Scriptural references against Gambling

In the book of first Timothy 6:10 we read, “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.” This begs the question: Does gambling qualify as the love of money? Absolutely. The love of money is the motivating factor behind gambling, regardless of the form it comes in. Money itself is not sinful, but the ‘love’ of it is. It is so damaging that it can even cause believers to turn from Christ, forsaking him as their first love, resorting to rather serving mammon instead of God. Jesus said in Matthew 6:24, “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.” Jesus knew the destructive force of gambling.

Luke 12:15 reads, “Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” Gambling promotes greed by leaving people wanting for more. Even any amount they may have won, they give back to gambling, in hopes of gaining more and more financial wealth. It’s a vicious cycle that spirals in only one direction: down.

In Philippians 4:11-13 we find an exhortation to be content in all things. “I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do everything through him who gives me strength.” Yet, gambling spawns the exact opposite: discontentment. Those who participate in gambling activities are more times than not dissatisfied with what they do have and are left yearning for more.

Gambling is a violation of the 8th commandment: Exodus 20:15, “You shall not steal.” Various card games involve deception and dishonesty in order to take any monetary values another has. Some people have lost their entire savings and assets to gambling, while the winner, on the other hand, walks away momentarily satisfied with another man’s wealth. This is contrary to God’s commands. James 2:15-16 reads, “Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?” The scriptures are constantly exhorting us to give to the poor, reach out to the needy, give what we have in order that others may be blessed of God. Is this what takes place when one invests what they have in gambling? On the contrary, we find the poor being exploited through casinos (whether on-line or in big cities), as they give their last pennies in hopes of instant fame.

Gambling is distrusting God. Philippians 4:19, “And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.” Not only does gambling result in not trusting God to meet ones needs, but it is irresponsible stewardship of what God has blessed one with. It is, in all reality, no stewardship at all. Everything should be done for his glory, not our own. 1 Corinthians 10:31 says, “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.” We are exhorted to support our families, give to the needy, give to the church for the edification of the body; not gamble away our resources, steal from the poor, use deception, trickery, and falsehood (as in card games) to gain your neighbor’s wealth. Exodus 20:17, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Yet gambling, in particular card games, causes one to covet another man’s wealth. Matthew 25:14-30 is a parable which presents illustrations of irresponsible stewardship versus wise stewardship in regard to talents (or money) that God gives to some. In the parable, it describes a man, who was given money, as going ‘to work’ to multiply what he was given.  The second man does also. But the last man hid his talent, buried it in the hole and hung around. He was a sluggard, lazy, and was cast out because of this. The last illustration can be equivocated with a gambler burying his money in a game of luck/chance. The idea of putting physical effort into a blue collar job has become completely unappealing. Quick riches that require hardly any labor are sought after at any sacrifice. In this respect, not only does gambling promote laziness but it demeans the God given place of work. Gen. 3:19, Proverbs 12:11, Proverbs 13:22, Ephesians 4:28, Colossians 3, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Tim. 5:8 point to God’s divine plan for ‘work.’

Probably one of the most telling verses given about gambling is found in Isaiah 65:11-12. God gives us insight into this game of luck/chance. He calls it idolatry and treats it as such.

Isaiah 65:11-12

“But as for you who forsake the LORD
and forget my holy mountain,
who spread a table for Fortune (bringing wealth to an idol – bowing to luck)
and fill bowls of mixed wine for Destiny, (bringing wealth to an idol – bowing to chance)
I will destine you for the sword,
and you will all bend down for the slaughter.”

Conclusion

Casinos, whether in America, abroad, or on-line, are filled with covetousness and deception. Gambling franchises of all types promote greed, selfishness, irresponsible stewardship, and idol worship. Gambling squanders away resources, exploits the poor, spawns discontentment, promotes the love of money, and relies on luck/chance. All of these are things that God expressly forbids and condemns.

(All verses are taken from the NIV translation)

Zeitgeist

Unfortunately in the case of Zeitgeist, you have to, because the information in the film is so badly in err and so consistently simply contradictory to fact that the only way to get an accurate portrayal of human history is to ignore it completely. In many ways, Zeitgeist can be an educational tool because it points out potentially subtle points in history, while in turn getting them tragically wrong, therefore pointing a would-be student or scholar in the right direction.

It is no understatement to say that the entire first portion of the film – an attempt to thoroughly debunk Christianity – is simply wrong. There is no simpler, or even more complex, way to state this than the documentary’s entire first portion is a simple fabrication. Even the most ardent anti-Christian should do their best to distance themselves from the film, as what it teaches will only discredit that side’s arguments – and should it go mainstream as an “atheist” thought, then Douglas Adams would be rolling in his grave.

The basic premise of Part I, called sardonically “The Greatest Story Ever Told”, is that Christianity is in fact an astrological allegory that has been misinterpreted by Christians, and that the entire story is a rewrite of common solar mythologies. If this documentary is to be believed, the entire Nativity story is one big misunderstanding, because we mixed up the word “son” with the word “sun”, and that’s who is really being referenced.

Before leaping into what the film maker calls astrological “coincidences”, he begins by trying to draw correlations between the Jesus story and previous religious icons. His first choice, which is later revealed to be part of an overarching belief that all of Christian beliefs are lifted from ancient Egyptian mythology, is that of Horus. According to him, the two are almost identical: Horus was born on December 25th, he was born of a virgin, a star in the East told of his birth, he was adored by three kings, at 12 he became a prodigal teacher, he was baptized at 30, he had 12 disciples, he performed miracles such as walking on water, he was called titles such as “the way, the truth, and the light”, “the lamb of God”, he was betrayed by one of his disciples and was resurrected three days later.

This does sound frighteningly like Christ – the only problem of course, is that none of these things are said to have happened to Horus. In an amusing turn of events, the similarities are simply made up to suit the film maker: Horus wasn’t born of a virgin mother, his mother was a goddess that impregnated herself with Osiris’s castrated penis. He wasn’t born on December 25th (but then, neither was Jesus), due in no small part to the fact that December wouldn’t exist for at least 2500 or so more years.

The ancient Egyptian calendar was a little different and a little more complex – and in truth, December 25th would’ve really been in a month, depending on which kingdom you were in, called Fourth of Shemu, Wep-renpet, Msw-r, Mesore, Mesori, or Mesra.

There are other problems with this Horus story of course, such as the fact that crucifixion wasn’t practiced in ancient Egypt circa 3000 B.C. as the film maker claims: the closest thing archaeologists can find are hangings, which, for anyone with the slightest modicum of understanding ancient forms of execution knows is certainly not the same thing as crucifixion. Crucifixion’s earliest known occurrences were in Sumeria, Babylon, and Persia of 7th century B.C. While this was certainly very far back in time, it falls far short of the 3,000 B.C. claim.

Many who stand by Zeitgeist argue that the Old Testament actually refers to the Egyptians crucifying someone in the story of Joseph, when the Pharaoh’s baker is convicted of theft and hanged, his body then left on display. Unfortunately, hanging and putting a body on display is not exactly hard boiled evidence of a crucifixion – as always, it was more than likely a simple hanging.

The complexity and high detail of Egyptian mythology makes it virtually impossible to make a correlation between Jesus and Horus in any more than a passing glance. When you attempt to make comparisons between two religions, you fundamentally have to look at the entirety of belief for both sides – and unfortunately in this case, even if you completely omit the simple fabrications made up by the film maker, you are left with two lives that are in no way similar.

For example, Jesus was supposed to be the son of a very human woman, Horus was said to be the son of a goddess and her lover’s severed phallus. Jesus was considered to be the living embodiment of a monotheistic God, whereas Horus is not only marred in ambiguity about just what god in a pantheon he represents, he even separates himself into two different Horuses (the Greater and the Lesser).

To further justify the Horus-Jesus connection, the film maker turns to a story told entirely in hieroglyphs on the wall of the Temple of Luxor. According to this story, Horus is foretold by a priest, is born a virgin, baptized, and fundamentally lives like Jesus. This again runs into issues when you account for the fact that whether willfully ignorant of the facts, or simply lying, the wall on the Temple of Luxor isn’t talking about Horus, it is talking about Ra, who later merges with Horus to make a whole new super deity.

The “disciple” connection he attempts to make in the Temple of Luxor has actually been interpreted as meaning the other deities worshiping Ra – and in essence, once more, the film maker is simply wrong about the conclusions he draws.

As if the Horus debacles weren’t enough, the film tries to show that Moses was not a historical figure either, and was in fact stolen from the legendary Akkadian king Sargon. According to Zeitgeist, Sargon was born in secret, hidden in a basket to avoid mass infanticide, pushed down a river, found by a midwife, and raised into royalty. Sound like Moses? Of course – because once more the film is changing details.

Sargon of Akkad’s mother wasn’t a low-born slave like Mose’s mother was, she was a high priestess, and Sargon himself was a bastard – presumably this is why she was hiding him. He was not found by a midwife, he was found by a water drawer that the film correctly identifies as Akki. However Akki was not a midwife, he was a man, and he raised Sargon as a gardener. Only later as a servant to the king did Sargon come into his own royalty.

The facts get further jumbled when he tries to argue that all of Christianity is largely a solar worship – to the point that he calls Jesus “the newest Solar Messiah”. To justify this, he argues that on Jesus’s declared birth date, December 24th, the “star in the East” is Sirius, which lies beneath Orion’s belt, which at the time was called the Three Kings. If you follow the Three Kings down Sirius, it points to the sunrise on December 25th. He also argues that the virgin Mary is actually the constellation Virgo – there was no town of Bethlehem, that was a misinterpretation of the word “bread basket”, which is a reference likewise to Virgo.

Therefore, it is argued, Jesus was a solar phenomenon, not a physical one. To believe this, we only need to overlook the rest of the New Testament, the Roman census, and the family tree constructed by Matthew and Luke.

The film continues to rail that the disciples represent the twelve zodiacs, and Jesus represents the “age of Pisces”, while Moses represented the coming of this age, the Ten Commandment story whereby he destroyed them in a fit of rage over the gold bull worship was actually an allegory for the changing of the ages from Taurus to Pisces. Confusing and disjointed so far? I wouldn’t really be surprised if this was the film maker’s actual aim.

The film maker continues on that the disciples, representing the twelve zodiacs, are a recurring theme throughout the Old Testament: there were twelve tribes of Israel, twelve sons of Jacob, twelve Judges of Israel, twelve great patriarchs, twelve Old Testament Prophets, twelve kings of Israel, and twelve princes of Israel.

Are we seeing a common, almost Jim Careyish “23″ style theme? That’s what you’re meant to see – unfortunately, once more, the facts are simply made up.

Firstly, the attempt to rail on the bizarre coincidence between “twelve tribes, twelve sons, and twelve patriarchs” is intellectually dishonest, because they’re derived from the same base number, which is the twelve sons of Jacob. The twelve sons became the twelve patriarchs of twelve tribes (with a few change ups such as Reuben losing his claim to land, and Joseph aiding in the rule of Egypt) of twelve tribes, therefore the “multiple coincidences” are really resigned to one, if it can be called that. As for everything else?

Simple mistruths at their finest:

There were not twelve kings of Israel. Saul, David, and Solomon were the three kings of a united Israel. Following Solomon’s death, many tribes revolted, and the kingdom was split. Maybe they were talking about a subsequent twelve kings? No that can’t be, because there were 19 kings of Israel, and 20 kings of Judah for a total of 39 total kings.

There were not twelve Old Testament Prophets – there were 48 male, and 7 female. Perhaps he was talking about the books in reference to prophets? N, there were 14 of those.

Unfortunately, for a film titled as a documentary, these simple kinds of falsities or possibly downright lies are consistent throughout Zeitgeist – making it possibly the internet’s least factual video, as for the nearly hour long duration of the anti-Christian section, nearly every claim is either misplaced, or simply wrong. When Zeitgeist is not making erroneous claims, it is using “John F. Kennedy – Abraham Lincoln coincidence” style sheets to demonstrate how Joseph was actually the Old Testament “prototype” for the Jesus story.

Ultimately, if terrible research and flawed logic based on a single piece of work by Thomas Paine interests you, then by all means this is a film worth watching, if only to figure out what all the excitement is about. However, not from minute one to minute end can essentially any word of the film maker be trusted – as proven above.

Or, in the words of a college art student familiar with Christian Art History, “Let’s go watch Sailor Moon, it’s more realistic.”

Atheists generally have some strong arguments to hold up their lack of faith in a higher power. They talk about the lack of empirical evidence to support the existence of God or the supernatural. They wax lyrical about the logic of Darwin’s theory of evolution and the ‘big bang.’ Some even describe all religion as a wicked deception used by the rich to control and subjugate the populace. Let us suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Atheists are one hundred percent right when they dismiss God and everything religious or supernatural. What does an Atheist really get out of successfully convincing a Christian or a Jew that there is no God, besides a sense of validation and possibly the feeling that they have helped someone to see what they perceive to be the truth?

Faith in God or a higher power may seem absurd to a man or woman of science, but religion is not always used simply to further the selfish agendas of greedy old men. Faith can help people get through the worst ordeals of their life. For instance, a drug addict who decides to stop using heroin may only be able to do so by putting his trust in a power higher than himself. Take a way his faith and you could also remove his chief motivation for staying clean. Similarly a mother may be finding it extremely difficult to get over the death of her child. If convinced by an argument against the existence of God, perhaps that mother’s heart would break entirely because she would lose all hope of seeing her child again in the afterlife.

If you are an Atheist then of course you have every right to believe that there is no God and that supernatural entities do not exist. You also have good reason to be irritated by those who preach religious dogma in sanctimonious way. There is definitely some strong evidence to support your argument. However, you should think very carefully about whether or not you also have the right to force your opinion on those people who do believe in the existence of a higher power or powers. Faith may well be the one thing that is keeping an individual from complete despair. Trying to remove that faith with a convincing argument is tantamount to taking the crutches away from a person who has difficulty walking. Be an Atheist if you want, but leave those with faith in peace believe whatever helps them to get through the day.