Major Admin Announcement
Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Community Log In

Quote# 89943

Biblically, the death penalty could not be applied unless there were at least two eyewitnesses to the incident. Circumstantial evidence, even when strong, is not the equivalent of multiple eyewitnesses and therefore does not meet the Biblical standard. Interestingly, however, the Bible long ago acknowledged a specific eyewitness that only in recent decades has become recognized in Americans courts.

Recall the account of Cain's murder of his brother Abel from Genesis 4:8-10. When God asked Cain where his brother was and Cain lied, God specifically confronted him with the declaration: "The voice of your brother's blood is crying to Me from the ground" (v. 10). Blood cries out? Blood has a voice? How can that be? We now know that DNA has a voice - that it serves as an eyewitness to specific crimes, just as when it cried out to God about Abel's death. This voice therefore Biblically qualifies as one of the "two or three eyewitnesses" needed to secure the death penalty in a capital crime.

David Barton, Right Wing Watch 46 Comments [10/7/2012 6:52:57 AM]
Fundie Index: 34
Submitted By: Zagen30
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
farpadokly

But the blood of a victim would only tell you about the DNA of the victim, not about the perpetrator.

10/7/2012 11:47:38 AM

Papabear

Eager to kill others are you, Davey? Jesus said that commiting any sin is the same as commiting all of them. So, turning right without signaling makes you equal to a murderer. Seems only fair that you, a Bible-believing Christian, should kill yourself... or have you never commited ANY sin?

Eyewitness testimony has been shown to be quite unreliable. DNA IS much more reliable, but even if one could be absolutely sure of someone's guilt, to apply the death penalty one needs to employ someone to kill another person. Isn't locking the criminal in prison forever enough?

10/7/2012 12:35:38 PM

Amadaun

There's an immensely strict requirement for eyewitnesses in most of traditional shari'a jurisprudence relating to capital punishment. Partly because the shari'a was historically a non-governmental civil law that rarely dealt with criminal justice directly.

There's probably a similar textual basis both for this tradition and for David's claims, in their entirely separate but related holy books.

10/7/2012 1:03:14 PM

Old Viking

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. If six persons witness an incident you'll end up with six different versions of what transpired.

10/7/2012 1:06:30 PM



@Filin De Blanc

If Gil Grissom was god, I imagine we'd all be some sort of evolved insects.

I don't even regard Barton's stupidity worth commenting on.

10/7/2012 1:20:16 PM

checkmate



"Hi, my name is Rick Perry and I'm not ashamed to say I'm a Christian.

I always do exactly what the Bible says. But when it comes to the death penalty, I couldn't give a flying fuck what the Bible says: I want to fry as many of them niggers, err, uhh, excuse me, guilty people here in Texas as possible.

DNA is not evidence, in fact it's against God and against the Bible. It means we have to set lots of niggers, err, uhh, excuse me, guilty people free instead of dealing them God's rightful judgement.

I'll take the word of a blind old gradma from a good clean decent KKK family who saw a nigger, err, uhh, excuse me, guilty person do sumthin bad over that godless DNA any day.

God bless Texas, and to hell with the cursed fags."

10/7/2012 2:04:15 PM

Noneofyourbusiness

This is insane, but I'm not sure how it's harmful enough to be fundie. He doesn't appear to be advocating anything. Or is it just too screwy for me to be able to tell what he's advocating?

10/7/2012 2:15:06 PM

markb

Blood in the ground is not an eyewitness to (or evidence of) murder, only that there was a body there. You have to find the DNA on the suspect that matches what was found at the crime scene.

10/7/2012 2:15:37 PM

Philbert McAdamia

Cain & Abel? Jeeze, Louise, talk about bringing up cold cases.

Also; blood speaks, now? Like snakes, bushes and donkeys?

10/7/2012 4:26:41 PM

Pule Thamex

More proof for how a nonexistent sky beast, as postulated by a bunch of ancient loonies, is still able to fuck with the modern mind.

Or, how the modern loony, same as the ancient loony, revers The Black Book Of Death and revels in its ferocious madness with barely concealed joy and considerable relief as a justification for his or her savage impulses and as a balm for his or her mental illness.

10/8/2012 1:59:41 AM

Mister Spak

" We now know that DNA has a voice - that it serves as an eyewitness to specific crimes,"

Funny how blood didn't cry out until atheistic scientists did their atheistic science on it.

"This voice therefore Biblically qualifies as one of the "two or three eyewitnesses" needed to secure the death penalty in a capital crime. "

Where in the bible does it tell us about the double helix?

10/8/2012 5:55:29 AM

SpukiKitty

Also, his entire deranged "point" is meaningless anyway....God spared Cain, gave him some sort of marking to tell others "Don't kill this guy" and let Cain wander around the Land Of Nod where he eventually founded a settlement.

10/8/2012 6:19:20 AM

motobreath

I put far more stock in circumstantial evidence than I do eyewitness'. Recent overturning of convictions by DNA prove this. I have no moral issue with the death penalty I just don't trust the judicial system with that call.

10/8/2012 6:54:07 AM

Mattiedef

I chuckled a bit.

10/8/2012 10:59:36 AM

John_in_Oz

David's preparing his 'not guilty by reason of insanity' defence.

10/8/2012 11:04:50 AM

Osiris

I admire you efforts, but seriously. Anyone who isn't a fucking idiot and reads that can see what it means. Cain said "I didn't do it" and God pointed to the spilled blood on the ground. Haven't you people ever heard of poetic language before. If someone in real life said that same thing, would you then just assume that the blood was literally talking to him?

10/8/2012 12:34:40 PM



Have you recently talked to your DNA?. I wonder.

10/29/2012 5:06:17 AM

Kuno

Hm, Frostythesnowman made an interesting point back in 2012. Christian fundies keep on telling us that there is no morality without their God and that the 10 commandments are the basis for the law.

So Cain had no way of even knowing that murder is wrong.

Also, according to the story the only people around at that time were Eve, Adam, Cain and Abel. So even ignoring God’s omniscience, Cain standing around, looking guilty with a lot of blood on the ground should be enough for God to perp-sweat him. Let alone that DNA alone doesn’t tell you who murdered the person who shed the blood.

12/21/2015 8:42:22 AM

Swede

Blood being on the ground doesn't tell how that blood ended up there, or who/what opened up the wound, silly-nilly.

12/21/2015 9:52:19 AM

Anon-e-moose

The Bible? In this case (pun extremely intended) I refer you to the non-fiction book by crime novelist Joseph Wambaugh: "The Blooding". Certainly more relevant.

It documented the atrocities of Colin Pitchfork, in the Leicestershire villages of Narborough & Enderby in the UK. Also, the fact that these murders were solved via the world's first use of DNA analysis.

Thus, in a single stroke, as Wambaugh pointed out, were any & all fictional murder mysteries set then & beyond killed stone dead, certainly conventional ones; only ones set before 1985 could be written.

Because, as murder fiction, certainly as per Agatha Christie's Miss Marple & Hercule Poirot & their ilk, rely upon circumstantial evidence, and as purely eyewitness testimonies are unreliable & thus inadmissable as evidence in a court of law, then unless you can show us proof of a "CSI: Jerusalem", then you only serve to reinforce the credibility of Atheism: as proved in Kitzmiller vs. Dover, there is an infinite amount of reasonable doubt that your 'True' Bible isn't.

But then, as per Agatha Christie's books, the Bible is set in the past. Not exactly subject to the ultimate crucible of forensic analysis for anything that claims to be historical fact: Peer Review.

Blood that screams? I'm afraid that the scene where Kurt Russell does that experiment with the Petri dishes of everyone's blood & the red-hot wire in the John Carpenter remake of "The Thing" is not a documentary David Farton, you retard.


Just the facts, ma'am. [/"Dragnet"]

12/21/2015 7:07:46 PM

creativerealms

So to David Barton serial killers who are known to kill in private can get away with their crimes no matter how strong the evidence is.

4/5/2016 3:02:28 PM
1 2