Struggling with Moral Issues in Poker from a Christian Standpoint

[jcaesar]

Thanks Josh, I appreciate your response.

I know Barry Greenstein has this kind of "poker Robin Hood" mentality, but I'm not sure if it works for me. I'll allow that giving a substantial percentage to charity is better than playing simply for profit (and if/when I reconcile my beliefs with my game, this will definitely be a model that I plan on adopting). However, to me, formulating that kind of a response to the quetion of proposed intrinsic immorality in poker is kind of like that of a crack dealer rationalizing criticism about his career by donating a portion his money to a worthy cause.

I guess what I'm really saying is that it doesn't matter how much money you donate if you find the methods or avenues of obtaining that money to be immoral. The money's still dirty, obtained my immoral means.

[ QUOTE ]
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".

[/ QUOTE ]
Just because crack addicts are going to spend their money on crack anyway doesn't mean I should go sell it to them to give the money to charity. Or does it? This seems like an interesting point.

Thanks again for your input, I'll continue to think on this.

[jcaesar]

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.

[jcaesar]

[ QUOTE ]
hi jcaesar.

you have done a brave thing by baring your thoughts on the issue, and i too have gone through similar struggles on the issue... here's my 2 cents.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks. I don't think I'm doing anything particularly brave, I just want to be able to make an informed decision on whether or not to play poker anymore. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] I was hoping I'd get some new avenues of thought that I hadn't considered before, and I have, thanks to everyone who posted. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

My main objection with your post is sort of the same as the one I posted earlier to Peter666's response to my question.

Reply to Peter666

Basically, just because others sin doesn't make it okay for us to cast stones at them. This is why I think I disagree with:
[ QUOTE ]
there is no shame in profiting from the actions of others who would not heed the Word of God.

[/ QUOTE ]
As Christians, what we believe is that no one heeds the Word of God. We're all in the same sinner boat.

[ QUOTE ]
I think what you have to guard against, is not being a stumbling block to others.

"Therefore, let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way."
Romans 14:13

If you actively try to entice others to the gambling tables when you know that they are susceptible to gambling or when u know that their talents do not lie in poker playing, then that is clearly wrong. instead, you should even be discouraging people whom you know are weak from playing.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this, and I have to admit that I am a purveyor of the concept as well. For example, I make friendly comments to bad players who suck out in hope that they won't pull a hit and run. One of the organizations I'll try to get involved with with donations if I do end up deciding to get back in the game is Gamblers Anonymous.

Thanks, I'm interested in hearing your reply.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]

Just because crack addicts are going to spend their money on crack anyway doesn't mean I should go sell it to them to give the money to charity. Or does it? This seems like an interesting point.

Thanks again for your input, I'll continue to think on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

To me (and I fully acknowledge that you may view it diffently), this is the crux of it. Like I said in the referenced thread, I've walked away from good games because I didn't think they could afford to lose the money.

If I asked you "is it immoral to win/take $1000 off of an opponent?" would your answer be a blanket "yes" or "no", or like all poker questions, would it be "it depends"? For me, it depends. If the opponent is a multimillionaire, I see no problem with it. If they are struggling to make ends meet, it's very immoral (in my eyes...).

A crack dealer sells. Salesmanship usually involves going out and getting/creating customers, whereas poker players don't need to drum up any action....it's at casino's accross the world and world wide web waiting for us.

Also, a crack BUYER is undeniably hurting themselves. A losing poker player is not necessarily. If they are, I don't play vs. them.

I think that this whole response by me could be summarized with that last paragraph, so I'll sign off just by repeating it.

Also, a crack BUYER is undeniably hurting themselves. A losing poker player is not necessarily. If they are, I don't play vs. them.

Please understand, I'm not trying to convince you one way or another. I'm just trying to show you what shed some light on the subject for me. I wish you all the best,

Josh

[jcaesar]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, a crack BUYER is undeniably hurting themselves. A losing poker player is not necessarily. If they are, I don't play vs. them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I like this. Assuming that I decide to follow this poker model, I guess the most pertinent question is how do I tell the difference? It may be easy to spot the degenerate, addicted, on his last bill gambler in B&M, but a lot of my money comes from playing online. How do I spot the difference between a rich fish and a poor fish in this setting?

[ QUOTE ]
Please understand, I'm not trying to convince you one way or another. I'm just trying to show you what shed some light on the subject for me.

[/ QUOTE ]
I do understand, and I appreciate you sharing your experience. If I seem contentious to you, I apologize. I'm not trying to convince you of any point of view either, but attempt to exhaust all objections through my faith before continuing to play.

[sexdrugsmoney]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><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:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><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)

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><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.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><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.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><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.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><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]

[ QUOTE ]

I like this. Assuming that I decide to follow this poker model, I guess the most pertinent question is how do I tell the difference? It may be easy to spot the degenerate, addicted, on his last bill gambler in B&amp;M, but a lot of my money comes from playing online. How do I spot the difference between a rich fish and a poor fish in this setting?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thing is, if they are playing online, you know that they have some sort of home. They have a computer. They have an email address. They have internet access.

While those are not hardly oonsidered luxuries any longer, they can definitely be lived without (except for the first of those).

When I'm playing 100-200 on party, and the railbirds starts asking for $50 from whoever has the most chips (happens every day, many times a day), I always just say "sell your computer". Yeah, I'm trying (and likely failing) to be funny, but it's true. Players online aren't at the end of their rope. They may not be as comfortable as they'd like to be, and they may be losing money that they shouldn't, and the line is certainly not black and white. But it isn't like the degenerate in the casino who has no place to go home to.

Josh

[Good Idea]

You seem to be hung up on the "Taking from the weak". I think that is flawed logic. If there were a few sheep minding their own business and a wolf came and took their money it would be a case of the strong taking from the weak. It would be a completely different matter if the sheep came to take the wolf's money and instead lost their own. You're not rolling bums on the streets. You're engaging in competition with others who are there voluntarily. I don't see the problem. And I don't think people are losing their homes because of you.

I have a question. Where in the bible does it say not to gamble?

Regards,
G.I.

[Peter666]

"For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged"

Based on my criteria of intelligence and good looks, I got a lock for heaven baby.

I have a great solution for live game play. After you bust someone, stand up and loudly annouce in front of everyone, " I'm sorry I took all of your money. I knew within the first five minutes that you were not a very good player at all. Can I offer to give you your money back ? Come on, how much did you start with I feel terrible."

* It will be the truth.
* He will not take the money.
* He will probably leave (a good thing in some ways bad in others)
* A new player with fresh money will be joining you soon.