Man stoned to death "per Bible"

[DuckiesDarling]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/4788307/Man-stoned-to-death-in-US


A 70-year-old man was stoned to death with a rock stuffed in a sock by a younger friend who alleged the victim made unwanted sexual advances, authorities said.

According to the criminal complaint, John Thomas, 28, of a Philadelphia suburb, told police he killed Murray Seidman of nearby Lansdowne because the Bible refers to stoning homosexuals.

"I stoned Murray with a rock in a sock,'' Thomas told police, according to the criminal complaint. Thomas was arrested and charged with murder Friday.

According to the complaint, "John Thomas stated that he read in the Old Testament that homosexuals should be stoned in certain situations. The answer John Thomas received from his prayers was to put an end to the victim's life. John Thomas stated that he struck the victim approximately 10 times in the head. After the final blow, John Thomas made sure the victim was dead.''

"He is a deeply religious man. Or so he says,'' said Lansdowne Police Chief Dan Kortan.

Delaware County Medical Examiner Fredric Hellman ruled that Seidman had been dead for five to 10 days before Thomas started banging on doors in the hallway of Seidman's apartment building on Jan. 12.

Police said Thomas, who is the executor and sole beneficiary of Seidman's will, returned to the apartment and pretended that he had just discovered Seidman's body.

Thomas had no comment as he was led out of the Delaware County Courthouse on Friday. Seidman was a longtime worker in the laundry department at Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital, where he was ''very popular,'' Kortan said.

"As far as we are concerned, he was a model citizen,'' Kortan said.

Gonna be interesting to see how it plays out. On the one hand he could be laying an insanity plea with the religious overtones on the other, well he was the executor and sole beneficiary and he pretended to just discover the body. Seems to me it's more a matter of murder for profit than anything to do with the victims alleged homosexual advances.

[roy m cox]

don't you just love how these sick dumb asses use religion to justify what they do or clam insanity when they do a rape or murder , they know they did wrong and hide behind religion .

i think a lot of people forget judge not lest ye be judged :2cents:

[Darkside2009]

Stoning, as per Bible is a misnomer. In the Bible, the accused after being found guilty of his or her crime, was led outside and pelted with stones by the crowd until they died. Stones were used as the means of execution because they were freely available and all the community could take part. As a means of execution it served as a visible and public warning to those thinking of breaking the law of their community whilst involving the community in the administering of justice.

This case seems on the face of it to have more to do with greed. As executor and sole beneficiary the accused would have inherited in due course, provided the deceased didn't change his will.

If the deceased was around seventy years of age, he might have had another twenty years of life in him at most if we give a conservative estimate. In reality he would probably have much less than that.

It rather sounds, on the face of it, that the accused could not wait that long, or was worried the deceased might change his will.

Using a home made cosh in this manner, owes more to gangster films, than it does to the Bible but I suppose the newspaper headline wouldn't look as good.

At the trial of the accused, he will no doubt have his financial affairs investigated to see if he was in great financial difficulty as an alternative motive to the one he is supplying.

I don't know if the State the accused lives in has the death penalty for murder, his excuse seems a rather flimsy attempt to avoid his own execution.

The sad part, apart from the deceased losing his life, is that he obviously trusted the accused enough to make him executor of his will and cared enough for him to make him sole beneficiary. That trust and love was poorly repaid.

[elian]

I've head of people getting stoned out of their mind before but.. okay, okay - maybe in bad tasste.

In another part of PA a room mate stabbed a man to death because of "unwanted homosexual advances" so this isn't that much different, except for the 5-10 day wait, the faked surprise at discovering the body and the religious overtones.

I think it is sad that when the man was confronted with the circumstances he couldn't think of the mature and proper way to deal with it, but as some of you insinuated there may be more to the story..

[TaylorMade]

Stoning, as per Bible is a misnomer. In the Bible, the accused after being found guilty of his or her crime, was led outside and pelted with stones by the crowd until they died. Stones were used as the means of execution because they were freely available and all the community could take part. As a means of execution it served as a visible and public warning to those thinking of breaking the law of their community whilst involving the community in the administering of justice.

This case seems on the face of it to have more to do with greed. As executor and sole beneficiary the accused would have inherited in due course, provided the deceased didn't change his will.

If the deceased was around seventy years of age, he might have had another twenty years of life in him at most if we give a conservative estimate. In reality he would probably have much less than that.

It rather sounds, on the face of it, that the accused could not wait that long, or was worried the deceased might change his will.

Using a home made cosh in this manner, owes more to gangster films, than it does to the Bible but I suppose the newspaper headline wouldn't look as good.

At the trial of the accused, he will no doubt have his financial affairs investigated to see if he was in great financial difficulty as an alternative motive to the one he is supplying.

I don't know if the State the accused lives in has the death penalty for murder, his excuse seems a rather flimsy attempt to avoid his own execution.

The sad part, apart from the deceased losing his life, is that he obviously trusted the accused enough to make him executor of his will and cared enough for him to make him sole beneficiary. That trust and love was poorly repaid.

I'll make Ed have my point for me. :D

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/6/24/128903553151828668.jpg

*Taylor*

[jamieknyc]

Stoning, as per Bible is a misnomer. In the Bible, the accused after being found guilty of his or her crime, was led outside and pelted with stones by the crowd until they died. Stones were used as the means of execution because they were freely available and all the community could take part. As a means of execution it served as a visible and public warning to those thinking of breaking the law of their community whilst involving the community in the administering of justice.


Correction: the victim was not pelted with stones, but a stone large enough to cause a fatal injury was dropped on the victim from a height.

In the PA case, even if the murder and method of killing were religiously inspired, the First Amendment does not give you a right to do something that is otherwise illegal.

[darkeyes]

I don't think we need any interpretation, reasoning, excuses, justification or whatever.. upon gay, straight or bisexual, transgendered, martian or congenital idiot, what was done here was a particularly nasty and viscious assault which has resulted in the death of a human being for which the law of the state in which it was perpetrated should clamp down on with all severity as a warning that stupidity is no excuse for killing another even if as was claimed, the victim tried his luck with the alleged perpetrator.. there IS no excuse for taking from a human being his or her life.. so, no I would not execute him for people by now should know exactly how I feel about that, but that he is removed from society for a very long time is without doubt a must should he be found guilty..

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

Sounds like this ole boy had enough rocks in his head. No pun intended. And he'll get off somehow. :rolleyes:
Cat

[12voltman59]

This situation reeks of something as old as man has been a "civilized" creature---with things like envy, jealousy and greed playing a role---this guy wanted to get the money of his victim and figured this is a way he could do that---it is too bad all of the other issues of the victim being gay (supposedly), the perp using some kind of religious justification relating to the victim being "gay" and all the other tangential stuff has been brought into it all---it comes down to a greedy bastard wanting to steal something someone else has!! Hopefully, at the very least----he will spend the rest of his days behind bars and will have to learn to live life in the true jungle that is a maximum security prison the rest of his sorry assed days!!

[void()]

Allow me literary licence here. People such as this cause me to think we do need a form of memory hole. The type of memory hole I propose is quite different from Orwell's however.

Ingredients:

1. One person sized hole, we'll be nice and say six foot by six foot, approximately twelve feet deep, as to avoid them climbing back out.

2. One offending person, psycho type killer, rapist, anti-humanitarian.

3. One hardened iron hole grate with exterior locking mechanisms.

Recipe:

Shove number two into number one and cover with number three, lock, leave and erase number two from memory. Be sure these memory holes are widely public knowledge. Make feeding or showing any compassion to the hole occupants illegal, punishable by the offenders own hole.

Of course, it goes without saying I'm insane and content to be ignored.

[Darkside2009]

Correction: the victim was not pelted with stones, but a stone large enough to cause a fatal injury was dropped on the victim from a height.

In the PA case, even if the murder and method of killing were religiously inspired, the First Amendment does not give you a right to do something that is otherwise illegal.

I think you are wrong as to your interpretation of the method used. The New Testament refers to Jesus preventing a women, charged with adultery, being stoned, by saying, 'He who is without sin should cast the first stone.' This effectively caused the crowd to disperse without the woman being killed, as to claim one was without sin, would in itself have been blasphemous.

Secondly, i have seen a video of two people accused of adultery being stoned to death by a crowd. The woman was given the coup de grace with a bullet to the head. The man had to endure the stoning until he was dead. The killing was carried out by the Taliban.

Thirdly, I wasn't postulating the killing was justified, as some seem to think. On the facts supplied in the original post it seemed to me to have more to do with plain old greed, than having any religious motivation.

Fourthly, I happen to be in favour of the death penalty for certain offences, I realise not everyone shares that view, they are entitled to their opinion, as I am to mind.

I think many of the laws of those times and of that society may seem harsh to modern eyes in the West. I feel there were logical and historical reasons for many of the laws given that the Jews had been leading a nomadic existence in the desert.

As a Jew yourself, you will be aware that in Israel, an individual's identity and significance were determined by his or her membership in the community. This contrasts with Western Society, where the individual is considered to be the primary social entity.

In the OT, the people are often referred to or addressed in the singular, emphasizing their oneness. The Decalogue (Exod 20:2-17) and the blessing of Aaron (Num 6:24-26), for example are given in the singular.

All Israelites were expected to partake of the common identity of the community as the "children of Israel" and to embody the characteristics that marked the whole.

In Israel, the family was the basic building block for the solidarity of the entire people. Each of the twelve tribes was a conglomeration of families and clans. The twelve tribes together comprised the people of Israel as a whole. Although the level of solidarity might decrease at a distance from one's immediate family, this familial notion permeated all of Israelite society. A kinsman was often called a brother, not just a relative, to express the closest intimacy. By extension of the family model, the term often translated "brother" could also be used of a fellow Israelite (see Deut 1:16, "fellow Israelites"; 3:18,"Israelite relatives"

Since Israel was seen as an extended family, it's existence depended on the integrity of the home. Crimes such as incest and adultery were regarded very severely because they weakened the foundation of the family. Incest introduced competition, threatening the safety of the home by violating the trust, intimacy, and sense of belonging shared by its members. Adultery fragmented the home by allowing intimacy with someone outside it to divide the loyalties of its participants. These powerful enemies of family solidarity weakened the clan and tribe, and by extension, the solidarity of the nation itself.

These sexual crimes were therefore not regarded as "victimless crimes" but as sins that eventually threaten the community itself, hence the harsh penalties involved.

I would add that Jesus told the woman, once the crowd of accusers had departed, to go and sin no more. It was open to the accused killer in this original post to do likewise if he wished to follow the Biblical example, he chose not to. This leads me to suppose that his excuse might not be his primary motivation.

By the way, I'm not trying to lecture you on the Jewish faith, but whenever the Bible is mentioned in these posts a lot of confusion and bigotry seems to ensue. I just try to redress the balance by giving a different perspective to those who can consider matters with an open mind. Often I just get a bowl of invective for my trouble, I'll let the jury decide.

[Hephaestion]

Perhaps not the best place to raise this but did anyone in the UK see the last couple of episodes (last week and today 22 Mar 2011) dealing with the Bible and its contents.

BBC2 TV 21:00–22:00 Bible's Buried Secrets
Did God Have a Wife?
2/3. Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou asks whether ancient Israelites believed in one God. .


God - aka - El (hence Isra El = land of God)
Israel not mono theist but multi theist.
God taken as married to some woman
etc

Much of this fine detail lost in the translations to make a smooth product.


PS One wonders about Jor El and Kal El.

[Darkside2009]

Yes, I've been watching the programmes on television. I found them interesting but not convincing, she postulated a theory then proceeded as though that theory had been proved, when it hadn't. Elohim was the common Hebrew name for God emphasizing his grand supremacy.

Elohim is plural, but the verbs used with it are usually singular, reflecting the consistent scriptural proclamation of a single, all-powerful God.

Created (Hebrew bara'): In the OT, God is always the agent of creation expressed by this verb. It describes the making of something fresh and new- notably the cosmos(1:1, 21;2:3), humankind (1:27), the Israelite nation (Isa 43:1), and the future new creation (Isa 65:17)

The Heavens and the Earth are the entire ordered Cosmos. In Genesis God's creative utterances bring order to the chaotic state of the universe. Formless, empty (Hebrew tohu...bohu) it means something like wild and waste. It sets a stark contrast to the final ordered state of the heavens and the earth.

Deep waters-(Hebrew tehom) Some scholars say this alludes to the Mesopotamian goddess Tiamat (representing chaos), but Genesis views tehom as inhospitable chaos, not as a deity or goddess that God engaged in cosmic battle.

I could go on but I think it would be digressing from the original thread too much. Another time, another thread perhaps. lol

[Hephaestion]

Good to know that DS2009 and agree about her presentation.

Nevertheless, at whatever level, the programme precipitates a questioning of the maniacal adherence to the words of the Bible by some.

[darkeyes]

Yes, I've been watching the programmes on television. I found them interesting but not convincing, she postulated a theory then proceeded as though that theory had been proved, when it hadn't. Elohim was the common Hebrew name for God emphasizing his grand supremacy.

Elohim is plural, but the verbs used with it are usually singular, reflecting the consistent scriptural proclamation of a single, all-powerful God.

Created (Hebrew bara'): In the OT, God is always the agent of creation expressed by this verb. It describes the making of something fresh and new- notably the cosmos(1:1, 21;2:3), humankind (1:27), the Israelite nation (Isa 43:1), and the future new creation (Isa 65:17)

The Heavens and the Earth are the entire ordered Cosmos. In Genesis God's creative utterances bring order to the chaotic state of the universe. Formless, empty (Hebrew tohu...bohu) it means something like wild and waste. It sets a stark contrast to the final ordered state of the heavens and the earth.

Deep waters-(Hebrew tehom) Some scholars say this alludes to the Mesopotamian goddess Tiamat (representing chaos), but Genesis views tehom as inhospitable chaos, not as a deity or goddess that God engaged in cosmic battle.

I could go on but I think it would be digressing from the original thread too much. Another time, another thread perhaps. lol

I was once, metaphorically at least, threatened with the proverbial burning at the stake for heresy, since my postulation has always been that it was man who created God out of a need to come to terms with and understand his/her place in the universe. At that time, I had not long parted from my husband in part because a relationship I had begun with another woman, but looking back now, more because I had tipped over the edge from bisexuality into lesbianism. I denied this for several years and others, including friends on this site, realised this long before ever I did. The same person who told me that my heresy was worthy of half a tonne of faggots (no pun intended), a can of petrol and a box of matches (my words) said almost in the same breath, words to the effect that being an adulteress and a perversion, I am equally worthy of stoning and that God would look kindly on those who undertook such a course of action. My response to such venom I will not repeat here, suffice to say that it too contained some venom..

Most religious people would never dream of threatening anyone with such an unpleasant end, no matter what they had done to offend their God.. certainly few Christians would, for is not a main tenet of their religion forgiveness and "go sin no more?" (which I do apologise, Im afraid in one way or tother I do seem to keep sinning in the eys of so many).

There is enough intolerance and a lack of compassion in our world among people of all faiths, and among those, who like me, are of no faith. If we stoned, burned, shot, hanged, fried, gassed and generally removed from our world all of those who offended our beliefs, quite simply there would be none of us left after a very little while.. but however we punish people as a society.. no individual has the right to take unto her or himself the right to act as prosecutor, jury and executioner.. to act as God if u like..

[Darkside2009]

Just because I voice an opinion on some topic in these forums, it does not mean that I automatically expect others to share or agree with them. If others are atheists or agnostics or pagans or whatever, that is up to them.

If God decided to give Mankind freewill, why would I want to take it from them? Each person is accountable for their own actions and Biblical teaching is that at some future point, all will be asked to account for their actions. Some choose to emphasize this point to others in hopes perhaps, that they will be frightened into compliance. The person of whom Darkeyes speaks, appears to be of this persuasion.

To me the central message is love and a moral code with which to live by. Time and again in the NT, Jesus sought to teach ethical truths by means of parables, short moral stories that all could understand and by the example of his own life.

One could have the most wonderful library in ones town or city but if one doesn't set foot inside the library then one will not learn what is contained in those books.

The Bible is by far the World's best selling book, yet no one is forced to buy a copy. All I hope for, is that anyone reading these forums will have their interest provoked enough, that they will go and read it for themselves and not rely on hear-say as to what is written there.

I think the person doing so will undergo a whole range of emotions from sadness to rage but will come away a more thoughtful individual, having learned how other people have faced life's seemingly imponderable questions.

A good study bible is best, as it will explain unfamiliar terms and language and provide background information on the history and customs of the period. Approach it with an open or sceptical mind as you wish, there is much within its pages to inform, enlighten and comfort.

Each society throughout history has set the parameters for the behaviour expected of its members and the penalties that can be expected for any member breaking or infringing those parameters, ours is no different.

[DuckiesDarling]

Okay getting a bit far afield here. The point of the thread was that the man's excuse for murdering a man was that the Bible said homosexuals should be "stoned". This idiot's interpretation of that was to make a murder weapon out of a stone in a sock. To me it's murder pure and simple, and murder for profit most likely and not due to the fact the man may or may not have made homosexual advances to him.