why did god create cancer?

gamblor166

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?[/QUOTE]


we are all god.. and for god to be god he has to experience every emotion on earth... or somethin..:D

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

"they make no attempt to restrict the rights"? :eek:

It's one thing to interpret the bible to make it into the book you wish it was. It's quite another to airbrush two millennia of what is politely termed institutionalized prejudice.

Like wolfsbane's recent comments on the EU invading Russia, I really have no idea how to respond to such a bizarre posting.

I'm sorry to jump into an established thread, so pardon me if I just focus on your post without interacting with all that has gone before.

I fully - and gladly - accept that Christianity holds homosexuality to be a sinful, perverted passion. Those who seek to persuade you the Bible says otherwise are ignorant of the Bible or are liars. The Biblical position is beyond honest dispute. I'm sure PDN agrees with that.

I accept Christians like myself seek to restrict homosexuality in our democratic society. I do not seek to restrict their adult-adult affairs, but I do object to them demanding homosexuality be presented as other than an abnormal passion. For example, that our children be taught in school that two daddies or two mummies can love one another just as a mummy and daddy can. That's why I object to gay marriage. Even civil partnerships give a wrong message.

But if society goes with the homosexual agenda on these, I can live with it. I won't be burning buses or beating up gays. Democracy has to be respected.

I will however be instructing our children that homosexuality is in fact immoral, not just a different way of life.

Here's where the violence comes in. The gay lobby is seeking to prevent me teaching that. I'm not to preach/teach that homosexuality is a sin. If I do, they want me imprisoned. They want me barred from fostering/adopting children. If I believe homosexuality is a sin, I'm to keep it to myself.

Who knows, they may even get around to making us all pledge that we believe homosexuality is OK, such is their hatred of Biblical faith. Truth hurts, hence the rage against us.

JimiTime

^^Is that true? Is there a lobby seeking to silence those who view homosexuality as sinful? Is there a source for this?

Curiously,
Jimi.

wolfsbane

JimiTime wrote: »

^^Is that true? Is there a lobby seeking to silence those who view homosexuality as sinful? Is there a source for this?

Curiously,
Jimi.

Examples:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08050806.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31080
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat8.htm
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jan/07012606.html

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote: »

Examples:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08050806.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31080
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat8.htm
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jan/07012606.html

Troubling indeed. Espeially since most seem to lack the understanding of what a phobia is, I doubt that they'd understand what hatread is.

skinner2x

BJC wrote: »

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

LOL!!

Sapien

wolfsbane wrote: »

The gay lobby is seeking to prevent me teaching that. I'm not to preach/teach that homosexuality is a sin. If I do, they want me imprisoned. They want me barred from fostering/adopting children. If I believe homosexuality is a sin, I'm to keep it to myself.

You might also face legal intervention if you were to teach children that, say, black people are less intelligent than white people. Do you believe that a person should be allowed to teach children something like that? People should be allowed teach children in their care anything, or that a person, regardless of what they believe and seek to teach, should be allowed have children in their care?

Is your objection really about freedom of expression, or are you, in fact, pleading a special case because you are religiou?

PDN

Sapien wrote: »

You might also face legal intervention if you were to teach children that, say, black people are less intelligent than white people. Do you believe that a person should be allowed to teach children something like that? People should be allowed teach children in their care anything, or that a person, regardless of what they believe and seek to teach, should be allowed have children in their care?

Is your objection really about freedom of expression, or are you, in fact, pleading a special case because you are religiou?

There is a world of difference between teaching a religious belief, or indeed an ethical belief, and stating a racist falsehood.

I believe Christians should promote and show tolerance towards homosexuals, even though we personally think such activity is contrary to God's commands (in other words 'sinful') and incompatible with Christianity. Unfortunately, for some people, such tolerance appears to be a one way street.

Let's take another example of what Christians believe about sin (since I believe it as actually you, Sapien, who want to plead that you are a special case). As a Christian I believe that the worship of idols is sinful. Therefore idol worshipping is sin, incompatible with Christianity, but I think Hindus and other idolators have a legal right to bow down to whatever statues they prefer. I also think it would be entirely proper, if I were an adoptive parent, to teach adopted children that idolatry is wrong.

There is, sadly, a part of the homosexual lobby that is demanding much more than tolerance. They want us to clap our hands and declare homosexuality to be a wonderful idea, and if we don't provide them with such a Pavlovian response then they will attempt to demonise us.

I'm not expecting you to agree with me, or to like my faith, but I have a right to practice it. I can cope with you disliking it. I can cope with you adopting a child and teaching them that Christianity is wrong. What I can't cope with is your rank hypocrisy in denying me the same rights when it comes to my declining to endorse your chosen lifestyle.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

I fully - and gladly - accept that Christianity holds homosexuality to be a sinful, perverted passion. Those who seek to persuade you the Bible says otherwise are ignorant of the Bible or are liars. The Biblical position is beyond honest dispute.

The bible also holds slavery to be perfectly accepteble, and even gives some guidelines on it, eg Exodus 21:2-6 and Ephesians 6:5-6. However in this day and age, slavery is considered by most to be completely immoral. The bible was written thousands of years ago and is meant for people in a different time and a lot doesn't apply now.

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The bible also holds slavery to be perfectly accepteble, and even gives some guidelines on it, eg Exodus 21:2-6 and Ephesians 6:5-6. However in this day and age, slavery is considered by most to be completely immoral. The bible was written thousands of years ago and is meant for people in a different time and a lot doesn't apply now.

Christians believe that the Bible contains a progressive revelation of God, and that the Old Testament must be interpreted in the light of the New. No Christian should base their morality solely on an Old Testament passage - be it in regard to homosexuality, slavery, or stoning a disobedient teenager to death.

The passage in Ephesians does not say that slavery is perfectly acceptable. It does give guidelines on how to respond when confronted by slavery. The New Testament also gives believers guidelines as how to behave when they are persecuted or when someone strikes them on the cheek. That, however, does not imply that persecuting someone or hitting them in the face is thereby 'perfectly acceptable'.

If the New Testament said slavery was a wonderful idea then you would have a point. The New Testament clearly denotes homosexual acts as sinful, and the only way to get round this is to junk the New Testament - in which case you have just departed from Christianity.

loozinfat

Wicknight wrote: »

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)

Sometimes God allows Satan to act for his own purposes that we don't understand.

Fanny Cradock

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The bible also holds slavery to be perfectly accepteble, and even gives some guidelines on it, eg Exodus 21:2-6 and Ephesians 6:5-6. However in this day and age, slavery is considered by most to be completely immoral. The bible was written thousands of years ago and is meant for people in a different time and a lot doesn't apply now.

Given that slavery has never been so popular, it seems logical to suggest that there are many living in these enlightened times who don't find it such a morally repugnant thing. The verses you quote - especially those from Exodus - appear to be discussing indentured slavery and not the chattel type slavery we are more familiar with nowadays. Despite this, I believe the Bible to be fairly ambiguous on the subject matter of slavery. But on the matter of sexuality the Bible is much clearer. Because of this I don't believe that you can say that the views expressed on Homosexuality in it's pages can now be interpreted in a drastically different light.

Of course, the extent to which society is involved in shaping sexuality is highly debatable. But unless you argue that sexuality is predominately determined by sociological matters, and therefore subject to startling change over time, then I don't see how you can argue from the position that a change in the acceptability of a social convention like slavery is somehow comparable to the Bible's views on sexuality.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But on the matter of sexuality the Bible is much clearer. Because of this I don't believe that you can say that the views expressed on Homosexuality in it's pages can now be interpreted in a drastically different light.

Is there any passage in the entire Bible, Old and New testament, that actually says a man cannot or should not marry another man if they are in love and wish to commit to each other in a life long relationship under God?

The denouncement of homosexuality appears to be associated with fornication and/or adultery, two things that heterosexuals are not allowed do either. Sex simply for lust, outside of the commitment of a loving marriage, is bad irrespective of the sexual orientation. Heterosexual or homosexual, doesn't matter.

My understanding from discussing this before that the basis for the idea that marriage is only for a heterosexual couple seems to be based simply on the Bible only mentioning men and women getting married. Which is a bit weak of an argument when one looks at the conclusion drawn in other areas of morality, using the obvious example of slavery.

It is pretty clear that homosexual marriage in Jewish society of the time would have been completely frowned upon given the tradition of the Old Testament commandments about homosexuality, but like a lot of the societal norms of the time that doesn't apply in modern times when we understand a lot more about what homosexuality is.

Despite the Bible never mentioning that slavery is wrong, and the Old Testament being riddled with examples of slavery (in all senses of that word, including what appears to be sexual slavery) often carried out by the Hebrews themselves, modern Christians today have no trouble at all saying that more resent New Testament values clear demonstrate that slavery is immoral.

It puzzles me that you guys really seem strongly resistant to the idea of a homosexual couple marrying, and thus having sexual relations within this marriage structure.

Perhaps there is a verse I'm missing?

iUseVi

The bible clearly states that homosexuals should be put to death.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev%2018:22;%2020:13;%201%20Cor%206:9&version=49

EDIT: btw, several passages in that link there.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

It puzzles me that you guys really seem strongly resistant to the idea of a homosexual couple marrying, and thus having sexual relations within this marriage structure.

Just to stress, personally i don't have a problem with homosexuals getting married if they want to. I don't approve as a christian, or feel it actually means anything in terms of what a christian marriage is, but the world does what the world does. I would however be concerned, if i was not allowed tell my children that homosexuality is sinful (if asked by them of course, its not like i'd be gagging to tell them). I'd also tell them, that from a godly perspective, there is no such thing as marriage between homosexuals. As i said though, the world is not Christian, so if the world decides that it recognises such things, then fair enough. Just don't take my right to hold a view on it away. Thats my 2 cent.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Just to stress, personally i don't have a problem with homosexuals getting married if they want to.

Sorry should have been more clear, I mean problem with relation to Christian marriage.

What is the rational behind the idea that a homosexual marriage can't be a Christian marriage? Is it simply that the Bible only mentions marriage in the context of a man and women, or is there more than that? Is homosexual marriage specifically banned in more than simply contextual laws? What is the Biblical support for your comment that from God's perspective there is no such thing as a marriage between homosexuals?

Homosexual activity is certainly considered a sin in multiple places in the Bible. But this is, but this as far as I can see (and I could certainly be wrong), always within the context of fornication, sexual relations outside of marriage, which is a sin no matter what sexual orientation.

Given the context of the time, when a man and other man would never have married anyway, this makes sense. Homosexuality would only have been in the context of fornication. Given the society of the time a man marrying a man would not only have been outrageous, but also rather pointless.

But in a modern context, when people are free to marry who they like, and marriage is no longer considered a economic transaction as it once was, this doesn't seem to hold nearly as much.

Where is this idea that a homosexual marriage would be not recognized by God coming from?

professore

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 have kids. From observing them from a very young age it is obvious to me that people are born with their sexual orientation. End of. Everything else is nonsense.

iUseVi

Wicknight wrote: »

Sorry should have been more clear, I mean problem with relation to Christian marriage.

What is the rational behind the idea that a homosexual marriage can't be a Christian marriage? Is it simply that the Bible only mentions marriage in the context of a man and women, or is there more than that? Is homosexual marriage specifically banned in more than simply contextual laws? What is the Biblical support for your comment that from God's perspective there is no such thing as a marriage between homosexuals?

Homosexual activity is certainly considered a sin in multiple places in the Bible. But this is, but this as far as I can see (and I could certainly be wrong), always within the context of fornication, sexual relations outside of marriage, which is a sin no matter what sexual orientation.

Given the context of the time, when a man and other man would never have married anyway, this makes sense. Homosexuality would only have been in the context of fornication. Given the society of the time a man marrying a man would not only have been outrageous, but also rather pointless.

But in a modern context, when people are free to marry who they like, and marriage is no longer considered a economic transaction as it once was, this doesn't seem to hold nearly as much.

Where is this idea that a homosexual marriage would be not recognized by God coming from?

Seriously Wicknight? :eek: Christians believe that a marriage is a holy union, in which is the only context for sexual relations. A homosexual marriage would be tantamount to accepting homosexual sexual relations.

And since homosexual sexual relations are clearly NOT approved of, I don't see where you are going with this. It's fairly black and white, not even any wiggle room like there is for slavery.

Zombrex

iUseVi wrote: »

The bible clearly states that homosexuals should be put to death.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev%2018:22;%2020:13;%201%20Cor%206:9&version=49

EDIT: btw, several passages in that link there.

1 Corinthians 6:9 appears to be in the context of fornicators and the sexual immoral. The Greek does not translate directly to "homosexual", and Paul doesn't use the far more common word "paiderasste", he uses a word arsenokoitai that's exact meaning is not clear as this is the first time this word appears in history (some have suggested that Paul invented it through the combination of Greek words found in the Greek Old Testament) though seems to mean something like lie with man or men. Given the context this could easily be seen as a form of fornication or prostitution.

It is important to remember that in this time there was no concept of sexual identity. Homosexuality is referred to as the act, not the orientation of a person or the concept of how they love. The idea of sexual orientation is a concept that originated much later. The idea of homosexual marriage only makes sense in the context of homosexual sexual identity. Without that idea homosexual marriage simply appears nonsensical.

In the context of the time the act would always have been a sexual act outside of marriage. The idea of a homosexual marriage would have been such an alien concept to the Jews, associated only with the pagan Romans of the time, as to be simply inconceivable to most people. It would serve no purpose in society. Men married women, pure and simple. That was the structure of the society. Even in societies that seemed to embrace homosexuality, such as the Greek and Romans, the idea of a man marrying another man was very rare, and caused some controversy.

failsafe

loozinfat wrote: »

Sometimes God allows Satan to act for his own purposes that we don't understand.

How cruel of him

iUseVi

Wicknight wrote: »

It is important to remember that in this time there was no concept of sexual identity. Homosexuality is referred to as the act, not the orientation of a person or the concept of how they love. The idea of sexual orientation is a concept that originated much later. The idea of homosexual marriage only makes sense in the context of homosexual sexual identity. Without that idea homosexual marriage simply appears nonsensical.

Possibly, if you just stick with the bible. But going back to the Greeks I'm not so convinced. It's not clear how much some ancient peoples misunderstood homosexuality. I know people even nowadays seem to think it is "curable".
But since we are talking about the bible, I think your point stands.

Wicknight wrote: »

In the context of the time the act would always have been a sexual act outside of marriage. The idea of a homosexual marriage would have been such an alien concept to the Jews, associated only with the pagan Romans of the time, as to be simply inconceivable to most people. It would serve no purpose in society. Men married women, pure and simple. That was the structure of the society. Even in societies that seemed to embrace homosexuality, such as the Greek and Romans, the idea of a man marrying another man was very rare, and caused some controversy.

I still don't get where you are going with this. You think that homosexual relations within a marriage might be treated differently to such relations outside a marriage? I think you are going down a cul de sac with that one. There may be no indication of anything against such marriages in the bible, but then there's no mention of anything against space tourism. Like you say, homosexual marriage would hardly have been a concept, so no need to talk about it. But do you really think it would be supported?

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

Christians believe that the Bible contains a progressive revelation of God, and that the Old Testament must be interpreted in the light of the New. No Christian should base their morality solely on an Old Testament passage - be it in regard to homosexuality, slavery, or stoning a disobedient teenager to death.

The passage in Ephesians does not say that slavery is perfectly acceptable.

Well seeing as the Old Testament tells you how to own slaves and nowhere in the New Testament does it say:"Oh buy the way, slavery is immoral", this means it was seen as exceptable all the way through the bible. Nowhere in the New Testament is slavery condemned.

PDN wrote: »

It does give guidelines on how to respond when confronted by slavery.

Maybe you should read Exodus again, it gives guidelines on how long you can have a slave, wether or not you own his kids and how to make him a permanent slave. This is not how to respond when confronted by slavery, this is how to own a slave.

PDN wrote: »

The New Testament also gives believers guidelines as how to behave when they are persecuted or when someone strikes them on the cheek. That, however, does not imply that persecuting someone or hitting them in the face is thereby 'perfectly acceptable'.

No, but the guidelines on what to do when such a thing happened would have perfectly acceptable.

Zombrex

iUseVi wrote: »

I still don't get where you are going with this. You think that homosexual relations within a marriage might be treated differently to such relations outside a marriage?

Of course. That is how Christians view heterosexual sex, why would homosexual sex be different?

If you go on this forum and say something like "Christians hate sex and want to outlaw it" you will get a ton of replies from the regular posters stating that Christianity teaches no such thing. Sex is wonderful, sex is great. Sex is both for pleasure and reproduction, and there is nothing wrong with having as much sex as you like. Within a marriage

Sex is not wrong, sex outside a marriage is wrong.

Now consider is the concept of marriage was unknown. Without marriage to make sex ok then yes sex would be wrong. If you can only have sex within a marriage and you don't know or have any concept of a marriage, then the act of sex will appear to be wrong uniformly.

That is the argument here.

Homosexual marriage, a committed loving life long agreement between two adult homosexuals, was a concept totally inconceivable in Jewish society 2000 years ago. There was simply homosexual sex, and it was wrong.

In modern times we have discovered that homosexuality is actually a sexual orientation, and that homosexuals can have a deep an emotional connection to someone as a heterosexual couple can. Again these concepts would have been alien to Jewish society of the time.

So my question is, within modern context of sexual orientation, rather than simply homosexual fornication, what is the Biblical justification for saying that homosexual marriage is unChristian?

Remember that Bible was not simply for the people of the time, even though it as written by the people of the time. The people of the time owned slaves, and few seemed to have any problem with that. But Jesus' message of love and respect was applied by Christians in later times to the conclusion that slavery was wrong and immoral and against God's desire for what humans should strive to.

I mean I give religion as much of a hard time as anyone else, but one thing it does have in its favor is that it can, sometimes, be used in this fashion.

iUseVi

Wicknight wrote: »

Homosexual marriage, a committed loving life long agreement between two adult homosexuals, was a concept totally inconceivable in Jewish society 2000 years ago. There was simply homosexual sex, and it was wrong.

In modern times we have discovered that homosexuality is actually a sexual orientation, and that homosexuals can have a deep an emotional connection to someone as a heterosexual couple can. Again these concepts would have been alien to Jewish society of the time.

So my question is, within modern context of sexual orientation, rather than simply homosexual fornication, what is the Biblical justification for saying that homosexual marriage is unChristian?

That's going to be a tough sell. I mean if the bible is also for the people of today, and homosexual relations are not unChristian(TM) if within a marriage, there's no verses to actually back that up.

I think a verse such as:

Leviticus 20:13
13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

is going to be hard to reconcile. I mean you could re-write it:

13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman outside of marriage, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

but it doesn't say that, and I don't see any implication of this. After all, you could probably change Christianity beyond all recognition if people started adding little amendments here and there. Maybe that's a good idea, but I think it's considered heresy.

Zombrex

iUseVi wrote: »

That's going to be a tough sell. I mean if the bible is also for the people of today, and homosexual relations are not unChristian(TM) if within a marriage, there's no verses to actually back that up.

Not directly no, but then the same is true of slavery. Where does Jesus say directly that slavery is wrong?

The idea that homosexual marriage is an alien concept to the Bible. It isn't supported or denounced, it simply wasn't something that any of the writers would have even understood as we do in modern times.

The modern idea put forward by some Christians that homosexual marriage is unChristian seems to be as much as inference from the Bible as the idea that homosexual marriage is Christian would be *

*Again that was the point of my original question, and I stand corrected if Biblical passages can be put forward

iUseVi wrote: »

I think a verse such as:
is going to be hard to reconcile.

Not really, for the reasons above and also since it comes from the Old Testament law.

Few Christians believe the OT "law" still applies directly to modern life, even if one ignores the idea above about homosexuality being seen at that time as simply an act of fornication rather than an expression of love.

The justification for traditional Christian attitudes towards homosexual and a negative view of homosexual marriage, come from the New Testament.

iUseVi

Wicknight wrote: »

The justification for traditional Christian attitudes towards homosexual and a negative view of homosexual marriage, come from the New Testament.

Hmm, AFAIK there's only the one verse in Corinthians, and you discredited that with your Greek knowledge. :cool:

A little off topic I know, but if God despised homosexuality in the OT, why should we think that He would change his mind? Although as you pointed out, slavery is clearly condoned in the OT, and most Christians have no problem with speaking out against slavery.

Akrasia

JimiTime wrote: »

I would however be concerned, if i was not allowed tell my children that homosexuality is sinful (if asked by them of course, its not like i'd be gagging to tell them). I'd also tell them, that from a godly perspective, there is no such thing as marriage between homosexuals.

What would you do if one of your children told you he/she was gay?

Zombrex

iUseVi wrote: »

Hmm, AFAIK there's only the one verse in Corinthians, and you discredited that with your Greek knowledge. :cool:

There are a number of verses that describe what appears to be homosexual acts as being not keeping with Christianity.

In discussions of the very early Church that vastly limited the old testament law as applied to gentiles, it is mentioned as one of the few things gentiles wishing to be Christians shouldn't do, though as far as i know there is debate over how long these verses were meant to be considered literally.

iUseVi wrote: »

A little off topic I know, but if God despised homosexuality in the OT, why should we think that He would change his mind? Although as you pointed out, slavery is clearly condoned in the OT, and most Christians have no problem with speaking out against slavery.

Well that is kinda of the point.

The argument is that God doesn't actually despise "homosexuality". Remember that is a modern translation of ancient concepts, in a time when the idea of sexual orientation was unknown.

God "despises" men having extra-marital sex with each other or with women. That applies whether he is sleeping with his man servant or going to the local brothel.

In the society of the time you would not have had homosexual acts taking place in any other context except for extra-marital sex. Homosexual acts were, at the time, exclusively sex outside of marriage.

In modern society that no longer holds. So the question is these stories applied in the newer context.

iUseVi

Wicknight wrote: »

In the society of the time you would not have had homosexual acts taking place in any other context except for extra-marital sex. Homosexual acts were, at the time, exclusively sex outside of marriage.

In modern society that no longer holds. So the question is these stories applied in the newer context.

OK, so it's a battle balance between the fact that the bible is the eternal, infallible word of God, and the changing Zeitgeist.

JimiTime

Akrasia wrote: »

What would you do if one of your children told you he/she was gay?

Honestly, I don't know.