The conversation continues . . .
[For those who are just 'tuning in', this post is a response to a reader who began an conversation with me last Tuesday. See previous posts.]
Oscar, thank you for clarifying your position in that what you mean by “no universal morality” you mean “there is not one unique moral code that fits all mankind’s needs.” You also state, “If this was so, the laws in all the states of the US would be the same, and so would be the laws around the globe.” When I asked if you considered yourself to be a “good person” you stated, “I behave accordingly to the moral code in my society because it's the natural thing to do as a social being, besides the fact that it just feels right to do what one thinks is, and is agreed upon is, right.”
I am curious to know:
Does the moral code of your society agree that people who tell lies are called “liars”?
Does the moral code of your society agree that people that steal are called “thieves”?
Does the moral code of your society agree that people can be married, and a relationship outside that marriage is called “adultery?”
If so, your society seems to agree with that one God-given moral standard that you say is so difficult to live by. I am referring of course to the Ten Commandments. No matter what society we live in, the Law speaks, and when the Law speaks, nobody has an excuse. Also, we cannot make a law void through faith; that is, by merely stating it does not apply does not make it go away. You can break the law of gravity, but by stating you don’t believe in it will not deliver you from the sudden stop at the bottom.
I like your illustration pertaining to those “many real-life examples in which a law has to be broken in the name of greater good.” You supposed the scenario that, “you were speeding because you had to take yor [sic] mother to the hospital, otherwise she would die. I would suppose the police would overlook this one or even escort you, because even though the law is the law, it is subject to exceptions.”
We can agree fundamentally that in speeding, regardless of the reason, the speed law is broken and when the policeman catches us, we have a choice of responses, some of which could be: 1) “I was not speeding;” or 2) “Everyone else is doing it;” or 3) “my mother needs to get to the hospital otherwise she would die.”
The law says, regardless of the reason, “Do not speed.” If you break the law, regardless of the reason, the law must bring the law-breaker to justice. Stating that your mother needs medical attention does nothing to change the fact nor the guilt of law-breaking; however, the punishment may be averted and the justice-giver may extend grace then the law-giver becomes a helper! The one who is entrusted to dispense justice may also dispense something called “mercy” and “grace.” I find this to be much different, and more realistic than to say there may be exceptions.
I must confess, you are right. You stated, “A single universal moral code is difficult (if not impossible) to follow.” God agrees with you, as it is written “’There is none righteous, no not one; there is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God. They are all gone out of the way, they have together become unprofitable, there is none that does good, no, not one." (Romans 3:10-12)
You would also agree with God, who said a few verses later, “There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Romans 3:18)
And "for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).
See, God does exist and He will simply not go away just because you may not want to believe in Him. Try that on a freeway. Stand in the middle of the road and deny the existence of trucks. How is it that instead of disbeliving in God, you are agreeing with what He Himself has already stated?
God has laid down His moral standard that is so effective, so complete, so perfect that He in fact not only founded the nation Israel on it’s ceremonial and civil code, but also has imprinted His moral code on the minds and hearts of all men (i.e. the fact that you know the difference between right and wrong) and expects all men everywhere to live by them.
You agree with God! Man cannot keep His perfect law! Man breaks them right and left, so as a righteous judge, He has no choice but to impose the punishment of death and hell.
Go back to that courtroom. Imagine you are standing before a judge for breaking a law and he says, “Before I pass sentence, what do you have to say?” Let’s again, use your own words from a previous post: “there is not one unique moral code that fits all mankind’s needs . . . I behave accordingly to the moral code in my society because it's the natural thing to do as a social being, besides the fact that it just feels right to do what one thinks is, and is agreed upon is, right.” The judge says, “That does not matter. You broke the law and punishment must be given. You fine is $250,000 and jail-time.”
Now, imagine that someone who you don’t even know steps up and says to the judge, “whatever the punishment is, I’ll take it. I’ll pay the fine.” He takes out his wallet and is pulling money out.
The judge looks at you—what do you want to do? One choice is to tell the judge, “let him do it. I don’t have the money and I don’t want jail.” The other choice is to tell the judge, “You don’t exist. I don’t care, there is not one unique moral code that fits all mankind’s needs, etc . . .”
See, I know that I can’t keep God’s perfect law. As a matter of fact, all the good things I do are like filthy rags to Him, that’s why He calls me a sinner and I deserve death and hell. But since He also paid the penalty for my sin, and I turned from my sin (like lying, stealing, adultery, blasphemy, etc.) and accepted His payment by faith, I have that on my account. When that day comes and I stand before Him, He will see two things: my sin and the fact that I had that stranger (Jesus) pay the price for my sins. I can leave the court-room a free man. Free to do what I ought, not what I want.
