May 19, 2006

Cursed Dead Ancestors
Everett

Opalys, the common ancestor between apes and man has yet to be discovered. The existence of a common ancestor is inferred from things like DNA and protein analysis, as well as analysis of the anatomy and physiology of both apes and humans. Now Farlas, before you jump all over this point, keep in lind that we have never actually observed the earth orbiting the sun either.

I think it's about time I weighed in on the death penalty debate that has been raging alongside the evolution debate that has accounted for most of my posted material of late. When push comes to shove, I think I come down closer to Annatar than Farlas on this issue. Ultimately, my position follows from my understanding of the duties of the state, which I outlined when I explained my position on what, if anything, constitutes a just war. The state has the solemn duty to secure the liberties of its citizens and maintain order. The aim of criminal punishment is "redress the disorder caused by the offence"* of the criminal. Criminal punishment is not intended to fulfill the demands of divine justice. Instead, its aim is the restoration of the civil order, and the death penalty can only be justified if it is necessary to restore/preserve civil order. Needless to say, the occasions when this would be the case are exceedingly rare in most first world countries.

Farlas, you cited Genesis 9:6 as evidence of the legitimacy of the death penalty. However, your case is undermined by Genesis 9:5, which reads "And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man." Clearly, Genesis 9:6 is intended to be the fulfillment of the divine justice God says He will exact in Genesis 9:5. However, Christ's death on the Cross fulfills all of the demands of divine justice, including the one in laid out in Genesis 9:5-6. If divine justice is fulfilled in Christ, it is not only superfluous for the state to attempt to fulfill it; it is an abuse of the state's power.

I'm not sure who's side I'm taking on this one, but I suspect that, once again, I'll be closer to Annatar. I'm starting to feel like I'm in Bizzarro Land. As far as the Curse goes, I think the substantive differences between the two of you, Annatar and Farlas, are small, but they lead to some strikingly different positions. As to where the truth lies, the first thing that must be remembered is that in Chrisitianity (and, I suspect, in Judaism as well, but I'm not well enough versed in distinctions between Catholic and Jewish moral theology), the individual is the responsible moral agent. The son is not responsible for the sins of his father. How then are we to interpret the events and consequnces of the Fall of Man? Whether you subscribe to a figurative or literal reading of Genesis 3, it is clear that in the Fall, the whole of humanity turned away from God. Thus, the consequence of the Fall is the separation of man from God with the effects which follow from this. How does this affect future generations? Well, we know from both Jewish and Christian moral theology (I'm not completely ignorant of Jewish moral theology) that it is the responsibility of the parents to bring their children to God. Being separated from God as a result of Original Sin, it was impossible for parents to bring their children to God and to teach them His ways. Therefore, the sin of Adam, not God, cursed all of humanity to live a life separated from God, and God in His mercy, intervened to restore what man had destroyed through the death and resurrection of Christ.

Oh, and, uh, Annatar, I rather got the impression that Farlas was smacking her own face in her last post. I could be wrong, of course, but that at least strikes me as the most charitable reading of it and more in keeping with her writing style.

*John Paul the Great, Evangelium Vitae (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2266.)