why did god create cancer?

stewiegriffin08 · 30-06-2008 11:48PM

"Why did god create cancer?"

- To test our faith... :rolleyes:

Zombrex · 01-07-2008 12:01AM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Such an innocent intent could have been achieved by the Mum going out to work and the Dad being the New York deli meal-server. No need for a gay partnership - unless the intent was to protray such as normal and good.

Not if the target audience for the commercial is the mother, which it clearly was, and is in so many of these kitchen commercials. Fathers, in general tend not to do the shopping, or if they do they are told what to by (generalisation of course, but then that is how ads target). Heinz is not selling its product to working mothers or stay at home dads, a smaller market than the larger stay at home mother market.

The punchline of the ad was at the expense of the father, designed mostly to appeal to the mothers watching (as so many ads are, such as the ad when the dad puts 3 loads in the washing machine at once, or when he loads the dishwasher backwards). It was a visual gag

Your assertion also works on the assumption that the ad makers should have gone out of their way to make an ad that couldn't possibly offend conservative anti-homosexual Christians such as yourself. I imagine the film makers had no idea of the fuss this ad would cause in some quarters.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Are you really so naive - or do you think I am?

I think a) you don't have a clue how advertising works and b) you have an agenda yourself to see conspiracy and plotting where there is none.

Mark Hamill · 01-07-2008 12:40PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Mark Hamill said:

You are quite mistaken about the meaning of morality, as you would have discovered if you read all the definitions. One can be immoral by simply embracing immoral thoughts/desires. For example, if one despised black people because of their colour but never said or did anything against them - one would still be a racist. If one embraces sexual desires for children, even if they are never acted on, one is still a paedophile. If one embraces the desire to have sex with the neighbour's wife, one is an adulterer.

Do you really believe such people are morally innocent?

Yes, you can be immoral for embracing certain thoughts, however you are not immoral for just having those thoughts/desires in the first place because morality only applies to your conduct, not the impulses your body throws at you. The man who gets angry and beats his wife and the man who gets angry and goes for a long hard run are both feeling the same anger, however only the man who beats his wife is immoral.

wolfsbane · 02-07-2008 10:18PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes, you can be immoral for embracing certain thoughts, however you are not immoral for just having those thoughts/desires in the first place because morality only applies to your conduct, not the impulses your body throws at you. The man who gets angry and beats his wife and the man who gets angry and goes for a long hard run are both feeling the same anger, however only the man who beats his wife is immoral.

I agree with all that, Mark. I don't know how I came across as not doing so.

I'm glad you accept one can be immoral for embracing certain thoughts. That's all I was saying.

wolfsbane · 02-07-2008 10:24PM

Sapien said:

Again - I know all of the many twisted avenues down which this conversation might go, and I know the scenery to the point of abject boredom. I have flagged the important landmarks for you to note. I have better things to do than lend wind to your billowing bigotry.

Fair enough, I won't detain you against your will. I'm happy enough to have shown you that God regards homosexuality as a sin, and that He is ready to forgive all who are willing to confess it to Him and forsake it by His power.

I wish you every blessing.

AtomicHorror · 02-07-2008 10:54PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, that would be logical. But knowing such moves are so controversial, it still seems to me more likely to be part of an agenda of acceptance than a selling ploy.

Businessmen do not tend to risk money on pushing agendas which are unprofitable. What does a businessman gain from advancing a controversial agenda? You seem to be willing to see vast conspiracies in many places when they are not at all the simplest explanation of events.

The Gay Agenda, the Atheist Conspiracy. I wonder if they are friends with the New World Order?

wolfsbane · 04-07-2008 08:13PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Businessmen do not tend to risk money on pushing agendas which are unprofitable. What does a businessman gain from advancing a controversial agenda? You seem to be willing to see vast conspiracies in many places when they are not at all the simplest explanation of events.

The Gay Agenda, the Atheist Conspiracy. I wonder if they are friends with the New World Order?

You don't believe many rich and powerful people are, and have been, seeking to establish a New World Order? I'm not certain, but there are grounds for suspicion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy)

As to being bad business, depends on what has the priority for the owner, ideology or immediate returns. Those in control may well deem it worthwhile to lose a bit in the short term to forward their political/religious/ideological agenda in the long term.

iUseVi · 05-07-2008 12:30PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

You don't believe many rich and powerful people are, and have been, seeking to establish a New World Order? I'm not certain, but there are grounds for suspicion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy)

LOL, is that a joke? If not, you live in an entirely different world. I suppose the moon landings were a hoax, and the universe was created 1000 years after the Sumerians created glue.... oh wait

wolfsbane · 05-07-2008 02:42PM

iUseVi wrote: »

LOL, is that a joke? If not, you live in an entirely different world. I suppose the moon landings were a hoax, and the universe was created 1000 years after the Sumerians created glue.... oh wait

I find the moon landings most likely genuine, based on the credibility of many of the witnesses.

But as to the truth about the Gulf of Tonkien; Pearl Harbour; Kennedy's assassination; 911; the 'weapons of mass destruction' - I'm not so sure. Did these all happen as the US government said, or were there other plans and planners involved?

Care to reassure me?

Zombrex · 07-07-2008 09:55AM

wolfsbane wrote: »

I find the moon landings most likely genuine, based on the credibility of many of the witnesses.

But as to the truth about the Gulf of Tonkien; Pearl Harbour; Kennedy's assassination; 911; the 'weapons of mass destruction' - I'm not so sure. Did these all happen as the US government said, or were there other plans and planners involved?

Care to reassure me?

Wait, what?

You find the "credibility" of the moon landing witnesses believable (all either NASA or US Airforce personal), but you don't find the eye witnesses of something like Perl Harbor or 9/11 credible.

Again, what?

wolfsbane · 07-07-2008 06:33PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Wait, what?

You find the "credibility" of the moon landing witnesses believable (all either NASA or US Airforce personal), but you don't find the eye witnesses of something like Perl Harbor or 9/11 credible.

Again, what?

Some of the NASA/USAF folk seemed credible to me. And the number of them who attest to the landing and were in a postion to know is significant.

The eye-witnesses to Pearl Harbour and 911 aren't the problem. Those events happened - no one disputes that. The question is were they the result of amazing incompentence and bad luck, or were they allowed to happen/made to happen by the US Government or branches of it.

I've read enough to think it cannot just be dismissed as conspiracy-nut stories. Maybe it is, maybe not.

thefanman · 11-07-2008 08:30PM

As someone who has cancer there is no point in blaming God for someone getting cancer. Sh*t things like cancer happen and God can help someone through horrendous ordeals like cancer if you have faith.

toiletduck · 12-07-2008 03:36AM

My Mother, a devout Catholic, had been diagnosed with Ovarian cancer a year ago. After much surgery and chemo it was pronounced clear.... Then we find she has Breast Cancer. Now our family has to go through all that sh!t again. Why would he put someone through the pain and anguish of all that for a second time, not to mention the family.

It's times like this I'm glad I don't believe in a God.

PDN · 12-07-2008 01:02PM

toiletduck wrote: »

My Mother, a devout Catholic, had been diagnosed with Ovarian cancer a year ago. After much surgery and chemo it was pronounced clear.... Then we find she has Breast Cancer. Now our family has to go through all that sh!t again. Why would he put someone through the pain and anguish of all that for a second time, not to mention the family.

It's times like this I'm glad I don't believe in a God.

Sorry to hear about your mother.

Sometimes atheists complain on this board that Christians give all the credit for good stuff to God but ascribe everything bad to anyone except God. Equally, I see atheists doing the same thing by blaming God (even though they don't believe in Him) for bad stuff but ascribing everything good to anyone except God. Both would appear to be inconsistent.

If you want to argue that God is cruel for allowing your mother to get cancer, then you should also be prepared to thank God for giving you a mother in the first place.

if you want to thank God for the good stuff that happens then your theology needs to be robust enough to question God about why He allows the bad stuff. Such questioning, and even complaining, can be seen in the Psalms siting side by side with thanksgiving and praise.

toiletduck · 12-07-2008 01:21PM

Alcohol + Out with friend whos mother died from it + Emotive thread title = Embarrassment on top of a mild hangover

Sometimes atheists complain on this board that Christians give all the credit for good stuff to God but ascribe everything bad to anyone except God. Equally, I see atheists doing the same thing by blaming God (even though they don't believe in Him) for bad stuff but ascribing everything good to anyone except God. Both would appear to be inconsistent.

It was actually this that I was debating with my (above mentioned) Catholic friend.

Zombrex · 13-07-2008 09:07PM

PDN wrote: »

If you want to argue that God is cruel for allowing your mother to get cancer, then you should also be prepared to thank God for giving you a mother in the first place.

That doesn't make a huge amount of sense PDN.

If I rescued a orphan boy from the Chinese Earthquake and then raped him repeatedly when back in Ireland, do you think anyone would be saying "well yes you can blame him for the rape, but you also have to be prepared to thank him for rescuing you from the Earthquake"

Terrible things people do tend to cancel out how we view the good things they also do.

This is amplified by the concept of God, since there seems to be little reason why God would need to allow things like cancer.

DublinWriter · 13-07-2008 09:12PM

Wicknight wrote: »

This is amplified by the concept of God, since there seems to be little reason why God would need to allow things like cancer.

It's really interesting. Most Christians haven't read the Bible cover to cover so they don't see the first most glaring contradiction that the God of the Old Testament appears totally evil and capricious compared to the God of the New Testament.

Zombrex · 13-07-2008 09:49PM

DublinWriter wrote: »

It's really interesting. Most Christians haven't read the Bible cover to cover so they don't see the first most glaring contradiction that the God of the Old Testament appears totally evil and capricious compared to the God of the New Testament.

Well most Christians appear to start of with the New Testament and then retroactively work out how the god of the Old Testament can't have been that bad (some of the excuses are quite out there, others simply say "I don't know why, but I believe he had a good reason for all of it"

I suppose when you read the New Testament, believe that God exists, it is hard to do anything but that.

It would be interesting to see how many become Christian after reading the Old Testament in detail first before the New Testament.

PDN · 13-07-2008 10:41PM

Wicknight wrote: »

It would be interesting to see how many become Christian after reading the Old Testament in detail first before the New Testament.

That would be just about everybody in the first ten years of the Church's history.

Zombrex · 13-07-2008 10:44PM

PDN wrote: »

That would be just about everybody in the first ten years of the Church's history.

I seriously doubt that. How many of the early Christians could read?

wolfsbane · 14-07-2008 08:32PM

DublinWriter wrote: »

It's really interesting. Most Christians haven't read the Bible cover to cover so they don't see the first most glaring contradiction that the God of the Old Testament appears totally evil and capricious compared to the God of the New Testament.

The New Testament deals with God's grace toward all the nations, not just the Jews, so there is indeed some difference of emphasis with the OT. But is is not any different regarding the nature of God and His providence.

The NT shows how the OT promises of salvation were fulfilled: Christ dying an atoning death for all who trust in Him, the people of God being composed no longer just of faithful Jews but also of faithful Gentiles.

The grace of God toward repentant sinners and His wrath against the unrepentant remain constant in both OT and NT. God disciplines His erring people by sickness and death when they fail to repent; and He kills godless king Herod:
Acts 12:20 Now Herod had been very angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon; but they came to him with one accord, and having made Blastus the king’s personal aide their friend, they asked for peace, because their country was supplied with food by the king’s country.
21 So on a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat on his throne and gave an oration to them. 22 And the people kept shouting, “The voice of a god and not of a man!” 23 Then immediately an angel of the Lord struck him, because he did not give glory to God. And he was eaten by worms and died.
24 But the word of God grew and multiplied.

And of course, the warnings of eternal punishment in hell form a major part of the NT, most from the lips of the Lord Jesus Christ.

God is the same in both Testaments: grace to the repentant, wrath to the unrepentant. It is only the range of His grace that is extended, and grace being by definition unmerited favour, one cannot demand it be the same at all times.

meglome · 17-07-2008 01:16PM

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. [Snip] although I certainly reject any implication that homosexuality is akin to Nazism.

I haven't read this thread at all, I saw this post referenced from feedback and I entirely agree with it, minus the bit I snipped.

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.

But the comment I have highlighted is almost entirely utter rubbish. I'm not a homosexual nor have I ever had a homosexual experience but I do know quite a few people who are homosexual, both men and women. Some people's sexuality is ambiguous but some people are just gay. They don't have any real chemical attraction to members of the opposite sex and as far as I'm concerned that has to be genetic. To suggest it's a choice is ludicrous, like attraction has a magic switch. Attraction to same sex has been documented in other lower mammals too, is that a choice as well. I'm not a great believer in organised religions and I'd like to think that I'm not predisposed to believe any point of view on this topic, I'm just going by what I've actually seen with my own eyes.

JcDubz4life · 05-08-2008 12:16AM

Cause hes a boll*x:D

Seriously though i find peoples belief in religon pretty amusing. By the bibles logic would God not be the devil?? after all he made the world and the world seems to me to be just a cruel sadistic place full of cruel sadistic people. Therefore God is a cruel sadistic entity i.e the devil. Right?

PDN · 05-08-2008 12:41AM

JcDubz4life wrote: »

Cause hes a boll*x:D

Seriously though i find peoples belief in religon pretty amusing. By the bibles logic would God not be the devil?? after all he made the world and the world seems to me to be just a cruel sadistic place full of cruel sadistic people. Therefore God is a cruel sadistic entity i.e the devil. Right?

Troll like that again and you'll be banned.

wolfsbane · 05-08-2008 09:07PM

JcDubz4life wrote: »

Cause hes a boll*x:D

Seriously though i find peoples belief in religon pretty amusing. By the bibles logic would God not be the devil?? after all he made the world and the world seems to me to be just a cruel sadistic place full of cruel sadistic people. Therefore God is a cruel sadistic entity i.e the devil. Right?

You seem to have forgotten that the devil and his angels rebelled against God, and subsequently man did so too - hence the cruel sadistic place full of cruel sadistic people. As you confess you do not know God, that makes you one of these rebels - and the possessor of a cruel sadistic heart, even if you are restrained by God from acting that out.

If you are serious about your life, you need to search your heart in the light of God's word, see how certain you are of eternal condemnation, and turn to Christ as the Saviour of sinners.

I'll be glad to hear from you anytime, if I can help in anyway.

TheDonMan · 05-08-2008 09:17PM

Maybe this has been answered already (I'm not reading through 23 pages) but if God created Adam then why did he create him with curiosity? Surely God being the creator of everything would know that this would lead him to eat the Apple?

Flamed Diving · 05-08-2008 09:33PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

You seem to have forgotten that the devil and his angels rebelled against God, and subsequently man did so too - hence the cruel sadistic place full of cruel sadistic people. As you confess you do not know God, that makes you one of these rebels - and the possessor of a cruel sadistic heart, even if you are restrained by God from acting that out.

If you are serious about your life, you need to search your heart in the light of God's word, see how certain you are of eternal condemnation, and turn to Christ as the Saviour of sinners.

I'll be glad to hear from you anytime, if I can help in anyway.

I love these posts, Wolfy. The Old Testament in full flight, only to be tempered with a dab of New Testament sentimentality.

Fanny Cradock · 05-08-2008 11:21PM

TheDonMan wrote: »

Maybe this has been answered already (I'm not reading through 23 pages) but if God created Adam then why did he create him with curiosity? Surely God being the creator of everything would know that this would lead him to eat the Apple?

One would imagine that without curiosity mankind wouldn't have achieved or amounted to much, be it good or bad.

MrPudding · 06-08-2008 11:00AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

One would imagine that without curiosity mankind wouldn't have achieved or amounted to much, be it good or bad.

But given that he is an all powerful creator surely he could have created us with a version of curiosity that would allow us to achieve great things, without the bad stuff? Why give us a trait that he absolutely knows will cause us to fall, and then throw a mong when we do fall, even though he knew it was going to happen and could have prevented it?

He is supposed to be all powerful and all knowing. Surely it would not be beyond his ability to create a being that can do all the things we can do, still have a free will but not have any desire to do bad stuff? All that we know I what he allows us to know. He could have created us in such a way that the concept of wrongdoing is simply unknown. We would not know any better. We would not feel put upon. We would still think that we had free will and we would still have free will. We could chose what we did and when. Bad things would simply not be a factor. Why did he not do that?

MrP

Zombrex · 06-08-2008 11:52AM

TheDonMan wrote: »

Maybe this has been answered already (I'm not reading through 23 pages) but if God created Adam then why did he create him with curiosity? Surely God being the creator of everything would know that this would lead him to eat the Apple?

Well the most obvious question is why put the tree in the garden in the first place?

why did god create cancer?

Comments