The cancer lady. [locked]

Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
The cancer lady. [locked]

Was it just me or was that lady in the audience who kept pushing Kirk to answer her question a complete moron? He was trying to answer her, and she kept interrupting him and accusing him of avoiding the question which he wasn't doing. What a retard. Why did God allow cancer? The answer to that question is the same answer to why God allows any and all suffering to befall us. And Kirk was trying to answer that broader question, when he kept being very rudely interrupted. God didn't create suffering. He didn't create cancer. He created people with free will, and those people's decisions have caused all the evil in the world, including cancer.

The bible says that the world itself was condemned because of man's sin.

Granted that was a Christian-biblical answer to the question, but that is what was being asked. That question was being asked assuming God was real and Christianity was real. If that is true, then the bible must be the source of the answer to that question.

One angel originally created evil. Then one man recreated it. Evil is nothing more than disobedience to God. For disobedience to God to exist there must be some created thing with the ability to choose whether or not to obey God. That is why sin did not exist prior to the creation of angels. God did not make the angel sin, nor did he make the man sin. He only told them what to do and gave them the free will to obey or not. They chose to not obey. They have suffered the consequences.

 

That just irked me a little. And then I think I saw somewhere on this website bragging about the fact that Kirk couldn't even answer an audience member's question. Please.....Maybe if she would've shut up long enough for him to answer he could have.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


ObnoxiousBitch
Superfan
ObnoxiousBitch's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2006-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: Was it

Musicdude wrote:

Was it just me or was that lady in the audience who kept pushing Kirk to answer her question a complete moron? He was trying to answer her, and she kept interrupting him and accusing him of avoiding the question which he wasn't doing. What a retard. Why did God allow cancer? The answer to that question is the same answer to why God allows any and all suffering to befall us. And Kirk was trying to answer that broader question, when he kept being very rudely interrupted. God didn't create suffering. He didn't create cancer. He created people with free will, and those people's decisions have caused all the evil in the world, including cancer.

[snip]

One angel originally created evil. Then one man recreated it. Evil is nothing more than disobedience to God. For disobedience to God to exist there must be some created thing with the ability to choose whether or not to obey God. That is why sin did not exist prior to the creation of angels. God did not make the angel sin, nor did he make the man sin. He only told them what to do and gave them the free will to obey or not. They chose to not obey. They have suffered the consequences.

That's not what the Bible says! 

Isaiah 45 

7I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (KJV)

7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things. (ASV)

  7 I form the light and create darkness,
       I bring prosperity and create disaster;
       I, the LORD, do all these things. (NSV)

    7Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I [am] Jehovah, doing all these things.' (Young's Literal Translation)

 The audience member was understandably frustrated with Ray's dodge; she asked specifically about cancer, and he went off on the usual "suffering" sermon. I'm sure what she wanted was for Ray to admit that if God created everything, he created cancer, too; and she wanted to know WHY. The argument for this god's omnibenevolence toward his "creation" fails miserably if he's MALevolent enough to not only create cancer, but to create it in such a way that most who die from it (including all his faithful servants) do not succumb peacefully while they're still pain-free and relatively self-reliant. Instead, they and their loved ones are treated to the benevolence inherent in a slow, painful death, where the end often does not come until after one has endured excruciating physical pain while their loved ones watch them become a shell of their former self, helpless and utterly dependent upon others to do the simplest of things - like use the bathroom.

If I was not convinced by any of the other myriad arguments against the existence of a creator, the Problem of Evil alone is compelling enough for me to be on the "Doesn't exist" side.

Invisible friends are for children and psychopaths.


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
what do you mean god didn't

what do you mean god didn't create cancer? the most common argument i hear from theists is that "god created everything". are we picking and choosing, now?

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Nobody likes to think of God

Nobody likes to think of God creating bad things - they like to euphamize by saying "God simply allows X"

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
If the world was perfect and

If the world was perfect and we were too, whats the sense in living our lives, God wants us to learn. We wouldn't appreciate good because we wouldn't know bad....this is way too easy guys.......

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: If the world was

Lux wrote:
If the world was perfect and we were too, whats the sense in living our lives, God wants us to learn. We wouldn't appreciate good because we wouldn't know bad....this is way too easy guys.......

So, for whatever reason God creates evil, you agree with us that he does.

Thank you. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Tyl3r04
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
She was asking him why was

She was asking him why was there cancer. Ray kept applying it to suffering, she wasn't asking about suffering, she was asking about cancer.

"Why would God send his only son to die an agonizing death to redeem an insignificant bit of carbon?"-Victor J. Stenger.


Andyy
Andyy's picture
Posts: 182
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Yeah...

I agree that the lady came across a bit crazy and unstable...

But that doesn't mean that Ray Comfort's point (the same old explanation...) was any good.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: If the world was

Lux wrote:
If the world was perfect and we were too, whats the sense in living our lives, God wants us to learn. We wouldn't appreciate good because we wouldn't know bad....this is way too easy guys.......

Yeah...because God allows perverts to rape and murder sex-save children so I could appreciate how good my childhood really was.


Slimm
Superfan
Slimm's picture
Posts: 167
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude just

Musicdude just try THINKING LOGICALLY about everything you just said, lol.

 

This is a Mad World...

Quote:
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called Insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion." - Robert M. Pirsig,


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Slimm

Slimm wrote:

Musicdude just try THINKING LOGICALLY about everything you just said, lol.

 

This is a Mad World...

I stand by what I said. I don't need a bunch of unbelievers to tell me what the book I live my life by says.

The word of God is a pretty deep book, and it can't just be skimmed through and taken out of context. And it also can't be understood by unbelievers.

1Co 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

If God created evil it would contradict about 60 differents verses in the bible. You quote a single verse and you've got it all figured out. I will not argue about the word of God with unbelievers. It is an utter waste of time.

Whether you agree with my explanation, or Kirk's, or neither, my point was that lady didn't have a clue. She kept accusing him of avoiding the question and he wasn't.

As far as thinking logically goes...I don't think the same way you do, nor do I want to. I think logically, but my viewpoint is entirely different. I somewhat compare my spiritual life to the movie the Matrix. I feel like I see exactly what is going on "I've been unplugged from the unreal world" and everyone else around me is going about their daily lives, oblivious.
I don't want to be plugged back into slavery.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude, did you really

Musicdude, did you really free yourself or just change masters/delusions?

I've always had a problem with the theistic concept of freedom through absolute submission to an invisible being and his earthly representatives.

It's not just a "single verse". It's a claim by your God that he seems to be rather proud of. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


JWMaher
JWMaher's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Lux wrote: If the world was

Lux wrote:
If the world was perfect and we were too, whats the sense in living our lives, God wants us to learn. We wouldn't appreciate good because we wouldn't know bad....this is way too easy guys.......

 

Whether or not God created cancer or whether he/she/it simply allows it to exist still doesn't explain to me why a supposedly benevolent God would create a situation like the following.

I used to work at a major medical center as a patient liaison, and we had a pediatric oncology ward, which is just a euphemism for a place kids with cancer suffer until they die.  There was no discrimination in the ward; children whose parents represented all creeds came there to die in a morphine haze.  I saw the most pious Christians praying over their children with rosaries and the whole nine, only to lose them at any given moment.

So, the question then is: If this is a lesson, why not pick some better examples than the supposed innocent? 

David Cross: So I was watching this one show where - there's a guy on stage and he pretends he has contact with the dead and people are watching.
Audience Member: Crossing Over.
David Cross: No, not Crossing Over. It was uh, church.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1230
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
This is what she actually

This is what she actually asked:

""You gave us an example of the perfection of creation, and therefore the existence of god; the eyes, the nose the mouth. Then how do you explain cancer?"

So ray was previously trying to use certain aspects of the human body as an argument for the existence of god.  In this he was entirely fallacious, dwelling only on the positive attributes, but not taking into account the negatives.  Her question was entirely appropriate.

If positive physiological attributes can be cited in favor of god's existence, analytic consistence would demand that negative attributes (like cancer) argue against its existence.  By retreating behind some generalization about "suffering" (and abandoning a specific analysis of the human body), ray is seeking to conceal his duplicity.  Despite her lack of eloquence, she is simply trying to keep him on topic.

However moronic she seems, ray is by far the greater retard. 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Musicdude,

jcgadfly wrote:

Musicdude, did you really free yourself or just change masters/delusions?

I've always had a problem with the theistic concept of freedom through absolute submission to an invisible being and his earthly representatives.

It's not just a "single verse". It's a claim by your God that he seems to be rather proud of. 

What is it about the theistic concept of freedom you have a problem with? Think of it as a parent/child relationship (which scripture often refers to it as). He's not a master or slave-driver. He's a loving father. He gives us rules and regulations for our own good. He wants the best for us and is just anxiously waiting to give us every blessing we can imagine. We obey out of love not fear. Isn't it common knowledge that love is a much better motivation than fear? Kids who are afraid of their parents usually develop psychological problems later in life.

 

Romans 8:14-17 For all who are being led by the Spirit, these are sons of God. For you have not recieved a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have recieved a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we might be glorified with Him.

 

It's not slavery when you choose to obey someone. No one forces me to obey God. I choose to. My salvation doesn't even depend on it. So you can't say that Hell is a fear motivation. You are saved from Hell the moment you believe in Christ as the Son of God who takes away the sins of the world. From the moment you believe your sins can no longer condemn you. So after that point, if you serve Him, you do so because you want to. That is what so many of you don't seem to get. I'm not serving God out of fear or even duty. I'm serving Him because I want to. It's like when someone saves your life, and you want to do something nice for them in return. Then if they saved your life every single day, you would continue to serve them, out of appreciation and love. That is not slavery. Slavery is being controlled by your own impulses, and being condemned by your sins and having no hope of salvation.

 For those who say that they think Christianity is slavery I ask this. What is it that I am not allowed to do as a Christian that you like to do, that you think I am missing out on? I do not believe I am missing out on anything at all. To the contrary, my life is amazing. I couldn't be any happier. Nothing is missing from my life. And my life has purpose as well. I am here for a reason, and I have a job to do which has a far greater impact on history than anything I could've done without Christ. The things I do here and now have results which last forever, way after my body dies. God provides everything for me. I only need trust Him, then sit back and watch Him bless the crap out of me.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: This is

zarathustra wrote:

This is what she actually asked:

""You gave us an example of the perfection of creation, and therefore the existence of god; the eyes, the nose the mouth. Then how do you explain cancer?"

So ray was previously trying to use certain aspects of the human body as an argument for the existence of god.  In this he was entirely fallacious, dwelling only on the positive attributes, but not taking into account the negatives.  Her question was entirely appropriate.

If positive physiological attributes can be cited in favor of god's existence, analytic consistence would demand that negative attributes (like cancer) argue against its existence.  By retreating behind some generalization about "suffering" (and abandoning a specific analysis of the human body), ray is seeking to conceal his duplicity.  Despite her lack of eloquence, she is simply trying to keep him on topic.

However moronic she seems, ray is by far the greater retard. 

It had nothing to do with eloquence. It had to do with her trying to make him appear to be dodging the question, when he simply wasn't. Her original question was apporpriate, no doubt. But her incessant badgering was not. Kirk wasn't retreating behind a generalization. He was trying to answer her question. The bible doesn't explain specifically why cancer was created. So he could've merely told her he didn't know. But the bible does say why there is suffering, and that is the best way he could answer her, so that is what he was attempting to do while dealing with an onslaught of rude interruptions.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
JWMaher wrote:Lux

JWMaher wrote:

Lux wrote:
If the world was perfect and we were too, whats the sense in living our lives, God wants us to learn. We wouldn't appreciate good because we wouldn't know bad....this is way too easy guys.......

Whether or not God created cancer or whether he/she/it simply allows it to exist still doesn't explain to me why a supposedly benevolent God would create a situation like the following.

I used to work at a major medical center as a patient liaison, and we had a pediatric oncology ward, which is just a euphemism for a place kids with cancer suffer until they die.  There was no discrimination in the ward; children whose parents represented all creeds came there to die in a morphine haze.  I saw the most pious Christians praying over their children with rosaries and the whole nine, only to lose them at any given moment.

So, the question then is: If this is a lesson, why not pick some better examples than the supposed innocent? 

And yet I've known several people personally (and even more impersonally) who had cancer and prayed about it, and it completely disappeared. I've known others who had cancer who prayed about it and later died from it. It boils down to this. His ways are not our ways. His thoughts are not our thoughts. If you are a born again believer, death is nothing to fear. If God can use my death for His purposes, so be it. I don't want to die. I have a great life, and I want to live it. But more than that, I want His will to be accomplished through me. God can heal anyone of cancer. He's done it many times before, in the bible and even today. I've seen it. But if He chooses not to, there is a reason. There may be many reasons. You may never know what those reasons are, or maybe you will. Either way, His ways are higher than our ways. If He deems it necessary for someone to have cancer, then who am I to question God? God tells us what we need to know in His word. He doesn't tell us every single secret of the entire universe. We probably couldn't comprehend it if He did, and either way we don't need to know or He would've told us. Every single instance of suffering in this life, be it sickness, catastrophe, death of a loved one, everything is an opportunity for us to either trust God more or trust Him less. If you trust Him more, then you grow to experience a life that cannot even be described. It is perfect peace, stability, tranquility and happiness. And those four little adjectives don't even come close to describing it.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


JWMaher
JWMaher's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote:

Musicdude wrote:
But the bible does say why there is suffering, and that is the best way he could answer her, so that is what he was attempting to do while dealing with an onslaught of rude interruptions.

All right. It's granted that within the text of the Bible, there is some justification for suffering. However, from a standpoint that is as objectively ethical as one can get, how does a God who represents all that is just and good allow what is essentially collateral damage? When a society punishes someone for transgressions, we punish the person, we don't arbitrarily shoot a child. So, why does God (assuming he is omnipotent/omnibenevolent, and therefore has knowledge that an innocent child will die and has the power to stop it)?

Secondly, to paraphrase Jesus, if I've decided to believe in his word, then my prayers should be answered. So, why does prayer ever fail the pious, and most importantly why would it ever fail in cases where there's a shot to prove a mircle through rewarding the pious?

 

Edit: I saw your response.  I still need to know why a child should be afflicted.  We're talking about a child who can't appreciate the whole "mysterious ways" explanation.  A three year old doesn't have the mental faculty to appreciate that they are being made an example of to show the intricacies of God's plan, so killing them would be a zero-sum game for a didactic God, wouldn't it?

David Cross: So I was watching this one show where - there's a guy on stage and he pretends he has contact with the dead and people are watching.
Audience Member: Crossing Over.
David Cross: No, not Crossing Over. It was uh, church.


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
JWMaher wrote: Musicdude

JWMaher wrote:

Musicdude wrote:
But the bible does say why there is suffering, and that is the best way he could answer her, so that is what he was attempting to do while dealing with an onslaught of rude interruptions.

All right. It's granted that within the text of the Bible, there is some justification for suffering. However, from a standpoint that is as objectively ethical as one can get, how does a God who represents all that is just and good allow what is essentially collateral damage? When a society punishes someone for transgressions, we punish the person, we don't arbitrarily shoot a child. So, why does God (assuming he is omnipotent/omnibenevolent, and therefore has knowledge that an innocent child will die and has the power to stop it)?

Secondly, to paraphrase Jesus, if I've decided to believe in his word, then my prayers should be answered. So, why does prayer ever fail the pious, and most importantly why would it ever fail in cases where there's a shot to prove a mircle through rewarding the pious?

 

Edit: I saw your response.  I still need to know why a child should be afflicted.  We're talking about a child who can't appreciate the whole "mysterious ways" explanation.  A three year old doesn't have the mental faculty to appreciate that they are being made an example of to show the intricacies of God's plan, so killing them would be a zero-sum game for a didactic God, wouldn't it?

Again you are viewing this from your human perspective, which of course is to be expected. But the whole question of why does God let anything bad happen is not a valid question. You are essentially telling God what He should be doing, or saying "If I were God, I wouldn't do it that way." You're not God, and you don't know how you would do it. There is a bigger picture here. There is a conflict between Satan (and his angelic followers) and God, and humanity is the solution to that problem. I'm not going to explain every detail because I don't know every detail, and just explaining what I do know would take to long. But it is extremely crucial to God's plan that we (and the angels) be completely free to make our own choices. For Him to take away all suffering would require Him to control us. Because it is our bad decisions (even the bad decisions of our fathers, and their fathers) that cause suffering in the first place. He will not make us robots. We must have free will. It is the reason for our existence, to choose.

 

As far as babies dying. Again I don't claim to have it all figured out. But I trust God's decisions. Babies are guilty of sin too, BTW, even newborns. We are born condemned. It doesn't happen the first time we sin. It happened the first time Adam sinned. I'll have to quote the verse in romans for you later. But it says "One man sinned, and all mankind fell."

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


JWMaher
JWMaher's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: As far as

Musicdude wrote:
As far as babies dying. Again I don't claim to have it all figured out. But I trust God's decisions. Babies are guilty of sin too, BTW, even newborns. We are born condemned. It doesn't happen the first time we sin. It happened the first time Adam sinned. I'll have to quote the verse in romans for you later. But it says "One man sinned, and all mankind fell."

So, babies are guilty of sin because of original sin.  We won't get into a debate over that because I'm trying to argue from a point within your own personal views.  So, Adam sinned, and mankind fell.  There is suffering among men, women, and children because we bear the burden of this first transgression.  Again, you are claiming that this is somehow fair.  Of course you and/or I conveniently can't prove how it is fair because there is some sort of metaethics involved that is currently beyond the scope of human understanding.

Then I offer this question.  If cancer is some manifestation of a reminder of humankind's trangression against God, why do so many other species get cancer, too?  That seems kind of unfair, don't you think?  I didn't read about a cat or a dog taking a bite out of the apple, but they get leukemia and die just the same.

And I know humans and animals aren't the same in the big scheme of things, but it seems like a lot of trouble to go through for God.  I mean, if our punishments for original sin aren't confined to us as a species, then they really aren't punishments specific to us, right?  So, it follows there should be a better explanation...

David Cross: So I was watching this one show where - there's a guy on stage and he pretends he has contact with the dead and people are watching.
Audience Member: Crossing Over.
David Cross: No, not Crossing Over. It was uh, church.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1230
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: It had

Musicdude wrote:
It had nothing to do with eloquence. It had to do with her trying to make him appear to be dodging the question, when he simply wasn't.

He simply was.  He had previously claimed certain attributes specific to the human body as support for a perfect creator.  In doing so, he is bound to account for other attributes specific to the human body which negate such claims of perfection -- such as the potential for cancer to develop.  If the human eye implies god's existence, then a malignant tumor implies the converse.

 He did not cite the eye or nose as a source of bliss, merely as an example of "perfection".  Therefore, he should only address cancer as an example of "imperfection" -- not as a source of suffering.  Doing this -- and pulling in starvation and natural disaster to boot -- is nothing but a red herring.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


JWMaher
JWMaher's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
If God did create cancer or

If God did create cancer or allow humans to succumb to it, it opens up a whole new line of questioning.  If God created the concept of cancer, then he also created diseases like polio or smallpox to punish humankind. 

1) So, when our medicine advanced to the point that we could vaccinate people against this pestilence, was that in defiance of God? 

2) Did God have to go back to the drawing board and create new diseases to inflict us with to keep up the whole "original sin" decree?

3) If someone gets afflicted with a disease, wouldn't it be better to just let them die?  Isn't interfering meddling with God's will?  The person is being punished for original sin.  Who are we to tell God he can't take them, right?  When a doctor saves a life, is that like stealing from God?

4) Also, shouldn't there be no relief efforts after catastrophes, then?  Why clear away these glaring examples of how humans upset God?

David Cross: So I was watching this one show where - there's a guy on stage and he pretends he has contact with the dead and people are watching.
Audience Member: Crossing Over.
David Cross: No, not Crossing Over. It was uh, church.


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
JWMaher wrote: Musicdude

JWMaher wrote:

Musicdude wrote:
As far as babies dying. Again I don't claim to have it all figured out. But I trust God's decisions. Babies are guilty of sin too, BTW, even newborns. We are born condemned. It doesn't happen the first time we sin. It happened the first time Adam sinned. I'll have to quote the verse in romans for you later. But it says "One man sinned, and all mankind fell."

So, babies are guilty of sin because of original sin.  We won't get into a debate over that because I'm trying to argue from a point within your own personal views.  So, Adam sinned, and mankind fell.  There is suffering among men, women, and children because we bear the burden of this first transgression.  Again, you are claiming that this is somehow fair.  Of course you and/or I conveniently can't prove how it is fair because there is some sort of metaethics involved that is currently beyond the scope of human understanding.

Then I offer this question.  If cancer is some manifestation of a reminder of humankind's trangression against God, why do so many other species get cancer, too?  That seems kind of unfair, don't you think?  I didn't read about a cat or a dog taking a bite out of the apple, but they get leukemia and die just the same.

And I know humans and animals aren't the same in the big scheme of things, but it seems like a lot of trouble to go through for God.  I mean, if our punishments for original sin aren't confined to us as a species, then they really aren't punishments specific to us, right?  So, it follows there should be a better explanation...

No, we aren't condemned because of sin anymore. That ended at the cross. Now we are condemned because of unbelief in Christ. John 3:36 states this precisely.

It is way, way, way more than fair. If God did what was fair, we would have no second chance. We would all be condemned and there would be no hope.
But in His grace, He gave us an easy way out of condemnation, and at a great cost to Himself.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
JWMaher wrote: If God did

JWMaher wrote:

If God did create cancer or allow humans to succumb to it, it opens up a whole new line of questioning.  If God created the concept of cancer, then he also created diseases like polio or smallpox to punish humankind. 

1) So, when our medicine advanced to the point that we could vaccinate people against this pestilence, was that in defiance of God? 

2) Did God have to go back to the drawing board and create new diseases to inflict us with to keep up the whole "original sin" decree?

3) If someone gets afflicted with a disease, wouldn't it be better to just let them die?  Isn't interfering meddling with God's will?  The person is being punished for original sin.  Who are we to tell God he can't take them, right?  When a doctor saves a life, is that like stealing from God?

4) Also, shouldn't there be no relief efforts after catastrophes, then?  Why clear away these glaring examples of how humans upset God?

There is no such thing as meddling with God's will. That is impossible. His will shall be accomplished, and there is nothing anyone can do to prevent it, or even delay it.

If a cure for cancer was discovered tomorrow it would not surprise God.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra

zarathustra wrote:

Musicdude wrote:
It had nothing to do with eloquence. It had to do with her trying to make him appear to be dodging the question, when he simply wasn't.

He simply was.  He had previously claimed certain attributes specific to the human body as support for a perfect creator.  In doing so, he is bound to account for other attributes specific to the human body which negate such claims of perfection -- such as the potential for cancer to develop.  If the human eye implies god's existence, then a malignant tumor implies the converse.

 He did not cite the eye or nose as a source of bliss, merely as an example of "perfection".  Therefore, he should only address cancer as an example of "imperfection" -- not as a source of suffering.  Doing this -- and pulling in starvation and natural disaster to boot -- is nothing but a red herring.

I only watched the debate once, so please refresh my memory. Didn't Kirk explain that Adam and Eve were created perfect, and once mankind fell because of his own bad choices, that is when the world was condemned along with man and woman?
Prior to that, people were eternal. The human body didn't ever wither or die prior to sin. Even today, I have heard it explained that there is absolutely no scientific reason for humans to grow old and die of old age. Our bodies are constantly regenerating themselves and creating new cells of every kind. There is no understandable reason for us to age. But we do. God caused it to happen, and He is not bound by the laws of science, as He was the author of them.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


JWMaher
JWMaher's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: No, we

Musicdude wrote:
No, we aren't condemned because of sin anymore. That ended at the cross. Now we are condemned because of unbelief in Christ. John 3:36 states this precisely.

So, hypothetically, if we were to all believe in Christ and all of his teachings, free radicals would cease to oxidize inside of our bodies, penetrate our living cells, and create cancer?

Hypothetically, if there was a holy war, and the Christians won, and all of the non-believers were deceased, there would no longer be tectonic shift cauing earthquakes and volcanoes and sinkholes, etc.?

Or, is there just always going to be some reason to punish humans no matter what the conditions are here on Earth?  Because then...that is completely unfair, and I think you can agree to that. 

David Cross: So I was watching this one show where - there's a guy on stage and he pretends he has contact with the dead and people are watching.
Audience Member: Crossing Over.
David Cross: No, not Crossing Over. It was uh, church.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: JWMaher

Musicdude wrote:
JWMaher wrote:

Musicdude wrote:
As far as babies dying. Again I don't claim to have it all figured out. But I trust God's decisions. Babies are guilty of sin too, BTW, even newborns. We are born condemned. It doesn't happen the first time we sin. It happened the first time Adam sinned. I'll have to quote the verse in romans for you later. But it says "One man sinned, and all mankind fell."

So, babies are guilty of sin because of original sin. We won't get into a debate over that because I'm trying to argue from a point within your own personal views. So, Adam sinned, and mankind fell. There is suffering among men, women, and children because we bear the burden of this first transgression. Again, you are claiming that this is somehow fair. Of course you and/or I conveniently can't prove how it is fair because there is some sort of metaethics involved that is currently beyond the scope of human understanding.

Then I offer this question. If cancer is some manifestation of a reminder of humankind's trangression against God, why do so many other species get cancer, too? That seems kind of unfair, don't you think? I didn't read about a cat or a dog taking a bite out of the apple, but they get leukemia and die just the same.

And I know humans and animals aren't the same in the big scheme of things, but it seems like a lot of trouble to go through for God. I mean, if our punishments for original sin aren't confined to us as a species, then they really aren't punishments specific to us, right? So, it follows there should be a better explanation...

No, we aren't condemned because of sin anymore. That ended at the cross. Now we are condemned because of unbelief in Christ. John 3:36 states this precisely. It is way, way, way more than fair. If God did what was fair, we would have no second chance. We would all be condemned and there would be no hope. But in His grace, He gave us an easy way out of condemnation, and at a great cost to Himself.

So one can claim a belief in Christ, sin his backside off and be "saved"? 

Others have brought this up (and will bring it up again) but what was this great cost to himself again?  

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
JWMaher wrote:Musicdude

JWMaher wrote:

Musicdude wrote:
No, we aren't condemned because of sin anymore. That ended at the cross. Now we are condemned because of unbelief in Christ. John 3:36 states this precisely.

So, hypothetically, if we were to all believe in Christ and all of his teachings, free radicals would cease to oxidize inside of our bodies, penetrate our living cells, and create cancer?

Hypothetically, if there was a holy war, and the Christians won, and all of the non-believers were deceased, there would no longer be tectonic shift cauing earthquakes and volcanoes and sinkholes, etc.?

Or, is there just always going to be some reason to punish humans no matter what the conditions are here on Earth?  Because then...that is completely unfair, and I think you can agree to that. 

No, all those things will continue to exist (and get worse) until Christ returns to reign on earth. When He does return, He will end all of that, and the earth will be as it was before man screwed it up.

Again, it isn't a matter of fair or unfair. Christians have all the power they need to overcome any adversity, and doing so brings them closer to God. Unbelivers are on their own because they reject God's grace.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Musicdude

jcgadfly wrote:
Musicdude wrote:
JWMaher wrote:

Musicdude wrote:
As far as babies dying. Again I don't claim to have it all figured out. But I trust God's decisions. Babies are guilty of sin too, BTW, even newborns. We are born condemned. It doesn't happen the first time we sin. It happened the first time Adam sinned. I'll have to quote the verse in romans for you later. But it says "One man sinned, and all mankind fell."

So, babies are guilty of sin because of original sin. We won't get into a debate over that because I'm trying to argue from a point within your own personal views. So, Adam sinned, and mankind fell. There is suffering among men, women, and children because we bear the burden of this first transgression. Again, you are claiming that this is somehow fair. Of course you and/or I conveniently can't prove how it is fair because there is some sort of metaethics involved that is currently beyond the scope of human understanding.

Then I offer this question. If cancer is some manifestation of a reminder of humankind's trangression against God, why do so many other species get cancer, too? That seems kind of unfair, don't you think? I didn't read about a cat or a dog taking a bite out of the apple, but they get leukemia and die just the same.

And I know humans and animals aren't the same in the big scheme of things, but it seems like a lot of trouble to go through for God. I mean, if our punishments for original sin aren't confined to us as a species, then they really aren't punishments specific to us, right? So, it follows there should be a better explanation...

No, we aren't condemned because of sin anymore. That ended at the cross. Now we are condemned because of unbelief in Christ. John 3:36 states this precisely. It is way, way, way more than fair. If God did what was fair, we would have no second chance. We would all be condemned and there would be no hope. But in His grace, He gave us an easy way out of condemnation, and at a great cost to Himself.

So one can claim a belief in Christ, sin his backside off and be "saved"? 

Others have brought this up (and will bring it up again) but what was this great cost to himself again?  

No, they can't just claim to believe. They have to actually believe. And yes, once they recieve eternal life (the moment they believe) it is just that, eternal. Things which are eternal never end, therefore it can't be lost for any reason.

What cost? How about the torture for starters?
Not to mention taking on the sins of the world. For God to even be in the presence of sin is excruciating. But to actually take on the guilt for them is far worse than even the worst physical torture the Romans inflicted upon Him.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


JWMaher
JWMaher's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: JWMaher

Musicdude wrote:
JWMaher wrote:

So, hypothetically,...

No, all those things will continue to exist (and get worse) until Christ returns to reign on earth. When He does return, He will end all of that, and the earth will be as it was before man screwed it up.

On Earth, we call this extortion.  You do realize that at least, right?  You have laid out the groundwork for the ethics underlying suffering, and it boils down to one of the most unethical concepts known to man.  So, it's really not mysterious at all...it's extortion. 

David Cross: So I was watching this one show where - there's a guy on stage and he pretends he has contact with the dead and people are watching.
Audience Member: Crossing Over.
David Cross: No, not Crossing Over. It was uh, church.


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
JWMaher wrote:Musicdude

JWMaher wrote:
Musicdude wrote:
JWMaher wrote:

So, hypothetically,...

No, all those things will continue to exist (and get worse) until Christ returns to reign on earth. When He does return, He will end all of that, and the earth will be as it was before man screwed it up.

On Earth, we call this extortion.  You do realize that at least, right?  You have laid out the groundwork for the ethics underlying suffering, and it boils down to one of the most unethical concepts known to man.  So, it's really not mysterious at all...it's extortion. 

How in the world do you come to that conclusion?
What is God gaining from all this?

We corrupt our own souls. He fixes them (or at least offers to fix them.)

We corrupt the earth. He fixes that too.

That is pure grace. That is something for nothing. That is far beyond fair.

Again, your whole premise is based on God being the center of all suffering. And He is not. We are. The only suffering God causes is for discipline (not punishment, there is a difference), and it is only for His children, not unbelievers.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: jcgadfly

Musicdude wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
Musicdude wrote:
JWMaher wrote:

Musicdude wrote:
As far as babies dying. Again I don't claim to have it all figured out. But I trust God's decisions. Babies are guilty of sin too, BTW, even newborns. We are born condemned. It doesn't happen the first time we sin. It happened the first time Adam sinned. I'll have to quote the verse in romans for you later. But it says "One man sinned, and all mankind fell."

So, babies are guilty of sin because of original sin. We won't get into a debate over that because I'm trying to argue from a point within your own personal views. So, Adam sinned, and mankind fell. There is suffering among men, women, and children because we bear the burden of this first transgression. Again, you are claiming that this is somehow fair. Of course you and/or I conveniently can't prove how it is fair because there is some sort of metaethics involved that is currently beyond the scope of human understanding.

Then I offer this question. If cancer is some manifestation of a reminder of humankind's trangression against God, why do so many other species get cancer, too? That seems kind of unfair, don't you think? I didn't read about a cat or a dog taking a bite out of the apple, but they get leukemia and die just the same.

And I know humans and animals aren't the same in the big scheme of things, but it seems like a lot of trouble to go through for God. I mean, if our punishments for original sin aren't confined to us as a species, then they really aren't punishments specific to us, right? So, it follows there should be a better explanation...

No, we aren't condemned because of sin anymore. That ended at the cross. Now we are condemned because of unbelief in Christ. John 3:36 states this precisely. It is way, way, way more than fair. If God did what was fair, we would have no second chance. We would all be condemned and there would be no hope. But in His grace, He gave us an easy way out of condemnation, and at a great cost to Himself.

So one can claim a belief in Christ, sin his backside off and be "saved"?

Others have brought this up (and will bring it up again) but what was this great cost to himself again?

No, they can't just claim to believe. They have to actually believe. And yes, once they recieve eternal life (the moment they believe) it is just that, eternal. Things which are eternal never end, therefore it can't be lost for any reason. What cost? How about the torture for starters? Not to mention taking on the sins of the world. For God to even be in the presence of sin is excruciating. But to actually take on the guilt for them is far worse than even the worst physical torture the Romans inflicted upon Him.

Oh, so you can actually believe and commit whatever sins you want and be "saved"? That's what I like about Calvinism. You put yourself through all the motions of believing (without knowing for sure whether you're one of the elect but doing it just in case). Then, because you believe you're one of the elect because you went through the motions, you can commit any sin you want because you have "eternal security" (but you're not sure you're one of the elect that God has predestined for heaven)

As far as the "cost" - If you take the Scripture at face value, God sacrificed himself to himself (losing nothing). If you don't, a fictional character went through some really nasty things in order to move the book's plot forward.  

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Andyy
Andyy's picture
Posts: 182
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
yeah...

Musicdude!! I can totally relate to you!!! Back when I was a born-again, bible believing Christian, I used to say almost word for word the same things you are! I had a solid 10 years of my life where I was in churches, in the mission field, teaching and training new christians, taking college level theology courses, and ever spent time on atheist message boards leaving posts!

But I tell you, its totally like the Matrix. This dogma has your mind completely ensnared. The whole way you view reality is completely distorted.  Assuming you spend 5 hours a week in church, small groups, teaching, reading Christian books, or whatever... that would mean you spend over 150 hours a year training your mind to accept something without evidence.  In fact, I would bet that you mind has been trained to think there is evidence.  Train any person for that much time over the course of years and its no surprise people believe irrationaly things.  And when you have enough other people that beleive the same things, you've got the perfect recipe for a matrix like bubble life.

 Breaking a mind free is a tough thing and it takes a lot of work.  For me it over a year of independent travel around the world, a handful of patient friends who accepted me despite my delusion, visiting museums, and some time out of the "matrix bubble" (which was the logical result of traveling).  Throw in the fact that the travels cost me over $10,000.  That's how diffictult it was for me to escape.

With that said musicguy, I know that people arguing with you on an internet message board has no chance of helping you open your eyes, but also know that the people you are talking to are not just confused sad people that need jesus' help.  I can't speak for the others, but deconversion for me took thought, logic, open mindedness, and rationality at a depth that no person ensnared in any dogma has ever experienced.


JWMaher
JWMaher's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: How in the

Musicdude wrote:
How in the world do you come to that conclusion? What is God gaining from all this? We corrupt our own souls. He fixes them (or at least offers to fix them.) We corrupt the earth. He fixes that too. That is pure grace. That is something for nothing. That is far beyond fair. Again, your whole premise is based on God being the center of all suffering. And He is not. We are. The only suffering God causes is for discipline (not punishment, there is a difference), and it is only for His children, not unbelievers.

I come to that conclusion fairly easily.  There is suffering.  The reason given for suffering was laid out in the Gospel passage you quoted.  However, correcting that reason within an individual does not spare them from suffering.  In fact, correcting that condition within every individual does not satisfy the condition.  There will be suffering, regardless, until a predetermined event happens (the return of Christ).  It then follows that there isn't suffering because of a disbelief in Christ, there is suffering because Christ hasn't returned yet.  The belief in him or not has nothing to do with it, according to your own words, because at the time of the second coming, all the suffering is going to end.

That's like saying, I'm going to set a house on fire every day if I'm not given ten million dollars.  Then I get the ten million dollars and I say, "Oh, it doesn't matter, I'm going to keep setting houses on fire for a few more weeks, because that was my plan all along."  The end of the arson wasn't contingent upon the condition I set forth.  Do you see now?

Your argument skips all over the place, so it's hard to keep it pinned down.  We corrupt our own souls?  Well, then that brings me back to the fact that there is no need to kill an innocent, because by your words, I can't corrupt another.  Killing a child in a horrific manner doesn't prove or fix anything, especially the supposed soul of the child, who is naive and hasn't the slightest clue what's happenening.  That's using a person as a pawn to prove a point to others, which makes no sense if it's done to people who a) have totally committed to the rules set forth by the Gospel or b) are beyond the reach of the Gospel, because they'll be punished far worse (supposedly).

    If was presume every statement you said is infallible truth, the status quo is not something for nothing at all.  You presuppose suffering as the price people pay for something lacking in the world, whether they are to blame or not, with no way to resolve that situation.  It's something for something...in fact, it's something for every second you live under that constraint.  It's something for everything, not nothing.  In fact, if you live a good life, help others, and just choose not to believe in Jesus, it's everything for nothing.  Wholly unfair.

(You did say something else interesting that will require coming back to: How is God fixing the corrupting of the Earth?  Don't answer that yet.  That deserves its own thread.)

David Cross: So I was watching this one show where - there's a guy on stage and he pretends he has contact with the dead and people are watching.
Audience Member: Crossing Over.
David Cross: No, not Crossing Over. It was uh, church.


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Musicdude

jcgadfly wrote:
Musicdude wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
Musicdude wrote:
JWMaher wrote:

Musicdude wrote:
As far as babies dying. Again I don't claim to have it all figured out. But I trust God's decisions. Babies are guilty of sin too, BTW, even newborns. We are born condemned. It doesn't happen the first time we sin. It happened the first time Adam sinned. I'll have to quote the verse in romans for you later. But it says "One man sinned, and all mankind fell."

So, babies are guilty of sin because of original sin. We won't get into a debate over that because I'm trying to argue from a point within your own personal views. So, Adam sinned, and mankind fell. There is suffering among men, women, and children because we bear the burden of this first transgression. Again, you are claiming that this is somehow fair. Of course you and/or I conveniently can't prove how it is fair because there is some sort of metaethics involved that is currently beyond the scope of human understanding.

Then I offer this question. If cancer is some manifestation of a reminder of humankind's trangression against God, why do so many other species get cancer, too? That seems kind of unfair, don't you think? I didn't read about a cat or a dog taking a bite out of the apple, but they get leukemia and die just the same.

And I know humans and animals aren't the same in the big scheme of things, but it seems like a lot of trouble to go through for God. I mean, if our punishments for original sin aren't confined to us as a species, then they really aren't punishments specific to us, right? So, it follows there should be a better explanation...

No, we aren't condemned because of sin anymore. That ended at the cross. Now we are condemned because of unbelief in Christ. John 3:36 states this precisely. It is way, way, way more than fair. If God did what was fair, we would have no second chance. We would all be condemned and there would be no hope. But in His grace, He gave us an easy way out of condemnation, and at a great cost to Himself.

So one can claim a belief in Christ, sin his backside off and be "saved"?

Others have brought this up (and will bring it up again) but what was this great cost to himself again?

No, they can't just claim to believe. They have to actually believe. And yes, once they recieve eternal life (the moment they believe) it is just that, eternal. Things which are eternal never end, therefore it can't be lost for any reason. What cost? How about the torture for starters? Not to mention taking on the sins of the world. For God to even be in the presence of sin is excruciating. But to actually take on the guilt for them is far worse than even the worst physical torture the Romans inflicted upon Him.

Oh, so you can actually believe and commit whatever sins you want and be "saved"? That's what I like about Calvinism. You put yourself through all the motions of believing (without knowing for sure whether you're one of the elect but doing it just in case). Then, because you believe you're one of the elect because you went through the motions, you can commit any sin you want because you have "eternal security" (but you're not sure you're one of the elect that God has predestined for heaven)

As far as the "cost" - If you take the Scripture at face value, God sacrificed himself to himself (losing nothing). If you don't, a fictional character went through some really nasty things in order to move the book's plot forward.  

I don't buy into Calvinism or Armenianism. They both miss the mark in my opinion. No cost? He didn't sacrifice Himself to Himself. Christ sacrificed Himself to His Father. They are not the same person. They are two parts of a triune God. And even if they were one person, if it was necessary for God to go through torture so that we might live, and He did that. How is that not sacrifce? In a legal sense Christ sacrificed Himself to the Father, but it was for us. It was so that we could live and not be condemned anymore. God gained nothing from the cross. His loss was our gain.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


Cdat
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote:

Musicdude wrote:
JWMaher wrote:

Musicdude wrote:
No, we aren't condemned because of sin anymore. That ended at the cross. Now we are condemned because of unbelief in Christ. John 3:36 states this precisely.

So, hypothetically, if we were to all believe in Christ and all of his teachings, free radicals would cease to oxidize inside of our bodies, penetrate our living cells, and create cancer?

Hypothetically, if there was a holy war, and the Christians won, and all of the non-believers were deceased, there would no longer be tectonic shift cauing earthquakes and volcanoes and sinkholes, etc.?

Or, is there just always going to be some reason to punish humans no matter what the conditions are here on Earth? Because then...that is completely unfair, and I think you can agree to that.

No, all those things will continue to exist (and get worse) until Christ returns to reign on earth. When He does return, He will end all of that, and the earth will be as it was before man screwed it up. Again, it isn't a matter of fair or unfair. Christians have all the power they need to overcome any adversity, and doing so brings them closer to God. Unbelivers are on their own because they reject God's grace.

 

So we are all screwed until the great juju in the sky gets off his ass and shows up for work? Wow, makes me want to go back to mass. Woohoo. But if I believe hard enough, I can overcome cancer? Hate to say, but I need a little proof of that, like studies done by non-religious medical centers? Since the most recent study on prayer showed it did not work(outside of a possible placebo effect), I am wondering where this magic cancer killing prayer is...


JWMaher
JWMaher's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: And even

Musicdude wrote:
And even if they were one person, if it was necessary for God to go through torture so that we might live, and He did that.

1) Why was it necessary?  What was the eminent threat that the crucifixion prevented?

2) Why was torture/crucifixion the only solution?

3) An all-powerful God being pigeonholed by circumstance refutes omnipotence, doesn't it?  Wouldn't God, by Christian definition, have infinite options to get his message across?

4) If humans have free will, how could it be said that the torture was necessary?  If humans had/have free will, that couldn't have been predicted. Essentially all of the agents involved, like Judas, Pontius Pilate, etc. all had free will.  So, to act like it was predetermined that Jesus would die on a cross is kind of presumptuous, don't you think?  Couldn't anything have gone wrong?  Or was free will suspended to ensure the fulfillment of a prophecy?  If free will was suspended, doesn't that also destroy your argument that God can't/won't suspend free will to save humanity?

David Cross: So I was watching this one show where - there's a guy on stage and he pretends he has contact with the dead and people are watching.
Audience Member: Crossing Over.
David Cross: No, not Crossing Over. It was uh, church.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: jcgadfly

Musicdude wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
Musicdude wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
Musicdude wrote:
JWMaher wrote:

Musicdude wrote:
As far as babies dying. Again I don't claim to have it all figured out. But I trust God's decisions. Babies are guilty of sin too, BTW, even newborns. We are born condemned. It doesn't happen the first time we sin. It happened the first time Adam sinned. I'll have to quote the verse in romans for you later. But it says "One man sinned, and all mankind fell."

So, babies are guilty of sin because of original sin. We won't get into a debate over that because I'm trying to argue from a point within your own personal views. So, Adam sinned, and mankind fell. There is suffering among men, women, and children because we bear the burden of this first transgression. Again, you are claiming that this is somehow fair. Of course you and/or I conveniently can't prove how it is fair because there is some sort of metaethics involved that is currently beyond the scope of human understanding.

Then I offer this question. If cancer is some manifestation of a reminder of humankind's trangression against God, why do so many other species get cancer, too? That seems kind of unfair, don't you think? I didn't read about a cat or a dog taking a bite out of the apple, but they get leukemia and die just the same.

And I know humans and animals aren't the same in the big scheme of things, but it seems like a lot of trouble to go through for God. I mean, if our punishments for original sin aren't confined to us as a species, then they really aren't punishments specific to us, right? So, it follows there should be a better explanation...

No, we aren't condemned because of sin anymore. That ended at the cross. Now we are condemned because of unbelief in Christ. John 3:36 states this precisely. It is way, way, way more than fair. If God did what was fair, we would have no second chance. We would all be condemned and there would be no hope. But in His grace, He gave us an easy way out of condemnation, and at a great cost to Himself.

So one can claim a belief in Christ, sin his backside off and be "saved"?

Others have brought this up (and will bring it up again) but what was this great cost to himself again?

No, they can't just claim to believe. They have to actually believe. And yes, once they recieve eternal life (the moment they believe) it is just that, eternal. Things which are eternal never end, therefore it can't be lost for any reason. What cost? How about the torture for starters? Not to mention taking on the sins of the world. For God to even be in the presence of sin is excruciating. But to actually take on the guilt for them is far worse than even the worst physical torture the Romans inflicted upon Him.

Oh, so you can actually believe and commit whatever sins you want and be "saved"? That's what I like about Calvinism. You put yourself through all the motions of believing (without knowing for sure whether you're one of the elect but doing it just in case). Then, because you believe you're one of the elect because you went through the motions, you can commit any sin you want because you have "eternal security" (but you're not sure you're one of the elect that God has predestined for heaven)

As far as the "cost" - If you take the Scripture at face value, God sacrificed himself to himself (losing nothing). If you don't, a fictional character went through some really nasty things in order to move the book's plot forward.

I don't buy into Calvinism or Armenianism. They both miss the mark in my opinion. No cost? He didn't sacrifice Himself to Himself. Christ sacrificed Himself to His Father. They are not the same person. They are two parts of a triune God. And even if they were one person, if it was necessary for God to go through torture so that we might live, and He did that. How is that not sacrifce? In a legal sense Christ sacrificed Himself to the Father, but it was for us. It was so that we could live and not be condemned anymore. God gained nothing from the cross. His loss was our gain.

Just asking (not an intentional flame)...

Are you a proponent of some form of modalism? 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1230
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: I only

Musicdude wrote:
I only watched the debate once, so please refresh my memory. Didn't Kirk explain that Adam and Eve were created perfect, and once mankind fell because of his own bad choices, that is when the world was condemned along with man and woman? Prior to that, people were eternal. The human body didn't ever wither or die prior to sin. Even today, I have heard it explained that there is absolutely no scientific reason for humans to grow old and die of old age. Our bodies are constantly regenerating themselves and creating new cells of every kind. There is no understandable reason for us to age. But we do. God caused it to happen, and He is not bound by the laws of science, as He was the author of them.

That's quite off the point.  Once again:  What the woman was referring to was his citation of the complexity/order of the eye or nose as an argument for god's existence (this is much akin to his brainless screed about the banana, "the atheist's nightmare&quotEye-wink.  The prescence of cancer in humans undermines his argument of biological order, so she is calling him to task on it.  You can't selectively attribute the good features of human physiology to god, and then attribute the bad features to something else.  By putting up a screen about "suffering", he is avoiding this essential flaw in his argument.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra

zarathustra wrote:

Musicdude wrote:
I only watched the debate once, so please refresh my memory. Didn't Kirk explain that Adam and Eve were created perfect, and once mankind fell because of his own bad choices, that is when the world was condemned along with man and woman? Prior to that, people were eternal. The human body didn't ever wither or die prior to sin. Even today, I have heard it explained that there is absolutely no scientific reason for humans to grow old and die of old age. Our bodies are constantly regenerating themselves and creating new cells of every kind. There is no understandable reason for us to age. But we do. God caused it to happen, and He is not bound by the laws of science, as He was the author of them.

That's quite off the point.  Once again:  What the woman was referring to was his citation of the complexity/order of the eye or nose as an argument for god's existence (this is much akin to his brainless screed about the banana, "the atheist's nightmare&quotEye-wink.  The prescence of cancer in humans undermines his argument of biological order, so she is calling him to task on it.  You can't selectively attribute the good features of human physiology to god, and then attribute the bad features to something else.  By putting up a screen about "suffering", he is avoiding this essential flaw in his argument.

But cancer isn't a feature of the human body. It's a disease, much like sin. The body was not made for sin, as the bible says 1Corinthians. Nor was it made for cancer. God had much better plans for us, but we blew it. The body that God designed did not have cancer, nor was it able to get cancer. It changed after sin entered the world. Everything changed.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Musicdude

jcgadfly wrote:
Just asking (not an intentional flame)...

Are you a proponent of some form of modalism? 

No, I agree with orthodox trinitarianism. God in three unique persons. There are verses in the bible that talk about the coming of Christ, and they say no one knows the day or the hour of His return. It literally says that even Jesus Himself does not know the day, only the Father knows. How can the Father know something that Jesus doesn't know, if they are the same person? Of course they are both omnipotent, so that poses somewhat of a problem. But maybe the hour and day have not been decided yet, and it will be the Father who decides. I don't know, but that verse among others makes it pretty clear to me that they are individual persons. In the baptism of Christ, all three members of the trinity were present at the same time. Jesus was being baptized, the Holy Spirit came to Him in the form of a dove, and the Father was speaking to Him saying that He was well pleased with His Son at that time.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


Andyy
Andyy's picture
Posts: 182
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
JWMaher wrote: On Earth,

JWMaher wrote:

On Earth, we call this extortion. You do realize that at least, right? You have laid out the groundwork for the ethics underlying suffering, and it boils down to one of the most unethical concepts known to man. So, it's really not mysterious at all...it's extortion.

 

God's exempt from his own laws, remember? Undecided

He can kill, lie, have sex outside of marriage (was he married to Mary? Tongue out), be vengeful, hateful, torture people, have I forgotten anything else?

God is perfect, all loving, all powerful, and is everywhere?  Yet we seem to be hearing alot of excuses why he doesn't act all loving or all powerful. 


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Andyy wrote: JWMaher

Andyy wrote:
JWMaher wrote:

On Earth, we call this extortion. You do realize that at least, right? You have laid out the groundwork for the ethics underlying suffering, and it boils down to one of the most unethical concepts known to man. So, it's really not mysterious at all...it's extortion.

 

God's exempt from his own laws, remember? Undecided

He can kill, lie, have sex outside of marriage (was he married to Mary? Tongue out), be vengeful, hateful, torture people, have I forgotten anything else?

God is perfect, all loving, all powerful, and is everywhere?  Yet we seem to be hearing alot of excuses why he doesn't act all loving or all powerful. 

What I don't get is how just because you can't fully comprehend God, that means He must not exist. It's a good thing scientists don't have that attitude or we'd never know anything about the universe. When I hear crap like this I get a feeling probably quite similar to the feeling you get when some redneck says "I ain't come frum no monkey." You need to learn a little more about what you hate so much, and then if you still hate it, at least your hatred will based on something solid. And don't tell me you've read the bible. I know tons of Christians who have read the bible and have no clue what it means.

God's laws are for people. Is He exempt from them? Of course. He is exempt from everything. No one tells God what to do. But is He exempt from being just and righteous? No, because that is part of who He is, and He will never change. Some people think if anyone goes to Hell it is unfair. But again, those same people don't know the first thing about God or sin. Does letting a crime go unpunished sound like perfect justice to you? But His grace allows his justice to be carried out on His Son instead of us. That is way beyond fair. Again, if we got what was fair there would be no second chance. We would be condemned with no hope of redemption.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: jcgadfly

Musicdude wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
Just asking (not an intentional flame)...

 

Are you a proponent of some form of modalism?

No, I agree with orthodox trinitarianism. God in three unique persons. There are verses in the bible that talk about the coming of Christ, and they say no one knows the day or the hour of His return. It literally says that even Jesus Himself does not know the day, only the Father knows. How can the Father know something that Jesus doesn't know, if they are the same person? Of course they are both omnipotent, so that poses somewhat of a problem. But maybe the hour and day have not been decided yet, and it will be the Father who decides. I don't know, but that verse among others makes it pretty clear to me that they are individual persons. In the baptism of Christ, all three members of the trinity were present at the same time. Jesus was being baptized, the Holy Spirit came to Him in the form of a dove, and the Father was speaking to Him saying that He was well pleased with His Son at that time.

So they all have the same divine nature but they know or do different things? Doesn't sound that much different from traditional polytheism.  

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Musicdude

jcgadfly wrote:
Musicdude wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
Just asking (not an intentional flame)...

 

Are you a proponent of some form of modalism?

No, I agree with orthodox trinitarianism. God in three unique persons. There are verses in the bible that talk about the coming of Christ, and they say no one knows the day or the hour of His return. It literally says that even Jesus Himself does not know the day, only the Father knows. How can the Father know something that Jesus doesn't know, if they are the same person? Of course they are both omnipotent, so that poses somewhat of a problem. But maybe the hour and day have not been decided yet, and it will be the Father who decides. I don't know, but that verse among others makes it pretty clear to me that they are individual persons. In the baptism of Christ, all three members of the trinity were present at the same time. Jesus was being baptized, the Holy Spirit came to Him in the form of a dove, and the Father was speaking to Him saying that He was well pleased with His Son at that time.

So they all have the same divine nature but they know or do different things? Doesn't sound that much different from traditional polytheism.  

No it isn't polytheism, because they are three and one at the same time. There are certain things that the bible states about God that cannot be comprehended, and just must be accepted by faith. That is one of them. It is not unrealistic to think that maybe our little human brains aren't big enough to fully understand the nature of the universe and every aspect of it's Creator. In fact it's pretty arrogant to think we can. There are certain questions that science has no answer for, but that doesn't make you doubt science. I don't have to know every single minute detail about God in order to believe He is real.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


JWMaher
JWMaher's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: It is not

Musicdude wrote:
It is not unrealistic to think that maybe our little human brains aren't big enough to fully understand the nature of the universe and every aspect of it's Creator. In fact it's pretty arrogant to think we can. There are certain questions that science has no answer for, but that doesn't make you doubt science. I don't have to know every single minute detail about God in order to believe He is real.

No, but we should be able to say with some certainty that God has the qualities that are attributed to him through the Bible and subsequent theological consensus.  When God is described to me as omnipotent and omnibenevolent, among other things, and then there are passages in the Bible that lead a reader to believe he is neither, and the only response from Christians is "Well, God is mysterious and we can't expect to understand him," then why were we given explanations in the first place?

That's akin to me saying, "My dog is black and white."  Then you see my dog, and it's a Golden Retriever.  And you say, "You said your dog is black and white.  He's clearly yellow."  And I respond with, "Look, the way I described my dog is accurate.  He is black and white.  You just cannot fathom the intracacies of why these colors apply to him, and it's arrogant of you to show evidence otherwise.  Any statement that he is yellow is just proof of your misunderstanding of his mystery."

If God is so unknown to us, then isn't every single description given to us in the Bible a waste of text? 

David Cross: So I was watching this one show where - there's a guy on stage and he pretends he has contact with the dead and people are watching.
Audience Member: Crossing Over.
David Cross: No, not Crossing Over. It was uh, church.


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
JWMaher wrote:Musicdude

JWMaher wrote:

Musicdude wrote:
It is not unrealistic to think that maybe our little human brains aren't big enough to fully understand the nature of the universe and every aspect of it's Creator. In fact it's pretty arrogant to think we can. There are certain questions that science has no answer for, but that doesn't make you doubt science. I don't have to know every single minute detail about God in order to believe He is real.

No, but we should be able to say with some certainty that God has the qualities that are attributed to him through the Bible and subsequent theological consensus.  When God is described to me as omnipotent and omnibenevolent, among other things, and then there are passages in the Bible that lead a reader to believe he is neither, and the only response from Christians is "Well, God is mysterious and we can't expect to understand him," then why were we given explanations in the first place?

That's akin to me saying, "My dog is black and white."  Then you see my dog, and it's a Golden Retriever.  And you say, "You said your dog is black and white.  He's clearly yellow."  And I respond with, "Look, the way I described my dog is accurate.  He is black and white.  You just cannot fathom the intracacies of why these colors apply to him, and it's arrogant of you to show evidence otherwise.  Any statement that he is yellow is just proof of your misunderstanding of his mystery."

If God is so unknown to us, then isn't every single description given to us in the Bible a waste of text? 

Give me an example of such an occurence, and I promise I'll give you a better answer than "well, God is mysterious and we can't expect to understand Him." And I mean an issue that really matters, because to me I don't care if God is technically three persons or one. It makes no difference to me. I want you to show me an issue of contradiction, such as you mentioned that actually makes a difference that you have yet to hear a reasonable answer from a Christian. And I'll try to be the first Christian who gives you a reasonable answer. You will most likely still disagree with my answer, but at least you will see that I have looked into it and have at least gone to the trouble to find an answer instead of just using the copout "it's a mystery." That reminds me of George Carlin's standup show one time. He was talking about Catholic school and how the kids would ask the priests questions like "if I was on a ship at sea, and the chaplin went into a coma, and I wanted to confess but I couldn't, would God still call that a sin." To which they replied "it's a mystery." lol

But seriously, just because a random person who calls himself a christian doesn't have all the answers, doesn't mean that the bible doesn't have the answers. It just means that person doesn't know the bible very well. You don't just magically obtain full knowledge of all scripture the moment you believe in Jesus. It requires much study, just like any other subject. Some people make the effort, but most don't. Sadly, the one's who don't make the effort are usually the most opinionated.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: JWMaher

Musicdude wrote:
JWMaher wrote:

Musicdude wrote:
It is not unrealistic to think that maybe our little human brains aren't big enough to fully understand the nature of the universe and every aspect of it's Creator. In fact it's pretty arrogant to think we can. There are certain questions that science has no answer for, but that doesn't make you doubt science. I don't have to know every single minute detail about God in order to believe He is real.

No, but we should be able to say with some certainty that God has the qualities that are attributed to him through the Bible and subsequent theological consensus. When God is described to me as omnipotent and omnibenevolent, among other things, and then there are passages in the Bible that lead a reader to believe he is neither, and the only response from Christians is "Well, God is mysterious and we can't expect to understand him," then why were we given explanations in the first place?

That's akin to me saying, "My dog is black and white." Then you see my dog, and it's a Golden Retriever. And you say, "You said your dog is black and white. He's clearly yellow." And I respond with, "Look, the way I described my dog is accurate. He is black and white. You just cannot fathom the intracacies of why these colors apply to him, and it's arrogant of you to show evidence otherwise. Any statement that he is yellow is just proof of your misunderstanding of his mystery."

If God is so unknown to us, then isn't every single description given to us in the Bible a waste of text?

Give me an example of such an occurence, and I promise I'll give you a better answer than "well, God is mysterious and we can't expect to understand Him." And I mean an issue that really matters, because to me I don't care if God is technically three persons or one. It makes no difference to me. I want you to show me an issue that actually makes a difference that you have yet to hear a reasonable answer from a Christian.

You were given an counter example to omnibenevolence and you blew it off with "I don't need unbelievers telling me about the book by which I live my life." and "The Word of God is pretty deep and you have to have the spiritual man right with God in order to understand it." 

 A classic counter to omnipotence is Judges 1:19 - "The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots." There may be others.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


JWMaher
JWMaher's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: Give me an

Musicdude wrote:
Give me an example of such an occurence, and I promise I'll give you a better answer than "well, it's a mystery."

 But that's all you've been saying.  You say God is just, and when presented with injustice, it is implied that the contemporary definition of justice doesn't apply to God, yet that is the adjective used to describe him: just.  A just God may have found a way to punish humans for original sin, because that's within the realm of justice.  But to then send Jesus to die for that and other sins, only to bait-and-switch the cause of the punishment to the fact that some people doubt Christ, thus making the sacrifice an empty gesture since the net result on human suffering was nothing...well, that's nowhere near justice for anyone involved, God included.

Not to mention that if God is omnipotent, he should be able to recognize a zero-sum transaction like that beforehand, or he should have at least entertained some alternative to what eventually wound up happening.

And as far as what happened, what with Jesus being crucified, it was also said by you that God gave us all free will, which is why original sin came about and what have you.  So, how could God have known for sure that the crucifixion would have gone down the way it did?  There were a lot of independent agents acting to make sure the events went down exactly as the are recounted in the Bible.  That seems like a longshot that everyone would act in the exact proper way to ensure the events of The Last Supper, and the trial, etc.  So, that demands the question of do we really have free will if the events are all predicted beforehand?  And if they are, man didn't transgress against God in the first place, because it was all preconceived, and that again comes back to injustice.  If the system was set up to fail, punishing the entities within it is outside of the scope of justice. 

So, either God is injust because he knew what was going to happen and allowed it, a contradiction of his description, or he is not omnipotent because he really had no idea what was going to happen, a contradiction of his description.

Mind you, this is just one example.  If you want a laundry list of problems witht he way God is described, I'm sure you can findother posts in this forum that would need your immediate attention in explaining why Gos is not as advertised. 

David Cross: So I was watching this one show where - there's a guy on stage and he pretends he has contact with the dead and people are watching.
Audience Member: Crossing Over.
David Cross: No, not Crossing Over. It was uh, church.


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Musicdude

jcgadfly wrote:
Musicdude wrote:
JWMaher wrote:

Musicdude wrote:
It is not unrealistic to think that maybe our little human brains aren't big enough to fully understand the nature of the universe and every aspect of it's Creator. In fact it's pretty arrogant to think we can. There are certain questions that science has no answer for, but that doesn't make you doubt science. I don't have to know every single minute detail about God in order to believe He is real.

No, but we should be able to say with some certainty that God has the qualities that are attributed to him through the Bible and subsequent theological consensus. When God is described to me as omnipotent and omnibenevolent, among other things, and then there are passages in the Bible that lead a reader to believe he is neither, and the only response from Christians is "Well, God is mysterious and we can't expect to understand him," then why were we given explanations in the first place?

That's akin to me saying, "My dog is black and white." Then you see my dog, and it's a Golden Retriever. And you say, "You said your dog is black and white. He's clearly yellow." And I respond with, "Look, the way I described my dog is accurate. He is black and white. You just cannot fathom the intracacies of why these colors apply to him, and it's arrogant of you to show evidence otherwise. Any statement that he is yellow is just proof of your misunderstanding of his mystery."

If God is so unknown to us, then isn't every single description given to us in the Bible a waste of text?

Give me an example of such an occurence, and I promise I'll give you a better answer than "well, God is mysterious and we can't expect to understand Him." And I mean an issue that really matters, because to me I don't care if God is technically three persons or one. It makes no difference to me. I want you to show me an issue that actually makes a difference that you have yet to hear a reasonable answer from a Christian.

You were given an counter example to omnibenevolence and you blew it off with "I don't need unbelievers telling me about the book by which I live my life." and "The Word of God is pretty deep and you have to have the spiritual man right with God in order to understand it." 

 A classic counter to omnipotence is Judges 1:19 - "The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots." There may be others.

My first inclination (without studying this in depth) would be that they did not trust God. There have been several instances in scripture where God promised a victory in battle to Israel and they doubted Him and were afraid, and thus lost the battle.

These verses shed a little more light on that subject as well.

Jos 17:14 Then the sons of Joseph spoke to Joshua, saying, "Why have you given me only one lot and one portion for an inheritance, since I am a numerous people whom the LORD has thus far blessed?"
Jos 17:15 Joshua said to them, "If you are a numerous people, go up to the forest and clear a place for yourself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the Rephaim, since the hill country of Ephraim is too narrow for you."
Jos 17:16 The sons of Joseph said, "The hill country is not enough for us, and all the Canaanites who live in the valley land have chariots of iron, both those who are in Beth-shean and its towns and those who are in the valley of Jezreel."
Jos 17:17 Joshua spoke to the house of Joseph, to Ephraim and Manasseh, saying, "You are a numerous people and have great power; you shall not have one lot only,
Jos 17:18 but the hill country shall be yours. For though it is a forest, you shall clear it, and to its farthest borders it shall be yours; for you shall drive out the Canaanites, even though they have chariots of iron and though they are strong."

So they could've defeated them, but they were afraid.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1230
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote: But

Musicdude wrote:
But seriously, just because a random person who calls himself a christian doesn't have all the answers, doesn't mean that the bible doesn't have the answers. It just means that person doesn't know the bible very well.

How is this tacit claim that the bible has the answers different than claiming any other religious text has all the answers?

How do we determine if someone knows the bible "very well"?  Is there some standard certification process? 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††