This paper delves into Hegel's critique of Kantian ethics, focusing on the accusation that Kant's Categorical Imperative (CI) represents an abstract ethical philosophy. Hegel argues that Kantian ethics relies on an unproductive form of abstract thinking, exemplified in Kant's emphasis on universalizing maxims without considering the concrete particularities of situations. The author contends that Hegel's critique remains valid even when considering Christine Korsgaard's responses. The paper unfolds by elucidating Hegel's notion of "abstract thinking" and explaining how the CI's emphasis on (...) formal principles leads to abstract ethical judgments. It critically analyzes Korsgaard's defense, asserting that her responses do not sufficiently address Hegel's concerns. The paper underscores Hegel's claim that the CI lacks concrete content, rendering it unable to accommodate the complexities of real-world ethical situations. Furthermore, this analysis explores how the inheritance of abstract thinking from Kantian ethics continues to detrimentally impact contemporary approaches to ethical challenges. Ultimately, the paper upholds Hegel's assertion that the CI's abstract nature hinders its effectiveness as a comprehensive ethical framework and that any abstract approach to ethics is destined to fail when it comes to teaching someone how one ought to act. (shrink)

The Dignity of the Children according to the New Testament teaching should be a landmark for modern era. New Testament raised the dignity of the unborn child, from a simple mass of cells to a child who has the right to be born and live. The child born has the value of a person that to enjoy family and society not only for economic potential but for the soul value as they bear the image of God. Children of different ages (...) have the right to be baptized, have access to the grace of the Sacraments and become saints. In fact the true dignity of man is his power to become a saint. And the child is the image of the saint, heir of the Heaven. (shrink)

The temple from Jerusalem was never more defended by Jewish servants and believers, as when the Apostle Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews. We are not referring to the armies of the revolutionaries. We should know that in Sanhedrin was judged every word that a Jew talked about the temple. But when St. Stephan was killed, and after too, St. James, because they have seen the True temple of Christ, the Levites and the Priests became killers not worshipers. With (...) diplomacy, the Apostle Paul wrote to the Jews this letter without even saying a word about the Temple, but asking them to remember the way they can fulfil the ideals of unity and freedom patented by Moses and the Tent: through Christ and through the Church. (shrink)

The interpretation of the Holy Bible has always done in two distinct environments: in the Church and outside it. If for the Holy Fathers the Church was the only institution that can guarantee the integrity, apostolicity, inspiration and canonicity of the sacred text, as well as the right way of interpreting, heretics have read the Bible for widening an already created gap between them and the Church. The current Protestant exegesis tends to reconsider the interpretative tradition, inquiring about the effects (...) or the understanding of the Holy Scriptures texts, quoting as Wirkungsgeschichte a summary of the directions of where some pericopes were understood. But is this new approach sufficient for an accurate understanding of the Holly Bible message? (shrink)