Gambling

First of all I will tell you that I don't gamble, but I don't condemn others who do. This "argument" is not about gambling, really, but rather about judging others, which is why I mentioned Romans 14 in the first place. I am not beyond logic. I understand your logic perfectly. I just don't agree with it. You apparently think one cannot gamble and also love his neighbor as himself. I disagree. Do I not have a right to this conviction?

 

Legalism is defined as adherence to law to the extreme. Salvation via works is not a requisite in the definition of legalism.

Then, by all means, if one is gambling out of love for money, then it must be refrained from. However, if one is gambling for recreation, and that recreation does not cross over into an abuse or love of money, then it's perectly permissible.

You are falsely presuming that any person who gambles is going so for love of money. That presumption is legalism by nature.

 

BY that definition, then, all contests, sweepstakes, drawings, etc, must be condemned, because they all promote greed, according to that definition.

 

Wong place

 

[

 

Oh I see this must be that loving reproof you were after right? Or maybe it was when you decided to point out one of her spelling errors. This is a message board not a term paper, but of course you were just trying to get her straight right? I mean you wouldn’t want a bunch of Christians running around misspelling a word, now that could do a lot of damage. On the other hand, we have you demeaning someone for searching Gods word for truth. She is simply searching and discussing and then she is subjected to demeaning comments. </font>[/QUOTE]Brice, should you tell him he misspelled verbiage or do you think he will figure it out for himself?

 

And in love, and as kind as anyone could possibly speak, what part of "the love of money is the root of all evil" is it you don't understand?

There very well is Scripture to condemn the association of gambling, and the love of money Scripture should be enough for any God-fearing Christian not to even blink when it comes to whether or not gambling is wrong.

[/QB][/QUOTE]

"Should be enough for any God-fearing Christian"?!?! ? Says who? You? If so, I disagree with you. So what now?

Romans 14:1-12 is, I think, the passage most relevant to your beliefs about the love of money and gambling.

Verse 4 sums it up well: “Who are you to pass judgment on another’s servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand."

God is our ONLY master and He has given us SPECIFIC instructions regarding SOME activities that are ALWAYS wrong and therefore always condemned. Other activities are addressed more vaguely or not at all. These activities are left to Spirit-led interpretation and conviction. I believe “the love of money” and gambling are two of these issues.

It is correct to "judge" an activity by comparing it to what scripture specifically says about it. It is NOT correct to add to scripture by applying our OWN convictions to these activities. Romans 14:1-12 tells us we must respect the convictions held by other Christians as long as these convictions are consistent with scripture.

I understand the logic behind your convictions concerning the “love of money” and gambling and I think they are perfectly valid and consistent with scripture. I just don’t share them. I have my own different convictions about these issues and I believe they are also consistent with scripture. Romans 14:1-12 tells us that differences in personal convictions are to be EXPECTED and that we are to ACCEPT them. In other words, sometimes we just have to "agree to disagree".

Does this mean that God thinks both of us are "right" when our convictions differ, or is there always a single "right" opinion? I don't know about that; only God does. But I do know that it is always WRONG for me to judge the other person with regard to matters of conviction.

Remember, the issue here is not whether one or both of us is right or wrong in his conviction. The issue is what did God command us to do when we disagree, and the answer is to NOT JUDGE each other.

 

Legalism is defined as adherence to law to the extreme. Salvation via works is not a requisite in the definition of legalism.

Oh, ok, so now you're saying that God is a legalist?

Then, by all means, if one is gambling out of love for money, then it must be refrained from. However, if one is gambling for recreation, and that recreation does not cross over into an abuse or love of money, then it's perectly permissible.

You are falsely presuming that any person who gambles is going so for love of money. That presumption is legalism by nature.


No, I'm not a fool, and I do hope you won't make any more foolish statements like the ones preceding my reply. Recreation is not the excuse for dabbling into the appearance of evil, there are no excuses for such, except in the liberal mindset which only obeys the voice of flesh and is at enmity with God.
Living a separated and peculiar life according to the principles set forth by Scripture is not "legalism", neither is it "extreme" as you demand. If anything, adhering to the expectations of Christians to live a holy and sanctified life keeping one's conversation unspotted before this present evil world is a command from on High, not a suggestion from God for any one to just choose.

It would do you much good to consider principle rather than pick and choose when it comes to divine revelation?

You use of the ideal of recreation then would apply to anything such as drug use?
</font>[/QUOTE]

 

And in love, and as kind as anyone could possibly speak, what part of "the love of money is the root of all evil" is it you don't understand?

There very well is Scripture to condemn the association of gambling, and the love of money Scripture should be enough for any God-fearing Christian not to even blink when it comes to whether or not gambling is wrong.

[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]"Should be enough for any God-fearing Christian"?!?! ? Says who? You? If so, I disagree with you. So what now?

Romans 14:1-12 is, I think, the passage most relevant to your beliefs about the love of money and gambling.

Verse 4 sums it up well: “Who are you to pass judgment on another’s servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand."

God is our ONLY master and He has given us SPECIFIC instructions regarding SOME activities that are ALWAYS wrong and therefore always condemned. Other activities are addressed more vaguely or not at all. These activities are left to Spirit-led interpretation and conviction. I believe “the love of money” and gambling are two of these issues.

It is correct to "judge" an activity by comparing it to what scripture specifically says about it. It is NOT correct to add to scripture by applying our OWN convictions to these activities. Romans 14:1-12 tells us we must respect the convictions held by other Christians as long as these convictions are consistent with scripture.

I understand the logic behind your convictions concerning the “love of money” and gambling and I think they are perfectly valid and consistent with scripture. I just don’t share them. I have my own different convictions about these issues and I believe they are also consistent with scripture. Romans 14:1-12 tells us that differences in personal convictions are to be EXPECTED and that we are to ACCEPT them. In other words, sometimes we just have to "agree to disagree".

Does this mean that God thinks both of us are "right" when our convictions differ, or is there always a single "right" opinion? I don't know about that; only God does. But I do know that it is always WRONG for me to judge the other person with regard to matters of conviction.

Remember, the issue here is not whether one or both of us is right or wrong in his conviction. The issue is what did God command us to do when we disagree, and the answer is to NOT JUDGE each other. [/QB][/QUOTE]


Who judged whom? I only judged the action, not the perpetrator of the action. God has reserved judgement for Himself and those appointed in the Millenium.

To judge one at meat is one thing, but to judge an action as deviant by nature is correct by the precepts taught in God's Holy Word. It is therefore correct to judge such actions as wrong and to abstain from those appearances of evil. Disagree?

 

Salamander, that's woefully weak.

You can't separate the person from the activity in which he engages. If the activity is sin then the person is sinning. If you condemn the activity then you condemn the person for doing it.

Yes, God has reserved judgment for all, including those who sin by judging others beyond what scripture does.

Your question, "It is therefore correct to judge . . . Disagree?" assumes that your perceptions of "action as deviant by nature " and "appearances of evil" are the only valid ones and that's not true.

Salamander, I don't doubt that you hold scripture-consitent, strong, sincere convictions about gambling. What I'm trying to get you to realize is that you do not have the right to condemn DIFFERENT convictions as long as they are also consistent with scripture.

 

My problem with gambling is that it often stems from greed. Why go gamble? Living in a state where gambling is rampant, I have seen families totally devastated by effects of gambling. Many in our society want more and more.

 

Nope, I'm saying you are. You have failed to provide scripture that expressly forbids gambling in and of itself. You've only been able to provide scriptuer than forbids love of money and greed. No one disagrees with those. If one is gambling for the purpose of greed to love of money, or is engaging in love of money or greed while gambling, then it should be refrained from indeed. However, if one is not, then it is permissible.

Requiring the use of a brain and discernment is often considered foolish by some.

Oh no, the "l" word!!! It is you, not scripture, that has determined it to be an appearance of evil. Then, by all means, I encourage you to refrain. However, I will not judge every brother who plays a hand of blackjack or puts a buck in the Super Bowl pool to be "dabbling into the appearance of evil". For me to do so would make me guilty of selfrighteousness and legalism, and as we all are, legalism is a liberal mindset.

No one says it is. However, making a litmus test for what qualifies as a separated life is indeed legalism and sometimes extremism.

Why, when you have done so for all fo us?

Typically, recreational drug use is a sin, because it is abuse. However, recreational use of caffiene is commonplace, and, so long as it is not abused, it permissible. I would be a liberal selfrighteous legalist if I pointed to every Christian holding a can of Coke and accused them of engaging in an appearance of evil.

 

My major opposition to gambling is the act of putting one's faith in chance rather than God.

Do all to the glory of God... I haven't met anyone who gambled for the glory of God yet.

 

You have a problem understanding Scripture. Other posters have also referenced what is behind the love of money, behind the influence of wantoness which is nowadays called gambling. What a sorry excuse to consider gambling a "recreation". Maybe the world's crowd could support an arguement in favor of such, but for a Christian to do so? What about witnessing as a "hobby"?

Not exactly. By association gambling has more of an appearance of evil than crocheting. Association carries with it a conotation that infers an appearance of some sort, thus gambling is deduced as evil more times than not, so you're justifying something in your mind that is predominately a snare to the flesh of all men. It becomes habitual to the detriment of society, it is much likened to the use of alcohol that eventually ends up in making oneself a drunkard. Again, the principle by association blows your ship right out of the water.

 

Then, if this happens in anything one does, one should by all means refrain from that activity. If, otoh, one is simply engaging in an entertainment activity, then it's permissible. I know a few guys at church who made friendly bets amongst themselves on the rose bowl outcome. I'd be a false accuser if I accused them of sinful behavior.

 

Clearly, the problem understanding scripture lies with you, as the best you can do is point to weak inferences to condemn gambling for scriptural reasons. You are insisting that love of money is always involved when one engages in gambling. As I've said numerous times, if one is gambling out of a love of money, then one must refrain from gambling, as one must engage from any activity that one does out of love of money. To date, I don't see you condemning free drawings or contests, or condemning playing the monopoly game at McDonalds. Yet it cannot be denied that many people engage in these things out of love of money. The same arguement stands there: If one is doing these out of love of money, then one must refrain. However, that cannot be considered a condemnation of the whole. If one enters free drawings or contests, or plays the monopoly game at McDonalds for benign reasons, such as recreation, then it's perfectly permissible scripturally. Same goes with gambling, whether you yourself condemn or condone it.

Yet, it is your mind that has decided that it is predominantly a snare to the flesh. If it's a snare to your flesh, then avoid it. But do not presume that it's a snare to the flesh of all simply because you are weak in that area.

You forgot to mention the likening of it to women wearing pants.

SInce you fail to make a case for the principle of association here, your attempt to blow up any ship comes up without ammunition.

Sorry, the bottom line stands: If one is gambling for a sinful reason, such as abuse, love of money, etc, then it must be refrained from. If one is not, then it is permissible.

 

If one is gambling in the hopes others will lose so one can win, that is wrong. We are supposed to work for the betterment of others, not their losing of anything other than sin!

 

To a point, I would agree. If, otoh, one is gambling strictly out of recreation (not out of love of money, not out of greed, not out of abuse, etc), then it is permissible.

 

Oh, I see. Then it is OK to hope others lose if you are having fun!

Sorry, what if it is not fun to them? Whose fun are we talking about here?

If you have a small group of guys who all think it is fun to lose a dollar over a game's outcome, then fine, I guess. But when you go to a gambling establishment, have you asked all the losers?

When you get involved in a poker game in which someone who has had some bad hands ends up desperately trying to recoup his losses, has the fun stopped?

So I guess I would ask, WHOSE recreation are we talking about?

Secondly, does the Lord have a better use for that money?

Have you asked Him?

And then listened for the answer with an open heart?

 

When I applied for my current job, I hoped others would lose so that I would. Hoping that you will win at the expense of others in not, in and of itself, a lutmus test for a scriptural condemnation of anything.

I once placed a friendly wager witha family member on what movie would get best picture one year. I lost. It was fun for me anyway.

I'm not a routine gambler, but if I were to visit a gambling establishment, and lose, then I know it's part of the risk and result of playing. If a person itn't aware of that, then they shouldn't be visiting a gamblng establiment in the first place.

Again, I know people who enter free contest giveaways all the time, who have lost nothing by entering, but are upset when they lose. That doesn't mean that the entering the contest itself is wrong for the rest of us.

If the primary purpose of someone playing poker is for financial gain, then they should not be playing. If the primary purpose is for recreation, and you understand the fact that you might lose all of what you put in, then it's permissible.

If a person is using money that is rightly budgeted for liesure, and doesn't take from other budgeted money, then it's permissible. One could easily ask if the Lord has better use for one's money than wasting it on a trip to Orlando, or on an RV, etc. If it's properly budgeted, and one is not going into debt for it, then it's permissible.

Yes, abnsolutely. If that were not so, I would not be posting here.