Jump to content


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


Obama Approval Rating -- By Religion

Recommended Posts

I understand why they did separate the issues like that but you actually inferred as to why they should NOT be separate issues.  According to the scriptures, money is just as moral an issue as everything else (Luke 16:9-13).


Thus the economy of God is a spiritual representation of what the temporal ecomony of man should be.  In the economy of God, the plan of salvation allows men to choose freely and whatsoever good or evil is done is NOT the responsibility of the plan of salvation, but that of man.  So likewise, man's economic systems should be, as the scripture and doctrine imply or even explicitly state, free in that it's not the system that forces good or evil (in that case there is no morality) but that it allows man to be good or evil as he chooses and to suffere the consequneces thereof.  Hence any type of communalism is against God's moral economic law.  Anything that seeks to eliminate "surplus value" (Karl Marx) is against God's moral economic law.


So if one separates money from morality, one is still preaching immorality; an incomplete doctrine that is absent of charity and compassion.


This moral connection with money and God's economic law is well illustrated here:



Pure rubbish. It is the love of money that is the root of all evil.


The economy of God for us in mortality is for there to be no rich or poor among us. That all things are held in common.


Money itself is amoral. It is the uses it is put to that determines our morality.



Share this post

Link to post

It is a tough choice. I believe God has demostrated via the Fall of Adam that He values freedom and agency more than life and indeed we see that life is often required to maintain those things.  However, I think you're probably referring to abortion.  Fortunately those opposed to abortion on demand are usually the ones also on God's economic side as well.


I do strongly disagree with the Catholic stance on capital punishment.  Murder removes ones agency and since agency is valued above life by God, capital punishment is required in those cases as commanded by Genesis 9:6. Notice that this is before the law of Moses so it's fulfillment by Christ doesn't do away with it.  Notice also that the Gospel law is tougher than the law of Moses.  Under the Gospel law of Christ, to even be angry with another is a dangerous sin.


BC, I think you have misapprehended, understandably in our sad times, the Catholic stance.


The Catholic stance on capital punishment? I am aware that the Contemporary Church is out of sync with eternal Rome and Tradition. John Paul II taught that because modern ways of holding prisoners makes society safe, that capital punishment is no longer necessary as it once was. On a side note, there is currently a very uplifting article in the diocesan paper, The Sentinel, about a man on death row in the state of Oregon, who repenting of his crimes, asked for the sacrament of Confirmation and the Archbishop of Portland conferred the Sacrament in the man's cell. The fear of a just death has been a mercy for a man's soul on more than one occasion. Anyway, John Paul's novel argument cannot be construed as to deny the state the right and obligation to take life when life has been taken. Even John Paul's new catechism, which is often less than firm in upholding the truth for the correct reasons, admits in #2266: "...the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty."


I have heard that subsequent additions of the catechism have edited this passage out. Nevertheless, they can't take back what they admitted as "the traditional teaching of the church". So what is the "Catholic stance"? Is it what a current pope believes, or is it what the Church taught consistently for almost 2,000 years? These modern popes think they can change what the church teaches. Maybe, but they can't change what the Church taught, and that is where authority lies.



Share this post

Link to post

As mortal humans it is inescapable. It is not a matter of being deceived. They really were products of their time. Just as we are of ours. We have to remember that they were not rebelling against English law. They were a product of it. What they were rebelling against was being British subjects and not having a say in their government. "No Taxation Without Representation" was their call to self governance. I think their biggest achievement was the separation of Church and State. The "We the People" decide and not the "Divine Right of Kings" to rule. I think she would be pleased. The nation she and her husband helped to birth is now  238 years old. We've survived another British invasion, a blood soaked Civil War, and two existential threats in the 20th Century. Women, city dwellers, minorities, and now 18 year old's have the franchise. She'd be less pleased with some of our more egregious errors and our declining sense of public morality.


Hi tss.


I am not a product of their times. Yet I am against universal suffrage, based on the same misgivings that the Founding Fathers had about expanding the franchise, and with the hindsight that they lacked. The only reason politicians have to spend millions of dollars to be elected is to bait the votes of those from whom the franchise should be withheld. Electioneering will always be absurd so long as those who care little about politics are encouraged to vote. I do not wish you to think this reason is exhaustive or even primary to why the franchise should be limited. But it is a rather vivid illustration of where an unfounded confidence in the reflective habits of an irresponsible citizenry lead.    

Share this post

Link to post
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...