the Bible is quite objective when it comes to dealing with morality. first of all, of course, there are the ten commandments. then, Moses presented the Israelites with lesser laws, or statutes, that go into great detail on how the Israelites were to treat each other. the Torah (1st five books) go into great detail on these things. proverbs, as well, goes into great detail on wisdom and what is foolishness. then, in the New Testament Jesus spends much time dealing with the sins of people, as do the apostles throughout the rest of the book. no, the Bible is very clear on things that are considered good and evil. perhaps you can provide an example to go by.
your retort only solidified my argument. the fact that the only news source that supports the GOP is Fox, does not negate the fact that Fox is biased toward Republicans. I believe you are an intelligent person, but I also believe that partisanship makes fools of intelligent people. it is a matter of you wanting to reinforce your partisan beliefs. p.s. I really don't care about my scores, or my comments being zeroed out. I speak my opinion fearlessly. I, in turn have no problem zeroing out your comments as well. :-)
then maybe you should have been more specific and clarify that in your argument. who is to blame, when the topic is not properly presented?:-)
outside influences can only affect our decisions. the notion that we are not responsible for what we do is absurd. in that case, take out every child molester from prison who was raped themselves and erase their record. they were only acting as outside influences shaped them, right?
I believe you may also be asking me about culturally following liberal or conservative paths. should he hold on to traditionalism, a conservative view, or advance as a society, a liberal view. I say both. they say one or the other. I have a feeling, though, that the powers that be will continue to push us into globalization, whether we like it or not. if you are a Bible believing man, sir, even the Bible supports this theory as in the last days the world will fall under one government, one state religion and one power. even if you are not, the U.N. already has a map set out for the world to be divided into 10 regions. it is inevitable.
other than that, what type of liberalism are you talking about? classical liberalism or social liberalism? what type of conservatism? liberal, conservative liberalism, libertarian, fiscal conservatism, national/traditional, cultural/social, religious or progressive conservatism?
we would have to further define what is conservative and what is liberal, I suppose. if you mean economically, I propose both. the last time both parties really negotiated on economics was during the term of Bill Clinton. he had a Republican Congress, and they worked together to find a solution. the result: the best US economy we have had in the last20 years. we actually were reducing the deficit and even had surplus. the last two presidents we have had have done no such thing.
it is the same with any business. how much, do you suppose, a cashier at McDonalds makes compared to the owner of the store? a pittance? how much do you suppose a Wal-Mart associate is making in comparison to the Walton family? or even the store manager? isn't that simple nature of economics
if I had to pick, I would say both contribute. not to mention personal experiences and relationships have a great deal to do with what influences people's decisions and opinions....even in a debate. :-)
both sides are hypocritical. republicans and democrats tell their followers what they want to hear, and from a perspective that makes them seem like the good guys. meanwhile, both sides are wheeling and dealing to bring the swing voters ( such as myself) onto their side. it's all about the votes. it's all about the money. the power. the prestige.
Clinton didn't rape Monica Lewinsky, nor was he accused of that. she was performing sexual favors for him. if you are accusing liberals of being bias, you are displaying your own bias as well
