# Is Gambling Ethical?



## shackleton (Jun 20, 2007)

I live in probably one of the poorest counties in the whole country. The avereage income is only about $18,000 a year and of those most of them are on wellfare and of those most of them are either drug addicts or have psych problems. 
There is a new community developing in the west end of the county where most of the city employees live. Within this community there has recently been built a NASCAR track which has brought in a lot of retail business which is finally starting to breath life back into the delapidated county. Now, there is an issue on the ballot that would make the building of a casino legal and approve putting slot machines into various businesses. Due to the blight that has prevailed for so long most people are willing to approve just about anything just to bring in money. I am tempted to do the same but I am unsure if it would necessarily be "right or wrong." Any thoughts?


----------



## etexas (Jun 20, 2007)

As Christians we are stewards of what the Lord gives us. Therefore I do not think gambling is ever "ethical".


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 20, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> As Christians we are stewards of what the Lord gives us. Therefore I do not think gambling is ever "ethical".



I'm not making a pro-gambling argument, but is paying $50 for tickets to a music performance "ethical"? For many (not most) gambling is seen as a form of entertainment, which they go into with a pre-set expectation of what they'll "spend". 

What are the best grounds to object to gambling? I think "stewardship" isn't *necessarily* the most appropriate. ON a "stewardship" basis, I should think that most forms of entertainment (better to say "amusement", quite honestly, to be truer to the nature of most forms of entertainment) would fail. 

Todd


----------



## Richard King (Jun 20, 2007)

Gambling is a tax on a lack of math skills


----------



## Kevin (Jun 20, 2007)

the WSC refers to "wastful gaming" & "inordiate prizing" as sins phrohibited by the commandment "thou shalt not steal..."

On this basis I would say that a blanket ban is not required of believers. That said I would still vote against the ballot issue to allow it.


----------



## etexas (Jun 20, 2007)

Buying tickets to support the fine arts and throwing your money into a slot machine is a nice example actually of good vs bad stewardship.The fine arts like classical music are often Christian at heart. To support that helps that legacy live on. The slot machine? Is it anway Christian based? To "support" it only helps buy more slot machines and keep up a grinding cycle of misery. I have seen what gambling has done to towns like Vicksburg....it aint pretty.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 20, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> Buying tickets to support the fine arts and throwing your money into a slot machine is a nice example actually of good vs bad stewardship.The fine arts like classical music are often Christian at heart. To support that help that legacy live on. The slot machine? Is it anway Christian based? To "support" it only helps buy more slot machines and keep up a grinding cycle of misery. I hve seen what gambling has done to towns like Vicksburg....it aint pretty.



Well, I never said anything about slot machines, nor am I advocating slot machine playing as good entertainment... just saying that the issue isn't *quite* as cut and dried as many might want to make it. Culturally speaking, gambling is a scourge and a real abuse of the poor and uneducated (and some of the wealthy and [otherwise] well-educated).


----------



## Davidius (Jun 20, 2007)

The guys at the Sinners and Saints podcast did a show about this recently. If you'd like to listen to it, you can find it here. They take the position that recreational gambling is acceptable for Christians but can be abused like anything else. 

I agree with what they say. The fact that something can be or has been abused is no reason to call any participation in it sinful. Since the Bible doesn't directly address the topic the people who are against it turn to the use of certain "biblical principles" to "prove" that it's wrong but usually end up as hypocrites using absurd reasoning.


----------



## tdowns (Jun 20, 2007)

*I agree....*

"Culturally speaking, gambling is a scourge and a real abuse of the poor and uneducated (and some of the wealthy and [otherwise] well-educated)."

That's just the facts and I agree....

But a good "buck a stick", "buck a game", "buck a hand", "buck a hole".....to make things more fun is just good clean competitive excitement.......


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 20, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> The guys at the Sinners and Saints podcast did a show about this recently. If you'd like to listen to it, you can find it here. They take the position that recreational gambling is acceptable for Christians but can be abused like anything else.



I think there are two parts. 

I agree that recreational gambling in moderation is an area of liberty. I'm not going to condemn a brother or sister for getting together with friends for a night of casual poker, conversation, etc., but I'd caution that it may incite greed. It's not my cup of tea, probably because in my pagan days I used to try it and usually lost. 

But the other aspect is the government promotion of gambling. It sounds like there is a public initiative to improve the economy based upon making your area a gambling zone. That is wishful thinking of social engineers who want a quick fix. Publicly supported and regulated gambling is always zero-sum for an economy. That's because of the tax bite. There is nothing productive about it, in other words, it does not create wealth, it is just a money diverter.

Although I'm quite libertarian politically, I do think government has the responsibility to maintain an order that fosters responsibility on the part of its citizens. Promoting public gambling as an enhancement of the economy is the opposite of that because it seeks to obtain revenue on the basis of irrational greed.

It might attract money short term, but sooner or later the neighboring communities will do the same thing. Then there will be no "sin advantage" for your community. What will be next? Perhaps they will follow the Nevada approach and legalize prostitution.

The bottom line, I think, is that it is more like burning the house to keep it warm. That is the immoral part of it, the government is racing other governments in downgrading the community.


----------



## etexas (Jun 20, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> I think there are two parts.
> 
> I agree that recreational gambling in moderation is an area of liberty. I'm not going to condemn a brother or sister for getting together with friends for a night of casual poker, conversation, etc., but I'd caution that it may incite greed. It's not my cup of tea, probably because in my pagan days I used to try it and usually lost.
> 
> ...



 This is what I have seen in Shreveport and Vicksburg.


----------



## Dagmire (Jun 20, 2007)

It's a matter of the heart. Why does a person gamble? If a person gambles to try to cheat his way out of the created order of being made to work by scoring big and using it as an occasion for sin, then it's most certainly sinful. If a person enjoys a game of Texas Hold'em, using skill and enjoying that aspect of the game while spending a reasonable amount of money to put worth into the game so that your hands aren't always throwable-away, then I can't see at all how it's sinful.


Isn't it legalistic to say "Gambling is wrong!"?


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Jun 20, 2007)

"I am unsure if it would necessarily be "right or wrong." Any thoughts?[/QUOTE]


Here are two helpful sites 
http://www.christian.org.uk/briefingpapers/gambling.htm
http://www.churchsociety.org/issues_new/ethics/iss_ethics_gambling.asp


----------



## etexas (Jun 20, 2007)

Dagmire said:


> It's a matter of the heart. Why does a person gamble? If a person gambles to try to cheat his way out of the created order of being made to work by scoring big and using it as an occasion for sin, then it's most certainly sinful. If a person enjoys a game of Texas Hold'em, using skill and enjoying that aspect of the game while spending a reasonable amount of money to put worth into the game so that your hands aren't always throwable-away, then I can't see at all how it's sinful.
> 
> 
> Isn't it legalistic to say "Gambling is wrong!"?


Then it is legalistic to take ANY moral position not explicit in Holy Writ, I am glad this argument did not prevail in slavery!


----------



## Davidius (Jun 20, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> Then it is legalistic to take ANY moral position not explicit in Holy Writ, I am glad this argument did not prevail in slavery!



You know that the Israelites took slaves, right?

I find it amazing that you're willing to call Exclusive Psalmody "legalism" yet are simultaneously making comments like these.


----------



## etexas (Jun 20, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> You know that the Israelites took slaves, right?
> 
> I find it amazing that you're willing to call Exclusive Psalmody "legalism" yet are simultaneously making comments like these.


Actually EP is legalism and cannot be reconciled with Scripture. The Hebrew "slavery" was quite different than the African slavery David. I thought you might know that. I pray you do.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 20, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> Then it is legalistic to take ANY moral position not explicit in Holy Writ, I am glad this argument did not prevail in slavery!





> The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: (WCF 1:6)



If it cannot be deduced from Scripture, then the answer is "yes".

Legalism is when you attempt to impose on someone else restrictions which God has not given in His Holy Word. You are free to impose them on yourself, but no one else.

Declaring all forms of gambling to be objectively immoral is a form of legalism, esp. when juxtaposed with humanistic endeavors like "fine arts".


----------



## Davidius (Jun 20, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> Actually EP is legalism and cannot be reconciled with Scripture. The Hebrew "slavery" was quite different than the African slavery David. I thought you might know that. I pray you do.



My point was that you are making categorical statements based on abuses. See Tom's post above.


----------



## etexas (Jun 20, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> If it cannot be deduced from Scripture, then the answer is "yes".
> 
> Legalism is when you attempt to impose on someone else restrictions which God has not given in His Holy Word. You are free to impose them on yourself, but no one else.
> 
> Declaring all forms of gambling to be objectively immoral is a form of legalism, esp. when juxtaposed with humanistic endeavors like "fine arts".


Tacky tacky! Not the least bit sarcastic.


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Jun 21, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> The guys at the Sinners and Saints podcast did a show about this recently. If you'd like to listen to it, you can find it here. They take the position that recreational gambling is acceptable for Christians but can be abused like anything else.
> 
> I agree with what they say. The fact that something can be or has been abused is no reason to call any participation in it sinful. Since the Bible doesn't directly address the topic the people who are against it turn to the use of certain "biblical principles" to "prove" that it's wrong but usually end up as hypocrites using absurd reasoning.


I listened to that show as well, and agree with you and them. I like the point they made about state-sponsored lottery as well.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Jun 21, 2007)

*1 Timothy 6:9-19*
_But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.
I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life._

Seems to me that gambling is a matter of the heart. Why are you doing it? Are you doing it to get rich and because you love money? The Bible seems to speak against that in the passage above.

So, I guess that only the person gambling can say for sure if it is a sin in their life because only they know their motives behind it. Although I think it's safe to say that there are not very many other motives for gambling than the love of money. Granted, a friendly card game may not suffice, but I'm talking about the Las Vegas style gambling. Or the sports bookie gambling.

*Matthew 6:21*
_For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also._

*Matthew 6:24*
_No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon._


----------



## bob (Jun 21, 2007)

Some time back while traveling through Las Vegas, I went to a casino to observe the proceedings. I had thought about even venturing to play a little, but I never felt that I had the liberty of conscience to play. I was somewhat amused at myself as I left, wondering if my feelings were the result of being tight and hating to lose hard earned money or whether my feelings were pressed by the leading of the Spirit.

I generally have a negative view of gambling, although I certainly wouldn't get excited about betting an ice cream cone over a foot race. To what extent gambling violates biblical principles I am not exactly sure. I think all would agree that it is certainly possible to sin at gambling so it is prudent for us to consider where the line must be drawn.

I have a couple questions that I have concerning gambling. The first would involve the means through which we obtain increase. There would appear to be a principle throughout Scriptures that we should work with our own hands so as to receive a living. Is it proper to desire to obtain monetary gain when we are not intrinsically producing something of worth to obtain it?

The gambling industry is supported by someone's loss. If there were no losers, there would be no winners. Considering the fact that we are to love our neighbor as ourself, is it proper to desire to receive winnings at the expenses of another's loss, even if that someone has voluntarily contributed his substance to the equation?

In regard to voting for such measures, I would always vote against it. Illinois is always trying to see money brought into the state by virtue of river boat casinos. It's ironic to me that when we are unable to expand revenue by way of bona fide progress by the expansion and addition of business that we always resort to gaming. The addition of casinos to the landscape certainly changes the fabric of the local community and once the casino is added to the fabric of the local community, can we really swell with pride with the the thought that true economical progress has been achieved?


----------



## govols (Jun 21, 2007)

I'm willing to bet that gamblin is unethical and there is a 99% chance that I will not gamble in my lifetime.


----------



## kvanlaan (Jun 21, 2007)

Is there anyone who can honestly say that they just gamble 'for the recreational value'? EVERYONE is looking for the slim chance that there will be a payout (and then kicks in 'thou shalt not steal'). 

To me, the 'recreation' argument ranks right up there with subscribing to Playboy just for the fine journalism and insightful articles. There are much better (read 'edifying') ways to spend your recreation time in BOTH cases.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 21, 2007)

kvanlaan said:


> Is there anyone who can honestly say that they just gamble 'for the recreational value'? EVERYONE is looking for the slim chance that there will be a payout (and then kicks in 'thou shalt not steal').
> 
> To me, the 'recreation' argument ranks right up there with subscribing to Playboy just for the fine journalism and insightful articles. There are much better (read 'edifying') ways to spend your recreation time in BOTH cases.



Yes. I can. 

I play poker with a few guys on a (very) rare ocasion. I am not motivated at all by the thought of winning a few dollars at the end of the night. It is just a fun (& cheap) way to spend an evening with some people I otherwise may not see outside of work.


----------



## kvanlaan (Jun 21, 2007)

Sorry, I don't want to seem to be splitting hairs here, but I was more referring to patronizing casinos. 

I'm still working on the whole 'back room poker game' scenario.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 21, 2007)

Gambling is a sin. It is the worship of mammon and is covetousness/greed.


----------



## etexas (Jun 21, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> Gambling is a sin. It is the worship of mammon and is covetousness/greed.


Right on Brother!


----------



## kvanlaan (Jun 21, 2007)

> Gambling is a sin. It is the worship of mammon and is covetousness/greed



I agree 1000%, but what of those who say that greed is not the motivator, but it is simple recreation?


----------



## bookslover (Jun 21, 2007)

From a W. C. Fields movie:

Man: _I thought this was a game of chance._
Fields: _Not the way I play it._

I voted against casino gambling all three times it was on the ballot here in California because I knew they were lying when they said lots of the money raked in would go for education. I was right - many school systems are still starved for money, while some of these Indian "tribes" (most of whom I'd never heard of before) are raking in HUGE money. Plus, some of the wealthy tribes are trying to cut out the poorer tribes from the cash flow. Disgraceful.


----------



## etexas (Jun 21, 2007)

bookslover said:


> From a W. C. Fields movie:
> 
> Man: _I thought this was a game of chance._
> Fields: _Not the way I play it._
> ...


Yet another reason I oppose gambling, a lot of what you just described has also happened in Oklahoma. It is disgusting........those who want to think it a Christian thing, I have one question: If the Good Lord came back would you like it to be in a casino?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 21, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> Yet another reason I oppose gambling, a lot of what you just described has also happened in Oklahoma. It is disgusting........



I think we can all agree to separate government corruption from gambling per se. Otherwise we should be condemning all sex because there are prostitutes in the world.

You need a better argument than activity A may lead to activity B. 

And you also need to demontrate that greed is the root of all gambling activity.



I follow Jesus said:


> those who want to think it a Christian thing, I have one question: If the Good Lord came back would you like it to be in a casino?



Only if I were winning. 

Honestly, since it is a matter of indifference, it really wouldn't matter if I were in a casino or having a beer or driving my car.


----------



## etexas (Jun 21, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> I think we can all agree to separate government corruption from gambling per se. Otherwise we should be condemning all sex because there are prostitutes in the world.
> 
> You need a better argument than activity A may lead to activity B.
> 
> ...


Really, you would be happy if the Lord came back while you had a whiskey in one hand a cigar in the other and were sitting in front of a blackjack table..........? Brother you tell me I need to prove something? Look at what you said. May God have mercy on you.


----------



## jenney (Jun 22, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> Legalism is when you attempt to impose on someone else restrictions which God has not given in His Holy Word. You are free to impose them on yourself, but no one else.



Is it? Do we have a Biblical basis for that definition? Do we even have a consensus on it?

When _I _say the word "legalism" I mean _the belief that our works are meritorious in the sight of God, that we somehow add to our justification._ That was the Galatian error, not adding to the law of God. Adding to the law is wrong, but that doesn't make it legalism.

By your definition, anything can be legalism. I know dear sisters in Christ (here on the PB!) who believe it is clear from Scripture that all Christian women are to cover our heads in public. I am not of this conviction. Should I consider them legalists? I do not believe that women are to speak in church. My friend Meg is part of a church where a woman might even give the sermon. Should she call me a legalist because she interprets those passages differently, so she could say those restrictions are not clear to her in Holy Writ, thus I am the legalist for imposing them upon her?

I agree we are only bound by that which is expressed in Scripture and have liberty with those things that do not, however, that is not the same thing as legalism. At least not what I mean by legalism.

Didn't Bob Howes (blhowes) start a thread on this very subject a few weeks ago?


----------



## Dagmire (Jun 22, 2007)

My understanding of legalism is trying to follow a set of rules to be righteous. 



> Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
> 
> Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: *against such there is no law*.




It's not a matter of what _can't_ we do, but of what we _can_ do. We're suppose to walk in the Spirit and do the things which are pleasing to God.


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Jun 22, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> Really, you would be happy if the Lord came back while you had a whiskey in one hand a cigar in the other and were sitting in front of a blackjack table..........?


Single or double malt?


Just kidding with ya


----------



## Casey (Jun 22, 2007)

*WLC Q. 142. What are the sins forbidden in the eighth commandment?

A.* The sins forbidden in the eighth commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, theft, robbery, man-stealing, and receiving anything that is stolen; fraudulent dealing, false weights and measures, removing landmarks, injustice and unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man, or in matters of trust; oppression, extortion, usury, bribery, vexatious lawsuits, unjust enclosures and depredation; engrossing commodities to enhance the price; unlawful callings, and all other unjust or sinful ways of taking or withholding from our neighbor what belongs to him, or of enriching ourselves; covetousness; inordinate prizing and affecting worldly goods; distrustful and distracting cares and studies in getting, keeping, and using them; envying at the prosperity of others; as likewise idleness, prodigality, *wasteful gaming*; and all other ways whereby we do unduly prejudice our own outward estate, and defrauding ourselves of the due use and comfort of that estate which God hath given us.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 22, 2007)

jenney said:


> Is it? Do we have a Biblical basis for that definition? Do we even have a consensus on it?



That was not intended to be an exhaustive definition. It was more of an example. Pharisaism and legalism are closely related. 

Requiring conformity to a standard of behavior other than the Word of God for oneself or another person with a view to spiritual merit is a form of works-righteousness.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 22, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> Really, you would be happy if the Lord came back while you had a whiskey in one hand a cigar in the other and were sitting in front of a blackjack table..........?



I wouldn't mind, and I don't think He would be too much concerned based on what I read in Scripture. We all have to be doing something. 



I follow Jesus said:


> Brother you tell me I need to prove something? Look at what you said. May God have mercy on you.



Is there an official "holy position" (external activity) one needs to be found in when Jesus returns? Or is this suggestion merely a quaint form of pietism? Maybe we need a "WWJD" bracelet with this on it.


----------



## etexas (Jun 22, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> That was not intended to be an exhaustive definition. It was more of an example. Pharisaism and legalism are closely related.
> 
> Requiring conformity to a standard of behavior other than the Word of God for oneself or another person with a view to spiritual merit is a form of works-righteousness.


I am not talking about works-salvation, I am talking common sense, Jesus warned "watch" when he said that do you think he meant "Watch for me in a gambling den or a hash-bar."? Look, he died for our sins, when we say it does not matter where we are or what we are doing when he returns we come pretty close to trampling the cross of Christ underfoot.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 22, 2007)

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> *WLC Q. 142. What are the sins forbidden in the eighth commandment?
> 
> A.* The sins forbidden in the eighth commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, theft, robbery, man-stealing, and receiving anything that is stolen; fraudulent dealing, false weights and measures, removing landmarks, injustice and unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man, or in matters of trust; oppression, extortion, usury, bribery, vexatious lawsuits, unjust enclosures and depredation; engrossing commodities to enhance the price; unlawful callings, and all other unjust or sinful ways of taking or withholding from our neighbor what belongs to him, or of enriching ourselves; covetousness; inordinate prizing and affecting worldly goods; distrustful and distracting cares and studies in getting, keeping, and using them; envying at the prosperity of others; *as likewise idleness, prodigality, wasteful gaming; *and all other ways whereby we do unduly prejudice our own outward estate, and defrauding ourselves of the due use and comfort of that estate which God hath given us.



This portion of the catechism seems to be concerned with extreme behavior. Does “idleness” mean that I can’t take a nap after I come home from work? Or does it mean an aversion to all forms of meaningful work? Likewise, “prodigality” means “extravagant wastefulness”. The “wasteful” in front of “gaming” is a similar modifier. Certainly not all forms of “gaming” are being condemned, otherwise why the modifier? If it is always “wasteful” to drop a few bucks in a casino then it must be just as wasteful to visit a big league ballpark or attend the opera.

It think the catechism leaves plenty of room for a sanctified conscience working within the boundaries of Christian liberty in this (and other) areas.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 22, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> I am not talking about works-salvation, *I am talking common sense*, Jesus warned "watch" when he said that do you think he meant "Watch for me in a gambling den or a hash-bar."? Look, he died for our sins, when we say it does not matter where we are or what we are doing when he returns we come pretty close to trampling the cross of Christ underfoot.



So, we are really talking about subjectivism. Such an attitude may appear common sensical to you, but it does not to me. And I am not called to subject my Christian liberty to someone else’s “common sense”.

Since Jesus does not describe the correct physical posture in which we are called to “watch” (unless to take an extremely literal view of the story of the virgins and their oil lamps) this doesn’t really seem to be much of an issue. If you can make a case for drinking whiskey in a bar as objectively sinful, then such activity is to be avoided at all time, not just when Jesus is about to return. Likewise with gambling.

All you are left with is pious sounding advice that, frankly, does not resonate with all believers, esp Reformed ones.


----------



## etexas (Jun 22, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> So, we are really talking about subjectivism. Such an attitude may appear common sensical to you, but it does not to me. And I am not called to subject my Christian liberty to someone else’s “common sense”.
> 
> Since Jesus does not describe the correct physical posture in which we are called to “watch” (unless to take an extremely literal view of the story of the virgins and their oil lamps) this doesn’t really seem to be much of an issue. If you can make a case for drinking whiskey in a bar as objectively sinful, then such activity is to be avoided at all time, not just when Jesus is about to return. Likewise with gambling.
> 
> All you are left with is pious sounding advice that, frankly, does not resonate with all believers, esp Reformed ones.


Fine, Tom. Have it your way. Be at Caesars Palace in Vegas when the Saviour comes. That is your deal, sorry I care about a fellow Christian. And I do care,I was not trying to bust your chops, I think things like that matter. Grace and Peace.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Jun 22, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> Fine, Tom. Have it your way. Be at Caesars Palace in Vegas when the Saviour comes. That is your deal, sorry I care about a fellow Christian.



Why take that tone? How can you follow that argument to its logical end? Would you wish to be in the movie theatre when Christ returns? Watching TV? Surfing the internet? Reading? Going to the bathroom? Eating some McDonalds?

I just don't buy it. No man knows the date. If it's permissable within the bounds of Christian liberty, then you have no right to burden another Christian's conscience with _your_ qualms about the activity. If it's not permissable within the bounds of Christian liberty, then it should not be done. Period.


----------



## Dagmire (Jun 22, 2007)

I don't think your tone is good or called for either, Max. You are putting forth one position and others are responding that they don't hold the same position. They have used Scripture, catechisms, logic, reason, and exposition of all of those things to put forth their positions. And you, quite frankly, are being very dismissive of everyone's opinion but your own. Someone calmly puts forth that they don't agree with you and you say "Fine, be that way. Be in a casino when the Savior comes."

I don't think that's necessary.


----------

