why did god create cancer?

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.

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?

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...

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?

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 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?

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.

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"

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Exactly. Different people get satisfaction from different things. Some people get satisfaction from collecting stamps, or posting annoying messages on internet fora, or eating Mars Bars, or raping children, or cheating on their wives, or robbing banks, or joining the Taliban, or torturing dogs etc. It would be nice if people only got satisfaction from doing morally upright things, but unfortunately that is not the case.

As (somewhat) rational human beings we make choices. We weigh up the satisfaction to be derived against the liklihood of being caught and the consequences of being caught. Like i said in the beginning - we make choices. And if we choose one thing instead of another then it's no good whining that God created the consequences of our choices.

PDN wrote: »

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.

We are free agents, we can make all kinds of choices in how we live our lives. But choices have consequences and it is not my place to judge others for the choices they make as long as they are not harming others.

I think the basic principles of ethical behaviour apply to sexuality as they do to everything else.

1. We should be honest towards other people (this applies just as much to business deals as it does to relationships between friends, and towards sexual partners.)

2. We should be considerate of the effects our actions have on others and try to avoid causing unnecessary pain or anguish

3. We should protect the innocent and vulnerable, especially children and people with intellectual disabilities

4. We should treat others the way we would like to be treated ourselves.

If people live by these principles, it doesn't matter if they're gay, or straight, or bisexual, or asexual, its all fine by me.

By pressuring gay people into denying their sexuality based on a religious belief that all homosexual acts are inherently wrong, you are denying them the chance to enjoy a deep fulfilling relationship with another person, and that's a tragedy in my opinion.

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.

I don't know how happily they engage in such behaviour. There is a lot of rape in prison, but a lot of this is down to domination rather than pure sexual urges. Most people in prisons never choose to have gay sex and would rather stay celibate

I know a few guys who tried to suppress their sexuality for years and it only caused them anguish and pain. Since coming out they are leading much happier lives

PDN wrote: »

Exactly. Different people get satisfaction from different things. Some people get satisfaction from collecting stamps, or posting annoying messages on internet fora, or eating Mars Bars, or raping children, or cheating on their wives, or robbing banks, or joining the Taliban, or torturing dogs etc. It would be nice if people only got satisfaction from doing morally upright things, but unfortunately that is not the case.

Very true.

But do you agree though that we don't decide or choose what we get satisfaction out of.

Dudess

PDN wrote: »

We all have sexual urges and those urges can be expressed in different ways depending on our upbringing, environment and our choices.

I think the gay people who were raised by heterosexual parents and surrounded by heterosexual siblings, neighbours, friends, classmates might disagree with you on that one. To say homosexuality is a choice is just.... well I can't believe an adult would think it.

Fanny Cradock

I don't believe that that was PDN's contention.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

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.

Some men, in some prisons. We have no idea how many of these men are actually homosexual, actually bisexual or neither and acting out of fear.

PDN wrote: »

We all have sexual urges and those urges can be expressed in different ways depending on our upbringing, environment and our choices.

Then what in fact you advocate is the suppression of any and all sexual urges that do not serve the purpose of reproduction? Why?

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.

I would not maintain that the threat of osctracism removes choice, particularly not in favour of expressing behavior which carries a risk of social exlusion.

Biology of sexuality is an uncertain area of debate but that aside, pedophilia is not at all analogous to homosexuality when we consider it in a moral sense. We have a social philosophy which says that adults are full free agents. Children are not. The basis of the moral consensus that child molestation is wrong stems from the belief that they are not equipped to make decisions in the same manner as an adult. In reality the extent of agency differs between individual children. In the absence of a practical means to make a call for every individual child on a dynamic basis we must draw an imperfect line at a given age which we hope provides protection for the majority. A pedophile is not wrong to desire, he becomes wrong by our society's measure when he decides ignore the risk that his prospective partner is of reduced agency. They are defying rationally-defined rules designed to protect personal rights whereas if they truly believe that their desires ought to be socially accepted they should instead be rationally arguing to change those rules.

How does the homosexual impinge upon anyone's personal rights in his expression of his desire? Do his actions disregard the agency of his partner? Any comparison (outside of a discussion of the biological workings of sexuality) does homosexuals a great disservice.

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.

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.

but the punishment takes the form of disease and death and earthquakes and all the nasty things that god sent unto man after the fall...

iUseVi

Akrasia wrote: »

but the punishment takes the form of disease and death and earthquakes and all the nasty things that god sent unto man after the fall...

Yeah, it's not really as if God would not have known the effect such a punishment on Adam would have had on the descendants. If he had wanted to punish Adam and only Adam I'm sure He could have found another way, that didn't have "consequences" on the descendants, as PDN puts it.