Just how do political types replace the FACTS that bring them down with “the pity me comments” as Van Jones, that BLAME ANYONE AND ANYTHING BUT THEM for their OWN ACTIONS?
“On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform (No mr. Jones NOT opponents of Reform, WE ALL KNOW ITS NEEDED; BUT OPPONENTS YOUR BRAND OF SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER.) have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me,” Jones wrote. “They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide.” (Since when are your own words and actions brought into the light a “SMEAR CAMPAIGN”?)

Jones said that he had “been inundated with calls – from across the political spectrum – urging me to “stay and fight. But I came here to fight for others, not for myself. I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future.”
WOW, this guy is just amazing THE FACTS that brought this day on are HIS WORDS, HIS ACTIONS from the past…NOT ANY SMEARS; we did not need to smear him he did it to HIMSELF….PERIOD!

This brings up the following teaching about Ethics and Morals………………………………………………………

Ethics or Morals: are the study of human behavior as a consequence of beliefs about what is right or wrong, or good or bad, insofar as that behavior is useful or effective. In a sense, morals is the study of what is thought to be right and what is generally done by a group, society, or a culture. In general, morals correspond to what actually is done in a society.

Because we as believers have the benefit of “the Bible and the ten commandments” as a “guide” to our moral lives; it is NOT CLEAR where the atheist could possibly draw upon his morality because it is “not externally revealed” to him from a god since they SAY there are NO GODS of any type or MORAL AUTHORITY of a GOD.

The code of ethics that the Washington elite and Atheist SEEM TO FOLLOW is one that is personal to each elitist ; it is an “internal meaning” that he draws from his own self, his knowledge and experience, to create a “rule of behavior” or set of INTERNAL LAWS that is universally applicable to all mankind.

The issue here is not this seeming difference between the Christian ethic of morality and the Atheist “internal moral compass” but our mutual agreement of the fact of what the BIBLE states: that ALL MEN have this internal law to guide them to do AS GOD COMMANDS.

This is thus the “Moral Dilemma” the Atheist must face is “Where did morals come from in the first place and why according to the Evolutionary theory of survival of the fittest is MAN THE ONLY CREATURE THAT REQUIRES MORALS? Why did man develop this USELESS SURVIVAL TOOL that no other animal or insect has?

But to be fair the phrase “survival of the fittest” is not generally used by modern biologists as it does not convey the complex nature of natural selection, so they prefer and almost exclusively use the latter term (natural selection). Herbert Spencer first used the phrase – after reading Charles Darwin‘s On the Origin of Species– in his Principles of Biology of 1864 (vol. 1, p. 444) in which he drew parallels between his economic theories and Darwin’s biological, evolutionary ones, writing “This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called ‘natural selection’, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life”. An interpretation of the phrase “survival of the fittest” to mean “only the fittest organisms will prevail” is a view sometimes called “Social Darwinism” and is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution itself. Atheists and church people have misused this concept to come to certain ends that may mislead. But my point here is clear…to survive in a harsh world one dose not NEED MORALS to do so, as the lives of many a tyrant has attested too! Any individual organism which succeeds in reproducing itself is “fit” and will contribute to survival of its species, not just the “physically fittest” ones, though some of the population will be better adapted to the circumstances than others. A more accurate characterization of evolution would be “survival of the fit enough.”

if-its-not-here-refuse-itThe problem is still evident though, MORALS do not promote “Fitness” by evolutionary standards OR FROM POLITICAL ONES as they are from an “internal guidance of soul” which rely on personal up-bringing and experiences of life not supported by a godless natural theory which says the fittest of nature survives REGARDLESS OF MORALS! (I.E. Lions do not have remorse from guilt over killing a human being as humans may over killing a Lion….why is that? Morals are only viable when combined with a guide that is infallible and wholly perfect Why would man require “moral walls” that no other creature has to survive? Don’t Morals just MUDDY the waters of life, making it harder to transverse daily life? It is INSTINCT that guides all animals except Man…WHY? Would not morals give the advantage to every animal over man if there is NO GOD to direct this internal COMPASS? This is the main difference between the TRUE Christian and the world, the world gets guidance from within its own flawed experiences and the Christian from GODS WORD directly….thus we conform to a system of belief consistent with real survival of the fittest because our guide sees the end from the beginning.

Moral relativism is the philosophical theory that morality is relative, that different moral truths hold for different people. It comes in two forms: ethical subjectivity and cultural relativism.

The whole point here is to say this: Morals have no working purpose in Evolution whatsoever BUT within the framework the Christian Biblical ethics THAT IF FOLLOWED TO THE LETTER its purpose is obvious- to make man BETTER, THE EXACT SAME THING THAT EVOLUTION IS SUPPOSED TO DO OVER MILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF YEARS. This is pure evidence that the Bible can do what natural selection can’t do- MAKE MAN-KIND BETTER!

Ethical subjectivity holds that morality is relative to individuals; cultural relativism holds that it is relative to culture. Both deny the existence of moral absolutes (I.E. The Bible), of objective moral truths that hold for all people in all places at all times.

thetruth
According to moral relativism, it makes no sense to ask the abstract question whether a given act is good or bad (This seems to be how Washington operates!).
According to moral relativism, there is no goodness or badness in the abstract; there is only goodness or badness within a specified context. An act may thus be good for one person but bad for another, or good in one cultural setting but bad in another, but cannot be either good or bad in full.an-garbage_can_smelly_lg_wht1
If this definition does not smell of Washington today and the past 100 years or so I don’t know what does!

Rom 2:14-15
” For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)” What is the “work of the Law written in their hearts” it is this That Gods laws are there FROM BIRTH in every person ever born BUT the law must be directed by the internal force of the spirit of man within! God sends direction to all men everywhere BUT that direction is sometimes masked by circumstances of life and the direct interventions of the Devils minions. The point is that God’s Laws have always been ingrained into mankind and when followed to the spiritual letter CHANGE COMES!


Rom 1:18-32 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 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:
21 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.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”