Focus on the Family [censored] Warning About the 6/8 IGREA Hearing - Page 9

Skallagrim · #81 06-11-2007, 07:05 PM

Landlord protests against accusations not made.

I never said anything about ALL christians, just one specfic grouping of them. The vast majority of christians understand the need to separate religious beliefs from political policy.

You are right about separation of church and state protecting religion so long as you mean minority religions and beliefs. The real freedom is freedom of conscience, and the founders understood it that way.

And of course, you didnt respond to may main point because I think you understand it all too well, if you claim the right to enforce your beliefs against me through the power of the state, arent I entitled to do the same with you once my side is the majority? Isnt it better to agree to a something like a "Bill of Rights" that protects both of us from each other? Of course.

Thats my beef with Dobson and his ilk, not their particular religious beliefs, the attempt to codify those beliefs as law simply because they are their beliefs. Ayatollah Dobson is more appropriate than Reverand Dobson IMHO.

If Dobson believes poker and/or gambling should be illegal, make the case on practical grounds and real evidence, not that it conflicts with the "true" word of god. Dont force me from playing poker and I wont force you to play. If you wanna throw in some simple regulation to protect the fools from themselves, I can live with that. I can live with reasonable taxes too (they tax every other thing thats fun except sex).

Skallagrim

sevencard2003 · #82 06-11-2007, 08:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I always read/hear Christians (not all of them, obviously) rail against gambling because it's a sin. So there's nothing in the Bible about it at all? This is all just made up?

I have never understood why people think betting money on a card game (or for some, even simply PLAYING a card game) is immoral. If there was something in the Bible about it, I could at least understand fundamentalists having an problem with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, they made it up. Fundamentalist Christians have a long history of basing morality not on the Bible, but on their ideas of what seems right and wrong. For example, some Baptists believe drinking one beer is sinful, yet Jesus himself made wine (a big miracle of His). And, He didn't make it for a sacrament. Rather, He made it for a PARTY!!! QFT, but it does say "not to be drunk", some people can't stop at just a few drinks, hence the bad reputation of alcohol. I myself like a glass of wine from time to time, but I have full control over myself in this issue and it isn't a problem for me. Some try to impose limitations for the whole of society because of their need for everyone to abide by the same "rules" as they do, this isn't correct. Everyone has their own stuggles with temptation. A full reading of the writings of Paul will clarify this issue for anyone interesting in taking the time to read it, but it is much too indepth to explore on this thread. Seems inconsistent with the beliefs of people who claim to be his followers. As for gambling, there isn't a word about it. QFT, I looked Here's an interesting article that provides about as much justification as is possible from the Bible: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_93.htm#whySin . It's rather convoluted in terms of logic, but it essentially claims that the issue is that gambling is greed-driven. Supposedly, the "greed" is in wanting something for nothing.

One objection I have to this is that I think it contradicts the Biblical story "Parable of the Talents", where making money not from sweat and labor, but from interest and profit, is praised. See Matthew 25:14-30 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Talents . Other verses in the Bible instruct us to use our gifts to the maximum. You're so off on your interpretation of this parable that I can't even agree with you. Interest was the minimum that God requires from us, which the metaphor translates as sitting on our hands and not telling anyone about Christ and keeping God's love bottled up inside. This parable has plenty of meaning in the physical, but it should be read for the spiritual. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a Christian and my church supports and is based on a lot of the same beliefs of FOF, I don't agree with them on this issue because it is trying to put limitations on the whole of society because some can't handle their gambling. I think what Dr Dobson does is awesome, and he is right in thinking that as the family deteriorates, so does the morality of the society. But morality doesn't create disciples of Christ, Christ wants a relationship with us, and that relationship creates morality and cures us of our addictions and gives us true life.

Playing poker allows me to win some "monies" and have the occassional opportunity to minister to someone about Christ. I'm not a you have to quit sinning now before you can be saved Christian, I'm one who encourages you to get saved then let Christ pull out what he needs to pull out from you Christian. I don't judge, nor will I. Christ takes us as we are then makes us better.

I guess what I want to say is, Dr Dobson has done more for our country than many of you will ever think about doing, and just because he has stepped on our toes with this one issue doesn't make him a villain. His beliefs are Biblical and his intentions are good, so we don't need to attack him, we just need to defend what is important to us, while keeping things in their proper perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

HEY I HAVE ALWAYS SUPPORTED DR DOBSON AND OTHERS LIKE HIM, EXCEPT ON THIS ONE ISSUE. (GAMBLING) I LOVE THE WORK HE DOES AGAINST ONLINE PORNOGRAPHY AND AGAINST ABORTION, AND I ALWAYS VOTE CONSERVATIVE RIGHT WING REPUBLICANS. BUT SINCE IM DISABLED, AND WINNING ABOUT $500 A MONTH AT ONLINE POKER, AND CANNOT DRIVE TO A CASINO, IM A LITTLE UPSET ABOUT THIS ISSUE. YES I KNOW LOTS OF KIDS GET ONLINE WHO SHOULDNT AND I KNOW SOME PEOPLE BLOW ALL THEIR MONEY AT SLOTS WHO SHOULDNT AND I COULD CARE LESS IF ALL ONLINE SLOTS WERE banned. HOWEVER POKER AND BLACKJACK SHOUDL BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY AS GAMES OF SKILL THATS WHY I SUPPORT WEXLERS BILL IN FL SO MUCH, A LOT MORE THAN I DO BARNEY FRANKS. HE ADMITS POKER IS A GAME OF SKILL. I THINK IF DOBSON TRULY UNDERSTOOD POKER AS A GAME OF SKILL AND NOT ALL LUCK HE WOULDNT BE SO OPPOSED TO IT. EVIDENTLY HES ONE OF THE CROWD LIKE MY MOM WHO BELIEVES ALL GAMBLERS LOSE IN THE END. AND REFUSES TO BELIEVE SOME OF US ARE ACTUALLY BEATING THE GAME IN THE LONG RUN. WE HAVE GOT TO START CONVINCING PEOPLE POKER IS A GAME OF SKILL, AND NOT LUCK, THAT IS THE ONLY SHOT WE HAVE TO MAKE ONLINE POKER SAFE AND LEGAL.

sevencard2003 · #83 06-11-2007, 08:21 PM

ok i just wrote focus on the familys website and showed them this post, hopefully they will comment.

TheEngineer · #84 06-11-2007, 08:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
ok i just wrote focus on the familys website and showed them this post, hopefully they will comment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think they'll change their mind? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

tangled · #85 06-11-2007, 08:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I always read/hear Christians (not all of them, obviously) rail against gambling because it's a sin. So there's nothing in the Bible about it at all? This is all just made up?

I have never understood why people think betting money on a card game (or for some, even simply PLAYING a card game) is immoral. If there was something in the Bible about it, I could at least understand fundamentalists having an problem with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, they made it up. Fundamentalist Christians have a long history of basing morality not on the Bible, but on their ideas of what seems right and wrong. For example, some Baptists believe drinking one beer is sinful, yet Jesus himself made wine (a big miracle of His). And, He didn't make it for a sacrament. Rather, He made it for a PARTY!!! QFT, but it does say "not to be drunk", some people can't stop at just a few drinks, hence the bad reputation of alcohol. I myself like a glass of wine from time to time, but I have full control over myself in this issue and it isn't a problem for me. Some try to impose limitations for the whole of society because of their need for everyone to abide by the same "rules" as they do, this isn't correct. Everyone has their own stuggles with temptation. A full reading of the writings of Paul will clarify this issue for anyone interesting in taking the time to read it, but it is much too indepth to explore on this thread. Seems inconsistent with the beliefs of people who claim to be his followers. As for gambling, there isn't a word about it. QFT, I looked Here's an interesting article that provides about as much justification as is possible from the Bible: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_93.htm#whySin . It's rather convoluted in terms of logic, but it essentially claims that the issue is that gambling is greed-driven. Supposedly, the "greed" is in wanting something for nothing.

One objection I have to this is that I think it contradicts the Biblical story "Parable of the Talents", where making money not from sweat and labor, but from interest and profit, is praised. See Matthew 25:14-30 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Talents . Other verses in the Bible instruct us to use our gifts to the maximum. You're so off on your interpretation of this parable that I can't even agree with you. Interest was the minimum that God requires from us, which the metaphor translates as sitting on our hands and not telling anyone about Christ and keeping God's love bottled up inside. This parable has plenty of meaning in the physical, but it should be read for the spiritual. 

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a Christian and my church supports and is based on a lot of the same beliefs of FOF, I don't agree with them on this issue because it is trying to put limitations on the whole of society because some can't handle their gambling. I think what Dr Dobson does is awesome, and he is right in thinking that as the family deteriorates, so does the morality of the society. But morality doesn't create disciples of Christ, Christ wants a relationship with us, and that relationship creates morality and cures us of our addictions and gives us true life.

Playing poker allows me to win some "monies" and have the occassional opportunity to minister to someone about Christ. I'm not a you have to quit sinning now before you can be saved Christian, I'm one who encourages you to get saved then let Christ pull out what he needs to pull out from you Christian. I don't judge, nor will I. Christ takes us as we are then makes us better.

I guess what I want to say is, Dr Dobson has done more for our country than many of you will ever think about doing, and just because he has stepped on our toes with this one issue doesn't make him a villain. His beliefs are Biblical and his intentions are good, so we don't need to attack him, we just need to defend what is important to us, while keeping things in their proper perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

HEY I HAVE ALWAYS SUPPORTED DR DOBSON AND OTHERS LIKE HIM, EXCEPT ON THIS ONE ISSUE. (GAMBLING) I LOVE THE WORK HE DOES AGAINST ONLINE PORNOGRAPHY AND AGAINST ABORTION, AND I ALWAYS VOTE CONSERVATIVE RIGHT WING REPUBLICANS. BUT SINCE IM DISABLED, AND WINNING ABOUT $500 A MONTH AT ONLINE POKER, AND CANNOT DRIVE TO A CASINO, IM A LITTLE UPSET ABOUT THIS ISSUE. YES I KNOW LOTS OF KIDS GET ONLINE WHO SHOULDNT AND I KNOW SOME PEOPLE BLOW ALL THEIR MONEY AT SLOTS WHO SHOULDNT AND I COULD CARE LESS IF ALL ONLINE SLOTS WERE banned. HOWEVER POKER AND BLACKJACK SHOUDL BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY AS GAMES OF SKILL THATS WHY I SUPPORT WEXLERS BILL IN FL SO MUCH, A LOT MORE THAN I DO BARNEY FRANKS. HE ADMITS POKER IS A GAME OF SKILL. I THINK IF DOBSON TRULY UNDERSTOOD POKER AS A GAME OF SKILL AND NOT ALL LUCK HE WOULDNT BE SO OPPOSED TO IT. EVIDENTLY HES ONE OF THE CROWD LIKE MY MOM WHO BELIEVES ALL GAMBLERS LOSE IN THE END. AND REFUSES TO BELIEVE SOME OF US ARE ACTUALLY BEATING THE GAME IN THE LONG RUN. WE HAVE GOT TO START CONVINCING PEOPLE POKER IS A GAME OF SKILL, AND NOT LUCK, THAT IS THE ONLY SHOT WE HAVE TO MAKE ONLINE POKER SAFE AND LEGAL.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know of course, you sound like the perfect person for the PPA to highlight and use. You're disabled and need online poker to be able to play poker. Also, and this is really big, you otherwise agree with the, ugh, people at FOF, so your bias is normally with them not with us, which skyrockets your creditability and attractivenes.

Have you thought about this?

LegallyBlind · #86 06-11-2007, 09:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer,

I am done with this thread after this post. I hope most posters here recognize the folly of attempting to publicly make the arguments you are making, even if you and some others don't.

FOF and others have an argument against gambling that goes like this:

1) gambling is a sin
2) gambling causes X to happen that is bad for people and society at large.
3) [implied] people shouldn't be allowed to do things that harm themselves and not others.

Now instead of focusing on rebutting #2 and #3, which leaves them only with #1 which is only tenable to a minority of the population and politicians, you instead want to engage them on a battlefield of THEIR CHOOSING, i.e what is or is not the proper interpretation of the Bible and Christian morality. Which then allows them to paint you as anti-Christian/morality and be much more effective in rallying to their cause those who in general believe the same as them, but aren't otherwise likely to participate in the political process. You thus just help them to mobilize more support for THEIR purposes.

We aren't some kind of general purpose political party that engages FOF on a wide range of issues and needs to spend the effort on portraying them in a negative light overall. Rather we are a special interest group that can't afford to engage in those kinds of personal and broad range attacks, lest we alienate the fence sitters and make ourselves look unreasonable. We need to FOCUS on the non-morality aspects of our opponents' arguments, which we can easily refute, and which allows us to wage the battle on a field of OUR choosing.

But if you and others just can't help yourself and feel it necessary to blowhard about the nuances of morality because of your personal distaste with and disagreement with the overall positions of FOF and their allies, then go ahead. Just realize that not only are you putting that above what is the best political strategy for engaging our opponents, but also are using a dominated strategy given their political clout relative to ours, and risking dooming our chances. And obviously I am not talking about making random posts here, but on what we should say publicly, and what we should focus our efforts on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a REALLY good post. People should read it again because it seems a lot are still falling into the trappings it warns against.

Dire · #87 06-11-2007, 10:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Engineer,

I am done with this thread after this post. I hope most posters here recognize the folly of attempting to publicly make the arguments you are making, even if you and some others don't.

FOF and others have an argument against gambling that goes like this:

1) gambling is a sin
2) gambling causes X to happen that is bad for people and society at large.
3) [implied] people shouldn't be allowed to do things that harm themselves and not others.

Now instead of focusing on rebutting #2 and #3, which leaves them only with #1 which is only tenable to a minority of the population and politicians, you instead want to engage them on a battlefield of THEIR CHOOSING, i.e what is or is not the proper interpretation of the Bible and Christian morality. Which then allows them to paint you as anti-Christian/morality and be much more effective in rallying to their cause those who in general believe the same as them, but aren't otherwise likely to participate in the political process. You thus just help them to mobilize more support for THEIR purposes.

We aren't some kind of general purpose political party that engages FOF on a wide range of issues and needs to spend the effort on portraying them in a negative light overall. Rather we are a special interest group that can't afford to engage in those kinds of personal and broad range attacks, lest we alienate the fence sitters and make ourselves look unreasonable. We need to FOCUS on the non-morality aspects of our opponents' arguments, which we can easily refute, and which allows us to wage the battle on a field of OUR choosing.

But if you and others just can't help yourself and feel it necessary to blowhard about the nuances of morality because of your personal distaste with and disagreement with the overall positions of FOF and their allies, then go ahead. Just realize that not only are you putting that above what is the best political strategy for engaging our opponents, but also are using a dominated strategy given their political clout relative to ours, and risking dooming our chances. And obviously I am not talking about making random posts here, but on what we should say publicly, and what we should focus our efforts on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a REALLY good post. People should read it again because it seems a lot are still falling into the trappings it warns against.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could not agree more here. It is an absolutely terrible strategy to argue moralistic/religious points with religious zealots. When the blind are leading the blind, don't expect a stranger to open anybody's eyes.

TheEngineer · #88 06-11-2007, 10:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Could not agree more here. It is an absolutely terrible strategy to argue moralistic/religious points with religious zealots. When the blind are leading the blind, don't expect a stranger to open anybody's eyes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone said we should. Rather, the only comment was that we should say "there's nothing in the Bible against gambling", and then shut up while they give their convoluted reasons against gambling. This was done at Friday's hearing, and it was a highlight of the hearing.

TomVeil · #89 06-11-2007, 11:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think this is a REALLY good post. People should read it again because it seems a lot are still falling into the trappings it warns against.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could not agree more here. It is an absolutely terrible strategy to argue moralistic/religious points with religious zealots. When the blind are leading the blind, don't expect a stranger to open anybody's eyes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that people are actually taking this strategy, I think we're just discussing it among ourselves. Personally, I have no hope to change the minds of those people in FOF. The people that I DO talk to agree that the feds have no reason to be all up in our grill. It's our money and time.

TheEngineer · #90 06-12-2007, 12:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think this is a REALLY good post. People should read it again because it seems a lot are still falling into the trappings it warns against.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could not agree more here. It is an absolutely terrible strategy to argue moralistic/religious points with religious zealots. When the blind are leading the blind, don't expect a stranger to open anybody's eyes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that people are actually taking this strategy, I think we're just discussing it among ourselves. Personally, I have no hope to change the minds of those people in FOF. The people that I DO talk to agree that the feds have no reason to be all up in our grill. It's our money and time.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

Who would do that? I have no idea why this keeps coming up. No one here said anything like that. I think it's because Bluffthis thought we were being anti-Christian when we were really being anti-FOF.

Perhaps FOF should focus on their own damn families. Maybe then their kids wouldn't rob banks. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]