Baldo by Hector D. Cantú and Carlos Castellanos for April 29, 2010

Rule #1: the house always wins.

See, Bingo has many good qualities…..

Ay yi yi, Tia! Just say NO.

Actually, it’s very difficult for the punter to cheat at Bingo as long as the numbers all there, they are shaken regularly , the caller’s hands are always visible and the cards are honest. If a number never comes up over a prolonged period, then certain cards cannot win and other cards may win. Compare a large selection of losing cards, if certain numbers are absent more than statistically probable, the house is probably cheating. However, if the house is cheating you may never notice unlesss, as Tia says, the winners are all related to the caller.

Our church doesn’t allow bingo because it’s gambling. Too bad - I like it.

i won $5.00 one time, it cost me $8.50 to get in plus the refreshments. i still feel like i made out okay

No need to pick on Catholic church members, Joe-Allen – bingo isn’t at all limited to them.

And the moral issue isn’t gambling as such, but actually expecting to win and getting nasty if you don’t. That’s greed, which is a sin for the religious, and a lousy character trait for everyone else. “Gambling” without the expectation of winning is simply a game, entertainment for its own sake, which is pretty innocent. It also involves some social interaction that otherwise wouldn’t be there for people who might otherwise be isolated and lonely.

As with many things, it isn’t so much the activity as the attitude in your heart that matters.

How much are church bingo prizes? Perhaps Tia can make new friends and go to some places where Vets congregate to gamble.

who goes to bingo to win money?…

We do it to pick up las chicas.

Btw- last reminder to sign up for tonights live call: http://BaldoComics.com/blog/call-in

Just say’in ; )

Tia Carmen, you probably become a gambling addict at the Bingo Night so why bother with cheaters at the Bingo Night?

¡Buenos días y tiene un día bueno!

Adios, amigos!

In a world where God controls the path of every leaf that falls, games of “chance” are anything but. Provided there is no cheating, “gambling” is merely one of God’s ways to redistribute money where He chooses. Hence, so many people thanking God rather than the laws of probablitity for winning Lotto jackpots.

A poor but pious man once asked God to give him a monetary rather than spiritual blessing for a change, to alleviate his poverty. “You could do it with the lottery. It doesn’t need to the $25,000,000 or anything, I’d be thrilled with maybe $100,000.” A couple of weeks go by, but nothing. The man again prays for relief: “I’ve served you faithfully all my life, but I’m really skint. I’d be overjoyed just to win $5000, as a sign of your favor.” More weeks go by, the Mega-Jackpot rises and falls as others win, but our hero can do nothing but watch and weep. Finally, he calls to God, “That’s it, I’ve had it. For months I’ve seen all this money go to anyone but me, and it makes me sick. Why, last week I heard Fred Smith bragging how he won $25,000, and he’s a drunken, blaspheming fornicator! Why do You allow the righteous to suffer so, while the wicked prosper?!?” In answer, a huge voice comes booming out of the sky: “Dude, you’ve gotta meet me halfway, here. BUY A FRIGGIN’ TICKET!!!”

fritzoid said, “In a world where God controls the path of every leaf that falls, games of ‘chance’ are anything but. Provided there is no cheating, ‘gambling’ is merely one of God’s ways to redistribute money where He chooses.”

Of course you can make up your own theology, fritzoid, but there is no reason to think that God didn’t create a world with randomness and chaos built into the laws of nature. Alternatively, He might have created the world without them, but then they entered in when the world became sinful and fallen. Whatever, there they are.

I don’t know where you got the idea that “God controls the path of every leaf that falls”. There is no such claim in the Old or New Testaments – only that He notices everything that happens, and He cares deeply when we screw up. If He really did control everything, miracles would never be necessary, but they are: He does put His hand in when it suits His purposes to affect the outcome…and while He loves us beyond our imagining, His reasons can’t be expected to be ours.

As for gambling, I think He cares about our attitude toward winning – whether we’re selfish and greedy – rather than whether or not we actually do. After all, if we’re not selfish and greedy, we won’t care if we win either, and all it is is a game and a shared social experience.

BTW, I love that joke.

My granny’s church gave the winning card to the poorest single and singed MOM in the parish, diocese, tabernacle. who came that night for a social not a financial.

SCATTY, I appreciate your tone. I think a lot of significant meat for philosophical/theological discussion can be found in jokes, but not everyone agrees.

Personally, I’ve never found the allowance for random occurance to be consistent with a conception of destiny/”God’s Plan”; there are distinctions between predestination and predetermination to be made (foreknowledge vs. foreordination, although that’s probably the wrong terminology), the difference between “General Providence” and “Special Providence” to be considered… Not so much Chaos Theory (something as insignificant as the flapping of a buuterfly’s wing being responsible for tidal waves and such, although that IS a consideration) as simply the “For want of a nail, a kingdom was lost” scenario. I believe in Cause and Effect, and if God takes an interest in the Effect then He must concern Himself with Cause, however minute…

As far as making up my own theology, I plead guilty to a point. But the specifics of my theology might surprise you, even if the general tenor is evident (or perhaps it’s the general tenor which would surprise, even if the specifics are what you’d imagine).

Anyway, I hope that you understand that my impatience with a certain approach to Biblical authority doesn’t necessarily extend to all conceptions of a theistic worldview. Were we to meet in person, we might very well have an enjoyable (and enlightening) discussion of these matters, even if neither ended up winning over the other.

I agree, fritzoid. You sound like the sort of person I would enjoy getting together with for coffee every day.

BTW, it’s SCAATY, not SCATTY. – “Still Crazy After All These Years.” :)

Ah, sorry. Now that I can connect it with the song (great song, too), I’ll remember that. Perhaps the extra “T” I put in your name is the one that I left out of “buuterfly”…

If we met daily, we’d probably end up at each other’s throats (cats and coyotes don’t mix well); I can be pretty…intense when I’m engaged. One of my best friends is a guy I used to meet once a week for coffee and philosophy; our approaches and histories were similar enough that we could communicate, but our differences led to some fascinating arguments. However, anything more than about 90 minutes every 7 days was too draining. Since he moved to Amsterdam about 2 years ago, though, I haven’t had anybody to fill the role, a hard enough stone against which to properly sharpen my knives… Sigh.