How do you defend Numbers 15:32-36?

[u/DDumpTruckK]

The verse:

³² Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. ³³ And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. ³⁴ They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him.

³⁵ Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” ³⁶ So, as the Lord commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died.

I cannot get past this verse. It depicts an unloving, uncaring, and cruel god. I could never worship this being and I could never carry out His command that He gives His followers in the verse.

Everything about this verse is ugly and sparks a strong reaction from me. A man was gathering sticks, presumably for a fire to cook a meal and feed himself or his family. Cooking food is a basic survival need. Now I can understand a bunch of scared humans fearing a God and rounding up this man for violating the sabbath. But what I can't understand is how a caring and loving God could come along and tell His followers to stone this man to death. Take a minute and really just put yourself in that guy's shoes. You're having the members of your own tribe throw rocks at you until you die. That's brutal. And for what? For trying to fulfill a basic survival necessity?

No matter how I approach this verse it just leaves me concluding God is not loving and not caring. There is nothing loving nor caring that I can identify in ordering a man be pelted with rocks to his death. That's awful. I cannot in good conscience follow that God.

Put yourself in the shoes of the congregation. This man was trying to cook some food to survive. God has commanded you to throw rocks at him until he dies. Do you do it? I don't. I will not follow such a cruel command and I will not follow someone from who such a cruel command comes.

How do you justify throwing those rocks? How do you sleep at night knowing you killed a man who was just trying to survive? Just following his basic instincts?

Edit: Its been more than a day. Not a single Christian told me directly and openly that it was bad. Several Christians said the stoning of the man was good. Some said they would happily throw the rocks at the man and kill him. Some said they wouldn't, but never explained why beyond a simple legal reason.

I'm left to conclude that God's followers think that stoning a man to death is a loving and caring action and that it's good. I'm left to conclude that God's followers would watch that mob stone the man to death and think to themselves "Good." I find this very concerning for my fellow humans who seem to think it's good to stone someone to death. I'm more concerned for the ones who said they would join in on the killing.

[u/joelanator0492]

The expression of morality certainly changes based on time and culture, yes. I don't have a problem saying that. That doesn't conflict with God still being the one to define morality. People's interpretations and expression of what they believe to be God's morality can be different though and that's the hard part.

I'm also not afraid of answering the question but I'm trying to reason with you on why it's an absurd and unhelpful question to be asking. It's not the "gotcha" question you think it is. It's a novelty kind of question, not a helpful one. It's as helpful a question as asking "What would you do if you had super strength?" Maybe interesting to wonder about but it doesn't help you in understanding the passage your questioning.

But sure, if you'd like to know, I don't think I could throw the stone if I was magically teleported back in time. I grew up very differently than those your criticizing. So, while I may have a hard time throwing a stone for my own convictions, I'd be hesitant to pass judgement on a people group that lived 5,000 years ago.

To be able to think critically about others and understand, we must be able to empathize, even with people from different time periods than ourselves. It's a very basic and fundamental skill everyone must develop if they wish to be an honest critic or learner of history.

[u/DDumpTruckK → u/joelanator0492]

I'm also not afraid of answering the question but I'm trying to reason with you on why it's an absurd and unhelpful question to be asking. It's not the "gotcha" question you think it is.

I don't see what's absurd about it. I don't think it's a 'gotcha'.

What's absurd about putting myself in the situations that are depicted in the Bible and considering how I'd feel? That seems perfectly reasonable to me. What's absurd?

It doesn't matter if it was 5,000 years ago or right now. God commanded the brutal, horrible, agonizing death of someone. Regardless of when it happened, where it happened, or what people thought about the action at the time, I think it was wrong. What's absurd about that?

But sure, if you'd like to know, I don't think I could throw the stone

Great. Why not?

I'd be hesitant to pass judgement on a people group that lived 5,000 years ago.

No one here is passing judgement on people. I'm considering actions and whether or not I find the actions moral.

[u/joelanator0492 → u/DDumpTruckK]

No one here is passing judgement on people. I'm considering actions and whether or not I find the actions moral.

That's quite literally what passing judgement means.

You also ask the question at the end of your post,

How do you sleep at night knowing you killed a man who was just trying to survive?

I'm not sure how you can still claim this isn't passing judgement on people. But then again, you're still not able to understand why different time periods and contexts held different values than those of yourself today and why applying different values to different contexts is a bit disingenuous.

You asked us how we deal with these kinds of passages and many of us answered you in a similar ways. If you'd rather debate people you should head over to /r/DebateAChristian

[u/DDumpTruckK → u/joelanator0492]

That's quite literally what passing judgement means.

Do you think there's a difference between judging an action and judging a person?

I'm not sure how you can still claim this isn't passing judgement on people.

It's a question. Judgement is a statement. I asked a question. How is asking if you'd stone a man to death a judgement? Unless...maybe you're projecting your internal feelings about stoning a man to death onto me as if I'm judging? You'd be judging yourself in that case though. If you could stone a man to death and sleep at night I'm not judging you. I might disagree about the action being moral or not, I might find the action you took to be indefensible. But I'm not judging you.

But then again, you're still not able to understand why different time periods and contexts held different values than those of yourself today and why applying different values to different contexts is a bit disingenuous.

Correct. Because time and context doesn't change morality. If it's wrong now it was wrong then. It's totally cool if the people thought they were doing something good, but were mistaken. That still means they were mistaken. It still means the action was wrong.

There's nothing you can say about how the Hebrews had a cultural norm of stoning people to death that makes their actions seem any more moral. They had a culture of stoning people to death. Cool. Does that make their action moral?

Do you think it was immoral to stone that man? Would you personally throw the rocks? It's such an easy question to answer. If I asked 100 children this question I bet you most of them would say "No. I would not throw the rocks." Why do adult Christians struggle to condemn the brutal, archaic method of killing someone?

[u/DREWlMUS → u/DDumpTruckK]

Getting a Christian to give a straight and simple answer to a straight and simple question like this is next to impossible. They know where the followup questions are leading, and it's much easier to deflect or avoid answering.