"All In" (Moderation)
I know this is Christmas, but this post has nothing to do with the Birth of Jesus. Perhaps later when I have something useful to say about that...
If you don't have cable you may not know this, but Poker has become incredibly popluar. In Particlar No Limit Texas Hold 'em is the game of choice. I grew up playing 5 card draw, but Hold 'em offers more opportunities for strategy because only 2 cards are private and 3-5 cards may be visible to all players.
In Christian circles, there is division on the morality of Gambling. I've been thinking about this and here are my thoughts.
First, it helps to understand what we mean by the term 'gambling,' so I looked up the definition. To sum up, there are basically 2 definitions:
1. To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest. To put up as a stake in gambling; wager.
2. To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit. An act or undertaking of uncertain outcome; a risk
I believe most who object to gambling have the first definition in mind. It may conjure thoughts of Casino Games, Slot machines, and Sports Betting.
I am assuming that those opposed to betting or wagering are not opposed to gambling in the sense of simply taking risk. We all take calculated risks every day, so I am not going to address that here.
I look at betting/wagering as a form of entertainment, and when done in moderation/self-control, is no different from any other type of entertainment. Here are some common forms of entertainment:
- Eating expensive meals
- Going to see movies
- TV/DVD/iPod/Video Games
- Hobbies/sports like golf/skiing/etc.
All of these activities are not inherently bad, but the key is moderation:
- Eating food in excess is gluttony, In moderation it is required
- Watching TV in excess is probably slotful, In moderation it can be useful
- Video games in excess can distort priorities, In moderation it can teach problem solving skills and spatial visualization
- Drinking Alcohol in excess leads to drunkenness, In moderation it has some health benefits
Likewise, Betting/Wagering in excess is unwise, In moderation can be entertaining and provide income.
Risk decreases according to the information available and the control you have on the situation. In the public lotteries, for example, participants have no control on the odds or the game. No-Limit Hold 'em Poker certainly leaves a lot to chance, but I do see many aspects of the game which are controllable:
- The Betting Decision (Call, Fold, Raise Amount)
- Tells (If you are at the table)
- Players see their own cards and the community cards on the Table so they can appoximately calculate your odds of winning
- Players can track the betting patterns of other players and attempt to acertain their opponent's cards
Wagering and Betting is not a monolithic category. The games vary greatly - What is risky for one person may actually be a wise decision for another. But all in moderation.
If you don't have cable you may not know this, but Poker has become incredibly popluar. In Particlar No Limit Texas Hold 'em is the game of choice. I grew up playing 5 card draw, but Hold 'em offers more opportunities for strategy because only 2 cards are private and 3-5 cards may be visible to all players.
In Christian circles, there is division on the morality of Gambling. I've been thinking about this and here are my thoughts.
First, it helps to understand what we mean by the term 'gambling,' so I looked up the definition. To sum up, there are basically 2 definitions:
1. To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest. To put up as a stake in gambling; wager.
2. To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit. An act or undertaking of uncertain outcome; a risk
I believe most who object to gambling have the first definition in mind. It may conjure thoughts of Casino Games, Slot machines, and Sports Betting.
I am assuming that those opposed to betting or wagering are not opposed to gambling in the sense of simply taking risk. We all take calculated risks every day, so I am not going to address that here.
I look at betting/wagering as a form of entertainment, and when done in moderation/self-control, is no different from any other type of entertainment. Here are some common forms of entertainment:
- Eating expensive meals
- Going to see movies
- TV/DVD/iPod/Video Games
- Hobbies/sports like golf/skiing/etc.
All of these activities are not inherently bad, but the key is moderation:
- Eating food in excess is gluttony, In moderation it is required
- Watching TV in excess is probably slotful, In moderation it can be useful
- Video games in excess can distort priorities, In moderation it can teach problem solving skills and spatial visualization
- Drinking Alcohol in excess leads to drunkenness, In moderation it has some health benefits
Likewise, Betting/Wagering in excess is unwise, In moderation can be entertaining and provide income.
Risk decreases according to the information available and the control you have on the situation. In the public lotteries, for example, participants have no control on the odds or the game. No-Limit Hold 'em Poker certainly leaves a lot to chance, but I do see many aspects of the game which are controllable:
- The Betting Decision (Call, Fold, Raise Amount)
- Tells (If you are at the table)
- Players see their own cards and the community cards on the Table so they can appoximately calculate your odds of winning
- Players can track the betting patterns of other players and attempt to acertain their opponent's cards
Wagering and Betting is not a monolithic category. The games vary greatly - What is risky for one person may actually be a wise decision for another. But all in moderation.
posted by Vijay Swamidass at
6:45 PM
6 Comments:
Vijay: Good food for thought.
re: eating food in excess. It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that this needs to be clarified a bit. The reason I say this is because biblically, it seems that there are specific occasians when it is appropriate to eat more than would be healthy (if it were to be done on a regular basis). These special occasions are called "feasts." During a feast, it seems that the point is to celebrate by eating rich food (and drink) in abundance. Gluttony comes in when someone adopts the lifestyle of feasting when there is no feast to celebrate.
I think the same goes for drunkenness. I drunk is not someone who occasionally drinks to the glory of God (and may or may not feel the effects), while a drunkard is one who drinks in excess as a lifestyle. Note that when Jesus turned the water into wine at the wedding feast, he did so after all of the good wine (and the not-so-good) wine had been drunk. This was seen as extraordinary, because the best wine is always served first, when your tastebuds and brain cells are working at their best. After the guests have lost some of their critical tasting skills, the lesser wine is brought out. But Christ then made the best wine of the evening after even the worst wine had been drunk! Certainly this implies that at least some people were a little loosey-goosey when Jesus performed the miracle. After all, it was a "feast."
Now, obviously I am not endorsing drinking beyond your limits, but I think this event is noteworthy.
Well, these are just my thoughts at 1:40 in the morning, so let me know what you think.
Cheers,
Andrew
Now
By
DrewDog, At
1:36 AM
Andrew,
You bring up several interesting points. Looks like we both think better at night. :)
I guess it isn't clear to me what exactly happened at a feast. I think I could grant that eating food in abundance may be ok at certain times, though it isn't clear to me that a feast necessarily included eating too much. I'm thinking quality vs. quantity. Meat and Wine vs. Bread and Water.
However, I tend to disagree on the drunkenness point.
1 Peter 4:3 -
"For the time already past is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles, having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousing, drinking parties and abominable idolatries."
Ephesians 5:18 -
"Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit."
These and many other passages seem to speak against "drinking parties" and being drunk at any given time, not just in an ongoing or lifestyle sense.
So I think there may be some ambiguity with respect to food/gluttony, but getting drunk at any time seems to be explicitly rebuked by Scripture.
Vijay
By
Vijay Swamidass, At
3:00 PM
Thanks Vijay. I might agree...
What do you think of the point regarding Jesus' first miracle?
I think that drinking parties (probably in a more pagan sense of drinking with the intent to get drunk) might be what is referred to in 1 Peter. Look at the surrounding context: lust, sensuality, etc. The point was to get drunk, not celebrate God's goodness. The desire of the Gentiles is what is being opposed here. Again, I am not condoning drunkenness.
And in Ephesians, it seems like Paul's point is more of a lifestyle: Be controlled by the Holy Spirit. Don't seek to lose yourself in wine or anything else.
I don't think we should ever seek to eat or drink ourselves into dissipation, but I wonder if the occasional feast which leads to a very full stomach and a glad heart (one of the beneficial effects of wine mentioned in the Bible) is not appropriate.
What think ye?
By
DrewDog, At
10:41 PM
PS- Jesus was accused of being a glutton and a winebibber for a reason. This was not just pulled out of thin air. Everyone agrees that it was culturally and religiously accepted to drink wine, yet Jesus was singled out as a winebibber. I wonder why that would be if he simply did what every other religious leader did. I'm not implying that Jesus was indeed a lush (obviously), but He must have been one who was known for His participation in feasting on good food and strong drink.
Perhaps I'm just not thinking clearly though, since it's only 10:45pm. :)
Cheers,
Andrew
By
DrewDog, At
10:47 PM
Andrew,
I think if I define terms, we'll see we are in agreement. I'm not arguing against drinking 'a lot' or more than normal amounts in certain circumstances (i.e. feasts). This is not sinful and may even provide a 'glad heart' and other positive effects.
The term 'drunk' which I have in mind means a loss of self-control due to drinking excessive amounts of alcohol. Being drunk in this sense is sinful at anytime. Gluttony defined as losing control to your appetite would also be wrong in any case. Loss of control is the key factor. I think you'll agree with this.
To your points...
The water to wine miracle does clearly show Jesus providing wine to people at a feast. But it doesn't follow that because Jesus creates wine, everyone should drink it to the point of drunkenness. There were likely some who were drunk already and some who were not, but each person is responsible to be in control.
You referred to John 2 -
33For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' 34The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners."
John drank no wine and Jesus drank wine - For our discussion, I think that is all we can conclude from the passage. The accusation that Jesus was a drunkard, doesn't mean he actually was - just that people accused him of it. This point of the passage seems to be that people exagerated and misunderstood both John and Jesus' actions - John was not demon possessed and Jesus was not a glutton or drunkard.
I am not an Jewish historian, but it could also be that leaders did not drink wine and that those who were seen drinking any alcohol were considered 'drunk' or lax morally (just like today, actually).
So here's a definition of "Moderation" that might serve better:
Participation in an activity without losing control to the activity; Not addicted or controlled.
What do you think?
Vijay
By
Vijay Swamidass, At
12:19 PM
Vijay, sounds good. Let me make sure that some of my points are clear as well.
I was not implying that it follows that since some people were drunk at the marriage feast, Jesus condoned drunkenness. My point was that Jesus condoned drinking "a lot" by making more wine after all was drunk. Note that the passage says nothing about there being a shortage of wine (less than would be customary at a wedding feast, or due to an over-abundance of unexpected guests), so his miracle allowed for even more consumption that a typical feast. The only thing that I think follows from this is that wine is a worthy drink to imbibe in abundance for purposes of celebration. I'm not arguing with your points, just clarifying mine.
I agree (and mentioned this in my previous post) that Jesus was not a drunk; this is impossible. My only point is that he had a reputation as well who enjoyed feasting. You don't get this reputation by simply drinking a glass or two of wine at dinner. I think we agree on this.
I like your definition of moderation, especially the part about addiction and control for I think that these are integral characteristics of gluttony and drunkenness, thus implying lifestyle over and against occasion. The reason I have been thinking about this is because I can imagine a hypothetical situation in which Bob goes to a feast of some sort, and celebrates God's goodness. He has a few drinks, and somehow, without realizing it, he finds that it would not be safe for him to drive home; his reaction times are a bit slow, speech is starting to slur, etc... It could be argued that Bob may have been unwise for a moment, or on the flip-side, perhaps he didn't eat much that day, and didn't sleep well, or whatever; and so the 3 glasses of wine that would normally not even phase him are actually impairing him a bit tonight. I wouldn't want to accuse him of being a drunk (even for this one occasion), or of violating Paul's words to be not drunk with wine. This is getting long, so I'll wrap up.
I think we agree, and I was just trying to point out that these sins which people normally attribute to occasion, seem much more like lifestyle sins; patterns that are developed over time, which control you through addiction.
Those of us who are fat can often point a finger at the "Christian" having a couple of beers with dinner, but our sin has taken us months or even years to show on our bellies.
PS- this really is a hypothetical; I don't drink to the point of not being able to drive! Just in case you were getting suspicious...
By
DrewDog, At
3:10 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home