Churches of Christ Rules

[Koey]

I was recently given a verbal list of unwritten Churches of Christ rules by an elder in our church. Here are some of them:

1. Do not gamble.
2. Do not put one coin in a slot machine, even just for fun. It sets a bad example, supports a sinful empire and could lead to ruin.
3. Never go to the horse races, because they gamble there.
4. Do not drink, even in moderation.
5. A Christian ought never go into a pub or bar, it smells bad and people might think you are having a drink.
6. Do not dance. Dancing is lust on two legs.

Do any of you follow these rules? Why? Do the words of Jesus have any priority in your lives, or do you make these rules equal in authority to the doctrines of Christ?

 

[Splayd]

Our church isn't big on rules, but some of the older members will recall when it used to be. One of the "rules" you didn't have on your list that they used to have was not playing cards on Sundays. I also know that when I first started going I was pulled aside by an elder and told I wasn't dressed appropriately for church.

I understand how and why these unwritten rules developed. Some of them make great sense but in my opinion, focussing on the rules isn't what it's all about. That was one of the mistakes the Pharisees made.

 

[JDIBe]

I was recently given a verbal list of unwritten Churches of Christ rules by an elder in our church. Here are some of them:

1. Do not gamble.
2. Do not put one coin in a slot machine, even just for fun. It sets a bad example, supports a sinful empire and could lead to ruin.
3. Never go to the horse races, because they gamble there.
4. Do not drink, even in moderation.
5. A Christian ought never go into a pub or bar, it smells bad and people might think you are having a drink.
6. Do not dance. Dancing is lust on two legs.

Do any of you follow these rules? Why? Do the words of Jesus have any priority in your lives, or do you make these rules equal in authority to the doctrines of Christ?

Well first of all, I'm not sure if you can take "rules" given by...
1. one Elder
2. verbally in conversation
3. unwritten

and call them "Church of Christ" rules and then make the assumption that Church of Christ people might think they would be equal to Scripture. Kind of like a Presidential poll composed of a one person sample.

I would think most of these could fall under the catagory of "wise advice", but Scripture is Scripture.

(BTW, I know of many Baptists who would agree with the above statement. )

 

[ForeverFaithful2TheEnd]

I agree with what you said. I am also a member of the church of christ.


In His love

John

 

[Mary of Bethany]

We had the same "rules" when I was growing up in the Baptist church, plus add the one about not playing cards (dominoes was okay, though ), and also going to movies was frowned on.



Mary

 

[jmacvols]

I was recently given a verbal list of unwritten Churches of Christ rules by an elder in our church. Here are some of them:

1. Do not gamble.
2. Do not put one coin in a slot machine, even just for fun. It sets a bad example, supports a sinful empire and could lead to ruin.
3. Never go to the horse races, because they gamble there.
4. Do not drink, even in moderation.
5. A Christian ought never go into a pub or bar, it smells bad and people might think you are having a drink.
6. Do not dance. Dancing is lust on two legs.

Do any of you follow these rules? Why? Do the words of Jesus have any priority in your lives, or do you make these rules equal in authority to the doctrines of Christ?

I see these things being condemned in Gal 5:19-21. The phrase 'and such like' includes similar things not listed here by Paul.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Gal 5:19Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

No dancing listed and no gambling listed. I can't see dancing being anything like the things listed nor can I see gambling. As always everything in moderation as both CAN be dangerous but so can eating. There is no admonition present against dancing or gambling.

I wanted to address the drinking issue completely separately. Scripture is in no way against drinking in moderation. It even recommends drinking for stomach problems, praises wine as a gift from God, and more. The only thing that is warned about is drunkenness. Drinking is fine as long as you do not get drunk. Saying otherwise is contradictory to scripture and false doctrine.

As for going into a bar that should pretty much be self-explanatory. We know with whom Christ ate and with whom he chose to hang out. A bar is just a place that serves alcohol and nothing more. The people inside the bar are God's creations and are loved by him just the same. If we don't go where they are and show them how a Godly person lives then we are not showing our light to the world.

Whatever elder gave out this list needs to be smacked down (verbally of course) for teaching doctrine that is not found in scripture.

 

[AJB4]

I was recently given a verbal list of unwritten Churches of Christ rules by an elder in our church. Here are some of them:

1. Do not gamble.
2. Do not put one coin in a slot machine, even just for fun. It sets a bad example, supports a sinful empire and could lead to ruin.
3. Never go to the horse races, because they gamble there.
4. Do not drink, even in moderation.
5. A Christian ought never go into a pub or bar, it smells bad and people might think you are having a drink.
6. Do not dance. Dancing is lust on two legs.

Do any of you follow these rules? Why? Do the words of Jesus have any priority in your lives, or do you make these rules equal in authority to the doctrines of Christ?

That's where a lot of CoC members annoy me. They push 'human rules that they have memorized', just like the Pharisees. Adding to that original list: 1) A CoC member should never listen to instrumental Christian music. 2) A CoC member should never donate to any charitable cause or buy a particular brand of food if even the slightest percentage of the money will be donated to a denomination. 3) A CoC member should practise closed fellowship. 4) Disfellowshipped members are to be alienated and never spoken to again except to warn them to come back to the CoC or their soul will be lost to the devil. The legalistic qualities of the CoC really annoy me . That will be something I will try to change about the CoC in the future if I hang in there (that is, if I don't convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, which I've been considering).

 

[holo]

I was recently given a verbal list of unwritten Churches of Christ rules by an elder in our church. Here are some of them:

1. Do not gamble.
2. Do not put one coin in a slot machine, even just for fun. It sets a bad example, supports a sinful empire and could lead to ruin.
3. Never go to the horse races, because they gamble there.
4. Do not drink, even in moderation.
5. A Christian ought never go into a pub or bar, it smells bad and people might think you are having a drink.
6. Do not dance. Dancing is lust on two legs.

Do any of you follow these rules? Why? Do the words of Jesus have any priority in your lives, or do you make these rules equal in authority to the doctrines of Christ?

Heh. I know the phenomenon. It all boils down to a lack of grace - if you don't have grace you pretty much have to find another way of instructing people. In short, commandments. The more the merrier...

Anyway, consider a few of the old-school rules that you find unfounded and unuseful today, like "women shalt not wear trousers" - consider how ridiculous it sounds today. Perhaps some of the rules you ARE following today will sound just as ridiculous in 15 years. I bet (!) they will.

 

[jmacvols]

Gal 5:19Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

No dancing listed and no gambling listed. I can't see dancing being anything like the things listed nor can I see gambling. As always everything in moderation as both CAN be dangerous but so can eating. There is no admonition present against dancing or gambling.

Paul said "and such like", this is a 'catch all phrase'. If you study the word 'lasciviousness' you will see its definition perfectly describes the kind of dancing that takes place in the various night clubs.
The bible does not teach only by direct commands. Just because 'thou shalt not gamble" is not found in the bible does not mean it is right. The bible also teaches by inference. An example of inference:

A = B
B = C

We can infer from the above that A = C even though it is not explicitly stated. Take the above and fill in some things for A, B, and C.

Sin = stealing
stealing = gambling

We can then correctly infer that sin = gambling.

I know of only a few ways one can get money. He can get a job and earn it, find it, inherit it, it can be a gift or it can be stolen. From this list, gambling fits under stealing. In state lotteries, the state tries to steal from the citizens and the citizens try to steal from the state.
Envy also fits in here. Envy is where you have what I want and I will do whatever it takes to get it from you, including stealing from you. Contentment can also fit here also. Paul said we should be content with such things as we have.

I wanted to address the drinking issue completely separately. Scripture is in no way against drinking in moderation. It even recommends drinking for stomach problems, praises wine as a gift from God, and more. The only thing that is warned about is drunkenness. Drinking is fine as long as you do not get drunk. Saying otherwise is contradictory to scripture and false doctrine.

As for going into a bar that should pretty much be self-explanatory. We know with whom Christ ate and with whom he chose to hang out. A bar is just a place that serves alcohol and nothing more. The people inside the bar are God's creations and are loved by him just the same. If we don't go where they are and show them how a Godly person lives then we are not showing our light to the world.

Whatever elder gave out this list needs to be smacked down (verbally of course) for teaching doctrine that is not found in scripture.

What is Paul saying in 1 Thess 5:22?

Paul gave advise to Timothy, not you nor me, to drink a little wine for thy stomach sake.

-this is medicinal advice specifically for Timothy, how did you get approval of social drinking for anyone from this?
-by Paul telling Timothy to drink a little wine implies that Timothy had been avoiding drinking wine. If social drinking of wine were prevailent among Christians, Timothy would have already been drinking wine.
-Timothy was to drink a little wine with his water. The water probably diluted any possible alcoholic content while the wine killed any bacteria in the water. With the sanitary conditions we have today concerning water, there is no need for this.

We both can agree that drunkeness is sinful, but at what point is a person 'drunk' and what credentials do you have to determine that point?
The fact is drunkeness is a matter of degree. If one drinks a thimble full, he then is a thimble full drunk. If one drinks a glass full he is a glass full drunk and so on.

 

[Splayd]

I appreciate and understand your way of thinking jmacvols, but I also recognise it as the same issue Jesus had with the Pharisees when they rebuked His disciples for not washing their hands prior to eating. They were building a fence around the law to protect it, but in so doing they were missing the point of the law.

They took entirely legitimate scriptural laws and concluded new ones from them too. The problem is, once we consider the new rule to be equally valid in it's own right, it's all too easy to a) find loopholes in the rule to justify our behaviour or b) make even more rules to protect these ones. That's exactly what happened to the Pharisees and it's what I see happening to us all too often.

I actually became addicted to gambling while trying to keep rules. I know, I know... I was a mess and got addicted to pretty much everything during a pretty bad period of rebellion. Of course my inability to keep rules doesn't invalidate the rules and I'm not going to imply it does... but as a repentant gambler, I'm perhaps more aware of the dangers and lures of it than most. I'm probably more repulsed, sickened and saddened by it than those who have never felt it's sting... but I still don't see "gambling" as a sin. Let me elaborate:

When I was trapped in it, I'd made it a god. That's a sin.
I was covetting. That's a sin.
I wasn't earning my money, which goes against biblical principals.
I wasn't being a good steward which also goes against biblical principals.
I could go on and on to mention all the ways I was sinning and failing to live according to God's design. Ultimately that's where the problems were. I didn't need to stop because "gambling is a sin". I needed to stop because I was living in sin by gambling. It might seem an insignificant distinction, but in reality there's a world of difference which comes back to our hearts.

You see - as long I was living by the new rule "Thou shalt not gamble" then, like the Pharisees before me, I become a bush lawyer to interpret this law as I see fit. I can use it to condemn people that invest in the stock exchange or those who play free, friendly games of Poker. Of course, I can get caught in that trap and keep trying to define and redefine the law: High risk investments are gambling, but low ones aren't. Now to define each of those...etc.. Playing poker for even small change is gambling, but playing for chips isn't. Mind you - given that gambling is now a sin, we must recognise the potential for free games of poker to lead to money games. Hmmm.... It goes on and on in an endless spiral of legalistic junk.

Meanwhile, being a good bush lawyer - we also, like the Pharisees before us, understand how to twist and manipulate our new laws to justify our own actions. I had a system that "couldn't lose". If there's no risk, there's no gambling. I was playing the pokies for entertainment, not to try to win money, so ultimately there's no difference between throwing the coins in a Space Invaders machine or into a Pokie... and so on and so on. Of course they sound like stupid reasons to anyone else, but that's OK - in my courtroom I was the prosecutor, defense attorney, jury and judge. Living according to the new rule worked well for me.

To focus on the letter, particularly of our own rules often means missing the spirit of the law. We're to live our lives according to His will. What I was doing didn't measure up and I knew it. The Holy Spirit revealed it to me many times, but thinking it was all about rules, I was able to mount a defense for myself and an attack on others. Rather, live according to the spirit. Keep a check on your motivation. Be assured that what you're doing is in harmony with scripture and with a clear conscience. It's not about developing new truth, but walking in spirit and truth as it already is.

Peace

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Paul said "and such like", this is a 'catch all phrase'. If you study the word 'lasciviousness' you will see its definition perfectly describes the kind of dancing that takes place in the various night clubs.

I didn't suggest that one go to a bump `n' grind nightclub. I wouldn't suggest someone go somewhere that would cause lust. However there are many bars that are simply places to hang out that serve alcohol.

The bible does not teach only by direct commands. Just because 'thou shalt not gamble" is not found in the bible does not mean it is right. The bible also teaches by inference. An example of inference:

A = B
B = C

We can infer from the above that A = C even though it is not explicitly stated. Take the above and fill in some things for A, B, and C.

Sin = stealing
stealing = gambling

We can then correctly infer that sin = gambling.

I know of only a few ways one can get money. He can get a job and earn it, find it, inherit it, it can be a gift or it can be stolen. From this list, gambling fits under stealing. In state lotteries, the state tries to steal from the citizens and the citizens try to steal from the state.

Gambling is not stealing no matter how you slice it. A lottery has odds and you accept those odds when you play. You know that the state is making a profit. There is no-one I know who does not understand that the state makes a profit. A lottery, as used in your example, uses a percentage of the money spent on winnings and everyone knows the state is making a profit. It's not stealing from anyone. If someone is addicted to gambling then they are abusing their freedom and being excessive and excess is the sin and not the gambling. In no way is gambling stealing. That is really laughable in fact. You could conclude it is an attempt to get money for nothing but you would be wrong since you are investing. I am an avid poker player and no-one at a poker table has ever accused me of stealing. In fact lets go look at the definition of stealing:

steal

intransitive verb
1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
2 : to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
3 : to steal or attempt to steal a base
transitive verb
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully <stole a car> b : to take away by force or unjust means [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ey've stolen our liberty> c : to take surreptitiously or without permission <steal a kiss> d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of <steal the show>
2 a : to move, convey, or introduce secretly : SMUGGLE b : to accomplish in a concealed or unobserved manner <steal a visit>
3 a : to seize, gain, or win by trickery, skill, or daring <a basketball player adept at stealing the ball> <stole the election> b of a base runner : to reach (a base) safely solely by running and usually catching the opposing team off guard

I have bolded the only definitions that could be sinful, unless you want to argue that a baseball player trying to steal a base is in sin, and none of those fit the definition of gambling. You give your explicit permission to have your money taken when you gamble and since that permission is given it can be no form of theft or stealing. Your analogy is completely wrong and fails to prove that gambling is stealing.

Envy also fits in here. Envy is where you have what I want and I will do whatever it takes to get it from you, including stealing from you. Contentment can also fit here also. Paul said we should be content with such things as we have.

No-one is stealing by gambling so your first point is rendered moot. Your second point is a laughable analogy and would mean we should turn down raises at work, gifts of all sorts, and so on. Gambling is recreation to some, and addiction to others, and a job for yet others. Only one of those is a sin issue. Gambling is an activity in and of itself is neither sinful or not. It is the persons heart that matters. You fail to prove this point completely.

What is Paul saying in 1 Thess 5:22?

Paul gave advise to Timothy, not you nor me, to drink a little wine for thy stomach sake.

-this is medicinal advice specifically for Timothy, how did you get approval of social drinking for anyone from this?
-by Paul telling Timothy to drink a little wine implies that Timothy had been avoiding drinking wine. If social drinking of wine were prevailent among Christians, Timothy would have already been drinking wine.
-Timothy was to drink a little wine with his water. The water probably diluted any possible alcoholic content while the wine killed any bacteria in the water. With the sanitary conditions we have today concerning water, there is no need for this.

He also said an elder shouldn't be given to much wine. He did not say an elder shouldn't ever partake. Christ himself drank wine. He drank enough wine that the Pharisees accused him of being a drunkard.

We both can agree that drunkeness is sinful, but at what point is a person 'drunk' and what credentials do you have to determine that point?

I hold a TABC certification and happen to be legally able to discern a person's drunkenness. Since I have been certified by the state to tend bar I have to discern this. It isn't hard to figure how much one can drink and be legally intoxicated. Anyone with basic math skills can manage that.

The fact is drunkeness is a matter of degree. If one drinks a thimble full, he then is a thimble full drunk. If one drinks a glass full he is a glass full drunk and so on.

You are actually wrong. The word used in the Greek means intoxicated. We use drunk as well. The word means, when researched out, to be stupified. It does not mean to have alcohol in your system. Claiming scripture requires teatotalling is a false doctrine and not found in scripture. Thanks for playing.

 

[AJB4]

I wouldn't probably object to the odd bit of gambling. I wouldn't regularly do it, myself, but once in a blue moon, it wouldn't hurt anyone.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I wouldn't probably object to the odd bit of gambling. I wouldn't regularly do it, myself, but once in a blue moon, it wouldn't hurt anyone.

Treated like anything else it is done in moderation. I personally have a budget for poker and do not exceed such. I enjoy poker more than movies so it is better for me to set aside money that others use for various forms of entertainment to use to play poker.

 

[jmacvols]

I appreciate and understand your way of thinking jmacvols, but I also recognise it as the same issue Jesus had with the Pharisees when they rebuked His disciples for not washing their hands prior to eating. They were building a fence around the law to protect it, but in so doing they were missing the point of the law.

You're falsely accusing me of something I am not doing. No one has proven here that social drinking and gambling are not sinful.

They took entirely legitimate scriptural laws and concluded new ones from them too. The problem is, once we consider the new rule to be equally valid in it's own right, it's all too easy to a) find loopholes in the rule to justify our behaviour or b) make even more rules to protect these ones. That's exactly what happened to the Pharisees and it's what I see happening to us all too often.

It is those here that are trying to find "loopholes" in order to justify drinking and gambling--and they call me "legalistic"??? I have not "made anything up" I use scriptures as my bases. I have seen them twist scriptures to try and justify their position.

I actually became addicted to gambling while trying to keep rules. I know, I know... I was a mess and got addicted to pretty much everything during a pretty bad period of rebellion. Of course my inability to keep rules doesn't invalidate the rules and I'm not going to imply it does... but as a repentant gambler, I'm perhaps more aware of the dangers and lures of it than most. I'm probably more repulsed, sickened and saddened by it than those who have never felt it's sting... but I still don't see "gambling" as a sin. Let me elaborate:

Gambling did all of this to you, and does even worse to others, and you cannot see it being sinful?

When I was trapped in it, I'd made it a god. That's a sin.
I was covetting. That's a sin.
I wasn't earning my money, which goes against biblical principals.
I wasn't being a good steward which also goes against biblical principals.
I could go on and on to mention all the ways I was sinning and failing to live according to God's design. Ultimately that's where the problems were. I didn't need to stop because "gambling is a sin". I needed to stop because I was living in sin by gambling. It might seem an insignificant distinction, but in reality there's a world of difference which comes back to our hearts.

Gambling itslef is sinful, and you are correct in that one sin (gambling) will only lead to other sins.

You see - as long I was living by the new rule "Thou shalt not gamble" then, like the Pharisees before me, I become a bush lawyer to interpret this law as I see fit. I can use it to condemn people that invest in the stock exchange or those who play free, friendly games of Poker. Of course, I can get caught in that trap and keep trying to define and redefine the law: High risk investments are gambling, but low ones aren't. Now to define each of those...etc.. Playing poker for even small change is gambling, but playing for chips isn't. Mind you - given that gambling is now a sin, we must recognise the potential for free games of poker to lead to money games. Hmmm.... It goes on and on in an endless spiral of legalistic junk.

Again, the bible does not always give direct commands, it also teaches by example and inference (as I shown earlier). The bible does not specifically say thou shalt not beat thy wife. Does this make wife beating ok? If I say wife beating is wrong does that make me a "legalistic Pharisee"?

How do you reach the conclusion that making high risk investments is the same as gambling but low risk ones are not? How is investing at any level gambling?

Meanwhile, being a good bush lawyer - we also, like the Pharisees before us, understand how to twist and manipulate our new laws to justify our own actions. I had a system that "couldn't lose". If there's no risk, there's no gambling. I was playing the pokies for entertainment, not to try to win money, so ultimately there's no difference between throwing the coins in a Space Invaders machine or into a Pokie... and so on and so on. Of course they sound like stupid reasons to anyone else, but that's OK - in my courtroom I was the prosecutor, defense attorney, jury and judge. Living according to the new rule worked well for me.

To focus on the letter, particularly of our own rules often means missing the spirit of the law. We're to live our lives according to His will. What I was doing didn't measure up and I knew it. The Holy Spirit revealed it to me many times, but thinking it was all about rules, I was able to mount a defense for myself and an attack on others. Rather, live according to the spirit. Keep a check on your motivation. Be assured that what you're doing is in harmony with scripture and with a clear conscience. It's not about developing new truth, but walking in spirit and truth as it already is.

Peace

People throw around the word legalistic with no idea what they are saying. THe word is not even found in the bible, so calling one 'legalistic' is just a form of playground name calling. The Pharisees were accused of hypocrisy and of replacing God's law with their traditions, but they were never condemned for following God's law to a 't', which is all I am trying to do. Calling me legalistic may ease ones conscience, but it does not make them right. Drunkeness and gambling is sinful and calling me 'legalistic' will never change that.

 

[jmacvols]

I didn't suggest that one go to a bump `n' grind nightclub. I wouldn't suggest someone go somewhere that would cause lust. However there are many bars that are simply places to hang out that serve alcohol.

Let me get this straight. You would not suggest that one go to a place that would cause lust, but you would suggest one to go to a place that causes one to be drunk? If a little moderate drinking is ok, then what is wrong with a little moderate lust? Lusting is ok as long as it is done in moderation?

Gambling is not stealing no matter how you slice it. A lottery has odds and you accept those odds when you play. You know that the state is making a profit. There is no-one I know who does not understand that the state makes a profit. A lottery, as used in your example, uses a percentage of the money spent on winnings and everyone knows the state is making a profit. It's not stealing from anyone. If someone is addicted to gambling then they are abusing their freedom and being excessive and excess is the sin and not the gambling. In no way is gambling stealing. That is really laughable in fact. You could conclude it is an attempt to get money for nothing but you would be wrong since you are investing. I am an avid poker player and no-one at a poker table has ever accused me of stealing. In fact lets go look at the definition of stealing:

steal

intransitive verb
1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
2 : to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
3 : to steal or attempt to steal a base
transitive verb
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully <stole a car> b : to take away by force or unjust means [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ey've stolen our liberty> c : to take surreptitiously or without permission <steal a kiss> d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of <steal the show>
2 a : to move, convey, or introduce secretly : SMUGGLE b : to accomplish in a concealed or unobserved manner <steal a visit>
3 a : to seize, gain, or win by trickery, skill, or daring <a basketball player adept at stealing the ball> <stole the election> b of a base runner : to reach (a base) safely solely by running and usually catching the opposing team off guard

I have bolded the only definitions that could be sinful, unless you want to argue that a baseball player trying to steal a base is in sin, and none of those fit the definition of gambling. You give your explicit permission to have your money taken when you gamble and since that permission is given it can be no form of theft or stealing. Your analogy is completely wrong and fails to prove that gambling is stealing. Man is to work to earn a living, not gamble.


No-one is stealing by gambling so your first point is rendered moot. Your second point is a laughable analogy and would mean we should turn down raises at work, gifts of all sorts, and so on. Gambling is recreation to some, and addiction to others, and a job for yet others. Only one of those is a sin issue. Gambling is an activity in and of itself is neither sinful or not. It is the persons heart that matters. You fail to prove this point completely.

Gambling is stealing in its purest form. I gave a logical inference as to why it is stealing, you can only respond by saying, no its not.
You try to say gambling is a job. There is a give and take in a job. An employee gives mental/physical effort to the employer and in return the employer gives a paycheck to the employee for his efforts. This give and take does not happen in gambling, gambling is just taking from another, ie, stealing. Therefore gambling is not earning money, it is not finding money, it is not an inheritence, it is not a gift. The only thing gambling fits under is stealing. Gambling violates the golden rule and the gambler is not practicing good stewardship-- gambling is simply an act of covetousness. No one gambles with the intent to lose money. One puts his money up, (bets) in order to get others to put their money up. Stealing is taking what does not belong to you, so gambling is stealing. If one does not have the chance to take someone's money, then one would not have a reason to gamble. The casino does not give consent for one to take their money. Each better consents to the rules of the game thinking they will win their money back. If one consents to give money away, why not just give it away instead of playing a game of chance and risk taking someone's elses' money away from them in the process?
Eph 4:28.

He also said an elder shouldn't be given to much wine. He did not say an elder shouldn't ever partake. Christ himself drank wine. He drank enough wine that the Pharisees accused him of being a drunkard.

The Pharisees accused John of having a demon, Mt 11:18. If Jesus was a winebibber then John had demons. Jesus accusers were simplying lying about Him and John.
1 Tim 3:3 elders are not be given to wine, ie drunken. Tts 1:7 not given to wine. How do you read into this social drinking is not sinful when this shows the opposite? Is moderate use of meth OK?
Paul said deacons should not be given to much wine. This does not make social drinking of strong drinks ok. In this same passage it says elders and deacons are to be sober.

I hold a TABC certification and happen to be legally able to discern a person's drunkenness. Since I have been certified by the state to tend bar I have to discern this. It isn't hard to figure how much one can drink and be legally intoxicated. Anyone with basic math skills can manage that.

So you decide what constitutes drunkeness in Gal 5? People are drunk long before they reach the "legal limit". Gal 5 simply says drunkeness, any level of drunkeness falls under this.

You are actually wrong. The word used in the Greek means intoxicated. We use drunk as well. The word means, when researched out, to be stupified. It does not mean to have alcohol in your system. Claiming scripture requires teatotalling is a false doctrine and not found in scripture. Thanks for playing.

No, there are different levels of drunkeness/intoxication. One does not have to be falling down or pass out to be considered drunk. So it still stands, if one drinks one glass, he is one glass drunk, if he drinks two, he then becomes two glasses drunk. Drunkeness begins with the first swallow not the last.

 

[Splayd]

You're falsely accusing me of something I am not doing. No one has proven here that social drinking and gambling are not sinful.

The burden of proof lies with those trying to establish that they are. For whatever it's worth, I agree that they very often are, but not in their own right.

It is those here that are trying to find "loopholes" in order to justify drinking and gambling--and they call me "legalistic"??? I have not "made anything up" I use scriptures as my bases. I have seen them twist scriptures to try and justify their position.

Using scripture alone, noone need look for loopholes regarding gambling because there's simply nothing there about it. I'm in agreement that drunkeness is sinful. We just disagree that drinking in and of itself is sinful. In fact, we can demonstrate from scripture at least one instance that it isn't. It's only when our conslusions become rules that a loophole can exist at all.

Gambling did all of this to you, and does even worse to others, and you cannot see it being sinful?

Oh I believe gambling to be very dangerous for very many and I agree that a great many of us sin by gambling, but I don't see gambling as a sin in and of itself. When I play the pokies, I'm certainly sinning, for all of the reasons I listed before. There's a difference.

Gambling itslef is sinful, and you are correct in that one sin (gambling) will only lead to other sins.

I'm sorry, but noone here's established that "Gambling itself is sinful". That opens us up to a whole world of interpretation issues, not least of which is to determine what constitutes "gambling". What we have acknoweldged is that by gambling we often sin. There's a difference.

Again, the bible does not always give direct commands, it also teaches by example and inference (as I shown earlier). The bible does not specifically say thou shalt not beat thy wife. Does this make wife beating ok? If I say wife beating is wrong does that make me a "legalistic Pharisee"?

Do I seriously need to address this? The differences are stark and obvious.

How do you reach the conclusion that making high risk investments is the same as gambling but low risk ones are not? How is investing at any level gambling?

I didn't reach that conclusion. I was illustrating that one of the problems associated with establishing new rules is defining them. Where do we draw the line and who makes the distinction? Rather than focussing on the letter of our new made up laws and trying to define them, recognise how what you are doing harmonises with God's law.

People throw around the word legalistic with no idea what they are saying. THe word is not even found in the bible, so calling one 'legalistic' is just a form of playground name calling. The Pharisees were accused of hypocrisy and of replacing God's law with their traditions, but they were never condemned for following God's law to a 't', which is all I am trying to do. Calling me legalistic may ease ones conscience, but it does not make them right. Drunkeness and gambling is sinful and calling me 'legalistic' will never change that.

I always find the argument that "legalistic" isn't even biblical, a tad amusing as I only use it to illustrate when someone's trying to assert rules that aren't biblical. Incidently I never tried to ascertain that it was. Oh and by the way, the word "biblical" isn't even biblical. If we can only use biblical words perhaps we'd best start learning ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. For what it's worth - I do agree the term is bandied around too much and is often used to appease one's guilt. Perhaps you'll want to reexamine the one time I did use the word. I never directed it at anyone.

Now -as for the Pharisees: If you carefully investigate the charges against the Pharisees and study what was Torah and what was Pharisaical tradition, you'll find that all of the pharisaical stuff is actually derived from scripture in much the same way as your illustration earlier. It's fine to use those principals, up to the point that we determine new laws as being God's laws and more importantly determine that the whole point is in following the rules anyway.

 

[JDIBe]

I don't think gambling itself is necessarily a sin. It's stupid, but not inherently a sin. The odds are always stacked against you. Casinos don't stay open giving money away to people. Kind of reminds me of that line in Nat. Lampoon's Vegas Vacation at the blackjack table....

You don't know when to quit, do ya Griswold?... Here's an idea: Why don't you give me half the money your were gonna to bet, then we'll go out back, I'll kick you (self-censored), and we'll call it a day!"

If one wants to flush their money down the toilet and watch it disappear hey, be my guest, but that being said, I know many people who have lost their houses to indian casinos in Oklahoma back home. It is a big problem, especially among the poor who see it as their only way out of poverty. It preys on the hopes and dreams of those who can least afford to lose.

I think it is a sin if you gamble away money that should go to the security of your family or to the Lord's work.
I also think it is a sin if you are taking advantage of someone weaker who either walks into your casino or someone you know is weaker than you in poker, for example. That is stealing. It's lying too. That, coupled with the fact that where there is gambling, there is usually other not-so-Christian activities going on too,(I have never seen a "family oriented" casino...) leads me to conclude there are probably more constructive things to do with one's time.

 

[Splayd]

I'd agree with that JDIBe

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Let me get this straight. You would not suggest that one go to a place that would cause lust, but you would suggest one to go to a place that causes one to be drunk? If a little moderate drinking is ok, then what is wrong with a little moderate lust? Lusting is ok as long as it is done in moderation?

A place does not cause anything. You have to order drinks and consume them to become drunk. My wife doesn't drink because she doesn't enjoy the taste and yet she goes to bars with me and orders soda. If a person can not lust when seeing people bump and grind on a dance floor then they are free to go to those places. I personally enjoy dancing as well but more in the vein of the two-step and western swing. I go to clubs to dance to country and western music and don't lust. I don't have an issue with what I do.

Gambling is stealing in its purest form. I gave a logical inference as to why it is stealing, you can only respond by saying, no its not.

You stated gambling is sinning. You did not give any knowledge as to why you state that is fact. I posted the definition of stealing and showed that it is not. You can claim it all day day long but you are wrong. Stealing is taking without permission and gambling is not that. I showed logically how any money put on a poker table or given to the lottery is given freely. It cannot be stealing unless you change what the word means and lucky for us you don't get to do that in real life.

You try to say gambling is a job. There is a give and take in a job. An employee gives mental/physical effort to the employer and in return the employer gives a paycheck to the employee for his efforts. This give and take does not happen in gambling, gambling is just taking from another, ie, stealing. Therefore gambling is not earning money, it is not finding money, it is not an inheritence, it is not a gift. The only thing gambling fits under is stealing.

You again present a false dilemma. Gambling is earning money. If you have ever played for hours on end then you would understand that effort is put out. Your definition of a job would also prove that the man who works for himself is not employed. Your definition of work is also not the real definition of the word. Do we really need to go back to the dictionary? Gambling is taking money that is offered. You cannot take money from someone unwilling to give it when gambling. They have to willingly lay down their money and as such it is not stealing. Just because you don't think it is working does not make it stealing. Thanks for playing but once again you have stated as fact that which is not. If I have to I'll go get the dictionary again.

Gambling violates the golden rule and the gambler is not practicing good stewardship-- gambling is simply an act of covetousness.

Actually you have to be willing to lose in order to gamble so it is an illustration of the golden rule. Doing to others as you would have them do to you. I would love it if everyone I knew invited me over for poker all the time.

No one gambles with the intent to lose money. One puts his money up, (bets) in order to get others to put their money up. Stealing is taking what does not belong to you, so gambling is stealing.

You are using completely false logic. One puts their money up in the hope of out playing or being more lucky than others who have put up their money. It is willing on both sides and as such it cannot be stealing. Unless someone was forced to put money into a pot then no-one is stealing from anyone else. They are taking what has been offered. By your definition gifts are stealing.

If one does not have the chance to take someone's money, then one would not have a reason to gamble. The casino does not give consent for one to take their money. Each better consents to the rules of the game thinking they will win their money back. If one consents to give money away, why not just give it away instead of playing a game of chance and risk taking someone's elses' money away from them in the process?
Eph 4:28.

The casino does consent to giving up their money. They set the odds for every game in the house for the most part. They give you permission to win their money. You are not stealing from casinos when you win and they are not stealing from you when you lose. To be honest this is some of the worst logic I have ever seen. The risk of losing is what makes the games fun along with the thrill of winning. If one doesn't ever get the thrill of winning then maybe they are just a bad gambler and should find other entertainment. You can only take what people have freely offered. You cannot walk into a casino and take money out of people's pockets. You can try all night to shoehorn gambling into stealing but the fact of the matter is that it is not stealing. No matter how you slice it.

The Pharisees accused John of having a demon, Mt 11:18. If Jesus was a winebibber then John had demons. Jesus accusers were simplying lying about Him and John.

Jesus would have to have been drinking wine for them to call him a drunkard. You whole argument falls apart on that point alone.

1 Tim 3:3 elders are not be given to wine, ie drunken. Tts 1:7 not given to wine. How do you read into this social drinking is not sinful when this shows the opposite? Is moderate use of meth OK?

You are presenting a strawman (yet another logical fallacy) and I won't respond to that. "Given to wine" is the equivalent of alcoholism and not having a drink with a meal or socially. In fact most translations say "Given to much wine" and not simply "Given to wine".

Paul said deacons should not be given to much wine. This does not make social drinking of strong drinks ok. In this same passage it says elders and deacons are to be sober.

I can have a nice 25 year scotch neat and still be sober. You see there are real definitions to the words you are using but you are using them to mean things that they do not. That is why you won't convince anyone. Study up on the Temperance Movement. Their arguments, while false, were much better.

So you decide what constitutes drunkeness in Gal 5? People are drunk long before they reach the "legal limit". Gal 5 simply says drunkeness, any level of drunkeness falls under this.

And I have explained what the word used in scripture means and it doesn't mean under the effect of any alcohol whatsoever. It describes a state that is usually much beyond the legal limit. It is a descriptive term. I can have a Lone Star and not be drunk. I can have about a drink an hour, be under the legal limite, and have nothing resembling the descriptive word used in scripture.

No, there are different levels of drunkeness/intoxication. One does not have to be falling down or pass out to be considered drunk. So it still stands, if one drinks one glass, he is one glass drunk, if he drinks two, he then becomes two glasses drunk. Drunkeness begins with the first swallow not the last.

You are wrong. Legally and as per scripture. And more. By your logic Christ was drunk at the Last Supper. Christ's first miracle was turning water into wine. Scripture praises wine throughout along with cautioning against drunkenness. None of you Pharisiac rambling can change what is written.