why did god create cancer?

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

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.

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???

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?

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 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.

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.