Unless he's mentally unbalanced or a criminal there's no way that he desires the money to "come to him". He may desire it to go to a benificary, but it's still a far cry from casino gambling.
The money still comes to his estate and can be distributed according to his "will." (Interesting word, no?) So spare me the simplistic "he's dead so he doesnt' care" argument. He obviously cares if he desires money for his beneficiaries.
And yes, you miss my point entirely. It is a far cry from casion gambling, but it is still gambling for money. And that was your definition.
Look, you're making the argument that it's okay to covet as long as your motivations are good. I don't agree with that any more than I agree that it's okay to steal as long as your motives are good.
Not at all. I am making the case that not all gambling for money is "coveting," hence sinful. Do you remember when you said it was, or do you wish to modify your definition now?
The fact is there are many types of ventures that fit this exact description and gambling is only one of them. I could take $50,000 and open up a bagel shop and rifle range and lose it all. I open the shop not to lose the money, but to risk the money in order to gain more.
Why do you want more money?
To prepare for the future. Do you not want to have an income in the future?
SD
Ambrose Bierce
The Devil's Dictionary
1906
BigMack
(DouglasKC) Look, you're making the argument that it's okay to covet as long as your motivations are good. I don't agree with that any more than I agree that it's okay to steal as long as your motives are good.
(SD) Not at all. I am making the case that not all gambling for money is "coveting," hence sinful. Do you remember when you said it was, or do you wish to modify your definition now?
A case, incidentally, which Dave has been belaboring for two days.
(DouglasKC) You are flat out wrong Dave. The issue was about life insurance. My position is that life insurance isn't sinful because the person "betting" stands to gain absolutely nothing and thus isn't coveting anything, except perhaps a better life for his family after he's gone.
You redefined my position based on your own opinion, not mine.
(SD) Doug, I am disappointed in you. I expect Reggie to call me a liar no matter what, but I thought you would see. What was your definition of the "sin." Didn't I quote it from you verbatim?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now let's compare it with an exchange between Dave and me:
(SD) " . . . can you agree, as I gave an out earlier, that suffering helps to sanctify us?"
(Reg) NO! In some cases it may, in others, absolutely not.
(SD) Reggie corrects my statement again. Of course I meant that suffering may help to sanctify us, depending on our own attitude. Suffering turns some in to saints, and others into, ironically, insufferable people.
(Reg) Learn to say what you mean. Your "open ended" pronouncements leave too much for later "modification".
(SD) Learn to read what I say, instead of giving me the inquisition all the time.
GO BOTHER SOMEONE ELSE
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
According to Dave we are supposed to know what he means. We cannot quote him exactly and take issue with his statement.
Now Dave has been chasing, and demanding apologies, for two days because DouglasKC and I have claimed he took Doug's statement out of context to advance his argument.
Are there different rules for different people?