Objective Moral Values

On CNN's website today, there was an interview between a married couple and a woman who was representing the organization FRC (Family Research Council). The topic of discussion was the issue of "swinging". Swingers are those couples, married, who engage in sexual activity with other couples while remaining married to one another. In other words, adultery is unknown sexual activity outside of the marriage bed and "swinging" is known sexual activity outside of the marriage bed.

Arguments made in favor of swinging were that the "freedom" experienced enabled the couple to enjoy fantasies outside of the home that somehow strengthened their marriage. How this works, I have no idea. The argument made against such actions, however, was in favor of marriage being an institution that out to be held up, revered, and committed to by two people who have stood before God and chosen a monogomous relationship.

While I do not disagree with the points made by the FRC representative I think she missed the greater issue. Those in favor of swinging are similar to those in favor of homosexuality. They will often say, "Hey, it's not right for you but it is for me." In making such a statement, the person is arguing for a form of relativism. It's a postmodern view point that describes how all moral values are relative.

The point that should have been made to this couple is the exact opposite. Morality is not subjective to one's conditions, environments, or culture. It's not relative. There is such thing as absolute truth and there is such a thing as objective moral values. Anyone who denies this principle cannot live within such a belief system. For as soon as this person has been robbed, beaten, or raped they will immediately claim to have been harmed. Yet, if objective moral values do not exist then although it might have been wrong to them it would not have been wrong to their assailant.

So it goes with all forms of immorality. Claiming that morals are dependant upon a person is a copout to the real issue that the person is looking for a loophole in their own definition of morality to permit the type of behavior that they desire to perform. It's been said that "a man's morality dictates his theology." Do you want to practice homosexuality? If so, you'd better find a way to eliminate the truth within the Bible or attempt to re-interpret passages that have been understood in the exact same way for over 2,000 years.

Paul said it this way in Romans 1:18 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them."

In other words, Paul is saying that objective moral values do exist and those who do not want to live by them will attempt to suppress this truth by creating foolish speculations and re-defining terms in order to fit their immoral behaviors. There are moral absolutes. They are understood by all. They were given to us by God Himself.

The next time someone attempts to rationalize relativism, simply ask them where the source of their moral truths lie. Once confirmed that it originated with themselves, simply point out that morality cannot originate with the individual. It must originate with something greater than us.

That "something" or "someone" is Almighty God and the Moral Argument for God's existence is based entirely upon such a conclusion.