Struggling with Moral Issues in Poker from a Christian Standpoint - Page 4

SineNomine · #1 10-04-2005, 09:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My Question
Is targetting weak players against Christian principles?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a question that I think would not be even asked in other competitive enterprises. Many NFL players are quite public about their Christianity. They consider a hard fought game to be to the glory of God. Do you think a Christian NFL quarterback would refrain from calling a pass play that took advantage of the other teams weakest pass defender? In poker the worst we do is take money from people who voluntarily put at risk while at the same time risking our own. We do not impact our Christian brothers with great force and attempt to knock or wrestle them to the ground. No one ever (hardly) leaves a poker table on a stretcher. Few people would question the Christian morality of a professed believer who delivered a clean legal hit on an opposing player, even if it left him injured.

jcaesar · #2 10-05-2005, 12:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This is a question that I think would not be even asked in other competitive enterprises. Many NFL players are quite public about their Christianity. They consider a hard fought game to be to the glory of God. Do you think a Christian NFL quarterback would refrain from calling a pass play that took advantage of the other teams weakest pass defender?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think a significant difference between other pro sports as competition/entertainment is that they are paid a base salary for what they do. No matter how bad that pass defender is, he's not going to have to pay the quarterback and receiver that exploit his weakness. Am I wrong about this?

sexdrugsmoney · #3 10-05-2005, 01:11 AM

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
My Question
Is targetting weak players against Christian principles?

Somehow I can't reconcile the killer attitude that I have when sitting down next to a loose, passive player who I know is itching to give away his money with that ideal. "In the name of Jesus, I take this pot from you because you play too loose." I don't see this attitude being something that Christ would approve of.

I'm open to all ideas and thoughts. Thanks for taking the time to read my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is a great example of Capitalism.

These 'suckers' when they leave the table go about their lives. They buy and sell, and usually not only for themselves, but also for their wife and kids.

They face a capitalistic society where the goods they buy have in some cases an 80% markup and said goods were made by local workers not fortunate enough to be born in a western country, and in some cases these local workers are children.

And you are part of this system too, not only with poker, but in just normal life. At the very least you are a consumer, in which quite regularly someone is profiting off your decisions, and if you ever sell something you are profiting off someone else's decisions.

If you're not going to 'leave' the world and join a commune or monastery then you are choosing to stay in the capitalistic society. To support yourself you choose to play poker.

Enter poker.

A fish sits next to you, you have two choices:

A) Maximize his loss.
B) Minimize his loss.

Let's look at option A).

Option A) is preferable because it benefits you (naturally) but also adheres to the correct way to play the game.

But option A) may benefit Mr. Fish also.

You see, if Mr Fish makes a bad decision to play with money he can't afford to lose, I'd wager Mr. Fish's family (and somehow, idiots always manage to find someone to mate with and bring kids into the world *weep*) would not be happy for this to occur, for their 'breadwinner' to lose money, which he can't afford to lose.

Now, your conscience says option B) is more charitable right?

Maybe you soft play him, maybe you don't go for ante steals etc etc.

Q. What does this achieve in the end?

A. You have helped minimize Mr Fish's loss, therefore you have helped Mr Fish's gains, and every gain Mr Fish makes only re-enforces the belief he has that he can win at a game you know he can't.

Now think of Mr Fish's family again, and what happens if you do soft play him, and he 'breaks even' that night, or worse actually makes a bit of money because you gave up some of your edge.

A. Mr Fish continually returns to the tables believing he can win, and eventually there will come a time that Mr. Fish will lose more than he ever thought he could, maybe rent money or food money, and Mr Fish's family will suffer. (he may even lose them)

Yet if you play the game as it's mean't to be played, Mr Fish may either decide to quit poker or get better at it, the end result is that Mr. Fish's family benefits rather than suffers because of Mr. Fish's delusions that he is a good player because people soft play him out of pity.

The ironic thing is, if Mr Fish sat down next to you, and you said to him "Buddy I care about you, you are out of your league, I only say this out of brotherly love etc etc" Mr Fish would more than likely resent you sticking your 'good shepherd' nose into his business. (as would the other players)

Sometimes adults have to pay for the choices they make, it hurts and its not fair, but thats life, and fueling their delusions through action or inaction only exacerbates the problem.

This is life as we know it, exploitaive.

If you wish to leave from it and live in the 'white' that a monastery or commune can provide, I salute you. But if you stay in the system, welcome to the gray area, it's very confusing at times and very complex, and boundaries can't be seen as clearly as black/white sometimes.

Also in closing, those links posted about gambling as a sin are BS IMHO. By their definition, investing capital into a potential new business is gambling and therefore a sin, just another example of close-minded people looking for easy conclusive answers based on their axioms that all gambling leads to destruction and using the Bible as a basis, when in reality the Bible isn't clear about gambling IIRC.

Tired,
SDM

jcaesar · #4 10-06-2005, 02:05 AM

SDM, thanks for the long and thoughtful response. I'm grateful for the effort you've taken to help me with my problem.

From a brief perusal of some of your responses in previous topics, I hope I'm not wrong in assuming that you are decidedly atheist, so I hope you pardon a bit of biblical reference on my part that will explain my thoughts. I don't mean to preach (I certainly am not qualified in any sense to do that) but offer it as a piece of Scripture that popped into my head when I was thinking about your response.

To be honest, I feel your post was the most thoughtful/thought-provoking one in the thread so far. It had me feeling like I was almost ready to get back into the game before I recalled the following story, so I'm interested in hearing what you think.

[ QUOTE ]
And you are part of this system too, not only with poker, but in just normal life. At the very least you are a consumer, in which quite regularly someone is profiting off your decisions, and if you ever sell something you are profiting off someone else's decisions.

If you're not going to 'leave' the world and join a commune or monastery then you are choosing to stay in the capitalistic society. To support yourself you choose to play poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Genesis Chapter 19
In this chapter, the Bible tells the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, two cities made famous by their wickedness. Angels of the Lord are sent to the city to see if the wickedness is indeed as bad as it seems, and when they get there, they stay with the most righteous man in the city, who is Lot, Abraham's nephew. I don't want to bore you with the details, but the gist of it is that the men of the city demand that Lot present the visitors to them for the purpose of having homosexual relations with them. Lot refuses and pleads with them, and instead offers up his own daughters for their pleasure instead. How is this better than allowing the men to have their way with the visitors? Here's what my Life Application Study Bible by Zonderman has to say:
[ QUOTE ]
How could any father give his daughters to be ravished by a mob of perverts, just to protect two strangers? Possibly Lot was scheming to save both the girls and the visitors, hoping the girls fiances would rescue them or that the homosexual men would be disinterested in the girls and simply go away. Although it was the custom of the day to protect guests at any cost, this terrible suggestion reveals how deeply sin had been absorbed into Lot's life. He had become hardened to evil acts in an evil city.

[/ QUOTE ]
Later on, God decides to destroy the city for its wickedness, and Lot attempts to tell the people of Sodom to leave to no avail, because he had so completely become absorbed into the wicked culture that he was no longer a credible witness.

So, how do I think this applies to your post? The main lesson I learned through the study of this story is:

Just because your environment is immoral doesn't mean that you have to be immoral. Lot still retained his status as a "righteous" man by sticking out from the crowd of Sodom and refusing to become a product of his environment. Similarly, just because I live in a world where everyone takes advantage of everyone else, it is not an absolute all-or-nothing proposition. I assume Lot had many dealings with the Sodomites while living there that were unavoidably sinful because of his proximity (off the top of my head, deciding to wed his daughters to the wicked men of the city destined to be destroyed). Similarly, I live and exist in a capitalistic society where some profit can be judged as immoral. But I don't have to go out and make profit unfairly, to the best of my ability, and I believe that is ultimately how we will be judged.

[ QUOTE ]
Also in closing, those links posted about gambling as a sin are BS IMHO. By their definition, investing capital into a potential new business is gambling and therefore a sin, just another example of close-minded people looking for easy conclusive answers based on their axioms that all gambling leads to destruction and using the Bible as a basis, when in reality the Bible isn't clear about gambling IIRC.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this. I don't much agree with traditional conservative Christian views on gambling as getting something for nothing when I have been able to observe my own hard work and persistence in striving to make the best decisions over a lengthy amount of time.

[ QUOTE ]
Tired,
SDM

[/ QUOTE ]
Once again, thanks for the lengthy post even though you're tired.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you're going to tear this reply up. =P

Edit: I edited it to make it a little easier to read. I hope I'm not being too religious here.

sexdrugsmoney · #5 10-06-2005, 06:00 AM

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
Genesis Chapter 19
In this chapter, the Bible tells the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, two cities made famous by their wickedness. Angels of the Lord are sent to the city to see if the wickedness is indeed as bad as it seems, and when they get there, they stay with the most righteous man in the city, who is Lot, Abraham's nephew. I don't want to bore you with the details, but the gist of it is that the men of the city demand that Lot present the visitors to them for the purpose of having homosexual relations with them. Lot refuses and pleads with them, and instead offers up his own daughters for their pleasure instead. How is this better than allowing the men to have their way with the visitors? Here's what my Life Application Study Bible by Zonderman has to say:
<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
How could any father give his daughters to be ravished by a mob of perverts, just to protect two strangers? Possibly Lot was scheming to save both the girls and the visitors, hoping the girls fiances would rescue them or that the homosexual men would be disinterested in the girls and simply go away. Although it was the custom of the day to protect guests at any cost, this terrible suggestion reveals how deeply sin had been absorbed into Lot's life. He had become hardened to evil acts in an evil city.

[/ QUOTE ]
Later on, God decides to destroy the city for its wickedness, and Lot attempts to tell the people of Sodom to leave to no avail, because he had so completely become absorbed into the wicked culture that he was no longer a credible witness.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record, I'm very familiar with this story. (well pretty much, some details slip my mind)

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />

So, how do I think this applies to your post? The main lesson I learned through the study of this story is:

Just because your environment is immoral doesn't mean that you have to be immoral. Lot still retained his status as a "righteous" man by sticking out from the crowd of Sodom and refusing to become a product of his environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is debateable personally.

First of all, it's very hard to reconstruct accurately what old figures were really like, at best we can speculate, and there doesn't seem to be alot of evidence about Lot compared to the evidence we have about some Greek figures, and even then some details are sketchy.

So If we say "Lot was x" I immediately think we should say "It appears Lot was x, but he could have been y". Whatever speculation you take an open mind must be kept ... that being said.

I don't believe Lot was an especially strong character from what we know about him from Genesis. If I recall correctly Abraham had to rescue him once before he moved to Sodom and furthermore questions must arise why he chose to stay in Sodom if it was such a wicked place?

Lot's wife apparently loved Sodom, so much that she looked back and it cost her her life. Looking at Lot's actions involving his daughters, his wife's apparent 'strong' will to disobey an angel of the lord out of her own desire, and the attitude the men of Sodom took to Lot, I would wager that Lot was not a man of very high self esteem and that while in Sodom he wouldn't have had much control over his wife which seemed very strong willed that she would disobey an angel. (shows undiscipline)

Yet I don't know, it's all speculation.

But consider this:

Jesus said to his apostles in Mark for them to take nothing with them and that if any town doesn't recieve them to shake their feet on the ground and that that town will be worse than Sodom if I recall correctly.

It's obvious Sodom was a wicked town, but its not necessarily believed that they were destroyed purely because of homosexuality, but also because of their inhospitable and hardened nature.

The sociologist Georg Simmel has wrote some great stuff about city life and how different it is compared to smaller communities, as has German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies, who wrote about Gesellschaft and Gemeinschaft, comparing communities that are based on mutual aid and trust (Gemeinshcaft) compared to the more urban selfish community. (Gesellschaft)

I think nobody would argue that Sodom was a classic Gesellschaft city of its time. Why Lot chose to stay there is highly questionable, this is why I speculate his wife may have 'wore the pants', yet this is all speculation.

Lot may have been "righteous" but he may have been weak-willed also, and I believe the book of James says something like "a double minded man is unstable in all his ways" and if Lot was torn between being righteous but also letting two of his daughters be married to citzens of Sodom, offering the other two (he had 4 right?) to homosexuals to appease their desires, and his wife loved that city, I believe Lot could have been in the classic position Paul talked about in Corinthians (?) of being "unequally yoked" spiritually in a marriage, if so it's only natural Lot was against the odds.

But we could go on forever speculating and I may be very wrong, I don't know, but there are many ways one can look into historical figures.

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />

Similarly, just because I live in a world where everyone takes advantage of everyone else, it is not an absolute all-or-nothing proposition. I assume Lot had many dealings with the Sodomites while living there that were unavoidably sinful because of his proximity (off the top of my head, deciding to wed his daughters to the wicked men of the city destined to be destroyed). Similarly, I live and exist in a capitalistic society where some profit can be judged as immoral. But I don't have to go out and make profit unfairly, to the best of my ability, and I believe that is ultimately how we will be judged.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, I'm not saying you should 'revel' in the society of capitalism and embrace it as an excuse for blatant self-centeredness, all I'm saying is that if you choose to stay in this postmodern greedy society like us all here, you have to accept that most of the time you'll be living in a "gray" area of ethics if you have a faith, and if there's one thing you can take out of the Lot story is that gray turns to black easier than it turns to white. (black being self explanatory, white being a pious life devoted to God)

And this brings us full circle to your original question regarding poker. The "white" say all gambling is bad, the "black" are apathetic, you are trying to live in the gray ... sometimes it's a path, other times it can be a tightrope, sometimes you fall, you're human, you get back up acknowledge what you did wrong and walk on. (and you believe sincerely that your God will forgive you, that is "grace" apparently)

But if you're not going to be a missionary, or a priest/pastor, or live in a commune far away from the evils of capitalism (though actually impossible as the tentacles of greed stretch everywhere) you're going to have to make do in the "Gesellschaft" and why is poker any different to any other job?

People get ripped off daily, by some dodgy salespeople who can lure them into 'interest free' spending splurges they can't afford, to sending them credit card pre-approvals they don't need and shouldn't have etc etc.

At the end of the day, although it's sad to see what are essentially 'nice' people be taken, the onus is ultimately on them to be streetsmart and wary about the Gesellschaft.

You can't play superman and protect everybody, try and they'll probably resent your meddling, as nobody believes they are naive. (we are all naive in many ways and we can't even see it at the time, it's only experience and being 'burned' which makes us wiser)

That being said, you're at the poker table and here comes Mr Fish, what do you do?

I believe if you're going to play poker you've got to just play poker, if you feel bad for Mr. Fish, when he busts out you can always go to the bathroom and say a prayer for him that he'll realize he shouldn't be playing and for him to be wiser with his money.

At the end of the day, your conscience must be your guide. If you honestly feel you are quenching the spirit by poker then perhaps you have to reconsider your poker career, but before you do throw those books in the trash, just remember that Mr Fish makes a living like everyone else, and if you give up poker you'll need a job too, and underneath nearly all jobs someone is being exploited and you are taking a part whether you are ignorant or knowledgeable of that fact.

Nobody is selling stuff at cost these days, it's all about +EV and greed, in some respects the poker profession is somewhat more noble because you don't have any BS delusions about your job (so many jobs come with societal propaganda) and furthermore unlike Mr Fish and his wife going shopping and being unsuspecting of clever marketing and advertising that play on psychology and emotion, the Casino sign is pretty straightforward "You may win, You may lose", seldom do any other people who ask for your money even acknowledge the latter is possible.

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />

I agree with this. I don't much agree with traditional conservative Christian views on gambling as getting something for nothing when I have been able to observe my own hard work and persistence in striving to make the best decisions over a lengthy amount of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe alot of traditional 'pious' Christians intentions are good, but ultimately your conscience is yours, your relationship with God is yours, and the Bible doesn't say much about Gambling.

It's fine if they want to err on the side of caution, it's their choice and I believe a noble one, but it doesn't mean they are right and that you are wrong, only one person decides that and according to your faith the holy spirit is your helper to discern what is good and true etc.

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />

Once again, thanks for the lengthy post even though you're tired.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you're going to tear this reply up. =P

Edit: I edited it to make it a little easier to read. I hope I'm not being too religious here.

[/ QUOTE ]

If my words have helped you one iota it's worth it IMHO.

And no, I try not to tear things apart though occasionally I "fall". What can I say? It's not easy being human.

Cheers,
SDM

Josh W · #6 10-05-2005, 02:26 AM

2+2 Thread

This was a thread quite a while ago on this subject (not religiously motivated, just general morals.

I don't think I've ever included a URL in a post before, so if I botched it, I apologize.

My thoughts come down to this. I give 30% of what I win to charities.

It started from...I had many of the same feelings you have. I talked to a friend of mine who was a pro (I'm not one), and he said "well, most of the losers are gonna lose their money anyways, it might as well go to me!"

I thought about that, and eventually concluded that "no, it might as well go to charity".

I've talked to a number of people (see the referenced thread, as well as one with the same title cross posted in a different forum), and many others have adopted a similar plan.

One of the last things I said in the referenced thread was:

"his will also give you a sense of responsibility...kids will benefit if you get better at reading people. Cancer victims will have more hope if you avoid tilt. Teen Leadership programs will be able to flourish if you stop playing KTo in early position. It's a level of accountability."

Early on in my poker career, I felt I had a gift (not that I was the best ever, but I felt like if I had to devise a game to play to my strengths in life, poker would be it). As such, I should use my gift to help others, even if my gift is most easily manifested in selfishness and greed.

That's my two cents.

Josh

#7 10-05-2005, 05:26 AM

"I might as well leave hipocrisy to the atheists"

what an incredibly charitable and christian thing to say. honestly, thats great, thanks for showing christian love while bashing people who dont believe in the same thing you do. I guess your bible doesnt include the phrase "judge not"... must be that cool version I dont have yet.

second off, if you dont want to win at the poker table, then I would give it up. As someone who is incredibly well versed in christian theory and dogma, I would have a hard time saying that I cant take money from a weaker player. Honestly, when jesus said that what you do to others, you do to him, he hadnt decided to sit down at a poker table.

sometimes I think people go too far with the exact words of the bible. Let's think of who it was in Jesus' times who did the same thing: The leading Jewish authorities, who jesus said followed the letter of the law, and not the heart of it (Im referring to the time when jesus healed someone on the sabbath).

However, if your conscious is questioning this, then this shouldnt be your job anymore, and you can leave it with a light heart.

good luck to you on your future pursuits.

oh, and Im an atheist. I didnt say that at the beginning of this post because I know that the rest of the post would have been completely disregarded.

#8 10-05-2005, 05:26 AM

"I might as well leave hipocrisy to the atheists"

what an incredibly charitable and christian thing to say. honestly, thats great, thanks for showing christian love while bashing people who dont believe in the same thing you do. I guess your bible doesnt include the phrase "judge not"... must be that cool version I dont have yet.

second off, if you dont want to win at the poker table, then I would give it up. As someone who is incredibly well versed in christian theory and dogma, I would have a hard time saying that I cant take money from a weaker player. Honestly, when jesus said that what you do to others, you do to him, he hadnt decided to sit down at a poker table.

sometimes I think people go too far with the exact words of the bible. Let's think of who it was in Jesus' times who did the same thing: The leading Jewish authorities, who jesus said followed the letter of the law, and not the heart of it (Im referring to the time when jesus healed someone on the sabbath).

However, if your conscious is questioning this, then this shouldnt be your job anymore, and you can leave it with a light heart.

good luck to you on your future pursuits.

oh, and Im an atheist. I didnt say that at the beginning of this post because I know that the rest of the post would have been completely disregarded.

Josh W · #9 10-05-2005, 05:32 AM

I was completely baffled. Now, I think I'm mostly baffled.

I'm guessing your response is to the OP, and not me. The quote you put at the top isn't from my post, so I'm not sure why you are trying to attribute it to me.

But I'm quite likely wrong still somehow. Wow. Dizzy.

RJT · #10 10-05-2005, 09:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I was completely baffled. Now, I think I'm mostly baffled.

I'm guessing your response is to the OP, and not me. The quote you put at the top isn't from my post, so I'm not sure why you are trying to attribute it to me.

But I'm quite likely wrong still somehow. Wow. Dizzy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Josh

Did you become "mostly baffled" the first time he made the post or the second time he posted the same words? Or is that part of the baffleing?

Just joking, behemoth.