Expert: Eric Christy - 12/24/2006

Question
Eric, my wife is Catholic; I am somewhere between agnostic and Athiest. Many years ago I read the old and new testaments of the Bible. I don't recall reading anywhere that gambling was a sin. I only remember reading about Jesus being angry at the bartering going on at the temple. My wife says she's sure it's in there, but she doesn't know where. Do you know if the Bible references gambling? Also, I noticed in your summary/profile that you believe eternal hell is a concept of man, not God. Do you have time to expand on that a little? Thanks for your time.

Answer
Greetings Ed,

Nice to get your questions. The only reference to gambling I am aware of is when the Roman soldiers gambled for Jesus' garments (Mark 15:24) during Jesus' crucifixion. However, gambling could be considered sinful in the broader text of scripture if one realizes how it affects one's life and the lives of those in their care. Basically, anything we do that wrongfully harms ourselves or others, is sin. There are wrongful harms that are sins, and there are rightful harms that are done, such as self-defense or in wartime or in punishment of criminals, that are not sin. The biblical view is that sin is always a wrongful harm we do to ourselves or to others or to God.

As for Jesus' anger at the Temple, that has to do with the Jewish religious leaders misuse (sin) of the sacrifices they sold to adherents. The religious leaders were running a money-making operation, but not caring for the spiritual purpose in going to the synagogue. Jesus often got on their case over the religious leaders concern over the minute details of the Law, but missing the big picture, that is love and worship/adoration of God, and love of your fellow man.

You mentioned you're somewhere between agnostic and Atheist. Would you like to chat about that? I can understand why someone would say that they're agnostic (not knowing if there is a God) but I cannot understand how someone would say that there is no God. I have a scientific background (biology, chemistry, and electronics) which has given me the tools necessary to see that if there is order, and more specifically design especially in living stuctures, that a designer is required. The naturalist believes that life arose from the chemistry of the earth billions of years ago. The naturalist believes that such chemical conditions are all that is required to bring about life on earth.

What the naturalist won't tell you, however, is that they also believe that this chemical environment allowed constructive-only chemical reactions because the naturalist knows that natural chemical systems destroy as easily as they build, or they lead to equilibrium, neither of which are conducive to the building of complex macromolecules leading to first lifeform(s). The very necessity for a chemically reactive environment, the naturalist requires for the arrival of life, is also the guarantee that adverse chemical reactions will also occur, thus destroying any accidental chemical gains leading to first lifeform(s). The complex machine we call the living cell, with all its myriad chemical reactions being precisely controlled by feedback systems is not something natural processes can create.

Nature destroys as easily as it builds. The supposed evolving macromolecule leading to first lifeform would have encountered just as many adverse destructive chemical reactions as constructive reactions. There is in nature no protective safeguards to guarantee that the chemical reactions would go only in the positive cell-creating direction. That being the case, that natural systems do not have the capability to create systems that require such control of the chemical reactions and protection of them from adverse chemical reactions, nature could not have been the source for the arrival of life. Ergo, a creator is necessary, and I believe the JudeoChristian God as revealed in the bible makes the most sense, scientifically and religiously.

Now about your last question regarding eternal hell. I have struggled with this doctrine ever since I knew of it. I would prefer that it were a concept of man used to scare people into accepting Jesus Christ as their savior. However, after much more research of scripture, I have decided that I believe the doctrine of eternal hell to be the truth. Matthew 25:46 demonstrates that just as heaven is eternal, so is hell. The word in the greek that is translated "eternal" (New International Version) in english is used for both places, heaven and hell. While I do not like the notion of an eternal hell, I now accept it as the truth. For those who choose to reject the offer of salvation by accepting Jesus Christ as their savior, they choose eternal hell. Why someone would choose such an eternal horror for themselves is beyond me, Ed. But many do.

Well, if you'd like to chat on anything at all, please get back to me. I wish you and your family a merry Christmas, and a happy New Year.

Eric