Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 16 March 2026

Have you ever known a person so disagreeable, so problematic, so toxic you just walked away, never—you hope—to deal with them again? 

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #253 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

If you live long enough, sooner or later—actually, probably sooner—you will meet someone so disreputable that you just give up on them? You conclude there is no possible future in which things work out and you at least can get along with this person, and they bring considerable angst to your life, so you decide to disengage, to walk away forever.

I realize this kind of scenario may occur in any number of ways. I’ve thankfully never been involved in the dissolution of a marriage. So, I do not know what it’s like, except via friends’ comments or watching on television, but I’m reasonably certain relationships can deteriorate to the point where one spouse considers the other obnoxious, evil, maybe dangerous, so it seems the best or only decision is to get away.

I know families, friends, work associates, acquaintances, all manner of human interactions can become so pernicious, so noxious that the only way to avoid ongoing agitation or worse is to sever all communications and contact.  So, metaphorically or physically, you give up on this person ever changing, ever asking for forgiveness, ever working and playing well with others, and you walk away.

As memory serves, I think I have only met and knew well one or two people like this in my now three score and ten plus years. One was a work colleague, a person I discovered worked with questionable if not objectionable ethics, a person who was selfish, demanding, nasty, and intimidating to anyone who fell for his schtick.

At first, I pushed back, which was probably a mistake, because he just amped up his repugnant nature and behavior. Later, I learned to stay out of the way as best I could, and meanwhile I made the decision to move on asap, which the Lord graciously granted me.

This is a person so bad—I know this is a relative term, because this guy wasn’t immoral and didn’t murder people—but he was a disgusting individual, nevertheless. So, after I moved on, I moved on, I must confess I did not care if I ever saw this person again. Didn’t want to see him, ever. But hey, it’s not that big a town, so I knew that sometime, somewhere I bump into him, and of course I did, at least twice. Thankfully, long before this I’d prayed, asking the Lord to grant me grace and propriety when someday I’d see this guy. Praise God, when I finally saw him out and about, we said a polite “Hello,” gave a nod, and got on with our business elsewhere.

I confess this story to no honor on my part. Certainly, I was not faultless in the relationship of sorts I had with this guy. But I am glad I learned I could move on, glad God gave me the opportunity to walk away, and glad when I saw this fellow one day, it really didn’t matter much.

Now again, I know this simple tale and modus operandi won’t work in all situations for all people, and again, like for example divorced “Exes” who still must interact regarding children. I know you can’t walk away, but I do think there are ways we can enjoy the Lord’s gentleness, goodness, and generosity toward others who may lack courtesy, civility, and self-control.

Jesus is remembered for compassion and pursuit of sinners, but the Gospels also show something equally important: Jesus sometimes deliberately stopped pursuing people and walked away. This helps us understand that love does not always mean continued relational investment.

1. Jesus walked away when people rejected his teaching.

After the Bread of Life discourse, many followers abandoned him after difficult teaching: “After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him...” (John 6:66). Jesus did not soften the message, chase them, or renegotiate truth. Instead, he turned to the Twelve and asked: “Do you want to go away as well?” Jesus allowed people to leave rather than dilute truth to preserve relationship.

2. Jesus walked away from hostile crowds.

“So, they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple,” (John 8:59). Also, he escaped arrest and withdrew beyond the Jordan.

He did not remain to endlessly argue with those determined to harm him. So, we learn that withdrawal from escalating hostility can be wise, not faithless.

3. Jesus left towns that refused him.

A Samaritan village rejected him, “But the people did not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem.” (Luke 9:53). The disciples wanted judgment, but Jesus simply moved on. Likewise, he instructed disciples to shake dust off their feet (Matt. 10). It is better to redirect our life and ministry than prolong conflict.

4. Jesus refused to entrust himself to certain people.

“But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people,” (Jn. 2:24). People admired Him superficially, yet he withheld relational trust. Love does not require emotional or relational access. Boundaries can be Christlike.

5. Jesus ended conversations with hardened opponents.

With certain religious leaders, discussion reached an endpoint. Repeated confrontations with Pharisees culminate in Gospel of Matt 23, where Jesus pronounces woes and then departs the temple (24:1). Dialogue ceased; separation followed. When hearts are closed, continued debate may no longer serve truth.

6. Jesus did not pursue Herod.

When brought before Herod Antipas: “So he questioned him at some length, but he made no answer,” (Luke 23:9). Jesus offered silence, not engagement. Not every person must receive an explanation or relational effort.

7. Jesus let the rich young ruler walk away.

After the man refused costly obedience: “When the young man heard this, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions,” (Matt. 19:22). Mark adds: “Jesus looked at him and loved him.” Yet Jesus did not run after him lowering the demand. Point is, we may deeply love someone and still allow them to leave.

8. Jesus ultimately left Jerusalem to its choice.

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you desolate,” (Matt. 23:37-38).

Jesus never forced anyone to follow or choose him. You may not recognize it in these accounts, but what you are seeing is what today we call religious liberty.

Freedom of belief, worship, and religion is a biblically Christian idea. The First Amendment of the US Constitution has its roots in biblical Christianity.

Jesus walked away when truth was persistently rejected, motives were manipulative or hostile, safety or mission required withdrawal, relationship lacked genuine openness, continued engagement enabled hardness. Jesus pursued the willing.

He released the unwilling. Walking away in Scripture is not hatred — it is recognizing moral freedom and relational limits.

Here are the main biblical categories where God permits — or even instructs — stepping away from someone or ending relational pursuit.

1. When someone persistently rejects truth or peace.

2. When peace is continually refused.

3. When someone is divisive or chronically disruptive.

5. When influence corrupts your spiritual life.

6. When reconciliation is repeatedly rejected.

Scripture holds two truths simultaneously: Keep forgiving – seek reconciliation – love enemies, but also: Do not enable sin – do not chase endless hostility - do not sacrifice spiritual health.

Determining whether or when to give up on someone—to walk away—is a matter of your Christian maturity and spiritual discernment. There are many stories wherein faithful – never, never, never give up – grandmothers or aunts prayed fervently for wayward young relatives for years.  Or the parable in Scripture about the Prodigal Son wherein his father never gave up, and when his son finally returned seeking forgiveness and restoration, the father eagerly responded in grace and joy.

So, whether or when you give up or walk away is between you and the Lord. But there is guidance in the Word. And by the way, when it is necessary to walk away from a person, remember he or she is still not alone. God knows exactly who they are, where they are, and what they need.

Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best.

If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. For more Christian commentary, see my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com, or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers.

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2026  

*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/ or my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 09 March 2026

Is it ever justified, that is morally right, to use violence?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #252 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

Violence is part of living in a spiritually fallen world. Sin exists, and since human beings give themselves over to various sins, violence in the pursuit of sinful interests also exists.

Scripture informs us God established government and lawful authorities to restrain evil. “For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer” (Rom. 13:4).

So then, is all violence equivalent, always wrong or bad? What about violence in pursuit of the good?

For example, is the use of violence, say a gun, by a law enforcement officer no different from the use of gun violence by a perpetrator conducting a home invasion?

Is violence in self-defense, resulting in the death of the attacker, no different than violence in murder?

Most would probably distinguish these forms of violence. Historically, the law has done so, which is why there is something called first-degree murder—intent to kill, premeditation, sometimes deliberation, second-degree murder—intentional but not premeditated or extreme recklessness, and something called voluntary manslaughter—unlawful killing without the malice or intent, and involuntary manslaughter—recklessness or criminal negligence. Distinctions are made in terms of intent, premeditation, malice, level of recklessness, provocation, and circumstances. Point being: not all violence is the same, or necessarily wrong or bad.

What about violence on the international or geopolitical level?

Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist group Hamas brutally surprise-attacked, killed, and kidnapped civilians and soldiers in 21 Israeli communities in a day now known as “10/7” and in a manner so heinous the incident is considered the “deadliest for the Jews since the Holocaust.” Seeking return of 251 hostages, Israel’s military response to 10/7 was launched Oct. 27, 2023, resulted in prolonged bombing, urban warfare, and deaths of Hamas operatives and civilians.

When Israel defended itself, many international observers called for an “immediate ceasefire,” argued “violence breeds violence,” and assigned a moral equivalency to what Israel was doing 10/27 with Hamas’s earlier violence 10/7. Israel was criticized worldwide for disproportionality, perceived genocidal killing of civilians, and violations of humanitarian concern.

“When President Barack Obama said after Hamas’ attack upon Israel that both this attack and the Israeli occupation were unjustified, he was condemned by many – including attorney Alan Dershowitz – as refusing to condemn and counter the atrocities of Oct. 7.” In other words, Obama implied moral equivalency, i.e., actions or violence employed by Israel are no different than actions or violence deployed by Hamas.

“Morally equivalent” is a term referencing given arguments or actions that treat morally different actors or situations as if they are equally right or wrong.

More examples. Some American religious leaders have condemned recent U.S. military actions against Iran by framing those actions as morally comparable to the violence endured by civilians and combatants in the region, emphasizing shared human dignity over geopolitical justifications. Some of these arguments place higher moral accountability upon one actor, i.e., U.S., than others, i.e., Iran’s autocratic regime.

What seems to be missing in these comments by religious leaders is a biblical theology of sin, a biblical view of use of violence in a fallen world, or a call for justice based upon righteousness rather than peace at any cost.

Speaking Sunday, March 1, to thousands gathered in the Vatican’s St. Peter’s Square, Pope Leo said, “I address to the parties involved a heartfelt appeal to assume the moral responsibility of halting the spiral of violence before it becomes an irreparable abyss…Stability and peace are not built with mutual threats nor with weapons that sow destruction, pain and death, but only through a dialogue that is reasonable, authentic and responsible.”

The U.N. Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, condemned the escalating conflict in a statement to the press, calling for “an immediate cessation of hostilities and de-escalation.”

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) released a statement asserting that “bombs do not create democracy, and airstrikes do not build just societies,” urging an immediate cessation of military escalation and a return to sustained diplomacy grounded in international law.

Similarly, Pax Christi International issued a declaration condemning recent U.S. and Israeli military strikes in Iran. Pax Christi framed these actions as part of a broader “cycle of violence,” stressing that “foreign military intervention only deepens human suffering” and calling on the international community to “uphold international law” and return to dialogue — placing the moral weight of U.S. decisions on the same scale as the human toll of the conflict.

Statements collected by faith networks like Sojourners…stated that a U.S.–Iran war would be “morally and religiously indefensible” and would repeat past cycles of destructive conflict that inflicted immense human cost on Middle Eastern populations. They urged policymakers to return to the Iran nuclear deal and pursue negotiations, presenting diplomatic engagement as the morally superior alternative to military intervention.

Stanley Hauerwas argues “The church cannot bless war. A Christianity that affirms the state’s wars is not Christianity. It is idolatry…When we honor soldiers for taking life and expect silence for the toll it takes, we reinforce the lie that violence can be holy and has no individual or corporate spiritual costs. We sin against the Gospel.”

Catholic clergy urged prayers and peace after U.S.–Israel strikes on Iran, insisting that “the dignity of human life must always come first” and warning that any action imperiling civilians carries grave moral weight—implicitly equating collective human suffering from all sides of the conflict.

Some religious leaders in the U.S. and globally frame violence as a tragic cycle à la “violence breeds violence”—blaming all actors—rather than identifying initiating actions, which tends to morally level state military action and non-state militant activity under a general “violence is bad” framing.

Others point to diplomatic engagement and negotiation rather than military escalation as morally responsible. Critics of these positions sometimes argue that such stances improperly equate what they see as military actions taken for defensive/security reasons, and diplomatic or negotiation efforts that might, which in their view fail to adequately address deep issues like human rights abuses, regional aggression, or support for non-state militant groups.

When religious leaders urge restraint upon the U.S. government but do not condemn Iranian leadership they appear to apply moral pressure asymmetrically.

They publicly constrain democratic governments while not equally addressing authoritarian leadership—creating perceived imbalance. This again is a form of false moral equivalence—treating aggressors and victims, or perpetrators and defenders, as if they are morally on equal footing.

But it’s possible to desire peace, to pursue peace, to dislike using violence, while recognizing that human beings are sinful, not trustworthy, capable of all manner of duplicitous statements and behavior, and even disguise evil intent. Yet at times, like Hamas, like Iran’s other terrorist proxies, and like Iran itself, the evil actor acts evilly, barring the way to peace.

On a local level, sad though it is, sometimes the law enforcement officer’s gun is the only thing that will end the violence of a public-school shooter. So, violence does not always breed violence, and not all violence is wrong or bad.

Ceasefires are not, ipso facto, wrong or ineffectual, but they may be. When threatened or harmed states defend themselves with a military response, then people, perhaps with a good heart, call for these states to implement an immediate ceasefire, they are assuming evil actors are working with a morality similar to their own. This assumption is, sadly, often not the case, particularly with religious extremists or simply human beings given to perversity.

While I do not want nor do I promote violence, and I am not trivializing the suffering consequent to violence, nor do I want innocent people to be threatened, including not only Americans but Iranian and Israeli citizens as well. I do not want the US government to be forced to use its military, but I am grateful that it has, as in WWII, and it can, and if required it will, to defend liberty and make peace possible.

And yes, local law enforcement and state leaders can do wrong or make missteps.

So, every law enforcement action or US military action internationally must be held to a high standard of morality. But not all violence is morally equivalent to other violence.

Violence is a consequence of living in a fallen world. The Bible is replete with examples of necessary, right and righteous violence. Even as Scripture commands us to love our enemies, still, violence may be essential and morally appropriate for self-defense against armed attack, in defense of another state under attack, for stopping mass atrocities, and to preserve and to protect liberty and justice for all.

Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best.

If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. For more Christian commentary, see my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com, or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers.

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2026  

*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/ or my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 02 March 2026

Dr. Jack Kevorkian helped put assisted suicide on the map in the U.S., but is assisted suicide, or the active death-dealing of euthanasia, in the name of compassion, a defensible moral action?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #251 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

Switzerland has made it easy to kill yourself. An assisted suicide pod passed an independent legal review showing it complies with Swiss law. At the push of a button, the pod fills with nitrogen gas, rapidly lowering oxygen levels and killing the user. Switzerland has permitted assisted suicide since 1942.

“Euthanasia refers to active steps taken to end someone’s life to stop their suffering and the ‘final deed’ is undertaken by someone other than the individual, for example a doctor…Assisted suicide is about helping someone to take their own life at their request – in other words the final deed is undertaken by the person themselves. Assisted dying can be used to mean both euthanasia, generally voluntary, and assisted suicide; however, some campaign groups use it to refer only to assisted suicide of terminally ill people.”

Assisted suicide is most prevalent in Switzerland, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Belgium. The Netherlands became the first country in the world to formally legalize both physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia through explicit legislation passed in 2001.

“The Canadian approach to euthanasia and assisted suicide, euphemistically known as Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), has expanded in recent years and has sparked significant debate about its ethical and societal implications. Euthanasia was first intended only for those nearing the end of their lives. Now, Canada has one of the most permissive euthanasia policies in the world, revealing a rapidly increasing culture of not just accepting death, but actively promoting it.”

“Since the establishment of Canada's Medical Assistance In Dying (MAID) law in 2016, more than 60,000 people have used euthanasia to die. Euthanasia accounted for 15,343 deaths in 2023 or 4.7% or about 1 in 20 of all deaths in the country.”

“In Canada, assisted suicide is permitted but nearly non-existent. Instead, MAiD deaths are almost exclusively due to euthanasia, where a doctor actively ends a patient’s life…Some Canadian doctors have become experts in killing, with one doctor “administering fatal substances” to over 400 patients.”

In the U.S., “just over seven in 10 Americans, 71%, believe doctors should be allowed by law to end the patient’s life by some painless means if the patient and his or her family request it.”

At the same time, doctor-assisted suicide -- a term used to describe patients ending their own lives with the aid of a physician -- garners slightly less but still majority support…Religiosity has the most significant impact on one’s perceptions of morality regarding this question. Sixty-seven percent of those who seldom or never attend religious services say doctor-assisted suicide is morally acceptable, compared with 29% of those who attend services weekly; 66% of the most religious Americans believe doctor-assisted suicide is morally wrong.

In the United States, assisted suicide was first legally approved in the state of Oregon,1994, when voters passed the Death with Dignity Act. After legal challenges, it officially took effect in 1997. Euthanasia is illegal in all 50 states, while assisted suicide is legal in several states. Patients must be adults with a terminal prognosis, be mentally competent, make multiple requests over time, be informed of alternatives such as hospice and palliative care. Thus far, at the federal level, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide.

Advocates argue that mentally competent adults should have the right to decide the timing and manner of their death, emphasizing bodily autonomy, control over end-of-life decisions, and avoiding prolonged suffering. Supporters argue that some suffering—physical or existential—cannot be adequately relieved, even with advanced palliative care. Supporters often argue there is no morally relevant difference between withdrawing life support (widely accepted) and prescribing medication the patient may take to hasten death.

From a Christian moral perspective, assisted suicide, assisted dying, and euthanasia are deeply problematic because they conflict with core beliefs about the sanctity of life, human dignity, suffering, and God’s sovereignty. Christianity teaches that human life is a sacred gift from God, not a possession to be disposed of at will. The Bible tells us life was created by God in his image (Genesis 1:27).

Because human beings are made in the image of God, their worth does not depend on health, productivity, or independence. Intentionally ending innocent human life, even to relieve suffering, is therefore typically considered a violation of God’s moral law. One of the clearest moral foundations for this view is the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13).

Traditionally, Christians have understood this prohibition to include the deliberate taking of innocent life, including one’s own. While compassion for suffering is central to Christian ethics, compassion must be expressed in ways that respect moral boundaries. Directly intending death as a solution to pain crosses that boundary by redefining killing as care.

“Suffering is usually behind a request for euthanasia. The most commonly cited reasons for a euthanasia request are the loss of ability to engage in meaningful activities (over 95%) or to perform activities of daily living (over 83%). Just under 60% cite inadequate pain control (or fear of it).”

But Christian moral theology holds that suffering, though painful and often mysterious, can have spiritual meaning.  “We know that suffering builds us up in ways we cannot now see. As we read in James 1:12: “Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him.”

Rather than eliminating the sufferer, Christians are called to respond with presence, love, and care. “Suffering allows us to care for each other, and to be cared for. It’s a reminder that we are not in control of our own lives, but reliant first on God, and then on those around us.” The growth of hospice movements reflects this conviction: that people deserve comfort, dignity, and companionship at the end of life, not abandonment through lethal means.

The Apostle Paul said, “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us...For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together…but we ourselves…groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for…the redemption of our bodies” (Rom. 8:18, 22-23).

The Catholic Church articulated this position clearly in Evangelium Vitae by Pope John Paul II. The encyclical states that euthanasia is a “grave violation of the law of God” because it involves the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person. At the same time, it distinguishes between killing and allowing natural death to occur, affirming that burdensome or disproportionate medical treatments may be refused when they offer little hope of benefit.

“As our culture has embraced death for the suffering, ‘dying with dignity’ has come to mean ending life before one becomes too disabled or dependent on others. Nearly 65% of people euthanized in Canada cited ‘loss of dignity’ as a source of suffering behind their request to die. But, as Christians, we know that dignity is not found in one’s ability, health, or disposition. We know that every person has dignity, simply by the fact that human beings are made in the image of God…So-called “death with dignity” tells a person “they are no longer worth helping, that they are nothing but the sum of their aches and pains, their fears and their despair”…Canada’s initial euthanasia law is based on the arbitrary idea that some human beings have dignity, and some do not; some lives are worth living and some are not.”

Christian moral arguments against assisted suicide and euthanasia rest on the sanctity of life, obedience to God’s commandments, the redemptive understanding of suffering, and a commitment to compassionate care that never intentionally ends innocent human life.

Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best. If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. For more Christian commentary, see my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com, or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers.

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2026  

*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/ or my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 23 February 2026

Sometime when we’re children, we discover the reality of death—perhaps a grandma no longer with us—and later in life we come to understand that mortality is something in everyone’s future, so what should we think about this existential fact?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #250 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

My wife and I are now in our 70s. When we first reached this milestone, I remember saying to her, “Well, we are now in the decade when every so often, we’ll hear about a friend or acquaintance passing, or they will hear about us.” I wasn’t trying to be morbid or funny, just honest.

This past week I heard of a high school classmate who passed. I knew her from study hall and years later a couple of interactions on Facebook, but I haven’t seen her since we graduated in 1970. She was a friend but not a close one, so I am not sure why her transition to heaven struck me, but it did. Maybe because she was my age. It seemed so sudden and, well, too early. But her homegoing caused me to do some thinking about my own mortality.

Scripture is remarkably honest about life. It does not romanticize the human condition. It does not promise an easy road. Instead, it speaks plainly: we are born into a world marked by sorrow, struggle, and mortality. We are, the Scripture says, born in sin (Ps. 51:5). This isn’t a reference to wrongdoing on the part of our parents but to the nature of the world we live in. Then, at some point, “it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Heb. 9:27).

But the Bible also proclaims something astonishing — for those who belong to Christ, death itself is transformed from defeat into victory.

After humanity’s rebellion, what’s called the “Fall,” or fall from grace or fall into sin, God speaks consequences into the fabric of creation—pain in childbirth, toil in labor, frustration in work, and eventual death become part of human experience (Genesis 3:16-19). The ground resists us. Our bodies decay. Relationships strain. “For dust you are, and to dust you shall return.”

This is not accidental. The apostle Paul explains in Romans 5:12 that through one man sin entered the world—that’s Adam—and death through sin — and so death spread to all.

Job captures the human condition with poetic bluntness: In Job 5:7, “Man is born to trouble, as the sparks fly upward.” And again, in Job 14:1, “Man who is born of woman is few of days and full of trouble.” Moses echoes this sober assessment in Psalm 90:10 — our years are marked by toil and sorrow.

The Bible is not naïve. It recognizes hospital rooms, broken relationships, gravesides, and unanswered questions. Christianity does not begin with denial of suffering. It begins with truth about it.

But that is not the end of the story. If trouble is universal, is it meaningless? Scripture answers: no. Affliction, while painful, is not purposeless in the hands of God.

The psalmist David makes a startling confession in Psalm 119:71: “It was good for me that I was afflicted, that I might learn your statutes.”

James intensifies this paradox in James 1:2-4: “Count it all joy… when you meet trials… for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.”

The Apostle Paul provides the spiritual progression in Romans 5:3-5: Suffering produces endurance, endurance produces character, character produces hope.

Notice that suffering should not produce despair in the believer — it produces hope. Not because pain feels good, but because God is shaping something eternal through it. Not because we are tough, but because of God’s providence, promises, and presence in our lives.

And importantly, trouble does not mean abandonment. Psalm 34:19 says, “Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the LORD delivers him out of them all.”

And Paul calls God in 2 Corinthians 1:3-4 the “Father of mercies and God of all comfort.”

The Christian life does not bypass suffering — it reinterprets it. Trials become tools in the hands of a sovereign Father. Yet even refined saints still face death. So, what then?

Death entered through sin. It is called an enemy in Scripture. And yet, for the believer, death is no longer ultimate defeat.

The prophet speaks tenderly in Isaiah 57:1-2: “The righteous is taken away from calamity; he enters into peace.”

In the New Testament, the tone becomes even more explicit. In Philippians 1:21-23, Paul writes, “To live is Christ, and to die is gain… to depart and be with Christ… is far better.”

Far better. 

Death, for the Christian, is not annihilation. It is not “soul sleep.” It is departure.  It is relocation into the presence of Christ. The deceased believer is not “gone” in the sense of disappeared forever but in the words of Scripture the deceased believer is merely “absent,” now more alive than ever in heaven.

Paul reinforces this confidence in 2 Corinthians 5:8: to be absent from the body is to be at home with the Lord. This will be true for us one day if we are believers. It is true of loved ones who’ve passed if they were believers. Our hope, our peace that passes understanding in the face of their loss is based upon the fact that God holds them in his hand.

The final book of the Bible adds a beatitude to death itself. In Revelation 14:13, Scripture states, “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord… that they may rest from their labors.”

Notice the language: blessed… rest… peace… gain. Christian hope does not celebrate death as natural. It celebrates Christ as victorious. Christian hope is not a vain wish in what might be, but a confident expectation of what will be based upon a historical fact, the finished work of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection.

At the grave of Lazarus, Jesus makes a staggering claim in John 11:25-26: “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live. And everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

Death is real — but it is not final. Indeed, death is only physical: “and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it” (Ecc. 12:7).

Paul announces the culmination in 1 Corinthians 15:54-57: “Death is swallowed up in victory… Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Swallowed up. Overcome. Conquered.

The final chapters of Scripture lift our eyes even higher. Revelation 21:4 promises a day when God will wipe away every tear — and death shall be no more.

The Bible moves from a garden where death enters… to a city where death is abolished.

Understandably, we celebrate the birth of babies and mourn at funerals, but thinking about these events biblically there is irony in this. Babies are born into a world fractured by sin and trouble. Yet through Christ, death becomes gain.

For those in Christ: from dust… to trouble… to redemption… to resurrection…to eternity in heaven. And that is the hope of the believer.

Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best.

If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. For more Christian commentary, see my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com, or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers.

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2026  

*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/ or my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 16 February 2026

Since it was legalized in 2018, sports betting has become one of the fastest-growing entertainment markets with Americans wagering record sums, but is this healthy or harmful to sports and the American consumer?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #249 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

In 1997, I published a book called “Seducing America: Is Gambling a Good Bet?’  In 2005, the book was revised and re-published as “Gambling:  Don’t Bet On It.”  Hard to believe it’s been over twenty years since that book was re-released.

In April 2022, for this podcast I recorded, “Opening Floodgates of Sports Betting.”

But gambling hasn’t gone away, and in fact has greatly expanded since the turn of the century, so the arguments I made in that book and podcast are just as valid today as they were then.

The damn broke on May 14, 2018, when the Supreme Court of the United States issued its Murphy vs National Collegiate Athletic Association ruling, 6-3, that the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which banned commercial sports betting in most states, violated the 10^th Amendment to the United States Constitution.  In one opinion, the Supreme Court opened the biggest possible expansion of legalized betting in the US in years.

Now, 57% of adults are engaged in some form of gambling. One half of men under 50 have an active online sports betting account. A projected $23.08 billion in sports betting will be generated in North America this year, with the majority coming from the United States. The industry is expected to see an annual growth rate of 9.29%, reaching over $35 billion by 2030. Over $1.7 billion was forecasted to be legally wagered on the 2025 Super Bowl. Americans have bet “well north of” $500 billion since the 2018 Supreme Court decision, according to Legal Sports Report.

“Betting isn't something that only happens at racetracks or casinos anymore – websites and apps are helping sports betting become a nationwide pastime. And as it grows in popularity, some state coffers are benefiting to the tune of millions in tax revenue from wagers on professional sports.” “Sports betting has been legalized in some form by 39 states and in Washington, DC.”

States are now all-in to sports betting, because they are motivated by money.

“Most states tax sports betting revenue at 10% to 20%. However, there are several outliers, with Iowa and Nevada imposing just 6.75% and New Hampshire, New York and Rhode Island levying fees of 51%.” It’s not logical to think state legislatures will monitor graft, greed, and corruption in gambling when they are feeding at the trough.

The vast majority of sports betting revenue is now generated through online platforms. About 30 sportsbooks are operating legally in the United States now.

Moral concerns or societal pressure seem to have disappeared. Professional sports teams that once avoided gambling like the plague but since 2018, the “Big Four,” NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB have all inked multi-billion-dollar deals with casinos and gambling apps. Same can be said for Major League Soccer. ESPN offers wall-to-wall DraftKings ads and segments in most sports shows. As comedian Bill Maher puts it, “Major league sports have become ‘wager’ league sports.”

“The NFL is arguably the biggest league in American sports and has ongoing relationships with betting companies. The National Football League signed a contract with gambling giants Caesars, DraftKings, and FanDuel, making gambling brands the official sports betting partners of the NFL. It also permitted BetMGM, WynnBet, PointsBet, and Fox Bet to promote their businesses during the games.”

Sports betting is aimed at a largely male demographic (68% of sports betting customers are men). “What was once a hobby reserved for degenerates in Las Vegas has become a casual activity that is encouraged while watching your favorite team.”

In 2025, the pitfalls of gambling caught up with professional sports. In Major League Baseball, one of the most consequential scandals involved Cleveland Guardians pitchers Emmanuel Clase and Luis Ortiz, who were federally indicted for allegedly conspiring to manipulate pitches in games to help co-conspirators win prop bets. Prosecutors assert the scheme involved rigged outcomes on specific pitches, generating substantial illicit gambling profits and prompting legislative and regulatory scrutiny of “micro-bet” markets.

The fallout extended beyond that case. Former MLB star Yasiel Puig was found guilty on federal charges of obstruction of justice and making false statements tied to a historic illegal sports betting ring, underscoring how U.S. authorities are pursuing past gambling misconduct with serious penalties. Meanwhile, the NBA faced a sweeping criminal probe—code-named operations that led to the arrest of more than 30 individuals, including prominent figures like Chauncey Billups and Terry Rozier, in alleged schemes involving insider betting information and rigged gambling and poker games. These scandals collectively shook public confidence in sporting integrity, sparked calls from officials to reevaluate betting markets (especially prop bets), and raised hard questions about how deeply gambling has fused with professional sports in the legal betting era.

“The NCAA and federal investigators—led by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania—launched a probe into potential gambling violations in NCAA Division I college basketball. At least 30 current and former players are caught up in the investigation, in addition to some of the defendants indicted in the NBA scandal.” “NCAA president Charlie Baker has been very outspoken about his sports betting concerns. Baker has pushed for states to entirely eliminate prop bets. In a recent interview with Yahoo Sports, Baker said advances in technology have caused an eruption in the sports betting problem.” In response to the 2025 sports gambling scandals, both professional leagues and lawmakers in the United States have stepped up efforts to protect the integrity of their games and rebuild public trust. The NFL, NBA, and MLB have taken concrete steps to limit or ban certain types of wagers that are most susceptible to manipulation — especially player proposition bets tied to individual performances that one participant can influence directly.

Prop bets, short for proposition bets, are wagers on specific events within a game, rather than on who wins or loses.

• Will a quarterback throw over or under 250 passing yards?
• Will a basketball player score 30+ points?
• Will the first pitch be a strike or a ball?
• How many strikeouts will a specific pitcher have?

What makes prop bets controversial—especially in recent scandals—is that they often focus on single players or single actions, which can be easier to manipulate than an entire game. A player might influence one play, pitch, or stat without obviously throwing the game, which is why leagues and regulators see prop bets as higher risk than traditional betting. Plus, what qualifies as a prop bet is nearly infinite, and multiple prop bets can be placed per sporting event, thus the gambling company makes more money.

The NFL issued league-wide memos outlining prohibited bet categories and has been working with state regulators and sports betting partners to curb these markets, a move echoed by MLB and other organizations pushing for similar restrictions. But this all rings a bit shallow when players, coaches, and staff know the NFL is making enormous profits on gambling.

Lawmakers have intensified scrutiny of how sports betting intersects with professional sports. Some members of Congress are pushing for federal legislation like the SAFE BET Act, aimed at creating national standards for sports betting oversight, including limits on advertising and certain in-game bets, alongside public health and transparency measures.

I believe gambling violates at least five doctrines of Scripture: 

1) the sovereignty of God (Luck and an omniscient, omnipotent God are mutually exclusive concepts),

2) stewardship (We are accountable to God for our time, talent, and treasure),

3) theft (For you and me to win at gambling a lot of others must lose),

4) covetousness (God commands contentment not greed),

5) potentially addictive (The Bible tells us not to allow our minds, bodies, or souls to be brought under the power of anything other than the Spirit of God). 

Sports wagering is the primary entry point to more gambling among adolescents and college students, especially young men. Gambling in all its forms, including sports wagering, turns tried and true values upside down. Gambling undermines a positive work ethic and the productivity that comes from it. Gambling also undercuts a person’s ability and desire to defer gratification in order to accomplish a goal. Individual enterprise, thrift, effort, and self-denial are set aside for chance gain, immediate satisfaction, and self-indulgence.  And the bottom line, with hundreds of years of history and hundreds of examples to document it, gambling ruins lives.

I recommend you avoid gambling, particularly online sports gambling. Enjoy sports for the sport, not how much money you can win—or more likely lose.

Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best.

If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. For more Christian commentary, see my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com, or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers.

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2026    

*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/ or my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.