That's a very cynical attitude.>

Nothing any different from BP's: "Life is fair."

<Joe Blow is entering a competition>

That's how most play.
At a casino poker table every hand is a competition.

<which is a different scenario>

Different from what?
Are we playing in a mob game?

<Dice, may I ask, are you a serious poker player?>

No

<You seem somewhat defensive about my criticism of professional poker players.>

Not at all.
I just have a different view.

1) I think for melodrama you're creating scenarios that don't really exist in the quantities you're pretending they are.

2) Most wealthy poker players defeat other strong poker players.

3) Most good gamblers/day-traders go through a
school of hard knocks.
(like most chess players)

You don't just "day trade" and make $300 a day.
(most people wouldn't be working if it was that easy)

<There is a “well-known” statistic that 95% of all day traders lose money.>

So I don't really see this as a big problem.

I see the loser as the problem.
He lacks skill, intelligence, discipline, emotional control, and so on. He is the usually the greedy one.
He usually wants to not work/take down the casino.

Millions go to Vegas and have no problem gambling. They win a few hundred/lose a few hundred and see it as the cost of entertainment.

<<I won my last round game. While I won less money, it was honest money.>

Not relevant to the discussion about professional poker players.>

But it does illustrate how anyone, anywhere, will contemplate cheating for a dollar.

Remember when they upped class prizes in tournaments? That's when rating "sandbagging" started.

If you keep attempting to justify professional poker players>

I always attempt to justify freedom/liberty.

If we make things evil because some don't like it, or evil because something wrong happened, you end up with a nanny state who takes everything away.

No casinos because someone went broke.
No guns because someone got shot.
No power tools because someone lost a finger.
No wine because someone got drunk.

"Man" is flawed, so there will be problems with everything. The question would be: "Is it bad enough?"

The issue is not one of cheating, but of occupation.

A plumber might cheat his customer, but plumbing is an occupation that contributes to the good of society.

A professional poker player might play honestly, but his occupation contributes nought to society, and might be argued, is even detrimental.

You talk about skill, intelligence, discipline, emotional control, and so on, but to what end are these attributes being applied?

Are these attributes being applied by a surgeon to save the life of a patient, or are they being applied by a full-time professional poker player to win money from card games?

In one instance, there is a great benefit to society. In the other, it is only the card shark who benefits to the detriment of others.

The medical profession is a win-win proposition whereby both the surgeon and patient benefit.

The gambling profession is a win-lose proposition. It is a zero-sum game.

You can try to pretend card sharks are entertainers if they appear on TV in a World Series of Poker competition, but that's just a pathetic attempt to try to justify a dishonourable occupation by dressing it up for amusement.

Poker does not build wealth for the community. It redistributes wealth earned elsewhere amongst card sharks who use those gains to benefit from those in society who actually produce goods and services.

We don't make things evil because we don't like them, we acknowledge things are evil because they are detrimental to the good of humanity.

Your examples of casinos, guns, power tools and wine are ridiculous.

Casinos are okay for entertainment, guns are okay for pest control, power tools are okay for construction, wine is okay for celebrations.

What do any of those things have to do with professional poker players fleecing their marks?

So because there are problems with everything, everything is okay?

Seeing as how this discussion began with a query about Alan's pride in his profession as a poker player I would have thought he might have contributed some commentary on this matter.

Alan could also regale the Elite Posters here at the Non-PC Free Speech Zone with anecdotes from his own personal experiences around the poker table.

I'm sure there have been times when the poker table was upended with cards and chips flying everywhere followed by gunshots.

Alan, I know you're reading this, so how about dropping in and sharing your experiences with us.

Have you ever pulled a gun on the other players at the poker table?

Ever had a gun pulled on you?

Do you have any bullet wounds from some of the more lively games over the years?

I'm sure you have some fascinating stories you could share with us.

It would also give you a chance to get together with your new best mate <diceman>.

The two of you could staunchly defend the indispensable contribution professional poker players make to the good of society.

But let's bring this discussion over to day trading. What about day traders? Are they producing anything for society when they login to their e*trade account and try to make a quick $300 on a trade today?>

Yes. They contribute to market liquidity. Keep in mind, they are not <necessary> for liquidity, but it helps the market maker. Thus they provide more to society than poker players, IMO.

Another <possible> contribution of day traders is to "market knowledge/wisdom". IF day traders are studying their stocks, or even just reinforcing the market makers' knowledge of companies, then they participate in the scourge of the contrarians.

<Are they any better than straight-up gamblers like poker players?>

A little different in today's algo/computer driven world.>

Yes, a <little> different.

Everything developed symbiotically. Trading frequency increased as technology increased. This increase in trading frequency obviously drove commission frequency. (But don't forget, tech developments also drove trade frequency higher).

Also, commission frequency drove down commission prices, since you don't need to make as much money on transactions if transactions are increasing. This reinforced more trade frequency (virtuous cycle).

Technology advances were driven by external factors (Gordon Moore's Law), thus they were an <input> to all markets (not just equity markets).

Once tech advances became market inputs, they drove the virtuous cycle of driving down trading costs and increasing trading frequency.

At home, I have an old college textbook that I've meant to read for the last 35 years and never did>

2) <I am at the library now, about to check out a book on Formal Deductive Reasoning.>

The true purpose of this forum is to provide a place where any topic can be discussed, but especially controversial topics, without having to use a politically correct filter. We don't worry about hate speech, forbidden speech, unpopular view or anything else.

<Mess>, the reason this forum was started was because <Annie>, who used to be an admin here on <cg>, used to delete certain posts if they weren't politically correct. Other posters would complain that they didn't like our posts and manipulate <Annie>, and she would come and aggressively censor our debates.

So I started this forum so we could have a place that is free from such censorship and we can discuss the good stuff, the controversial stuff, without having to worry about a <Pink Pussyhat Admin>, basically a chessgames.com <antifa> nazi, running around trying to control us.

The posting guidelines are in the bio section above.

Libs are free to post here all they want.

Trolls are banned without warning and I'm the one who decides who a troll is or isn't, although I occasionally consult with the regular posters here to see if they think someone should be removed from the troll list.

<Messiah>, my favorite kind of person to debate in this forum is the godless liberal who is certain that atheism is true.

When we have serious debates in this forum, we try to make sure our posts achieve top level status according to Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...

Some people are claiming that <George Wallace> is a sock of mine. Others say that <George Wallace> impersonates me from time to time to drive the libs nuts on the Other Page.

Sure, I'd be happy to debate this with you, or discuss it, whichever seems to come the most naturally. I'll state my position a little bit more thoroughly on the grace + nothing vs grace + works controversy, and then I'll follow with some general thoughts on why these controversies exist, why so many denominations exist, and what I think is necessary to understand in order to actually, really, truthfully understand the bible in the right way.

Paul taught a different gospel than Jesus and taught that we are saved by grace alone, through faith, and not by <works> in any way, shape, or form.

Paul makes this clear, and he also makes it clear that faith is not a <work>.

I think Paul makes it clear that if you add anything to this, like the Judaisers tried to do, that you are teaching <another gospel> that is not the gospel. The Judaisers only wanted to add one <work>, which was circumcision, but any other work would distort the gospel and lead people astray too, such as baptism, weekly communion, the sacraments, penance, confessing your sins, asking for forgiveness every time you think you sinned, repenting from your sins so that you are <worthy> of being saved, tithing, going to mass or church, saying certain prayers over and over, keeping the sabbath holy and any other <work> that <earns>, even if only a fraction, of one's salvation.

It's Grace + Nothing, not Grace + Works.

I think the confusion on this issue, which not only separates Catholics from a lot of Christians, but also Christians among each other (some might say separates many Protestants from one another, but I do not hold that being a non-Catholic necessarily forces you to identify as a Protestant), is the fact that most Christians are so used to <mixing the scriptures> that they can't stop and don't want to stop and that they refuse to stop. Thus, they never <rightly divide> the word of truth, as Paul warned us.

I think most Christians merely divide the Old Testament from the New Testament and think that is sufficient, but it is not, and it's not even close.

I think the main stumbling block is that one needs to understand the overall plot of the bible from Genesis to Revelation and understand the twists in the plot. This includes Satan's plan of evil and how he continually tries to thwart God's will, and how God responds to Satan's attempts to undermine his own plans, and this includes God's chosen people Israel and later on, the Gentiles.

However, like trying to put together a 1000 word jigsaw puzzle without ever looking at the picture on the box, so you can at least know what kind of picture you're attempting to put together, it's nearly impossible to quickly show someone who is <missing> the overall plot of the bible, exactly how to <rightly divide> the word, and <why> it is being rightly divided when done this way.

<Paul taught a different gospel than Jesus>

A question to inform my response:

2 Timothy 2:15 King James Version

If <rightly dividing> is the basis of your theology, you're in trouble mate!

<What Did the Apostle Paul Mean by "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth"?>

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Ri...

rightly divide (orthotomeō)

1. to cut straight, to cut straight ways

A to proceed on straight paths, hold a straight course, equiv. to doing right

2. to make straight and smooth, to handle aright, to teach the truth directly and correctly

<One can only guess why the KJV translators chose the phrase “rightly dividing” instead of “rightly teach” or “cutting straight”, I would suggest that in 1611 “rightly dividing” might have had a different meaning than how we use it today.>

More accurate modern translations are:

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. (NIV)

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved by him, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly explaining the word of truth. (NRSV)

Work hard so you can present yourself to God and receive his approval. Be a good worker, one who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly explains the word of truth. (NLT)

Anyway, I don't want to interrupt you and Ohio, but I just wanted to let you know why you're wrong.

What follows is a fairly full response in two parts. I'm hoping that by answering your question directly in the first sentence that you enjoy perfect clarity on my part so that you can get on with your response without me playing hide the ball.

I also hope that my full explanation saves you time in the future, because you may not have to ask as many questions to get a full understanding of my position, seeing that I've taken the time to lay it out here.

I have done my best to keep this focused around the <central point>, and to circle back to it after any lengthy supporting arguments on my end, so that the <central point> is always top-of-mind.

<1. Did Paul teach a different gospel than Peter?>

Yes, Paul taught a different gospel than Peter. Furthermore, he taught a different gospel than Jesus taught when he was here with his disciples.

Jesus taught his disciples, all of the Jewish the gospel of the kingdom, which was given specifically to the children of Israel. They were to follow the law, but also to believe that Jesus was their messiah.

Jesus did not mention dying on the cross, being buried for three days and rising from the dead to atone for the sin of mankind. Jesus did not mention <grace> in his gospel message. The Jews were to inherit an <earthly> kingdom with Jesus as the messiah. Jesus preached to his disciples that he came <not> to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.

He only preached his gospel of the kingdom to the Jews and did not preach it to the Gentiles. Jesus told his disciples not to preach his gospel to the Gentiles, but only to the Jews.

The disciples did as Jesus commanded, including Peter, and preached the gospel of the kingdom to the Jews.

Israel rejected their messiah. They stoned Steven and set out on an aggressive and deadly plot to stamp out Christianity. Paul was instrumental in this.

Then Paul received the gospel of grace from Jesus himself, after his road to Damascus moment. Christ revealed to him a great <mystery>, which had not been shared by God yet since the beginning of time, and that was the mystery of the dispensation of grace for the Gentiles.

Unlike the program the Lord had for his chosen covenant people Israel, He had an entirely different gospel for the Gentiles. Paul preached the gospel of grace. Paul speaks about <grace> continuously while neither Peter, nor Jesus, nor the other disciples hardly mentioned grace at all.

When grace was mentioned by Paul, it was almost always in the context of God's mechanism of salvation. When Peter or other disciples mentioned grace, it was never having to do with salvation.

Peter, the disciples and Jesus taught that you must be baptized, whereas Paul did not, because Paul's gospel was of grace and not of works. Paul baptized only a few people, and then later on wished he hadn't.

Paul spoke of <The Body> of Christ and the disciples, including Peter didn't talk about that, because it was not known to them.

Peter and the disciples had no idea about the plan of dying on the cross, being buried for 3 days and then rising again to atone for our sins. For them, the gospel of the kingdom was only a Jewish message to <believe in Jesus>, or that Jesus is the prophesied messiah.

That's it. They were to believe that Jesus was the messiah! Israel was to <repent> for killing Jesus and thus rejecting their messiah.

Paul's gospel has nothing to do with believing that Jesus was the messiah. Rather, Paul's gospel of grace (it's Christ's gospel of grace given to Paul to preach) is clearly stated in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

<1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, and in which you stand firm.>

Notice first that Paul is reminding them (who is them? The Corinthians were mostly Gentiles who converted from paganism) of the <gospel> that <he> preached to them. Not the gospel, period. Not the gospel that Jesus preached. Not the gospel that Peter preached, but the gospel that <Paul> preached.

<2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.>

It is by <this gospel> and not another gospel, that you are saved. If they do not believe <this> gospel, then they believe in vain.

<3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,>

The gospel he received from Jesus himself when the Lord appeared to him.

<4that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures>

The gospel: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, was buried and was raised on the third day according to the scriptures.

Paul instructed the <Gentiles> to <believe> this gospel, his gospel, the gospel that <Paul> gave them, which was given to Paul by Jesus and for the Gentiles, and it is a gospel of <grace> alone.

Eph 2:8 makes it clear that this gospel, that is, salvation, is by grace alone and it is a gift from God.

<For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,>

Paul says it's <not of yourselves>, and because there's nothing we can <do> to somehow earn, in any way, even a little bit, our salvation.

Paul's gospel of grace was given to the Gentiles and it was Paul's unique apostleship was directed to the Gentiles.

Eph 3:1 <For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles-->

To Paul it was revealed by Christ that a new dispensation, a dispensation of <grace> for the <Gentiles> (the mystery) had begun, after Israel rejected their messiah.

Eph 3:2 <If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward.> "You-ward" is to the Gentiles.

So Paul was given a different gospel. It was different because:

1. It was for the Gentiles.
2. It was grace and not works, not the law.
3. It was a new dispensation.

Peter was given a gospel for the Jew, the prophesied gospel of the kingdom, not grace. It was before the dispensation of grace, or, the time of the Gentiles. It was a works-based program, as it had been since Moses. It was based on Israel <repenting> for rejecting their messiah and to <believe> that Jesus was their prophesied messiah.

Two totally different gospels for two totally different peoples in two different dispensations.

Further, because the dispensation of grace, given to Paul, was a <mystery>, it means that Peter couldn't have known it, or it wouldn't have been a mystery. Therefore they were teaching different gospels.

...So I started this forum...>

I understand there to be one gospel, for all time. I understand that the Jews and Gentiles were saved in the same way. Peter speaking in Acts 15:7

<And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.>

Peter says the Gentiles would hear the gospel from him. He didn't have a gospel for Jews and a different one for Gentiles. He was the same Peter commanded to go into all the world, including Gentile nations, and preach the gospel. There is one gospel.

Mark 16:15 <And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.>

< and taught that we are saved by grace alone, through faith, and not by <works> in any way, shape, or form.>

If I tell you 20 times that to get me to buy you a year's premium, you had to praise me on the Rogoff page, and 1 times said you had to praise me on the Kibitzer's Cafe, you have to do both. It would be untrue for you to say "I'll get a premie by posting on the Rogoff page alone." For you to affirm that we're saved by grace alone, it's not enough to cite a verse that says we're saved by grace. You must also cite every other passage that references being saved and confirm none of them say anything except being saved by grace.

<Paul makes this clear, and he also makes it clear that faith is not a <work>.>

I don't agree at all. We are saved by grace, through faith, and the grace is not of ourself, it is the gift of God.

<I think Paul makes it clear that if you add anything to this, like the Judaisers tried to do, that you are teaching <another gospel> that is not the gospel. >

I sort of agree with you here, although I understand him to mean not adding anything besides that which is confirmed in the gospel message. Ephesians 2:8 is not the only verse in the New Testament.

<The Judaisers only wanted to add one <work>, which was circumcision, but any other work would distort the gospel>

They wanted to add a work <of the Mosaic Law>. THAT is what the NT is referring to at least 95% of the time it references "works". And after the cross, yes, the works of the Mosaic Law were of no value.

< and lead people astray too, such as baptism, weekly communion, the sacraments, penance, confessing your sins, asking for forgiveness every time you think you sinned, repenting from your sins so that you are <worthy> of being saved, tithing, going to mass or church, saying certain prayers over and over, keeping the sabbath holy and any other <work> that <earns>, even if only a fraction, of one's salvation.>

If any of those is referenced in the New Testament as being necessary for salvation, it's not adding to the gospel. I could add you having to praise me on the Kibitizer's Cafe, since <it's already affirmed> and I'd be on safe ground. Let's look back at a passage I already referenced per the gospel:

Mark 16:15-16 <And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.>

This is the gospel message, from the mouth of Jesus. Who will be saved? He who believes and is baptized. Simple. I am always stunned such a simple affirmation is so rejected by all of Protestantism.

<It's Grace + Nothing, not Grace + Works.>

It's grace + whatever else God says anywhere in the NT, not grace + works of the Mosaic Law. Fixed it for you.

<I think the confusion on this issue, which not only separates Catholics from a lot of Christians, but also Christians among each other (some might say separates many Protestants from one another, but I do not hold that being a non-Catholic necessarily forces you to identify as a Protestant),>

I think it was the Reformation over-reaction to the hyper-works mindset of the RCC in that time, with indulgences and being a large donor to the church, etc. They went too far the other way instead of <going back to the Bible>.

<I think most Christians merely divide the Old Testament from the New Testament and think that is sufficient, but it is not, and it's not even close.>

I am mostly in agreement here. I'll note I am far closer to agreeing with you than <Opt> about what it means to divide. I think it has both the sense of dividing as we generally understand it and the sense of correctly handling.

<I think the main stumbling block is that one needs to understand the overall plot of the bible from Genesis to Revelation and understand the twists in the plot. This includes Satan's plan of evil and how he continually tries to thwart God's will, and how God responds to Satan's attempts to undermine his own plans, and this includes God's chosen people Israel and later on, the Gentiles.>

Nothing in particular I disagree with here.

<However, like trying to put together a 1000 word jigsaw puzzle without ever looking at the picture on the box, so you can at least know what kind of picture you're attempting to put together, it's nearly impossible to quickly show someone who is <missing> the overall plot of the bible, exactly how to <rightly divide> the word, and <why> it is being rightly divided when done this way.>

Agreed there. I'll point out that those who hold to your view never seem to recognize that the entire gospel of Jesus was only supposed to be in effect for a couple decades. I'll set that aside for now, but I frequently have pointed that out to people on your side who admitted they'd never considered that implication.

<Yet, <rightly dividing> the word as amazing explanatory power! Immediately, every single apparent contradiction in the bible simply dissolves before your very eyes and a <whole new level> of understand unfolds before you.>