A Moral Revolution?

“Technological progress without an equivalent progress in human institutions can doom us,” Obama warned. “The scientific revolution that led to the splitting of an atom requires a moral revolution as well. That is why we come to this place.” (http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-obama-hiroshima-20160527-snap-story.html)

The thrust of these remarks is the president standing in a location where the first atomic bomb was detonated (Hiroshima, Japan). By any measurement of moral decency, it was a tragic event.

That is the problem, actually. By any measurement? Exactly what is moral decency? For that matter, what does the president mean when he uses the term “moral revolution”?

When man is the arbitrator of morality, or when man is the originator of a moral code, then a moral revolution is fluid at best. Is it not interesting that there are many today stand in judgment of those in generations past about what is morally proper? These same “judges” hardly have an objective (or transcendent) moral code by which to judge, yet they still judge with their “I thinks.” The wisdom of this approach, like it was in the past generations, is to perpetuate conflicts at every level.

I also found it interesting the president failed to identify exactly from what and to where this “moral revolution” is to go.

The nature of man, because of the inclinations of his heart is only evil continually, is bound to have conflict at the lowest level (between individuals) and at the highest levels (between nations). There is only ONE moral foundation known to man to prevent wars and conflicts of another nature, and that is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is God’s perfect standard by which to measure everything associated with man’s moral nature.