本帖最後由 Nomad 於 2009-1-11 18:30 編輯
20# NACA
Well, one thing, regretfully, that you must consider when thinking about "what these people are thinking", is that the ethical question may or may not be the least amongst their concern, as "a whole" (or as the church administration), but they are rather concerned about whether what they propose as a "moral definition of law" and that alone constitutes the law.
If you look at all the major legal issues about religion around the world - gay marriage, evolution and high school, "moral" censorship ... it's all the same - the church demands power - what they really demand is their speech and their speech alone must have a levitated privilege (which is why the case for "intelligence design" in United Stated was essentially deemed by the federal court as outright dishonesty.)
So yea, it's not really about ethical consistency but about the political power of the church, it's really about, and only about, getting people into line which pathetically is the very same concept of "good" as in "non-naughtiness" of most parents in Hong Kong.
(In fact, with my own experience in the church for some 15 years, and in the same time my experience as a student of philosophy in college, the utter realization is the fact that there is no such thing as "Christian ethics" that is logically and ethically defined, as the only prominent ethical theory of the church is the Divine Command Theory, which is, by definition, a political system) |
2009/1/10 12:12
|