why did god create cancer?

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?

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.

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?

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...

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.:)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

robindch

MagicMarker wrote: »

I blame the greeks.

Even though they brought such gifts?

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.

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.