How to respond to the "Expedite Heaven" argument from nonbelievers?

[dostoyevskyfan]

I got into an argument elsewhere a while ago with some atheists. I initially posed the question, “Why don’t you expedite the inevitable?” (to use a euphemistic phrase). This question, ironically, was the central object of contemplation for the atheist, Albert Camus.

It also puzzled Roman Catholic convert, and theistic existentialist, Walker Percy. Why do so many atheists put up with suffering? Why do they put up with non-suffering? To what end? Especially when you reach the period in your life where the pain outweighs the pleasure…life support, decaying body, viagra, rogaine, memory loss, …etc.

Incidentally, it was brought to my attention during the discussion that many atheists DO believe in an afterlife, even though the ones to whom I was speaking did not…

Anyway, for someone who believes that consciousness terminates at the grave, then the “meaning of life” is arbitrarily created by the subject while he/she still exists; once he expires then so does the subjective meaning of their life. All their earthy actions are, essentially, futile and rendered irrelevant. Pain and pleasure experienced in life are also irrelevant since there will be no memory of any of it after death. By not committing suicide, the non-believer in the afterlife is just delaying the inevitable return to pre-natal nonexistence.

Instead of answering the question, they pointed out that I believe in an eternal paradise, and the question was reversed. After explaining to them what “mortal sin” is and what it means to be in a state of “grace”, they modified the question.

**They asked, “why don’t Catholics who wish to get to heaven faster, engage in activities that are not considered mortal (eg. smoking, eating McDonalds) which will shorten the amount of time we spend in this earthly kingdom ruled by Satan, and expedite our trip to heaven to be in paradise with God?”

How do you respond? **

 

[fhansen]

I got into an argument elsewhere a while ago with some atheists. I initially posed the question, “Why don’t you expedite the inevitable?” (to use a euphemistic phrase). This question, ironically, was the central object of contemplation for the atheist, Albert Camus.

It also puzzled Roman Catholic convert, and theistic existentialist, Walker Percy. Why do so many atheists put up with suffering? Why do they put up with non-suffering? To what end? Especially when you reach the period in your life where the pain outweighs the pleasure…life support, decaying body, viagra, rogaine, memory loss, …etc.

Incidentally, it was brought to my attention during the discussion that many atheists DO believe in an afterlife, even though the ones to whom I was speaking did not…

Anyway, for someone who believes that consciousness terminates at the grave, then the “meaning of life” is arbitrarily created by the subject while he/she still exists; once he expires then so does the subjective meaning of their life. All their earthy actions are, essentially, futile and rendered irrelevant. Pain and pleasure experienced in life are also irrelevant since there will be no memory of any of it after death. By not committing suicide, the non-believer in the afterlife is just delaying the inevitable return to pre-natal nonexistence.

Instead of answering the question, they pointed out that I believe in an eternal paradise, and the question was reversed. After explaining to them what “mortal sin” is and what it means to be in a state of “grace”, they modified the question.

**They asked, “why don’t Catholics who wish to get to heaven faster, engage in activities that are not considered mortal (eg. smoking, eating McDonalds) which will shorten the amount of time we spend in this earthly kingdom ruled by Satan, and expedite our trip to heaven to be in paradise with God?”

How do you respond? **

We’re pro life as a matter of faith. Anything we consciously do to shorten life-any “sin that leads to death” (1John 5:16)-is certainly a mortal one.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

**They asked, “why don’t Catholics who wish to get to heaven faster, engage in activities that are not considered mortal (eg. smoking, eating McDonalds) which will shorten the amount of time we spend in this earthly kingdom ruled by Satan, and expedite our trip to heaven to be in paradise with God?”

How do you respond? **

The disposition to attach oneself to heavenly goods is a disposition unreconcilable with Christian faith.

 

[Betterave]

**They asked, “why don’t Catholics who wish to get to heaven faster, engage in activities that are not considered mortal (eg. smoking, eating McDonalds) which will shorten the amount of time we spend in this earthly kingdom ruled by Satan, and expedite our trip to heaven to be in paradise with God?”

How do you respond? **

Acting to intentionally compromise one’s health, to damage the temple of the Holy Spirit, would be, I believe, a quite possibly mortal sin against the fifth commandment.

CCC 2269: “The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death.”

We are called to establish God’s kingom, to fight the rule of Satan over the earth. Sinning in the way you suggest would be doing the opposite. If one felt called to martyrdom, on the other hand, perhaps it would be legitimate to head to Pakistan, for example, and to preach the gospel - which would like shorten one’s earthly life and in a morally licit way. But this would only be legitimate if one sincerely believed doing so was God’s will. Acting without regard to God’s sovereignty over life and death is always potentially mortally sinful.

 

[JDaniel]

I got into an argument elsewhere a while ago with some atheists. I initially posed the question, “Why don’t you expedite the inevitable?” (to use a euphemistic phrase). This question, ironically, was the central object of contemplation for the atheist, Albert Camus.

It also puzzled Roman Catholic convert, and theistic existentialist, Walker Percy. Why do so many atheists put up with suffering? Why do they put up with non-suffering? To what end? Especially when you reach the period in your life where the pain outweighs the pleasure…life support, decaying body, viagra, rogaine, memory loss, …etc.

Incidentally, it was brought to my attention during the discussion that many atheists DO believe in an afterlife, even though the ones to whom I was speaking did not…

Anyway, for someone who believes that consciousness terminates at the grave, then the “meaning of life” is arbitrarily created by the subject while he/she still exists; once he expires then so does the subjective meaning of their life. All their earthy actions are, essentially, futile and rendered irrelevant. Pain and pleasure experienced in life are also irrelevant since there will be no memory of any of it after death. By not committing suicide, the non-believer in the afterlife is just delaying the inevitable return to pre-natal nonexistence.

Instead of answering the question, they pointed out that I believe in an eternal paradise, and the question was reversed. After explaining to them what “mortal sin” is and what it means to be in a state of “grace”, they modified the question.

**They asked, “why don’t Catholics who wish to get to heaven faster, engage in activities that are not considered mortal (eg. smoking, eating McDonalds) which will shorten the amount of time we spend in this earthly kingdom ruled by Satan, and expedite our trip to heaven to be in paradise with God?”

How do you respond? **

That is a very good question. I have a suspicion that some Catholics do just that, especially by eating those delicious Big Macs, and those scrumptious fries and milk shakes. Then, after lunch, there’s always time for a good smoke. And after work, a couple of brewskies for the trip home. Some may be hurrying their lives along without realizing it. Maybe, others do.

But, one never knows. I have worked for people who were in their 90’s and smoked most of their lives. I have known people who became grossly overweight, and lived well into their 80’s. There’s a TV show, the name of which I can’t remember, but, the concept is that there a 1,000 ways to die in a day’s time. Then, they proceed to show examples that some people have chosen.

Chance is a cause. Much different, to be sure, from matter, form, efficient, and final, but, it is a cause. Chance occurrences are usually the causes of Death. It’s funny but, the older one gets the more one becomes OK with dying, but, the less one wants to die. I don’t understand that.

Anyway, you might just say to your opponents, “You first!”

God bless,
jd

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

The problem lies with omission as well as positive action…would you agree that these actions are “mortal sin”?

Positive action:

skydiving
sunbathing
skiing
motorcycle riding
climbing K2
competing in the luge at the olympics
dirtbiking
surfing in Teahupoo
bull running
donating a kidney
donating a lung
eating creampuffs
traveling in europe (second hand smoke)
becoming a workoholic

omission:
not having friends (yes shortens your life)
not eating 7 vegetables a day
not exercising
not eating tofu
not taking vitamins
not living at high altitudes
not going outside
not being in the holy sacrament of matrimony (ie not having a sex life for the purposes of procreation)
not being a vegetarian
not receiving regular medical exams

 

[AntiTheist]

Why do so many atheists put up with suffering? Why do they put up with non-suffering? To what end? Especially when you reach the period in your life where the pain outweighs the pleasure…life support, decaying body, viagra, rogaine, memory loss, …etc.

Because our genes prompt us to want to survive at any cost, and this instinct is very strong in most people.

 

[JohnDamian]

They asked, "why don’t Catholics who wish to get to heaven faster, engage in activities that are not considered mortal (eg. smoking, eating McDonalds) which will shorten the amount of time we spend in this earthly kingdom ruled by Satan, and expedite our trip to heaven to be in paradise with God?"

I am surprised that many people mention health as an important factor; and are stating that damaging ones health is a mortal sin. This contradicts the hundreds of Saint’s who practice mortification and restraint; it even contradicts Jesus’ fasting; and the Martyrdom and confession of the faith of thousands of people.

No; the answer to the question is somewhat different;

Obviously; we have been given life for a reason; and it would do a dis-service to ourselves and God for us to throw away this life; waste this life; or needlessly damage this life for no purpose. Whilst it is clear that shortening one’s life is not necessarily bad (in the case of confessors and martyrs) it is akin to wasting one’s gift if we throw it away purposelessly. Obviously as we are created; there is a purpose in our lives; to avoid this purpose by way of laziness is to disown our responsibilities in living a good, fruitful and christian life.

 

[awatkins69]

It’s a sin to do any action expressly to kill any innocent person, including yourself. So even if we had some other reason not to, at the very least we should not kill ourselves because it is a sin which God would punish us for. But aside from that, yes, we should want to go to heaven rather than stay in this world, this “vale of tears”.

“But I am straitened between two: having a desire to be dissolved (that is, dead) and to be with Christ, a thing by far the better. But to abide still in the flesh, is needful for you.” As we can see, Saint Paul even says that he’d rather die and be eternally happy. But he will stay to do God’s will and help his neighbor. So, like Saint Paul, out of love for God we should want to do God’s will first.

 

[tonyrey]

It is an absurd question to which the reply is:

Would God give us this life so that we can kill ourselves and others as soon as possible?

 

[colmcille1]

Because our genes prompt us to want to survive at any cost, and this instinct is very strong in most people.

By this reasoning, if " our genes prompt us to want to survive", are not those self-same genes" prompting" us to look at the" why" of said survival; to look at concepts of “us” and “people”? IOW, would we not question the automatic endowment of these genes with the wherewithal to prompt us? Would we not seek a higher power?

God Bless,

Colmcille1.

 

[Betterave]

By this reasoning, if " our genes prompt us to want to survive", are not those self-same genes" prompting" us to look at the" why" of said survival; to look at concepts of “us” and “people”? IOW, would we not question the automatic endowment of these genes with the wherewithal to prompt us? Would we not seek a higher power?

God Bless,

Colmcille1.

Interesting question!

dostoyevskyfan:
The actions you mention are indeed not mortal sins, in themselves, but it seems they could well be when undertaken with the sole intention of giving fate the opportunity to kill us sooner rather than later. The same would be true for fasting and mortification.

 

[tonyrey]

It’s funny but, the older one gets the more one becomes OK with dying, but, the less one wants to die. I don’t understand that.

The older I become the more I appreciate life but as it is a miracle I am still alive I accept the prospect of death without regret - and with curiosity, not to mention hope!

 

[ThomasToo]

It is an absurd question to which the reply is:

Would God give us this life so that we can kill ourselves and others as soon as possible?

Doesn’t that just beg the question?

 

[Areopagite]

**They asked, “why don’t Catholics who wish to get to heaven faster, engage in activities that are not considered mortal (eg. smoking, eating McDonalds) which will shorten the amount of time we spend in this earthly kingdom ruled by Satan, and expedite our trip to heaven to be in paradise with God?”
**

Eating McDonalds IS a mortal sin.

Smoking is a virtue.

 

[Big_Dummy]

I would say we do participate in life threating activies every time we drive somewhere. lol

Seriously, I would point out that it is God’s will for us to serve others and bring others to Jesus. By overeating and other such activities we may be in fact going contray to God’s will, thus a sin.

 

[Slowlearner]

**They asked, “why don’t Catholics who wish to get to heaven faster, engage in activities that are not considered mortal (eg. smoking, eating McDonalds) which will shorten the amount of time we spend in this earthly kingdom ruled by Satan, and expedite our trip to heaven to be in paradise with God?”

How do you respond? **

Theological question: is not God’s Kingdom here? Thus, we might say, “Satan rules the world.” But through Christ we can be present in God’s Kingdom while alive.

From Catholic Encyclopedia: "The kingdom of god means, then, the ruling of God in our hearts; it means those principles which separate us off from the kingdom of the world and the devil ; it means the benign sway of grace; it means the Church as that Divine institution whereby we may make sure of attaining the spirit of Christ and so win that ultimate kingdom of God Where He reigns without end in “the holy city, the New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God " ( Revelation 21:2 ).”

Life is our time for acting in this material world. If we recognize the Kingdom is at hand, we can act and work to become Holier and can increase our communion with God while alive. And we can experience joy while doing it. What a gift.

 

[tonyrey]

Would God give us this life so that we can kill ourselves and others as soon as possible?

It asks the question! What is your answer?

 

[ThomasToo]

It asks the question! What is your answer?

I actually–for once–wasn’t trying to argue. The question isn’t mine to answer since I don’t think God gave us life (and I’d really prefer to not derail this thread with my thoughts on the topic).

There’s always this option, miscellanea.wellingtongrey.net/2009/02/23/reckless/.

 

[tonyrey]

I actually–for once–wasn’t trying to argue. The question isn’t mine to answer since I don’t think God gave us life (and I’d really prefer to not derail this thread with my thoughts on the topic).

There’s always this option, miscellanea.wellingtongrey.net/2009/02/23/reckless/.

As the question was posed in answer to an atheist’s argument what you (don’t) believe is irrelevant. The issue is whether his argument is valid… and if not why not?