q6. What other forms of capital punishment do you think were appropriate in those days given extremely limited resources?

Q7. Was crucifixion better or worse than stoning?

Q8. What other forms of capital punishment are practiced in the world today and are they any better than stoning?


I look forward to your answers.

David

[CWH]

[QUOTE]

The killing of David's innocent son was not the punishment prescribed by God's Law. So you didn't answer the question.

And beside that, God said that children should not be punished for the sins of their fathers. So God contradicted his own law twice!

David M had already answered that question, there is no need for me to answer. But I would like to share an interesting article that explained that King David did not commit adultery or murder from the Jewish authority point of view. That also explained my conviction why the 32,000 virgin wives were released (divorced) so that they would not become widows and could remarry again:

http://www.betemunah.org/fathers.html

Excerpt:
Was King David committing adultery? The Tanakh says no.

Did King David commit murder? The Tanakh says no. How can this be?

The Sages record that King David required that all of his soldiers were required to give their wives a 'get', a divorce, before they went off to battle. This was done so that if the soldier failed to return from the battle, and his body was not found, then the wife would not become an 'aguna', a woman who could not remarry. If she was legally divorced, then she could remarry if her husband did not return after a reasonable amount of time.

Kethuboth 9b Everyone who goes out into the war of the House of David writes for his wife a deed of divorce[2], for it is written, And to thy brethren shalt thou bring greetings, and take their pledge[3]. What [is the meaning of], ‘and take their pledge’? R. Joseph learnt: Things which are pledged between him and her[4].

Therefore, we know that Uriyya had given his wife a 'get' and was legally divorced. Therefore, we know that King David did not commit adultery. We can know that King David did not commit adultery because the Torah proscribes that the one who commits adultery is to be stoned to death:........

Did King David lust, sexually, after Bathsheba? No! King David did NOT lust after Bathsheba. He had entirely conquered that evil inclination. The story makes it sound like Bathsheba was taking a bath on her roof without any covering. Nothing could be further from the truth. Bathsheba was coming out from the mikveh, the ritual baptism that women must immerse in, every month. As she exited the mikveh house, her exalted spiritual state attracted King David. He prophetically saw that he was to father Solomon with this women. That is why he took her..........

Did David cause the murder of Uriyya the Hittite? The Tanakh says no.

How can this be? To understand this part, we must look carefully at the text to understand what is going on:

2 Shmuel (Samuel) 11:8-9 And David said to Uriah, Go down to thy house, and wash thy feet. And Uriah departed out of the king's house, and there followed him a mess [of meat] from the king. But Uriah slept at the door of the king's house with all the servants of his lord, and went not down to his house.

Notice that Uriyya disobeyed a DIRECT ORDER of the King. So, King David gives him a second chance:

2 Shmuel (Samuel) 11:10-12 And when they had told David, saying, Uriah went not down unto his house, David said unto Uriah, Camest thou not from [thy] journey? why [then] didst thou not go down unto thine house? And Uriah said unto David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? [as] thou livest, and [as] thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing. And David said to Uriah, Tarry here to day also, and to morrow I will let thee depart. So Uriah abode in Jerusalem that day, and the morrow. And when David had called him, he did eat and drink before him; and he made him drunk: and at even he went out to lie on his bed with the servants of his lord, but went not down to his house.

At this point King David has no choice. Uriah has disobeyed a direct order of the king. The penalty for this offense is death.

2 Shmuel (Samuel) 11:14-17 And it came to pass in the morning, that David wrote a letter to Joab, and sent [it] by the hand of Uriah. And he wrote in the letter, saying, Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten, and die. And it came to pass, when Joab observed the city, that he assigned Uriah unto a place where he knew that valiant men [were]. And the men of the city went out, and fought with Joab: and there fell [some] of the people of the servants of David; and Uriah the Hittite died also.

King David knows that Uriah has an evil heart[5], never the less, one MUST obey the King no matter what. Not wishing to publicly shame Uriah, King David has him killed in battle in an honorable manner. Notice that Joab does not protest in the least. Joab knew that the order of the King, as the chief justice, must be obeyed.

Ok, so now we know that King David did NOT commit adultery with Bath-Sheba and that he did not cause Uriah to be murdered. What we need to know is: What was King David’s sin?

HaShem’s punishments are always just. To determine the sin, we should look at the punishment:

2 Shmuel (Samuel) 11:26 And when the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband. And when the mourning was past, David sent and fetched her to his house, and she became his wife, and bare him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased HaShem. And HaShem sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. The rich [man] had exceeding many flocks and herds: But the poor [man] had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him. And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, [As] HaShem liveth, the man that hath done this [thing] shall surely die: And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.

King David was also the chief Hakham, the chief Judge. Nathan the prophet naturally came to the King for a judgment.

David, being a great Torah scholar and Sage, renders a judgment in keeping with Torah. HaShem agreed to this judgment, EXCEPT for the death penalty:

2 Shmuel (Samuel) 12:13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against HaShem. And Nathan said unto David, HaShem also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

The bottom line is this: HaShem has accused King David of stealing a ewe, a female sheep. The penalty is, therefore, in keeping with the sin:

Shemot (Exodus) 22:1 If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.

Therefore, King David’s sin was: Theft of a sheep.

I don't want to see anyone stoned to death. That is a primitive and brutal form of punishment that is totally immoral. It is a barbaric form of torture. And the really sick thing is that Christians have been criticizing Islamic Sharia Law for commanding the stoning of people, as if it weren't taught by God Himself in the Bible! Here's a video that shows how evil and wicked the practice really is:

The fact that Christians say stoning proves Islam is evil shows how they have lost their minds to their religion. They can't see the same evil in the Bible because they have made themselves blind.

Even hanging is equally barbaric; stabbing is also barbaric, nailed to the cross was also barbaric. Stoning is less "barbaric" if a large stone is thrown on the head it will cause unconciousness and even instant death.


May God Bless us all.

[David M]

Hello Cheow

I have not visited the link, but from what you have copied by way of an extract I think this is men changing the law to suit themselves. This is the problem the Israelites had interpreting the law and that what made it become so cumbersome. This extract is doing what Jesus accused the Pharisees of, i.e. "teaching as doctrine the commandments of men"

David was very aware of his sin that was pointed out to him by Nathan. David said to God; "Against thee only have I sinned." David knew full well that he had sinned twice and was guilty of murder and adultery and should have been put to death. It was this confession and the overall intent to delight in his heart in the Law of God that was pleasing to God. This episode speaks volumes for the mercy God extends to us and anyone whose heart is right before God. We can all fall prey to our lusts and David's example could be no greater. There is no reason to doubt Uriah will be resurrected if his heart was right before God. We cannot judge anyone who has died and limit God's right to resurrect anyone he sees fit. He has the capability and anyone we think should be resurrected who died innocently for whatever reason, we can think will be resurrected. We cannot limit God's mercy and compassion just as we cannot limit his punishment on those who deserve it.

Thanks for your contributions.

David

[Twospirits]

David M wrote,

David was very aware of his sin that was pointed out to him by Nathan. David said to God; "Against thee only have I sinned." David knew full well that he had sinned twice and was guilty of murder and adultery and should have been put to death.

The Tanakh was written by uninspired men, and the scriptures contradict these men Cheow, as David rightly points out. Here are a few thoughts on this from a few articles I read up on.

But first, It is imperative to note here that a vital principle concerning Biblical inspiration be recognized. The fact that an event is recorded in Scripture does not necessarily suggest that the Lord approved of it. It is a fundamental feature of inspired Scripture that it documents the sins and follies of both its heroes and villains alike, the good and the bad.

The truth is, any attempt to justify adultery by appealing to David is akin to the distorted perversions of rabbinical Judaism than to accurate biblical exegesis. The Jewish Talmud seeks to justify the adultery of David on the ground that every soldier, before going into battle, was required to grant his wife a divorce; according to that twist, Bathsheba was actually free (Edersheim, IV, p. 191).

Moreover, if David’s marriage to Bathsheba is to be employed as a pattern for illustrating God’s marriage code under the law of Christ, then polygamy becomes permissible. History reveals that Bathsheba was only one of eight wives (in addition to a number of concubines) which the king had (1 Sam. 18:27; 25:42-43; 1 Chron. 3:2-5).

And, as noted scholar Dean Stanley observed: 'His crime itself had sprung from the lawless and licentious life, fostered by the polygamy which he had been the first to introduce into the monarchy …' (II, p. 195).

The Mosaic Law principle certainly was applicable in the David-Bathsheba affair. They committed adultery. Had the law of Moses been strictly executed, they both would have been put to death.

'And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death' (Lev. 20:10)

Nevertheless, because of God’s forbearance, Nathan informed the king: 'Jehovah also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die' (2 Sam. 12:13).

God bless---Twospirits

[Rose]

Good morning Rose.

I have some questions for you.

Q1. Do you support the death penalty for some crimes?

Q2. What crimes do you think deserve the death penalty?

If you support the death penalty, would you;

Q3. administer the punishment upon criminals who under the law should be put to death?

Q4. personally kill the criminal punishable by death, whether that be by hanging, electric chair or the method of your choice? Note. You will be seen publicly to be the one performing the death penalty.

Q5. prefer anonymity? Note: Throwing stones gives anonymity, and is not a slow death but quick. You perceive it to be slow.

Q6. What other forms of capital punishment do you think were appropriate in those days given extremely limited resources?

Q7. Was crucifixion better or worse than stoning?

Q8. What other forms of capital punishment are practiced in the world today and are they any better than stoning?


I look forward to your answers.

David

Good morning David,

Sorry, I guess I missed this post with your questions, I will answer in red.


Q1. Do you support the death penalty for some crimes? No

Q2. What crimes do you think deserve the death penalty? None, whereas the biblegod thinks that picking up sticks on the Sabbath requires the death penalty, and women who commit adultery...but not a man, especially a man who has a high position like King David!

If you support the death penalty, would you;

Q3. administer the punishment upon criminals who under the law should be put to death? One of the big problems I see with the death penalty is asking a person who has no involvement with the guilty party to be the one who does the execution.

Q4. personally kill the criminal punishable by death, whether that be by hanging, electric chair or the method of your choice? Note. You will be seen publicly to be the one performing the death penalty. Again, I do not believe in the death penalty, there is too much room for error.

Q5. prefer anonymity? Note: Throwing stones gives anonymity, and is not a slow death but quick. You perceive it to be slow. No, it's not what I perceive it's actually true. When a stoning is carried out smaller stones are purposely chosen, so as to prolong the suffering.

Q6. What other forms of capital punishment do you think were appropriate in those days given extremely limited resources? If I had to choose a form of capital punishment, it would be the most humane possible, like the sword.

Q7. Was crucifixion better or worse than stoning? Crucifixion was horrible too. If god is so big on capital punishment why doesn't he just "zap" every guilty person dead like Annanias and Sapphira?

Q8. What other forms of capital punishment are practiced in the world today and are they any better than stoning? I'm surprised you have to ask...have you no compassion or empathy for human suffering, it's pretty obvious that stoning was chosen for its brutality!

[Greatest I am]

I have some questions for you.

Q1. Do you support the death penalty for some crimes?

I do not. It is a cop out for society not taking responsibility for creating the killers.
We all contribute to what they are. They are made that way, not born that way.
We just want to bury our own mistakes.

Can people or a nation push for veneration of life while taking it?
No they cannot.

Do innocent people end up dying on death row?
Yes. Statistics are dismal for those found innocent after their death.

How many mistakes would you allow before changing your mind?

Q5. Throwing stones gives anonymity, and is not a slow death but quick. You perceive it to be slow.

Untrue.
The practice includes using small stones to prolong the death as it is to be a community execution.

If you believe in a slow death for them, who is benefitting from the victims slow death?
The people are.
Is that blood lust really something that justice should try to appease?

Regards
DL