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 |
(SD) Reggie corrects my statement again. Of course I meant that suffering may help to sanctify us, depending on our own attitude. Suffering turns some in to saints, and others into, ironically, insufferable people.
(Reg) Learn to say what you mean. Your "open ended" pronouncements leave too much for later "modification".
(SD) Learn to read what I say, instead of giving me the inquisition all the time.
GO BOTHER SOMEONE ELSE
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Am I in a dream world? Did I or did I not use, repeat and document that I was using the exact definition Doug Dave used?
Why can no one admit this? Is it that difficult to see? I guess I'm cursed to be the only one who understands the difference between meeting the requirements and following through to the conclusion.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gosh. Different rules for different folks.
Spare me your analysis. Doug seems to be arguing that desiring money for your heirs is not coveting, so there can be no sin attached to such activity.
So I concoct a hypothetical where money is obtained for the heirs, but the person has to die first. The question is whether this fits his definition of "coveting" or not.
The question of how life insurance is "gambling" was covered in depth several times over the last few days. Suffice it to say that it is not the certainty of "death" that is being gambled over, but its timing in regards to other more lucrative investments the premium money could be used for.
SD
Nobody should be spared urinalysis. :-)
Praise His Holy Name.
chuck <truth@YeshuaHaMashiach>
All investments are gambling.
SD
It's not a "category mistake" when you don't even understand the point I am making. Try to liten and learn a bit first.
SD
Well, there's someone here that does a good frank burns imitation. LOL
How do you define "Christian capitalism"?
I'd point out that we presently are a loooooooong way from "laissez faire capitalism".
Doug is right. Proverbs even says so.
You seem to be confused. Perhaps you should go back and read my posts again.
My contention is that not all attempt to gather in more money, whether for yourself or for your family, are sinful.
Doug has said that all "gambling" for money is sinful, unless it is not for yourself, only your heirs.
I think this is silly, cause in gathering things for your heirs, you are still satisfying your own self.
But the main point is that my position is that not all games of chance, not all wagers or bets are sinful in and of themselves. And this is seen by the difficulty in seperating the chance and risk of loss inherent in any endeavour from that in what is traditionally thought of as "gambling."
If Doug's position that all "gambling" is wrong is to be consistent, then investment in the stock market would be wrong as well. Every type of capitalistic attempt to grow one's money would be wrong.
I don't think he means that.
SD
We can do it right here. Suits the whole "heresy lovefest" motif.
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.