ApologeticJedi, you wrote:
No, no, no Jefferson. I said that you had a good point that sometime moral truths change with different circumstances. That doesn’t mean you were correct about stoning, you still have to prove that. You had a good beginning, but that was it.
Then how about another example: Excommunication. Matthew 18:15-17 lays out detailed procedures for disfellowship. Why then were those procedures not followed in the case of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-10?
. . . if it was morally wrong to put someone to death by any other means than stoning, then why did they profane that moral truth in the valley below Mt. Sinai? If it were a moral law, then you would not expect that you can break it so easily … especially not for a “symbolic” law which often has a lesser importance.
They didn't profane it
or break it. They were obeying Exodus 22:20 - "One sacrificing to a god, except it is to Jehovah only, he shall be utterly destroyed." Since this verse does not specify stoning, they did not sin against this verse by executing via the sword for this
theocratic, covenental, ceremonial violation.
Please tell me what is immoral with hanging a kidnapper?
First: The community does not participate in a hanging. When the community participated in a stoning, the community collectively declared their separation from both the criminal and his crime. It had to be an incredible amount of peer-pressure and warning to others who might consider committing a similar crime in the future. Since with hangings, citizens just passively watch from the sidelines, the peer-pressure effect on future kidnappers is reduced.
Second: Stoning represents the judgment of God, since Christ is "the rock" and is the "stone" which threatens to fall upon men and destroy them (Mathew 21:44). In line with this, the community hurls a rock representing himself and his affirmation of God's judgment. The principle of stoning, then, affirms that the judgment is God's; the application of stoning affirms the community's assent and participation in that judgment. Hanging does not accomplish this.
Third: Each pile of stones served as a continual reminder of the reality of God's judgment. Hanging is only a temporary reminder, not a permanent one.
Forth: Stoning images the promised judgment against Satan: the crushing of his head by the promised Seed (Genesis 3:15). Hanging does not accomplish this.
Fifth: The impersonalism of hanging allows people to avoid thinking God's thoughts after Him. Citizens can stand afar off and even condemn the morality of capital punishment in their own minds if they so choose. Not so when they themselves are
participating in the execution. . The Bible does not allow the establishment of a professional, taxpayer-financed guild of faceless executioners who, over time, inevitably grow either callous, impersonal or even sadistic regarding their task. Instead, the Bible imposes personal responsibility on members of society at large for enforcing this ultimate sanction. But people refuse to accept this God-imposed personal responsibility. They prefer to make a lone executioner psychologically responsible for carrying out the sentence rather than participate in this responsibility, as God requires.
Sixth Evangelism. Seeing the death penalty in action before their very eyes makes the judgment of God (the second death) seem more believable to unbelievers. How much more believable would preaching about the second death be if unbelieving citizens were themselves required to participate in the first death of capital criminals via stoning? They do not
participate in a hanging.
The main question you are asking me is why do I think execution by sword (for example) was moral for violations of ceremonial law but not for
nonceremonial law.
The answer is because God said it was via His lack of even one example of a non-stoning execution for a nonceremonial violation.
You don't value this "argument of omission" but my argument of omission is WAY better than your argument of
assumption especially when it comes to holy scripture discussing an issue as important as the death penalty.
You can use your "argument of assumption" by trying to pound the square peg (of an execution for a ceremonial violation) into the round hole (of an execution for a
nonceremonial violation) if you want to, but I'm not going to do it.
When it comes to taking away someone else's life, don't you think we should be very circumspect in our methods and not use "arguments of assumption?" Yes, or no?
Why did God think non-stoning executions for ceremonial violators was moral? Beats me. Why did God institute the ceremony of circumcision? What was inherently moral about
that? The fact that the methods of executions for ceremonial violations are as unexplainable as many of the ceremonies themselves should come as no surprise.
Finally, I'll leave you with this question: Deuteronomy 22:21 (for example) says, "then they shall bring the girl out to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones so that she dies, because she has done foolishness in Israel to play the harlot in her father's house." Why doesn't the verse say "the men of her city shall stone her with stones
OR kill her with the sword
OR burn her with fire etc.?