Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
NOTE, the words or term “loose Salvation” are not in the bible, in fact there is nothing using the word “loose” associated with salvation.
1 Cor 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
V-14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
V-15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Please read verse 15 again. “but he himself shall be saved; yet by fire.
Our works that were of the law, and of vanity, and for glorifying ourself, will be burnt as chaff, and we’ll loose those rewards, but it has nothing to do with loosing our salvation, because as Paul said, “
Please explain what this means to you.
JH :-) G-nite all
Please don't malign the pharisees. "Hypocrite" would work just fine in this context.
Sorry Doug. Must of touched a nerve. I've always judged Catholic practices corporately and not individually. You should know that.
Reading this exchange, I can't help but think of the parable of the talents. I certainly don't see Jesus condemning the making of a profit (which can only come through risking capital).
No it wouldn't. Not the same thing. Although you'd probably be surprised to find out how many vendors you frequent that give to orgainizations such as Planned Parenthood.
The $50 you spend on dinner helps support the incomes of the server, the chef, assistant chefs, the guy washing the dishes, etc. If everyone stopped eating at fine restaurants, these people would be unemployed.
There you go assuming everyone who "casts lots" has a problem. I think you should be critical and make a judgement on those who are compulsive and destroy their own lives and the lives of people around them by gambling. Same as drinking alcohol is not a sin unless its "excess".
I can't imagine why.
That's between him and the Lord but, sadly, he is guilty of not abstaining from the appearance of evil.
How is that? Gambling with money that you can not afford to lose is wrong. Gambling addiction is wrong. I'm not buying that gambling, in and of itself, is giving the appearance of evil. Does everyone who has a drink giving the appearance of evil? If I go to Krispy Kreme am I giving the appearance of evil to some glutton?
SD
Most people who gamble know full well that their money is to be lost. It is a form of entertainment. There is always the possibility of a significant winfall, but it is as remote as to be practically non-existent.
You could take your vacation money, and spend, say $500 to go to Florida and lay on a beach. (That's sloth, by the way.) Or you can spend $200 to go to Vegas (travel expenses are far less) and risk $300 while you are there. At the end of the day, in both cases you have merely purchased a vacation.
SD
Good questions. I was talking about smaller context as it pertains to what we traditionally think of as gambling for money.
Well, let's not limit our scope here. The doctor here, motivated by a desire to reduce as much as possible his outflow, has renegotiated his mortgage. He does this out of a desire to either steward his resources to a maximum efficiency or because he is greedy. It's all in the perspective.
I think that there are many things "wrong" with the way our society operates but are tolerated by God because he realizes we live in secular societies that are not physically ruled by him today. For example charging interest on loans is clearly against biblical principles and won't be part of God's future kingdom on earth. In the same way financial transactions (and possibly money itself) that involve risk taking are not neccassarily "right" but are tolerated. In a world physically governed by Christ there will be no need to take any kind of finanicial risk...it's an example of man doing his own thing.
Well, presumably in God's Kingdom we won't have inflation, either. Or opportunity costs. Both justify moderate interest rates.
You are correct that there will be no type of risk in the Kingdom. But that does little for us here. We must live in and consider the world as it is.
In the case of casino and organized gambling though it's an entirely different story. You have an entire industry built upon greed and lust...the lure of getting something for nothing. Acquiring wealth for the sole purpose of acquiring wealth. I see a difference.
Wealth, once acquired can do any number of things, both good and bad. I don't think anyone acquires wealth just for its own sake. Casino winnings can go to prostitues or it can go to a charity. Or it can be put into the economy in a more useful way, like paying for a contractor to put a new roof on your house.
The money is not tainted cause it passed through a casino first.
You seem to be making the case that unless a sin is out of control it's not a sin. For example, if I shoplift something once from a store it's not a sin, but if I do it habitually it is?
Shoplifting is always a sin. You have not made the case that every wager is by its nature a sin. When one needs to win because she is playing with the grocery money, one has gone beyond control. If one is playing with legitimate entertainment money, it is perhaps not the wisest choice, but I dont' see it an any more sinful than the above-mentioned leisure activities.
SD
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party? ;-)
Not all economic growth is a result of "greed." Unless you define "greed" as trying to maximize the benefit to yourself and those you love.
People start businesses and employ those in the community. While there is always a "profit motive" in capitalism, I can not as easily as you, characterize this as "greed."
Employees work to maximize their take-home pay. Sometimes people even switch jobs for a higher salary. Is that all evidence of "greed?"
And Jesus would never have had to taken a financial risk, he knew that the father would provide what he needed. Suppose the disciples took some money and decided to gamble some of it away in the hopes that they could gain more? Would Jesus have condoned that? Suppose they had invested their money in an attempt to make a good return...would Jesus have accepted that?
Malachi hit it on the head. The servant who, out of fear, buried his talent got reprimanded. One is expected to grow his talents.
(Furthermore, one might note, that gambling plays a part in the New Testament, in selecting the replacement apostle for Judas. )
SD
On second thought I think you're correct. My comments were more geared toward Bennett being high profile in public and perhaps the "abstaining from appearance of evil" should have been more incumbent up on him. I should have made that clear.
Its not often I disagree with you, Dave. But I've got to go with Stephen on this one. Certainly, buying the occasional lottery ticket, having the occasional glass of wine, or eating the occasional donut is not in and of itself sinful. The question becomes, then, does engaging in these acts lead to an appearance of evil, does it create the circumstance in which another may fall thus making it an action against which St. Paul preached. To a certain extent, the answer is virtually always, "yes" in that even if the action is observable by only one person, it could have a negative effect on that one person.
However, some sense of balance is called for, here. For to avoid every action which may lead another to fall could lead to heresy: the notion that everything in the material world is evil or capable of producint the appearance of evil, e.g. the glass of wine, the donut, the lottery ticket. It seems to me two factors must be considered to determine whether engaging in such acts offer the 'appearance of evil.' First, the 'magnitude,' for lack of a better word, of the act -the extent to which we are engaged in it. And second, our own awareness of the effect our engagement in the act may have on others.
Let's take your Krispy Kreme donut example. I think we can all agree that were an individual to be hitting KK, say, five times a day, then that would indicate to others aware of the activity an appearance of evil. Further, doing so would indicate an intrinsic lust or greed for gluttony evil in itself. Even if the effect on those aware of the activity in no way led to temptation on their part, it would still diminish the individual in their eyes and, thus, at least weaken the testimony that individual could offer on behalf of the Gospel.
Similarly, if an individual were to visit KK even once a week, if he is aware of another struggling with gluttony he is tempting another to fall and, thus, acting wrongly.
Bennet's case seeems problamatic for two reasons. First, because even if he can afford to lose the money, it seems his gambling is excessive which, in turn, calls into question his qualifications to speak specifically on the subject of virtue. Already, one can see the self-satisfied smugness of the Left as it bashes Bennett for this fault, using it as a means to call into question everything he's said on the subject. Second, given his national audience and prominence, it seems very likily those who can't afford to gamble may get the impressions its "o.k." to gamble and will thus engage in harmful activity.
Thus, in the case of Bennett's gambling, I would say the excessiveness should be of concern to his confessor for the sake of Bennett's own soul, while the 'appearance of evil' it offers could negatively affect others.
And just when I agree with you. -) Though I think we're hitting the same point, here. Bennett has been gifted with great intelligence and a national audience, 'to whom much has been given, much is expected.'
Wow...talk about ethical dilemmas.
Lol, I can just hear some representative from the Vatican, reading a 60 page study on why it's alright for the RC Church to accept winnings from casino gamblers. Lol
What a crowd. I only have one question for y'all. Would you begrudge the Church if it took an equal amount of money from the proceeds of the man's life insurance?
SD
That is true, an I had not considered such. Especailly if one is going to position himself as a "virtue-crat." He's definitely got to try harder.
I also think there's a point where, no matter your income, spending huge sums of money on gambling is subtracting from better uses of the money. Maybe winning $1000 won't excite a man making a million a year. If that's the case, you might need a reality check.
SD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.