His case was one of the main catalysts in the repeal of the death penalty here in the UK. The very idea of an innocent man being murdered in error by the state is in my opinion so awful.. so very very awful that even to contemplate it as a 'regrettable' side effect and.. in any way excusable shows nothing but a blood lust that belongs in History books. Or as an example of of our inability to deal with justice except as revenge. Surely as a species we have moved on from that.
My own view is coloured by my catholic upbringing. Although i now have no belief in God, I cannot change all my prejudices. In my view Murder is a wicked act. it is the ultimate act of theft; the theft of someones life and future. I cannot in any way condone the state replying to a wicked act WITH a wicked act. The death penalty is Murder. Whenever this topic comes up in normal discourse I mention the UK case of Timothy Evans. And go no further. His fate brought shame on the Justice system.
Most people who are in favor of the death penalty don't seem to realize that the death penalty is only one of the two punishments the condemmed will face. There are two: the time you will spend behind bars in prison and the execution itself. Now as of today in the year 2012, the average time spent on death row is about 12-15 years if I remember correctly. So it's not like they are given the sentence and executed the same week they have to wait a very long time
Many thanks for this analysis of a topic coming far too often on the front scene in politics nowadays where political yet religious "leaders" are the very first to stand by the death penalty. Always found to be contradictory to the Christian's beliefs myself and your video shade some lights on all opinions.
I've heard that John 8:1-11 has been actually added to the bible later, by the church. I don't remember if it was you who said that or some other youtube atheists but still. If that is true, that would revert us to the whole "I did not come to abolish old laws". And christians would have their justification. Ah, it's all a mess, that is exactly why we should not base our law on bible.
WHAT I DID NOT HEAR WAS THE ANSWER ABOUT THE SOLUTION,AND PLEASE DONT SAY REHAB,GET REAL THAT DOES NOT WORK.LETS LOOK AT CASEY ANTHONY HOWS THAT FOR JUSTICE,AND DONT SAY NO PROOF.IF MY GRANDKIDS OR MY OWN CHIL WAS MISSING FOR A MIN,HELL WILL HAVE TO PAY.DR G SAID MISSING CHILD=MURDER.DEATH PENALTY,I WOULD DO IT FOR FREE WITHOUT EVEN THINKING ABOUT IT.WE NEED TO SHOE HANGINGS ON TV AND ELECTRICUTIONS.
The funny thing about the bible is that it in one passage it will support something and in another it will advocate it. Jesus says no death penalty but says to keep the old laws. Which is it? Just one of the many inconsistencies in the bible.
Here in Denmark we abolished the deathpanelty over 80 years ago
and society hasn't collapsed. In fact crimes like murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft are way below U.S. levels.
Our system isn't perfect,
in some areas we could even learn a few things from the U.S.,
but at least most of us see the justice system as a tool of society,
Matthew 5:17-18 says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
Since the death penalty is used prolifically in the Old Testament it seems that Christians are justified in their support for the death penalty.
@wlemusic And as I noted in the video, just a few verses down from the portion of Matthew 5 that you quoted, Jesus is depicted changing the very Law he said he had not come to change, i.e., the standard of justice is no longer the one found in the Law--"an eye for an eye."
The opinions of xtians on this reminds me so much of this quote-I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.
Susan B. Anthony
They don't look to the bible for an answer, they have an answer and look for bits to back them up. When they're not there, they get pretty creative, I'll give'm that.
@bamcis17 And guess what? It's never deterred people from murdering. One big reason for punishing murders with death is to make people think twice about killing someone else, but it obviously doesn't work. Then there are other reasons, especially the possibility of killing an innocent person.
a comment on your statements that Jesus' words refute capital punishment. First, the OT references are God's words to be used as a guide in the setting up of a nation's government, While Jesus is speaking to people. Furthermore, the "eye for an eye" verses are not set down as a price to be exacted, but rather as a maximum, a "go no further", if you will. This is a very important difference. Jesus' statements, as they often were, serve as a recommitment to going beyond merely "go no further".
Great vid! Not to mention the exorbanent monetary cost to the tax payers to put someone to death. My partner that is for the death penalty suggested that it shouldn't take 10 to 20 years and that the lenghtly appeals is why it cost so much money. Her suggestion is that they should only get 1 appeal which would no doubt lead to many more mistakes. I'm not a legal expert but why does it take so long for the appeal process to happen in a capital punishment case?
The original Aramaic NT & the earliest Greek manuscripts dont have the text from John 7:53-8:11; which includes the woman taken in adultery. By using that text to show Jesus is against murder is as quoting unauthentic or false scripture (i.e. text that is NOT inspired by God). @ Matt. 5:38 Jesus didnt say he was against an eye for an eye but said we R not to resist evil, etc - Murderers dont stop killing. Its a huge injustice 4 them to get less than they deserve (i.e. life in prison).
You really need to stop with that crap. And I know that the story of the woman taken in adultery is not in the earliest manuscripts of the fourth gospel. I also know it appears in some manuscripts of Luke. When will Christians be excising it from their canon?
"Matt. 5:38 Jesus didnt say he was against an eye for an eye but said we R not to resist evil."
The passage has Jesus repudiating the "eye for an eye" standard of justice.
@TheHenok30 The fact that John 7 isn't in the earliest manuscripts doesn't mean the story isn't authentic, it just means it's absent from those texts. Someone could have injected the story into John from an orphaned fragment to preserve it. In fact, the odd mention of Jesus writing on the ground with no explanation certainly makes the story seem authentic rather than contrived.
@StormTrek Jesus writing on the ground is @ John chapter 8 verses 6 & 7. Those verses R included in the 12 verses not contained in the Aramaic Peshitta text or earliest Greek texts. This story appears 2B a very early forgery b/c it is contained in the Latin Vulgate. After the Pharisees said no prophet arises out of Galilee (Jn. 7:52). Chapter 8 would then start with Jesus speaking to the multitude, saying, I am the light of the world... There is nothing showing those additions belong in John.
@TheHenok30-- A number of scholarly authorities posit that instead of being added, that it was in the original manuscript, but dropped out by some in later manuscripts who worried people would use the story to say fornication was okay, since he let the woman get away without penalty. That seems more likely to me than a weird forgery that has such detail.
@TheHenok30 OK, I agree it's a forgery (not authored by John and inserted into the text at a later date), that doesn't mean it is also historically inaccurate. For example, remove 8:6-7 from the section in question, the next step is to determine if the content contradicts the general thought process of the other biblical descriptions of Jesus. There's really nothing non-1stCentury-Jewish about what is attributed to Jesus there.
@StormTrek -- A number of scholarly authorities posit that instead of being added, that it was in the original manuscript, but dropped out by some in later manuscripts who worried people would use the story to say fornication was okay, since he let the woman get away without penalty.
@Matur1n The problem I have with that explanation is that it smells like it is trying to preserve tradition rather than history. In addition, I'm not aware of anyone who denies that the passage contains stylistic differences from the rest of John. Even so, if it is an insertion of a non-John authored passage that doesn't mean it is historically inaccurate. I come down on the side of historical accuracy just because the part of Jesus writing on the ground is so weird.
@StormTrek The writing on the ground is what makes me think it is genuine. Jesus liked to do stuff like that. Like the story in Matthew of the four drachma coin from the fish's mouth. That's a weird way to get a coin. Rather than just look in your pocket and it is miraculously there. Rubbing mud in the guys eyes to cure him. Sending demons into the swine instead of just away. Forgeries don't usually add weird details. Many think the gospel of John had several older disciples helping draft it.
Nevertheless, we have to be cognizant of its potential as an insertion. Thankfully it doesn't have any crucial doctrinal details that change Christianity. It is just a nice teaching story about forgiveness and how we magnify others sins and overlook our own. Not that different than just a restatement of the "splinter in his eye, log in your eye" lesson.
Since America now has DNA evidence, this is a blessing & a good reason to keep the death penalty on the books. I realize innocent people have been put to death, buth they failed to do their part & prove they were innocent. Without the death penalty, the would be murderer will think: "if I kill some1 & get caught then I wont die; just have a lifetime of prison where I can possibly escape."
@TheHenok30 "I realize innocent people have been put to death, buth they failed to do their part & prove they were innocent."
One of the basic principles of the American criminal justice system is that those accused of crimes do not have to prove their innocence, rather the state has to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You might want to gain an understanding of how the system actually works before you start talking (incorrectly) about people not doing their part.
(con't) @TheHenok30 Moreover, if you knew about actual death penalty cases, you would know that there are a host of issues that contribute to wrongful capital convictions and wrongful executions. You should take some time to educate yourself about the cases. There are links in the description box that should be helpful.
"Christians" is an identity, statistically atheists understand the bible more than religious people in the western world. That identity is suburban, middle class, materialistic, frightened, patriarchal and usually of European ethic origin. Their religion is a decoration, they enjoy the parts that fit with their prejudices and conveniences and discard the parts that do not!
A friend of mine, a prosecuting lawyer, told me that, in Britain, a reason which was taken into account when deciding to abolish the death penalty, was that some jury members were reluctant to give a guilty verdict when they knew the death penalty was possible and as the verdict for a capital offence had to be unanimous, it only took one not guilty vote for a case to be dismissed. Because of that, probable murderers were going free. That doesn't happen now.
@HonestMan395 Now that is an excellent argument I hadn't considered before even though I would be one of those who would be inclined to acquit where the DP was allowed.
You say that innocent people have probably been exucuted. I'd say that it's not just probable, but certain.
In the European Union, we long ago abolished the death penalty. since then, in Britain alone, a significant number of convicted "murderers", who would've been executed had the death penalty been in place, have been found innocent of the crime, sometimes many years later.
Luckily, they were able to be released, but that would not have been possible with the death penalty in place.
Also execution seems to be a very short and mild punishment compared to life imprisonment. According to Christians, if the killer is 'saved' right before he is executed (which is always possible), he can still go to heaven. So for killing another human, the only punishment he got then, is dying on earth, which is completely painless if injections are used. So even the argument that capital punishment is heavier and more appropriate penalty, is complete hogwash. The Atheist Antidote = failing.
Prof… You say Jesus only once weighs in on the death penalty. I would like to point out a second, admittedly indirect, reference to the death penalty. In Mark 7:9-13 he appears to support the death penalty for rebellious children (as well as supporting many unspecified Old Testament laws)…
@apeek7 Yes, a couple of other people have mentioned this. I had not thought of it when I was preparing this video. It's interesting and I'm thinking about it for a follow-up on the topic. Thanks.
@ProfMTH Another thought along those lines. A long time ago I read a monolog about the death penalty wherein it said that since administrating the death penalty precludes any possibility of future improvement in the individual the object is not punishment but, rather, vengeance – pure and simple… But the Bible says: Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. (Romans 12:19).
@ProfMTH Since I kinda have your attention... I'm the dude who has been bothering you with doing a spread sheet on your subscriber growth curve. At the current rate you should pass 50,000 about Mar. 2013. Your growth rate seems to be a direct reflection of the new videos you upload. The growth was very rapid until May 2010. Then pretty rapid until Oct. 2010 and now a moderate growth rate. Also, I am the dude who bought PROFMTH.com (redirected to your YouTube page).
@apeek7 "the object is not punishment but, rather, vengeance"
Why can't the object of the DP be permanent separation rather than vengeance? A society can decide that the punishment for murder is permanent separation from society.
@StormTrek Permanent separation could be banishment. If your only option, if your only definition for ‘permanent separation’ is death then you are playing word games and my analysis stands…
@apeek7 An island circled by sharks with laser beams attached to their heads.
Nevertheless, punishment should determined by the assumption of guilt. Probability of false judgment should be mitigated by standard of evidence not reduced punishment. Therefore, what is equitable punishment for first degree murder?
@StormTrek An island circled by sharks with laser beams attached to their heads would be OK - as long as they’re are alive and the possibility of a reversal of the original judgment is possible. The problem advocates of repealing the death penalty have with the penalty are two fold. One – it is barbaric and two – it doesn’t allow for a reversal in light of a judicial error.
@apeek7 In my opinion, penalty should be determined by assumption of guilt. I don't think the possibility of judicial error should have anything to do with determination of punishment. The possibility for judicial error should be mitigated separately.
Further, I don't know how ancient Persians factor in this.
@ProfMTH Isn't that the current standard of proof to convict for murder? I believe California requires special circumstances to apply the death penalty. I'm not sure if that comes along with additional requirements of evidence (i.e. multiple eyewitnesses, etc.)
@StormTrek In most states with capital punishment, the standard of proof in the penalty phase for finding aggravating circumstances to support a sentence of death is "beyond a reasonable doubt" while the standard of proof for mitigating factors is merely "preponderance of the evidence"--the difference, of course, favors the convicted defendant since mitigating factors are more easily proven. I've seen several people in this comment thread call for increasing the standards, but I've yet to see...
@ProfMTH I'm sure there is some way to increase the standard of evidence. I don't know who you would term it but I'd say someone like Nidal Hasan is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. There are plenty of witnesses and video.
@StormTrek I don't know the Nidal Hasan case, so I can't give a opinion, but eye witness evidence is notoriously unreliable and in Britain, it is unlikely, on its own, to secure a conviction without coroborrating forensic evidence.
As for videos. I've been on a jury, not a murder case I'm pleased to say, where where we had CCTV video of a crime, which was indistinct enough, such that none of us on the jury felt we could even take it into account.
@HonestMan395 I was on a jury case in a murder trial. They found the victim's gun and marijuana in the house of one of the defendants. When another was picked up by the police he was wearing the victim's basketball shorts. One of the four involved in the home invasion turned on the other three and described the events in detail. The jury found them guilty. Afterward, the district attorney stayed to answer our questions. There was even more evidence that was never admissible in court.
@ProfMTH (Pt 2) Le-olam is related to the word a-lam "to hide." The New Covenant (Testament) is suppose 2B written on our heart (Jer. 31:31). The Old Testament is binding on Christians. The only things not binding on Christians is what the New Testament says has ceased. God says the murderer should be killed. Jesus & the Apostles likewise would have believed this.
@ProfMTH (Pt 1) Jesus & the Apostles quoted the Old Testament as reliable 4 teaching. The sacrifices, circumcision etc where stopped b/c God never intended them 2B forever. The Hebrew words le-olam most of the time dont mean "everlasting" as in the statement "everlasting covenant." Le-olam means: "a distant time in the past or future, as a time hidden from the present" (Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible) A better translation would be "indefinite."
@StormTrek Why would it not be better to just admit that no judicial system is infallible, no standards of evidence are high enough to insure against innocent people being executed… That FACT together with the inconsistency of a society putting someone to death and, yet, saying that killing is wrong cries out for an abolition of the death penalty. Just permanently separate them from society. If, in the future, it is found that the permanent separation was an error it can be reversed.
@apeek7 I imagine anyone caught red handed -- Nidal Hasan, for example -- would satisfy a standard of evidence high enough to ensure an innocent didn't receive the penalty. Additionally, death is certainly an equitable penalty for murder. Permitting jail time as an alternative to death -- presuming guilt -- is an act of mercy. Permanent separation isn't reversible, it's permanent.
@StormTrek Is it OK that there is a Bible in the rocket ship so he can find Jesus and get to heaven...? Once he repents there will be little chance to sin again. What kind of food? Steak, Häagen-Dazs ice Cream, etc... Oh yeah, If he is subsequently found innocent -what then???
@apeek7 The penalty for murder should be decided based on the presumption of guilt. In terms of penalty, there is no reason to factor in the possibility of false conviction.
@StormTrek start earlier! Fight the crime, not the criminals! Protect people *before* they become victims! Start by reducing poverty and increase education. Most criminals can change for the better and the ones who don't mostly are the big ones who never get caught or convicted any ways.
@StormTrek "Permitting jail time as an alternative to death -- presuming guilt -- is an act of mercy."
whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers...
You seem to speak of mercy with disdain. There are many people who can not take a broad over view of their situation. I dare say most people are like this. Like a racehorse with blinders their perspective is narrowed to the course they are on. They don't know how to escape the momentum that propelled them the direction they're going.
@StormTrek problem is, you can never be 100% sure someone is guilty. And even eyewitnesses are known to make bad mistakes (memory is very easy to mislead). But even if the right person was caught and even if this person did murder only out of mean violence (no self defense or bad circumstances where he still could change to the better) even then: what use is ther for society or the victims to kill him? He wouldn't have to live with remorse.Better let him work and maybe become a useful tax payer.
@enya04 I'd be willing to bet Nidal Hasan and Jared Loughner are 100% guilty of murder.
I don't understand why the ability to be a useful tax payer has anything to do with determining the penalty for a crime. Does that mean wealthy people can do anything they want as long as they contribute to the tax base?
@StormTrek You see if you execute a person that person doesn't have the opportunity to repent and find Jesus. That is why, when you go to heaven, you will have the chance to meet Jeffrey Dahmer. You might think that having sex with 17 young men, killing, again having sex with and finally eating would garner the death penalty. But it didn’t and Jeffrey had the chance to become a born again Christian and be baptized before being killed by another prisoner. You should rejoice…
@StormTrek permanent separation from society can be imprisonment. Death penalty is murdering a person, nothing more, nothing less. I would rather make them paying something back to society by working in prisons. Killing makes no sense and death asks for no regret.
You should have also mentioned Bill O' Reilly in your list of conservative christians that oppose the death penalty. But other than that, great video.
"O'Reilly says he's pro gun control, against the death penalty, and supports civil unions, not just for homosexuals, but 'for everybody.'
He says he's for gay adoptions, as a last resort: 'I'd rather have nice, responsible gay home than the system for kids. What else?'
And about the environment? 'Government's gotta be proactive on environment,' says O'Reilly. 'Global warming is here. All these idiots that run around and say it isn't here. That's ridiculous.'"
Good video - I'm on the verge of changing my stance on the death penalty. Question: why are you no longer a Christian? Do you still believe in Jesus as both a historical figure and as the Incarnation?
For a variety of reasons that I talk about in videos, including, e.g., /watch?v=GzZprt7eWfU and /watch?v=zbGpm9Cwr2I and /watch?v=BslyDuQKJKE.
"Do you still believe in Jesus as both a historical figure and as the Incarnation?"
I *suspect* Jesus existed, although the bulk of what was written about him in the New Testament is entirely fictional. As for "the Incarnation," no, that's a Christian belief of which I'm no longer an adherent.
I know this is off topic but I couldn't find the videos of you talking about your recent marraige which would be more fitting for the topic. You see I have a debate project in a week or so and I would appreciate a little help with some questions. Primary questions I'd like answered would be how much did the marraige cost overall (estimates?) and how it is currently going. I will respect the right to not answer as I can see these being private but I thank you in advance if you do answer.
@ProfMTH Thank you very much for the help. It's nice to know that even with the sucess of youtube you still have time to listen to the little people like us small time youtubers :) Joking about the last part of course.
i am not suprised. only reason for jesus to be against the death penalty seemes to be that "you are not perfect". so its not out of sence of justice, but instead he is doing it so that he can make a point. then again jesus invoke lot of violence and hatred towards other people. so it is possible that he was trying to keep his disibles at bay for moment. the attack in the tempel seemed to be planted. so it culd have being they sized control violently and people got killed. thus crusifiction.
Putting what Jesus said aside, what about in cases where the person is clearly guilty?
To me it seems that the only punishment worthy in a case of clear guilt is death because the act of taking a life can only be avenged by having the killers life taken. Sure you could put the killer in prison for the rest of his life but the killer still has his life. To me it seems as though life in prison just isn't enough. Shouldn't the punishment completely fit the crime?
@BigBobsh2o "To me it seems that the only punishment worthy in a case of clear guilt is death because the act of taking a life can only be avenged by having the killers life taken."
Your statement assumes that the criminal justice system is about exacting revenge.
@ProfMTH As was said in a movie a few years ago, "No, they're never the same. Justice is about harmony. Revenge is about you making yourself feel better...."
another great video ProfMTH. Interesting side point that John 8 1-11 is an interpolation made by an unknown scribe decades after John was written. The earliest and best manuscripts of John do not have this passage. It is highly likely that Jesus did not say this.
My problem with the death penalty is its very shortsighted, thinking answering violence with more violence will prevent violence, not even realizing that by using violence against ANYONE, youre tacitly saying "Violence is acceptable".
Plus, execution doesnt address the people who dont get caught, if some one gets away with a murder, execution is rendered moot. We should be focusing on things that generate the hostility that leads to murder, like greed, poverty, and bigotry, just a thought.
Proponents of death penalty naturally are not conservatives or Christians only either.
One thing we know for sure, is that Christians, conservatives, Republicans, will not care about the "cost" argument. As they are on the wrong side of cost whether it be war, abortion or death penalty.
I'm consistently pro-death, I'm pro-dp, pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, anti-suicide prevention, but I'm not pro-war due to financial and practical reasons.
In summary, Laws like the Death Penalty can push a person into commiting further crimes. For myself I know if anyone killed, raped, tortured, or kidnapped a person I knew I would hope for their death but the Laws that govern us cannot be held to only a personal level they must consider the good of the many.
Personally, I believe in the Death Penalty. The pain and suffering caused by those who murder, rape, torture, or even kidnap a person ,in the true hopes of destroying them, is a crime that has no redemption.
but
The Death Penalty leaves the criminal with no out for their crime. Consider 2 Universes. In universe 1 with the death penalty a criminal must murder everyone involved for a chance at escaping their legal penalty. Universe 2 with no death penalty, they do not have to. cont.
@MonoEdge It's funny how most right wing christians re-interpret the bible phrase "Thou shalt not kill" to mean "Thou shalt not murder, but us executing you is OK."
I'm an atheist, but isn't it a well-established fact that the story of the adulteress is basically a forgery added in to make Jesus' teachings sound more consistent?
@PerilocutionAZ09 It doesn't appear in the earliest manuscripts of the fourth gospel and appears in some manuscripts of Luke. Can we know that anything put in the voice of Jesus in any part of the gospels is actually something Jesus spoke--assuming, arguendo, he existed to say anything?
@ProfMTH True. You can't really rely on the gospels for much, can you. I just think it's funny that Christian apologists who admit that the Bible contains massive amounts of forgery still assert that none of it affects basic tenets of Christianity, yet this example clearly contradicts that.
@Peri That is not well established at all. While some scholars say it was added, others say that it was in the original and dropped from some copies because they were afraid it would be used to promote adultery or promiscuity. So we don't know. The Didascalia Apostolorum refers to it, possibly Papias also, both of which are older than our oldest complete manuscripts of John. Didymus the Blind (ca. 313- 398) discusses it in detail, again an older reference than our oldest complete manuscripts.
@wlemusic "The death penalty is used heavily in the Old Testament, which is part of the Christian Bible."
There is LOADS of stuff in the Jewish scriptures that's abrogated in the Christian scriptures. In videos where I've pointed to what the Jewish scriptures say about something that Christians have tossed aside, I'm buried in responses from Christians telling me, e.g., that the Law was addressed to Israel. After a while, it starts to seem as if Christians want the OT when its supports...
(con't) ...things they like (e.g., the death penalty) and minimize it when it supports things they don't like (e.g., circumcision, food laws, killing smart-mouthed children and women who aren't demonstrably virgins on their wedding night).
@wlemusic Yes and which of the many things do you deserved to be stoned for? Have you worked on the Sabath? Eaten unclean food (eaten at Red Lobster lately? we should just stand outside and stone anyone that walks out)? Know anyone that was raped and didn't yell loud enough to bring help? If yes, then stone that adulterous girl? We could go on and on. So take your pick. Do you follow the OT? or do you ignore the OT? Notice one of the choices, as Prof has said, is not to pick and choose.
My point is that when the atheistantidote says capital punishment is Biblically sound the Old Testament must be considered, since the Hebrew Scriptures contain prolific use of the death penalty.
@wlemusic I often refer to the "Old Testament" as the "Jewish scriptures" or "Hebrew scriptures" and the "New Testament" as the "Christian scriptures." I don't feel constrained by the names that Christians have imposed upon the collections of texts and the views that those names denote.
Yes, you have nailed down my claim. I will re-state it again. Jesus is not addressing the criminal justice system here. It is a general attitude on how to treat one's neighbour. I hope that is clear enough.
Yes, I reiterate, Jesus was teaching non-retaliation on a personal basis; clearly not feasible though in a court system, which demands that the punishment for convicted criminals fit the crime.
If Jesus' aim was to take down the government court system He would have been a political revolutionary. Instead, He said, "My Kingdom is not of this world." Politics and government policy wasn't His main concern. It was love for the neighbour.
@wlemusic As I've noted, criminal sentences needn't have anything to do with retribution. The proportionality of a criminal sentence needn't have anything to do with retribution. So your insistence that a criminal justice system "demands" retribution is, at best, misguided.
So, I just want to nail down your claim here. Is it your contention that Jesus' rejection of the "an eye for an eye" notion of justice has nothing to do with the way society should be governed?
MTH, you disagree with most Christians on the Scriptures!? How could this be?
I don't have a dog in this race but, the scriptures do allow, even encourage, executing murderers. From the law to Noah and his sons (e.g. everybody): "Anyone shedding man’s blood, by man will his own blood be shed." (Gen 9:6) To the description of human government in the Christian scriptures: "It bears the sword; for it is God’s minister...to express wrath upon the one practicing what is bad." (Rom 13:4)
@heyalun Interesting, Heyalun, that you avoid the passages of scripture that I discuss in the video. I wonder why you did that. Perhaps your time was limited. I'd like to see you opine about them, however.
You and I discussed Matthew 5 before. It's a law against personal vendetta and vindictiveness. It's rephrasing of Mosaic Law and ideas present throughout the Hebrew Scriptures: “You must not take vengeance nor have a grudge against the sons of your people; and you must love your fellow as yourself." (Lev 19:18 see also Prov 24:29) A slap is usually not intended to injure seriously, but to provoke. We shouldn't respond in kind.
@heyalun You're right: I missed your first sentence. Sorry about that. Odd that your church's New World Translation retains the story. If its spurious, why not just excise it from the translation?
As for your claim that in Matthew 5 Jesus is merely "rephrasing Mosaic Law," well, you know my take on that: ridiculous. But thanks for your comments.
I don't know. Maybe the translators had a sliver of doubt and so decided to include it with an explanation.
"you know my take on that: ridiculous"
I didn't know you felt it ridiculous. Which part? The principle against vendetta? It's explicitly stated. You feel that "you heard it said…but" means the thing heard is nullified? It can't be because that would mean that adultery is ok. (Mat 5:27) Besides, Jesus employed like-for-like justice. (Mat 10:33)
@heyalun "Maybe the translators had a sliver of doubt and so decided to include it with an explanation."
But you don't share that possible "sliver of doubt" with them, right?
"it ridiculous. Which part? The principle against vendetta? It's explicitly stated."
No. I quite clearly say in the video that that portion of Matthew 5 has Jesus rejecting the "an eye for an eye" conception of justice. What's ridiculous is, as I said, your assertion that this is merely a "rephrasing" of the Law...
(con't) @heyalun ...as opposed to change--it couldn't be more obvious that it's a change (and it's but one of MANY changes and outright rejections of the Law one finds throughout the New Testament).
"Besides, Jesus employed like-for-like justice. (Mat 10:33)"
As Jehovah's top man, doesn't he get to do things human beings do *not* get to do, particularly at the "end of the age"? I seem to recall the NT saying God says "I will repay" & that humans should not seek like-for-like justice.
@ProfMTH What he's addressing is misuse of the divine principle. Jews then, just as I hear people to this day, were using God's law as an excuse for vindictiveness over any wrong. It's the same as the "look but don't touch idea." People forget that the same God that said "do not commit adultery" also said "do not covet."
@ProfMTH Jesus wouldn't encourage Jews under the Law to disobey the Law. It would make him and them sinners.
"the change is away from a like-for-like conception of justice."
That doesn't answer my question. What it would change *to. In the example Jesus doesn't say, "Take him into custody and try him for assault." The slap is overlooked and the slapper given another opportunity to slap. Do you feel that he meant crime should be overlooked and criminals given more chances to commit crime?
Good. But that is the logical conclusion of his comments if you assume that he was discussing the appropriate response to serious crimes. If however he was speaking about overlooking minor provocation (as his example would give indication), it makes perfect sense.
@heyalun "But that is the logical conclusion of his comments if you assume that he was discussing the appropriate response to serious crimes."
I'm not sure why you're having such trouble getting this. As I said, retribution ("eye for an eye") is not a necessary element of criminal justice. I'm not saying that Mt 5 has Jesus calling for suspension of any & all sentencing of criminals. I'm saying it has him rejecting the retributive sense of justice that (largely) underpins use of the DP.
@ProfMTH "I'm not saying that Mt 5 has Jesus calling for suspension of any & all sentencing of criminals."
But, if you assume that Jesus is talking about how justice in general should be applied and is not just referring to minor provocation that is the logical conclusion. He mentions a slap, not murder or rape. I get your point. It's just not supported in the scriptures. Your interpretation also makes Mat 5:27 nonsensical, because it would imply that adultery was now lawful, but lust isn't.
@heyalun "But, if you assume that Jesus is talking about how justice in general should be applied and is not just referring to minor provocation that is the logical conclusion."
There's no need to. I got it the first time. You think "You heard it said X…however" necessarily and obviously means that X is now changed. It doesn't. Not in English, nor on this particular sermon.
The government is an institution established to keep basic order in society. In order to carry out that responsibility it is endowed with authority which individuals do not possess. For example, only governments can send people to prison for crimes. As a citizen you or I do not have the right to lock someone up for a crime. The proper authority for that punishment is the justice system of the courts. Jesus, in Matthew 5, is by no means doing away with the public justice system.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on whether it is b.s. or not. I think you have already made a video about governments such as the Nazis being appointed by God. I will watch it and perhaps respond to that video, but not in this forum. It is too broad a topic.
@wlemusic "I guess we will have to agree to disagree on whether it is b.s. or not."
Indeed.
" I think you have already made a video about governments such as the Nazis being appointed by God. I will watch it and perhaps respond to that video, but not in this forum. It is too broad a topic."
I don't see how "sword" referring to punishment in general is a b.s. statement. It is true. There are degrees of penalties based on the severity of the crime. "Sword" encompasses all of these penalties. That's not b.s.
His case was one of the main catalysts in the repeal of the death penalty here in the UK. The very idea of an innocent man being murdered in error by the state is in my opinion so awful.. so very very awful that even to contemplate it as a 'regrettable' side effect and.. in any way excusable shows nothing but a blood lust that belongs in History books. Or as an example of of our inability to deal with justice except as revenge. Surely as a species we have moved on from that.
eutexian 5 days ago
My own view is coloured by my catholic upbringing. Although i now have no belief in God, I cannot change all my prejudices. In my view Murder is a wicked act. it is the ultimate act of theft; the theft of someones life and future. I cannot in any way condone the state replying to a wicked act WITH a wicked act. The death penalty is Murder. Whenever this topic comes up in normal discourse I mention the UK case of Timothy Evans. And go no further. His fate brought shame on the Justice system.
eutexian 5 days ago
Most people who are in favor of the death penalty don't seem to realize that the death penalty is only one of the two punishments the condemmed will face. There are two: the time you will spend behind bars in prison and the execution itself. Now as of today in the year 2012, the average time spent on death row is about 12-15 years if I remember correctly. So it's not like they are given the sentence and executed the same week they have to wait a very long time
DoubleR2591 5 days ago
The best way to confront religious people is using their own holy book against them.
philosophicalreason 1 week ago
@philosophicalreason I certainly think it's *one* of the best ways.
ProfMTH 1 week ago
FUCK THE DEATH PENALTY
edwardd6681 2 months ago
Good video man...
TheWisemonkey8 2 months ago
@TheWisemonkey8 Thanks!
ProfMTH 2 months ago
Many thanks for this analysis of a topic coming far too often on the front scene in politics nowadays where political yet religious "leaders" are the very first to stand by the death penalty. Always found to be contradictory to the Christian's beliefs myself and your video shade some lights on all opinions.
skinnym974 2 months ago
I've heard that John 8:1-11 has been actually added to the bible later, by the church. I don't remember if it was you who said that or some other youtube atheists but still. If that is true, that would revert us to the whole "I did not come to abolish old laws". And christians would have their justification. Ah, it's all a mess, that is exactly why we should not base our law on bible.
wojciechkolacinski 3 months ago
WHAT I DID NOT HEAR WAS THE ANSWER ABOUT THE SOLUTION,AND PLEASE DONT SAY REHAB,GET REAL THAT DOES NOT WORK.LETS LOOK AT CASEY ANTHONY HOWS THAT FOR JUSTICE,AND DONT SAY NO PROOF.IF MY GRANDKIDS OR MY OWN CHIL WAS MISSING FOR A MIN,HELL WILL HAVE TO PAY.DR G SAID MISSING CHILD=MURDER.DEATH PENALTY,I WOULD DO IT FOR FREE WITHOUT EVEN THINKING ABOUT IT.WE NEED TO SHOE HANGINGS ON TV AND ELECTRICUTIONS.
MrEnlightenup 3 months ago
The funny thing about the bible is that it in one passage it will support something and in another it will advocate it. Jesus says no death penalty but says to keep the old laws. Which is it? Just one of the many inconsistencies in the bible.
MasterAdam100 3 months ago
Here in Denmark we abolished the deathpanelty over 80 years ago
and society hasn't collapsed. In fact crimes like murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft are way below U.S. levels.
Our system isn't perfect,
in some areas we could even learn a few things from the U.S.,
but at least most of us see the justice system as a tool of society,
not its weapon.
Xigano1 3 months ago
Matthew 5:17-18 says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
Since the death penalty is used prolifically in the Old Testament it seems that Christians are justified in their support for the death penalty.
wlemusic 3 months ago
@wlemusic And as I noted in the video, just a few verses down from the portion of Matthew 5 that you quoted, Jesus is depicted changing the very Law he said he had not come to change, i.e., the standard of justice is no longer the one found in the Law--"an eye for an eye."
ProfMTH 3 months ago
@wlemusic So we should get back to the no pork/shellfish diet and go to temple on Saturday? got it.
Miata822 3 months ago
10,001st viewer.
lolwut4211 3 months ago
The opinions of xtians on this reminds me so much of this quote-I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.
Susan B. Anthony
They don't look to the bible for an answer, they have an answer and look for bits to back them up. When they're not there, they get pretty creative, I'll give'm that.
krunk1980 3 months ago
The death penalty has always existed. It's part of evolution. It's really the only thing that Christians ever got right.
bamcis17 3 months ago
@bamcis17 "The death penalty has always existed. It's part of evolution."
Part of evolution? How so?
ProfMTH 3 months ago 3
@ProfMTH
By removing murderers from the gene pool isn't our population strengthening and improving itself?
bamcis17 3 months ago
@bamcis17
wat.
Daruqe 3 months ago
@bamcis17 And guess what? It's never deterred people from murdering. One big reason for punishing murders with death is to make people think twice about killing someone else, but it obviously doesn't work. Then there are other reasons, especially the possibility of killing an innocent person.
LatiasDita 3 months ago
The death penalty is costly,ineffective as a detterent,irreversible when wrongfully applied.
Kharmazov 3 months ago
I did also want to mention that I am a caucasian, conservative Christian, and I do not support the death penalty.
lanmind1024 4 months ago
a comment on your statements that Jesus' words refute capital punishment. First, the OT references are God's words to be used as a guide in the setting up of a nation's government, While Jesus is speaking to people. Furthermore, the "eye for an eye" verses are not set down as a price to be exacted, but rather as a maximum, a "go no further", if you will. This is a very important difference. Jesus' statements, as they often were, serve as a recommitment to going beyond merely "go no further".
lanmind1024 4 months ago
Great vid! Not to mention the exorbanent monetary cost to the tax payers to put someone to death. My partner that is for the death penalty suggested that it shouldn't take 10 to 20 years and that the lenghtly appeals is why it cost so much money. Her suggestion is that they should only get 1 appeal which would no doubt lead to many more mistakes. I'm not a legal expert but why does it take so long for the appeal process to happen in a capital punishment case?
rrider45rpm 4 months ago
The original Aramaic NT & the earliest Greek manuscripts dont have the text from John 7:53-8:11; which includes the woman taken in adultery. By using that text to show Jesus is against murder is as quoting unauthentic or false scripture (i.e. text that is NOT inspired by God). @ Matt. 5:38 Jesus didnt say he was against an eye for an eye but said we R not to resist evil, etc - Murderers dont stop killing. Its a huge injustice 4 them to get less than they deserve (i.e. life in prison).
TheHenok30 4 months ago
@TheHenok30 "The original Aramaic NT"
You really need to stop with that crap. And I know that the story of the woman taken in adultery is not in the earliest manuscripts of the fourth gospel. I also know it appears in some manuscripts of Luke. When will Christians be excising it from their canon?
"Matt. 5:38 Jesus didnt say he was against an eye for an eye but said we R not to resist evil."
The passage has Jesus repudiating the "eye for an eye" standard of justice.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@TheHenok30 The fact that John 7 isn't in the earliest manuscripts doesn't mean the story isn't authentic, it just means it's absent from those texts. Someone could have injected the story into John from an orphaned fragment to preserve it. In fact, the odd mention of Jesus writing on the ground with no explanation certainly makes the story seem authentic rather than contrived.
StormTrek 4 months ago
@StormTrek Jesus writing on the ground is @ John chapter 8 verses 6 & 7. Those verses R included in the 12 verses not contained in the Aramaic Peshitta text or earliest Greek texts. This story appears 2B a very early forgery b/c it is contained in the Latin Vulgate. After the Pharisees said no prophet arises out of Galilee (Jn. 7:52). Chapter 8 would then start with Jesus speaking to the multitude, saying, I am the light of the world... There is nothing showing those additions belong in John.
TheHenok30 4 months ago
@TheHenok30-- A number of scholarly authorities posit that instead of being added, that it was in the original manuscript, but dropped out by some in later manuscripts who worried people would use the story to say fornication was okay, since he let the woman get away without penalty. That seems more likely to me than a weird forgery that has such detail.
Matur1n 4 months ago
@TheHenok30 OK, I agree it's a forgery (not authored by John and inserted into the text at a later date), that doesn't mean it is also historically inaccurate. For example, remove 8:6-7 from the section in question, the next step is to determine if the content contradicts the general thought process of the other biblical descriptions of Jesus. There's really nothing non-1stCentury-Jewish about what is attributed to Jesus there.
StormTrek 4 months ago
@StormTrek -- A number of scholarly authorities posit that instead of being added, that it was in the original manuscript, but dropped out by some in later manuscripts who worried people would use the story to say fornication was okay, since he let the woman get away without penalty.
Matur1n 4 months ago
@Matur1n The problem I have with that explanation is that it smells like it is trying to preserve tradition rather than history. In addition, I'm not aware of anyone who denies that the passage contains stylistic differences from the rest of John. Even so, if it is an insertion of a non-John authored passage that doesn't mean it is historically inaccurate. I come down on the side of historical accuracy just because the part of Jesus writing on the ground is so weird.
StormTrek 4 months ago
@StormTrek The writing on the ground is what makes me think it is genuine. Jesus liked to do stuff like that. Like the story in Matthew of the four drachma coin from the fish's mouth. That's a weird way to get a coin. Rather than just look in your pocket and it is miraculously there. Rubbing mud in the guys eyes to cure him. Sending demons into the swine instead of just away. Forgeries don't usually add weird details. Many think the gospel of John had several older disciples helping draft it.
Matur1n 4 months ago
Nevertheless, we have to be cognizant of its potential as an insertion. Thankfully it doesn't have any crucial doctrinal details that change Christianity. It is just a nice teaching story about forgiveness and how we magnify others sins and overlook our own. Not that different than just a restatement of the "splinter in his eye, log in your eye" lesson.
Matur1n 4 months ago
@Matur1n I agree with you.
StormTrek 4 months ago
Since America now has DNA evidence, this is a blessing & a good reason to keep the death penalty on the books. I realize innocent people have been put to death, buth they failed to do their part & prove they were innocent. Without the death penalty, the would be murderer will think: "if I kill some1 & get caught then I wont die; just have a lifetime of prison where I can possibly escape."
TheHenok30 4 months ago
@TheHenok30 "I realize innocent people have been put to death, buth they failed to do their part & prove they were innocent."
One of the basic principles of the American criminal justice system is that those accused of crimes do not have to prove their innocence, rather the state has to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You might want to gain an understanding of how the system actually works before you start talking (incorrectly) about people not doing their part.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
(con't) @TheHenok30 Moreover, if you knew about actual death penalty cases, you would know that there are a host of issues that contribute to wrongful capital convictions and wrongful executions. You should take some time to educate yourself about the cases. There are links in the description box that should be helpful.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
thanks for the links you helped me out with my essay
DANGER0993 4 months ago
@DANGER0993 Great.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
"Christians" is an identity, statistically atheists understand the bible more than religious people in the western world. That identity is suburban, middle class, materialistic, frightened, patriarchal and usually of European ethic origin. Their religion is a decoration, they enjoy the parts that fit with their prejudices and conveniences and discard the parts that do not!
Jacksonstreet71 4 months ago
keep up the good work, man!
Norseman870 4 months ago
@Norseman870 Thanks.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
There is another side to this.
A friend of mine, a prosecuting lawyer, told me that, in Britain, a reason which was taken into account when deciding to abolish the death penalty, was that some jury members were reluctant to give a guilty verdict when they knew the death penalty was possible and as the verdict for a capital offence had to be unanimous, it only took one not guilty vote for a case to be dismissed. Because of that, probable murderers were going free. That doesn't happen now.
HonestMan395 4 months ago
@HonestMan395 Now that is an excellent argument I hadn't considered before even though I would be one of those who would be inclined to acquit where the DP was allowed.
ExtantFrodo2 4 months ago
You say that innocent people have probably been exucuted. I'd say that it's not just probable, but certain.
In the European Union, we long ago abolished the death penalty. since then, in Britain alone, a significant number of convicted "murderers", who would've been executed had the death penalty been in place, have been found innocent of the crime, sometimes many years later.
Luckily, they were able to be released, but that would not have been possible with the death penalty in place.
HonestMan395 4 months ago
Also execution seems to be a very short and mild punishment compared to life imprisonment. According to Christians, if the killer is 'saved' right before he is executed (which is always possible), he can still go to heaven. So for killing another human, the only punishment he got then, is dying on earth, which is completely painless if injections are used. So even the argument that capital punishment is heavier and more appropriate penalty, is complete hogwash. The Atheist Antidote = failing.
TWSceptic 4 months ago
REMINDER: Don't forget the world ends Oct. 21st and judgement day begins according to that old fart Harold Camping. May the "Schwartz" be with you.
metalsusa1 4 months ago
@metalsusa1
It's the 24th today :)
No "3rd time lucky" for him!
kandtell 4 months ago
Prof… You say Jesus only once weighs in on the death penalty. I would like to point out a second, admittedly indirect, reference to the death penalty. In Mark 7:9-13 he appears to support the death penalty for rebellious children (as well as supporting many unspecified Old Testament laws)…
apeek7 4 months ago
@apeek7 Yes, a couple of other people have mentioned this. I had not thought of it when I was preparing this video. It's interesting and I'm thinking about it for a follow-up on the topic. Thanks.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@ProfMTH Another thought along those lines. A long time ago I read a monolog about the death penalty wherein it said that since administrating the death penalty precludes any possibility of future improvement in the individual the object is not punishment but, rather, vengeance – pure and simple… But the Bible says: Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. (Romans 12:19).
apeek7 4 months ago
@apeek7 Yep. I talk about that in the video.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@ProfMTH Since I kinda have your attention... I'm the dude who has been bothering you with doing a spread sheet on your subscriber growth curve. At the current rate you should pass 50,000 about Mar. 2013. Your growth rate seems to be a direct reflection of the new videos you upload. The growth was very rapid until May 2010. Then pretty rapid until Oct. 2010 and now a moderate growth rate. Also, I am the dude who bought PROFMTH.com (redirected to your YouTube page).
apeek7 4 months ago
@apeek7 "the object is not punishment but, rather, vengeance"
Why can't the object of the DP be permanent separation rather than vengeance? A society can decide that the punishment for murder is permanent separation from society.
StormTrek 4 months ago
@StormTrek Permanent separation could be banishment. If your only option, if your only definition for ‘permanent separation’ is death then you are playing word games and my analysis stands…
Death is death, pure and simple...
apeek7 4 months ago
@apeek7 Death isn't my only definition of permanent separation. Does that mean your analysis fails?
StormTrek 4 months ago
@StormTrek You have turned it around. What option for ‘permanent separation’ as a punishment do you have other than death???
apeek7 4 months ago
@apeek7 An island circled by sharks with laser beams attached to their heads.
Nevertheless, punishment should determined by the assumption of guilt. Probability of false judgment should be mitigated by standard of evidence not reduced punishment. Therefore, what is equitable punishment for first degree murder?
StormTrek 4 months ago
@StormTrek An island circled by sharks with laser beams attached to their heads would be OK - as long as they’re are alive and the possibility of a reversal of the original judgment is possible. The problem advocates of repealing the death penalty have with the penalty are two fold. One – it is barbaric and two – it doesn’t allow for a reversal in light of a judicial error.
apeek7 4 months ago
@apeek7 In my opinion, penalty should be determined by assumption of guilt. I don't think the possibility of judicial error should have anything to do with determination of punishment. The possibility for judicial error should be mitigated separately.
Further, I don't know how ancient Persians factor in this.
StormTrek 4 months ago
@StormTrek 'The possibility for judicial error should be mitigated separately.'
How do you 'mitigate' the effect of the death penalty being carried out?? Mitigate?
apeek7 4 months ago
@apeek7 By increasing the standards of evidence before the death penalty is meted out.
StormTrek 4 months ago
@StormTrek "By increasing the standards of evidence before the death penalty is meted out."
The current standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt." How would you increase this?
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@ProfMTH Isn't that the current standard of proof to convict for murder? I believe California requires special circumstances to apply the death penalty. I'm not sure if that comes along with additional requirements of evidence (i.e. multiple eyewitnesses, etc.)
StormTrek 4 months ago
@StormTrek In most states with capital punishment, the standard of proof in the penalty phase for finding aggravating circumstances to support a sentence of death is "beyond a reasonable doubt" while the standard of proof for mitigating factors is merely "preponderance of the evidence"--the difference, of course, favors the convicted defendant since mitigating factors are more easily proven. I've seen several people in this comment thread call for increasing the standards, but I've yet to see...
ProfMTH 4 months ago
(con't) @StormTrek ...any specific changes suggested that would actually "increase" what exists in the status quo.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@ProfMTH I'm sure there is some way to increase the standard of evidence. I don't know who you would term it but I'd say someone like Nidal Hasan is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. There are plenty of witnesses and video.
StormTrek 4 months ago
@StormTrek I don't know the Nidal Hasan case, so I can't give a opinion, but eye witness evidence is notoriously unreliable and in Britain, it is unlikely, on its own, to secure a conviction without coroborrating forensic evidence.
As for videos. I've been on a jury, not a murder case I'm pleased to say, where where we had CCTV video of a crime, which was indistinct enough, such that none of us on the jury felt we could even take it into account.
HonestMan395 4 months ago
@HonestMan395 I was on a jury case in a murder trial. They found the victim's gun and marijuana in the house of one of the defendants. When another was picked up by the police he was wearing the victim's basketball shorts. One of the four involved in the home invasion turned on the other three and described the events in detail. The jury found them guilty. Afterward, the district attorney stayed to answer our questions. There was even more evidence that was never admissible in court.
StormTrek 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StormTrek Your point being?
HonestMan395 4 months ago
@ProfMTH (Pt 2) Le-olam is related to the word a-lam "to hide." The New Covenant (Testament) is suppose 2B written on our heart (Jer. 31:31). The Old Testament is binding on Christians. The only things not binding on Christians is what the New Testament says has ceased. God says the murderer should be killed. Jesus & the Apostles likewise would have believed this.
TheHenok30 4 months ago
@ProfMTH (Pt 1) Jesus & the Apostles quoted the Old Testament as reliable 4 teaching. The sacrifices, circumcision etc where stopped b/c God never intended them 2B forever. The Hebrew words le-olam most of the time dont mean "everlasting" as in the statement "everlasting covenant." Le-olam means: "a distant time in the past or future, as a time hidden from the present" (Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible) A better translation would be "indefinite."
TheHenok30 4 months ago
@StormTrek Why would it not be better to just admit that no judicial system is infallible, no standards of evidence are high enough to insure against innocent people being executed… That FACT together with the inconsistency of a society putting someone to death and, yet, saying that killing is wrong cries out for an abolition of the death penalty. Just permanently separate them from society. If, in the future, it is found that the permanent separation was an error it can be reversed.
apeek7 4 months ago
@apeek7 I imagine anyone caught red handed -- Nidal Hasan, for example -- would satisfy a standard of evidence high enough to ensure an innocent didn't receive the penalty. Additionally, death is certainly an equitable penalty for murder. Permitting jail time as an alternative to death -- presuming guilt -- is an act of mercy. Permanent separation isn't reversible, it's permanent.
StormTrek 4 months ago
@StormTrek 'Permanent separation isn't reversible, it's permanent.'
So, permanent separation is just another term you use for death...
My argument stands...
apeek7 4 months ago
@apeek7 Rocket ship, to the outer reaches of space, enough food for a lifetime...permanent separation.
StormTrek 4 months ago
@StormTrek Is it OK that there is a Bible in the rocket ship so he can find Jesus and get to heaven...? Once he repents there will be little chance to sin again. What kind of food? Steak, Häagen-Dazs ice Cream, etc... Oh yeah, If he is subsequently found innocent -what then???
apeek7 4 months ago
@apeek7 The penalty for murder should be decided based on the presumption of guilt. In terms of penalty, there is no reason to factor in the possibility of false conviction.
StormTrek 4 months ago
@StormTrek start earlier! Fight the crime, not the criminals! Protect people *before* they become victims! Start by reducing poverty and increase education. Most criminals can change for the better and the ones who don't mostly are the big ones who never get caught or convicted any ways.
enya04 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StormTrek "Permitting jail time as an alternative to death -- presuming guilt -- is an act of mercy."
whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers...
You seem to speak of mercy with disdain. There are many people who can not take a broad over view of their situation. I dare say most people are like this. Like a racehorse with blinders their perspective is narrowed to the course they are on. They don't know how to escape the momentum that propelled them the direction they're going.
cont.
ExtantFrodo2 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StormTrek
Is it "equitable penalty for murder" to release those people from a lifetime of contemplating how they should have done things differently?
And as stated you call it equitable on the condition of guilt. Is it equitable penalty for innocence?
ExtantFrodo2 4 months ago
@StormTrek problem is, you can never be 100% sure someone is guilty. And even eyewitnesses are known to make bad mistakes (memory is very easy to mislead). But even if the right person was caught and even if this person did murder only out of mean violence (no self defense or bad circumstances where he still could change to the better) even then: what use is ther for society or the victims to kill him? He wouldn't have to live with remorse.Better let him work and maybe become a useful tax payer.
enya04 4 months ago
@enya04 I'd be willing to bet Nidal Hasan and Jared Loughner are 100% guilty of murder.
I don't understand why the ability to be a useful tax payer has anything to do with determining the penalty for a crime. Does that mean wealthy people can do anything they want as long as they contribute to the tax base?
StormTrek 4 months ago
@StormTrek You see if you execute a person that person doesn't have the opportunity to repent and find Jesus. That is why, when you go to heaven, you will have the chance to meet Jeffrey Dahmer. You might think that having sex with 17 young men, killing, again having sex with and finally eating would garner the death penalty. But it didn’t and Jeffrey had the chance to become a born again Christian and be baptized before being killed by another prisoner. You should rejoice…
apeek7 4 months ago
@StormTrek permanent separation from society can be imprisonment. Death penalty is murdering a person, nothing more, nothing less. I would rather make them paying something back to society by working in prisons. Killing makes no sense and death asks for no regret.
enya04 4 months ago
You should have also mentioned Bill O' Reilly in your list of conservative christians that oppose the death penalty. But other than that, great video.
Drgamedood 4 months ago
@Drgamedood I didn't know O'Reilly was opposed to the death penalty.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@Drgamedood
That's really interesting - can you provide a source?
jazzx251 4 months ago
@jazzx251 Look it up. It's on wikipedia.
Drgamedood 4 months ago
@Drgamedood
Hmmm - interesting:
"O'Reilly says he's pro gun control, against the death penalty, and supports civil unions, not just for homosexuals, but 'for everybody.'
He says he's for gay adoptions, as a last resort: 'I'd rather have nice, responsible gay home than the system for kids. What else?'
And about the environment? 'Government's gotta be proactive on environment,' says O'Reilly. 'Global warming is here. All these idiots that run around and say it isn't here. That's ridiculous.'"
jazzx251 4 months ago
I honestly feel that 11% is too much...but I also feel that just one wrongful execution is too much...great work Prof ^_^
geminirat84 4 months ago
@geminirat84 Thanks.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
Good video - I'm on the verge of changing my stance on the death penalty. Question: why are you no longer a Christian? Do you still believe in Jesus as both a historical figure and as the Incarnation?
kdbrown777 4 months ago
@kdbrown777 "why are you no longer a Christian?"
For a variety of reasons that I talk about in videos, including, e.g., /watch?v=GzZprt7eWfU and /watch?v=zbGpm9Cwr2I and /watch?v=BslyDuQKJKE.
"Do you still believe in Jesus as both a historical figure and as the Incarnation?"
I *suspect* Jesus existed, although the bulk of what was written about him in the New Testament is entirely fictional. As for "the Incarnation," no, that's a Christian belief of which I'm no longer an adherent.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
I know this is off topic but I couldn't find the videos of you talking about your recent marraige which would be more fitting for the topic. You see I have a debate project in a week or so and I would appreciate a little help with some questions. Primary questions I'd like answered would be how much did the marraige cost overall (estimates?) and how it is currently going. I will respect the right to not answer as I can see these being private but I thank you in advance if you do answer.
crazyinsane500 4 months ago
@crazyinsane500 "how much did the marraige cost overall (estimates?)"
Next to nothing. We got married at the City Clerk's Office. Between the cost of license and the actual marriage ceremony, I think we spent 50 bucks.
We're planning a public wedding for next year. I don't know yet how much that will cost. I don't even have an estimate.
"how is it currently going"
Great.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@ProfMTH Thank you very much for the help. It's nice to know that even with the sucess of youtube you still have time to listen to the little people like us small time youtubers :) Joking about the last part of course.
crazyinsane500 4 months ago
i am not suprised. only reason for jesus to be against the death penalty seemes to be that "you are not perfect". so its not out of sence of justice, but instead he is doing it so that he can make a point. then again jesus invoke lot of violence and hatred towards other people. so it is possible that he was trying to keep his disibles at bay for moment. the attack in the tempel seemed to be planted. so it culd have being they sized control violently and people got killed. thus crusifiction.
gethsoftware 4 months ago
Putting what Jesus said aside, what about in cases where the person is clearly guilty?
To me it seems that the only punishment worthy in a case of clear guilt is death because the act of taking a life can only be avenged by having the killers life taken. Sure you could put the killer in prison for the rest of his life but the killer still has his life. To me it seems as though life in prison just isn't enough. Shouldn't the punishment completely fit the crime?
BigBobsh2o 4 months ago
@BigBobsh2o "To me it seems that the only punishment worthy in a case of clear guilt is death because the act of taking a life can only be avenged by having the killers life taken."
Your statement assumes that the criminal justice system is about exacting revenge.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@ProfMTH As was said in a movie a few years ago, "No, they're never the same. Justice is about harmony. Revenge is about you making yourself feel better...."
igowaznik1 4 months ago
another great video ProfMTH. Interesting side point that John 8 1-11 is an interpolation made by an unknown scribe decades after John was written. The earliest and best manuscripts of John do not have this passage. It is highly likely that Jesus did not say this.
adstanra 4 months ago
Oh, ProfMTH, why are you astonished? Christianity wouldn't exist without the death penalty.
Gorteenminogue 4 months ago
My problem with the death penalty is its very shortsighted, thinking answering violence with more violence will prevent violence, not even realizing that by using violence against ANYONE, youre tacitly saying "Violence is acceptable".
Plus, execution doesnt address the people who dont get caught, if some one gets away with a murder, execution is rendered moot. We should be focusing on things that generate the hostility that leads to murder, like greed, poverty, and bigotry, just a thought.
InContemplation 4 months ago 9
Proponents of death penalty naturally are not conservatives or Christians only either.
One thing we know for sure, is that Christians, conservatives, Republicans, will not care about the "cost" argument. As they are on the wrong side of cost whether it be war, abortion or death penalty.
I'm consistently pro-death, I'm pro-dp, pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, anti-suicide prevention, but I'm not pro-war due to financial and practical reasons.
spiritualbully 4 months ago
@spiritualbully "Proponents of death penalty naturally are not conservatives or Christians only either."
Quite right.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
part 2
In summary, Laws like the Death Penalty can push a person into commiting further crimes. For myself I know if anyone killed, raped, tortured, or kidnapped a person I knew I would hope for their death but the Laws that govern us cannot be held to only a personal level they must consider the good of the many.
MultiHal 4 months ago
Part 1
Personally, I believe in the Death Penalty. The pain and suffering caused by those who murder, rape, torture, or even kidnap a person ,in the true hopes of destroying them, is a crime that has no redemption.
but
The Death Penalty leaves the criminal with no out for their crime. Consider 2 Universes. In universe 1 with the death penalty a criminal must murder everyone involved for a chance at escaping their legal penalty. Universe 2 with no death penalty, they do not have to. cont.
MultiHal 4 months ago
nuff fucking said!
ITSNOSHER 4 months ago
In the immortal words of Vash the Stampede: "thou shall not kill"
MonoEdge 4 months ago 5
@MonoEdge Love and PEACE!
burchdc 4 months ago
@MonoEdge It's funny how most right wing christians re-interpret the bible phrase "Thou shalt not kill" to mean "Thou shalt not murder, but us executing you is OK."
HonestMan395 4 months ago
AA is a despicable douche bag turd. There is no youtuber I despise more. Even nephy is less annoying.
kyebean 4 months ago
I'm an atheist, but isn't it a well-established fact that the story of the adulteress is basically a forgery added in to make Jesus' teachings sound more consistent?
PerilocutionAZ09 4 months ago
@PerilocutionAZ09 It doesn't appear in the earliest manuscripts of the fourth gospel and appears in some manuscripts of Luke. Can we know that anything put in the voice of Jesus in any part of the gospels is actually something Jesus spoke--assuming, arguendo, he existed to say anything?
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@ProfMTH True. You can't really rely on the gospels for much, can you. I just think it's funny that Christian apologists who admit that the Bible contains massive amounts of forgery still assert that none of it affects basic tenets of Christianity, yet this example clearly contradicts that.
PerilocutionAZ09 4 months ago
@Peri That is not well established at all. While some scholars say it was added, others say that it was in the original and dropped from some copies because they were afraid it would be used to promote adultery or promiscuity. So we don't know. The Didascalia Apostolorum refers to it, possibly Papias also, both of which are older than our oldest complete manuscripts of John. Didymus the Blind (ca. 313- 398) discusses it in detail, again an older reference than our oldest complete manuscripts.
ShaundalynChic 4 months ago
@ShaundalynChic Interesting. Thanks.
PerilocutionAZ09 4 months ago
@profmth Notice how at 1:17 antidote shakes his head 'no' when he says its a biblically sound argument.
/watch?v=_dyitmSRa9M
lol oh the mental gymnastics people can do
Agnosgnosia 4 months ago
The death penalty is used heavily in the Old Testament, which is part of the Christian Bible.
wlemusic 4 months ago
@wlemusic "The death penalty is used heavily in the Old Testament, which is part of the Christian Bible."
There is LOADS of stuff in the Jewish scriptures that's abrogated in the Christian scriptures. In videos where I've pointed to what the Jewish scriptures say about something that Christians have tossed aside, I'm buried in responses from Christians telling me, e.g., that the Law was addressed to Israel. After a while, it starts to seem as if Christians want the OT when its supports...
ProfMTH 4 months ago
(con't) ...things they like (e.g., the death penalty) and minimize it when it supports things they don't like (e.g., circumcision, food laws, killing smart-mouthed children and women who aren't demonstrably virgins on their wedding night).
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@wlemusic Yes and which of the many things do you deserved to be stoned for? Have you worked on the Sabath? Eaten unclean food (eaten at Red Lobster lately? we should just stand outside and stone anyone that walks out)? Know anyone that was raped and didn't yell loud enough to bring help? If yes, then stone that adulterous girl? We could go on and on. So take your pick. Do you follow the OT? or do you ignore the OT? Notice one of the choices, as Prof has said, is not to pick and choose.
veggiescrub 4 months ago
Fair enough.
My point is that when the atheistantidote says capital punishment is Biblically sound the Old Testament must be considered, since the Hebrew Scriptures contain prolific use of the death penalty.
wlemusic 4 months ago
Note to profmth, the "Christian Scriptures" are the New Testament AND the Old Testament.
wlemusic 4 months ago
@wlemusic I often refer to the "Old Testament" as the "Jewish scriptures" or "Hebrew scriptures" and the "New Testament" as the "Christian scriptures." I don't feel constrained by the names that Christians have imposed upon the collections of texts and the views that those names denote.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@TXYooper Hey, be fair. They also sacrifice grains on occasion.
ExtantFrodo2 4 months ago
Mark 7:1-13 supports the death penalty ..
roohif 4 months ago
Yes, you have nailed down my claim. I will re-state it again. Jesus is not addressing the criminal justice system here. It is a general attitude on how to treat one's neighbour. I hope that is clear enough.
wlemusic 4 months ago
Yes, I reiterate, Jesus was teaching non-retaliation on a personal basis; clearly not feasible though in a court system, which demands that the punishment for convicted criminals fit the crime.
If Jesus' aim was to take down the government court system He would have been a political revolutionary. Instead, He said, "My Kingdom is not of this world." Politics and government policy wasn't His main concern. It was love for the neighbour.
wlemusic 4 months ago
@wlemusic As I've noted, criminal sentences needn't have anything to do with retribution. The proportionality of a criminal sentence needn't have anything to do with retribution. So your insistence that a criminal justice system "demands" retribution is, at best, misguided.
So, I just want to nail down your claim here. Is it your contention that Jesus' rejection of the "an eye for an eye" notion of justice has nothing to do with the way society should be governed?
ProfMTH 4 months ago
MTH, you disagree with most Christians on the Scriptures!? How could this be?
I don't have a dog in this race but, the scriptures do allow, even encourage, executing murderers. From the law to Noah and his sons (e.g. everybody): "Anyone shedding man’s blood, by man will his own blood be shed." (Gen 9:6) To the description of human government in the Christian scriptures: "It bears the sword; for it is God’s minister...to express wrath upon the one practicing what is bad." (Rom 13:4)
heyalun 4 months ago
@heyalun Interesting, Heyalun, that you avoid the passages of scripture that I discuss in the video. I wonder why you did that. Perhaps your time was limited. I'd like to see you opine about them, however.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@ProfMTH John 7:53-8:11 is spurious.
You and I discussed Matthew 5 before. It's a law against personal vendetta and vindictiveness. It's rephrasing of Mosaic Law and ideas present throughout the Hebrew Scriptures: “You must not take vengeance nor have a grudge against the sons of your people; and you must love your fellow as yourself." (Lev 19:18 see also Prov 24:29) A slap is usually not intended to injure seriously, but to provoke. We shouldn't respond in kind.
heyalun 4 months ago
@heyalun And John 8, Heyalun?
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@ProfMTH "And John 8, Heyalun?"
You overlooked my first sentence. :-) I don't believe it to be inspired.
heyalun 4 months ago
@heyalun You're right: I missed your first sentence. Sorry about that. Odd that your church's New World Translation retains the story. If its spurious, why not just excise it from the translation?
As for your claim that in Matthew 5 Jesus is merely "rephrasing Mosaic Law," well, you know my take on that: ridiculous. But thanks for your comments.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@ProfMTH "why not just excise it"
I don't know. Maybe the translators had a sliver of doubt and so decided to include it with an explanation.
"you know my take on that: ridiculous"
I didn't know you felt it ridiculous. Which part? The principle against vendetta? It's explicitly stated. You feel that "you heard it said…but" means the thing heard is nullified? It can't be because that would mean that adultery is ok. (Mat 5:27) Besides, Jesus employed like-for-like justice. (Mat 10:33)
heyalun 4 months ago
@heyalun "Maybe the translators had a sliver of doubt and so decided to include it with an explanation."
But you don't share that possible "sliver of doubt" with them, right?
"it ridiculous. Which part? The principle against vendetta? It's explicitly stated."
No. I quite clearly say in the video that that portion of Matthew 5 has Jesus rejecting the "an eye for an eye" conception of justice. What's ridiculous is, as I said, your assertion that this is merely a "rephrasing" of the Law...
ProfMTH 4 months ago
(con't) @heyalun ...as opposed to change--it couldn't be more obvious that it's a change (and it's but one of MANY changes and outright rejections of the Law one finds throughout the New Testament).
"Besides, Jesus employed like-for-like justice. (Mat 10:33)"
As Jehovah's top man, doesn't he get to do things human beings do *not* get to do, particularly at the "end of the age"? I seem to recall the NT saying God says "I will repay" & that humans should not seek like-for-like justice.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@ProfMTH What he's addressing is misuse of the divine principle. Jews then, just as I hear people to this day, were using God's law as an excuse for vindictiveness over any wrong. It's the same as the "look but don't touch idea." People forget that the same God that said "do not commit adultery" also said "do not covet."
heyalun 4 months ago
@heyalun "What he's addressing is misuse of the divine principle"
But that's not what he says. He quotes a portion of the Law and then says "But I tell you...."
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@ProfMTH I have doubt about John 7:53-8:11. The portrayal of Jesus makes it very small.
"I seem to recall the NT saying God says "I will repay" & that humans should not seek like-for-like justice."
"Do not say: “I will pay back evil!” Hope in Jehovah, and he will save you." (Prov 20:22)
"it couldn't be more obvious that it's a change"
A change to what? In Jesus example there is no retribution at all. Do you think he meant that human government shouldn't punish any crime?
heyalun 4 months ago
@heyalun "The portrayal of Jesus makes it very small."
What about the portrayal of Jesus in that story troubles you?
"A change to what? In Jesus example there is no retribution at all. Do you think he meant that human government shouldn't punish any crime?"
You make the mistake of assuming that criminal punishment must be about retribution.
And the change is away from a like-for-like conception of justice.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@ProfMTH Jesus wouldn't encourage Jews under the Law to disobey the Law. It would make him and them sinners.
"the change is away from a like-for-like conception of justice."
That doesn't answer my question. What it would change *to. In the example Jesus doesn't say, "Take him into custody and try him for assault." The slap is overlooked and the slapper given another opportunity to slap. Do you feel that he meant crime should be overlooked and criminals given more chances to commit crime?
heyalun 4 months ago
@heyalun "Do you feel that he meant crime should be overlooked and criminals given more chances to commit crime?"
No.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@ProfMTH "No."
Good. But that is the logical conclusion of his comments if you assume that he was discussing the appropriate response to serious crimes. If however he was speaking about overlooking minor provocation (as his example would give indication), it makes perfect sense.
heyalun 4 months ago
@heyalun "But that is the logical conclusion of his comments if you assume that he was discussing the appropriate response to serious crimes."
I'm not sure why you're having such trouble getting this. As I said, retribution ("eye for an eye") is not a necessary element of criminal justice. I'm not saying that Mt 5 has Jesus calling for suspension of any & all sentencing of criminals. I'm saying it has him rejecting the retributive sense of justice that (largely) underpins use of the DP.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@ProfMTH "I'm not saying that Mt 5 has Jesus calling for suspension of any & all sentencing of criminals."
But, if you assume that Jesus is talking about how justice in general should be applied and is not just referring to minor provocation that is the logical conclusion. He mentions a slap, not murder or rape. I get your point. It's just not supported in the scriptures. Your interpretation also makes Mat 5:27 nonsensical, because it would imply that adultery was now lawful, but lust isn't.
heyalun 4 months ago
@heyalun "But, if you assume that Jesus is talking about how justice in general should be applied and is not just referring to minor provocation that is the logical conclusion."
I'm not going to explain it again.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
@ProfMTH "I'm not going to explain it again."
There's no need to. I got it the first time. You think "You heard it said X…however" necessarily and obviously means that X is now changed. It doesn't. Not in English, nor on this particular sermon.
heyalun 4 months ago
The government is an institution established to keep basic order in society. In order to carry out that responsibility it is endowed with authority which individuals do not possess. For example, only governments can send people to prison for crimes. As a citizen you or I do not have the right to lock someone up for a crime. The proper authority for that punishment is the justice system of the courts. Jesus, in Matthew 5, is by no means doing away with the public justice system.
wlemusic 4 months ago
@wlemusic "Jesus, in Matthew 5, is by no means doing away with the public justice system."
I never said he did. You're creating and attacking a straw man.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on whether it is b.s. or not. I think you have already made a video about governments such as the Nazis being appointed by God. I will watch it and perhaps respond to that video, but not in this forum. It is too broad a topic.
wlemusic 4 months ago
@wlemusic "I guess we will have to agree to disagree on whether it is b.s. or not."
Indeed.
" I think you have already made a video about governments such as the Nazis being appointed by God. I will watch it and perhaps respond to that video, but not in this forum. It is too broad a topic."
Uh huh.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
I look forward to your next video. They are thought provoking and entertaining, even for a Christian like me.
wlemusic 4 months ago
Yes, profmth, governments are made of people. What is your point specifically?
wlemusic 4 months ago
@wlemusic That instructions to people do not exclude governments. I bet you're smart enough to figure that out.
ProfMTH 4 months ago
I don't see how "sword" referring to punishment in general is a b.s. statement. It is true. There are degrees of penalties based on the severity of the crime. "Sword" encompasses all of these penalties. That's not b.s.
wlemusic 4 months ago