Stoning to death in the OT and the situation now after the NT.

[Darth Ovious]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...arents!/page13

Discussion between Paprika and I to start off with and then Darth Executor and Seer make contributions too.

[Darth Executor]

My personal view was always that it was OK in the extreme kind of environment that the Israelites lived in during Leviticus but became redundant as civilisation became more established and jail cells became an available form of punishment.

I thought so too but I've since reconsidered. The breakdown of the western family has been disastrous and tolerance is one of the heads of the Cerberus of civilization collapse.

[Darth Ovious]

I thought so too but I've since reconsidered. The breakdown of the western family has been disastrous and tolerance is one of the heads of the Cerberus of civilization collapse.

OK, so you are advocating to not be tolerant about these sort of things anymore. In terms of punishment what would you say is adequate? Is the death penalty for such sins an option or do you think jail terms are efficient or perhaps something different?

[Paprika]

I'm in the reconsidering camp. If the Law was good and God-given then it should be reasonable that behind each law there's a certain logic to it.

Which may not mean that death penalty is warranted, but criminalisation within a Christian society? I'm not sure I can rule that out.

[Darth Executor]

OK, so you are advocating to not be tolerant about these sort of things anymore. In terms of punishment what would you say is adequate? Is the death penalty for such sins an option or do you think jail terms are efficient or perhaps something different?

I think death is generally appropriate. I'm willing to consider alternative punishments if the individuals in question confess.

Also, the issue isn't the sin, the issue is that adultery is very bad regardless of whether it's a sin or not. I don't think the law should punish all sins, and respectively I'd think adultery deserves death even if I wasn't a Christian.

[Darth Ovious]

I'm in the reconsidering camp. If the Law was good and God-given then it should be reasonable that behind each law there's a certain logic to it.

Which may not mean that death penalty is warranted, but criminalisation within a Christian society? I'm not sure I can rule that out.

Well I still think that breaking the commandments is sinful, but I'm just trying to get my head around this in terms of punishment. Do we still advocate stoning? or perhaps a different punishment? I'm just trying to get my head around it.

[One Bad Pig]

Christians are under the New Covenant, not the Old Covenant established with Moses. The Law was not overturned, but superseded.

Like the question on paying taxes, this was a trap question sprung on Jesus; a yes response would get him in trouble with the Romans (since the Jews couldn't levy capital punishment at the time), whereas a no response would be against the Torah.

[Paprika]

Well I still think that breaking the commandments is sinful, but I'm just trying to get my head around this in terms of punishment. Do we still advocate stoning? or perhaps a different punishment? I'm just trying to get my head around it.

I think the first question that should be asked is: why did God command killing? Other legal punishments were available that didn't include jail, including the forty lashes minus one.

[hamster]

What about paying ransoms?

[Darth Ovious]

I think death is generally appropriate. I'm willing to consider alternative punishments if the individuals in question confess.

I am going to be honest here and say that this is something difficult to swallow as such and I do confess for other reasons rather than scriptural reasons.

Also, the issue isn't the sin, the issue is that adultery is very bad regardless of whether it's a sin or not. I don't think the law should punish all sins, and respectively I'd think adultery deserves death even if I wasn't a Christian.

I agree that adultery is bad. As I said above though I would consciously have a difficult time giving adulterers the death penalty though. Can I ask on your view in terms of Jesus keeping company with adulterers and sinners? I just want more clarification here in regards to how this meshes together with Jesus' example.

[Darth Executor]

What about paying ransoms?

Elite degeneracy tends to flow down from the top. In Israel it was a bit different since their elites would have mostly been priests, prophets, etc. Or kings chosen by God. For us it's usually movie stars and billionaires who usually have no status to lose by acting in a degenerate manner. So letting them buy their way into degeneracy is undesirable. This is probably getting a bit off topic, but I think the rich should be taxed in part by the morality they display, not just income bracket.

[Paprika]

I'm in the reconsidering camp. If the Law was good and God-given then it should be reasonable that behind each law there's a certain logic to it.

Which may not mean that death penalty is warranted, but criminalisation within a Christian society? I'm not sure I can rule that out.

I didn't make it clear that this was about homosexual acts. But adultery? Has to be criminalised.

It's late so I'll go through the rest of Lev 20 if necessary, but I think especially you who live in the West can see what the havoc that is wrecked when marriage and the family is trivialised, which should demand rethinking over the decriminalisation of adultery, for example.

[Darth Ovious]

Christians are under the New Covenant, not the Old Covenant established with Moses. The Law was not overturned, but superseded.

OK, thanks for posting. I did state a personal opinion for the change between covenants as Darth Executor has now posted into here, which I should probably thank him for.

Like the question on paying taxes, this was a trap question sprung on Jesus; a yes response would get him in trouble with the Romans (since the Jews couldn't levy capital punishment at the time), whereas a no response would be against the Torah.

Indeed, but I always thought there was an underlying meaning to what he said as a lesson to be taught. I always thought before that his response to get the Pharisee's questioning themselves. Jewish thought was that no man was without sin, so to then say to the Pharisee's that only those without sin can cast the first stone was a teaching to say that if you want to condemn someone for sin then first look in the mirror.

[Darth Executor]

Can I ask on your view in terms of Jesus keeping company with adulterers and sinners?

Which verse did you have in mind? I don't remember (and can't find) anything about Jesus keeping company with adulterers.

[Darth Ovious]

I think the first question that should be asked is: why did God command killing? Other legal punishments were available that didn't include jail, including the forty lashes minus one.

True, other punishments were available. The difference though is that Jail or the death penalty remove that threat from society. Lashes do not. So there is that fundamental difference between the punishments.