"I asked dsc in my post 151 above for a list of discretionary spending items with associated morality limits and judging requirements imposed by God."
Which, of course, was a dishonest thing to do.
"All we know so far is that paying big bucks for a pet's prosthesis is immoral, for a luxury car it's somewhat iffy, for a Rolex it's moral."
Did you really misunderstand everything so badly, or are you still being dishonest?
"Next year I'm probably going to spend close to $50K to re-landscape our backyard."
Aha, a bit of disclosure. Mr. SF Non-conservative is not a disinterested party. Now his slurs and refusal to face the issue are a little more comprehensible. Not justified, just comprehensible.
"I've got to know whether that's moral or whether I'm required to send the money to St. Jude's instead."
If you were discussing the issue rationally instead of spitting venom in all directions like some benzedrene puff adder, a person might point out that in spending this money you are increasing the value of your property and employing other people. He could also say that the amount you already contribute to charity should bear on your decision. He could wonder whether you've prayed about it, and whether you've done a careful examination of your conscience.
Yes, in the course of a rational discussion a person could bring up and consider all kinds of things.
More likely, though, we'll just see you externalize your own uncertainties in the form of attacks on those who are saying unsettling things.
What a nutjob. G'bye!