Christians Playing Poker - Acceptable?

[MaxPowerPoker]

This is the most compelling presentation I have heard on the subject. I'd be interested to hear anyone's take on this lecture by Phil Johnson of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, CA. (John MacArthur's church).

He tackles some fairly persuasive arguments and handles them soundly in my judgement.

Is Gambling OK? Don't Bet on it!

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
The stock market is not a zero-sum game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Value is not created by a market, it is traded for other value. That makes it zero-sum, doesn't it?.

Oh, yeah, I heard God doesn't like gambling. That's the extent of my knowledge on the original topic. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Victor]

in cleveland, there are charity games, often called church games, that take place in churches. they are perfectly legal so long as the procedes go to the charity, i.e. the church.

so, it seems, gambling is perfectly acceptable so long as the church benefits.

[ QUOTE ]
All examples that can be applied to the stock market.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm assuming this is a joke?

[NotReady]

I've listened to the sermon and was taking notes when my computer crashed, so this is from what I remember.

It's a very good presentation, well thought out and researched. I agree with much of what he says.

There are a few issues he didn't address however.

If the game involves skill, such as poker or counting in blackjack, possibly sports betting, it wouldn't comply with his definition of gambling, at least for the skilled person. In one of the threads I listed someone compared a poker player to a casino owner - we have an edge which is the same thing as the casino. Though there is that similarity, there are also differences. I don't hustle, and didn't when I played in a casino, though I now only play on the net. I'm also willing to leave a game if I'm sure someone is playing with money they can't afford, though I've never had this circimstance, and probably won't online. So I think the analogy to a casino breaks down.

He also didn't deal with sports like boxing and football. I mention this because he compared gambling to stealing and said mutual consent doesn't cure that objection, citing dueling. If that's true, then boxing and football would be sin because you can't turn the other cheek when someone hits you. My brother is a Christian and looks down on poker but he loves his LSU Tigers. This preacher also admitted to attending baseball games, which though not a contact sport, may require a baserunner to intentionally slide into or run into another player, a pitcher to throw at or near a batter, or a fielder to throw at a runner (second base to first, for instance). Even non-contact sports or games, such as chess, can't be played without the intention to defeat the opponent, which may cause psychological damage, for instance cause him to be angry. So if you rule out poker, don't you also have to rule out all competition? What about business, where you know you may be hurting a competitor financially?

Some of his analysis may apply to gambling but doesn't to a game of skill, such as not working (I work very hard at poker as do all winners, I believe), covetousness (he incorrectly assumed gamblers are automatically guilty of this), and that it doesn't add new wealth. As to the latter, how does any entertainment produce wealth in the same sense as a farmer, the example he used?

Much of what he said, such as addiction and crime problems, was good and should be considered on this issue. But I think he was making a significant stretch on some of his points. It's worth listening to and I'm going to listen again soon, as this isn't an easy topic. The content is valuable for more than just the gambling issue.

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
If the game involves skill, such as poker or counting in blackjack, possibly sports betting, it wouldn't comply with his definition of gambling, at least for the skilled person.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe your assessment here is in error. He defined gambling as "playing at any game of chance for stakes" and he defined stakes as "a prize one person stands to gain through the loss of others"

Both poker and blackjack, whether you are a skilled poker player or the best card counter there is, would fit that definition of gambling. Given the definitions, skill is irrelevant.


[ QUOTE ]
He also didn't deal with sports like boxing and football. I mention this because he compared gambling to stealing and said mutual consent doesn't cure that objection, citing dueling. If that's true, then boxing and football would be sin because you can't turn the other cheek when someone hits you.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was dealing with the issue of Gambling. The reason he brought up duelling was to show the flaw in the argument that gambling is not wrong because when you win money you are taking it from someone who consented to the contest. If the activity violates God's law, then it is irrelevant whether or not it is consentual. Mutual consent alone is no justification. He's answering an objection specifically used to justify gambling, not giving a clinic on everything that is and is not a sin.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The stock market is not a zero-sum game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Value is not created by a market, it is traded for other value. That makes it zero-sum, doesn't it?.

[/ QUOTE ]

Value is created by investing in company's that are doing well. The stock market is an efficient way of valuing how well a company is doing.

I would say that even if Poker was pure skill, like chess, then it would still be considered a sin to play it for the other person's money. That's really the key factor in making it a zero-sum game. You only earn/win money by making someone else lose money. Sports are not that way -- you don't win the other team's money. The spectators give you money to be entertained by watching the game. It's a win-win game, because you get paid whether you win or lose the game, and the spectators get entertained in return for the cost of their ticket.

I wonder if justifying a sin is considered a sin? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
The stock market is an efficient way of valuing how well a company is doing

[/ QUOTE ]...and by doing so providing a system whereby society can effectively allocate resources to viable projects. The buying and selling of shares is merely an incentive system that drives the engine of the stock market. The real value of the stock market is in companies selling shares to gain capital for expansion, in order to produce new good and services they couldn't otherwise. The stock market is both a selection system to determine who gets given money and a capital transfer system for the company to receive the resources.

The person who said the stock market is no different to poker, this is clearly not true when you examine the system as a whole. The stock market has a large net positive effect on the economy. Families do not suffer as result of the stock market (long term, almost all stocks increase in value). In fact, most retirement plans depend on the wealth generated in the stock market. So participation in this system doesn't harm anyone or deprive them of wealth.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I believe your assessment here is in error. He defined gambling as "playing at any game of chance for stakes" and he defined stakes as "a prize one person stands to gain through the loss of others"


[/ QUOTE ]

You may be right as to the skill issue in his definition. I'm going to listen to it again in a week or so and will check for that to be more precise. However, he never distinguished between a game with and one without an edge. This matters because much of his criticism involved stewardship.

[ QUOTE ]

The reason he brought up duelling was to show the flaw in the argument that gambling is not wrong because when you win money you are taking it from someone who consented to the contest


[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. But take a sport he admits to paying $150 to watch, baseball. It may be necessary during the course of the game to intentionally make contact with another player or throw a ball near him that could hit him. But the Bible says to do good to all men - so how is injuring someone doing good to him? And since some form of injury will almost always occur in competition the general issue is whether or not any competition can be Christian. I've always said yes, primarily because of mutual consent. Take that away and I see very little legitimacy to competition.