Risky hobbies?

Status
Not open for further replies.

arapahoepark

Puritan Board Professor
So in lieu of hearing that the Christian tightrope walkers are walking across Times Square this evening, I have trouble that they call upon God to help them in this risky (more like life threatening, playing Russian roulette) profession (as well as it being on the Lord's day). But, what about other things, or hobbies like rock climbing; Are they qualitatively different? Are risky feats fundamentally selfish? Where is the line drawn?
 
I personally wouldn't take risks for selfish thrilling fulfillment. Taking risks for love of others I surely would do, but not for my own flesh. Much of it would come down to pride. I could risk my life climbing a crazy mountain, but the only purpose would be to boast in my accomplishment. This I see as pointless. I think the Lord would have us be wise with what we do with our bodies, and take our family, friends, and church into consideration when deciding what we do with them.
 
Last edited:
Are risky feats fundamentally selfish? Where is the line drawn?
I appreciate the question. It's one I've considered many times. I heartily agree with Ryan's answer on this. Many of these things strike me as vainglorious stunts aimed at nothing more than garnering the praise of men while exposing oneself and others (e.g. rescue personnel) to extreme danger.
 
In the case of those people that is how they earn their living. They are part of a family of performers that have been acrobats and high wire walkers for generations. Sport sky divers, bungee jumpers, and the like do it for the thrill.

For twenty years I was a union ironworker. Much of the time engaged in structural steel erection. I walked I-beams, climbed columns on high steel for years. Saw a friend fall and die in real time, and knew a half a dozen more who went off the iron to their death. That was how I earned my living. I never thought of it as sin, and I don't think the 'Flying' Wallendas would see their vocation as sin either.
 
Every time my wife hears about Mount Everest climbers on TV she reactively says, "idiots!" Ha...I agree (unless they are poor sherpas just trying to earn a buck).
 
A recent documentary I watched. Crazy risk. The climber does describe himself as a militant atheist. I enjoyed the documentary, but it reminded me that man will worship the creation and not the creator even if they "claim" to be an atheist.:detective:

 
Last edited:
Do you like the risky hobby because of the risk, or despite some reasonable risk? This is the key question. We should not be getting a thrill out of risking our lives (or watching other people risk their lives). But many enjoyable and even necessary activities involve some reasonable risk.
 
A recent documentary I watched. Crazy risk. The climber does describe himself as a militant atheist. I enjoyed the documentary in that it reminded me that man will worship the creation and not the creator even if they "claim" to be an atheist.:detective:


I watched the entire film in Portrush Cinema recently (they show stuff on a Thursday night that does not get coverage in regular cinemas), and was struck at the utter madness of the whole thing. In Northern Ireland, we are infamous for road racing (racing motorbikes on the public roads); this practice results in several deaths every year, yet hardly anyone seems to care. Ironically, the most popular road races take place at Portrush during the North West 200. I never go near the place when it is on, as I do not wish to partake in the sin of such reckless sixth commandment breaking.

N.B. Portrush is also the venue of The Open golf tournament this year ... a rather less dangerous pastime.
 
At this point in my life I view commuting with a motorcycle as an unacceptable risk (for me), but I rode one when I was younger and without dependents. That seems more like prudence/imprudence rather than sin/not sin.

On the other hand, I enjoy going to remote wilderness areas, and there is some implicit risk in being somewhat far from immediate help should disaster strike. I have considered that acceptable, given the nature of the thing.

But, I'm not going to tell an astronaut that they shouldn't go into space, or Shackleton that he shouldn't explore Antarctica because those are things that are too dangerous for me.
 
The explorers who sailed across the ocean were taking what were, in the opinion of many, "unnecessary risks." So too were the pioneers who travelled westward across (first) the Appalachians and (then) the Mississippi. There are things that from the outside looking in appear to be sheer folly, but upon closer inspection there is actual science, (perhaps even art!), preparation, and skill at play.

How one earns their living, as long as it isn't immoral, is between them, their family, and God. And remembering that it is their livelihood, why would they *not* beseech God to grant them fruitfulness in their endeavors?

I praise God for bold, risk-taking people. Even when they're "merely" entertaining us, they remind us of what humans can do with enough focus and determination.
 
I think that the point Ben makes is a good one to keep in mind. There is, however, a difference between doing something that is a bit risky (getting out of bed in the morning is a risk) and doing something that is borderline suicidal.
 
There was some footage of the Wallendas' stunt on the news this morning and I couldn't help but notice they were both wearing safety harnesses attached to thin steel cables hanging from above. They were in no danger of bodily harm. Most mountain climbers, free climbers and the Everest bunch excepted, also practice their sport in a relatively safe manner. Personally I'm more concerned about the bodily harm that results from sports that lead to routine concussions - especially boxing, MMA, and American football. CTE affects a lot of athletes.
 
The Open golf tournament this year
'

Now THAT is a hazardous sport.

"nearly 7 in 10 amateurs and 9 in 10 professionals will suffer a golf-related injury at least once in a lifetime."

Approximately 1 death a year in the US from lightning.

15k injuries a year from golf carts.

Compare that to injuries and deaths from tightrope walking.
 
'

Now THAT is a hazardous sport.

"nearly 7 in 10 amateurs and 9 in 10 professionals will suffer a golf-related injury at least once in a lifetime."

Approximately 1 death a year in the US from lightning.

15k injuries a year from golf carts.

Compare that to injuries and deaths from tightrope walking.

I submit to your correction. Any time that I have tried to play golf with a driver, I have injured my shoulder by missing the ball and striking the ground with my club.
 
A recent documentary I watched. Crazy risk. The climber does describe himself as a militant atheist. I enjoyed the documentary, but it reminded me that man will worship the creation and not the creator even if they "claim" to be an atheist.:detective:
Not to mimimize the fellow's courage, and ability ... but the late Dan Osman's 'speed climb' at Lover's Leap, California was something to behold.
 
So in lieu of hearing that the Christian tightrope walkers are walking across Times Square this evening, I have trouble that they call upon God to help them in this risky (more like life threatening, playing Russian roulette) profession (as well as it being on the Lord's day). But, what about other things, or hobbies like rock climbing; Are they qualitatively different? Are risky feats fundamentally selfish? Where is the line drawn?

I think HC 105 speaks to this issue

105 Q. What is God’s will for you
in the sixth commandment?
A. I am not to belittle, hate, insult, or kill my neighbor—
not by my thoughts, my words, my look or gesture,
and certainly not by actual deeds—
and I am not to be party to this in others;
rather, I am to put away all desire for revenge.
I am not to harm or recklessly endanger myself either.
Prevention of murder is also why
government is armed with the sword.
 
Many people enjoy mountain biking, but there is a risk of falling and getting hurt or killed. I enjoy roller skating inside, but there is risk that I could fall and hurt myself. I know that I'm more likely to hurt myself when the rink is crowded, so I try to go when there aren't as many people around. It's exercise that I enjoy. I could also get hurt going for a jog or lifting something, but does that mean I shouldn't do those things?
 
I suppose many of my hobbies or former vocations can be considered risky by others. I was a SCUBA instructor. I've been an aerial applicator (crop duster). I worked in a war zone in the Middle East. I sail homemade boats and now I'm building an airplane. The activities have one thing in common: I relish them and learn much from them.

There seems to be a practical aspect to these things. If you are doing it to show off, the risk might be higher than you even understand. But if you do it to see if you can do it, maybe the risk is quite manageable and acceptable.

The difference might be as basic as whether you are focused on the task or on if others are watching. I've seen too often variations of "Watch this" end in disaster.
 
I could also get hurt going for a jog or lifting something, but does that mean I shouldn't do those things?

I've well documented my position on exercise here on PB. My two worst injuries occurred 1) while walking across the street, in a cross walk, with a walk light; and 2) walking into a 7-11 and tripping over a tire bumper.
 
Not to mimimize the fellow's courage, and ability ... but the late Dan Osman's 'speed climb' at Lover's Leap, California was something to behold.

This is incredible but does give an example of idiocy. This is probably an example of a hobby or profession people shouldn't engage in. He died so young and left behind a daughter.
 
I suppose many of my hobbies or former vocations can be considered risky by others. I was a SCUBA instructor. I've been an aerial applicator (crop duster). I worked in a war zone in the Middle East. I sail homemade boats and now I'm building an airplane. The activities have one thing in common: I relish them and learn much from them.

There seems to be a practical aspect to these things. If you are doing it to show off, the risk might be higher than you even understand. But if you do it to see if you can do it, maybe the risk is quite manageable and acceptable.

The difference might be as basic as whether you are focused on the task or on if others are watching. I've seen too often variations of "Watch this" end in disaster.
Plane... I figured you’d moved onto building an ion propelled interstellar vessel by now having already solved Musk’s Martian bound travel problems.
 
The explorers who sailed across the ocean were taking what were, in the opinion of many, "unnecessary risks." So too were the pioneers who travelled westward across (first) the Appalachians and (then) the Mississippi. There are things that from the outside looking in appear to be sheer folly, but upon closer inspection there is actual science, (perhaps even art!), preparation, and skill at play.

How one earns their living, as long as it isn't immoral, is between them, their family, and God. And remembering that it is their livelihood, why would they *not* beseech God to grant them fruitfulness in their endeavors?

I praise God for bold, risk-taking people. Even when they're "merely" entertaining us, they remind us of what humans can do with enough focus and determination.

Well that's the question isn't: is it immoral. Tight-rope walking across Times Square clearly is.
 
Last edited:
In the case of those people that is how they earn their living. They are part of a family of performers that have been acrobats and high wire walkers for generations. Sport sky divers, bungee jumpers, and the like do it for the thrill.

For twenty years I was a union ironworker. Much of the time engaged in structural steel erection. I walked I-beams, climbed columns on high steel for years. Saw a friend fall and die in real time, and knew a half a dozen more who went off the iron to their death. That was how I earned my living. I never thought of it as sin, and I don't think the 'Flying' Wallendas would see their vocation as sin either.

Many people enjoy mountain biking, but there is a risk of falling and getting hurt or killed. I enjoy roller skating inside, but there is risk that I could fall and hurt myself. I know that I'm more likely to hurt myself when the rink is crowded, so I try to go when there aren't as many people around. It's exercise that I enjoy. I could also get hurt going for a jog or lifting something, but does that mean I shouldn't do those things?

The issue is not risk but unnecessary risk. The Larger Catechism forbids "immoderate recreations". Working at great heights is a necessity in today's world because of the nature of our buildings. Nowadays great care is taken to make this job as safe as possible. But there will always be risk. These people may make their living out of this sort of stunt but there is no need for them to do so. It is a choice and it is a chouce which breaks the 6th Commandment.

Of course there is always risk in our day to day activities but what is the alternative? To stay home and not leave the house and so not go to church or work? Such an approach would be sin. And there is always the possibility of home invasion. We cannot escape risk in life but we can manage it and we adjudicate each thing we do whether the risk involved is justified.
 
This is incredible but does give an example of idiocy. This is probably an example of a hobby or profession people shouldn't engage in. He died so young and left behind a daughter.
Sarah, as someone who knew Dan Osman and did some rope-jumping with him (and was in Yosemite when he died), I can tell you that the climbing he did in those videos was not really dangerous for someone of his competence. Remember, he didn't die climbing without a rope (which is relatively safe if you're competent and prudent); he died jumping with a rope. It's different. In fact, if you look at well-known ropeless climbers, very few of them have died in a climbing fall--only three that I can think of. Usually something else (usually gravity-fed, unlike climbing) takes them.
While no one else can climb ropeless at Honnold's level (the guy in the first film), thousands of people climb stuff every day, without ropes, in perfect safety--or at least in as much safety as the average gutter-cleaner. Again, it's about competence, confidence, and prudence. With these three, rockclimbing is a healthy and lovely activity.
 
And necessity surely?
Is it necessary to take a walk in the woods? Surely not. But it is a pleasant pastime. Same as any other legitimate pastime. After all, God has given us all things freely to enjoy, even the crags and mountains. To have dominion over the creation was part of unfallen man's mandate. To explore the world and search out knowledge and achieve hard things is part of what was good in man before he fell, and is not in itself wrong now.
Having engaged in many things that people might consider "dangerous," my thought regarding this matter is that the sixth commandment must be judged here by the intent of the heart. Is one trying to get hurt or die? Or does he fully intend to come out alive and uninjured, to the point where death and injury are as much in his thoughts as the person who drives down the freeway every day (which, by the way, I find far more terrifying than nearly any other thing I've done).
If we judge every activity by what is absolutely necessary, we'll never do much. Is it necessary to post on PB? No. Perhaps I ought not to because looking at a screen might injure my eyes.
 
Is it necessary to take a walk in the woods? Surely not. But it is a pleasant pastime. Same as any other legitimate pastime. After all, God has given us all things freely to enjoy, even the crags and mountains. To have dominion over the creation was part of unfallen man's mandate. To explore the world and search out knowledge and achieve hard things is part of what was good in man before he fell, and is not in itself wrong now.
Having engaged in many things that people might consider "dangerous," my thought regarding this matter is that the sixth commandment must be judged here by the intent of the heart. Is one trying to get hurt or die? Or does he fully intend to come out alive and uninjured, to the point where death and injury are as much in his thoughts as the person who drives down the freeway every day (which, by the way, I find far more terrifying than nearly any other thing I've done).
If we judge every activity by what is absolutely necessary, we'll never do much. Is it necessary to post on PB? No. Perhaps I ought not to because looking at a screen might injure my eyes.

As I said above there is risk to some degree in almost all we do. We need objective standards by which to judge whether a particular activity is lawful or even wise. First we have to maintain the distinction between necessary duties and purely voluntary recreations. The same criteria are not necessarily applied to both.

Has God given us all things "freely" to enjoy? Where is this in Scripture? Did God give us the peak of Mt. Everest to enjoy in the way he gave us the land to farm? The history of human settlement would suggest otherwise. Were Adam and Eve commanded to explore the world before the Fall? God placed them in the garden, He didn't place them on top of a mountain. What knowledge are we to search out? "I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit." The only source of true, objective, infallible wisdom is the Word of God. And we don't need to climb a mountain or dive down to the depths to find that.

Your thought is that the the sixth commandment should be judged by the intent of one's heart. Where is that in the sixth commandment? Where is that subjective judgment in the exposition of the commandment in the Reformed catechisms? The commandments govern our hearts but the heart is subject to the commandment not the commandment to the heart. I would hope that the intent of people doing these things is not to die but that is irrelevant to whether they are foolish things to do.

And to compare activities like jumping out of planes or climbing dangerous mountains to staring at computer screens bespeaks a refusal to engage seriously with the issue.
 
As I said above there is risk to some degree in almost all we do. We need objective standards by which to judge whether a particular activity is lawful or even wise. First we have to maintain the distinction between necessary duties and purely voluntary recreations. The same criteria are not necessarily applied to both.

Has God given us all things "freely" to enjoy? Where is this in Scripture? Did God give us the peak of Mt. Everest to enjoy in the way he gave us the land to farm? The history of human settlement would suggest otherwise. Were Adam and Eve commanded to explore the world before the Fall? God placed them in the garden, He didn't place them on top of a mountain. What knowledge are we to search out? "I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit." The only source of true, objective, infallible wisdom is the Word of God. And we don't need to climb a mountain or dive down to the depths to find that.

Your thought is that the the sixth commandment should be judged by the intent of one's heart. Where is that in the sixth commandment? Where is that subjective judgment in the exposition of the commandment in the Reformed catechisms? The commandments govern our hearts but the heart is subject to the commandment not the commandment to the heart. I would hope that the intent of people doing these things is not to die but that is irrelevant to whether they are foolish things to do.

And to compare activities like jumping out of planes or climbing dangerous mountains to staring at computer screens bespeaks a refusal to engage seriously with the issue.
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top