by Dr. J. Patrick Johnston

1. Is there such a thing as right and wrong?

2. Are right and wrong determined by my culture, parental upbringing, personal preference, conscience, or a book of religion?

3. Is there a universal standard of right and wrong applicable to all?

4. How can I know right from wrong if we are all raised in different cultures with different belief systems?

5. How can I know if one religion is superior to any other?

6. How can we know if any one culture is better than others?

7. Will I be held accountable for my actions after I die?

8. How will America fare if we deny the existence of right from wrong?

Frightening consistency

"There is no such thing as right and wrong! You have no right to force your personal views upon us and condemn us! Morality is relative!..."

"Excuse me?" I inquired. "Who said that?"

"I did." The skinny Ohio University college student with messy brown hair, blue-jean shorts, and tye-dyed T-shirt raised his hand in the front of my crowd. "There is no such thing as right and wrong. It all depends on how you are raised. We are just a product of our environment. There is no such thing as absolute truth."

"Is that an absolute truth?" I asked.

"Yes," he impulsively replied, not foreseeing the trap that I had set for him.

"I see. You believe there is no such thing as absolute truth. And this you hold to be an absolute truth. Mmmm. You don't really mean that there is no such thing as right and wrong, do you? Only an insane man could really hold to that and be consistent."

"Of course I do! You intolerant religious nuts are the insane ones here!" he said. The crowd of thirty sensed the challenge, and closed in to hear the debate between the street-preacher perched on a folding chair and their sin-excusing spokesman.

"Sir, if you were raised by Jew-hating parents in Nazi Germany in the 1930's, and Jews were being hauled off by the train-loads to the Auschwitz ovens, should you oppose the politically-correct 'legal' genocide, or should you condone it?"

"Well, I personally am against..."

"I did not ask if you were personally against the Holocaust. What would be the right thing to do? What would you do if you were raised in this German society?"

He beat around the bush for a few moments and would not give me a straight-forward answer.

"Let me bring it a little closer to home. Date-rape is a common occurrence today on college campuses. I'm sure your girlfriend and those women around you would be interested in discovering how you feel about rape. If you were on a desert island with ten men and one woman, and the ten men wanted to gang-rape the woman, would you 1. join in the fun, 2. be personally against the rape, but do nothing to discourage the rape and defend the woman, or 3. force your morality upon the majority and defend that innocent, helpless woman? What would you do?"

"Well, in America, that would be illegal..."

"You are not in America, you are on a desert island, in the midst of international waters, and not under the jurisdiction of any government. Your ten pals have tied the terrified woman to a tree and are about to gang-rape her. What are you going to do?"

The crowd looked at the young man, waiting for an answer. "Well, I personally am against rape, but, um, well, I, um..."

"Answer the question! What would you do?"

"Well, since there is no such thing as right and wrong, I guess it wouldn't matter if I joined in!"

The unified gasp of the crowd was audible. Others began to chuckle, knowing that the student was embarrassed by being forced to such illogical, inhumane conclusions.

"Ahhh!" I said. "Does everyone see the end of this 'fool-osophy' of moral relativism? Young ladies, mark this man! You don't want this pervert handing you beers with his fraternity pals on Saturday night. Watch out for him!"

The fellow looked at his friends and tried to laugh to make light of the humiliation he had brought upon himself. "Tell me this, young man," I asked, "what if that girl on the desert island were your three-year old sister?"

This confrontation occurred while I was preaching on the campus of Ohio University in the Fall of 1998. Such a philosophy lived out consistently would lead to utter societal chaos and anarchy. As a matter of fact, this particular campus had just experienced an event which demonstrates for us the state of lawlessness and moral chaos that will inevitably manifest when such a belief system is embraced by the majority. Daylight savings time was scheduled for the previous weekend, and the bars next to the campus closed an hour earlier than the revelers and drunkards intended to leave. When the students were unexpectedly expelled from their pits of iniquity, they rioted in the streets! They started destroying city property, damaging vehicles, breaking windows... the city police had to come out in riot gear and throw tear gas canisters to disperse the drunken rebels! This is the logical end of the philosophy of relative morality.

The truth is, even the most staunch moral relativists are blatantly inconsistent in their daily life. They cannot apply their moral philosophy with perfect consistency. When ten men attempt to rape their sister, they disapprove. When the windows of their car are smashed in a riot, they disapprove. When their wife commits adultery, they disapprove. When a stranger punches them in the face, they disapprove. And when a neighbor feeds them when they are hungry, treats them fairly, or defends them from being harmed, they universally approve. They daily affirm what they deny in theory. There is a right, and there is a wrong; doing right is good, and doing wrong is bad. We all know it as sure as we know we exist.

Relative morality defined

What do I mean by relative morality? Relative is defined as "dependent on relation to something else, not absolute"; morality in our context means "the practice of right conduct or duties; virtue; ethics; discriminating between right and wrong; verified by reason." Relative morality is the idea that there is no absolute standard of right and wrong - all morality is relative to one's circumstances, culture, parental upbringing, personal opinions, etc. Moral relativists hold that there is no law or commandment that is universally obligatory upon all men. They teach that we create our own moral standards, and what is right for us might not be right for our neighbor, and vice versa.

The point of tension is not whether some outward behaviors are subjective and relative, dependent on one's culture, parental upbringing, age, and knowledge - with this most Christians do not disagree. At issue is whether there are any behaviors that are always wrong and whether there are any behaviors that are always right, whether there are any true categories of good and evil, and whether there is any objective standard of right and wrong which is universally applicable to all men of all cultures and ages.

Moral relativists are hypocrites!

The prevailing philosophy of the universities, the media, the liberal politicians, and many Americans today is moral relativism. This is how the Democratic Party can defend a President who confesses to oral sex with a woman half his age while on duty in the Oval Office and who sells military secrets to Communist China in exchange for campaign donations. If we can benefit from his policies and the economy is good, then anything is tolerable. This idea of moral relativism sounds so progressive, so tolerant, and seems to promote the highest respect for the diverse views and standards of our fellow human beings.

However, one need only to ask the question, "Why should I respect my neighbor's views as my own?" in order to expose the hypocrisy of relative morality. Their answer is far from neutral: "To do otherwise would be insensitive or intolerant." In other words, proponents of moral relativism are saying it is good to be sensitive and tolerant toward the diverse moral views of our neighbors. They judge behavior as acceptable or unacceptable based upon a particular standard. If a "homophobic, anti-choice, right-wing religious fanatic", such as myself, rejects their standard, he is maligned and judged by them. Thus, the hypocrisy of the moral relativists!

Our university educators have hailed tolerance as a primary virtue today; tolerance of other's opinions, habits, religions, cultural norms, and "alternative lifestyles". They say, "Keep your personal views to yourself, and I'll do the same", but they do not mean it. They mean to force you to adapt to their ethical views, and will use slander, mockery, and lawsuits to do it. There is no greater curse to be placed upon a member of our institutions of higher learning than to be labeled "intolerant", "homophobic", "anti-choice", or "a bigot". They say all lifestyles are equally valid, and no moral standard is superior to any other, and no one has any right to force his moral views upon his neighbor, but they make an exception to their rule when dealing with the Christian's lifestyle and moral standard. The very fact that intolerance is not tolerated proves that they themselves are intolerant!

When they preach tolerance, what they mean is that every lifestyle is equally valid on moral grounds with the exception of biblical Christianity. Oh, it is acceptable to call yourself a Christian, to go to church, and sing in the choir, as long as you are tolerant of views contrary to your own. But as soon as you maintain consistency with the teachings of Christ in your speech and behavior and in your various relations, you become a black sheep in intellectual circles. It is acceptable to admit that Christianity is true for you and that Jesus is one of many ways to God, but unacceptable to hail Christ as the only way, the truth, and the life, for all men. It is acceptable to profess that the heterosexual lifestyle is best for you, but unacceptable to insist that homosexuality is wrong for everybody! It is acceptable to personally disapprove of abortion, but unacceptable to insist that those who abort their offspring are murderers.

The atheistic humanist has no basis for his doctrine of tolerance as a primary virtue; he has no basis for the grand end he seeks, a sensitive, progressive, and non-judgmental society. If this life is all one experiences, there is no objective right and wrong, no Judgment Day, no heaven or hell, and the model of success is Darwin's "survival of the fittest", it is acceptable for one to use whatever means necessary to achieve his own end, regardless of the harm brought to one's neighbors and society. So for the consistent atheist, sensitivity and tolerance are useful only if they gratify one's own end, and the primary virtue promoted by the liberal atheistic humanist is really just as subjective as he says the morality of the Christian is. Tolerance is only employed by him as a means to his end, that end ultimately being self-gratification.

When the relative moralists says, "There is no such thing as objective truth and absolute right and wrong, so you should be tolerant of the lifestyles of others", he employs a self-refuting statement. An example of a self-refuting statement is: "There is no such thing as a sentence longer than four words." My point is refuted by the very sentence in which I made the point. Another example: "My brother is 6 foot tall and he is shorter than my 5-foot-tall mother." If I am right and my brother is 6-foot-tall, then he cannot be shorter than my five-foot-tall mother. This is a self-refuting statement. If the relative moralist is right and there is no such thing as right and wrong, they cannot say I or anybody else should do anything!

Allow me to prove that even you, O my hypocritical moral relativist reader, are as intolerant as I. I heard a Christian physician give this illustration and am convinced that this will make any moral relativist confess his hypocrisy, if he will be honest. There is a group called NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association). They seek to legalize sex between men and pre-pubertal boys. Their slogan is "Eight is too late." You will often find them marching in the rear end of the homosexual parades in California. As a favor for a friend, you let a member of this organization stay at your house for the weekend. He is a very witty, humorous, charming, charismatic man in his mid forties, and your kids think he is a hoot! Would you allow him the unopposed opportunity to persuade your eight-year old son that he is missing out on the fun and discovery that many other eight-year olds enjoy? I do not think you would. See, even you are intolerant, and that appropriately so. Love presumes intolerance of that which is unloving, unjust, dishonorable, and dishonest - love is intolerant of such because they are detrimental to the well-being of those you love.

In Spring of 1999, twenty-five San Diego University business students got an "F" for cheating. The class? Ethics. About 1/3 of the class were caught using answers to a quiz in business ethics class. In addition to getting a failing grade, most were put on probation. I'll bet that the ethical philosophy most prevalent among the students was that of relative morality. The hypocritical thing was that the teacher gave the students such severe punishments. How could he be so harsh when his students were probably just following the ethical principles he had been promoting all year long? Where is his tolerance of their alternative ethical decisions? What hypocrisy!

When those two boys went on a killing spree at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, in April of 1999, all of the liberal talking heads had plenty to say - "What a tragedy!" - "What a terrible, unfortunate event!" - "Why did these boys commit this atrocious crime?" - "How could this have happened?"... What? If you successfully lobby to get "Thou shalt not murder" and the other nine commandments taken off public school walls, why should you be surprised when children murder? If you teach them that there is no such thing as right and wrong, and all morality is personal and subjective, why should you be surprised when they do wrong, and how can you be critical? Are you not supposed to be tolerant and accepting of other's viewpoints and "alternative lifestyle" choices? Can't you see the inconsistency of disapproving of evil if you adhere to the philosophy of relative morality?

It is easily proven that the function of a healthy society largely depends not on the tolerance, but on the intolerance of its citizens. A healthy society is intolerant of slavery, molesting children, raping women, public nudity, lying under oath, bribing a judge, cheating on tests, bombing libraries, and murdering innocent civilians - and this is good! Can you imagine a society where these behaviors were unrestricted and publicly tolerated?

The bias of murderers and philosophers

I helped plan a Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice debate on the campus of The Florida State University on the 25th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The opposition made the fatal error of arguing their case by pleading for the subjective relativity of morality. "If you are against abortion, then do not have one. But you have no right to force your religious view upon me or anybody else. Abortion is a personal decision...".

During the question and answer session, a student asked the Pro-Choice-to-kill spokesman, "If someone were to make the 'personal decision' to come up to me in the front of this building and murder me with a gunshot to the head, would that be right or wrong?"

Like the O.U. student mentioned above, this fellow maintained frightening consistency in spite of the folly of his statement: "I do not know," he said, "I could not say that that would be wrong!"

The crowd let out a unified gasp of disbelief! The questioner needed only to ask, "What if I were an abortionist, and it was a pro-lifer who pulled the trigger?" to reveal the hypocrisy of the Pro-Choice-to-kill debater! Abortion advocates are adamantly against the "personal decision" to murder an abortionist, but they promote the perverse notion that every woman has the right to choose to hire an assassin to murder her unborn baby. Their bias is self-evident.

A lawyer on the pro-life team approached the podium and told the audience, much to the dismay of the pro-choice-to-kill team, that the official legal definition of insanity is the inability to distinguish between right and wrong. Normal, sane men know that it is wrong to murder an innocent person. This abortion advocate knows it, too; he was just trying to be consistent with his fundamentally erroneous premise and made a fool of himself publicly.

Moral relativists are hypocrites! Should one try to harm them, they universally disapprove. But should they sin against their neighbor, their convenient moral relativity doctrine is there to bail them out and anesthetize the guilt in their bosom. How can they not witness this bias in themselves? How can they not feel the sting of inconsistency and gross illogic every time they condemn a crime and praise an act of selflessness?

One senior student wrote a very eloquent paper on the subject of moral relativity in the context of existentialism for a philosophy class. The student was a straight "A" student, and was shocked to learn that he received a "D" for the paper! He was outraged! He had worked diligently to master the material, organize his thoughts, and write that lengthy paper. He went to the professor and made the strongest case he could for a better grade. "What did I do to deserve a 'D'? I am one of the best students in the class! This could ruin my hopes for acceptance into graduate school! Why did you give me this 'D', professor?"

"Well," the professor responded, "I do not like blue folders!"

The professor made his point well. If all moral standards are equally valid, then the professor's injustice for the sake of personal preference is acceptable. The student admitted the point, and was given the proper grade.

The stuff of children's quarrels

"Hey, how'd you like it if someone did that to you?"

"That's my seat! I was there first."

"You already did it. It's my turn now!"

"Come on, you promised!"

"Teacher, he butt in line!"

"That's not true! I did not say that!"

"It was not an accident, he meant to hurt me!"

"Mom, he got two cookies and I didn't get any!"

"That's not fair!"

We can learn a lot from children. Children talk like this everyday, in every continent, in every race, in every nation, in every language group, in every city and shrub hut in the world. What is interesting about these statements is not just that the child disapproves of another's behavior, but that he appeals to some unmentioned, agreed-upon standard in the critique. Seldom does the accused reply - "Who cares about your standard?" or the like, for he appeals to it himself when he is wronged. Most frequently, the accused argues that he is not really going against the agreed-upon standard, or else an excuse is given to justify the questionable behavior. But it really does appear that both parties have some standard of right and wrong, justice and injustice, honesty and dishonesty. We know that this standard of morality exists before we ever consciously think about it, or master the language to describe it.

That this standard exists is a self-evident truth. That the truth is self-evident means that no proof is necessary to affirm the proposition as true; the subject need only comprehend the proposition and he naturally and absolutely affirms it is true. Other examples of self-evident truths: "Parallel lines never touch", and "A cannot equal non-A". These need no proof. They only need to be comprehended in order for their truth to be affirmed by the intellect.

Some of the most well-known self-evident truths are found in our Declaration of Independence, that article which initiated our nation's march to independence from under the heavy hand of English tyranny: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."

Such truths need no proof. They need only be comprehended to be affirmed as true by the honest intellect. That there is a right and there is a wrong, that right is good and wrong is bad, that right is worthy of praise and wrong is worthy of blame, is of the same class of truths that need no proof. These truths are self-evident. Some reject it, 'tis true, but only in theory. They cannot reject it in their practical judgments and maintain sanity, and they cannot reject it in theory and be honest simultaneously.

The moral relativists daily assume in their practical judgments the same standard of morality that they deny exists. To reject it in theory as they do reveals that they have divorced their theories from reality. They have educated themselves to the point of denying the obvious. Like those philosophers who deny their own existence and rail against the "common sense" of the common man - they do so with the objection of their senses and their consciences, for one's existence is a self-evident truth. Likewise, those that deny that there are any real categories of behavior as good and evil make themselves out to be fools.

The universal standard of right and wrong

I do not care who you are or what moral standard you espouse, you are intolerant of others treating you with malevolence, or hatred. And you approve when others treat you with benevolence, or love. Even a liar knows it is wrong to lie - lie to him and see how he likes it. Even an adulterer knows it is wrong to commit adultery - have his wife commit adultery against him and see if he approves. Even a thief knows it is wrong to steal - let him find his goods stolen and see how he responds. Each of you know that malevolence against you is evil and blameworthy, and benevolence towards you is intrinsically good and praiseworthy. And if it is good for you to be treated with benevolence, you also know that it must be good for you to treat your neighbors in the same way. When you do not treat your neighbor, whether it be your fellow-man or God, as you would want to be treated, you commit a moral trespass, a crime, a sin.

These truths are universal - all societies share these fundamental ideas about good and evil. One does not need to be taught by his parents or teachers that it is bad to be hit in the face for no reason. This knowledge comes natural to us. Two children stranded on a desert island without parents would come to this conclusion by their own observations and experiences. The ideas of good and evil are intrinsic to our human nature, and adherence to the good would be beneficial for all of mankind. Hence, this universal standard of morality can be called "the law of human nature". Can you imagine a society where there was no theft, lying, cheating, backbiting, murder, rape, child molestation, racism, drug and alcohol abuse, divorce, hatred, strife, etc.? Can you imagine the land where every man loved his Maker supremely and his neighbor equally? Can you imagine the utopia it would be where every man treated his neighbor as he would want to be treated, where men lived in peace and did not fear each other, where every child had a loving father who was faithful to his mother? What a wonderful place - it would be heaven on earth! AIDS and most other sexually transmitted diseases would soon be eliminated from society if man abided by that standard which his conscience and the laws of his nature impressed upon him, if every man had sexual relations with one woman for the rest of his life. This rule of conduct would best promote mankind's productivity and longevity.

We have this law, this rule for conduct, within us, in our conscience (con means "with" and science means "knowledge"). This is an attribute of all human beings that are of age and of a sound mind. It is a universal truth - every human being that has reached the age of reason has an intrinsic knowledge of right and wrong. We are designed this way. It is our conscience which justifies or condemns our motives and actions. Our conscience is the source of that guilt you sense when you sin against your neighbor. The conscience approves of loving, just, truthful, and honorable behavior, and condemns the contrary. It affirms certain behaviors because they are beneficial, and condemns other behaviors because they are detrimental. Hence, this law could also be called "the law of good".

Many moral relativists appeal to the diverse standards of morality in different civilizations and different ages to prove that morality is relative. But these differences do not amount to any real difference. If one will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks, and Romans, one will find it striking how very alike they are to each other and to the standard of the Holy Bible. Loving, honorable, just, and truthful behavior is praised and the contrary condemned and punished.

Allow me to provide some examples of transcultural common moral law. Each of these are very similar to commandments found in the Holy Bible. The references in parentheses after the quote are strikingly similar commandments or moral teachings found in the Bible:

* "Never do to others what you would not like them to do to you." - Ancient Chinese (compare to Matthew 7:12)

* "Slander not." - Babylonian, Hymn to Samas (compare to Proverbs 10:18)

* "Utter not a word by which anyone could be wounded." - Hindu (compare to Ephesians 4:29)

* "I saw in Nastrond (i.e. hell)... beguilers of other's wives." - Old Norse, Volospa

* "Has he approached his neighbor's wife?" - Babylonian, List of Sins (compare to Exodus 20:14; I Corinthian 6:9-10)

* "And approach not fornication; surely it is an indecency, and evil as a way." - Koran, Sura 17:34 (compare to I Corinthians 6:9-11-18)

* "If a man violate the wife (betrothed or child-wife) of another man, who has never known a man, and still lives in her father's house, and sleep with her and be surprised, this man shall be put to death, but the wife is blameless." - Code of Hammurabi, Verse 130 (compare to Deuteronomy 22:22-27)

* "Your father is an image of the Lord of creation, your mother an image of the earth. For him who fails to honor them, every work of piety is vain. This is the first duty." - Hindu, Janet

* "There is a duty to care for parents." - Greek (compare to Exodus 20:12, Matthew 15:3-6, I Timothy 5:8)

* "Whoso takes no bribe... well pleasing is this to Samas." - Babylonian (compare to Deuteronomy 16:18-20, Proverbs 17:23)

* "To wrong, to rob, to cause to be robbed." - Babylonian, List of Sins

* "I have not stolen." - Ancient Egyptian, Confessions of a Righteous Soul (compare to Exodus 20:15, Revelation 21:8)

* "Whose mouth, full of lying, avails not before thee; thou burnest their utterance." - Babylonian, Hymn to Samas

* "In Nastrond (i.e. hell) I saw the perjurers." - Old Norse, Volospa (compare to Exodus 20:15, Revelation 21:8).

* "With his mouth he was full of Yea, and in his heart Nay?" - Babylonian, Hymn to Samas (compare to Matthew 5:37, Ecclesiastes 5:4-6)

* "If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. If he break another man's bone, his bone shall be broken... If a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out." - Code of Hammurabi, Verses 196-200 (compare to Exodus 21:23-25, Leviticus 24:19-20)

* "I have given bread to the hungry, water to the thirsty, clothes to the naked, a ferry boat to the boatless" - Ancient Egyptian (compare to Deuteronomy 24:19, Matthew 25:31-46)

* "You will see them taken care of... widows, orphans, and old men, never reproaching them" - Redskin native Americans (compare to James 1:27)

* "There are two kinds of injustice: the first is found in those who do an injury, the second in those who fail to protect another from injury when they can" - Roman, Cicero (compare to Proverbs 24:10-12 and 31:8-9)

* "Nature and reason command that nothing uncomely, nothing effeminate, nothing lascivious be done or thought" - Roman, Cicero (compare to Romans 1:18-27 and 2:14-15, I Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, Philippians 4:8)

* "Death is to be chosen before slavery and base deeds." - Roman, Cicero

* "Death is better for every man than life with shame." - Anglo-Saxon, Beowulf (compare to Daniel 3:14-18, Hebrews 11:32-38, Revelation 12:11)

The striking similarities in the moral codes of various cultures and religions and that sanctions are imposed upon transgressors are evidence of the existence of an objective right and wrong and the universal concept of justice which traverses cultural boundaries.

Some societies we judge as having precepts which are a poorer representation of these universal moral principles than others: for instance, slave-trading in Sudan, widow-burning in India, cannibalism in South American tribes, the circumcision of young girls in Muslim countries, suicide in Japan, the cruel torturing of political dissidents in China and Cuba, etc. In the western world's critique of these base practices, we appeal to a standard which we as well as they admit, and we posit that our precepts are a better, more accurate representation of that standard than theirs. The existence of this standard is undeniable. Human rights would have no foundation without it.

This law of human nature, or law of good, demands one unalterable thing of every human being who has reached the age of reason, or that point where children understand their moral obligation to their neighbor and hence become accountable for their actions. The law demands "benevolence", or good-willing. We know we should treat our neighbors with love. We know we should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. This is what Jesus taught was the sum of all of the law and the prophets (Matthew 7:12). Love is also said to be the sum of all of the law of God (Romans 13:8-10).

There is no justice without objective morality

In order to have justice, objective morality is a necessity. A moral relativist could never say that, for instance, child molestation is always wrong and child molesters are deserving of punishment, and be consistent. They could admit that it is wrong in America because it is illegal, but they could not admit that it is wrong in Sudan, a small country in East Africa, where prepubertal girls are being kidnapped from their Christian parents by the Muslims and sold to soldiers where they serve out their miserable years as sex slaves. I can, however, say with certainty that this is always wrong, in every society, in every age. The moral relativist could admit that it is contrary to their personal morality, and they might even join me in opposition to such barbaric practices, but they could not accuse the baby-rapist of actual wrong-doing. As a matter of fact, the rapist would be in perfect conformity to their foundational ethical principle whilst he was in the act of raping a little girl! For their ethical principle is that you make up your own ethical principle. Their morality is that all morality is personal and subjective. The law of God would absolutely forbid such destructive behavior, while their code of morality would justify it as long as the rapist was abiding by his own personal code of morality.

One eastern mysticist adamantly insisted to me that such cruelty would indeed by contrary to her own personal code of morality. She insisted that she would join me in opposition to such inhumanity, even risking her own life to do so. However, I told her, she would have no basis to her opposition. She should not, for instance, claim that her prejudices against rape were superior to the rapist's prejudices against women. She could not say that the rapist was wrong, but only that it would be wrong for her to do such a thing.

Although they might personally disapprove of Hitler's cruelty, the moral relativists could not say that what he did was wrong. I can say without hesitation that discriminating against an entire class of people because of their skin color or ethnic background is wrong. These are involuntary qualities and therefore cannot be intrinsically evil and blameworthy attributes. The Jews do not deserve punishment for being Jews. The moral relativists would admit that such discrimination would be wrong in America because it is illegal, but they could not say it was wrong in Nazi Germany, for Hitler "legalized" his criminal undertakings before he began his crusade to destroy the Jews from off the face of the earth. Nevertheless, because there is an objective standard of right and wrong that traverses nations, ethnic groups, and language barriers, nations organized the Nuremberg trials and tried those Germans who participated in the systematic extermination of the Jewish people. Many of those murderers were justly executed for their crimes against humanity. And the argument that their diabolic service to Hitler was "legal" did not hold water. The consciences of all men testify to the fact that they are not obligated to obey an immoral "law" -that is why these Nazi murderers were guilty. It is, always has been, and always will be unlawful to do what they did. That is why justice is possible.

This is the very reason why abortionists should fear for their lives. Our Declaration of Independence acknowledges: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...". It is the moral duty of every government to secure the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of those in society, especially the weak and helpless. It is our government's obligation to defend preborn humans from the threat of violence and fatal discrimination by abortionists, to punish "evildoers", and the government "beareth not the sword in vain" (Romans 13:3-5). If the public were to ever shake off the rhetoric and the illogic of the pro-choice-to-kill proponents, and comprehend the indisputable scientific facts which prove without a doubt the humanity of the preborn human being, the abortionists, those who learned these facts in medical school, will have justice to pay.

We Americans should have our own "Nuremberg trials" - these murderers must answer to a jury of their peers for the blood that is on their hands. They have willfully participated in a mass murder of a total of 1/3 of our American offspring over the past 25 years! If the evidence proves that these abortionists knowingly and willfully denied the inalienable right to life to half of the patients who ever entered their clinic doors, deceiving their mothers by calling their child "a blob of tissues", "products of conception", and mutilating that little human being to death for the sake of greedy lucre, they will be found guilty for their crimes against humanity and justice will be served for the grossest acts of bloody barbarism our land has ever seen. Those politicians and judges that covered up the evidence of the humanity of the preborn child for political expediency will be judged as accomplices. What abortionists are doing is wrong now, it is unlawful now, in spite of its civil legality, because there is an objective standard of morality that surpasses time and space. The right-to-life is "inalienable"; it was not granted by man and it cannot be taken away by man; it was not granted by Supreme Court Justices (or should I call them "Injustices") and cannot be taken away by them. That is why justice is possible for the slain preborn in America.

The law makes demands of the heart directly, and the actions only indirectly

Outward behavior may differ depending on one's culture, parental upbringing, and knowledge, and if morality consisted primarily of outward behavior, morality could be said to be relative. But the moral law makes demands upon outward behavior only indirectly; it directly demands a particular state of heart among men. The law demands benevolence from the heart for our neighbor. This is not relative, but is universally applicable to all men. This requirement traverses time, space, and cultural barriers - even the angels are not exempt of this requirement.

Even if we deny it in theory, we each intuitively know that all that the law directly demands is a right state of heart. Legislation is enacted towards the heart or motive directly, and only towards the actions indirectly. For instance, the defense of one accused of murder can take three avenues: 1. the accused did not kill the person, or 2. the accused did in fact kill the person, but it was an accident and unintentional, or 3. the accused did kill the person, but it was justifiable, for instance, in self-defense. If the accused admits to the act of which he is accused, but brings forth a good excuse, and his excuse is shown to be true, then the accused is innocent. If the death was unintentional and no unlawful carelessness was found on the part of the accused, we know that the man cannot be guilty - he did not mean to do it! And if the death was done in self-defense, or in defense of another, and was without malice, then the man is acquitted - he has not committed a capital offense; he is not a criminal, but a hero! In both cases, it is the state of heart that is scrutinized to determine malicious intent. If the accused had malicious intent, then he is guilty.

When one wills to do you good but because of inability cannot, or because of ignorance does you wrong by accident, praise is still credited to his account. For instance, if someone charitably tries to fix your tire when you are stranded on the side of the road, and unintentionally scratches your fender with his wrench, you do not ascribe blame to him, but thanks, because he meant well. You might find fault with his carelessness or ignorance, but if you find his charitable act sincere, you do not condemn him. Likewise, if one means to do you harm but by accident actually benefits you, you still ascribe blame to him. For instance, if someone maliciously tries to blow up your car but accidentally fixes your radio while fiddling with the wires, you still ascribe blame to him even though he fixed your radio without charge. God's law is no different. The willing is doing (II Corinthians 8:12).

Children universally appeal to the same concept in their speech, and this is further evidence for the case. "Mommy, I cannot take out the trash - it is too heavy!" If this excuse is honest, then the boy really does not deserve punishment for not obeying his parents' orders in taking out the trash. Punishing a child who did all he could to obey, but was unable, would properly be labeled child abuse. Another example, "Daddy, I accidentally dropped the glass and broke it." If dropping the glass really was unintentional and no formerly-disallowed carelessness was involved in the accident, the child does not deserve to be punished. His heart was obedient. This is a fundamental teaching of Scripture and confirmed by reason, that God judges the heart directly, and the actions indirectly. The actions are examined, but only because they are an inevitable outflow of the state of the heart (Mark 7:18-23; Romans 6:16-17; Matthew 7:15-20; Ecclesiastes 12:13-14; II Corinthians 5:10-11). If the heart is pure, the actions will be blameless. If the actions are sinful, then the heart is wicked.

This being true, two men raised in different ages or cultures, who each love their neighbor as they are obligated to do, might respond to a given situation in a totally different way. If their hearts are pure, they are both innocent in their action. This is not "relative morality", for morality respects the heart or motive. Since both of these men acted with a benevolent motive, they are considered equally moral, even if their outward actions differed.

Nevertheless, as greater knowledge is acquired by men that a different action would be a better, more accurate representation of the eternal, universal principles of moral law, they are then obligated to change. They are accountable to love their neighbor, using all the means at their disposal. If greater light and understanding becomes available, only then are they required to use this light as a means to promote the highest good. They are not responsible for their ignorance unless their ignorance is willful. If they forsake this light, once comprehended, that has been proffered them, for the sake of tradition or any other selfish reason, they then are no longer compliant with their moral obligation, even though they might be acting in the same exact manner as they did before.

This universal standard of morality makes moral progress in society possible

African-Americans, was it a good thing or a bad thing that the Emancipation Proclamation went out from Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and your forefathers were freed from the yoke of cruel bondage? Or was it morally neutral? Or was it just good for your race, and not intrinsically good? If you admit it was intrinsically good and just, I ask, how can you say this and still be a moral relativist? If freedom is not morally superior to the enslavement of a people because of the color of their skin, how can you say that it is good your forefathers were freed?

Women, was it a good thing or a bad thing when women were finally allowed to vote in America? Or was it morally neutral? Or was it just good for your sex, but not intrinsically good? If you admit it was intrinsically good and just, I ask, how can you this and still be a moral relativist? If the freedom to participate in the election of our nation's leaders is not morally superior to being forbidden from participation in the election of our nation's leaders because of your sex, how can you say that the change was good?

For immoral, barbaric traditions to be purged from societies, and change to occur for the better, there must be a timeless, universal standard which makes some behaviors superior to others. For moral progress to occur, there must be a standard by which old behaviors can be measured and be deemed immoral, and proposed new ideals, such as the freedom of black slaves and the liberty of women to vote in America, can be identified as being superior. When we look back through history, it has always been the few honest thinkers, the lovers of the moral law, who encouraged the moral advancement of their society. These selfless pioneers often end up being mocked and martyred; nevertheless, those who take up their banner and follow in their footsteps are able to go much farther than they. These brave souls do so by appealing to the same moral principles that all men around them affirm, and they strongly insist that the cause for which they are fighting is a more accurate representation of these universal moral principles. Their preaching brings light to the minds of men, and those who comprehend are obligated to conform. In time, moral progress is made in society as men comply.

The law of God is the only means whereby societies can perfect themselves. The moral relativists would take us backwards until we are wallowing in gross lawlessness and anarchy or under the heavy hand of a tyrant and slavemaster.

Culture's influence upon the conscience

The moral law is an idea or concept developed within the mind of the subject. Without this internal knowledge of moral obligation, one has no moral obligation and is capable of neither good nor evil. All human minds are not at the same level of understanding. We do not grasp the moral law in its entirety in a single moment. For instance, a child generally will grasp the concept, "Honor your parents", long before he grasps, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:12,14). The knowledge and understanding which establishes these concepts of right and wrong and molds the idea of moral obligation is developed gradually. Even in adults, all might not have the same level of understanding. In this sense, subjectivity is an attribute of moral law.

Our culture and parental upbringing can neither destroy nor create this intrinsic knowledge of good and evil, nor can they alter its most basic requirement, love. Nevertheless, our parental upbringing and our culture do have a great impact on the expression of this intrinsic law of human nature, determining how to best love our neighbor. Issues of cultural significance are ingrained in who we are as individuals, and their influence cannot be understated.

For example, generally, a Christian Jew of the Apostles' time could not partake of the Gentile diets of pork and shellfish with a clean conscience, for it would be sin to him (Romans 14). And this is in spite of the fact that the dietary and ceremonial laws that were unique to the Jewish nation were no longer obligatory when the Gentiles were invited into the New Covenant apart from the Mosaic law. Another example is the conscience of a Muslim female in Saudi Arabia who would most likely be smitten with conviction should she dress publicly like the West African Christian tribespeople. Another example: a typical American man would be convicted by his own conscience and condemned by his neighbors should he have two or three wives, whereas many of the Old Testament saints did so and converted Arabs do so without condemnation. Many of you probably take ought with this comment because of your cultural upbringing, but might I remind you that polygamy is not forbidden in the Scriptures. Many men of God in the Bible had more than one wife. Husbands are commanded in the Bible to love their wives, provide for their family, and not commit adultery, in both the Old and New Testaments, but no where does the law of God forbid polygamy in the general public. I could mention many other examples of how culture can influence our conscience. The consciences of all men affirm that gluttony, the wearing of immodest and lustful apparel in public, and sexual infidelity is sin, but it is impossible to divorce the definitions of these terms from the cultures in which men are residing. Ultimately, whether an act is sin or not depends not on his parents or society, nor even any commandment of Scripture, but the individual's conscience. The individual must have developed within his mind his duty to God and his neighbor, or he is not obligated to do it.

Our parents and society also are a great influence upon us to obey or disobey this law written in our consciences. But they are an influence only, not a causation. Reinforcing God's law by teaching it to your children and issuing strict sanctions against all rebellion is the best way of influencing your children to remain on the path to eternal life permanently (Deuteronomy 6:1-25; Psalm 78:1-8; Proverbs 19:18; 22:6,15; 23:13-14; 29:15). But a child of careless, wicked parents is still responsible for his own sins. Neither blame nor praise would be attributable to an individual if he were a machine, just a product of his environment, and not really free to choose between moral alternatives. But our wills are free and we have the ability to do what we should do, and therefore, we are responsible and worthy of praise or blame depending on whether we comply with or deny this law of human good.

This section has emphasized the subjectivity of the moral law, which is the attribute of moral law that makes it personal and applicable to us in our diverse levels of maturity, knowledge, and understanding. But do not let my emphasis here detract from the fact that objectivity is also an attribute of moral law. Our moral obligation or duty to our neighbors is prescribed by the Supreme Lawgiver and is external to self. When viewed in this way, the moral law is objective.

Right and wrong are not based upon the Bible!

I have often been accused that I base my view of right and wrong solely upon the Holy Bible. This, I quickly deny. The Holy Bible does contain the moral law in all of its perfection, but why should I appeal to revelation, which requires proof, to confirm morality when I can appeal to "first truths", which require no proof, to confirm it? Do not misunderstand me - I believe the Bible is the word of God. It is right to obey the teachings of the Bible, but I would never appeal solely to the Bible to prove this, for that would be circular reasoning. I could appeal to extra-Biblical documentary evidence and to the intrinsic evidence for the veracity of the Scriptures such as prophecy, history, and archaeology, but frequently this is too time-consuming. When dealing with those who doubt the veracity of the Scriptures, I often put the Bible down and appeal to their consciences to confirm the truths of the Scriptures. My goal, after all, is not to prove the veracity of the Scriptures but to convince my hearer of their sin so that they will confess their guilt and admit their need for the Savior. One does not need to believe the Bible is God's Word (or even know the Bible exists for that matter) in order to appreciate the atonement of Christ.

Noah Porter, President of Yale University in the 1870's, said, "Christianity is perfected reason." If you will just start with what you know about creation and humanity, think, be honest with yourself, love the truth, be willing to be wrong, be consistent, and think some more, you will ultimately arrive at one of two conclusions in life: 1. life is meaningless and suicide is reasonable, or 2. knowing and serving Christ is the purpose of life. Most, however, find themselves in tension between these two conclusions, and happily inconsistent. Such are the moral relativists: they reject absolute truth yet hold that their view is absolutely true; they admit that we should tolerate alternative lifestyles and views and yet they are intolerant in their judgments of others. If they would forsake their bias and seek the truth, they would not be moral relativists very long. (Unfortunately, like the moral relativists, many professing Christians do not think either - they feel, but they do not know how to think; hence the multitudes of contradictory, extra-Biblical, sin-justifying doctrines infesting the churches today! It is a sad fact that truth is sought and meditated upon so little today in modern churches, that if Christianity were fundamentally wrong, most would never discover it.)

The Bible does teach this law of good, but it does not create it. God did write the Ten Commandments upon tablets of stone on Mt. Sinai, and Jesus taught and elaborated upon the same perfect law, but that did not bring the moral law into existence any more than writing the multiplication tables down on paper brings those mathematical facts into existence.

If the Bible never existed, right and wrong would still exist. Did not right and wrong exist, after all, before the Bible was written? Of course. This proves that the Bible cannot be the basis of right and wrong. The fundamental precepts of the moral law as taught in both the Old and New Testaments are written upon the consciences of all men universally throughout all ages. (I distinguish the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament, which were unique to the Jewish nation, from the moral law which is taught in both the Old and New Testaments, and is unalterable and universal.) The moral law existed before the canon of the Bible was compiled, before Jesus was born, before the law was given at Mt. Sinai, and even before man was created.

The Scripture makes it clear why men are without excuse before God for their sins: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold (hold back, or suppress) the truth in righteousness. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened... Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever." (Rom.1:18-21,25). Sinners are without excuse because they know how they should behave. God hath shown it to them. If they were ignorant of their moral obligation, then they would have a very good excuse for non-compliance.

If the Holy Bible were the foundation or basis of man's moral obligation to God and our neighbor, then infants and severely retarded adults must be condemned if they transgress God's law by not doing unto others as they would be done by. This is unconscionable, and we know that God cannot send babies to suffer in hell forever if God is good. We all know that if one's actions are involuntary, or if they are not able to comprehend how to behave appropriately, then they cannot be guilty for those actions. Furthermore, if these individuals were condemned for not doing what was impossible for them to do, or for doing what they could not help but do, then they would have a good excuse for their non-compliance on Judgment Day - their behavior would be justifiable and their innocence provable to the clean conscience and the honest mind, for indeed, "They could not help it!". But if the foundation of our moral obligation were the idea in the mind of the individual of the type of behavior that would be intrinsically beneficial to all and would promote the happiness of God and our neighbors, then we only become accountable when this idea is developed. And all sinners would therefore be "without excuse" for their sins. This understanding that the way of love is the best way to live, this concept of the intrinsic value of the well-being of God and our neighbors, is the foundation of our moral obligation.

Every man knows how he should be treated by others. He knows that to be treated well is intrinsically good and praiseworthy, and to be treated with malice is intrinsically bad and blameworthy. All men universally want to be treated with benevolence. They therefore must know that living in obedience to this law is the best way to live and would promote the happiness of man and man's Designer. When a child comes to the age of reason and is able to discern the existence of a Supreme Being from his observations of creation, and is able to distinguish right from wrong, that right is good and wrong is bad, he now knows intuitively that he should do unto others as he would have them do unto him. This is the testimony of his conscience. This is the law of God written on his heart. He knows that this is the best way to live. This concept, my friend, is the foundation of his moral obligation. This understanding is the basis of his moral duty. No man will be able to plead ignorance of God's word as an excuse for failure to do his duty. He does not need to know the Bible to know what he should do. He does not need to know the Scriptures to be compliant with his moral obligation. We are obligated to do right because it is good, not just because "the Bible says so". (See Romans 1:18 to 2:16.)

The codification of the moral law

Moral relativism presupposes the absence of an objective standard of right and wrong. We have seen that this view taken to its logical conclusions is completely impracticable, abhorrent to our consciences, and terribly inconsistent in a society that passes legislation outlawing certain personal choices and is a proponent of "human rights" in nations around the world. There must be an objective standard of morality. Admittedly, it would be difficult to codify the law written on our consciences if our conscience is all we have to go on, because of our individual biases. But if the same Lawgiver who wrote it on our consciences were to have it written down on paper, the codification of the standard by which we are to live would be clear. Controversy would still be probable because our biases would be expressed in our interpretation of what would be written, but a universal consensus over the clearest truths would be much more likely than with the first alternative.

When God gave the law by revelation to Moses for the Israelite people, Moses said that the nations around them would find this law superior to their own. They would discover that the law of the Jews more accurately represented the universal ethical principles than their own. They would see the wisdom in it (Deuteronomy 4:5-8). When one examines the moral law as codified in the law of Moses as well as in the commandments of Christ, which was written down by men inspired by the Holy Spirit, he will discover that the teachings of the Bible best represent these universal ethical principles. If he loves the truth, he will see it. He will affirm that the Bible is the word of God, and contains the perfect law of liberty. The Bible was inspired by the supreme Lawgiver, who is our Creator, who wills our good. It would be in the best interests of all men to adhere to the laws of the Bible. Studying and understanding the moral law codified in the Bible is like the conscience looking at itself in a clean mirror. In conclusion, right is not based upon the Bible, but it is found in the Bible. The moral law found within the pages of the Holy Bible is the law of our Creator, or the law written on our consciences, codified.

John Adams said in 1756, "Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow man; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God... What a Utopia, what a Paradise would this region be!"

Faith is not the basis of Christianity

In order to refute my comment that Christianity is superior to other religions, a physician said to me, "It all comes down to what you believe. All that matters is your faith." He tried to tell me that faith in Mohammed, faith in Buddha, faith in ourselves, and faith in nothing were all morally equal, for they all made us better people, and one faith was not and could not be proven to be superior to others.

I told him, "If one of your patients tells you that he believes eating five Big Macs a day is going to help his chest pain, will you consider that equivalent to your well-educated opinion that lowering his cholesterol and weight loss will improve his heart disease?" Of course, his answer was no. Faith in a lie is not morally equivalent to faith in the truth. Faith in a lie is called deception. Faith that you can fly when you jump off a building will not benefit you - faith in a lie will not benefit anybody. Only faith in the truth is truly beneficial.

Christianity is not based solely upon faith. Many religions are based upon faith, but faith in a lie. Christianity is based upon truth. Salvation comes through faith in the truth. Jesus said, "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).

"But how do you know Christianity is true and the others are false?" the physician asked. "Can you scientifically prove it?"

"The case does not demand scientific proof," I responded. "Can you scientifically prove that George Washington was the first President of the United States? Scientific proof requires observation, and since you cannot observe President Washington, you cannot scientifically prove he existed. Does that mean that someone who says he never existed is just as truthful as the one who insists that he did? No, because there are other ways to be sure without a doubt that he existed."

Can you feel love? Can you taste love, see love, smell love, hear love? No. You cannot experience love with any of the five senses. Does that mean it does not exist? It cannot be scientifically proven to exist, but the case does not demand scientific proof. Love exists, and you know this is true by intuition.

The truth can be discovered about God. You might not be able to scientifically prove it is the truth, but the truth is obtainable nonetheless. It requires thought, diligent study, a willingness to be wrong, a stubborn consistency, and humility, but the truth can be discovered. If all of the facts about nature, humanity, and all the religions of the world were put out on the table, and the Christian, the Muslim, the orthodox Jew, the Hindu, the atheist, the devil, and everybody else were to be perfectly objective in their search for the truth, a single unified truth would elevate itself over every false philosophy and religious deception, and all honest men would see it. The truth of Jesus Christ!

Men are designed to have an affinity towards truth. It is only a selfish, wicked man, one who is living contrary to his design, who rejects truth. It is this rejection of truth that brings condemnation: "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God" (John 3:19-21). It is those that "receive not the love of the truth" that embrace a lie that damns their soul (II Thessalonians 2:10).

The Romans 1 passage cited earlier shows us that God has made the truth known to every man. It is through the conscience God has given us and through our understanding of the world around us that God's power and authority are revealed and our moral obligation to Him and our neighbor are comprehended. It is the willful suppression of these self-evident truths for the sake of unrighteousness that brings deception, moral depravity, and condemnation (Rom.1:18,25).

What about the poor Buddhist boy who never hears of Jesus?

My doctor friend again asked, "How can someone raised in a Buddhist culture ever be justly cast into hell for not believing in Jesus when he never even heard of Jesus?" It was a very good question, a common one, one that many of you probably have.

I responded, "The one that never hears of Jesus will not go to hell for rejecting Him. The one that does not have access to the Bible will not be condemned for not reading and studying it. But they will be condemned for rejecting the truth that was made available to them."

"What if a Buddhist walks in all of the truth he knows, yet still does not ever hear about the cross of Jesus Christ?" he asked.

I responded, "If he has ever sinned once, he has not walked in all the truth he knows. If he has ever sinned once, he is under the wrath of God until he forsakes his sin and believes in Jesus for his salvation."

My doctor friend had a problem with this answer. How can the Buddhist who has sinned have a duty to believe in Jesus to be pardoned when he has never heard of Him? This, again, is an intelligent question, but not one without a satisfactory answer. The Bible gives us a prototype of such a dilemma in Acts 10. Cornelius was not a Jew and was not a Christian. He was a Roman centurion. Nevertheless, he was "a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway" (Acts 10:2). In other words, he was compliant with all the light he had at that time.

God will move heaven and earth to give more light to one that is walking in all the light he has. We have left Him out of the majority of our discussion so far because I wanted to show you that God's law is real by appealing to nature and humanity on your terms, but God is a factor that cannot be disregarded. He is not slow to reveal truth to the honest seeker. He is not reluctant to save those that seek Him with all of their heart. God is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (I Peter 3:9). He "will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (I Timothy 2:4).

God sent an angel to Cornelius and instructed him to send for the Apostle Peter. Peter came and gave them more light by telling them about Jesus, and the whole household immediately received the Gospel and the Holy Spirit. This is a perfect example of how God deals with those in pagan lands who are walking in all of the light that they have. He gives them more light. Salvation comes through receiving the light, and condemnation comes through rejecting it. Your teacher has no obligation to teach you algebra until you have mastered your addition and subtraction; God has no obligation to give one the light of Jesus Christ until they have conformed to the light they find in their conscience and in nature.

I will be able to empirically prove the existence of God and His law one day. It will be on Judgment Day, when all of mankind from every age and culture stand before Him to have their deeds measured by His perfect law. We will observe God in all His holiness and glory. Then it will be too late, my moral relativist reader, for your soul to benefit from the truth. You must seek the truth now. He promises that you will find Him if you seek Him with all your heart.

What is right is best, but what appears best is not always right

It is the day before your final exam in Biology. You have been ill and have not studied appropriately. Certainly it cannot be good to fail biology, you reason, for then you would lose your scholarship, perhaps have to drop out of school, default on your loans, not be able to get a good job, have to file bankruptcy... It's not your fault that you were sick anyway. It's the last exam of the week, too, and you have studied hard for all of your other exams. Certainly it would not be best to fail, so why not cheat - just this once? It would be for your own good! It would be for the best! How many of you have had such thoughts flash before your mind prior to a major exam? Just because something can be reasoned as being best for you, that does not mean it is right. Even if you think you can get away with your cheating, your conscience still objects. The truth is, in these circumstances you know what is right, and you know what is right is best, but with your bias, you do not like what is best for you and so you deceive yourself into believing that what gratifies self is really best for you, not what is right. What is truly best for you is inconvenient. What is best for you would be humiliating and threaten your pride and self-esteem.

We do not determine what is right by what appears best for us without regard to our neighbor's welfare. We are to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. What might appear best to the murderer is that he slay the witnesses, and the rapist that he slay his victim, so that they have no chance of getting caught. What might appear best for the liar is to lie again to conceal his first lie. Nevertheless, as all would agree if they were the victims of the said crimes, these acts would be wrong.

That you would be transgressing this moral law should you cheat would be clear if you could be unbiased, but it can be difficult to maintain objectivity in the trenches of day-to-day temptations. So detach yourself from the situation and imagine your neighbor in similar circumstances. Consider the injustice to the other students when the students who feel obliged to cheat ruin the bell curve. Consider the injustice to you when the student next to you steals answers off your paper, and he who did not study at all because he was out having fun gets the same grade as the one who skipped the movies and the parties to study diligently! Imagine if you were the professor of the cheater, or the Dean who would sign his diploma, or the patient who would come into his office in a few years when he was a physician who had obtained his degree by cheating. In the light of these, do you now see the malice and the criminality of the act of cheating?

The commandment not to cheat might not be as clear in the Bible as "Thou shalt not cheat", and maybe it might not be so clear in your mind with unusual circumstances and with extraordinary excuses. But all of the various commandments are summed up in this, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is always best!

The conscience is not our herd instinct or an urge to adhere to the popular consensus

You might be thinking, "Isn't this intrinsic concept of good and evil just our herd instinct, which is developed like all of our other instincts?"

No one would deny that humans have a herd instinct, a strong desire to protect our neighbors from harm, but the moral law and the herd instinct are not identical. Feeling a desire to help our injured neighbor is much different than meeting an obligation to help whether we feel like it or benefit from it or not.

Suppose you hear a voice down a dark ally call for help. You will probably feel two instincts: one to help your injured neighbor (herd instinct), and one to run to safety (instinct of self-preservation). In addition to these two impulses, you will also sense a third voice, one which attempts to suppress the desire for self-preservation and fan the flame of the herd instinct. This thing which decides between two instincts cannot itself be one of the instincts.

Furthermore, if two instincts are in conflict, we do not always follow the stronger of the two. In a moment of a critical decision, when we are most conscious of the moral law, we often find ourselves following the weaker of the two impulses. I might want to pass the test much more than I want a good education and the satisfaction of an honest grade, yet I pass off the opportunity to cheat; or if I do cheat, my conscience punishes me for it and I feel a guilty gnawing in my bosom until I confess it and make it right.

Furthermore, the conscience often tries to make the appropriate impulse stronger than it is. A man at the edge of a dark ally who hears a neighbor getting mugged or raped might need to stimulate his herd instinct by waking up his imagination and his pity to find the strength to do the right thing. A soldier at war might need to stimulate his patriotism and encourage his fighting instinct in order to do the right thing under those circumstances. An ill mother with post-partum depression might need to encourage her mother-love instinct in order to find the strength to care for her child properly. The thing that stimulates one instinct and discourages another cannot itself be an instinct. This thing is the conscience, which reminds us of our duty, encourages compliance, and discourages selfishness.

Neither is the conscience an internal urge to adhere to the popular consensus, as some say. Frequently the conscience actually opposes the prevailing norms of a society, and often at great expense to self. For example, in Nazi Germany, many Christians risked their lives and the lives of their children to hide Jews from the Gestapo, sacrificing a portion of their own meager sustenance to provide for their vagabond guests. Another example are the brave pro-lifers who risk stiff fines, long jail sentences, and the persecution of the liberal media to protest in front of abortion clinics and counsel women against abortion. These brave activists are motivated by conscience, and their actions run contrary to the opinions of the consensus. So our moral obligation cannot be compliance with the majority's consensus, but must be an independent entity.

One of two graves inevitable for America!

Professor Arthur Leff, from Yale law school elaborates on the great dilemma of humanity well:

"I want to believe - and so do you - in a complete, transcendent, and imminent set of propositions about right and wrong, findable rules that authoratively and unambiguously direct us how to live righteously. I also want to believe - and so do you - in no such thing, but rather that we are wholly free, not only to choose for ourselves what we ought to do, but to decide for ourselves, individually and as a species, what we ought to be. What we want, Heaven help us, is simultaneously to be perfectly ruled and perfectly free, that is, at the same time to discover the right and the good and to create it."

Leff recognized that the inevitable end of moral relativity was anarchy, but had no answer for the dilemma of humanity: man wants to be perfectly ruled by a just law so that his rights will be protected, and yet wants to be perfectly free to do as he pleases.

The moral relativists would have us believe that we are perfectly free to do as we please, without limitation. They claim that we create our own morality, and we are free to change it at will. But this makes truth subservient to our desires. This makes the welfare of God, our family, and the whole universe secondary to the gratification of our own selfish desires. May it never be!

My pastor, Evangelist George "Jed" Smock uses two illustrations to describe the moral law which are fitting here. The moral law is like the banks of the river. When the river stays within its banks, the crops are watered, the ships sail safely, fish are plenteous, and the river is a blessing to the community. But when the rains and the floods cause the river to transgress the banks which contain it, the river floods the crops, pollutes the water supply, kills the fish and livestock, destroys houses and lives, and becomes a curse to the community. Likewise, when the rains of sin and unrestrained lust cause the river of humanity to swell and transgress the banks of God's law, mankind becomes dangerous and destructive.

The moral law is also like the tracks of a train. When the train stays within the confines of its tracks as the designer intended, the train reaches its destination safely and the passengers are unharmed. The tracks, after all, are not intended to impede the train's progress, but to facilitate it. However, if the train jumps its tracts, destruction results. Men are designed to live happily only within the confines of God's law, which was given for our good. When it is transgressed, destruction results. The law of God is the supreme standard by which men must govern themselves to be truly happy and free.

As C. S. Lewis said, and I paraphrase, for the wise men of old, the challenge of humanity was how to conform the soul to objective reality and the solution was wisdom, self-discipline, and virtue. For the contemporary mind, however, the challenge is how to subdue reality to the desires of man. (The Abolition of Man, Macmillan, New York, 1972.)

The basis for all law according to America's founders, for instance, was "the laws of nature and nature's God," the ultimate reality. Transcendence was critical to the principles of freedom they established. Transcendence, however, is no longer a factor in the laws by which America is presently governed. This is made clear in the words of Supreme Court Justice O'Connor, who writes for the majority in a case in 1992: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of the meaning of the universe, and the mystery of human life." Here the court forsakes historical precedent and does away with the transcendent basis of human laws. Rather than the law of God being the boundaries wherein "pursuit of happiness" can be a legitimate exercise of freedom, desire alone has been exalted as the supreme boundary; desires, of course, the government sees fit to legitimize.

With the anti-Christ actions of the court in recent years, it appears that the Federal courts seeks to deter Christian "desires"; they seek to criminalize those who hold to and propagate "the laws of nature and of nature's God". To what court actions am I referring? In 1962, public prayer on school property was banned. In 1963, faculty-led school prayer and Bible study was banned in public schools. In 1973, restrictions on abortion in all fifty states were single-handedly overturned and murder was legitimized throughout all nine months of pregnancy with the Roe v. Wade decision. In 1980, schools were prohibited from posting the Ten Commandments in the public schools. In 1987, a Louisiana law which declared that public schools that teach evolution should also teach creation science was struck down as unconstitutional. In 1992, the court ruled that public school officials could not make prayer a part of graduation ceremonies. In 1997, the Communications Decency Act, which was designed to protect children from the morass of violent and harmful pornography, was struck down as unconstitutional. In 1997, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed unanimously by the House of Representatives and with only three dissenting votes in the Senate, was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. With this piece of legislation, Congress sought to protect the free exercise of religion, which the court has miserably failed to do. Now that the court has struck this down, there is nothing to inhibit any infringement on the free exercise of religion. Not only has the transcendence and the law of God been abolished as a foundation to civil laws in America today, but the law of God has been "outlawed". Those who would dare to obey God by attempting to bring His kingdom to the earth on public property are more and more becoming criminalized by our Federal courts. Private Christianity is tolerated, but taking the principles of Christ into the public arena becomes highly suspicious and even prosecutable. With the proposed "hate crime" legislation, those who preach "the laws of nature and of nature's God" would be in grave danger of becoming outlaws in America. The law of God is the only legitimate boundary to the pursuit of happiness. The laws of man that are exalted as a standard in opposition to laws of nature and of nature's God are imposters.

Allow me to show you how freedom is ultimately threatened if God's law is disregarded in society. The pursuit of happiness in the modern mind is self-gratification, uninhibited by God's law, unrestrained by moral obligation to God and neighbor. Rather than employing our knowledge, imagination, wealth, fleshly desires and faculties as a means to promote good, they become an end in themselves. Rather than ruling our mental and physical faculties with self-control to make the world a better place, we become ruled by our faculties in pursuit of pleasure and power without regard to the world. Self-gratification becomes the supreme pursuit of every man who refuses to walk in obedience to the dictates of conscience, and this is at the expense of every other man.

This pursuit in those who have the power and wealth to rule over others can be very dangerous to the welfare of their subjects. As Lewis said, man's conquest of nature must always become man's conquest of other men using nature as a means. These conquerors no longer think of God and His laws as objective reality, so they are controlled not by God's commandments, but by the natural forces of their own genes and environment. Thus man's conquest of nature turns out to be nature's conquest of man, and man becomes enslaved by his appetites and the appetites of his superiors (The Abolition of Man).

The ones with the means to rule other men are not confined by an objective law and fear of justice, but only their desires. They can be restrained by fear of the stigma their sins would bring upon them in the eyes of a righteous populace, or by fear of a popular intolerance of their degenerate leadership, but when objective morality has generally been forsaken in society, these selfish desires go unchecked. To show you how our nation's laws have been perverted, consider: if it were proven that the common man perjured himself in a case in which a civil suit was being brought against him, he would have to do hard time behind bars. As a felon, he could no longer have the right to keep and bear arms for the remainder of his life. But Bill Clinton can commit this crime and keep his position as President of the United States, and not only still keep and bear arms, but be the leader of one of the most powerful military forces of the world! If the representatives and senators of the United States of America truly represent their constituents, and it appears they do, then our tolerance of lawlessness is a poor prognostic sign of the future of freedom in America. Only when the law is as applicable to the President as it is to the pauper, to the wealthy as it is to the poor, will freedom be secure.

Liberty is balancing on a see-saw between anarchy and tyranny. Where restraint lacks in society, danger to our persons is inevitable. The end of freedom that is unrestrained by law is public lawlessness and anarchy. It manifests as rioting, looting, murder, violence, rape, sexual perversion, a corrupt political system, an unjust judicial system, every imaginable wickedness, and ultimately, if it continues down this path, self-destruction. This self-destruction can be checked by a return to God's law, but the remedy proposed by leaders who adhere to the prevailing moral philosophy is more likely to be one that extends the powers of the Federal government. Safety can be restored to society by a strong centralized government, but only temporary safety, and that at a great price. The rights of the individual must be disregarded for the sake of what the leaders consider to be the greater good of the whole. But in the context of the prevailing moral philosophy, what is "good" for the whole to an immoral leader is ultimately only that which gratifies himself! Oh, he will talk of compassion, peace, improving education, fighting crime, stopping terrorists, ending racism, and the general welfare of the people, and ever so readily extend the Federal breast to the poor, the lazy, the children, and the elderly, but ultimately it is only to hold onto power and to promote an anti-Christ agenda. The testimony of history confirms that the governments of society have always been the greatest threat to human lives. Over 56 million people have been murdered by their governments in this century by the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao tse Tung, with every death justified in the mind of the murderer! The only way for men to live in peace and yet maintain individual freedoms is if the individual restrains himself personally and men govern themselves corporately by the law of God. Good people, with the help of God, can break the yokes of slavery and tyranny and make themselves and their posterity free, but their free posterity will not remain free for long if they refuse to be good.

We Americans have such an advantage! Our history books are full of the wisdom of those who laid the foundation of this great nation. With the signing of the Declaration of Independence, they founded this government on "the laws of nature and nature's God". They said that the government exists for the purpose of securing the inalienable rights of the individual, rights that did not come from the government, and therefore cannot be taken away by the government, but rights that came from God. When they laid this foundation, they left plenteous warnings to their posterity, that if the laws of God were ever forsaken, America would cease to be great and free.

Let us hear the words of our American forefathers on this matter. George Washington said in his inaugural address in 1789, "The propitious smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself has ordained." He also said, "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." He frequently implored, acknowledged, and was grateful for the protection of divine Providence, and said that without it, our nation would not continue to be blessed.

John Adams, influential in the drafting of the Constitution, the first Vice President and second President of the United States, said in 1776, "Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty." In 1811, he said, "Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society." Adams said in 1813, "The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite... And what were these Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity." If these principles are forsaken, the death warrant for our freedoms has been signed.

Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, is the one that penned the Declaration of Independence. He made this statement which is engraved in the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C.: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Thomas Jefferson is the one who coined the infamous term, "separation of church and state". He used this phrase in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, whom he assured that the government would not interfere with the activities of the church. He was not telling them that the church should not interfere with the activities of the government, which is what the historical revisionists have interpreted him as meaning. We are a government "for the people, by the people", and insofar as the people are religious, the government will be religious. The same time Jefferson wrote this letter, he presided as Superintendent of the school district of Washington, D.C. Can you guess what single textbook was required by him in every classroom in his district? The Holy Bible! Obviously, Jefferson did not mean what the historical revisionists have interpreted him as meaning. But since they are moral relativists, who cares about a little deception for the sake of a political cause?

James Madison, known as the "Chief Architect of the Constitution", and the fourth President of the United States, said, "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

Noah Webster, statesman, judge, educator, lexicographer, and well-known author of Webster's Dictionary, said in 1833, in the preface of his translation of the Common Version of the Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testament, with Amendments of the Language, "The principles of genuine liberty, and of wise laws and administrations, are to be drawn from the Bible and sustained by its authority. The man, therefore, who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that Book may be accessory to all the public disorders which society is doomed to suffer.... There are two powers only, sufficient to control men and secure the rights of individuals and a peaceable administration; these are the combined force of religion and law, and the force or fear of the bayonet." In 1832, he published his History of the United States, in which he wrote, "All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."

Alex de Tocqueville was a famous French statesman who toured the United States in the 1830s. He said, "I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the Secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."

As a morally corrupt people who have forsaken the moral principles of our forefathers, we have abused our freedoms and our leaders have followed suit. The result is the deterioration of those precious freedoms purchased by the lives, fortunes, and sacred honor of our forefathers, the freedoms established in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Over the past several decades, Americans have allowed their leaders to betray the Constitution they have sworn to uphold, and many of the same freedoms which our forefathers sought to obtain by rebelling against England have been taken away. Freedoms such as the freedom to keep and bear arms (which our forefathers considered critical to liberty), to enjoy the good of our labor without immorally excessive taxation, the freedom to produce wealth without the boatloads of choking Federal regulations and license requirements, the freedom to maintain local control of education and commerce, the freedom to own property (no one ever owns their property today because of property taxes, we pay rent to the government - quit paying the taxes, and the property is confiscated), etc. We have allowed our freedoms to be sacrificed because we desired safety more than those freedoms, because we fear the unrestrained lusts of our neighbors. An old quote comes to mind: "Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Over time, the power in government has become more and more centralized. With every freedom that is rescinded, the leaders become less the servants of the people and more the masters of the people. Absolute power corrupting absolutely, tyranny will be the end result. As William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, said, "Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." Presently, America lies somewhere along the short line between anarchy and tyranny, and the future of this great nation will lie in a grave at one end or the other if we do not return to the law of God. We can be neither perfectly ruled nor perfectly free without obedience to God's law.

The conspiracy and the remedy

The scheme of the moral relativists to undermine the perfect law of God is not a new one. The first moral relativist in history slithered up to the mother of the human race and convinced her that God's ways were not best for her, that God was withholding some great pleasure from her, that God's law should be subordinate to her desires, and when she doubted the words of her Maker and did what was right in her own eyes with no regard to Him, the downward spiral of the human race began (Genesis 3). That first angelic rebel, Lucifer, has sought to convince you of the same thing, so that you, too, will not give heed to your Creator's law. It is the conspiracy of the ages, a grand scheme to overthrow the government of God and destroy all that is good for which God stands. It is a conspiracy to drag mankind into the same hell for which the devil is destined.

What is the remedy? How do we cause truth to prevail and bring the devil's evil schemes to naught? As a society, we must return to the law of God. It is that perfect standard by which our society should govern itself and it would maximize our potential as a people. A government founded on the moral precepts and sanctions proposed in the Holy Bible would be the happiest, most peaceful nation on earth! God's ways are best!

As an individual, the remedy can only be discovered when you return to the law of God. "The law of the Lord is perfect," the Psalmist said, "converting the soul" (Psalm 19:7). The remedy becomes available when you recognize that you are guilty of transgressing the law of God, and hence, you are under His wrath. Since God is just and His law is just, sanctions, or punishments for crimes, are set in place for all lawbreakers. He must punish lawbreakers, or He is not just. He has created a place of eternal incarceration for all sinners, a place of darkness and torment, of separation from all that is pleasurable, peaceful and good. If you die in a state of rebellion to God's laws, you will stand before Him at the Judgment Seat of Christ and give an account for your crimes. Even your secret sins will be brought to light on that great Day. You will be found guilty for all non-compliance to this good and just law which you have so strenuously denied existed, and cast into hell forever!

Quick! Even now, you are under His wrath. Men die at inopportune times. You are in danger of judgment! Return to the Lawgiver now with all of your heart to ask for mercy! He is willing to pardon you for your crimes against Him and your fellow man - but you must come on His terms. You must turn from all of your transgressions, and immediately come into compliance with the law of God, to love God supremely and your neighbor equally. You must trust in Jesus Christ, God's Son, who came to earth 2,000 years ago to make a way for man to be pardoned and to uphold the law of God. He confirmed the moral laws of God in his teachings and lived in accordance with them, and after three years of ministry was falsely accused, beaten, spat upon, mocked, whipped, and executed in the fashion designed for only the cruelest criminals, by crucifixion. He being innocent, gave Himself up to die the death of a sinner, so that you and I being sinners, could be pardoned and reconciled with our Creator. God could not forgive without an atonement, a sacrifice. To do so would undermine His law. God's love for man could not move Him to lay His law aside and overlook man's crimes with a sweeping pardon, for this would ultimately promote anarchy in the human and angelic kingdoms. But when He gave His Son to die for sinners and required that repentance, or returning to obedience to God's law, be a condition for salvation, He publicly showed that He is serious about His good law and being reconciled to sinful man. The death of Jesus Christ as an atonement for sin is what makes Christianity superior to other false religions, which frequently teach that good works alone will merit forgiveness for past sins. Jesus, the Son of God, the King of kings and Lord of lords, died on the cross for your sins, and rose again, and is worthy of your worship, your obedience, and your eternal allegiance.

The death of Jesus Christ on the cross is the most sacred evidence for the existence of an absolute standard of right and wrong. If there was no such thing as sin, then Jesus would not have had to die. Look at the cross, and see how malicious your sins truly are. Read of the sufferings of Christ in Matthew 26 and 27, and consider how he died for your sins. In your mind's eye, see his bleeding, marred, naked frame nailed to the cross, and know that it was for your crimes He died - because He wants you to be reconciled to Him and escape the eternal woe that awaits you.

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3:16-18). Jesus is your only chance! Come to God now in Jesus name, come to Him in repentance and faith, and He will receive you!

____________________________________________________

I am indebted to the following works for many of the arguments employed in this tract: "The Myth of Moral Neutrality" by Dr. John Patrick, "Mere Christianity" and "The Abolition of Man" by C.S. Lewis, "The God Who Is There" by Francis Schaeffer, "Finney's Systematic Theology" by Charles G. Finney.