Child Stoning? Dan Barker commits another common fallacy which he shares in common with both Prof. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. Dan Barker wrote,
“How should parents treat a stubborn and rebellious son?…He should be stoned to death.”1
I have written on this subject in greater detail in my essay Planting God More Firmly on His Throne and the “Back Talking” portion of Sam Harris’ Mythunderstandings. The bottom line here is that apparently hermeneutics is simply unknown to Dan Barker, Sam Harris and Prof. Richard Dawkins.
Stoning offenses do not mean that if you saw someone committing a stoneable offense you just executed them on the spot. Beginning at Exodus 18:13-26 we see a careful judicious system being established. Reference to the two or three witnesses that were required is found in Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15, Matthew 18:16, 2nd Corinthians 13:1, 1st Timothy 5:19 and Hebrews 10:28. These are a part of a very careful and restrictive system. The complex issues interacting here are, for example, social order and deterrence.
Let us focus for a moment on the emotionally charged (as well it should be) reference to what Richard Dawkins refers to as “disobedient children,” Sam Harris refers to as children that “talk back to us,” but the Bible refers to as stubborn, rebellious, disobedient, gluttonous, drunkards who “smiteth” and curse their parents and have already been chastened (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9 and Deuteronomy 21:18). The Talmud (Sandedrin 71a) basically makes the point that such severe restrictions were placed on the commandments that “There never was, and never will be, a wayward and defiant son” or “stubborn and rebellious son.”