[OLD REGGIE]

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.

And I agree with you that Doug feels this way. It was only when Dave rang in the life insurance angle that Doug modified what he meant. If Dave continues to include life insurance in the definition of gambling and Doug exempts it, his original definition has been modified. That is, Doug has a different definition of gambling than the one Dave is forcing on him.

BTW "I think there's no question that all gambling for money is a sin."

The "all" was added by Dave.

[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