<< You know that there is a Jewish family hiding in the
attic. Do you tell the truth as the Bible commands? (Note: a relevant
Biblical example here is that of Rahab).>>
Rahab, of course, lied. She didn't tell the truth. And she is held up as an
example of great faith in Hebrews 11!
<<Furthermore, If you choose to lie in this example, then please explain to me
how morality is not relative. If you lie to the Gestapo, it seems to me
that whether one ought to tell the truth depends on the situation rather
than on any absolute truth. Morality that is based on the situation is, in
fact, relative. How does a Christian deal with this?>>
Bonhoeffer's treatment of this issue in Ethics is still the best, IMO. It is
lengthy, so don't expect a summary. I hope you've read it (in your recent
foray into ethics, you must have). If not, I recommend it.
<<The conclusion I have come to (at least so far), is that the Bible is NOT
the source of moral knowledge, but that the Holy Spirit is. The Bible is a
SOURCE of moral information, but, by itself, it is not sufficient to provide
us with a fundamental understanding of good and bad. >>
Your dichotomy is a false one, IMO. I am much influenced by Barth's view of
Word and Spirit here. You cannot forge a separation between them. Augustine,
Aquinas, Calvin, and, today, Donald Bloesch, among others, speak to this
issue. We have a long tradition to contend with.
Maybe your terms need clarification. What is the difference, for you, between
"moral knowledge," "moral information" and "fundamental understanding of good
and bad"? On the surface, there seems to be no crucial distinction between
them.
Perhaps you mean to distinguish the knowledge of the good and the wisdom to
apply it. That is a biblical distinction, and a good one. It is here, I think,
that the Holy Spirit's primary mission exists.
To bring this all back home, no biblical ethicist worth his salt can claim
moral decisions are always easy (Bonhoeffer, again, being about the best on
this subject). But at least we're in the same ballpark.
When I took Bioethics from Michael Shapiro (one of the leaders in the field),
we had this discussion in his office one day. I asked him about the
application of religious morality to the questions we were discussing in
class. He opined that, religious or secular, the moral equations are equally
problematic. But at least with religion you narrow the boundaries, and have a
clearer "rule book" to apply.
When evolutionism is the foundational world view, however, and moral reality
is consequently seen as a human construct, you don't have those advantages.
And, in fact, many more disadvantages exist.
Jim