....I actually grounded myself from here for a while because I get too caught up in these discussions, but you had to go and tempt me!! :)

I just wanted to point out another passage that has always been helpful: Be not drunk with wine but be filled with the Spirit. (can't remember where - I think it's in one of Peter's epistles).

The idea is to not be controlled by anything other the Spirit, and that we are to be controlled by the Spirit as a drunk is controlled by alcohol. Any time something controls you instead of you controlling it, you're in trouble.

Robertson's position is inconsistent, because he has both indicated that he is opposed to gambling and owns/ed interests in race horses at the same time.

I might point out that my concern with the original post wasn't just gambling per se, but with the propriety of linking to online gambling when many government entities claim that people who engage in it are breaking state or local laws, as well as whether minors are adequately protected. Also, the U.S. Department of Justice claims or has claimed it isn't legal. They might be wrong, but it would seem better to be cautious in encouraging folks to engage in something that might violate federal, state or local laws. It is evident, though, that as laws are currently written, they are either unenforcable or of dubious Constitutionality, or else governments would be substantially involved in enforcing against online gambling and they clearly aren't.

And again, I was troubled that the outfit linked got its seed money from online porn and/or telephone sex.

I see your point about excess versus entertainment, but the Bible also tells us that sometimes we might be careful about what we promote lest a brother or sister fall. It seemed to me that you knew that a lot of your readership is against gambling and that it might be better not to use the blog to promote it.

Regardless of my personal opinions, as a United Methodist pastor I'm bound to uphold our official church teaching that gambling per se is wrong.

Finally, this seems to be an example where the claim that absolute truth is knowable may be of dubious certainty, or else there wouldn't be such a division among believers who have given the Word very careful study. Among Protestant clergy, I would estimate that 90% or more consider gambling a sin. By evidence of the overwhelming vote in favor of Oklahoma's lottery, it doesn't appear that those in the pews agree.

I have wrestled with this on my site as well. I have to confess I never did come to a solid conclusion. Inertia took over and I approved the site ads.

Does anyone have an definitive info on whether on line gambling sites are illegal?

"First, gambling or betting puts faith in chance or luck rather than in the care and provision of God."

Did Graham flunk math class or is he being uncharacteristically subtle? One can't have "faith" in randomness--the proposition that, given a large enough sample, 50% of the time a tossed coin will land "heads" is not a belief that requires a leap of will. It is arguable that BG is saying that the committed gambler is, in fact, disregarding mathematics in favor of faith that some unscientific process will help him beat the odds ... but in this case, gambling would become a religious exercise, so even the subtle interpretation doesn't work.

What do people think about state lotteries?

In my state, NY, we now have a bewildering array of games that (judging by my neighborhood - just north of the East Village) appear to be mostly (successfully) aimed at people on the lower income scale; that have TERRIBLE odds (you'd be better off playing the [illegal] numbers); and are relentlessly trumpeted on radio and prime time network tv. I mean, spending millions of dollars in advertising to push million to 1 odds gambling games on low income earners to help defray the cost of schools to me seems slightly not-moral.

"Lotteries are a tax on people who are bad at math." [Source unknown].

I'm willing to give Robertson the benefit of the doubt on being part owner of a race horse. In theory, anyway, there's no difference between that and having a financial interest in auto racing. People gamble on NASCAR and IndyCar races, too (though, admittedly, motor sports aren't as closely tied to gambling as horse racing). Is there any direct financial connection between the horse owners and gambling operations? I.e., are the purses in horse races typically made up of gambling revenues?

Anyway, I disagree when Josh says that Graham's points against gambling would be just as valid against any athletic sport. In most sports, the profit and loss is only bragging rights. Even in professional sports, it is not a zero sum game--everyone is getting paid, though there is extra compensation for those who win championships, that money is not taken away from the losers.

I agree with what others have said about recreational gambling vs. addictive gambling, and its similarity to alcohol consumption. I'd also add that gambling for fun is OK, but gambling for substantial financial gain is not.

Eric,
The difference between auto racing and horse racing is that there are no betting windows at IRL and NASCAR tracks.
Also, isn't professional golf, pro tennis and other sports in which a purse is involved zero-sum games? Some of the greatest moments in golf feature someone choking.

"What do people think about state lotteries?"

I think it's a good idea in that, if the State is going to permit gambling, it might as well just own the gambling facility. The state is never going to permit a free market in gambling establishments, nor are gambling establishments the kind of industry the state really wants to have grow and thrive like other private industry. So, if the State is going to permit gambling, I don't see why it should content itself simply with taking a rake from the house. It should be the house. Let the taxpayers be further subsidized by people who apparently don't mind giving away their money.

Just a thought.

The difference between auto racing and horse racing is that there are no betting windows at IRL and NASCAR tracks.

True, which is why I admitted that horse racing is more closely tied to gambling. And I wouldn't hold back in calling Pat Robertson inconsistent if I knew it was justified. Still, I'd like to know if horse owners are directly compensated with gambling revenues.

Also, isn't professional golf, pro tennis and other sports in which a purse is involved zero-sum games?

No. Everyone comes in with nothing, some leave with a bunch of prize money, some leave with very little. The prize money is provided by sponsors, so the winners aren't taking directly from the losers as in gambling.

Still, I'd like to know if horse owners are directly compensated with gambling revenues.

Depends on the track and the state, in Indiana the purse for horse races comes not only from betting, but from taxes placed on the riverboat casinos.

*Does anyone have an definitive info on whether on line gambling sites are illegal?*

Short answer for the USA -

"The Federal Wire Act of 1961 prohibits using telephone transmissions to bet across state lines, but no new law has yet amended the Wire Act for the Internet age.
A license is required to set up a internet gambling site, and no state has yet granted one, so none of the known 2000 online gambling sites are situated in US states or territories.
Some states have specific laws against online gambling." (six states?)

1996 first US federal attempt to regulate internet gambling in the US - 30 sites existed offshore

Annenberg Public Policy Center- 2005
"US gamblers make up 65 percent of the online market with 580,000 people age 14-22 considered regulars."

One US citizen has been charged - 2003 Winsconsin internet lottery winner.

Reuters March 15, 2006 - A U.S. House Finance committee cleared another bill and another version/amendment addressing internet gambling.

Billy Graham's criticisms DO apply to capitalism, and rightly so. Capitalism is a value-free activity. The only value is growth -- making more money. Generally, all worthwhile values get cast aside in order to make more money -- the same problem that arises with gamblers.

Just like a group of gamblers, a society built around capitalism has no actual values. Just look at America.

I agree. Gambling takes on many forms outside the casino. You could call someone who puts a 2nd mortgage on their home to start a new business a gambler. What if the business fails? When ever you spend any amount of money that you cannot afford to lose in the hopes that you'll get it back later is gambling...no matter how you look at it. But does that make it wrong? Sometimes we confuse what's wrong with what's unwise. Many portions of Scripture point out what is wrong and what is forbidden by God. But other portions of Scripture point out what is wise and unwise. Gambling may not be wrong but it's certainly not wise. Proverbs for example tries to lead it's reader into the wisdom of avoiding risky investments and strongly suggests that you always owe no one. This promotes freedom and personal liberty.

You could call someone who puts a 2nd mortgage on their home to start a new business a gambler.

Interesting thought, but I wouldn't go that far. Yes, they're taking a risk, but while gambling is a risk, risk is not always gambling. A person starting a small business has a significant personal affect on whether that business will be successful. Depending on the game of choice, gambling is either mostly or entirely chance.

The hypocrisy of people who wear their religion on their sleeves never ceases to amaze me.

To me, wearing religion on one's sleeve involves one or more of possibly three elements:

1) Thinking one is morally superior to another.
2) Seeking to impose one's morality on others through legal means even in cases where substantial interests of public safety and order are not at stake.
3) Seeking to win religious or moral arguments through intimidation rather than persuasion.
4) Going beyond believing that moral absolute truth exists and being certain that you know it and that anyone who disagrees is a heathen.

How the wearing of religion is perceived is greatly in the eye of the beholder. I've grown very, very offended by U.S. Presidents, Democrats or Republicans, who pepper their foreign policy or campaign speeches with "God bless America." Others find it uplifting.

I'm one of those who believes that American flags really don't have a proper place in the worship sanctuary, but on that issue I've always bowed to the wishes of the majority, many of whom would be absolutely outraged by its removal.

Guess I'd better not try to wear my math skills on my sleeve.

Depending on the game of choice, gambling is either mostly or entirely chance.

But then, for games where it isn't mostly or entirely chance, do you think such gambling is more akin to taking out a mortgage to start a business.

Anybody with a decent eye and the brain to memorize some probabilities can consistently make money at a single-deck blackjack table, and there's a significant (but assuredly small) number of people who make tons of money playing poker.

Joel,

You left out the big one: Practice what you preach!

Just remember: taking advantage of poor people is just fine so long as the government does it. That's socialism for ya - why let private companies screw people when the state does it so much better?

Gary, true, but I've never known anyone short of the divine to completely practice what they preach. Inconsistencies can be found within each of us. The importance is the degree of consistency.

But then, for games where it isn't mostly or entirely chance, do you think such gambling is more akin to taking out a mortgage to start a business.

Well, in that case the balance of risk, chance, and effort might be roughly the same, but the two still cannot be considered morally equivalent because in starting a business you're creating jobs and contributing to the economy. Winning a living at poker and/or blackjack depends on taking money away from others.

That's a non-sequiter, though, don't you think?

Running (for instance) a clothing store depends on taking money from others. You might argue that they get clothing in return, but people who gamble generally do it because it's fun. And working at a casino these days is usually a pretty good job that pays pretty well (compared to, say, fast food or mall retail).

Further, not only does running a clothing store require that take money from others, but you have to take so much that you make money in order to run a successful clothing store. Should Christians abstain from profit?

In my area, it isn't a church with the most packed parking lot, it's a casino.

I worry that the trend in our country is becoming more "me-centered."

I'd be interested in a study comparing what gamblers give on average, as a percentage of their income, to church compared to non-gamblers. That might ge me an idea of whether or not my concerns are well-founded or misplaced. I'd be interested to know how much time on average gamblers give in mission work, compared to non-gamblers.

Interesting post, Josh. I don't consider gambling itself to be a sin so long as it is not harmful to one's family and is done in moderation.

Is buying a lottery ticket for entertainment worse than spending that $1 on an artery-clogging cheeseburger at McDonald's? After all, our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit.

Joel makes a good point about causing others to stumble - but that applies to any area of life. We are to sacrifice our liberty in Christ for the good of others.

I am much more wary of state lotteries than private businesses running gambling operations. Should state government be in the gambling business? Does it bother anyone that some states - like Indiana - create a monopoly for themselves in the gambling market?

For a Christian the question is "Is gambling a sin?" If it is a sin, and I have no doubt that it is though some here might try to kid themselves, I find no where in the Bible where God thinks a little sin is OK as long as you don't go off the deep end.

That's a non-sequiter, though, don't you think?

No, not at all.

Running (for instance) a clothing store depends on taking money from others. You might argue that they get clothing in return

Umm... yeah! That rather changes the equation, don't ya think? The store owner is not simply taking a person's money the way a gambler takes his opponent's money. The customer is not poorer for the transaction (unless the store owner is unscrupulous). He/she is getting something of value at a price they clearly think is fair (or they'd shop somewhere else).

There's really no comparison between capitalism and gambling. The former allows everyone to benefit by the free exchange of goods and services, creating wealth in the process. The latter is a zero-sum game in which money is transferred from the loser to the winner.

(Granted, the relationship between the players and the house is basically capitalistic, but the interactions between players is not.)

but people who gamble generally do it because it's fun

Some gambling, especially lottery, is done out of desperation.

"His points are well taken, but his complaints would be just as valid against any athletic sport."
Here's the big question. "Can I do this in a manner that brings glory to God?"
I can come up with a yes answer in the case of athletic competition even at the professional leval but gambling, I just can't see how.

Josh,

Although I can respect that you chose to focus on gambling per se, I don't think the matter can be so easily separated from the fact that the particular site touted was founded with pornography money or from the question of whether or not Christians should be promoting online gambling when so many law enforcement entities have declared it illegal. Both of these matters go to the heart of how honorable a profession gambling is a whole.

You've never addressed the question of whether or not you knew the site was tied to pornographers and whether that makes any difference to your view. You've also not addressed the question as to whether you would have any moral culpability if someone were to be arrested for online gambling.