Risky hobbies?

Status
Not open for further replies.
In Rom. 8:32 we are given freely all things together with Christ. Obviously, all legitimate things.
But who is going to judge for other people what is objectively legitimate? You? What if I judge that bowling is irresponsible and unnecessary? Does that make it unlawful for anyone to do at any time? With no apparent experience of climbing, you want to judge it a sinful activity.
As to pre-fall mankind: God commanded them to replenish the earth and subdue it. Replenish doesn't mean "hang out in this garden with all your descendants." Rather, it meant that even before the fall they were supposed to go explore the world and populate it. Noah is told to do something similar after the flood.
As to the sixth commandment, I maintain that an activity that may seem dangerous or irresponsible to the inexperienced is not a violation of it if one has every intention and reasonable expectation of surviving. Sure, we could be killed or injured doing almost anything: I don't ski because of the clear and apparent danger of breaking my legs. But I don't call it sinful when others do; it is a legitimate pastime.
If you're going to judge all activities by whether they are absolutely necessary, you're going to have a tough time proving that. Scrabble? not necessary: must be sinful. A bike ride? same. Where do you draw the line? And before you say again that I'm not engaging by reducing examples to the ridiculous, allow me to repeat that rockclimbing, even without a rope, can be carried on by the competent with greater safety than many, many, ordinary everyday activities like bike riding or football playing or roller skating.

You "maintain that an activity that may seem dangerous or irresponsible to the inexperienced is not a violation of [the sixth commandment] if one has every intention and reasonable expectation of surviving." On what authority do you base this subjetive interpretation of the sixth commandment? The Westminster Larger Catechism- an authoritative document adopted by the Presbyterian churches- declares that "immoderate recreations" are a violation of the sixth commandment. The Heidelberg Catechism- another authoritative document of the Reformed churches- declares " I am not to harm or recklessly endanger myself." Surely "extreme" sports- a moniker applied to these sports by the practitioners of them- are, by definition, not moderate and ergo are immoderate. You must tell me why they do not come under the category forbidden by the catechisms or why I should discard the declaration of a binding constitutional document (in my case the LC) in preference to your subjective feelings on the matter. It should also be noted that under the sixth commandment the LC also prohibits "excessive passions". Is not one of the main reasons for these extreme sports the rush of adrenaline, excitement, the sense of danger? These are surely excessive passions which are completely unnecessary.

None of the Scripture you reference gives a justification for the activities you have mentioned. Climbing a mountain is not subduing it. Extreme mountain biking is not subduing the land. Where are the examples in Scripture of the Lord settling His people on perilous mountain peaks? Rather it is in the wide open valleys He took them. I do not claim this as a prohibition of any specific activity. I reference it merely as an example of how the Lord has led His people to settle the land. The history of human settlement repeats this pattern. You have claimed the Lord's command to replenish and subdue the Earth makes extreme, or immoderate, recreations lawful. But I do not see the history in Scripture of bearing that interpretation out.

You ask who will judge what is lawful for other people: me? And then you go ahead and offer your own categorical judgements on what activities are lawful. I am no more bound to your subjective judgment as to what is lawful as you are to mine. You criticise me for calling certain activities sinful (in this discussion I have called no specific activity sinful) and then you make the categorical, objective statement that the activities to which you refer are "legitimate". Again, on what authority?

Once more I have condemned no specific activity here. I have raised concerns as to a laissez-fare attitude in regards this matter. As you can give me no scripture reference declaring your activities lawful (and I can give none prohibiting them by name) we must go on general principles found in Scripture. Matthew 4:7 "It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." (by the by spoken in the context of Satan tempting Christ to jump off from a very high peak); Matthew 25:52 "for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." And, of course, the sixth commandment itself. We have the teachings of godly men from the past as to dangerous sports. And we have the nature of the sports themselves.

Finally, I did not say that necessity was the supreme factor in judging the lawfulness of any particular activity. I added it to a list of other factors which should be considered. But certainly necessity would overrule "lovely" as a consideration.
 
Where are the examples in Scripture of the Lord settling His people on perilous mountain peaks? Rather it is in the wide open valleys He took them.

This doesn't affect the substance of the argument, but this statement is not Biblically accurate. Eden is on a mountaintop (Ezek. 28:13-14), as is Jerusalem (and the visionary temple of Ezekiel 40-48 and the New Jerusalem). The heartland of Israel was in the mountains rather than on the Coastal plain. In contrast, the builders of Babel (Babylon) favored flat plains (Gen. 11:2), where they built their own fake mountains (the "tower") in order to seek after God. The journey to and from Jerusalem was perilous, as witness the psalms of ascent; God could have chosen to locate his temple in a safer place, perhaps, but throughout Scripture mountains are the appropriate place to meet with God, not valleys, which more often symbolize places where God might be expected to be absent.

As I said, none of this affects the substantial argument about extreme sports such as mountain climbing (which itself ranges from very extreme [Mount Everest] to a mild dawdle [Ben Nevis or Snowdon on a nice day]). It's good to think this through. My father was a keen hill walker in the Scottish Highlands and I often tagged along as a teenager, never being in much danger of anything worse than sunburn. But part of that was the common sense to know what he was doing and what his limits were. However, it's important not to misrepresent the Scriptures in this discussion, as if mountains were inherently bad places in the Bible and valleys were better.
 
One of the most risky hobbies of all...

Judging others.

"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
 
This doesn't affect the substance of the argument, but this statement is not Biblically accurate. Eden is on a mountaintop (Ezek. 28:13-14), as is Jerusalem (and the visionary temple of Ezekiel 40-48 and the New Jerusalem). The heartland of Israel was in the mountains rather than on the Coastal plain. In contrast, the builders of Babel (Babylon) favored flat plains (Gen. 11:2), where they built their own fake mountains (the "tower") in order to seek after God. The journey to and from Jerusalem was perilous, as witness the psalms of ascent; God could have chosen to locate his temple in a safer place, perhaps, but throughout Scripture mountains are the appropriate place to meet with God, not valleys, which more often symbolize places where God might be expected to be absent.

That's fair enough. I did say "perilous mountain peaks". But fair enough. I wasn't talking spiritually though. Certainly mountains, spiritually, are symbolic of close and deep experiences of God. But it would be wrong, I think, to therefore argue that mountain peaks are the preferred places for human settlement. Often settlements high up in the mountains have been constructed to hide or to escape persecution. I don't think Mt. Zion in Israel is the same as Mt. Everest though.

Again I have not condemned any specific activity. Hill walking is not an extreme sport, however. The vast majority of mountains in Scotland are pretty easy to climb, as far as I'm aware. But hill walking is not tight-rope walking across Times Square, which was the original activity that started this discussion.
 
You "maintain that an activity that may seem dangerous or irresponsible to the inexperienced is not a violation of [the sixth commandment] if one has every intention and reasonable expectation of surviving." On what authority do you base this subjetive interpretation of the sixth commandment? The Westminster Larger Catechism- an authoritative document adopted by the Presbyterian churches- declares that "immoderate recreations" are a violation of the sixth commandment. The Heidelberg Catechism- another authoritative document of the Reformed churches- declares " I am not to harm or recklessly endanger myself." Surely "extreme" sports- a moniker applied to these sports by the practitioners of them- are, by definition, not moderate and ergo are immoderate. You must tell me why they do not come under the category forbidden by the catechisms or why I should discard the declaration of a binding constitutional document (in my case the LC) in preference to your subjective feelings on the matter. It should also be noted that under the sixth commandment the LC also prohibits "excessive passions". Is not one of the main reasons for these extreme sports the rush of adrenaline, excitement, the sense of danger? These are surely excessive passions which are completely unnecessary.

None of the Scripture you reference gives a justification for the activities you have mentioned. Climbing a mountain is not subduing it. Extreme mountain biking is not subduing the land. Where are the examples in Scripture of the Lord settling His people on perilous mountain peaks? Rather it is in the wide open valleys He took them. I do not claim this as a prohibition of any specific activity. I reference it merely as an example of how the Lord has led His people to settle the land. The history of human settlement repeats this pattern. You have claimed the Lord's command to replenish and subdue the Earth makes extreme, or immoderate, recreations lawful. But I do not see the history in Scripture of bearing that interpretation out.

You ask who will judge what is lawful for other people: me? And then you go ahead and offer your own categorical judgements on what activities are lawful. I am no more bound to your subjective judgment as to what is lawful as you are to mine. You criticise me for calling certain activities sinful (in this discussion I have called no specific activity sinful) and then you make the categorical, objective statement that the activities to which you refer are "legitimate". Again, on what authority?

Once more I have condemned no specific activity here. I have raised concerns as to a laissez-fare attitude in regards this matter. As you can give me no scripture reference declaring your activities lawful (and I can give none prohibiting them by name) we must go on general principles found in Scripture. Matthew 4:7 "It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." (by the by spoken in the context of Satan tempting Christ to jump off from a very high peak); Matthew 25:52 "for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." And, of course, the sixth commandment itself. We have the teachings of godly men from the past as to dangerous sports. And we have the nature of the sports themselves.

Finally, I did not say that necessity was the supreme factor in judging the lawfulness of any particular activity. I added it to a list of other factors which should be considered. But certainly necessity would overrule "lovely" as a consideration.
Forgive me if I have misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that dangerous sports were sinful, since by the interpretations of the sixth commandment that you cited, they are violations of it. To violate the 6th commandment is sin, therefore you can see why I thought you were saying that.
My point is that many things that are seen as dangerous by the uninitiated are actually quite safe to those with prudence and skill. In this case specifically Dan Osman, whom was accused of idiocy by another responder. I concur that we must not tempt God by doing things recklessly; but I say that most of what are called "Extreme sports" (which is largely a marketing slogan) are carried out in perfect safety by the competent. So then recklessness is a moving target: what for my daughter would be reckless, say, driving an 18-wheeler down the freeway, is perfectly safe for a trained and qualified trucker.
As for your issue with my interpretation of the 6th commandment--well, I don't read a lot of dead guys, so I don't know if it's cropped up elsewhere. But I think it's pretty good. Every sin begins with our intentions and dispositions, why should this one not as well?
 
Forgive me if I have misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that dangerous sports were sinful, since by the interpretations of the sixth commandment that you cited, they are violations of it. To violate the 6th commandment is sin, therefore you can see why I thought you were saying that.
My point is that many things that are seen as dangerous by the uninitiated are actually quite safe to those with prudence and skill. In this case specifically Dan Osman, whom was accused of idiocy by another responder. I concur that we must not tempt God by doing things recklessly; but I say that most of what are called "Extreme sports" (which is largely a marketing slogan) are carried out in perfect safety by the competent. So then recklessness is a moving target: what for my daughter would be reckless, say, driving an 18-wheeler down the freeway, is perfectly safe for a trained and qualified trucker.
As for your issue with my interpretation of the 6th commandment--well, I don't read a lot of dead guys, so I don't know if it's cropped up elsewhere. But I think it's pretty good. Every sin begins with our intentions and dispositions, why should this one not as well?

No need to apologise for anything. I certainly don't want to come across as being tricky so I will readily say that I may think some or many of the activities mentioned in this thread are violations of the sixth commandment. However I think it is more productive to speak about principles rather than running off a laundry list of what is and isn't permissable.

I accept that certain dangerous activities can be made considerably safer by training and practice. But what I would argue is that is the risk- and there will always be a risk with these sports- justified when what one is doing is merely a voluntary recreation? And even the most well trained sportsmen and mountaineers have died as a result of their partaking in these activities: deaths which were 100% preventable and unnecessary.

Certainly disposition of heart is very important. But certain things are sins regardless of our own thoughts on the matter. Certain actions are objectively sinful, for example lawful recreations performed on the sabbath.
 
Years, decades ago, on 60 Minutes there was a feature on US Navy Admiral Alene Duerk. In 1972 she became the first women to achieve that rank. They had a film clip of her, then a very old women, speaking before a graduating class of female officers in the navy, and she said, "Ships in port are safe, but that is not what ships are made for."

That quote impressed me so much that I remember it all these years later. I was a union ironworker, erecting structural steel, for 20 years, until injuries sustained on the job forced me to find another way to earn my daily bread. During my years ironworking I've seen a friend fall to his death, 85 feet to the ground, right before my eyes. I've personally known another half dozen who met the same end.

As a young man I loved doing ironwork. Walking I-beams high in the air, free climbing columns, no harnesses or safety cables in those days. It was a time when the liberals began their attack on 'toxic masculinity, and I was proud to be pursuing a trade that was as masculine as they come.

Did some mountain biking too up into my 60s, and I had the broken bones and stitches to prove it. In this present evil world I'm glad I'm an old man and on the last leg of my sojourn in this world of time, but the only thing that would make me desire to be young again would be getting back on that high steel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top