The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles)

Associated Press ^ | 3/24/01

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Previous Thread

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

I might be interested. You gotta show me how to do it though. :-)

Great! you, angelo, me, lets see who else wants to play, then we can get together and talk about whats out there to invest in.

Anybody else wanna play?

BigMack

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

You said a mouth full!

Ain't Capitalism great. :)

BigMack

[SoothingDave]

OK, enough.

I've gone back to near the beginning, and I can see where we diverged. In theory, anyway. Post 51673

SD: But that does not change in the least the argument that buying life insurance is indeed a gamble with a financial payoff. That was Doug's definition of a sin.

Doug: I don't believe I ever said that.

*************************************

I think the problem is that I was saying that Doug's definition was, as I have said many times that "a gamble with a financial payoff" is a sin (wrong).

I did not mean to imply, as it could be read, that "Doug's definition" included the first part of my sentence, that "life insurance is indeed a gamble." That was my judgment, and I recognize that others' may differ.

So I was asserting as "Doug's definition" only what he said, that any gamble for money is wrong.

I was stating that insurance met Doug's criteria, not that insurance was part of Doug's criteria.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Not once in the last few days have I called you a liar. Now, for the first time, I am saying you are lying.

I'm sure you believe that.

SD

[DouglasKC]

I'm not gonna go back and dig out Douglas's original post. But the statement above, attributed to Doug, is not qualified in any way. In the absence of any exceptions, I have to assume that he means "gambling for money is a sin" period.

This little brewhaha started when Dave asked specifically about life insurance. My response was that when you take out life insurance you're not banking on getting that money personally because you'll be dead. Therefore there's absolutely zero chance that you're doing it to covet personally something for yourself and therefore not a sin.

Dave then disregarded the specific and then applied the general "all gambling for money is sin" to that comment after determing that buying life insurance is on the same level as going to a casino and gambling.

If anyone really wants me to dredge out the posts that prove this point, I will. Otherwise it's really not worth hassling over anymore.

[SoothingDave]

It was only when Dave rang in the life insurance angle that Doug modified what he meant.

Doug did not modify his definition. He simply interets the facts about insurance so they do not meet his definition. That is different.

He does not say that all forms of gambling for money are wrong, except if they are insurance that you yourself will never collect.

Rather he says, blanketly, that all forms of gambling for money are wrong period. But that those things where you take a chance for money but you only collect after you die are not "gambling." SD

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Maybe. Where do i find out what I really need?

Go to the library, get More Wealth Without Risk by Charles Givens, read the sections on insurance, take his advise, I did and saved a ton on insurance, did this back in the early 90s, he gives straight up solid info, no scams, you can read the sections on insurance in a day or two, the rest of the book is great too.

BigMack

[DouglasKC]

Wow. Doug sure is getting alot of publicity. :-)

lol...I think we may have stumbled across a topic that has never been discussed before on the thread. :-)

[SoothingDave]

My response was that when you take out life insurance you're not banking on getting that money personally because you'll be dead. Therefore there's absolutely zero chance that you're doing it to covet personally something for yourself and therefore not a sin.

This qualification of yours doesn't pass scrutiny.

Does no one plan for what happens after they are dead? Don't you desire that your family gets this money after you die? Does a dead person having a "will" not register with you?

Let me put it this way. If you spent 5 dollars and took a chance on a ticket, with the condition that you would not benefit, but your family would get any winnings after you die, would that be gambling?

SD

[DouglasKC]

That's right. Cause Doug and you can not admit that you slurred me. I have showed you his words, his definition. He, and then you, accused me of making up something he did not say.

Dave I apoligize if I came across as slurring you. I was stating facts as I saw them. I wasn't questioning your veracity, only your recollection and understanding.

[SoothingDave]

I've reviewed those posts this morning playing catchup, and can testify to your clarification on the point you just reiterated concerning life insurance, and witness Dave's avoiding that clarification in order to apply his own general definition to "gambling".

Am I in a dream world? Did I or did I not use, repeat and document that I was using the exact definition Doug used?

Why can no one admit this? Is it that difficult to see? I guess I'm cursed to be the only one who understands the difference between meeting the requirements and following through to the conclusion.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

OK, enough.

Who said this?

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Sure, I'm in, 5 or 7 card?

7 card, I like the odds better. :)

in_principio_erat_Verbum, Invincibly Ignorant, angelo, soothingdave and me so far, anybody else?

Maybe we should start a different thread for this so we don't muddy up the place any more than it is? :)

BigMack

[SoothingDave]

I know things are very confused, but believe me I was not attempting to misrepresent what you said. Please let me attempt to clarify:

Is it your position that all gambling for money is wrong?

Is it your position that life insurance is an exception to this rule, that is that it is gambling for money but it is not wrong cause you die before you collect?

Or is it your position that life insurance is not gambling at all?

SD