Define morals.......
Posted By: sm on 2009-02-06
In Reply to: Astonished - shelly
Your definition might not match mine.......That's why God gave us free will.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Like I said.......this man has no morals.....
@@
Then there would be no morals
Just a lot of contradicting dictators with their own ego agenda.
Your morals are not everyone's morals.
What is so hard to understand about that? You think that everyone should behave exactly the way you want them to behave, believe whatever you want them to believe, and act however you want them to act. The last time I checked, this was still a free country. Stop trying to impose your beliefs on others.
No morals is what's going
in our country. Drugs, same-sex "marriage," abortion, taking God out of every conversation. When drug use is commonplace, when people of the same sex demand "marriage" and affirmation, when you are allowed to dispose of your unborn children, when using God's name is illegal, what do you expect? To many people, children are dispensable at any age.
I definitely don't base it JUST on morals
I guess I should have been more elaborate on that. And you are completely right, most presidents change their tune after they get into the white house. I feel like we are almost gambling when we vote, who will change less?
Honestly, if we could take the candidates and even the VPs and just mush them into one candidate, I think we would be flying pretty high.
I think my biggest fear right now is that myself and a lot of people I know are one step from losing our homes and standing in the breadline. I Get upset that my husband and I both work extremely hard to keep what we have (which isn't much) but that we can't seem to get any assistance whatsoever. Yet someone can have seven kids and never work a day in her life and be taken care of. Do I think this will change? No. I feel like the middle class in the economy is a lot like "the middle child" in a family - often forgotten about, but expected to behave anyways.
On religion, check out my reply to Kaydie. I've written a short summary of a part of the book I mentioned to her in response to you saying that Jesus was a highly evolved human being (I used to believe the same thing)
Josh Mcdowell puts it like this: either Jesus was a liar, a lunatic, or Lord.
If he spent his life telling everyone that he was the Son of God and getting people to believe and follow him and he knew that he wasn't, then he was a liar. But the question poses, can someone that evil hearted (remember a lot of his disciples left there homes, family, jobs, etc to follow Him and were even killed defending His name) never do wrong? See I believe that there were enough people that hated Jesus that after he died if someone tried to talk about how great he was they would have been writing about ANYTHING wrong he did if they knew that he did. We would have heard about it.
Lunatic - If he did all this not knowing that he was being deceptive, and he really believed that he was the Son of God, then he had to be crazy. But this is crazy to the tenth power. Most lunatics who believe they are something else believe they are something tangible, such as a dog or a butterfly or another human. To believe that your the Son of God (remember, there was no Son of God in history before him, so it's not like it was a term thrown around or an unoriginal idea) is very unlikely. Not to mention how eloquent of a speaker Jesus was and how he was so easily able to explain things.
Lord - If Jesus was neither a liar or a lunatic, then he must be who he says he is - Lord, the Son of God. And since the Son of God cannot sin, he cannot lie, which means when he says "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father EXCEPT by me" then he must not be lying.
Josh Mcdowell explains this a lot better than I can (that's why he's a PhD and I'm an MT! :-D ) but in case you never get to check out his book, I just wanted to give a recap. It helped me make my decision that he is Lord, because for a long time I wanted to believe that he was just "a great man" or "a great teacher" but I feel now that it was so rude of me to say that of someone who personally died for me.
Just my ideas! Thanks for giving me yours! It's nice to be able to talk back and forth about this without anyone getting upset! :-D
My morals are my business.
I am not interested in discussing my morals, especially with people who are trying to shove their morals and their religion down my throat. That's the whole point of my post. Keep your moral and religious beliefs to yourself!
On that morals and values question...
May I point out one way that Emanuel is most definitely NOT left wing liberal. On the issue of Israel, he is more to the right than even Bush is. To be honest, the idea of his being Chief of Staff to Obama is concerning for me in THAT regard. However, that post is a very broad one and I do not pretend to know precisely what Obama's motivations may be for considering him. What I do know is that Emanuel is only one voice in many that Obama will be listening to. I have not heard that Emanuel has accepted the position but I know that he has expressed his passion for the legislative branch, has his eye on the Speaker's position and has personal considerations of being the father of small children. This is in the wait and see mode. I feel I do not have enough information on him yet and am trying not to focus on what I consider to be a strong negative about him.
In terms of your fear, I will gently suggest to you that you might try broadening your base of information sources beyond O'Reilly, if you haven't already done that. It is not surprising that Bill O's guests are calling Obama a puppet. I hear none of that anywhere else but Fox. As difficult as it may be, a good dose of balance AND extreme viewpoints may be helpful in this respect. I hold my nose quite often and listen to Rush Limbaugh (ugh), Bill O and Hannity, though I confess I have a pretty low tolerance to them. I also tune into Lou Dobbs, Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, Cafferty, Joe Scarborough (not terribly fond of him either), Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzalez, Naomi Klein and innumerable independent journalists. I find that approach very effective in soothing the fear factor and to be much more engaging.
You may be right to a certain extent about the morals and values. We are not living in the same world and our nations best interests will not be best served if we try to pretend we are. That is what the dynamics of change is all about. As a species, human beings have survived BECAUSE of their capacity to adapt to change. The internet and free trade act has transformed our country into a vital component of a global economic and cultural system. We must now take on the task of defining what role we want to assume within that context. The diversity of our nation's culture can remain a point of contention and division, or it can become a new source of our strength and pride. This choice is ours to make and I believe this election has been a mandate on where the younger generations stand on this issue. After all, they are the ones who have grown up in the midst of these population dynamics.
In this respect, it seems that our most basic and cherished values and beliefs do manage to endure as a nation, and what does not can always be elaborated in how we lives our personal lives. In the past, as a country we have managed to survive quite well during "liberal years." However, that is not what I believe is in store for us now. Whatever tectonic shifts we have undergone in the past (and we have had our share), never once have we been able to negotiate them against a backdrop of a house divided, as gourdpainter pointed out earlier. We unite, we rise to the occasion and we get past it.
I think part of our peek into the future will inevitably require us to place much more focus on new energies and phase out our dependence and relentless and, at times, fatal search for fossil fuel resources. I cannot think of a better way to diffuse the power that those "not so friendly nations" hold over us now. Jobs do not necessarily have to come from the oil patch and there are alternatives to trying to drill our way out of these problems as T. Bone Pickens so eloquently reminded us recently. Any new jobs creation will have that domino effect you describe.
Obama hardly is a one-issue candidate (tax) the way Bill O would have you believe. I will not spend my time trying to promote the president-elect, except to say you may find some comfort in at least reading his Blueprint for Change, whether you trust him to carry it out or not. He has put this is writing and no doubt the media and the electorate will be holding his feet to the fire with those words and promises. So it looks like we are back to wait and see again.
BTW, a good antidote to fear is hope and faith....and that does not necessarily mean Obama style hope. Being hopeful and drawing strength from faith is also a very personal choice one makes in life. It is not that hard to talk yourself into a more positive attitude. Just talk the talk and walk the walk and pretty soon, it becomes second nature.
yeah well America's morals have changed
interracial marriages used to be illegal. One day we ill look upon the ban against gay marriage to be as rediculous of a notion as not allowing blacks to go to school with whites. The times, they are a changin!
Can someone please define *liberal* for me, please?....(sm)
I have asked this question before and did not get any answers, thought I would try again. On another board I got slammed for saying Obama was a liberal. Okay, if he is not, why isn't he? I don't want a dictionary definition, I would like to know, you who post here, how do you define liberal? How do you define yourselves, your political leaning...I am NOT trying to pick a fight, and I will not comment on the answers. I would really, really like to know, and what better place to find out than the liberal board?
Define Liberal
American Heritage Dictionary:
lib·er·al (lĭb'ər-əl, lĭb'rəl) Pronunciation Key
adj.
1. #
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
5. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
6. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
7. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
8. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.
n.
1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.
Define Liberal
That's about it, actually. That would be me. I can echo liberal democrat's sentiments too other than the democrat part. In my opinion only, "Leftist" is a term applied to people who do not agree with all conservative views, and is applied by conservatives. I would consider some of my views conservative, such as my own views on illegal immigration and fiscal responsibility, yet I have been called a leftist. Go figure.... They seem to think it is an insult I suppose.
Define Democrat, please.
Many democrats absolutely despite Fox News and all of its programs. Slanted, biased, misleading and at times, bald-face liars. They NEVER reports on isues important to democrats. NEVER.
So one more time...please define
Bush's policies for which he should not be blamed.
Apparently you do define yourself that way.
By your own description, sex is determined by gender. Therefore, by your definition, describing yourself as female describes your sex life. So quit talking about your sex life with us. We don't want to hear it, and, if your postings are any indication, it's either really really boring or, more likely, probably kinkier than I could stomach.
YES, I most certainly would if it meant sacrificing my morals, my soul, hurting.....sm
other people everywhere, and basically being a cut-throat sleeze. I would love if I could get rich honestly, with integrity. I would love to provide the best educations for my children, give to charities, pay off my two sisters' mortgages for them, etc., but it is NOT going to happen, so it is a moot point. A person can be "rich and prosperous" without a large bank account, I feel I am rich indeed for my blessings.
Define change, please. Both sides.
nm
Please define the "change" you expected
Did you expect complete newcomers to Washington to take top cabinet posts at a time when the country is imploding? Is change about the people who lead or the rules they play by? Doesn't NEW POLICY count for anything? In terms of the economy, do you want experiments or experience? Remember the economy under Clinton years as opposed to W? It is a cabinet, not a regime. Please read the OP about where Obama is supposed to look for appointees and then share your ideas with us, if you don't mind.
Could you please define "rub burn" so that
we can get to the substance of your comment?
Could you please define "rub burn" so that
we can get to the insightful substance of your comment?
you wanna go there? Define protect
We arbitrarily attacked a country that had no solid links to the attack. That has been proven. To say it was not known then is not an arguable point because it was not known then, so again, we attacked a country without probable cause.
Since our current President has been in power, no attacks have occurred. The only attack on US soil since WW II (by a known attacker, the Japanese) has been under the power of George W. Bush, and according to you, he would be the least strongest president in the present day.
To 'protect' does not translate into an aggressive attack, especially if the attacker is not a known entity.
Interesting....and I suppose Obama will define
xx
|
