“Cum să fie creatura creator? ”Hai tată, să-ţi arăt moşia pe care ţi-am făcut-o cînd nu eram în viaţă…” Păi cum să fie creatura creator?” Petre Ţuţea

Artiştii sunt constrânşi să scrie.

Altfel pana retezată

e-alungată în pustie,

şi uitată.

Arta, spun, e-o meserie.

O brăţară înnobilată,

ce o-nhami o veşnicie,

până-i gata.

Lutul gol, îşi spune tare,

Că e bravul creator.

Se deprinde-n osanale:

nimicul impostor.


M-a prins ropotul ploii descoperit…

Rafala subită.

Şi neiertătoare, fără de seamăn!

Bine că nu dor, picurii de ploaie.       

Bine că sunt făcuţi din apă nu din soare…


Dar şi lacrimile sunt tot din antiteza soarelui.

Adică din apă.

Unele sunt de bucurie, dar predomina în ele

Amarul si deznădejdea.

Mara e in apă.


Dar si focul, şi apa sfinţesc:

Şi omul în ele, se-ndoaie.

Cu apa printr-un ritual al înnoirii se scufundă.

Cu focul, în mistuirea fărădelegii se remodelează.

Picurii de ploaie sunt martorii sacramentului,

Pe când, picurii de foc, sunt departe, pe bolta cerească…


Nu se poate fără foc,

Cum nu există viaţă fără apă.

Un trup firav şi mistuit,

Tânjeşte după hidratare!

Extracted from my last year Bachelor thesis, “The liberal dusk of Imago Dei” (2oo9):  

If we want to throw the net of judgment into the sea of biotechnology we are obliged by ration and common sense to evaluate the depth of values and the potential for prosperity. Every custom of this sort will trigger not only a worn out whole night catch, but also a genuine wrestle with other fishermen but especially with oneself. But not all the fishermen venerate the commandments that for thousands of years provided the stillness of the sea. Those who engage in fruitless and vain battles being ruled by obscurity and nonsense leave deep wounds on the surface of the moon’s quiet reflection. Their charm is of a plague’s blessing and their boats are like a Trojan horse wickedly brought into the citadel of life to perish all who stand fairly firm defending the castle of holiness; their nets are cursed and bring only shallowness and despair. They promise a fruitful godly tale but the ash of yesterday tells another story…

If we want to engage in a discussion about the emergence and development of bioethics we have to consider this domain as dependent to the potential volatility of other disciplines. Even though, as the literature has already proven, bioethics has rapidly developed being encouraged by theoretical and empirical factors, it can not be considered as a discipline per se (in a vacuum). Due to its range of activity, the ethics of biotechnology occupies a specific place within the discipline of medicine, but at the same time, it is not reclaimed entirely by medicine. The ethics of the bio technological discoveries and practice is nevertheless that special particle of ethics that created numerous bursting reactions and dichotomous attitudes between clear-cut groups and actors.

Standing at the congruence of biomedical sciences, philosophy, theology, ethics and law[1], bioethics gradually started to dominate the intellectual sphere where the inquiry regarding humanness is made. It is also frapping to know that the biotechnological sphere is not comprised only by physicians and bio technicians but also by philosophers, lawyers and other aliens that each represent their sequence of interest and bring significant contributions in the process of decision-making. To be more precise, bioethics is a field of disciplinary diversity where the pluralistic theories restrict or refuel the contour line of biotechnology.

To the extent of the last decades, bioethics revived several taboo issues that time had swept into a deep grave like an ambitious scavenger, purifying the calm sea of society. After a dark history portrayed by fascism and communism, historically marginalized issues like abortion and euthanasia were then, and now as well, a great opportunity to test the dominating values of liberal societies. It was then invoked that medicine must reflect the pervasive values of the occidental society as a revolutionary mirror that must illustrate man as he is (or as he became) having no inhibitions in doing that. In doing so, the traditional ethics of medicine had to be deconstructed and remodeled after the liberal standards and values. Within the process of identity building, the traditional moral values of medicine were discarded in the scope of updating the ethical norms by a revolutionary perspective over humanness and life. This gap was loaded with ambiguous and incoherent features that invalided the “ethical consensus”[2] omnipresent at the roots of every society, placing a censure on any moral system that was connected to some religious paradigm.

Perceived as a brutal challenge to the Christian morality, contemporary bioethics rapidly became a climate of religious and secular passionate discussions and division among the theorists who perceived the metamorphosis of bioethics differently. The reason for the Christian response was pointed at the determinant role of bioethics in shaping the society’s perception of man and his condition. By redefining the nature and condition of life, bioethics through the impact of the secular philosophy, imposed that one’s existence should be conditioned by certain mandatory elements[3]. This ideology also inspired another construction by reformulating what means to be a human being, separating thus the contemporary perspective from the traditional view. As a contrasted argumentation to the secular proposal of the emergence of bioethics, the Christian discourse invokes those specific philosophical outputs that diffused the historical public perception on life and the human being. It is rather a strategic exploitation of the individual’s freedom, they claim, by which euthanasia and abortion were set forth as optimal solutions for ending pain and distress[4].

Unloaded by the Christian-Hippocratical values, the ethics of medicine now had a pronounced relativist character which offered no specific response to serious challenges of life and death. Opposed to the transcendental ethics, the post-Hippocratic medical culture is gradually emerging by bringing arbitrary values (yet justified by a relativist ethics) that through their lack of essence is affecting the involved agents drawing them into a subjective and volatile inertia.

[1] Cameron, Nigel M . De S. Bioetica- amurgul hipocratismului crestin” in D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge “Dumnezeu si Cultura”, Editura Cartea Crestina, Oradea, 2005, page 359
[2] Ibidem, page 362
[3] See Peter Singer’s view on bioethics in his Practical Ethics, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, UK, 1993
[4] Cameron, Nigel M . De S. Bioetica- amurgul hipocratismului crestin” in D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge “Dumnezeu si Cultura”, Editura Cartea Crestina, Oradea, 2005, page 367


Extracted from my last year Bachelor thesis, “The liberal dusk of Imago Dei” (2oo9): 

As we have already seen in the beginning of the paper, ethics is far more than an old fashioned and rusty activity. G. Lipovetsky with his famous quote from “The dusk of the duty”, “The XXI century will be ethic or it won’t be at all”[1] underlines the importance of ethics and urges the international society to acknowledge that the reality that surrounds us as human beings is being conditioned by the normative-prescriptive character of ethics.

As mentioned in the introductory chapter, this paper is about the Christian ethics perspective over the practice of euthanasia. Christian ethics builds its genuine identity based on two authentic ingredients: one about the perception regarding the origins of ethics, the other works with its source.

First, the Christian tradition perceives the moment presented in Genesis, also known as “the Fall of Man[2]”, as the moment that gave birth to ethics. Through this distinctive approach regarding the specific historical and authority explanation of the origins of ethics, Christian ethics perceives morality as a necessary dimension that supports the human being in his path of getting close to the divine will of God, which is a life without sin. By following the Christian moral life, man will be able to fulfill the “Christocentric destiny[3]” that was inspired by God from above. But the profound questions of the universe can not be handled only in terms of a historical explanation. And this is in fact the reason why the Christian tradition claims that through the relation between ethics and religion the moral reality will be truly deciphered[4].

The latter argument leads us to the second treat that gives Christian ethics a distinctive identity from any other moral philosophies, which is the special, personal and divine revelation as the source of Christian ethics[5]. Opposed to the speculative philosophy, the Christian moral reflection is transcendental transmitted having its legitimacy in the word of God (Exodus 20:1), thus not being submitted to the social changes but having “a supranational, supernatural and suprasocial” character (Carl F.H. Henry, Etica Crestina Personala, pag 215). Christian ethics is not the result of an anthropological or social inquiry due to its plenary divine source and authority (2 Timothy 3:16). In other words, its essence derives from the exact Voice of God meant to be shared to all human beings.

Christian ethics can be shortly defined as “the way of life of those who accept the Christian faith[6]. But because the complexity of this study requires a more comprehensive and exhaustive definition of what Christian ethics is, and more, the term “Christian” can be understood in a varied manner according to own culture and denomination, we shall refer to Christian ethics as” the systematic study of the way of life set forth by Jesus Christ, applied to the daily demands and decisions of our personal and social existence[7]”. At first sight, the latter definition does not bring much of a new and complex image but it underlines the practical potential of Christian ethics to respond and be used in daily challenges.

What puts an end to the resemblance (which stands in the methodological aspect) between Christian ethics and the moral philosophy is the starting point of the first, which is the Christian religion with two basic assumptions found in the Christian Holy Bible: the reality of God and the second, to respond to the question “what god?” God as preached by Jesus Christ[8], His beloved Son. Thus, the ethics of Christians are in fact those principles derived from the Bible, applied to the decisional demands of the individual.  

The sacred revelation of God is considered to be presented by several important actors that placed an emphatic influence over the Christian culture. Hierarchically mentioned according to their authority, Jesus Christ, Apostle Paul and the Christian communities brought valuable and decisive contributions to the formation of a Christian identity within a Judaic culture[9].

The most influential religious figure that placed the foundation of the Christian religion is Jesus Christ the Son of God, also known as Jesus from Nazareth. The complex work of Jesus Christ in the neo-testamental period proved to have a major impact over the social and political standards of Judaism, culture in which He was raised and educated[10](Matthew 2:41).

Through His exegete upon the Holy Hebrew texts (the Scripture-The Old Testament) that have a strong sacred and authoritative character in the Judaic tradition, His teachings and His authentic theological interpretation (The New Testament), Jesus Christ redefined the moral doctrine of Judaism emphasizing the importance of the interior moral reality rather than the exterior moral aspects based on acts, deeds, practices and rituals.

He also reversed the social and political standards of the Judaic society through His compassionate attitude towards the poor, the immoral, the heretics, the ones marginalised by the society, women and for the political rejected. What seems to be completely opposed to Judaism due to the revolutionary discourse of Jesus Christ is actually build on the Judaic tradition and belief in God. And to prove that, Christian ethics inherited a strong ethical character from Judaism, tradition characterized by many ethical preoccupations (unlike other religions from the Roman Empire)[11].

After Jesus Christ, Apostle Paul is the most important theologian and ethical reflectionist of the New Testament. The ex most terrible persecutor of Christians brought significant contributions to the Christian culture with his Epistles in which he interprets the Scripture and the exegete of Jesus, giving ethical solutions to Christian communities facing new moral situations. His work comprise 14 letters (including The Epistle dedicated to the Hebrews) that he wrote to his brothers in Christ and to the new Christian communities from Europe and Asia Minor in Rome, Corinth ,Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colosse and Thessaloniki (diasporas). His testimonial combined with his preeminent theological abilities and oratorical vocation had inspired the new followers of Christ to trust his advice and guidance assuring them of his commitment to Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:1).

After the fall of the Roman Empire, Christianity spread world wide facing new doctrinal and ethical problems; these transformations led to five main confessional branches[12], each of them adopting their own doctrine and ethics: 1. The Orthodox religion; 2. The Roman-Catholic religion; 3. Lutheranism; 4.Calvinism, Baptism; 5. The Anglican Church, the Methodist religion; This paper will use the ethics and the anthropological systems of the Christian Baptist theology.

[1] Vasile Boari citing Gilles Lipovetsky in Peter Singer “Tratat de etica”, Polirom, Iasi, 2006, page 13
[2] Singer, Peter, “Tratat de Etica”, Polirom, 2006, Iasi, page 30
[3] Jemna,Danut on http://danutm.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/interviu-cu-danut-jemna-vi-patristica-ortodoxie-si-penticostalism/
[4] Berg, Jonathan, “Cum ar putea etica sa depinda de religie?” in Singer, Peter, “Tratat de Etica”, Polirom, Iasi, 2006, page 554
[5] Henry, F.H. Carl, Etica Crestina Personala,Editura Cartea Crestina, Oradea, 2004, page 215
[6] Preston, Ronald, “Etica crestina” in Peter Singer, “Tratat de Etica”, Polirom, 2006, page 121
[7] Harkness, Georgia, Christian Ethics, http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=802&c=1076
[8] Preston, Ronald, “Etica crestina” in Peter Singer, “Tratat de Etica”, Polirom, 2006, page 121
[9] Ibidem, page 121
[10] Ibidem, page 125
[11] Ibidem, page 122
[12] Ibidem, page 123




Extracted from my last year Bachelor thesis, “The liberal dusk of Imago Dei” (2oo9):

The contemporary secular ethicists, mainly Peter Singer[1], are adopting a philosophy of qualifying elements that determine whether the human life is valuable in any conditions. By this the traditional philosophical understanding regarding the sacred character was replaced by a “reductionist” approach that commutates the human being from a divine aula to a mere biological outlook. Through this spectrum of judgment, the features of humanness are redefined expressing a rather functionalist scope and framework than a holistic approach[2].

On the other pole, Christian ethics promotes the Hippocratic medicine as the exclusive modality to perpetuate and respect the divine identity of human beings[3]. Despite the peculiar resemblance within the anthropological convictions between the Christian theology and a pagan revolutionary belief, aspect already discussed, Christian ethics adopts a typical Hippocratic holistic approach of the human being, but at the same time it goes further than the Hippocratics in defining his identity, source and scope. As contrasted to the secular view, the Christian position, by influencing the traditional medical anthropology, sets forth a “body-mind-spirit” perspective of the human being, placing him on the top of all creatures. This approach comes from the respect showed by the Christian philosophy to the natural order set by God, with the purpose to protect the human being and His entire creation.

The human being’s superiority predicated by the Christian tradition is legitimized by several theological aspects. On one hand, what defines us as humans and differentiates us from other life forms is our embedded rationality that gives us the ability to make rational decisions[4]. This virtue not only offers the human being the lucidity and logics in specific actions, but it is also a divine possession along with creativity and spirituality. In this respect, the functionalist approach, or the reductionist scientific perspective is not justified because it treats the human being alone at a shallow level, imposing thus a hegemonic dichotomy between the natural connection and dependence of the spirit and the body. Even more, the reductionist system would never fit in a natural ordered universe embedded with a moral framework that facilitates the survival and fulfillment of the human being. By reducing the human being to mere machinery, all the intrinsic values are deprived from their scope, to emancipate and invoke him as a worthy and special element in a predefined natural system.

The Christian holistic approach implies another aspect that contours the humanness character, nowadays discussed. This set of attributes confers a divine transposing of God’s image into the exterior and interior anatomy of the human being. By this, the human being receives an enormous quantity of quality through which he becomes the reflection of God within a limited earthly mirror. To the incursion of this analysis the primordial moment of Creation becomes the most relevant chronicle of the human sanctity. The Biblical version of the origins of the universe is detailed in the first book of the Old Testament which offers a distinctive theological perspective over life and death than the secular view. While the latter reduces life to the exclusive physical experience, the first brings the physical life into the light of a predefined reality as a reflection of the spiritual or the everlasting life. The “reflection” perspective is thus pervasively present both within the relation between God and the human being but also in the frame of material-nonmaterial interaction.

Within the first moments of the material existence, the chronology of the physical world is defined by a well elaborated divine plan which encompasses the artistic image of the skies, the earth, the waters and the darkness and the light, as a metaphorical illustration of the elements of existence and order as the first legislation of the physical world. In the same idea, the moment of human genesis is placed at the end of creation as a confirmation of the value of the spirit within the human being. He is not thus placed into the darkness of the first day, nor into the deserted earth or the unconstrained sea, but his birth coincides with the end of the creationist process where both the material and the order are meant to be enjoyed and protected. 
The chronological sequences of Creation take part of a higher divine agenda which targeted the scope of preparing a perfect environment of God’s image reflection[5]. This reality triggers several conclusions that question the viability and the veridical aspect of the reductionist optic. First, in a space in which the natural order and the moral structure of the universe are designed to protect the creation especially the human being, matters of life and death are strictly in the hands of the Legislator, that is, at God’s willingness. Implying that the human being is autonomous and never responsible [6] to any form of higher sacred authority will break the connection between the intrinsic reflection of the Image of God and the authentic Monument, constraining the human being to limit to the profane level. Second, through the presence of God’s image and virtues within the intrinsic [7] dimension of the human being, he is not under the incidence of the lack of dignity determined by the loss of several attributes, but we will always be defined by his unconditioned sacred identity.
Treating the human being as a simplistic mechanism being only defined by his functions and conditioned by some arbitrary factors is not only immoral, but also inhuman, creating a climate which favours the proliferation of social pathologies, social crisis and social cleavages. The human being, according to the Bible, is a coherent and homogeneous construction, the result of a well elaborated plan, involving a strict connection between the body, the mind and the spirit and more, a frame in which the physical and the nonphysical elements coexist, and must be treated according to his supernatural chart [8]  


[1] See his justification for euthanasia in Peter Singer “Practical Ethics”, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, UK, 1993
[2] Whyatt, John, Matters of Life and Death, Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, England, 1998, page 22-27
[3] Cameron, Nigel M . De S. “Bioetica- amurgul hipocratismului crestin” in D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge “Dumnezeu si Cultura”, Editura Cartea Crestina, Oradea, 2005, page 364
[4] Whyatt, John, Matters of Life and Death, Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, England, 1998, page 52
[5] Ibidem, page 50-51
[6] Cameron, Nigel M . De S. “Bioetica- amurgul hipocratismului crestin” in D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge “Dumnezeu si Cultura”, Editura Cartea Crestina, Oradea, 2005, page 364
[7] Ibidem, page 228
[8]Ibidem, page 228


Ce sunt eu, să-Ţi cer o pâine?…

Cine sunt, ca să mă-ncrunt?…

Cu ce-s eu, mai sus de-un câine?…

Când Tu eşti Acel, “Eu Sunt”!…

(dileme: condiţia umană)

Extracted from my last year Bachelor thesis, “The liberal dusk of Imago Dei” (2oo9): 

[…] That ethics is struggling to blend in the modern frameworks of society, but fails, is nonsense. Reality confirmed that ethics is vital for the survival of human kind1. A debate about the need for ethics in our daily life is of no relevance at all. Instead, the focus must be placed on the condition of ethics in the contemporary reality. And this bold statement stands as a primary concern of this paper and of many authors with ethical preoccupations who do not question the importance of ethics, but rather set forth topics regarded to the implications and form of ethics in the diverse spheres of contemporary reality. Through their work and experience derived from the intensive study over the ethical issues of modernity, we now have answers to social or political dilemmas that should guide us in fulfilling our moral duties.

As a philosophical moral reflection, ethics is a vivid climate in which different understandings regarding the appearance and existence of life come to formulate explanations and solutions to our state of being and interaction. But the beauty of ethics consists in the potential of its workbench of not resuming only by mastering the row materials of theories, but also crafting applicable solutions to practical issues (applied ethics)2.

The relevance of this subject as well as the discussion’s is legitimized by several aspects that contribute together to the unity of the paper. There are two fundamental questions that are discussed within this introductory chapter. First, the contemporary need for ethics must be justified, whether it concerns actions inside a specific political community or at the international level. To the question “Why do we need ethics?” history will have its line of speech not far in the introduction. Second, the discussion regarding the necessity of ethics within each human domain entails more adjacent issues like the state, condition and form of some ethical theories, their effect and influence upon the society and the consequence brought at the international system.

The question attributed here might sound like “Is ethics promoting the right values” behaving like an authentic support for life? To answer the first question set above, we are in debt in looking not far in the past. The history of the XX century is the most righteous witness that justly stands on top of the mountain of evidence and testifies about the world-wide consequences brought by the loss of morality, respect for life and human dignity. The XX century was nevertheless informally characterized by a low interest for ethics which created sufficient prerequisites for committing acts of genocide, world wars, human rights alienation, racial and religious discriminations, nuclear bombs, totalitarian regimes, terrorism.

Thus concluding the determinant role of ethics and moral standards at both the quotidian and deontological level, the most important actors of democratic societies started to invoke ethics as the most emphatic imperative of human conduct and made evident efforts to the process of “resuscitating” the condition of ethics3. As a reaction to the lack of ethical perspective shown in the XX century, the beginning of XXI century manifested a great interest for moral codes motivating other key dimensions of society like the mass-media, politics, medicine or law to embrace deontological aspects in their process of functioning and conduct. As was defined in the beginning of the paper, the output of moral reflections relevant for each human conduct is conditioning human existence. But the presence of an ethical preoccupation which takes place inside each professional activity does not guarantee a moral status.

Due to the separation of ethics from values and immutable standards, the condition of ethics in the present times gives no motive of celebration, this status being inherited from the XX century. Rather we are confronted by a crisis of moral conduit that generates more ethical and behavioral problems than ever before. The state of ethical crisis is dispersedly manifested in many decisive moral problems that involve both the perpetuation and prevalence of human civilization and the individuals as composing fragments of culture4.

 Questions regarding the right to die, abortion, change of gender, death penalty, cloning, discrimination, the environment, prostitution, drugs, poverty, nuclear weapons and many other new issues that constrained the academic sphere to respond, wait for concrete response. Due to the political events and military interventions that shook the international system, the fight between ethical relativism and absolute moral standards begins to be more and more contested along with the speculative ethics and postmodernism.

And this is because postmodernism and cultural relativism did not manage to satisfy the ethical needs of this stormy epoch; the failure consisted in their inability to provide answers5. After the rise and strike of a new violent and organized phenomenon also called “terrorism”, the need of a universal code of moral standards is more and more emphatic. […]

[1] Henry, F.H. Carl, Etica Crestina Personala,Editura Cartea Crestina, Oradea, 2004, page 11
[2] Singer, Peter, Tratat de Etica, Polirom, Iasi, 2006, page 1 
[3] Singer, Peter, “Tratat de Etica”, Polirom, preface by prof. Vasile Boari, 2006, page 14
[4] Henry, F.H. Carl, Etica Crestina Personala,Editura Cartea Crestina, Oradea, 2004, page 11
[5] Singer, Peter, “Tratat de Etica”, Polirom, preface by prof. Vasile Boari, 2006, page 15

Lemn beteag!

Ce semeni cu un cancer,

Sfidezi botezul, scufundarea,

Te înrămezi în peisaj dulce-pribeag.

Ne minţi concentric c-ai vrejul până-n cer!

Te laşi vădit sfâşiat de mâna aspră-creatoare.



Sufletul ţi-e pată!

Doliul-ţi este dogma,

Sfidezi romanul, poezia,

Te-ancorezi-n slovă blestemată.

Omori concentric mădularul şi aroma!

Mă laşi să-ţi junghii fierul din piron, şi acalmia.



Tot rozi din viaţă!

Şi cu un cotor apatic,

Purifici entitatea, segregarea,

Mă mângâi cu cruzime-n metastază.

Clivaj de primăvară, te crezi călău concentric!

Te laşi a formă îmbinare să scorojeşti dispute milenare.



Lemn beteag!

Ne minţi concentric c-ai vrejul până-n cer!

Tot rozi din viaţă!

Omori concentric mădularul şi aroma!

Sufletul ţi-e pată!

Clivaj de primăvară, te crezi călău concentric!

Lemn beteag!

Te laşi a Cruce perfecţiune MÂNTUIEŞTI dilema milenară.  



Posted: 10 August 2010 in Poetry
Tags: , , , , ,

…vănatorii s-au oprit. nu mai era nimic de vânat. au legat luna de mare, şi s-au înecat cu toţii în lacrimile ei…

…şi oamenii au uitat să mai fie oameni… şi soarele muri, nemaivând pe ce suflet să-şi scrie povestea…

…puţini oameni pe pământ...



Posted: 8 August 2010 in Poetry
Tags: , , ,

Pe zi ce trece, timpul ne învinge,

 Cu braţele-i meschine ne fură: iubiri, speranţe, vise de copil…

 În taină el şantajează viaţa…ne văduveşte de ani…şi ani.

 Precis mai zăboveşte nebunul cu nervosul tic…şi tac…