Is betting a sin?

[Steven2006]

greedy quest for money we didn't earn?

With that attitude, yes it would be sinful. But you see it is really a heart issue, and only God can see in peoples heart. There are poeple that gamble just for fun and entertainment. Win or lose no big deal, just to have some fun.

I will ask this question. What would appear to be more likley a sin. A person that goes to a casino, pays $50 to enter a poker tournement for an afternoon of fun, not expecting to win. Or a person that that buys a $20,000 Harley with the intention of drawing attention to himself, and the feeling he gets from that attention.

Once again I believe it is a heart issue, for God to judge. But I would warn anybody, that gambling could easily become addictive, and sinful. So it might not be the wisest form of fun for everyone. But I just don't see in scripture that is is forbidden.

 

[Alcott]

Are you going to define, "excess money"?

I don't think "I" can. I've never had any... :laugh:

It would seem that does define "excess money".... more money than I have ever had.

 

[ccdnt]

Excess is anything above one's needs.

How do you define one's "needs"?

(I know I am asking a definition of these words, but this is necessary to address the point you seem to be trying to make. I do not want to start addressing this until I know how exactly you define the terms you are using.)

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

What are one's needs?

Electricty, Water, Food, Insurance, Clothing, Home, means of communication with others ... These are all necessities if one wants to survive without having to live on the streets.

Of course, one could go back in the woods and pitch a tent and live off the land. In this case, one would only need the tent, knowledge of how to set traps to catch food, a stream for water, a magnifying glass to build fires before the sun went down.

Might I add that Genesis 3 says that man would earn his living by the sweat of his brow... not by taking a chance on winning or losing a bet.

 

[DQuixote]

xdx, if you drink some of that strong German beer during Fasching, climb in your car intoxicated, and head out on the Autobahn, you are betting that you'll make it home, or to the next party. You may, and you may not. Others on the 'bahn may encounter you. They may make it home, and they may not. It all depends upon how horrible the collision was. If you avoid a collision, you may get stopped by the German police, and you may not. You knew all this when you climbed into your car intoxicated, but you threw caution to the winds, and did it anyway. You gambled your life and the life of another. For what?

Every day you and I make decisions that impact the life of another. Weigh carefully your decision about gambling. How might it affect others in your family and among your friends? In your local congregation? Among strangers? Think about the possibility that you may lose everything. Who will you turn to, then?

In fact, every question like yours, "Is ______ a sin" is asked and answered in the bible. Assuming that you search the scriptures and discover that gambling is sin, will you still gamble? When these questions arise it is time for prayer and meditation and study of God's word --- or do you just throw caution to the winds?

raying:

 

[xdisciplex]

I haven't gambled.
And how shall I search the bible for it? I don't think that the word gamble is found in the bible. I simply think that betting on a team and winning is fun. Winning something is always fun, isn't it? Having money is also not bad. I think nobody here would mind having more money, right?
I simply don't really understand where the problem is. Let's say you were able to make a living with betting and you would always win then wouldn't it be a good way to make money? Let's say every few months you place a few thousand $ on a team and you win and then you have enough money for the next few months, wouldn't this be cool? I think this would be cool. I'm not keen on working and having a lame job where you sit somewhere half the day doing something which you don't like. This isn't how I imagine life. But people spend most of the time working in order to get money in order to survive. They're like slaves. This angers me. I think it would be cool to win against the system and to get away without working.

 

[ccdnt]

What are one's needs?

Electricty, Water, Food, Insurance, Clothing, Home, means of communication with others ... These are all necessities if one wants to survive without having to live on the streets.

So are you advocating that according to the Bible we should only have the absolute essentials (shelter, food, etc.)? From your responses, it seems you are saying that any money one has that is not necessary for survival is "excess". You say that with that money we should do with what the Word of God says. Just how far are you willing to push as to what exactly would be considered about "having our needs met"? No one needs ice cream, for example, to survive. It could be said that ice cream is a luxury. By your reasoning it would be wrong for a family to go out for ice cream as a treat. Usually when one does this, it is not because one is hungry or is in dire need of food. It is just because people like it. Going out for a treat implies that one has excess money since "treats" such as this are not a necessity for survival. Are you going to argue that going out for ice cream such as this is a sin as well? If not, then why not?

What about when a family takes a vacation? (and for the sake of argument I will exclulde a vacation where the sole purpose is to visit one's family since I would guess that you would not argue that that would be sinful) A vacation to some other state requires money in excess of what one needs for bills, food, etc. Is this sinful? A person could choose not use their excess money for this and instead just relax at home during his vacation.

What about things that are bought which only purpose is to decorate the home? These would not be essentials. They would not be necessary for one to have his needs met. Would this also be sinful?

 

[xdisciplex]

No one needs ice cream, for example, to survive. It could be said that ice cream is a luxury.

That's true. Christian could save a lot of money if they only ran on water and sugar.It wouldn't really be healthy but it would work. :laugh:
Then they could donate all the saved money. :wavey:

 

[Chemnitz]

Maybe the internet is not a necessity for you, but for me it is the only way I can communicate with people the Word of God.

I am disabled and rarely get out, so do not tell me what is excess in my life.

And btw, I do not surf the internet as you say. I have my Church site I visit, I have the BB, and I have hotmail. I hardly call that surfing.

If you do not want others to tell you what is excess, then do not presume to tell others what is excess.

From webopedia.com...

The term surfing is generally used to describe a rather undirected type of Web browsing in which the user jumps from page to page rather whimsically, as opposed to specifically searching for specific information.

I do not fall into that category by a long shot.

Regardless, of what you call it, you do not need to do it in order to survive.

 

[DeeJay]

xdx, if what you are counting on to win depends on others losing, how is that loving your neighbor as you love yourself?

Now, if there is something like a 'baseball pool' where people put their money in KNOWING they will probably not win and just having fun, that I don't think is sinful. But, as El Guero said, gambling itself is a sin. Think about it: it puts money into the underworld, it depends on others losing, and it actually shows a lack of trust in God that He will provide for your needs.

If someone's idea of fun depends on others getting hurt, maybe it's time for that person to redefine what 'fun' really is.

So if there are two tire shops in a neighborhood and only enough buisness to support one then they are sining. The depend on taking buisness from the other shop to make their money.

 

[DeeJay]

A Christian has liberty as his/her conscience and the Word allow. Do everything for the glory of God and in the name of Christ. If you can gamble, in the name of Christ, and not feel a little uncomfortable, then by all means, enjoy. Just remember, you will give an account to Almighty God for your actions.

Would you gamble at a casino if you could see the wrecked lives of the so-called "few" who can't control themselves?

Would you gamble at a casino if you knew a lady had embezzled money from a school to support her gambling addiction, and spent it at that casino? If you knew that same lady jumped into the moat around the casino and committed suicide?

peace to youraying:

What about shoping in a mall where some lady has a shoping addiction. Where she buys new shoes instead of feeding her family. Should we support the mall that allowes a guy to buy a gold watch instead of paying his bills. And then the guy looses his house and his kids live on the street.

It happens, I seen it on Dr. Phil

 

[DeeJay]

Maybe the internet is not a necessity for you, but for me it is the only way I can communicate with people the Word of God.

I am disabled and rarely get out, so do not tell me what is excess in my life.

And btw, I do not surf the internet as you say. I have my Church site I visit, I have the BB, and I have hotmail. I hardly call that surfing.

But you have an excess of time you could be useing to help others. Stewardship pertains to time also does it not.

And are you really trying to tell us that you only use your money to the basics of life. You never eat out, never go to a movie or spend on any form of entertainment. You never buy something just because you want it not need it. I dont believe that.

 

[amity]

With that attitude, yes it would be sinful. But you see it is really a heart issue, and only God can see in peoples heart. There are poeple that gamble just for fun and entertainment. Win or lose no big deal, just to have some fun.

I will ask this question. What would appear to be more likley a sin. A person that goes to a casino, pays $50 to enter a poker tournement for an afternoon of fun, not expecting to win. Or a person that that buys a $20,000 Harley with the intention of drawing attention to himself, and the feeling he gets from that attention.

Once again I believe it is a heart issue, for God to judge. But I would warn anybody, that gambling could easily become addictive, and sinful. So it might not be the wisest form of fun for everyone. But I just don't see in scripture that is is forbidden.

You are missing my point, it seems. Luck is not from God. God does not deal in games of chance.

 

[DeeJay]

You are missing my point, it seems. Luck is not from God. God does not deal in games of chance.

It seems that his apostles did, and I can not find where it says they did wrong.

And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Acts 1:26

Seems the old version of rock paper sissors, casting lots. Is even recomended to decide who gets what. Is that not a game of chance.

Casting lots causes contentions to cease,
And keeps the mighty apart.
Proverbs 18:18

Do a search for casting lots. It is a game of chance and is used often. I am not saying that God does not have his hand in the outcome of the game, but the game is used.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Apparently they did do wrong. They did not wait for God to answer their prayer. They drew lots to see who was to replace Judas Iscariat. Instead of trusting God to point out who the Apostle was to be (I do not believe it was to be Matthias, but Paul), they took their chances.

There is no more mention of Matthias after his selection, but later Paul identifies himself as an Apostle.

 

[EdSutton]

Apparently they did do wrong. They did not wait for God to answer their prayer. They drew lots to see who was to replace Judas Iscariat. Instead of trusting God to point out who the Apostle was to be (I do not believe it was to be Matthias, but Paul), they took their chances.

There is no more mention of Matthias after his selection, but later Paul identifies himself as an Apostle.

As "the twelve" is mentioned later, it would seem that you are attempting to support your position, by faulty exegesis. And even if this may have been true, the rest of the eleven apostles did not seem to think this, you know with their 'special insight' and all that.

Paul doesn't even show up for several years after this, BTW. And a few years later James was also "killed with the sword", as well, and this precedes Saul/Paul as well.

FTR, Jesus, James, the Lord's brother i.e. "the Just", Barnabas, Timothy, Andronicus, Junia, Apollos, Silas, Epaphroditis, and maybe Luke, if my memory serves, are all referred to in one way or another as apostles as well, making at least twenty-four with that appelation, not just twelve.

I am sure about the number of twenty-four; I'm not sure if I got each individual, exactly, without looking it all up.

I am certain of Jesus, James "the Just", Epaphroditis, Barnabas, Andronicus, Junia, and Timothy, without looking them up, for Scripture that I can easily recall, refers to them in this way.

Ed

 

[DeeJay]

Apparently they did do wrong. They did not wait for God to answer their prayer. They drew lots to see who was to replace Judas Iscariat. Instead of trusting God to point out who the Apostle was to be (I do not believe it was to be Matthias, but Paul), they took their chances.

There is no more mention of Matthias after his selection, but later Paul identifies himself as an Apostle.

Does that mean that Matthias was not an apostle. Where can I read about this, It must say somewhere that this was wrong for them to do.

What about the verse from proverbs that I posted? Any comments on that?

 

[Steven2006]

Does that mean that Matthias was not an apostle. Where can I read about this, It must say somewhere that this was wrong for them to do.

What about the verse from proverbs that I posted? Any comments on that?

Here are a few more verses that I would add to the list
Joshua 14:2 ; 1Sam.14:42 ; 1Chr.25:8 ; Jonah 1:7

 

[Alcott]

There is no more mention of Matthias after his selection, but later Paul identifies himself as an Apostle.

Both Paul and Barnabas are called apostles in Acts 14:14. Paul mentions some of his fellow prisoners who are "outstanding among the apotles" in Romans 16:7. The word apostle is applied Jesus himself in Hebrews 3:1. And in Galatians 1:19 Paul refers to James, "our Lord's brother," as an apostle, even though this NT James is not mentioned as one of 'the 12' in any lists [they mention James, the son of Zebedee and brother of John; and James the son of Alphaeus].

 

[EdSutton]

Both Paul and Barnabas are called apostles in Acts 14:14. Paul mentions some of his fellow prisoners who are "outstanding among the apotles" in Romans 16:7. The word apostle is applied Jesus himself in Hebrews 3:1. And in Galatians 1:19 Paul refers to James, "our Lord's brother," as an apostle, even though this NT James is not mentioned as one of 'the 12' in any lists [they mention James, the son of Zebedee and brother of John; and James the son of Alphaeus].

Well put, Alcott. I made roughly the same points.

Scripture does also speak of the Twelve apostles of the Lamb, in the foundations of the walls of the New Jerusalem. But it does not name who these twelve are. I think they are "the usual eleven suspects" plus Matthias. But Scripture does not say this, specifically, and this is the only passage that speaks of "the twelve apostles of the Lamb". Many do a disservice to Scripture, IMO, when confuting the spiritual gift of apostle by attempting to limit it to some imagined twelve, when Scripture does not. I am of the opinion that maybe this gift is still around today, but would not be dogmatic on this, in any way. The word "apostolos" means one sent with a commission. Might some sent 'missionary' be an 'apostle', or have that spiritual gift? Something to think about.

Ed