in reply to If a safe, affordable anti-ageing treatment that extended life indefinitely were to become available, would you take it?

Just came across this:

http://www.gocomics.com/wizardofid/2002/11/06

which succinctly expresses the theological case for a “No” vote.

Athanasius <°(((>< contra mundum Iustus alius egestas vitae, eros Piratica,

  • Comment on Re: If a safe, affordable anti-ageing treatment that extended life indefinitely were to become available, would you take it?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: If a safe, affordable anti-ageing treatment that extended life indefinitely were to become available, would you take it?
by chacham (Prior) on Nov 11, 2014 at 14:30 UTC

    Cute, really, but...according to that, why don't the practitioners kill themselves? Okay, can't take action...so don't eat or use medicine, that's passive.

    As the practitioners do try to keep their life going, what's the difference between that and and anti-ageing pill?

[reply]

      Here is the Apostle Paul on the Christian’s prospect of bodily death:

      So we are always confident, even though we know that as long as we live in these bodies we are not at home with the Lord. For we live by believing and not by seeing. Yes, we are fully confident, and we would rather be away from these earthly bodies, for then we will be at home with the Lord. So whether we are here in this body or away from this body, our goal is to please him. — 2 Corinthians 5:6–9 (NLT)

      In the New Testament, the Christian is often likened to a soldier fighting a battle. No soldier wants to be dishonourably discharged for dereliction of duty. But all soldiers long for the time when their tour of duty is over and they can return honourably to their homes and loved ones.

      Athanasius <°(((>< contra mundum Iustus alius egestas vitae, eros Piratica,

[reply]

        The sentiment is there, i agree. But then why take any medicine at all? What or where exactly is the difference between the two?

[reply]

In Section Past Polls