Gambling: what are your thoughts?

[MarvelousMarvin]

Pastor John Whitten is right – we need to differentiate between gambling and gaming.

We also need to differentiate between gambling and business. There is a very fundamental difference:

• Gambling is an attempt to redistribute existing wealth.

• Business is an attempt to create new wealth.

(Keep in mind this is talking about the so-called gambling "industry," NOT friends playing poker for toothpicks. But also keep in mind that for some people, playing poker for toothpicks might be the first step on the proverbial slippery slope. Don't cause your brother to stumble!)

Gambling usually redistributes wealth in favor of those who have some connection to organized crime. (Check out the ownership of most casinos and other types of gambling establishments.) When one person gains wealth through gambling, someone else loses wealth. Every time! Gambling is based on greed. In fact, were it not for greed, the gambling "industry" would disappear.

Business is sometimes based on greed - but if, instead, a businessman operates his business based on principles found in the Bible, he can gain wealth without diminishing anyone else's. Not only that, he will actually increase the wealth of others in the process of gaining newly-created wealth for himself. (Example: the baker buys flour from the miller; the miller buys wheat from the farmer; the farmer plants, cultivates, and harvests a wheat crop that is blessed by the Lord. Even if he is an atheist!)

Sometimes, there can be a fuzzy line between what is business and what is gambling. But we have the Holy Spirit to guide us. (You ARE a born-again Christian¿) (Thanks, Tlaloc, for the info about the "¿")

Gambling as entertainment? Give me a break! Don't try to tell me that greed is not there, that it's just "entertainment" for you. Were it not for the extremely thin possibility of "winning" more than you lose, you would look for other forms of entertainment!

Personally, I find it much more entertaining to donate a measly $20 and know that an 8-year-old boy in an orphanage in Juarez, Mexico, got his first-ever Christmas present (a soccer ball and some candy, plus a Bible in his own language), than to stand in front of the one-armed bandit, mesmerized by the whirling wheels and flashing lights while feeding a measly $20 worth of quarters into it. I have done both.

I find it much more entertaining to donate $300 to Wings of Eagles, knowing that my gift will help an elderly Jewish couple immigrate from the Ukraine to Israel, than to watch a bunch of the wampum our Father has entrusted to my stewardship disappear to the dealer in a blackjack game. I have done both.

And last night, my wife and I found it much more edifying to eat the beans which had been cooking in the crockpot all day and then watch the first of Professor Luck's three videos from the New Year's Weekend Retreat, than to spent $20 - $50 on dinner and a movie. While watching Professor Luck, we both learned something about Biblical marriage - but we did not hear one word of profanity, vulgarity, or swearing; we did not see any actors portraying people committing adultery; we did not get our heads filled with a bunch of violence; we did not hear Christianity being disparaged, which seems to be the standard fare for Hollywood garbage these days.

(Due to the beans, the evening was a real gas... )

We will watch the other two videos on future "date" nights.

Bottom line: What Would Jesus Do? I want to be just like Him.

 

[sweetlissa]

Romantic Rebel Wrote

I wanted to share my fun night that I had. I'm curious as to what you guys think of gambling. Do you enjoy to gamble your money, do you view as a sin or an addiction, or what?

Clearly, we know what most of the BF board thinks about Gambling. I agree that it isn't the wisest way to spend our time, but the reality is that it (in and of itself) is not a sin.

Obviously this topic has hit a nerve of sorts, but just because something offends you doesn't mean it is wrong for someone else.

Stumbling Block is something which causes us to er or stray from the truth. How does a person gambling cause someone else to sin.

The same things can be said about drinking a glass of wine or having a second wife.

SweetLissa

 

[The Duke Of Marshall]

K, so I know it's kinda late in the topic, but I just wanted to throw my own two cents in here. But not as a bet. lol, jk

Many things are called diseases and wrong nowadays. Anything from alcoholism to gambling to drug addiction to gluttony and so on and so forth. I'm not a doctor or a scientist, but for the life of me I can't see how these things are diseases or a problem. Drug addiction is not a problem. Alcoholism is not a problem. Gluttony is not a problem. The problem is self discipline. When people have a weak or non-existent self discipline then that is the disease. Alcoholism, gluttony, drug addiction, homosexuality, etc are all just symptoms. It's the person that's the problem. Not the resulting symptom. Once the person grows and gets stronger then the symptoms will follow suit in their cure. Unfortunately we as humans have to have things spelled out for us. That's why the specific sins are spelled out in the Scriptures. But they all have the same connection: self discipline. With the discipline to control ourselves we would be able to make the decision to obey the commands. Without discipline we make the decision to not obey the commands which is sin.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Personally, I find it much more entertaining to donate a measly $20 and know that an 8-year-old boy in an orphanage in Juarez, Mexico, got his first-ever Christmas present (a soccer ball and some candy, plus a Bible in his own language), than to stand in front of the one-armed bandit, mesmerized by the whirling wheels and flashing lights while feeding a measly $20 worth of quarters into it. I have done both.

I find it much more entertaining to donate $300 to Wings of Eagles, knowing that my gift will help an elderly Jewish couple immigrate from the Ukraine to Israel, than to watch a bunch of the wampum our Father has entrusted to my stewardship disappear to the dealer in a blackjack game. I have done both.

Amen Dr. George.

That does seem to really be the key, stewardship.

Todd, I think you are absolutely right! Self-discipline is a fruit of the Spirit. Most all sins, and maybe even many theological errors, arise from a heart problem (a character problem where sin rules).

 

[Tlaloc]

Commerce is an attempt to redistribute existing wealth.

Industry is an attempt to create new wealth.

Both are a form of business. All commerce only redistributes existing wealth (and typically takes a share). These are the fundamental sectors of our economy, and re-distributing existing wealth is not wrong. It Is Business. A farmer grows flax, a weaver makes linen, a merchant makes creates nothing but still is valuable in facilitating a sale.

There isn't a fuzzy line between business and gambling, the concepts overlap. This conversation could not go on if the anti-gambling crowed created a cohesive definition of gambling and stuck too it. It is either 'games of chance' which is kind of hopeless to attack, or 'risk for gain' which is similarly hopeless. And if you combine the concepts, you still are foolish to unilaterally condemn it. Not every bet is a bad one, if you get called for a game show (minimal risk, extremely high reward potential) will you walk away because you oppose gambling? If you do thats foolishness and bad stewardship. If you draw boardwalk and parkplace in McDonald's monopoly will you throw it out¿ Its foolishness if you would.

No, if your opposition is about stewardship bad bets are bad bets no matter what form they come in, even if it is a bad business venture.

Here, on this forum, I should not find people arguing along the lines of 'it is related to such and such an evil so its wrong' nor 'well it always means a heart issue'.

But no, someone wants to share a good time they had with a community, and this is the response he gets.

Gambling as entertainment? Give me a break! Don't try to tell me that greed is not there, that it's just "entertainment" for you. Were it not for the extremely thin possibility of "winning" more than you lose, you would look for other forms of entertainment!

Polygamy for family? Give me a break! Don't try to tell me lust is not there, that its just 'building a family' for you. Where it not for the possibility of 'winning' more sex, you'd look for other ways to build a family.

Yeah, everyone here should know better than to talk like that, and thankfully it seems most do.

 

[Scarecrow]

Maybe the elusive line in the sand could be somewhere around necessary and unnecessary risk...gambling is an unnecessary risk while the farmer has to take the risk of planting the seed or he will not have a harvest - the business man has to take calculated risks to stay in business. Again, I think a lot of the differences of opinion have to do with where people put that imaginary line.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Muslims supposedly are not allowed to gamble according to what they tell me.

But I am not a Muslim.

If you pretend it is simple I am generally against gambling, but it is not simple because it depends on how you define gambling

From an oversimplified perspective I am generally against gambling because either way someone loses money, if it is better that the winner or loser gets the money then there is no need to roll dice or whatever and you can just give the money, or take money that someone offered to give you. There are also other problems that can come with gambling such as worldliness, covetousness, etc.

That being said it is much more complicated than that Insurance can be viewed as gambling, in the Bible God had people cast lots which may appear to be gambling but was ordered by God and so on and so forth.

Casting the lot settles disputes
and keeps strong opponents apart.
Proverbs 18:18 NIV 2010

He is to cast lots for the two goats—one lot for the LORD and the other for the scapegoat.[a]
[a] Leviticus 16:8 That is, the goat of removal; Hebrew azazel; also in verses 10 and 26
Leviticus 16:8 NIV 2010

It is interesting to note that the Guards cast lots for Jesus clothing which some of the new testament authors considered fulfillment of prophecy.

They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.
Psalm 22:18 NIV 2010

There is also a scene from an old movie I saw where someone gambled with men if he won, they would have to go to Church but if they won he would have to pay them money, I do not see this type of gambling in that movie scene as immoral for the man who tried to get them to go to Church, because either way he was helping them by giving them money or by sending them to Church, unless it was a bad Church or they were going to use money for something bad, etc.

Would I go to a casino to gamble? Probably not especially if I was married to a Muslim woman. Would I buy insurance? This is quite likely.

By the way I have heard Muslims in some Muslims countries are not allowed (by other Muslim neighbors who know they bought insurance) to buy insurance because it is considered not trusting God. Are Muslims in Muslim countries generally against buying insurance? Does anyone know?

 

[ylop]

Commerce is an attempt to redistribute existing wealth. All commerce only redistributes existing wealth (and typically takes a share).

These artificial distinctions between commerce and industry are not valid. Value can be created all the way along the production chain, from raw material to retailed finished product or service. Business must add value or customers will not pay for their goods and services. To claim that commerce re-distributes and does not create is reminiscent of Marx and Engels' "Communist Manifesto" with its creation of class divisions.

Business is not gambling. Business people take risks all the time, but they are not gambling.

Business produces wealth - most everything we do in our daily lives was provided by a business.

Gambling re-distributes wealth.

And the devil takes the hindmost.

ylop

 

[ylop]

Probably not especially if I was married to a Muslim woman.

DTT I have to say, your Muslim wife plan is a bigger gamble than anything else mentioned in this thread.

ylop

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

Many guys like to read while in the outhouse...and today, I reached a new low in that department. I was actually reading the DICTIONARY! (Usually, it's some theology book...)

Blame it on Tlaloc, who is absolutely right when he says,

This conversation could not go on if the anti-gambling crowed created a cohesive definition of gambling and stuck too it.

The same could also be said by those us of in the anti-gambling crowd about the pro-gamblers. Those in favor of gambling try to define it so broadly that breathing becomes a gamble; thus, all gambling is OK. We who oppose gambling tend to use a much narrower definition. Maybe all of us who are active on the "gambling thread" should call a temporary truce while we sort out the definition of "gambling."

Or maybe that is what we are really arguing over?

The dictionary I took to the outhouse says:

Gamble: to play a game for money or property.

Game: Amusement, diversion.

To me, scratching a lotto ticket would be a diversion or amusement, if I scratched lotto tickets, which I don't. Playing some card game (which I do all the time on my computer, usually while pondering some problem in theology – so my mind is not really in said card game) is a diversion. I expect absolutely no financial gain from that. (Or maybe someone can tell me where the slot is on my computer where the money comes out?)

Pastoring a church, driving an 18-wheeler, repairing, programming, and installing computers, working in the hi-tech industry in California's Silicon Valley, working as an avionics technician in the US Marine Corps – all things that I have done – were not amusements or diversions, no matter how much I may have enjoyed doing any of them. They were commerce. I traded my time for a paycheck, and my employer (on rare occasions, that was me) hopefully made a profit on the purchase of my labor. (Except maybe the USMC...they never made a red cent! They just asked Congress for a larger budget and soaked the taxpayers.)

Tlaloc, you are creating a straw man and then trying to destroy it by comparing apples and oranges when you paraphrased what I said, then used the paraphrase to mock what I actually said. The Bible speaks DIRECTLY to the issue of polygyny – and as you well know, actually REQUIRES it under some circumstances. The ONLY reference to gambling in Scripture that comes to my mind is what the soldiers did at the foot of the cross - casting lots in order to divvy up Jesus' garments - and that alone makes gambling repugnant to me.

There are a few other references to "casting lots," such as (to name the three that come to my mind) choosing which of two goats would be sacrificed and which would become the scapegoat, casting lots just before Jonah got tossed overboard, and casting lots when Matthias was selected as the replacement for Judas.

Yeah, everyone here should know better than to talk like that, and thankfully it seems most do.

To paraphrase you:

Yeah, everyone here should know better than to use pseudo-Scriptural sarcasm to mock a Scriptural argument, and thankfully it seems most do.

Casting lots to choose a certain goat, etc., was not gambling, because no one was trying to gain property or money – it was a method of discerning the will of God (or, in the case of Jonah, the will of the false "gods" that the sailors worshiped.) (Casting lots for Jesus' garments WAS gambling.) One professor I had said that the disciples were probably misguided in using that method to choose a replacement for Judas, but the Holy Spirit honored the intent of their hearts; another of my professors said that Matthias was not really God's choice, Rabbi Saul of Tarsus (the Apostle Paul) was. Both may be wrong, of course - the Bible nowhere condemns the disciples for casting lots to select Matthias; we just never hear of him after Acts chapter 1. The sailors who cast lots before heaving Jonah (yuk! bad joke! :roll: ) were praying to false gods in order to decide who the guilty party was – but the One True God stepped in and gave them the correct answer anyway, because it suited His purpose in teaching Jonah about the futility of trying to run from what He had been told to do!

Thus, there can be no valid comparison between polygyny and gambling as you so cleverly tried to do.

Commerce does not diminish the wealth of one person when another gains wealth – gambling does. Commerce is based on trading value-for-value; gambling is based on one person gaining what others lose. (Jesus and all but one of the soldiers lost the seamless garment!) Commerce is a win-win situation; gambling is a win-lose situation. Ultimately, commerce and industry depend on each other – without commerce, the coal miner would soon have a pile of useless coal in his storage yard, and without industry, the coal dealer would have no source for the product he sells. You could argue that the value gained by the loser in a gambling transaction was "entertainment" – but that brings us back to greed. People will not gamble if they think there is no wealth to be gained. I have NEVER heard anyone say, "Let me see if I can LOSE MY HOUSE in the state lottery." No, it's always, "MAYBE I'll get rich..." ALL advertising I have ever seen for gambling, whether casino or a state-run lottery or church bingo, advertises not how fun it is to pull the arm of a slot machine or scratch the right spot on a ticket or get five spots in a row, but rather, HOW MUCH MONEY YOU CAN WIN IF YOU ARE "LUCKY!" (There's no horse or dog tracks near Gallup, so I don't see advertising for them. And at least the race itself might be entertainment...but even then, it is the gambling, not the actual race, that draws many of the spectators.) The thrill of possibly gaining more of this world's wealth is the empty "value" that some would call "entertainment."

Does God maybe use gambling to show us His will regarding who becomes filthy-wealthy and who loses his shirt, kind of like casting lots to choose the scapegoat? (Remember, both goats died – one on the altar, the other in the desert – so from the goats' point of view, they BOTH lost the wager!) Based on all the other evils usually associated with gambling, such as greed, pride, drunkenness, stage shows that feed lust, etc. (and these things don't just happen incidentally, they are there BY DESIGN), I think not – but ultimately, each of us must decide for ourselves. (And don't say that I just conceded the argument – ALL matters of doctrine and Christian living must ultimately be decided by each individual for himself. Some just flat-out make the wrong decision.)

If the 11th commandment (which would be between Exodus 20:17 and 18 if it existed...) said, "Thou shalt not gamble," the argument would be over. Or if the Bible had passages regulating gambling, or requiring it under certain circumstances (casting lots to choose the scapegoat is not gambling according to the dictionary definition above), the argument would be over.

But the Bible is pretty much silent on the specific matter of gambling. All we can do is look at where gambling takes place (as mentioned in an earlier paragraph, usually many other things that are undeniably sin also take place there, such as getting drunk; it's not the drinking that is sinful, it's the getting drunk...), why people gamble, how many lives have been ruined because people get addicted to gambling (and not just the gambler, but his family), and then look for general principles in passages such as these (and there are many more that might apply...):

Philippians 4:8 NKJV Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy--meditate on these things.

How many true, noble, just, pure, lovely things of good report, things of virtue, or things that are praisworthy, can be found in a CASINO? Not in any casino I have ever been in! And anyone who actually enjoys the atmosphere in a casino needs to do some serious praying about his spiritual discernment.

Romans 14:15 NKJV Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died.

The principle in Romans 14:15 is that if something we do is a stumbling block to our brother (one who might have a gambling addiction he is trying to overcome?) we should be careful. When I was driving a truck, a casino was often the cheapest place to get a meal - but I don't even go in a casino anymore because there are so many people I know who have a gambling addiction, and if they see Pastor Marv walk into a casino they will be tempted to think, "If Pastor Marv can go there, so can I." (You can be sure that, given such an opportunity, Satan will attempt to plant that thought in a person's head!) Well, Pastor Marv is not tempted by the slot machines, the roulette wheel, etc., but that brother who is recovering from a gambling addiction is, and my example just led him into the lion's den, so to speak. I walk out with a dinner under my belt, but he walks out with an empty bank account, a load of guilt, and a broken heart, all because he gave in to temptation once more. Would that be walking in love on my part¿

There isn't a fuzzy line between business and gambling, the concepts overlap.

Oh, dummy me. I always thought that when two things overlapped, it made a fuzzy line between them. Thanks for correcting me.

Todd, my fellow Marine, it's easy to say that it's a matter of self-control. I used to say that myself. But have you ever prayed with a friend who is going through withdrawal from some drug? I now work with a group of recovering addicts, and no longer say that. It takes far more than self-control. It takes friends who pray with you, hold you accountable, and love you. And love you. And love you. With the love of Christ. It also takes the power of the Holy Spirit to become truly free from any addiction, whether drugs, sex, gambling, or whatever.

Is gambling a sin? You bet it is! :?

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

I think it is ok to have a fun time doing good things. But not to have fun for funs sake. Although it is ok to try to relax to improve capacity to do good.

It is ok to enjoy eating and eat for health but not to eat for fun's sake and let it become an abusive cycle.

This might be oversimplifying but does this make sense?

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

Dear Brother Tlaloc,

I would like to offer the proverbial peace pipe. But since I don't use tobacco, it's full of bubble solution.

Since our argument was in a public forum, so is my apology.

If anything I wrote in any of these posts about gambling hurt your feelings, please forgive me. I did not intend to cause any hurt feelings. And before you ask, you are forgiven for whatever you said that you think might have hurt my feelings – but as far as I'm concerned, there is nothing for me to forgive.

It seems senseless to me for us to continue this argument since neither of us will ever convince the other. Were it a salvation issue, which it is NOT, I would suggest that we continue to slug it out until one of us prevailed. But since it is not a salvation issue, it is likely that neither of us will prevail this side of eternity! And when we get to heaven, it won't matter.

So let's act liike the brothers in Christ that we are and pick a fight where we can be on the same side – like maybe Biblical Marriage?

And if you would like to have the last word between us about gambling, before our truce officially begins, please do! I could continue the argument indefinitely, as I am sure you also could do, but to what end?

Let's call a truce, blow a big bubble (instead of a big cloud of smoke), and be brothers and friends, agreeing to disagree.

I really appreciate some of the things you said about my dissertation in the other thread. Thank you for your kind words there.

I hope to meet you in person at a conference or retreat sometime soon. If that ever happens, let's flip a coin to see who pays for lunch...

 

[Romantic_Rebel]

Thanks for all the reply my fellow members. Sorry I have not replied as of yet. I have been busy as of late.

 

[Tlaloc]

Scarecrow

Maybe the elusive line in the sand could be somewhere around necessary and unnecessary risk...

I'm only about a half-inch away from fully agreeing that statement. Only I'd say warranted vs unwarranted risk, when the stakes are small an unnecessary risk is not necessarily out of line.


Ylop,

I know Marx and Engles, but I don't know what you're talking about.

Business must add value or customers will not pay for their goods and services.

You don't buy factory direct much do you... A retail outlet marks up prices between 20%-40% for products which have the same intrinsic value and quality as when they came out of manufacturing. The commercial sector doesn't add value, it brokers deals between producers and buyers, and it deserves pay for that, but it does not add value to the finished product. Weather you buy manufacturer direct or via a merchant the resale value of the purchased item is identical. Loaf of bread from a bakery here is $1.25, a loaf of bread from that same bakery sold at a corner store is $1.50. What you buy is exactly same, there is no value added. Industry creates wealth, commerce provides a medium for distributing it.

PolyDoc,

So, you decided on a definition to stick to. That definition has already been dealt with, but I guess I will have to re-state my points...

So, you're working definition is that gambling is any amusement or diversion for money. You could hardly have picked a worse definition, either for practice or for your case. Do you mean you cannot enjoy making money (you cannot do something pleasant to make money) or do you mean you cannot make money on a diversion, (you cannot have a side job or make money on anything that is not your main focus)

Words mean things, and understanding what they mean is crucial to communicating a point. Right now, you're definition is that Gambling is making money on anything you enjoy that is not you're main job. Something which is a passtime, a hobby, an amusement, or a diversion. This is downright sloppy scholarship and part of the reason why you should think of your definition (and perhaps check a couple references) before sticking too it. Most definition of gambling that go the direction you did have the clause 'of chance' in it to define what type of games it refers too.

Now, with the quote, it seems you did not understand what I was saying. I will try to be more clear. I will start with the axiom "The abuse does not negate the use" That is, because something can be associated with harm in some circumstances does not mean it must be done that way, and it is only libelous to say that the wrong is always included in the concept.

You used this line

Gambling as entertainment? Give me a break! Don't try to tell me that greed is not there, that it's just "entertainment" for you. Were it not for the extremely thin possibility of "winning" more than you lose, you would look for other forms of entertainment!

as part of your case against gambling? Correct? If so, I attacked exactly what you did and what you meant to do,

Guilt by perceived association is not a valid case against anything, and polygamists should be used to being on the wrong end of that invalid argument.

I have no problem with sarcasm, other than it does not communicate well online and generally best left for in person discussions. To be clear, what I meant was

Everyone here should know better to say that 'bad things are associated with this therefore this is bad in and of itself.'

As I said already in this thread, Joshua ordered they cast lots before God to distribute the Land of Israel among the tribe. If large sections of territory don't count as property I don't know what does. And that was also a positive command. This is wrong to you?
They also did it to determine who did what in the Priesthood in Nehemiah. There are a number of references you've missed, there are about a dozen different instances both in positive and negative circumstances. This just goes to show you've run off half-cocked into this discussion. Know first, then speak. Take time to pray and study, and if you don't understand a topic take time to ask questions and keep your presuppositions in check.

To the next few paragraphs of your post, I will only repeat it is NOT ok to build doctrine and damnation on circumstantial evidence, guilt by association, or preconceptions of what 'those casino people are like'. It is also NOT helpful to you're case to say

If the 11th commandment ... said, "Thou shalt not gamble," the argument would be over

Anti-polygamists would love the same, or something, anything to override the times it was ok.

We also have some old 'misuse of Romans 14:15' threads I could dig up if I needed too. In short almost anything has the potential to be a stumbling block, that potential always has nothing to do with weather something is right or wrong in and of itself.

You need to take a little time and think and pray on how to present a case cohesively without relying on loose associations and emotive calls and problems that are not directly related to the mater at hand.


I'll speak as candidly ever here. There is a far deeper issue here than you seem to be getting a grasp of. It is this: who defines sin¿ You will not, ever, hurt my feelings by going on a half-cocked rant about how evil such and such is, weather I do that thing or not. You will however, earn my earnest concern and mild pity. You seem to be under the impression that it is ok to define something as sin based on the arguments you have used here. I am trying to show you that if types of arguments where actually proofs they would bite you over and over again. I am trying to remind you that whatever measure you use for judgment will be measured back on you, and I am trying to make you understand that you're arguments are you're measure of right and wrong.

I do not want the measuring stick you use to 'prove' gambling is sin to be used to beat you over the head. To say something is Sin is an incredibly serious thing to do, and I wish the gravity of what you're saying to be impressed upon you.


Now, concerning your last post. The thread is asking what peoples thoughts on gambling are, argumentation is to state reasons and information against each other (reason is a kind of civilized brute force) arguing here is quite proper. Concern for hurt feelings is out of place as we shouldn't be talking about how we feel about the topic but rather what we think. At any rate I see no legitimate cause for hurt feelings and wonder why they ever came into the conversation.

You've not called a truce out of understanding here but rather of being unwilling to do the work of understanding. There is a point at which learned men must agree to disagree because their presuppositions are irreconcilable, but frankly you have only just begun to understand what I've been saying and we are far from that point. If you will maintain that calling something a sin is a trifling matter than we should start another thread on that topic, if you do not maintain it I believe you will see a good deal more of what I've been saying. Either way ending at this point would not be wise. Of course, I cannot force anyone to continue, and I also cannot quickly reply after this since I have traveling to do.

 

[DaPastor]

Hello,

There have been many interesting things brought up in this thread. So, I thought I would share my two cents as well, for what they are worth.

First of all gambling is not mentioned in Scripture. Even the so-called "casting lots" for Christ's clothing isn't gambling. Clothes of the executed belonged to those who were the executioners. This practice was more like our modern "drawing straws" or "flipping coins." (I suppose, based upon what I have read here, some may consider those forms of gambling as well)

The only place I can find a negative inference to gambling is if one would place all acts of gambling as an ascription to embracing the concept "luck." I do not believe one can, in all honesty, insert all acts of gambling into this category. None the less, Scripture speaks of Gad (Fortune), the giver of good luck and Meni (Fate), the giver of bad luck:

"But you are those who forsake Jehovah, who forget My holy mountain; who array a table for Fortune (Gad), and who fill mixed wine for Fate (Meni)." Isaiah 65:11

This would mean that during the Babylonian captivity of the Israelites they came under the influence of those who made "luck" their idols, forsaking the true God. However, this in no way can be forced to say that when one gambles one is forsaking God for "luck!" On the other hand, this doesn't mean that there are those who do forsake their trust in God for their trust in "luck" either.

Here are the following popular arguments against gambling:

1. Gambling is wrong because it is a disregard of responsible stewardship.

This argument is actually a good one, but it usually amounts to a smoke screen for believers in America. For unless a believer can claim they do not spend money on TV, radio, mp3 player, game consoles, sound equipment, table games, sporting equipment, DVDs, sports events, computer games, eating out, ad naseum, this argument is both moot and hypocritical.

2. Gambling is wrong because it involves a chance of gain at the expense and suffering of others.

This sounds like the free enterprise system of America. Many businesses involve a chance at gain at the "expense and suffering of others."Are there not those who so desire and go after certain products that their family suffers? Their covetousness overrides reason just as much as certain gambler's covetousness overrides their reason. Gambling is not the problem - covetousness is the problem!

3. Gambling is wrong because it is inconsistent with the work ethic of Scripture.

Certainly Scripture encourages work, but that is not the same as saying that one who does not work is in sin. If this is the case, then all those who own lucrative businesses that create residue income from them are sinning. I will go so far as suggesting that most people who start a business are longing for this blessing. Does this mean that we should encourage believers to not pursue business ownership, or to only pursue it so long as it doesn't grow so much that the owner stops working? Is it now sin to retire?

4. Gambling is wrong because it tends to be habit forming.

Do I need to even comment on this absurd argument!

5. Gambling is associated with other evils (i.e., drunkenness, pride, lust, etc)

In many cases this is true, but not in every case. For example, in Nevada, there are slot machines in virtually all convenience stores, super markets, etc... and many locals actually prefer these places as opposed to going to the casinos. I wonder if those who use this argument are against professional sports events?

Certainly this is a valid point, but it still does not make gambling a sin, in and of itself.

6. Gambling ruins lives.

Addictions of any variety may ruin lives - even sports addictions! This argument is quite weak.

7. Gambling may bring a stumbling block and offense to other believers.

What Romans 14 is NOT teaching is that one cannot practice activities that others suggest (with little or no Biblical support) are offensive. If this were the case, we would all need to stay in our homes lest we offend someone. There are believers that teach that are offended about the following practices: moustaches, pants on women, beards, eating meat, vaccines, modern translations, processed foods, Sunday worship, women working, caffeine, sports, debt, women and men sitting on the same side in a sanctuary, public schools, women voting, cutting hair, wearing make-up, wearing jewelry, birth control, instrumental music, dancing, dating, driving automobiles, movies, television, going to a doctor, and much, much more. Does this mean that those of us that teach liberty in many of these areas should readjust our lives because some part of the Christian community might be offended? God forbid! This would be absurd.

A stumbling block is an action taken by a Biblically informed believer that does not violate Scripture but may cause less knowledgeable or less mature believers to practice the same activity in a way that violates his conscience.
When expressed pragmatically, Romans 14 is merely teaching manners. If you know someone who struggles with gambling, don't encourage him to gamble. Don't take him to a casino. However, this passage is not teaching that one cannot in perfect liberty go and gamble in fear of creating a stumbling block for others, nor is it suggesting that one who is more mature in the faith cannot teach others more perfectly the Scriptures about a Biblical liberty issue (which would contradict many passages, by the way). It simply means that mature believers are to be empathetic towards those who are weak or ignorant in the faith, as an expression of love.

 

[tjw]

60 Minutes recently ran a direct rebuttal of points 4 and 6, and there's been a fair amount of research in recent years that arrived at the same conclusion:
http://shass.mit.edu/multimedia/video-2011-natasha-schull-discusses-her-research-60-minutes
http://www.myaddiction.com/education/articles/gambling_statistics.html

It's certainly true that anything can become a problem for people. But to lump that way is dis-ingenious: if "sports" is playing with frogs - some are poisonous, eh?, then "gambling" is more like playing with fire, and the research says it's better lumped with crack: many adults try crack, relatively few get addicted, that doesn't mean it's not fairly risky.

 

[DaPastor]

60 Minutes recently ran a direct rebuttal of points 4 and 6, and there's been a fair amount of research in recent years that arrived at the same conclusion:
http://shass.mit.edu/multimedia/video-2011-natasha-schull-discusses-her-research-60-minutes
http://www.myaddiction.com/education/articles/gambling_statistics.html

It's certainly true that anything can become a problem for people. But to lump that way is dis-ingenious: if "sports" is playing with frogs - some are poisonous, eh?, then "gambling" is more like playing with fire, and the research says it's better lumped with crack: many adults try crack, relatively few get addicted, that doesn't mean it's not fairly risky.

Hello,

Thanks for your reply.

Actually, those shows do not rebut my arguments. I never said that gambling may not become habit forming, or may not ruin lives. I am arguing that those things, in and of themselves, do not make the activity sin. These same researchers tell us that sex is in the same category, yet, we know that sex, within proper contexts, will not ruin lives. Has sexual activity ruined lives? Yes! Can sex be extremely addicting? Yes! My rebuttal was simply based on Biblical morality.

Since the implied context of my argument in point 6 was "does gambling ruin lives," then using sports as a comparison is quite relevant. Any experienced marriage counselor can share about the lives that have been ruined by "sports addiction."

Sometimes I have read posts too fast, and replied inadequately, not allowing the context to supply all the needed information for a good response too.

Blessings