It must be frankly stated that the classical belief in the immortality of the soul excludes faith in the resurrection, because the resurrection (and this is the root of the matter) includes in itself not only the soul, but also the body. Simply reading the Gospel leaves no doubt about it. When they saw the risen Christ, the Apostles, as the Gospel says, thought that they were seeing a ghost or a vision. The first task of the risen Christ was to allow them to sense the reality of His body. He takes food and eats in front of them. He commands the doubting Thomas to touch His body, to be convinced of the Resurrection through his fingers. And when the Apostles came to believe, it is precisely the proclamation of the Resurrection, its reality, its “bodiliness” that becomes the chief content, power and joy of their preaching, and the main sacrament of the Church becomes the Communion of bread and wine as the Body and Blood of the risen Christ. And in this act, says the Apostle Paul, “proclaiming the death of the Lord, they confess His Resurrection.
(from: "The Christian concept of death", by Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann, www.schmemann.org/byhim/thechristianconceptofdeath.html)

quote:

---

As Christians, we should live out the gospel of love in many non-political ways---that is certain.

---

There is a whole area of life that is not governmental. It may be political, in the sense that I use the term "politics" here, but it isn't governmental. Neuhaus talks about this in his book, "The Naked Public Square."

quote:

---

But we cannot ignore that political decisions AFFECT PEOPLE'S LIVES, and that effect can be for BETTER or for WORSE. As such, I don't think it is somehow a waste of our time---or even worse, inconsistent with our calling---to invest in political decisions that we consider BETTER for the most people.

---

I get into this somewhat in my post that I am doing up. As much as the courts don't want to get into metaphysical questions of personhood, one really can't get away from the fact that this is precisely what they are doing. We don't live in a morally neutral vacuum.

quote:

---

I understand the compulsion to criticize the modern-day Christian's over-reliance on government, which we have often used as a substitute for real action, but the fact is this: government matters. People live and die based upon decisions that are made politically.

In short, living out the Christian gospel of love and participating in the political process are not mutually exclusive.

---

I agree. There are even Christian utopians out there...I think they're called, "Reconstructionists." (That's my opinion, ). And it is for this reason (government matters) why I believe in such things as the death-penalty. One of the reasons why there is such cynical anti-institutionalism (which has infected the church), is because government fails to carry out "justice." If your government fails in this regard, then people "lose hope in the justic system" and begin taking the law into their own hands (vigilantism). I think some really good reads on the subject of Christianity and politics are Richard Mouw and Richard John Neuhaus:

www.firstthings.com/

Lastly, too Miss E, I haven't forgot about ya. I still say that I would have a problem with your very last statement:

quote:

---

I think God's creative hand is upon the body, just as his creative hand was upon Adam and all living things, but there is a moment later in the formation process when God breathes his spirit into Adam...that is, Adam's soul/spirit into being, and this occurs gradually as consciousness arises gradually. Consciousness is dependent on brain activity, so I would still hold that this is the most probable point of the soul's entrance...of personhood.

---

because it is still very functional. That is, if one does not have consciousness, one is not a person? Beside, the whole gradualist theory is incoherent to me, which I will demonstrate in my post. But why should I give that away now? Thanks for the dialogue. I love this girl's brain.

P.S. Stark, I sent ya some e-mail, you haven't responded. You wanna get on that?






Brandon
"Totalitarianism, whether in the civic or in the ecclesiastical realm, is unacceptable."--Richard Mouw: Consulting the Faithful

quote:

---

I personally am not against all abortions. HOWEVER, I think they are ALL wrong, just like I am not against all lying--saving another's life, for instance--but ALL lying is wrong. IT WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE THIS WAY . . . EVER!

---

quote:

---

How believing that prior to the resurrection one's soul is separate for a time from the body is "denying the resurrection" is beyond me however. I believe the two will be joined together in the "resurrected body" that St. Paul speaks of, the body the disciples witnessed of Jesus prior to his ascension.

I'm still confused by your response though and since you didn't answer my questions, I can only conclude that you would rather not engage in that particular discussion with me. That's cool.

---

quote:

---

How believing that prior to the resurrection one's soul is separate for a time from the body is "denying the resurrection" is beyond me however. I believe the two will be joined together in the "resurrected body" that St. Paul speaks of, the body the disciples witnessed of Jesus prior to his ascension.

I'm still confused by your response though and since you didn't answer my questions, I can only conclude that you would rather not engage in that particular discussion with me. That's cool.

---

quote:

---

The reason I don't track with the argument (that has been made a lot on this board) that the death penalty is somehow more "justifiable" than abortion is because:

1. I do not believe that a zygote/young embryo is a person, while an adult on death row is (and their personhood is clearly established and not open to debate).

2. I believe that the NT and Jesus clearly overturned any form of capital punishment the moment Jesus said, "Do not resist evil" and "Turn the other cheek" and "Love your enemies" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Even St. Paul says, "See that none of you repays evil for evil" (1 Thess.5:15).

---

quote:

---

As for no. one? I don't even think you can say that the zygote/embryo is not a person speaking both from a medical and biblical point of view. As soon as conception takes place, from a medical point of view the zygote can then be said to be a human life. I'll elaborate a little more on this later today. At no other time in the life of a person does a human being undergo the transformation that appears at conception.

---

quote:

---

As to your comments on capital punishment, I wanted to say that if we lived in a less technological era and the -only- way to safeguard that a murderer wouldn't kill again was to kill them, then capital punishment might be justifiable. However, in today's day and age when we can ensure that a killer never kills again by keeping them incarcerated and away from others, I believe we ought to maintain peace in the most non-violent means possible to us.

---

quote:

---

I wrote: ...if humanity can be defined as bodiless after death (It can't), then it can be defined as bodiless before "birth." . And then I expressed my view that it humanity can not be "defined" that way: meaning that it cannot be defined as "bodiless" EITHER before birth or after.

---

quote:

---

You said, quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------I wrote: ...if humanity can be defined as bodiless after death (It can't), then it can be defined as bodiless before "birth." . And then I expressed my view that it humanity can not be "defined" that way: meaning that it cannot be defined as "bodiless" EITHER before birth or after.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
but then you said, quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------Yes, I do believe that the soul departs the body upon death.
---------------------------------------------------------------------So if the soul departs the body, is the soul or the body "the person"? I believe that the body is awaiting the resurrection to be one with the soul again, but that the "person" resides in the soul until that time. Would you say that I am arguing for a humanity that is "bodiless after death"? If so, how do your beliefs regarding the body and the soul departing at death differ from mine?

---

quote:

---

I find this argument problematic because it seeks to base an ethic about life and death on something extraneous: how dependable security is in our prisons. (In high security prisons with prisoners on death row, it is statistically extremely rare that other prisoners are killed, neverthelesss..) Rather than condoning killing to solve this problem, the solution is simply better security in our prisons and isolation of such inmates from other prisoners.

. . .

Again, this is basing a life and death ethic on something extraneous: our legal system. The solution to killers being released on parole is not to kill them, the solution is to ensure that this is not a possibility in our legal system.

---

Yes, but your position depends largely on a determination that the death penalty is unnecessary as a protective measure because the alternative punishment of life in prison is just as effective in protecting innocent lives. I am arguing that life in prison does not in fact serve as an equally effective alternative, and I think the evidence supports my position. Perhaps the murder of fellow prisoners and the release of convicted murderers are “extraneous” to the ideal moral vacuum of this issue, but I firmly believe that we must confront practical reality, and deal with the situation as it exists—not as we think it should exist.

[By the way, this “incapacitation” argument that I am making here is, in my mind, one of the less compelling reasons for the death penalty, but I believe it is valid nonetheless.]

quote:

---

If we look at Jesus' words in context, he is speaking against OT Laws that were only concerned with justice without mercy that the Israelites lived by. In Matt. 5:38 Jesus says, "You have heard it was said, 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other side also." Jesus is quoting from Deuteronomy 19:21 which says, "Show no pity; life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." Jesus is saying that this type of exacting justice is no longer applicable. We no longer demand "a life for a life" because God has ushered in a new way of relating to us and a new way we are to relate to others. Jesus' words go directly against this State regulation. While I believe our personal response is to offer the other cheek to those who wrong us, I believe the State application is to cease enforcing such laws like the death penalty. Rather than killing someone who has killed, we ought to seek the most non-violent and merciful ways to deal with such individuals. In terms of the law, we are turning the other cheek when we do not kill killers but simply imprison them. We cannot allow them to kill again, but we have no right to kill them either.

---

I’m not sure I understand. You cite the command to “turn the other cheek” but do not give it its full effect when applied to the State so that you can avoid the illogical extent at which it would arrive (anarchy). What I am saying is this: “Turn the other cheek” means “turn the other cheek.” It doesn’t mean hit the person back with a lesser, more merciful punch. If you are going to apply this to the State, it must mean what it means. To apply it differently in order to achieve support for your opposition to the death penalty seems too much like end-based reasoning.

This is why I just don't think Christ's words could have been intended for the State. It was intended for individuals.

quote:

---

Again, in the case of the woman caught in adultery, the crowd is reminding Jesus of the OT Law that commands the stoning of those caught in adultery. This was a law for the State of Israel but Jesus contradicts such a law and instead calls for mercy. He says, in essence, that none of us can take another person's life unless we are without sin. Because no person is without sin, none have the right to take life. Jesus' law of grace cuts 'both ways' in that sense.

---

Again, your argument would refute itself if taken farther. If your statement that “none of us can take another person’s life unless we are without sin” is true, then we must be complete pacifists. That’s why I asked you early on whether you were a pacifist—because to me, that is the only position that is logically consistent with your interpretation of this stuff.

Very creative and thought-provoking interpretation, though, Miss E. I’m sure I’ll need to digest this further. Keep up the dialogue.

By the way, I didn't get your response to the deterrence argument . . .

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."


Edited by - BJS on 11/12/2002 4:59:07 PM

quote:

---

Brandon said:

quote:

---

I don't even think you can say that the zygote/embryo is not a person speaking both from a medical and biblical point of view. As soon as conception takes place, from a medical point of view the zygote can then be said to be a human life.

---

Miss E. in response said:

Just to clarify, I agree that a zygote can be said to be "human life;" I am making a distinction between "person" and "human life" though. As I have said, I believe a dead human body is still "human" even though he/she is no longer a "person." The criteria for "person" I am advocating is brain waves and consciousness, the same criteria we use at death applied to early development.

---

quote:

---

I DID DEFINE THEM JUST FINE ON PAGE SEVEN. But if you don't find those definitions useful to what you want to do, then you shouldn't have more anyways.

---

quote:

---

Al said, quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------I DID DEFINE THEM JUST FINE ON PAGE SEVEN. But if you don't find those definitions useful to what you want to do, then you shouldn't have more anyways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------Empiress: I was simply trying to understand your position and get clarification, not use your definitions in any way. I'm sorry I could not understand what you were getting at on page seven; I seem to be having a very basic problem in comprehending you. Thank you for trying to explain it though, I won't pester you further because I am still failing to understand.

---

quote:

---

I can't believe you blew my post off like that! Especially what was said about capital punishment! I mean I thought I would expect more from you than just saying all we're doing is theologizing. No. I interacted with the text thoroughly...more thoroughly than thou and yet I am accused of theologizing! I made three substantail points as to why it is not clear at all that Jesus was abolishing capital punishment in that text.

---

quote:

---

I think that using capital punishment as a detterent is entirely invalid both morally and pragmatically. First, after working with inmates in jails, I can say that I do not believe consequences play into their choices because they always believe they can "get away with it." The fact is that statistically over half of all murders go unsolved without any prosecution and criminals know this. They have every reason to believe they likely -won't- get caught.

---

You’re going to argue that individuals don’t consider the consequences of punishment when they decide whether to commit a crime? To do so, you would be wildly at odds with even the most radical criminologists. Sure, there are crimes of passion that don’t consider consequences, and there are egomaniacal criminals who think they will never get caught. However, it doesn’t seem very objective to contend that because you interacted with a statistically insignificant sampling of inmates in your local jail, then it must be true that criminals “always believe they can ‘get away with it.’” Not only is that evidence entirely anecdotal, it is not derived from the vast majority of citizens who are NOT in prison. It might be more helpful to ask THOSE people whether potential punishment deters them from committing crime.

My point is this: One can argue that capital punishment doesn’t serve as an effective deterrent, but one cannot plausibly claim that there is no such thing as deterrence at all. Our entire criminal justice system is founded upon the reality of deterrence. Do you honestly believe that the thought of spending time behind bars does not keep many people from breaking the law? To be fair, you probably did not intend to state this position so resolutely [I hope . . .].

quote:

---

Second, we cannot base "deterrence" as a sound moral foundation for the death penalty. Just as amputating someone's arm might deter people from theft (as done in some nations), it does not make the amputation of limbs moral...how much more so with killing?

---

Again, this position strikes me as entirely inconsistent with your stance on pacifism. You have conceded that there are indeed times when killing is (unfortunately) a necessary evil. I believe it would be fair to describe your justification for killing as being “in defense of life.” The very word “deterrence” conveys that its effect is to prevent something from happening. Therefore, if it can be demonstrated that capital punishment prevents murder from happening, it would fit quite nicely into your principle of justification. [Of course, that is IF it can be demonstrated. As I said earlier, you can make very plausible arguments that the death penalty does not serve as an effective deterrent, and be opposed to it on those grounds, but I don’t believe it is reasonable to reject deterrence as fundamentally immoral.]

quote:

---

1. Even if we grant that Jesus' words do not have any bearing on our government and have only personal ramifications, as Christians Jesus' words still have bearing on us personally and that WILL and SHOULD affect how we vote and function politically as individuals. If we are "personally" to be merciful to those who wrong us, we would vote AGAINST the death penalty, not for it.

---

Our understanding of “turn the other cheek” cannot be in opposition to our responsibility to “love our neighbors.” Certainly, at the very least, to love our neighbors means to protect them from harm. As such, we must support governmental action that protects each other’s life and safety. If the death penalty can be shown to help accomplish our obligation to protect each other from being killed, there is nothing un-Christian about supporting it.

quote:

---

Bottomline: At the very least we can see that Jesus is calling for mercy as our guiding principle; how we apply that may look different in different situations, but we can safely rule out all unecessary killing as not being in keeping with a fundamentally merciful approach.

---

This “bottomline” is quite helpful. It highlights why the deterrence factor MUST be relevant, despite your earlier contention to the contrary. You “rule out” all killing that is not necessary for the protection of life. So the central issue is whether capital punishment serves to protect life by deterring murder. If it does, then it can be considered “necessary killing.”

As to your emphasis on mercy: Certainly, we are called as individuals to show mercy when we are wronged, but there is a reason why this cannot be equally applied to state action: When we act as a community, we must consider more than just our own individual well-being. We must be primarily concerned with each other. If showing mercy to one poses a danger to all, then we would be wrong to do so. This is the failure of absolute pacifism, and it is a failure of our most fundamental Christian obligation: to love one another.

By the way, Miss E, I know we don't seem to be persuading each other of much at this point, but please don't consider this a waste of time because of it. I am thoroughly benefiting from the dialogue, and I hope my words do not come across too aggressively or antagonistically. This is why I am here on this board--to defend (and often CHANGE) what I think in a group of smart, good-hearted friends who can challenge my belief systems.

You and I agree on much, and we have disagreed on a few things like this, but I always feel like I am growing when we exchange ideas.

Thanks,

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Edited by - BJS on 11/13/2002 10:41:02 PM

quote:

---

Humans reason because of the soul/spirit in them, not because of their physiological makeup, something very much a part of their humanness and of their personhood.

---