Whats the point in saving a life?

If: the person is in grace, better not save her/him, there would go to heaven.

Ofcourse there is no possible way of knowing, so every time you see someone in danger you help them.

Now, whats the point, if they are going to keep sinning and end up in hell?

Doctors save the body, but not the spirit, then you are no doctor, saving a person in this worthless and insignificant life. A good doctor must make sure that his patience is also in good spiritual health, at least a catholic doctor should.

I really see no point in a doctors life, but increasing human population, extending a persons life, and thus increasing sin.

Now, if doctors would realize that this life is actually not important, they would shift their profession into doctors of the spirit and not the body. Sigh.

When I see someone in danger of loosing his life, I will obviously help him, but then realize I actually did nothing: if he was going to heaven I would feel bad about what I just did. If he was going to hell I would say: " I might have given this guy another chance" but what do i expect, a miraculous conversion? After I saved his life I will hope he chnages? And finds his way to heaven? Doctors are so ignorant.

Why do we get so crazy about people daying to this life and not daying to the important life?
Your opinion?

This is the pragmatic reason. Given a particular person, no matter how saintly they seem, you do not know that they are going to heaven.

This is also something that you don’t know, and which it would be uncharitable for you to act upon.

The above points noted, our reasons for saving lives and willing the good of other people are not purely pragmatic. Human life is an intrinsic good which we are obliged to defend, not because the person will convert and repent if we do (though that’s nice), but because it is a sin against our own nature and ends to allow someone to die when we had an obligation to protect their lives.

A good way of thinking about it is to avoid consequentialism, on both sides of the spectrum. Both means and ends must be proper. We are not obliged to save every life that we are able to save (which is why I said above that it is a sin to allow someone to die when we had an obligation to protect their lives, rather than in any case in which we are capable of saving them). For instance, you are not obliged to sell your house today and donate all of your money to charity, although that might save many lives. You are, however, obliged (perhaps) to sell some of your nonessential possessions if your child becomes sick and that is the only way you can get money, because you, as a parent, would have an intrinsic obligation to help your child. (It may even be a sin against prudence to sell your house and donate all of your money, if you have children under your care, while in other circumstances it would be a selfless action.)

On the other hand, we also can’t perform evil for good purposes. We can’t kill infants immediately after baptizing them. They might go straight to heaven after having been cleansed of original sin and without having a chance to fall out of grace. But it is a sin against our own nature to murder, to kill innocent life.

Its in fact the other way around, its a sin to let someone go to hell, nothing happens if you let someone lose their body. Thats not importatnt, the spirit is.

I am well aware that there is no way to know if a person is going to hell or hevean. We have no obligation to save people, if not as you well said, we will sell everything to save as much as we can. Thats not our job. Regardong family, we are all a big family, and sons of God. " love each other as yoursleves" if its your son or an unknown person it makes no difference.

But again, we are not obligated to save them.

Agreed with the rest. You cant perform evil for good purposes. Its a contradiction. And its againt the law of God, and his will.

But again, not saving someone does not equal killing them. There is no obligation to save.

This is what I want to point out. You said there is an obligation to save the body. What about the soul? a million times more important.

God created us to live in this world as well as the next. Your question implies that the body serves no useful purpose and the sooner we die the better!

  1. It is not a sin to let someone go to hell. That is not something you have power over.
  2. It is false that “nothing happens if you let someone lose their body,” if you in fact had an obligation to protect them (doctors have such an obligation to their patients, and parents have such an obligation to their children, but you do not have such an obligation to every person on the other side of the world).
  3. The Catholic Church does not advocate a duality of body and spirit, whereby one is valuable and the other is not.

In general, yes. The exceptions are where other circumstances generate the obligation to save (ie. the doctor, the parent, the law enforcement officer).

The soul is important, and we should all do our part for the spiritual welfare of others. But we are not ultimately capable of saving others’ souls. Only God can do that.

Indeed, I want to die and go to heaven as soon as possible. My biggest desire is to die and be with our lord Jesus Christ and all his glory. You shouls fell the same way.

Still, our life has a purpose, so we must use our earthly life to glorify God.

And no, we were created for heaven not earth. Its natural to fell home sick.

Still that is no what I mean, what I mean is that people should be more consern on saving the soul rather than the body, mainly doctors.

Saving the body alone is considered and mediocre job, and with almost no significance.

As long as you don’t will your own death or behave negligently/imprudently toward your own health, which you have an obligation to protect.

We were created as embodied, material subjects. We will survive death, but we are part of God’s kingdom on earth. (This is why the resurrection of the body is important. We are not complete without our bodies.)

Doctors do important work that has plenty of significance. We have to live in this world. There is no need for a bifurcation between the body and spirit.

It was an exageration, I know its not a sin.

Again, we are all equal in the eyes of God. If you feel obligated to protect and save your son, you should feel the same way for others too, just as God teaches, just as Mother Teresa did.

Still our biggets efforts should be put in saving the soul not the body.

The catholic church sustains that the soul is a more important than the body, it is in the bible.

God created us for heaven** and** earth. It is unnatural not to regard this world as our home and unreasonable not to appreciate it while we are here.

Still that is no what I mean, what I mean is that people should be more consern on saving the soul rather than the body, mainly doctors.

Saving the body alone is considered and mediocre job, and with almost no significance.

Why did God give us a body if it has almost no significance? :confused:

earth. It is unnatural not to regard this world as our home while we are here.

Why did God give us a body if it has almost no significance?

No significance compared with the soul.

Again, we were created for heaven.

If you wanna call this planet your home, go ahead, you wont change the fact that its not.

Still thats not the point, the point is that people who save a life should feel an obligation to helping this person to get back on track regarding spirituality, if not, your saving was for nothing.

Yes, indeed. To live in this world so that we can draw closer to G-d by means of living our faith through loving and caring for others, making the world a better place, and fulfilling our G-d-given talents. After all, we were created in the image and likeness of G-d for a purpose. Otherwise, why were we born at all and what is the reason for this sojourn on earth?

Does not the Gospel of John say no greater love hath a man than to lay down his life for a friend? And does not the Talmud say that whosoever saves one life saves the world entire? Is this not the kind of behavior that one witnesses in saints?

Thats what I mean! If there is no need for bifurcation between body and soul, why do doctors only care about the body? What kind of doctor is that? If there is no bifucation, why cant a docotr do both, a doctor must do both, body health and spiritual health.

I have an obligation to protect my life. Mmmm thats tricky.

Do you mean that if i need to taje the bus to go to work every day I am not protecting my life.? Everyone that smokes is not protecting their life. Everyone that does no wear a seat belt is attenting againt their life, in fact everyone that uses a car… If you tae a flight, you are violating your obligation to protect your life. If you eat unhealthly. Pretty much everyone, as todays food is genetically modified, full of conservants and chemicals thar are no good for us. Even by drking juice your are contaminating your body. Where is the limit.

Off topic tho.

Problem with the “o”? : D


Still, the reason for our creation is beyond our comprehension, but this sojourn on earth is consequence of the original sin ofcourse.

After reading your first post I thought you might be in need of some counseling. But after seeing your response to further posts, I think what I am seeing is you have a concern for Evangelism and making sure people understand they are saved. It is a concern more Christians should have. It has benefits as well:

James 5:19-20 English Standard Version (ESV)
19 My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, 20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

That said, we do need to be concerned for this life as well because it is a gift of God and it is through us that God can bring people back to himself. Ephesians 2:10 says God has prepared work for all of us, and if he’s given us work, we need to do it. It can be through our work that God has planned to bring souls back to him which were lost as James describes above.

Our heavenly journey does not begin at our death, it begins at our Baptism. So while we will fully realize the benefits of our adoption as sons and daughters of God when we pass from this world, our lives in this world are part of the Kingdom as well.

So while I am grateful for your fervor of seeing souls with Chrst after this life, we do need to do the work here as well.


I totally understand that. We all have a mission here on earth. But that does not mean that we dont feel home sick fromtime to time, or with desire to go to heaven for once and for all.

I think Peter wrote about feeling lime this in one of his letters but I cant find the passage.

Anyways, I am not saying that there is no purpose for us here, I am saying that after you save someones body you should try to save their soul too, whixh is far more important.

Actually, as my username implies, it is unnatural to treat the world as home.

“Beloved, I urge you as aliens and sojourners to keep away from worldly desires that wage war against the soul” - 1 Peter 2:11
See all 1 Chronicles 29:15, actually, let me quote it, its good: "For we stand before you as aliens: we are only your guests, like all our fathers. our life on earth is like a shadow that does not abide.

Still, I disagree with the OP. And, I fear that the OP has fallen into some kind of heresy. It reminds me a lot of the Albigensian heresy. And a kind of Gnostic/ Dualism.

Its just a thought lol. No heresy, no sickness, no missconception, no nothing.

Its just something that bothers me and I am trying to get an answer.

Edit: its an argument against doctors and this corrupted world who has forgotten we are spiritual beings and just consider humanity one more animal.

Its a critic againt their way of proceeding and priority list.

I found it troubleing how someone can say to a doctor “good job” after saving a guy that is now sinning againt God and getting more near to hell each time.

Is your qualm mainly directed at doctors?

Anyways, at the end of the day, we don’t save souls, the Holy Spirit does. I’m reminded of Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta. Mother Teresa was definitely interested in the temporal welfare of many people… caring for the sick, and nursing them back to health. But, she was also intensely interested in their spiritual salvation as well. And, many people converted because of her. However, that doesn’t represent a majority of the people she treated.

The vast majority of the people she treated weren’t Christians, and probably didn’t become Christians. But, she planted seeds. In some people, those seeds were watered and grew by the Holy Spirit, in most cases they did not grow (look at 1 Corinthians 3:6 for example).

We are charged to fulfill the Great Commission, and to convert all peoples and all nations. But, we don’t do the converting, God does. And, it sounds wrong of you to say definitively that doctors aren’t already striving to do this in their work.

I’ve heard a lot of stories about people coming to Christ on their death bed, or in a hospital, and they later recovered.

**Again, just because it is the job of a doctor to save someone’s physical body, doesn’t mean they don’t actively participate in fulfilling the Great Commission.

Stop making assumptions.
I’m sure you’ve heard that little pun about what happens when you make assumptions?
Well, don’t do it.

Focus on converting people yourself.

What’s wrong with the world? Is it doctors who don’t save people’s souls?
I am.

I am wrong with the world. That’s what G.K. Chesterton said, and I feel that you, me, and everyone on this thread can benefit from reflecting on that.

See, I’m not condemning you with that last post, but this is what I’m getting at. All of your posts, and the point of this thread, consists of you pointing a finger at people and saying, “you aren’t holy enough, your job isn’t that important, because you should be focused on saving people”.

I used to walk around, angry at the secular world. And I was very judgmental, and I wasn’t a good Christian. I was a Pharisee. I was judging other people.

We can’t change the world with anger (or at least we shouldn’t). We change the world with love. I slowly changed, because I started praying for every person I got angry at, and judged. If I judged someone because I thought they were a secularist, I would immediately follow that with a prayer.

I don’t know anything about that person. For all I know, they could attend Mass on Sunday. What I do know, is that that person needs prayers. They could be an atheist, or they could be an altar boy. They need prayers. And I need to love them.

I’m sorry neither of these posts have been short, but I feel that they address the problem that you’re suffering from. And, I don’t make these posts to judge/ condemn you, but for your spiritual benefit. I used to be a very prideful, judgmental person (I still struggle with this occasionally), and that’s what this whole thread seems to be motivated out of.

Pray for doctors.
Love. Love them in your heart, don’t condemn them based on your perceptions (which are probably wrong).

Well, a doctor is a professional doctor. He is qualified and trained to tend to the body. There is also the issue that evangelization by words is not always effective. If I stopped a random person on the street and tried to talk to him about my faith, I might be pushing him away.

There are lots of different issues here… First, protecting your life does not mean eliminating all risk, full stop. It’s not like you can’t go swimming in the ocean because you’re worried you’ll get eaten by a shark or like (to take your example) you can’t go flying on a plane because sometimes planes crash. The obligation to protect your life has to be undertaken reasonably. You still have to live your life.

That said, you certainly should not do anything risky for no purpose. If you know of the dangers inherent in not wearing a seatbelt, it is imprudent not to wear a seatbelt, because all the same, it’s easy to wear a seatbelt and safer.

I would tend to say that smoking is immoral (although, I think some people would disagree with me). It is damaging to one’s body (and to those in the vicinity), and there is no need to do it (while it is plausible to say that one needs to drive to work each day, for example). (All of that said, smoking also would involve a mitigation of culpability, as it is chemically addictive, and many people have formed a habit when they were young. I know priests who are badly addicted to smoking, to the point that they continue after having multiple surgeries.)

However, smoking is not suicidal (nor is doing anything plainly risky) unless one were doing it with the end of damaging oneself in mind. Even though undertaking some risky activities would be imprudent, the intention to harm oneself would have to be present for them to be suicidal. (Note, though, that intentions are not just conscious thoughts about activities. So one can’t point a gun at oneself and say, “I don’t mean to kill myself.”)

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.