@Jay313, you crack me up!
I acquired the title when I discovered that most of the best Wikipedia articles (the ones with gravitas) were festooned with footnotes to citations I never would have found on my own.
The best of the best Wiki articles are designed to steer you to books that can be accessed by Inter-Library Loans (at your public library and almost always for Free!) or via Google Books or - - horrors - - at your local book store.
This comes close to expressing my worldview, Jay. Except for one problem: Christ may have given us THE final word on the ethics that God desired humanity to follow 2,000 yrs. ago, but Jesus could only show us the way to the additional ethics needed as humankind āadvancedā since then. Bioethics is one example. It may seem ethical to use āgenetic engineeringā to eliminate the scourge of a genetic disease, such as Huntingtonās, but we must extrapolate Jesusā teachings to be sure genetic engineering is not used for trivial ends.
There are other arguments that could be made that the ethics proper for a given time in history may be different from those God has in mind as His Final Word. Darwinian evolution was based largely on the Malthusian principle that extinction of a species could only be avoided if the rate of procreation could at least keep up with the many routes of dying; disease, accident, warfare, etc. For prehistoric hunter-gatherer clans who needed to migrate often, this proved to present problems to females who were pregnant or with nursing neonates. There are reports of Australian aborigines who reluctantly resorted to infanticide as the answer. Today there is a debate on the morality of any form of birth control, based, presumably, on the OT story of the sin of Onan. It can be argued that Family Planning (via birth control) is morally acceptable in Godās long range plan for humankind, since the danger of extinction of Homo sapiens by that route is highly unlikely, while our role as stewards of all life on earth may be enhanced by it.
As Christians, we believe that Jesus does show us the way. But he didnāt make it a Slam Dunk or give us a GPS.
Al Leo
True. Godās word alone is insufficient for ethics. Simply possessing the Bible is not enough. Simply reciting the Scripture doesnāt always tell me what I should do.
I like John Frameās approach, tri-perspectivalism. In his Doctrine of God, rather than the traditional categories of systematic theology, Frame discusses Godās attributes under three general headings that correspond to his covenant name ā YHWH, the LORD. These are Godās authority, control, and presence. In ethics, these correspond to the normative, the situational, and the existential frames of reference.
God expresses his authority in his Word. That is the normative. It informs us what we should do. Nevertheless, the word of God is of no help if we cannot apply it to our situation. (All theology is application.) Thus, we are forced to apply the word, which is to say, to take the situation into account and decide what to do. This situational perspective corresponds to Godās aspect of control, which he exerts in all situations.
The problem that arises next is that God looks at any and every situation from all possible perspectives, for he is infinite. We, being finite, have only one frame of reference, our individual perspective, which means we may err in two possible directions ā assessing the situation or the word of God. Thus, the more perspectives we can gather on a situation, the closer we draw to Godās infinite perspective, and the greater our chance of choosing wisely. āWisdom is found in a multitude of counselors,ā as Proverbs says.
Finally, there is the existential perspective, which reflects Godās presence in and with his people. The existential perspective is the witness of the Spirit with our spirits, which is to say: Do we feel ā internally within ourselves, accompanied by prayerful consideration of the Word and the perspectives of others ā that we are making the right choice? This is another way of speaking of conscience, of course, but the procedure Iāve described for the Christian is a method of āpurifyingā the conscience, informing it and reshaping it by the word of God and his body, the church. That is perhaps the closest we can come to wisdom acquired in truth and Spirit in this life.
This is how I interpret the (not often emphasized) Catholic teaching that when it comes to difficult moral dilemmas in individual cases, such as family planning, decisions must ultimately be made in accordance with oneās individually informed conscience. My wife and I faced this with her first pregnancy. We had confided with her (Catholic) obstetrician that we hoped to have six children. But after she was in labor for three days and hadnāt dilated sufficiently, he took Kathy by C-section. They had not developed the āBikini Cutā in those days, and we were advised that if we still hoped for a large family, a spacing of at least two years between pregnancies was mandatory, and the ārhythm methodā was not dependable enough. And complete abstinence was not our idea of a loving union. This was the way we first confronted Situation Ethicsānormally considered a derogatory term, but, as you point out, one that fits comfortably with a Christian Faith that accepts evolutionary creation. If God created humankind as a āfinished productā, then fixed ethics would constitute a sort of āUserās Manualā. All kinds of evidence points to God planning on humankindās growth, with our moral standards changing accordingly. If I am correct in this, then the change in morals should be more demanding, not lessāleading to more empathy and less selfishness.
Al Leo
You might enjoy my speculation about some as-yet unpublished research on Homo naledi in this thread.
I have to apologize for not realizing the full measure of what you were talking about!
āChief Wikipedia Quoterā ?!?!? << What the ?!?!?
I thought you were just being devilish ā¦ but when cruising through my profile this morning ā¦ my jaw droppedā¦
I saw it! I had no idea it was āOfficialā !!!
And, I presume, thereās really no place else where that august title can even be seen. Itās sort of like being
named " āMost Averageā " of Faces", on a lozenge shaped concrete plaque, in Latin, installed in a basement closet!
But I will receive any titles awarded to me with humility and with deep gratitude that virtually nobody really knows.
But, one good point: my contract renewal leverage with Wikipedia has just received a terrific bump!
Here are some more oddities about my profile:
Haha. Itās pretty much right next to your name. Donāt know how youāve missed it. But youāre scaring me now. Is there a title next to my name that only I canāt see? (This opens up a whole new can of worms ā¦)
Oh for goodness sake!!!.. I didnāt even see THAT!!!
When Iām scanning down a thread, I look for Jehovah staring down at his best creation to date ā¦ Neanderthalensis!
Now mind you, he still had some of his best work coming due with H. Sapiens sapiens!
But since my vertical scrolling is based on the image ā¦ rather than any words, I donāt even have to read any text (which would be a little dubious when scrolling down at close to the speed of āmentalā - - in order to locate my last post in a long thread, or the newest post !
So now Iām looking at that concrete plaque every day of my life ā¦ Hmmmm. Okay, I know what to say:
āLadies and Gentlemen, I have no other honorifics that I could treasure more.ā < True Statement
I wonder who I need to pay to get an additional honorific (any) - so that I donāt have to count the former assertion as unavoidably true?
This explains a lot. Hereās George, just scrolling through threads without reading any text, looking for the last thing that he had to say ā¦ Lol.
Hey, big fellaā¦ I think you forgot the āJust kidding!ā font. 
? 
[ 
] 
You know as well as I do that in a long thread, itās easy to lose your bearing in a discussion. And I certainly didnāt say anything about not reading anyone elseās posts. I donāt need to read my posts - - I wrote 'em! Do you think I have a reputation for not reading peopleās posts?
Sometimes its good to know how far down a new posting is, to gauge the likelihood that he/she has not read the whole thread, or oneās last posting.
hmmm, I wonder who put that thereā¦
thanks for explaining your emoji, George. I always wondered what that was.
Please pass the word along to Brad ā¦ I just got a counter-offer from Wikipedia ā¦ Iāve been renewed for another 5 years !!! Woo Hoo ā¦
It is possible that the soul is created at the moment of conception. We now have evidence that well over half of all conceptions are spontaneously aborted (by God?). If we add intentional human abortions to Godās abortions, then billions and billions of unborn souls are . . . someplace. Ever wonder about the personality of a person who has ever been born and lived on this earth?
āLet your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.ā -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
