Sin Leads to Death

I would like to return to the essence of the Cain myth, namely fratricide. To understand it in all its drama, it is worth remembering that, according to the biblical story, Abel's is the first death in history. However, the logic of the story leads one to think that Adam should have died first, since God had threatened him with death if he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam ate, Eve ate, and they lived on. It would seem that the serpent was right when he told them: "you will not die at all" (if you eat from the tree).

Here we play with a double meaning of the term "death": death as the end of existence; and death as separation from God. The death that sin produces is of a religious type: the break with God. Sin does not lead man to the grave. Rather, it destroys the relationship with God and with others and destroys him, because the person is built on the relationship. Its most tragic consequence is manifested in all cruelty in the murder of Abel at the hands of Cain. The first death of humanity is not a natural death, it is a homicide and a fratricide, since we are all brothers. The first to die is not Adam for having violated God's command, but Abel, an innocent.

The first experience of death was not produced by disobedience to the God we do not see, but by hatred of the brother we see. Since this does not enter into God's original project, it can be said with all truth that sin leads to death. To the physical death of the brother and to the spiritual death of the murderer. The death threats come from the brother. And I can receive the murder from the murderous brother or from the willful ignorance of the one who washes his hands, and also hypocritically wonders if he is the guardian of his brother.

Unfortunately, the story of Cain is still current, in the form of ruptures of all kinds: ambitions, violence, economies that harm the weak, wars whose objective is to obtain other people's wealth, or "death bonds”. The latest invention of the bank, in which the death wish of the insurance holder is explicit.

 

There Is Hunger and There Is Plenty of Food

 

It should be noted the dramatic increase in the number of people suffering from hunger, has made two things clear: one, there is no cause-effect relationship between the increase in population and hunger, which is confirmed by the deplorable destruction of food surpluses based on economic profit. In other words, there is plenty of food, but there is no political will to reach everyone, because the will that prevails is economic; it does not seek to feed the hungry, it seeks to obtain the maximum benefit, even at the expense of the hungry. This bad policy, has repercussions for the achievement of other rights, beginning with the primary right to life. If I understand correctly, this means that in order to ensure the right to life with dignity, it is necessary previously, or at least simultaneously,

Secondly, the responsibility of one for the other, based on the common belonging to the universal human family. This must be understood well: it is not just that since we are all brothers and sisters, we have to help each other. It is that the goods of the earth belong to all to be distributed among all. That is why we should speak not only of a solidarity animated by love, but of a justice that encourages others to give "what is theirs", what belongs to them as a member of a family in which goods are shared. The consequence is clear: if a people in need appropriates the superfluous goods of other peoples, they do not steal because they take what is theirs. How to translate that politically? For now there is no translation, what there are reprisals and international courts to punish those who dare to take what is “theirs”.