I'm in Boulder, CO. If all had gone according to plan, I'd be flying over Washington now, ready to see home. The prediction was snow last night. I woke up early this morning and chuckled because I didn't see any - then I re-awoke three hours later and saw five inches and building and thought, "uh oh." I then duly received an automated call from Alaska Airlines rescheduling my cancelled flight to Christmas Eve.
At least I packed some good books... Happy holidays everyone!
THIS JUST IN
City of Boulder - Closed
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Saturday, December 16, 2006
One christian perspective on poker
For some years now I've played the game of texas hold-em poker. I still recall many fond memories of sitting around makeshift poker tables with my best friends. Nowadays, this style of poker is found everywhere. Americans of all ages are playing the game in all kinds of environments: living rooms, bed rooms, kitchens, real poker joints, and my personal favorite - cold garages. Despite the popularity and thrill of the "cadillac of poker," as a christian, I've questioned its legitimacy in my life. I know that's not uncommon. In fact, one of the best guys in our group of players turned his back to the game a while ago because of its conflict with his faith. Answering some important questions about the game is a wise choice for any christian poker player. Is the game inherently sinful? When does poker create conflict between the player and God?
I won't argue or try to describe texas hold-em beyond claiming that it is pure entertainment, and if you've ever played, you know. Anyone who identifies with this generation recognizes poker and has most likely experienced the rollercoster ride that it is. Note also, I am arguing one segment of poker - the low stake ($5 buy-in), 1-2 time per week game, with friends. I have little to no experience (nor interest) in casino or high stakes poker, other than what I've seen on the World Series of Poker.
The Poker Gamble
The question I think most people are asking when they contemplate christianity and poker is a modified "may christians gamble?" Despite the fact that the Bible never actually mentions the word "gamble," I assert that poker (especially texas hold-em) does not quite fall into the category of gambling. A current definition of gambling follows:
"Gambling is an act by which one party consciously risks money or other stakes in the hope of gaining (through chance) at someone else’s expense"
Opponents have many good points against poker or any other form of money gaming. One argues that poker/gambling can be a form of stealing, consequently breaking the eighth commandment, "Thou shalt not steal." Another claims, citing the Bible, wealth that comes easy goes easy. Additionally, compulsiveness and addiction arising from poker is another strong point of the opposition.
While many of those points may be true for other realms of poker such as high stakes, I disagree with their relavence to the late night kitchen-table poker with friends. Addressing the theft argument, if players agree before hand to play the game of poker, they understand that if they play poorly, the money they bought-in with will be dispersed to those who played well. I liken this to a situation among two men. If one chooses to jump the other and kill him, he has murdered. But if both agree to become enemies and go to war, and one man kills the other - it is not murder. The Bible states, "Thou shalt not murder" (the Original Hebrew text employs the word "ratsach" which means murder). Thefore I cannot fully subscribe to the belief that if players agree prior to the game to bet, that they are stealing.
Concerning Proverbs chapter 13, which speaks much of money and its value and the importance of honest work, the stakes that most people usually play with are low enough not to apply. If I win, it's usually not enough money to write home about, in fact the most it really accomplishes is a "Hey, it's on me," as I whip out my wallet at the Dairy Queen counter with a friend. And if I lose, I had a fun night joking around and playing poker with good friends - all for maybe fifteen bucks (assuming I bought-in three times).
The compulsiveness and addiction of the game can, I forsee, be dangerous to any player. I'll discuss that in a proceeding paragraph.
The primary reason I cannot comfortably label poker as pure gambling is the "chance clause." The current definition of gambling requires a huge portion of chance, such is the case in activities like lottery, bingo, craps, roulette, etc... The difference between those and poker is narrowly defined, but still significant. Picture this:
You are in a hand of poker. You look down at the hole cards, Ace-Ace. Excitement rises. On the board is a Two-Four-King-Eight-Six. One person is left, it's just you and him. You've been closely following the betting history. He didn't bet until the flop - you put him on a King. The other cards don't scare you. You judge you have the best hand and confidently announce you're "all in." He quickly calls and flips over two Kings in his hand - three pair, you lose.
Now, did you just lose because of chance? If you did, you're gambling. I submit that it wasn't chance but something else. Poor judgment. That's what texas hold-em is all about really, judgement. You controlled the outcome. You could have read it right and dropped the hand - that would have been the right play. But you judged wrong. None of that was because of the polling of some random numbers or the roll of a dice. It was purely decisional. That is where the difference lies. The money adds the incentive and reward for a decision made well. Most people aren't opposed to that concept. Look at professional football for example - you play better, make good decisions on the field, guess what? - you get paid more. The "chance," I guess, in that game comes in the form of bodily injury. So, if society demands that poker be labeled as gambling, the definition needs a little tweaking and the list needs to be lengthened to include professional sports, investing - anything that adds the new ingredient ascribed by the new definition, skill.
I think I've proven that playing texas hold-em with friends is not inherently sinful. Everyone agrees on the stakes prior to starting and understands the consequences of playing well or playing poorly. No one is going to the bank with their winnings to buy a car or put a down payment on a house - the stakes are no where near that high. And while there is good argumentation for why the current definition of gambling may be sinful, another strong argument exists claiming poker should not be categorized as gambling.
Poker idolatry
Even though I'm quite positive playing texas hold-em with friends is not sinful in itself - poker can become a sin by diverting the worship God seeks and ultimately deserves. In this respect, the Bible makes it clear on what to do, "Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry" (1Cor 10.14). If playing poker is the primary objective or passion in my life then my priorities are messed up.
Also, Romans 14:23 describes a man who has doubts about what he should be eating in regards to his faith. And Paul writes, "But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin." Therefore, in light of this wisdom, don't play poker if you are unsure of its nature.
Otherwise, some advice on play, in the words of Michael, "Three pair never wins..."
I won't argue or try to describe texas hold-em beyond claiming that it is pure entertainment, and if you've ever played, you know. Anyone who identifies with this generation recognizes poker and has most likely experienced the rollercoster ride that it is. Note also, I am arguing one segment of poker - the low stake ($5 buy-in), 1-2 time per week game, with friends. I have little to no experience (nor interest) in casino or high stakes poker, other than what I've seen on the World Series of Poker.
The Poker Gamble
The question I think most people are asking when they contemplate christianity and poker is a modified "may christians gamble?" Despite the fact that the Bible never actually mentions the word "gamble," I assert that poker (especially texas hold-em) does not quite fall into the category of gambling. A current definition of gambling follows:
"Gambling is an act by which one party consciously risks money or other stakes in the hope of gaining (through chance) at someone else’s expense"
Opponents have many good points against poker or any other form of money gaming. One argues that poker/gambling can be a form of stealing, consequently breaking the eighth commandment, "Thou shalt not steal." Another claims, citing the Bible, wealth that comes easy goes easy. Additionally, compulsiveness and addiction arising from poker is another strong point of the opposition.
While many of those points may be true for other realms of poker such as high stakes, I disagree with their relavence to the late night kitchen-table poker with friends. Addressing the theft argument, if players agree before hand to play the game of poker, they understand that if they play poorly, the money they bought-in with will be dispersed to those who played well. I liken this to a situation among two men. If one chooses to jump the other and kill him, he has murdered. But if both agree to become enemies and go to war, and one man kills the other - it is not murder. The Bible states, "Thou shalt not murder" (the Original Hebrew text employs the word "ratsach" which means murder). Thefore I cannot fully subscribe to the belief that if players agree prior to the game to bet, that they are stealing.
Concerning Proverbs chapter 13, which speaks much of money and its value and the importance of honest work, the stakes that most people usually play with are low enough not to apply. If I win, it's usually not enough money to write home about, in fact the most it really accomplishes is a "Hey, it's on me," as I whip out my wallet at the Dairy Queen counter with a friend. And if I lose, I had a fun night joking around and playing poker with good friends - all for maybe fifteen bucks (assuming I bought-in three times).
The compulsiveness and addiction of the game can, I forsee, be dangerous to any player. I'll discuss that in a proceeding paragraph.
The primary reason I cannot comfortably label poker as pure gambling is the "chance clause." The current definition of gambling requires a huge portion of chance, such is the case in activities like lottery, bingo, craps, roulette, etc... The difference between those and poker is narrowly defined, but still significant. Picture this:
You are in a hand of poker. You look down at the hole cards, Ace-Ace. Excitement rises. On the board is a Two-Four-King-Eight-Six. One person is left, it's just you and him. You've been closely following the betting history. He didn't bet until the flop - you put him on a King. The other cards don't scare you. You judge you have the best hand and confidently announce you're "all in." He quickly calls and flips over two Kings in his hand - three pair, you lose.
Now, did you just lose because of chance? If you did, you're gambling. I submit that it wasn't chance but something else. Poor judgment. That's what texas hold-em is all about really, judgement. You controlled the outcome. You could have read it right and dropped the hand - that would have been the right play. But you judged wrong. None of that was because of the polling of some random numbers or the roll of a dice. It was purely decisional. That is where the difference lies. The money adds the incentive and reward for a decision made well. Most people aren't opposed to that concept. Look at professional football for example - you play better, make good decisions on the field, guess what? - you get paid more. The "chance," I guess, in that game comes in the form of bodily injury. So, if society demands that poker be labeled as gambling, the definition needs a little tweaking and the list needs to be lengthened to include professional sports, investing - anything that adds the new ingredient ascribed by the new definition, skill.
I think I've proven that playing texas hold-em with friends is not inherently sinful. Everyone agrees on the stakes prior to starting and understands the consequences of playing well or playing poorly. No one is going to the bank with their winnings to buy a car or put a down payment on a house - the stakes are no where near that high. And while there is good argumentation for why the current definition of gambling may be sinful, another strong argument exists claiming poker should not be categorized as gambling.
Poker idolatry
Even though I'm quite positive playing texas hold-em with friends is not sinful in itself - poker can become a sin by diverting the worship God seeks and ultimately deserves. In this respect, the Bible makes it clear on what to do, "Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry" (1Cor 10.14). If playing poker is the primary objective or passion in my life then my priorities are messed up.
Also, Romans 14:23 describes a man who has doubts about what he should be eating in regards to his faith. And Paul writes, "But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin." Therefore, in light of this wisdom, don't play poker if you are unsure of its nature.
Otherwise, some advice on play, in the words of Michael, "Three pair never wins..."
Friday, December 08, 2006
The Core Problem
I am a history major. Of the 147 semester hours required of me to graduate, 36 consist of history. I will have taken more classes in the areas of science and engineering than history. I will have taken an equal number of social science and humanities courses as history. My english teacher said recently that cadets' recognition of various topics has awesome breadth, but their depth in any one area is rather pathetic. His comment prompted me to post this. I couldn't agree more with him.
The problem with core classes may only apply to the Academy - I know not the extent or level of insanity with which other public/private universities or colleges manage their core curriculum. As such, I will limit my criticism to USAFA until I investigate further or am enlightened by a friend.
I concede that some classes are beneficial to the continued learning during the transitions from high school to college and from college even further. Writing should be studied indefinitely. History also. And I see the benefit in studying the law. But the lust for surface-scratching courses in biology, chemistry, computer science, physics, math, engineering, aeronautics, civil engineering, electrical engineering, behavioral science (worthless on all levels), economics, management, and political science is beyond me. The 'Conditioners' would satisfy me more by saying it was another pointless hoop for me to jump through rather than actually expecting me (and the public) to believe there is inherent value. The sad truth is that my mind is writhing like a wild stallion to conquer the plains of an intellectual inheritance - but stifled by the concrete compounds of a 'conditioned' campus.
"The Conditioners, then, are to choose what kind of artificial Tao they will, for their own good reasons, produce in the Human race." Lewis The Abolition of Man
The problem with core classes may only apply to the Academy - I know not the extent or level of insanity with which other public/private universities or colleges manage their core curriculum. As such, I will limit my criticism to USAFA until I investigate further or am enlightened by a friend.
I concede that some classes are beneficial to the continued learning during the transitions from high school to college and from college even further. Writing should be studied indefinitely. History also. And I see the benefit in studying the law. But the lust for surface-scratching courses in biology, chemistry, computer science, physics, math, engineering, aeronautics, civil engineering, electrical engineering, behavioral science (worthless on all levels), economics, management, and political science is beyond me. The 'Conditioners' would satisfy me more by saying it was another pointless hoop for me to jump through rather than actually expecting me (and the public) to believe there is inherent value. The sad truth is that my mind is writhing like a wild stallion to conquer the plains of an intellectual inheritance - but stifled by the concrete compounds of a 'conditioned' campus.
"The Conditioners, then, are to choose what kind of artificial Tao they will, for their own good reasons, produce in the Human race." Lewis The Abolition of Man
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
A Cold Night's Smoke
Born unto the hot red fiery embers of a life struck by match
amidst the crisp black – no blue, real breathing, true truth
The thick white-wisped vapor crawls, climbs forth, engulfed
by and by to intolerable truth, like a breath last let – silent, expecting, surrendered.
Like the pack decides the smoke, all life can be sequential.
It’s too tight, too loose, just right – and against the cold blue ageless Truth we fight.
Our blackened lungs strain to keep the burning hope alive while others
reap the benefits of time, patience, the 'habit of the mind.'
And stoking last coals conjures dull release, regret, remorse;
And seized, sense the rapid transition from sweet soul-winning bliss to gall, no less.
Panic – stoke, hope, logic, gall. Surrender.
I just finished editing this poem of mine a few minutes ago. I began writing it after a late night pipe-smoke out on the Terazzo last week. Sorry if it's a little hard to understand - hey, at least I get it. Also, 'habit of mind' comes from one John Henry Newman who wrote Idea of a University - I read it in Russell Kirk's book Redeeming the Time, so I don't really know much about Newman... yet.
amidst the crisp black – no blue, real breathing, true truth
The thick white-wisped vapor crawls, climbs forth, engulfed
by and by to intolerable truth, like a breath last let – silent, expecting, surrendered.
Like the pack decides the smoke, all life can be sequential.
It’s too tight, too loose, just right – and against the cold blue ageless Truth we fight.
Our blackened lungs strain to keep the burning hope alive while others
reap the benefits of time, patience, the 'habit of the mind.'
And stoking last coals conjures dull release, regret, remorse;
And seized, sense the rapid transition from sweet soul-winning bliss to gall, no less.
Panic – stoke, hope, logic, gall. Surrender.
I just finished editing this poem of mine a few minutes ago. I began writing it after a late night pipe-smoke out on the Terazzo last week. Sorry if it's a little hard to understand - hey, at least I get it. Also, 'habit of mind' comes from one John Henry Newman who wrote Idea of a University - I read it in Russell Kirk's book Redeeming the Time, so I don't really know much about Newman... yet.
Friday, December 01, 2006
A favorite quote explained
I've desired to elaborate on an amazing quote from CS Lewis for a while now. The quote in its entirety is "Even to see her walk across the room is a liberal education." Easily recognized as an adoration for "that special woman" in any man's life, the proclamation is witty, succinct, and curiously flattering. I'm convinced I have a grip on what Lewis wanted to convey. First, a little history on why CS Lewis wrote this.
It has not been proven without a doubt, but many people witness to a romantic love between Lewis and a close friend named Jane Moore. The line is pulled from a letter to an exceptionally close childhood friend, Arthur Greeves. I myself have not read the letter, but I assume the praise is of Moore, considering most evidence for his and her love come from these personal letters. Therefore, it's reasonable to say the quote is intended for a lover - specifically Lewis' Jane Moore.
The subject of the sentence is the woman walking across a room. Simple, yet alluring. Remember, the view is from the eyes of her lover. She's like an angel gracefully moving across the room - where? Who cares! I'm captivated by her beauty, her figure, her hair...
Now, the difficulty (and brilliance) of the quote comes from the predicate. Seeing her walk across the room is a liberal education. A liberal education? Author and popular campus figure Russell Kirk clarifies the mystifying term, "Our term 'liberal education' is far older than the use of the word 'liberal' as a term of politics. By 'liberal education' we mean an ordering and integrating of knowledge for the benefit of the free person - as contrasted with technical or professional schooling, now somewhat vaingloriously called 'career education.'" Political philospher Allan Bloom writes that liberal education in its purest form is the imagination and a passionate relationship to art and thought. Furthermore, dissected from Sir William Hamilton's Metaphysics is a concise definition of liberal education as "the perfection of man as an end."
With a true understanding of the purpose and role of a liberal education, contemplate the power of C.S. Lewis' quote - or more so, the power of the woman! I can't bring myself to even put it into the category of "compliments." To think, that the simple motion of a lover walking across a room, accomplishes in mere moments what years of schooling and mentoring may come close to doing for man. Every poem, piece of art, painfully deduced theorem, spiritual contemplation, pure beauty - all resolved in that room, at that moment.
It has not been proven without a doubt, but many people witness to a romantic love between Lewis and a close friend named Jane Moore. The line is pulled from a letter to an exceptionally close childhood friend, Arthur Greeves. I myself have not read the letter, but I assume the praise is of Moore, considering most evidence for his and her love come from these personal letters. Therefore, it's reasonable to say the quote is intended for a lover - specifically Lewis' Jane Moore.
The subject of the sentence is the woman walking across a room. Simple, yet alluring. Remember, the view is from the eyes of her lover. She's like an angel gracefully moving across the room - where? Who cares! I'm captivated by her beauty, her figure, her hair...
Now, the difficulty (and brilliance) of the quote comes from the predicate. Seeing her walk across the room is a liberal education. A liberal education? Author and popular campus figure Russell Kirk clarifies the mystifying term, "Our term 'liberal education' is far older than the use of the word 'liberal' as a term of politics. By 'liberal education' we mean an ordering and integrating of knowledge for the benefit of the free person - as contrasted with technical or professional schooling, now somewhat vaingloriously called 'career education.'" Political philospher Allan Bloom writes that liberal education in its purest form is the imagination and a passionate relationship to art and thought. Furthermore, dissected from Sir William Hamilton's Metaphysics is a concise definition of liberal education as "the perfection of man as an end."
With a true understanding of the purpose and role of a liberal education, contemplate the power of C.S. Lewis' quote - or more so, the power of the woman! I can't bring myself to even put it into the category of "compliments." To think, that the simple motion of a lover walking across a room, accomplishes in mere moments what years of schooling and mentoring may come close to doing for man. Every poem, piece of art, painfully deduced theorem, spiritual contemplation, pure beauty - all resolved in that room, at that moment.
Preface
Let this be an avenue for me to express my thoughts, criticisms, and/or commentaries on subjects in any of the realms of conservatism, christian apologetics, theology, culture, history, literature, music, politics, poetry and more which may inspire me to write. Please contribute your opinion if you are so moved. I want to invite conversation also. True conversation seems to be a lost art or utility where I'm educated. Enjoy... and thank you for reading.
Additionally, these views are my own and do not reflect those of any
insitition or organization.
Additionally, these views are my own and do not reflect those of any
insitition or organization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
