But spreading religion is a trivial and selfish pursuit.
Come on. Do we honestly think that all Christians have the same exact attitude toward risk? Or that they hold exactly the same views about the risk, enjoyability, and potential rewards of all activities in which there’s any potential of death?
Different people think in different ways. You and I don’t consider skydiving to be overly dangerous, but other people might not have the same degree of confidence in this activity – Christian or otherwise. Are we now painting all Christians with the same broad brush?
Nope. However, it seems to me that if you don’t have faith enough to believe in Heaven, then you don’t really have faith. Faith, it seems to me, has always been defined as belief which transcends reason, at least in the online arguments I’ve seen.
If your belief transcends reason, then shouldn’t every aspect of that belief be true, up to and including eternal reward?
Huh?
I’m tempted to make a cheap shot about “transcending reason.”
Well, in atheism vs theism threads, we’re always seeing the argument that there’s no reason to have evidence if you’ve got faith.
Because only an idiot jumps out of a perfectly good airplane.*
*As related to me by my brother, a former Navy air crewman (P-3).
You only say that because you haven’t seen the airplane yet. 
There’s often quite a bit of drinking and partying after a long day of jumping. Some of the more hardcore and uptight Christians may not be comfortable hanging out with people who do that.
I… er… what? Is “it is infinitely better than mortal existence” not a pretty big consideration there? Do you think that the appeal of spending another series of years on Earth exceeds the appeal of spending that time in Heaven?
I took the point of this thread as being why the great bonus in the sky factors heavily into considerations of those who have already died but hardly at all into the actions of those who haven’t. Yeah, almost all denominations consider it a sin, but Catholics consider contraception a mortal sin and that certainly doesn’t stop it. And at any rate, consideration of eternal reward need not translate into explicit suicide. It does, however, offer a pretty good reason not to bother being particularly careful, as the OP implied. Yet you don’t see many people looking forward to pushing up daisies.
Ultimately, I think a solid answer is more likely to lie in psychology and physiology than theology, along the lines of Sarahfeena’s post. It’s not usual for a person to conduct himself with the sort of hard logic necessary to consider the notion that death is preferable and act upon it.
Is “Heaven will always be there waiting” not a pretty big consideration as well? What about the opportunity to do good works on earth, or for that matter, share God’s Word with loved ones?
You’re looking at a single factor – the reward of heaven – and concluding that Christians should therefore choose to die at the earliest possible opportunity. Thankfully, rational people seldom make life-and-death decisions based on one factor alone, especially when they choose to act unselfishly.
The topic isn’t about what people should do, it’s about why they do what they do. I agree with everything you said; I’m not advocating suicide.
Oh, also I suppose dying to get to heaven is a rather selfish thing to do. Christians in general try not to be selfish, and making loved ones suffer in grief is probably never going to be on the ‘to do’ list.
When you respond to their viewpoint by saying “I… er… what?” it’s a pretty good indication that you do think they’re nuts. And when one’s post goes on to say, “Is ‘it is infinitely better than mortal existence’ not a pretty big consideration there? Do you think that the appeal of spending another series of years on Earth exceeds the appeal of spending that time in Heaven?” (emphasis added), the implication is that they should attempt to get into heaven as soon as possible.
I think most rational people would interpret that as a statement of what people should do.
What the bloody hell are you babbling about? Do you have any evidence at all that Christians* don’t *skydive?:dubious:
I wasn’t really answering the OP, though…I was answering the question of why Christians experience extreme fear or terror when danger to their life is imminent. The OP is asking a bit of a different question, which seems to be more about why many Christians lead a generally cautious life. My answer to that is similar to many in the thread. God doesn’t give you life (in the Christian viewpoint) so you can squander it or throw it away. It’s a gift, and we are supposed to cherish it, use it in service to others, live up to our responsibilities, and generally enjoy the time we have. We are supposed to earn our eternal reward, not rush to it. If a person doesn’t want to take extreme risks because they have a responsibility towards their family or just because they want to make as much out of their lives on earth as possible, that’s a good thing, not bad.
Paul had the same debate:
Phil 1: 21For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.
22But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose.
23But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better;
24yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake.
>…seems to me that if you don’t have faith enough to believe in Heaven, then you don’t really have faith. Faith, it seems to me, has always been defined as belief which transcends reason, at least in the online arguments I’ve seen.
>If your belief transcends reason, then shouldn’t every aspect of that belief be true, up to and including eternal reward?
Lightnin’s point seems clear and central and unavoidable in matters of faith. It also supports a logical proposition that has always baffled me:
- The best thing that can happen to anybody is to get to Heaven.
- Babies who have not had the opportunity to sin would get to Heaven if they died.
- Therefore the greatest gift a person could give would be to kill as many babies as possible.
Don’t think I’m trying to be offensively funny. I’m not. I myself am athiest and so believe 1 and 2 are of course completely wrong. I have not the slightest wish to do anything harmful to babies. I wouldn’t even annoy a baby (unless perhaps he was reading Great Debates, but even then it would be unintentional). But I also think that people who really believe 1 and 2 would have to agree with 3. At least, I don’t see why they wouldn’t. It is just one example of a reduction to absurdity.
Lightnin’, by the way, has in no way encouraged me to post this or associate it with phrases lifted from his/her post, so I already stipulate Lightnin’ is not responsible for me!
Really, I am not sure that most of the US Army is Christian, but seeing as you are not from the United States, you may have knowledge that I do not have about US troops. Either way, I can’t accept that most Army Service Members are Christians, and that you believe that it is impossibly false that the many other world religions may outnumber the Christian belief.
SSG Schwartz
Good thread. It reminds me of General Stonewall Jackson’s famous quote (to his army chaplains upon scurrying away, as a Union shell burst nearby)" gentlemen-I do not undertand you…in your sermons , you talk about how much you want to meet the Lord…yet when you are given the opportunity, you shrink back"!
If you neglect the questionable and unsupported premise, not to mention that silly notion that Christians must be faithless cowards if they don’t see to enter heaven ASAP… yeah, it’s a pretty good thread overall.
Here is Paul’s take on it: