|
作者
|
內容
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2001/3/10 上午 08:54:32
|
|
|
小弟的意見是：本質惡的行為，在於是否能夠定義出一些客觀的行為，而該些行為在主體履行的時候，必定是「惡」──獨立於「目的」及「環境」的考慮。
關於「殺人」的例子，我認為可以分開兩方面：「殺人者」和「被殺者」。
有關被殺者方面，相信在這裡沒有人會否認，「殺害無辜者」是一種本質惡。
現在我們的問題是：「自衛殺人」、「死刑」及「戰爭」的問題，以及其與「人工避孕」的考慮之間，究竟有何分別的問題──而這也就是歸一君的詰問。
|
|
cecilia aw
|
Posted -
2001/3/10 上午 10:45:41
|
|
|
"殺人的問題"有疑問的是"戰爭殺人"這方面。個人覺得這樣不是尊重生命的行為，不應認同的,但當個人不能自主地上了戰場(徵兵制,軍法等),在生死存亡之際或在軍法壓迫下殺了人,是可以寬恕的(他們的mens rea 是不能算完全成立)。這是"沒有free will to choose",即自由選擇,的問題。
可是,"性行為"是否compulsive的呢?我一直系望一哥可以答覆這問題,但至今還只是"得個等字",雖然其間問題已給牽扯得很遠了。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2001/3/10 下午 12:27:09
|
|
|
《天主教教理》（2263-2267）將「自衛殺人」及「死刑」問題，歸納在「合法的自衛」一欄：
「個人和社會的合法自衛，並不是對禁止殺害無辜、故意殺人的一個例外。自衛的行動能夠引起雙重的效果：『一個是保存自己的生命，另一個是政擊者的死亡。……前者是有意的；後者是無意的』（STh 2-2, 64, 7）。
愛自己常是倫理的基本原則。因此，讓別人尊重自己的生命權是合理的。誰保衛自己的生命，如果被迫對來襲的人給予致命的一擊，不算是殺人的罪犯：
如果為了自衛，採用大於實際需要的暴力，這是不合法的。但是，如果採用適度的方法抗拒暴力，這是合法的。……為得救並不要求，為避免殺死他人而放棄適度的自衛；因為人應該保衛自己的生命，先於他人的生命（STh 2-2, 64, 7）。
合法的自衛，為那些負責保護他人生命、家庭或國家公益的人，不單是權利，也是重大的責任。
維護社會的公益要求使暴徒不再危害社會。對此，教會傳統的教導承認，合法政府有法理和義務的根據，依照罪行的嚴重性，得採用適當的刑罰，在極端嚴重的情況下，不排除死刑的運用。基於類似的理由，掌權者為自己負責保衛的社會，有以武力擊退進攻者的權利。
刑罰的效果，首先，在補償由罪行所引起的紛亂。當這刑罰為罪犯自願接受時，就有贖罪的價值。其次，這刑罰具有保障社會秩序和個人安全的效果。最後，這刑罰具有治療的價值，在可能的範圍內，有助於罪犯的改過遷善〔閱路二三40-43〕
。
假設有罪一方的身份和責任已完全被確定，教會的傳統訓導並不排除訴諸死刑，但只要這是唯一的可行之道，藉以有效地保護人命，免受不義侵犯者之害。
如果非殺傷性的方法足以衛護人們的安全，免受侵犯者之害，掌權者只應採用這些方法，因為這些方法更符合公益的具體條件，也更合乎人性的尊嚴。
事實上，今日由於國家具有各種有效地防止犯案的可能性，使犯罪者不得再逞，而不至於決定性地剝奪其改過自新的機會，因此，絕對必須處決罪犯的個案就『十分罕見，即並未完全絕跡』〔若望保祿二世，《生命的福音》，56〕。」
小弟以為，教會的訓導似乎是指出：個別市民具有保護自己生命的權利和義務，且在被迫的情況下，可「對來襲者給予致命一擊」而不為過；而社會中的掌權者為社會公益，在某些情況下對嚴重罪犯施以極刑，則可是一項「義務」。
在前者（即個別市民的合法自衛），「侵害者的死亡」並不是該位被侵害市民的直接意願，而只是為達致「自衛」的過程中的、一個非一己意願所能控制的結果；而在後者（掌權者依法為社會公益而執行死刑），則是掌權者利用天主所賦予的「不是無故帶劍的」（羅十三4）權力。
|
|
Eleventh Dimension
|
Posted -
2001/7/7 上午 01:32:13
|
|
|
I think people have digressed a bit to talk about Genesis 38, and in particular Onanism and trying to link this up with artificial contraception. My view regarding the passage in question as quoted by the writer edward on March 8 is as follows,
I could not agree with the suggestion by writer Cecilia Aw that Onan wanted the intercourse but did not want to have children. There is no words or sentences suggesting or hinting that Onan did want or enjoy the intercourse. He was ordered to do so by his father. I agree with the position as stated by edward that one of the sins of Onan was his INTENTIONAL and DELIBERATE failing to produce offspring for his brother, I would add that the other two sins are his DECEPTION against the express command of his father, and a clear BREACH of the legal covenants between Israel and God to produce offspring for his brother (see also Deuteronomy 25:5-6), I do not think there is anything to do with artificial contraception from the passage.
Well, this is my personal view anyway. Really enjoy reading all your postings everywhere in this site. Regarding the main topic, I would have to leave it next time as it is now time to sleep.
|
|
Cissie
|
Posted -
2001/7/7 下午 12:10:58
|
|
|
Well, I do not think that the interpretation can be taken to be so literal if one reads the entire passage, that's all.
|
|
Eleventh Dimension
|
Posted -
2001/7/7 下午 01:11:58
|
|
|
Thank you for your response, Cecilia. However, I do not understand to what extent are you suggesting about literalism and to what extent the whole passage you were referring to, Genesis 38:9-10, or Genesis 38, or Genesis as a whole? Or are you suggesting that we could give meanings to whichever passage we read instead of accepting the literal meaning, especially in this kind of descriptive writings? The way to understand a passage would not be the same if we read passages from prophecies or parables. But this is not one of those.
To me, the significance of Genesis 38:9-10 does not change even if it is considered it in a broader context. Genesis 38 is an account of what Judah had done when he intentionally wandered off from his brothers to seek his own fortune among the Canaanites, and his moral inferiority as compared with Joseph especially on the issue of greed and lust. Genesis 39 and what follows is an account of what Joseph had done when he was forcefully taken to Egypt by the calculated acts of his brothers, and how he refused to succumb to the temptations while remaining righteous.
The significance to the Israelites then in the proper historical context is that the leadeship of Israel was given to the righteous Joseph instead of to the unrighteous Judah. The theological significance in Genesis 38 is that our Lord Jesus would still be born from the descendants of Judah, hence fulfilling the promise and prophecies of God.
What Onan had done was a clear breach of the covenants of God. Nothing to do with artificial contraception.
Pardon me for diagressing from the main topic, but I have a very keen interest in this issue I am addressing.
|
|
Cissie
|
Posted -
2001/7/9 上午 10:06:14
|
|
|
Perhaps you could go back earlier to one passage posted by Edward (?) where he asked what meaning should be given a the passage following. Sorry that I do not have enough time to go back to all the previous postings: I did responded to Edward's question, if I could remember. That interpretation do lend weight to the "popular" argument that artifical contraception is God's disgust. (Well, at least the Chinese Bible's notes did suggest that).
|
|
Cissie
|
Posted -
2001/7/9 上午 10:09:57
|
|
|
<在手段上，他選擇與妻子「行埋」（go in to）而不留嗣。前者在猶太律法中處罰，只是「公開羞辱」（見申廿五7）而不是死亡。若我們仔細地分析創三十八9-10：
「敖難明知後裔不歸自己，所以當他與哥哥的妻子結合時，便將精液遺洩於地，免得給自己的哥哥立後。他作這事，為上主所厭惡，上主就叫他死了。」
若敖難之罪的重點，在於「不願為哥哥立後」，那麼「他作這事」的「作」，便變得不可理解了。>
That was Edward's question.
|
|
Cissie
|
Posted -
2001/7/9 上午 10:11:54
|
|
|
<我覺得還是可以在這兒談一談 - 敖難"作這事"不為主所喜 - 在下的理解"這事"是"結合但不留子嗣"這整個package - 亦即交合但不要有孩子(i.e.避孕)。 >
That was my reply.
That was, and has always been, my understanding of this passage.
|
|
Eleventh Dimension
|
Posted -
2001/7/9 下午 05:58:20
|
|
|
Cissie, I myself support the spirit against artificial contraception and I myself agree with the concept that sex without love is sin. And I am in agreement with the view of the Church. And that is enough. The problem to me is, if we have to add questionable and extra materials to explain something, some people will say it adds weight to the argument (I am not saying this is wrong), but some people will say it only does a disservice to the original issue. I am of the latter view. Further, I do not condemn or to say those with the former view is wrong. I am only addressing it here openly in this forum for discussion. That is all.
To answer the question put forward by Edward, the DO has several meanings.
One reason is that Onan did not want to be publicly humilated under their law, and therefore just DO the act. If he refused, he would be humilated. But he had done the act which he did not want, that is willful DECEPTION. Could anyone say what would be the punishment of this willful deception against clear convenants of God?
Another reason is that Onan was obeying truly the command of his father, but at the same time he had bad feelings against his dead brother, therefore not wishing to make off springs for him. Remember, his dead brother Er, was FOUND WICKED in the eyes of the Lord and was put to death. Maybe, (note maybe) that Onan was trying to put justice in his hands, trying to punish his dead brother.
There are other less convincing arguments which I am not going to say here.
|
