Chess and Checkers... really?

[JonMiller]

Traditional adventists are against Chess and Checkers? Where did/does this come from?

I can sorta understand cards, as it follows the whole idea of "if something can be a cause for temptation it is a sin" sort of thing (and cards are used in lots of gambling which is sinful in some situations), but what is the reasoning on chess and checkers?

Jon Miller

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

It only serves to please and gratify the self, of course.

Everything that only gratifies the desires of the self = "selfish" and therefore = "evil".

This bes why that whole "selfishness" line should not be used to describe or define sin. It leads to error.

 

[synger]

From what I've read, there should be a balance between "not binding the young down to rigid rules and restraints that will lead them to feeling oppressed" and a parents' rightful concern that certain games and amusements are "not beneficial in their tendency, but have an exciting influence, producing in some minds a passion for those plays which lead to gambling and dissipation".

I've seen some pretty cutthroat chess games, and my dad has told me about the gambling that would take place over the outcome of a checkers game at the corner store in an evening, especially when two of the town "masters" were going at it.

Anything can be taken to excess. I had friends who were not allowed to play Michigan Rummy (one of the big card games when I was growing up) for much the same reason. People took it too seriously, and the adults would sometimes gamble on it.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

The general guideline, as I was taught about any form of amusement, is this: If it does not directly pertain to God and doing His work, it is considered a waste of time and should not be done. There was heavy emphasis in the church I attended, on having to give account some day for how we spent our time. When we tell the Lord, for example, that we really didn't have time to witness and soul-win any more than we did, He supposedly will answer, "What about the x number of hours you spent playing games/ watching movies/ etc.?"

Apparently Uno was still OK, though....

 

[reddogs]

Traditional adventists are against Chess and Checkers? Where did/does this come from?

I can sorta understand cards, as it follows the whole idea of "if something can be a cause for temptation it is a sin" sort of thing (and cards are used in lots of gambling which is sinful in some situations), but what is the reasoning on chess and checkers?

Jon Miller

You can do any game or recreation you want, but I think if it leads to gambling or other vices, then its frowned on. I had to test many games for development, so I asked people that played them at the Bingo Halls or Clubhouse of their community on various aspects of the game such as what rules they set, as you can call the rules ahead of time. They were pretty strong on how the game was to be played almost to the point of fighting over it and losing friendships over disputes on a game or issue, so it can cross the point of just relaxation or entertainment...

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

It is from our Puritan roots that SDA forbid chess and checkers, then because it was confirmed by EGW it becomes more fixed though probably the majority disregard her statements about such games.

What we often don't think about is the long history before the Puritans. In this case Chess has a long history of being a forbidden game because of religious authoritarianism. see:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lab/7378/religion.htm

The Egyptian al-Hakim banned chess in Egypt in 1005 and ordered that all chess sets and pieces be burned in Egypt.
Chess had picked up in Europe and pretty soon many of the clergy was spending more time playing chess than saving souls. In 1061 Cardinal Damiani of Ostin forbad the clergy from playing chess. He died in 1072 and chess was resumed in his domain.
By 1093 the Eastern Orthodox church condemned chess. The Church stamped out chess in Russia as a relic of heathenism.
In Europe some members of the clergy thought that receiving a "check" in chess was similar to committing a sin which one was able to redeem. A checkmate was similar to committing a sin that was perishable, and thus deadly.
By 1100 chess was accepted as a regular feature of noble life in England. It was even a knightly accomplishment to play chess in 1106 under Petro Alfonsi. Chess was played by the upper classes and excluded women from playing the game.
By 1115, the emperor of the Byzantine empire was a chess addict. Despite that, it was still being banned in the churches up to 1125. John Zonares, a former captain of the Byzantine imperial guard, became a monk and issued a directive banning chess as a kind of debauchery.
St. Bernard (1090-1153) forbade his knights templars from playing chess.
Chess become more popular during the crusades, but Alexander Neckam, a British author, condemned chess as being frivilous.
By 1195, the Jews were seriously involved in playing chess, but Rabbi Maimonides included chess among the forbidden games for jews.
In 1197 the Abbot of Persigny was warning folks not to play chess.
In 1208 the bishop of Paris, Odo Sully, banned chess in Paris to his clergy.
It was also forbidden in Worcester, England in 1240 by the religous leadership.
In 1254 St Louis of France restricted chess to laymen. Provinical councils were forbidding chess in France (Beziers).
King Henry III (1207-1272) instructed the clergy to leave chess alone "on pain of durance vile."
In 1291 the Archbishop of Cantebury, John Peckman, was forbidding chess. He threatened to put anyone on a diet of bread and water if they played chess.
Priests were forbidden to play chess up to 1299. The Clementine Kormch wrote a series of directions of priests. It included no chess play. Chess was forbidden in Germany in 1310 after the Council of Trier. ...

 

[synger]

*chuckles* and here I thought the "argument from tradition" was frowned upon in this forum.

Actually, I think it's fascinating how wrapped-up in games one can get. There are friends of mine I don't even want to play Go Fish with because they take it so seriously. And I know that I myself am a poor winner and an even poorer loser, so I tend to prefer games and amusements where there's no "winner" (RPGs, drawing, building, etc.) or where I'm playing myself or the computer.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I did not state that the above traditions were right or wrong. Though I think they are a misunderstanding of what the purpose of games is. The tradition is that of authorities making arbitrary rules under the guise that their rules have some God given authority.

As is often the problem with tradition once it starts few people question it. Knowing the history is not an argument for the tradition, because once you know the history the power of the tradition quickly fades. Which is similar to the Lucifer myth, once you know the figures in history that first declared lucifer was Satan you realize how they manipulated information to their purpose and just how contextually wrong they were to do it. It is part of the modern scientific method to discard those traditions when they have no real basis in fact.

 

[Sophia7]

Traditional adventists are against Chess and Checkers? Where did/does this come from?

I can sorta understand cards, as it follows the whole idea of "if something can be a cause for temptation it is a sin" sort of thing (and cards are used in lots of gambling which is sinful in some situations), but what is the reasoning on chess and checkers?

Jon Miller

Here is EGW's reasoning on chess and checkers and other amusements:

There are amusements which we cannot approve, because Heaven condemns them,--such as dancing, card-playing, chess, checkers, &c. These amusements open the door for great evil. Their tendencies are not beneficial, but their influence upon the mind is to excite and produce in some minds a passion for those plays which lead to gambling, and dissolute lives. All such plays should be condemned by Christians. Something should be substituted in the place of these amusements. Something can be invented, perfectly harmless. {RH, October 8, 1867 par. 29}
​

That's why a lot of Traditional/Historic Adventists condemn such games. The SDA Church Manual also includes some statements on recreation. Here is part of its "summary of doctrinal beliefs," which is (according to it anyway) supposed to be used for instructing baptismal candidates:

25. In the Christian life there is complete separation from worldly practices, such as card playing, theatergoing, dancing, et cetera, which tend to deaden and destroy the spiritual life. (2 Cor. 6:15-18; 1 John 2:15-17; James 4:4; 2 Tim. 2:19-22; Eph. 5:8-11; Col. 3:5-10. See pp. 178-180.) (222)
​

They list a lot of Bible texts there, but the Bible doesn't say anything about theatergoing, dancing, chess, checkers, etc. The section of the Church Manual on recreation in chapter 13, "Standards of Christian Living," beginning around page 178, is filled with quotes from Ellen White, and, as RC has mentioned, her views on a lot of things were rooted in the Puritan attitudes of many Christians at the time. Adventists traditionally have condemned such activities because of the writings of EGW, who said that Heaven condemned them.

 

[Sophia7]

The general guideline, as I was taught about any form of amusement, is this: If it does not directly pertain to God and doing His work, it is considered a waste of time and should not be done. There was heavy emphasis in the church I attended, on having to give account some day for how we spent our time. When we tell the Lord, for example, that we really didn't have time to witness and soul-win any more than we did, He supposedly will answer, "What about the x number of hours you spent playing games/ watching movies/ etc.?"

Apparently Uno was still OK, though....

I've observed a lot of variations within Adventism on the subject of entertainment. Some people follow EGW very strictly. Others pick and choose which things they consider authoritative from her writings. Some don't accept her as inspired at all and don't pay any attention to her counsels.

My personal experience in growing up Adventist was not very EGW-focused. My parents didn't care about a lot of the Adventist lifestyle standards, and I'm glad that I wasn't raised in as strict an environment as some people that I've met. Some Adventists do think that any activity that doesn't pertain directly to God and to witnessing to others about Adventist beliefs is a waste of time.

In college I had a lot of very conservative Adventist friends, but even most of them went to movies occasionally. There was one guy that I knew who was planning to be a pastor. He went to movies during his first couple of years at college, and then he quit just because he thought it wouldn't look good to any conference officers who might be considering hiring him if they heard about it. Of course, I've also known a lot of Adventists who thought that going to a movie theater was evil but that renting the same movie and watching it at home was fine. I guess that kind of goes along with the attitude that some people have that card games are evil, but Uno is OK.

 

[JonMiller]

Many adventists are too ready to call something that causes temptation a sin. They don't realize that everything can cause temptation, and that our purpose isn't to become sinless.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

Yeah, my interpretation of 25. is that I shouldn't go to strip clubs anymore.. I know that many interpretations might be different. I don't see how chess/checkers insights gambling or passions more than anything else in life.

JM

 

[freeindeed2]

Yeah, my interpretation of 25. is that I shouldn't go to strip clubs anymore.. I know that many interpretations might be different. I don't see how chess/checkers insights gambling or passions more than anything else in life.

JM

I've played chess/checkers and cards for many many years. But I cannot bring myself to gamble money. It's too much of a 'gamble' for me! If I ever feel the urge to gamble money I think I'd take whatever amount I was thinking and put it in my Roth IRA. IMO, gambling is a surtax on stupidity. I just don't do it, and not because of 'church' either. I just don't do it. It goes against my desire to retire someday without living off of social security or my kids or any social program using tax-payer money.

In CHRIST alone...

 

[JonMiller]

I have gambled before.. I consider it to be spending 50$ for an evenings entertainment (or 100$). Now, I am particularly unlucky on gambling, and most of the time had it turn into an hours entertainment (well, often being most of the time I have gambled, but I have only gambled a few times - and only once at a casino).

I vastly prefer poker with buddies as far as gambling goes, where the buy in is 5$ or 10$, as 50+$ is quite a bit for an evenings entertainment. I am not a huge fan of even that.

JM

 

[VictorC]

I have gambled before.. I consider it to be spending 50$ for an evenings entertainment (or 100$). Now, I am particularly unlucky on gambling, and most of the time had it turn into an hours entertainment (well, often being most of the time I have gambled, but I have only gambled a few times - and only once at a casino).

I vastly prefer poker with buddies as far as gambling goes, where the buy in is 5$ or 10$, as 50+$ is quite a bit for an evenings entertainment. I am not a huge fan of even that.

JM

I used to live in Nevada.
I have absolutely no interest in lotteries, and card games bore me to tears!
Imagine that

 

[Sophia7]

I've played chess/checkers and cards for many many years. But I cannot bring myself to gamble money. It's too much of a 'gamble' for me! If I ever feel the urge to gamble money I think I'd take whatever amount I was thinking and put it in my Roth IRA. IMO, gambling is a surtax on stupidity. I just don't do it, and not because of 'church' either. I just don't do it. It goes against my desire to retire someday without living off of social security or my kids or any social program using tax-payer money.

In CHRIST alone...

I have gambled before.. I consider it to be spending 50$ for an evenings entertainment (or 100$). Now, I am particularly unlucky on gambling, and most of the time had it turn into an hours entertainment (well, often being most of the time I have gambled, but I have only gambled a few times - and only once at a casino).

I vastly prefer poker with buddies as far as gambling goes, where the buy in is 5$ or 10$, as 50+$ is quite a bit for an evenings entertainment. I am not a huge fan of even that.

JM

Hubby has a friend at work who used to go to the casino to play poker. He would actually win quite a bit of money some weekends, so it kept him coming back. His dream was to be in the World Championship Poker Tour, but lately he's stopped playing so much. Maybe he's starting to be a little more realistic. At least he hasn't quit his job yet to pursue that goal.

 

[Sophia7]

Yeah, my interpretation of 25. is that I shouldn't go to strip clubs anymore.. I know that many interpretations might be different. I don't see how chess/checkers insights gambling or passions more than anything else in life.

JM

I guess people could use pretty much anything as an opportunity to gamble if they wanted to.

 

[JonMiller]

Oh, if you play people who aren't very good at poker, you can generally make money. I have a number of friends who have done it. But you end up working for your money, like anything else, as you have to play a lot of poker. And you have bad weeks and good weeks (you need enough to survive the bad weeks).

That is what makes poker more interesting than other games of chance... is the bluffing/etc.

When I went to a casino, I did Blackjack. And I looked up the probabilities first, and knew how to bet. And I still lost all my money in like an hour... and it wasn't as fun as poker to be honest. But being with my freinds as they gambled was fun (one of my friends ended up (After being way up), another ended up down but was even for a bit).

JM

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

I did not state that the above traditions were right or wrong. Though I think they are a misunderstanding of what the purpose of games is. The tradition is that of authorities making arbitrary rules under the guise that their rules have some God given authority.

As is often the problem with tradition once it starts few people question it. Knowing the history is not an argument for the tradition, because once you know the history the power of the tradition quickly fades. Which is similar to the Lucifer myth, once you know the figures in history that first declared lucifer was Satan you realize how they manipulated information to their purpose and just how contextually wrong they were to do it. It is part of the modern scientific method to discard those traditions when they have no real basis in fact.

But RON ... Satan HIMSELF told Moriah He bes Lucifer.



Sorry, couldn't resist. (Resistance bes futile!)
On a more serious note ... your discourse here just might be a bit whizzy past the ears of some whats not got access to the "meta" level circuits. Not all humans do, you know -- not all them fleshlings can think about their think.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

What Moriah has always found an interesting study in self-exonerating hypocrisy, bes that SDAs who roundly condemn chess or checkers or cards or whatever will still erect huge television screens in the cafeterias of their colleges and invite everyone there to waste time sitting on their behinds watching grown men in ludicrous tights, shoulder pads, cleats and helmets chase and fight over a brown leather-bound ovoid every winter in some bizarre ritualised homophobic expression of homoeroticism.

Now exactly HOW bes THAT "glorifying God" or serving Him???