why did god create cancer?

ch3rry

why did god create nazis?

why did god create the taliban?

why did god create AIDS?

why did god create the bubonic plague?

why did god create homosexuality?

why did god create natural disasters?

why did god let 80,000 people die in the earthquakes in china?

why did god not save my aunt from cancer?

why did god give my granny arthritis? (she goes to mass every sunday)

why did god create siamese twins?

why did god create malaria?

AlmightyCushion

Why did God create you? Surely he could have done something a little more worthwhile with his time.

Zombrex

ch3rry wrote: »

why did god create nazis?

why did god create the taliban?

why did god create AIDS?

why did god create the bubonic plague?

why did god create homosexuality?

why did god create natural disasters?

why did god let 80,000 people die in the earthquakes in china?

why did god not save my aunt from cancer?

why did god give my granny arthritis? (she goes to mass every sunday)

why did god create siamese twins?

why did god create malaria?

As punishment for Adam, and our, disobedience.

Genesis 3
17 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it';
Cursed is the ground because of you;
In toil you will eat of it
All the days of your life.
18"Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the plants of the field;
19By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return."

Man will toil and struggle with nature until we eventually return to it, as punishment for disobeying God (ie sin)

AlmightyCushion

In fairness that's a pretty harsh punishment for eating his apple. Imagine what he'd do to you if you nailed his wife. :pac:

PDN

ch3rry wrote: »

why did god create nazis?

why did god create the taliban?

He didn't. Not a single child was ever born a Nazi. To be a Nazi or a member of the Taliban is a human choice. The same applies to homosexuality although I certainly reject any implication that homosexuality is akin to Nazism.

As for many of the other things you mention, Wicknight is correct that much of it is due to the Fall and to man's sinfulness, but I believe much of it is as a consequence rather than a punishment.

I guess some diseases and viruses may well have mutated and evolved in conditions that have been shaped by human behaviour. AIDS may only became a problem for humans, for example, because of humans slaughtering large amounts of monkeys. It seems reasonable to me that viruses may once have served a benign purpose in an overall ecosystem.

I'm pretty sure that arthritis and cancer could have been eradicated by now if we spent as much on research that we do on developing weapons or PS3 games. Instead we pump our air full of pollution, eat processed foods etc. and then blame God when people get sick.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

He didn't. Not a single child was ever born a Nazi. To be a Nazi or a member of the Taliban is a human choice. The same applies to homosexuality although I certainly reject any implication that homosexuality is akin to Nazism.

As for many of the other things you mention, Wicknight is correct that much of it is due to the Fall and to man's sinfulness, but I believe much of it is as a consequence rather than a punishment.

I guess some diseases and viruses may well have mutated and evolved in conditions that have been shaped by human behaviour. AIDS may only became a problem for humans, for example, because of humans slaughtering large amounts of monkeys. It seems reasonable to me that viruses may once have served a benign purpose in an overall ecosystem.

I'm pretty sure that arthritis and cancer could have been eradicated by now if we spent as much on research that we do on developing weapons or PS3 games. Instead we pump our air full of pollution, eat processed foods etc. and then blame God when people get sick.

Wow ...

Fanny Cradock

Yeah, I, too, though it was a good reply.

BJC

Wicknight wrote: »

As punishment for Adam, and our, disobedience.

I didn't eat no damn apple so why do I get punished?

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

He didn't. Not a single child was ever born a Nazi. To be a Nazi or a member of the Taliban is a human choice. The same applies to homosexuality although I certainly reject any implication that homosexuality is akin to Nazism.

Homosexuality is a choice now? How does one choose a sexuality. And if we are merely talking about expression of it, why would anyone choose to face social exclusion, bigotry, violence and possibly death? I take your point on Nazism and other forms of extremism but seriously PDN... is that how you see sexuality?

PDN wrote: »

I guess some diseases and viruses may well have mutated and evolved in conditions that have been shaped by human behaviour. AIDS may only became a problem for humans, for example, because of humans slaughtering large amounts of monkeys. It seems reasonable to me that viruses may once have served a benign purpose in an overall ecosystem.

Did carnivores not exist in the garden? Did leaf-eating herbivores not exist? All do damage to other organisms. Symbiosis is rare by comparison. Evolution is the survival of the fittest- in that respect, viruses are very fit indeed. We have benefited from the actions of some viruses- they inadvertently allow horizontal gene transfer in organisms normally too complex for the process. For the most part though, they do not benefit us at all. Except that the evolution of the human mind is now allowing us to make use of viruses to treat genetic disease.

As to human influence on the evolution of viruses- certainly, but it is minimal in the grand scheme of things. We've only had about 100,000 years of active influence. Viruses are ancient- they have probably existed almost as long as true life forms. A couple of billion years. They've always been pathogenic.

PDN wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that arthritis and cancer could have been eradicated by now if we spent as much on research that we do on developing weapons or PS3 games. Instead we pump our air full of pollution, eat processed foods etc. and then blame God when people get sick.

Weapons I'll give you. Processed foods is a complex issue. Pollution is of course a serious problem. People need leisure time, so I don't see why you have beef with that industry. The money involved could be seen as obscene but it is what people are willing to pay in order to unwind and relax. Many of these people are the same people who are working to combat cancer and arthritis, or in my case, genetic disorders. There's no shortage of funding for such research though third world diseases are another matter. I think my work would suffer if I lost my PS3! Perhaps we should all play chess, but to my mind it is merely a modern leisure tool in a modern world.

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yeah, I, too, though it was a good reply.

By "good" do you mean "worrying"?

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

He didn't. Not a single child was ever born a Nazi. To be a Nazi or a member of the Taliban is a human choice. The same applies to homosexuality although I certainly reject any implication that homosexuality is akin to Nazism.

I really think gay people would disagree with this. I'm sure they are born that way, and they can't choose to be different, although many Christians try to force young gay people to change - mostly with horrific psychological results.

PDN wrote: »

I guess some diseases and viruses may well have mutated and evolved in conditions that have been shaped by human behaviour. AIDS may only became a problem for humans, for example, because of humans slaughtering large amounts of monkeys. It seems reasonable to me that viruses may once have served a benign purpose in an overall ecosystem.

Your AIDS example, is of course correct. But viruses are killing machines. They serve absolutely no other purpose than to reproduce themselves. They can only do so by horrifically hijacking other organism's cells. There is literally no other way that they can reproduce themselves.

What sort of benign behaviour did you have in mind, exactly?

PDN wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that arthritis and cancer could have been eradicated by now if we spent as much on research that we do on developing weapons or PS3 games. Instead we pump our air full of pollution, eat processed foods etc. and then blame God when people get sick.

Correct. Humans will be the ones to cure these diseases. This doesn't address the OP's original question though, why did God create these debilitating diseases???

iUseVi

Wicknight wrote: »

Wow ...

You forgot your [/sarcasm] tag. Some people get confused very easily.

ch3rry

PDN wrote: »

He didn't. Not a single child was ever born a Nazi. To be a Nazi or a member of the Taliban is a human choice. The same applies to homosexuality although I certainly reject any implication that homosexuality is akin to Nazism.

As for many of the other things you mention, Wicknight is correct that much of it is due to the Fall and to man's sinfulness, but I believe much of it is as a consequence rather than a punishment.

I guess some diseases and viruses may well have mutated and evolved in conditions that have been shaped by human behaviour. AIDS may only became a problem for humans, for example, because of humans slaughtering large amounts of monkeys. It seems reasonable to me that viruses may once have served a benign purpose in an overall ecosystem.

I'm pretty sure that arthritis and cancer could have been eradicated by now if we spent as much on research that we do on developing weapons or PS3 games. Instead we pump our air full of pollution, eat processed foods etc. and then blame God when people get sick.

There's nothing really solid in that reply. A load of **** to be honest. Lots of guessing, assuming and believing. Basically making up new science.

I could poke holes for hours but I'm hungover and couldn't really be bothered.

Can ye not see, as 21st century, smart, human beings, that christianity is just a little silly?

"GO CREATED EVERYTHING" according to the bible, oh but wait, says 1 boards user, he didn't really create this that the other blah blah blah, it seems, I believe.....

The amount of crap in the bible is unreal.

Genesis 2

2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

So adam named every creature in the world? What the feck.

Genesis 7

7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

So noah's flood covered all the mountains eh? Even mount everest. That's a lot of water. Wonder where it came from.

I give up.

Bye bye.

Sapien

Wicknight wrote: »

Wow ...

Amazing that an omnipotent, omniscient being can create a universe and yet, somehow, not be responsible for anything that happens in it. Impressive intellectual acrobatics there, PDN.

Akrasia

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yeah, I, too, though it was a good reply.

You're not a creationist or a biblical literalist, Unless you believe the story of Adam and Eve, how could 'the fall' possibly be a satisfactory explanation for you?

Zombrex

BJC wrote: »

I didn't eat no damn apple so why do I get punished?

Because in the Judo-Christian tradition inflicting suffering on others close to the person is considered a valid way to punish someone

More often than not this lands on the unfortunate wife or children of the person being "punished". We are considered the children of Adam and Eve.

MagicMarker

ch3rry wrote: »

why did god create nazis?

why did god create the taliban?

why did god create AIDS?

why did god create the bubonic plague?

why did god create homosexuality?

why did god create natural disasters?

why did god let 80,000 people die in the earthquakes in china?

why did god not save my aunt from cancer?

why did god give my granny arthritis? (she goes to mass every sunday)

why did god create siamese twins?

why did god create malaria?

I blame the greeks.

robindch

MagicMarker wrote: »

I blame the greeks.

Even though they brought such gifts?

Schuhart

iUseVi wrote: »

I really think gay people would disagree with this. I'm sure they are born that way, and they can't choose to be different,

I'm sure many gay people would agree with you, but some might equally query the concept of this being determined at birth - while not necessarily feeling its some that can, or needs to be, changed.

iUseVi

Schuhart wrote: »

I'm sure many gay people would agree with you, but some might equally query the concept of this being determined at birth - while not necessarily feeling its some that can, or needs to be, changed.

Think about this. Do you think that by force of will you could change your sexuality?

Schuhart

iUseVi wrote: »

Think about this. Do you think that by force of will you could change your sexuality?

I have absolutely no idea. But I reckon that if I'd grown up in a radically different culture, I might hold any amount of different ideas about things. If I was an ancient Greek, I might have some idea that love was something old men felt for young boys while anything I did with women would have been mostly for the good of the species. I really don't know.

AtomicHorror

I'm not sure anyone is born to a sexuality- it seems to be a mutable element of psychology, albeit not one that we can control. A man may become gay. It is not his choice. The expression of that drive is of course a choice, but as I said it is hardly one that would be taken lightly, nor as a petty act of beligerence against the establishment, given the irrational attitudes towards minority sexualities. I have great admiration for the men and women who have the courage not just to be something that some find abhorrent, but to stand up and make it known that they choose to accept who they are and try to find personal happiness through it. I doubt I'll ever face such a difficult choice and I wonder if I'd choose the honest and brave path if I did.

AtomicHorror

robindch wrote: »

Even though they brought such gifts?

Yes even though! This greek guy bought a friend of mine a coffee maker for his engagement. He sent it right back and a good thing too. Turns out it was full of greek soldiers.

Akrasia

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm not sure anyone is born to a sexuality- it seems to be a mutable element of psychology, albeit not one that we can control. A man may become gay. It is not his choice. The expression of that drive is of course a choice, but as I said it is hardly one that would be taken lightly, nor as a petty act of beligerence against the establishment, given the irrational attitudes towards minority sexualities. I have great admiration for the men and women who have the courage not just to be something that some find abhorrent, but to stand up and make it known that they choose to accept who they are and try to find personal happiness through it. I doubt I'll ever face such a difficult choice and I wonder if I'd choose the honest and brave path if I did.

I think the real question is, who do you think a loving god would prefer, A man or woman who happens to be gay, who lives a peaceful life, loves his/her partner and shows respect and good will towards others.... or this pr1ck



A christian evangelist (with the support of 10% of the entire population of America) raving homophobe who secretly has gay sex with a male prostitute while using methamphetamines.

Fanny Cradock

Akrasia wrote: »

You're not a creationist or a biblical literalist, Unless you believe the story of Adam and Eve, how could 'the fall' possibly be a satisfactory explanation for you?

Your seem quite genuine in your question, Akrasia, so I'll attempt to give a genuine answer.

Firstly, and by way of semantics, I would consider myself a creationist and I do subscribe to biblical literalism. However, there are a couple of qualifiers that I should add in there to clear matters up. I am a creationist in the sense that I believe God, indeed, created the universe, but I don't believe he did it in ~6,000 years. Added to this, I interpret the Bible literally where I feel such and interpretation is required. Yes, such an approach can potentially lead to all sorts of arguments, but by way of example, I don't believe that Revelation can be taken any other way than metaphorical. Similarly, the story of creation would have to be taken metaphorically if you subscribe to the prevailing scientific consensus. If someone wants to take it another way, well, that's just fine by me.

As for Adam and Eve, I believe that they are symbolic pair used to describe a large population - say 20,000 individuals - who, over time, gained some spiritual uniqueness. It was this uniqueness, followed by the subsequent rejection of God, which I would consider to be The Fall.

iUseVi

Schuhart wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea. But I reckon that if I'd grown up in a radically different culture, I might hold any amount of different ideas about things. If I was an ancient Greek, I might have some idea that love was something old men felt for young boys while anything I did with women would have been mostly for the good of the species. I really don't know.

Fair enough, thanks for your honest response. :cool:I would have to admit that I would also not know. I still suspect genetic disposition may have something to do with it, but that's only a pet theory - no proof of that.:)

Akrasia

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Your seem quite genuine in your question, Akrasia, so I'll attempt to give a genuine answer.

Firstly, and by way of semantics, I would consider myself a creationist and I do subscribe to biblical literalism. However, there are a couple of qualifiers that I should add in there to clear matters up. I am a creationist in the sense that I believe God, indeed, created the universe, but I don't believe he did it in ~6,000 years. Added to this, I interpret the Bible literally where I feel such and interpretation is required. Yes, such an approach can potentially lead to all sorts of arguments, but by way of example, I don't believe that Revelation can be taken any other way than metaphorical. Similarly, the story of creation would have to be taken metaphorically if you subscribe to the prevailing scientific consensus. If someone wants to take it another way, well, that's just fine by me.

As for Adam and Eve, I believe that they are symbolic pair used to describe a large population - say 20,000 individuals - who, over time, gained some spiritual uniqueness. It was this uniqueness, followed by the subsequent rejection of God, which I would consider to be The Fall.

Thanks for your reply.

I just want to understand your position. By the fall, you mean early human civilisation rejected god, but these people lived in a time before god ever revealed himself. (unless you believe the fall was after Abraham?)

Or perhaps you believe that early human civilisation had a much closer relationship with god and chose to disobey him anyway? In which case, it seems very unfair that God would give those early and primitive people the benefit of a closer physical relationship but expect us to believe in him simply out of faith.

Akrasia

iUseVi wrote: »

Fair enough, thanks for your honest response. :cool:I would have to admit that I would also not know. I still suspect genetic disposition may have something to do with it, but that's only a pet theory - no proof of that.:)

Well, I have a few gay friends, and while some of them recognised their sexuality from a young age, a few of them tried desperately to 'be' straight well into their twenties.

Being gay certainly isn't a conscious choice. While someone who denies their sexuality they cause enormous problems for themselves and for the women they try and to be with.

The only way they can be happy is by accepting who they are. It is a total contradiction to say that god loves his children while compelling them to live a lie, or deny a fundamental part of their personalities.

dlofnep

Wicknight wrote: »

Because in the Judo-Christian tradition inflicting suffering on others close to the person is considered a valid way to punish someone

More often than not this lands on the unfortunate wife or children of the person being "punished". We are considered the children of Adam and Eve.

Eleventy billion generations later? I'm the child of Mary and Johnny. Not Adam and Eve. Thank you.. Although I will warn my father to be on the lookout for this Adam chap, just incase he decides to deliver milk.

Zombrex

dlofnep wrote: »

Eleventy billion generations later? I'm the child of Mary and Johnny. Not Adam and Eve. Thank you.. Although I will warn my father to be on the lookout for this Adam chap, just incase he decides to deliver milk.

If you don't believe it then don't be a Christian :pac:

Schuhart

iUseVi wrote: »

I still suspect genetic disposition may have something to do with it, but that's only a pet theory - no proof of that.:)

You could be right, it may simply be genetic. I'd similarly not be dogmatic about feeling it could be largely environmental. From the perspective of the individual, it may not matter as the personal experience of the situation may be just as permanent.

I don't know if this is a useful thought, but I found myself wondering if we could envisage a Rangers supporter choosing to change over to Celtic (or vice versa). To what extent would we feel that supporting Celtic or Rangers would be a choice? Its not an analogy I'd take into too much detail - but I think it does highlight that there are things that are very much part of our identity, seem unchangeable, that are hard to assign a genetic cause to.

I was just reflecting on the title question, and feeling its not as useful an idea as it seems. We have a finite life. That life ends because, one way or another, your body wears out - whether by old age, accident or disease. So, to be honest, the question is really just why is there an array of different ways - sudden and slow, painful and not so painful - that your finite life can come to an end (to say nothing of the array of fun and bad things that can happen along the way, from getting rained on to getting sunburn to being dumped to winning the Nobel prize, yadda yadda).

It really just amounts to looking out at all of that stuff around us and saying 'whats all that about, or is it about anything'.

Akrasia

Schuhart wrote: »

I don't know if this is a useful thought, but I found myself wondering if we could envisage a Rangers supporter choosing to change over to Celtic (or vice versa). To what extent would we feel that supporting Celtic or Rangers would be a choice? Its not an analogy I'd take into too much detail - but I think it does highlight that there are things that are very much part of our identity, seem unchangeable, that are hard to assign a genetic cause to.

Its really not a good analogy.
Celtic/rangers is a purely socialised allegiance. (in a sectarian sense) Rangers supporters (in NI) tend to be born into communities that are highly unionist and anti irish, while gay people tend to be brought up in societies and families that are strongly in favour of heterosexual relationships. In the rangers scenario, people support the team because of social pressure. In sexuality, people turn out gay in spite of social pressure.
This is either one of two things. A rebellion against the norms of their society, or an outcome that is unrelated to the socialisation process. The fact that so many gay people hide their sexuality must lead us to (provisionally) conclude that it is not a rebellion and is caused by something other than conscious choice or socialisation.

Schuhart

Akrasia wrote: »

In the rangers scenario, people support the team because of social pressure. In sexuality, people turn out gay in spite of social pressure.

That's a fair point, and indeed I would not want to push the comparison beyond the point of strong elements of identity coming from things that would not seem to be genetic.

I will risk pushing it just a little further, by noting that within the community that would support either celtic or rangers, individual people still turn out differently. For the sake of argument, as I recall (its a while since I read his book) Brian Keenan would be an example of someone from a Northern Protestant background who embraced a Irish nationalist identity.

So, indeed, some people can seem almost driven to reject the expectations that social pressures place on them. But, again, that would seem explicable by factors other than genes.

JimiTime

Akrasia wrote: »

Its really not a good analogy.
Celtic/rangers is a purely socialised allegiance. (in a sectarian sense) Rangers supporters (in NI) tend to be born into communities that are highly unionist and anti irish, while gay people tend to be brought up in societies and families that are strongly in favour of heterosexual relationships. In the rangers scenario, people support the team because of social pressure. In sexuality, people turn out gay in spite of social pressure.
This is either one of two things. A rebellion against the norms of their society, or an outcome that is unrelated to the socialisation process. The fact that so many gay people hide their sexuality must lead us to (provisionally) conclude that it is not a rebellion and is caused by something other than conscious choice or socialisation.

Sexuality can be a strange animal. Essentially, intercourse Causes men to ejaculate Semen containing sperm which fertilises the egg of a woman. So there is a purpose in mankinds sexuality.

There are then folk who's sexuality leads them to be attracted to children, animals, and bizarrely enough, objects (there is a woman who 'married' the berlin wall, then cheated on 'him' with a fence ) I sometimes find it confusing when people talk about homosexuality as perfectly normal, yet will consider the above, weird. Surely if ones normal, they all are? And if you argue for one as normal, all the others must also be considered the same? Psychologically speaking of course, not talking about the actual actions.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

There are then folk who's sexuality leads them to be attracted to children, animals, and bizarrely enough, objects (there is a woman who 'married' the berlin wall, then cheated on 'him' with a fence ) I sometimes find it confusing when people talk about homosexuality as perfectly normal, yet will consider the above, weird. Surely if ones normal, they all are? Psychologically speaking of course, not talking about the actual actions.

I don't think anyone's sexuality is "normal", straight gay or what ever, as in it is what everyone else does. One person may like feet, another person may like dressing up a batman outfit. These aren't normal, they are a unique factor in a unique person's arousal

When people say homosexuality is perfectly normal they mean it is no worse than what anyone else does.

It isn't normal as in it is the same as everyone else (10% of the population is gay, but how of the population dress up as batman or like to get their bottom smacked), it is normal as in it is fine.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't think anyone's sexuality is "normal", straight gay or what ever, as in it is what everyone else does. One person may like feet, another person may like dressing up a batman outfit. These aren't normal, they are a unique factor in a unique person's arousal

When people say homosexuality is perfectly normal they mean it is no worse than what anyone else does.

It isn't normal as in it is the same as everyone else (10% of the population is gay, but how of the population dress up as batman or like to get their bottom smacked), it is normal as in it is fine.

I'm talking about the attraction itself, not the action. If you feel that having an attraction towards children, animals, objects, the oposite sex, the same sex are all the same, psychologically speaking, then fine, thats consistant. You would view sexuality as something that can never be improper in its essence, though in certain scenarios (e.g.children), it must be controlled. such a stand would mean that having a sexual attraction to a kid, or a dog, or a wall is psychologically sound. Would this be your view?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

If you feel that having an attraction towards children, animals, objects, the oposite sex, the same sex are all the same, psychologically speaking, then fine, thats consistant.

I wouldn't call them the same, more they are all equally different and unique.

No one persons sexual preference to a member of the opposite sex is the same as another. We simply create these classification ourselves. Bit like we do with things like skin colour, where we group two black guys together compared with two white guys, even if one white guy is the same height and build as the other black guy.

We tend to see straight people as "the same", and heterosexual people as "the same" and paedophiles at "the same". I very much doubt nature works in a similar fashion, whether the sexuality is a result of genetics, environment or what ever.

JimiTime wrote: »

You would view sexuality as something that can never be improper in its essence, though in certain scenarios (e.g.children), it must be controlled.

Certainly.

Sexual advances towards children are not bad because of the thoughts in the adults head, but because of the damage they do to the child if acted out with a child.

JimiTime wrote: »

such a stand would mean that having a sexual attraction to a kid, or a dog, or a wall is psychologically sound. Would this be your view?

Not sure I would say all are psychologically sound

There is strong evidence that paedophilia is often is the result of psychological damage suffered in childhood, though how this manifests itself in adult life as an attraction to children is not fully understood. In the case of paedophilia a person having such attraction should seek professional help, for their own well being as much as anything else.

On the other hand there is little evidence that homosexuality is a result of abuse or damage in childhood, as was once assumed. Homosexuality appears to have a biological cause, a genetic root, that can trigger homosexuality in certain (as yet unknown) environments. So it is a combination of genetics and environment.

BJC

Wicknight wrote: »

Because in the Judo-Christian tradition inflicting suffering on others close to the person is considered a valid way to punish someone

More often than not this lands on the unfortunate wife or children of the person being "punished". We are considered the children of Adam and Eve.

And therein lies another outstanding reason why following a Church, any Church is ridiculous...

PDN

BJC wrote: »

And therein lies another outstanding reason why following a Church, any Church is ridiculous...

So, a particular interpretation by an atheist (Wicknight) of Judeo-Christian attitudes to sin and judgement is an outstanding reason why it is ridiculous to follow any Church. Priceless.

Is today National Troll Day?

Akrasia

Schuhart wrote: »

That's a fair point, and indeed I would not want to push the comparison beyond the point of strong elements of identity coming from things that would not seem to be genetic.

I will risk pushing it just a little further, by noting that within the community that would support either celtic or rangers, individual people still turn out differently. For the sake of argument, as I recall (its a while since I read his book) Brian Keenan would be an example of someone from a Northern Protestant background who embraced a Irish nationalist identity.

So, indeed, some people can seem almost driven to reject the expectations that social pressures place on them. But, again, that would seem explicable by factors other than genes.

political allegiances are mostly decided rationally (on some level at least) while sexuality is controlled mostly by hormones and chemistry. (whether or not there is an environmental trigger for such chemistry)


There are gay or bisexual people to whom the very idea of having sex with a man is revolting to them, but they still have a sexual drive towards that end. They try to force themselves to be straight and sometimes convince themselves that they are, but the sexual urges persist against their will (sometimes times resulting in married men having secret gay affairs)

It is hard to imagine an Irish nationalist who hates Irish people and is desperately trying to be a unionist but is driven by uncontrollable urges to join sinn fein.

Akrasia

PDN wrote: »

So, a particular interpretation by an atheist (Wicknight) of Judeo-Christian attitudes to sin and judgement is an outstanding reason why it is ridiculous to follow any Church. Priceless.

Would you care to give us your interpretation of how 'original sin' isn't in fact punishing children for the sins of their parents?

Akrasia

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm talking about the attraction itself, not the action. If you feel that having an attraction towards children, animals, objects, the oposite sex, the same sex are all the same, psychologically speaking, then fine, thats consistant. You would view sexuality as something that can never be improper in its essence, though in certain scenarios (e.g.children), it must be controlled. such a stand would mean that having a sexual attraction to a kid, or a dog, or a wall is psychologically sound. Would this be your view?

Sexuality is sexuality, it's a sexual attraction to someone or something. There is no morality attached to the chemistry in your body. However, there certainly is morality attached to how you deal with these urges. It is wrong to rape children, It is wrong to take advantage of innocent people for your own gratification (whether you're gay or straight)

A mutually consensual relationship between two men or two women is very very different from paedophilia which involves one person dominating a helpless child and destroying their life forever.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

I wouldn't call them the same, more they are all equally different and unique.

No one persons sexual preference to a member of the opposite sex is the same as another. We simply create these classification ourselves. Bit like we do with things like skin colour, where we group two black guys together compared with two white guys, even if one white guy is the same height and build as the other black guy.

We tend to see straight people as "the same", and heterosexual people as "the same" and paedophiles at "the same". I very much doubt nature works in a similar fashion, whether the sexuality is a result of genetics, environment or what ever.

I meant same as in, acceptable, natural feelings to have.

Certainly.

Sexual advances towards children are not bad because of the thoughts in the adults head, but because of the damage they do to the child if acted out with a child.

Would you say once a paedophile, always a paedophile?

Not sure I would say all are psychologically sound

There is strong evidence that paedophilia is often is the result of psychological damage suffered in childhood, though how this manifests itself in adult life as an attraction to children is not fully understood.

I don't know about such evidence. I've heard this before, but don't know how true it is. Also, there are probably plenty that don't have such backround. If a paedophile hadn't got such a backround, would his attraction to children be psychologically sound?

In the case of paedophilia a person having such attraction should seek professional help, for their own well being as much as anything else.

For the attraction to children? What kind of help?

Homosexuality appears to have a biological cause, a genetic root, that can trigger homosexuality in certain (as yet unknown) environments. So it is a combination of genetics and environment.

Can you elaborate on this?

Schuhart

Akrasia wrote: »

It is hard to imagine an Irish nationalist who hates Irish people and is desperately trying to be a unionist but is driven by uncontrollable urges to join sinn fein.

Indeed, and I wouldn't try to force the comparison (as I said) beyond the point of strong elements of identity coming from things that would not seem to be genetic.

However, even as I read your post I could think of further elements of the comparison pointing again to how what makes a person is not straightforward. Consider, for the sake of argument, the position of an IRA activist working for British Intelligence. Consider his daily life, giving all the outward signs of profound commitment to the 'cause' while betraying them to their bitter enemy. And, recall, given the risks run and the constant possibility of exposure and death I don't think that it is possible to explain this behaviour on grounds of the double agent expecting some material reward.

Again, I really don't mean to push this comparison beyond what it can bear. But I think the presence of powerful and peculiar drives in the human mind, however they get there, should be illustrated by this example.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I meant same as in, acceptable, natural feelings to have.

Well you have introduced the word "natural", I'm not sure what context you are using that word. Everything that happens to our bodies is natural unless one introduces a supernatural element.

On the other hand I'm not a believer in the way nature intended line of thought, so if that is what you mean by nature I would have to step out of that discussion.

JimiTime wrote: »

Would you say once a paedophile, always a paedophile?

Not sure. If a persons paedophilia is related to serious mental trauma then I would imagine that psycho-therapy could help for some people

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't know about such evidence. I've heard this before, but don't know how true it is.

Er .. ok

JimiTime wrote: »

Also, there are probably plenty that don't have such backround. If a paedophile hadn't got such a backround, would his attraction to children be psychologically sound?

Well you are asking me to make a judgement based on what something isn't.

I think what you are asking is if paedophilia is the result of biological, genetic, settings determined at conception in a person, is it psychologically sound to be a paedophilia. I would imagine yes, excluding the social issues that come with being a paedophile and the issues with repressed sexual urges that apply across the board.

JimiTime wrote: »

For the attraction to children? What kind of help?

No, for the trauma the person has suffered due to abuse. The attraction to children stems for that, or at least does in the cases where this applies.

Think of it this way. A some what common result of post traumatic stress syndrome is night terrors or night violence, where a person may, still asleep, have the sensation of being under attack and lash out around them. This can seriously injure anyone in the bed with them, such as a husband or wife.

Now you could say that this person should get help to stop them hitting their wife. But really they should get help to over come the PTS syndrome, to stop the night terrors, and hitting the fudge out of your wife comes with that.

The same applies in my view to those who are padeophiles due to childhood abuse.

JimiTime wrote: »

Can you elaborate on this?

A number of studies have strongly indicated a biological source for homosexuality ("gay gene" as it where). There are noticeable biological difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. But twin studies have demonstrated that genetics alone cannot account for homosexuality.

The current thinking at the moment as far as I know is that some people are biological predisposed to being gay, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will be.

Human sexuality is a very complicated system. It is doubtful that there is a single cause for homosexuality, or that humans can be classified simply into hetero or homo sexual orientations.

I would clarify that I have no problem if it is demonstrated that homosexuality is purely environmental. I sometimes think that those who insist that it must be something one is born with are admitting that it is wrong but there is nothing they can do about it, where as I don't see it as wrong even if it is purely a sub-conscious "choice"

PDN

Akrasia wrote: »

Sexuality is sexuality, it's a sexual attraction to someone or something. There is no morality attached to the chemistry in your body. However, there certainly is morality attached to how you deal with these urges. It is wrong to rape children, It is wrong to take advantage of innocent people for your own gratification (whether you're gay or straight)

A mutually consensual relationship between two men or two women is very very different from paedophilia which involves one person dominating a helpless child and destroying their life forever.

I think you are conflating two separate issues in this thread:
1. Our sexual behaviour is a choice that we make. We all have different urges and, unless we are mentally ill, we control our urges instead of allowing our urges to control us.
2. Certain sexual urges can be indulged legitimately whereas others cannot.

Obviously, as a non-Christian, you will not agree with me as to which urges under point 2 are legitimate or not. However, that does not override point one. Sexual behaviour, including homosexual acts, is a matter of choice.

There is a common belief that one's sexuality is inherent and cannot be changed. That, in my opinion, is a myth. Men who consider themselves as solely heterosexual quite happily indulge in homosexual behaviour when they are incarcerated in prison. We all have sexual urges and those urges can be expressed in different ways depending on our upbringing, environment and our choices.

The notion was expressed earlier in this thread that if a behaviour attracts ostracism etc. then it cannot be reasonably seen as a choice. However, I believe that notion is exploded by the example of paedophiles who choose to indulge in behaviour even though it attracts much greater negative societal consequences than does homosexuality.

PDN

Akrasia wrote: »

Would you care to give us your interpretation of how 'original sin' isn't in fact punishing children for the sins of their parents?

I see original sin as a consequence, not as a punishment.

A child inherits sin, it is 'in our blood' (I am using the term in its normal everyday sense, not scientifically). Therefore we are predisposed towards sinful behaviour.

We see similar consequences in that a child of a drug addict is statistically much more likely to become an addict themselves. Indeed, a baby may even be born an addict due to its pregnant mother abusing drugs. That is not a punishment, but it is a consequence.

While a child inherits this predisposition towards sin (original sin) it would, according to my understanding of the Bible, be totally wrong to see that child as somehow deserving of punishment for that reason. We are accountable for our own sins, not for those of Adam.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The notion was expressed earlier in this thread that if a behaviour attracts ostracism etc. then it cannot be reasonably seen as a choice. However, I believe that notion is exploded by the example of paedophiles who choose to indulge in behaviour even though it attracts much greater negative societal consequences than does homosexuality.

That doesn't really support your position, in fact quite the opposite. Why would a paedophile choose to be a paedophile given that society is so hostile towards that behaviour?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

That doesn't really support your position, in fact quite the opposite. Why would a paedophile choose to be a paedophile given that society is so hostile towards that behaviour?

People often choose things that attract hostility. As a teenager I often suffered hostility because I wore punk gear. But I'm pretty sure that I wore it by choice rather than because I was in the grip of some uncontrollable genetic trait.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I see original sin as a consequence, not as a punishment.

A child inherits sin, it is 'in our blood' (I am using the term in its normal everyday sense, not scientifically). Therefore we are predisposed towards sinful behaviour.

But only because that is what God decided. He could have just as easily decided that this wouldn't be the case.

So how can you say it is not a punishment?

PDN wrote: »

We see similar consequences in that a child of a drug addict is statistically much more likely to become an addict themselves. Indeed, a baby may even be born an addict due to its pregnant mother abusing drugs. That is not a punishment, but it is a consequence.

You do know there are actual reasons why that happens (for example transfer of the narcotic to the foetus' blood stream during pregnancy)

The point you are ignoring is why would God wish for "sin" to be inherited. Why punish generations after Adam?

PDN wrote: »

While a child inherits this predisposition towards sin (original sin) it would, according to my understanding of the Bible, be totally wrong to see that child as somehow deserving of punishment for that reason. We are accountable for our own sins, not for those of Adam.

Then why did God decide that predisposition towards sin would be inherited?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

People often choose things that attract hostility. As a teenager I often suffered hostility because I wore punk gear. But I'm pretty sure that I wore it by choice rather than because I was in the grip of some uncontrollable genetic trait.

I imagine you wore it because you got a strong sense of satisfaction out of it. And that is probably due to biology.

You decided to act in a manner that gave you satisfaction. But you didn't control what gave you satisfaction in the first place.