FWIW, when Christians talk about "perishing" and "the wages of sin is death" and so on, they're usually referring to eternal separation from God (hell), not simply dying in the physical sense.

I haven't really chosen a side, as both groups make pretty good cases, and I can agree with both groups on certain ideas. I guess I don't know the answer, but I also don't think it's too crucial to one being a Christian.

I think you're missing a possibility, that cancer arose in the first place because of mankind's corruption. So God does not actually will that cancer exist, but it's a result of sin. If things were perfect, there would be no cancer, or death for that matter.

If someone gets cancer because of environmental factors, you would not directly attribute it to God, and it is not that much different if someone is suddenly diagnosed with cancer, even a child. Everything can be traced back to free will.

I think you're getting a little semantic here, since you could also say, Satan loves to do evil.

It is true that love is an emotion, but it also entails a number of things, like selflessness, for instance, which may be overlooked by simply saying God loves. I guess another way to say it is that God is Omnibenevolent.

God must've intentionally created cancer though. And he must've done this knowing that children would die from it.

So in your model, the idea that God might send hurricanes or Floods (as in the UK recently) to punish us for various sins isn't that far fetched then?

The child didn't sin and it's not their fault that their ancestors sinned, why should they be punished?

Is every negative event a punishment?

It is a possibility, but it's not really what the bible describes. I don't think I am going to solve the problem of evil to satisfy everyone, as long as there is evil there will always be an objection against God's goodness.

Not sure if you have been following this thread or not, but we recently discussed the possibility of things being outside of God's will, including sin. So theoretically, God could have created cancer, like you say, but it is not the only possibility, and it is not what is described in the bible regarding evil.

I'm not sure where I implied that, but it is a possibility.

This idea though, is not that far from the OP, where he questioned God for people dying of hunger. It is the problem of evil, where God will always be questioned as long as there is evil.

You're saying that the only time evil occurs is when God is punishing someone, but that's not a biblical idea, at least in absolute terms. There are other possibilities, which is what I was alluding to, but apparently not very well.

I'm finding some of your positions to be a little surprising (perhaps through my own assumptions, perhaps not) - the kind of Christians that I see that are more fundamentalist would never entertain the idea that anything happened against God's will *, that anything exists, including cancer, that God did not create (God created everything, including evil *), and would not call God omnibenevolent (scripture describes God's hate for sin and sinners *).

* (I'm being a bit lazy in not referencing which books each is found in, but I would expect a Christian to be familiar with the ideas)

I am familiar with the ideas, I am only suggesting many possibilities to the questions that have been asked. I can give you my own personal theology, it won't be different than your average born again Christian.

Although, saying that God created evil implies he directly created it, like in the creation story, so to speak, "and God created evil, and he saw it was good" type of thing, which the bible does not imply.

Don't let Christians off the hook on this. According to the Bible, everyone is born sinful, as the sin nature acquired by Adam and Eve is passed down.

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/...r-original-sin

Some denominations make up the idea of an "age of accountability" (that is, a child isn't held accountable for their sin in the eyes of God until they're old enough to know they're a horrible, horrible sinner), other denominations just shrug and say "we don't know" which is pretty much code for "We believe everyone who doesn't know God goes to hell, but we realize we shouldn't tell people their dead babies went to hell, either."


The idea people believe that someone can't be held accountable for their sin until they're old enough to understand amuses me, mostly because it means abortion clinics get more people into heaven than any other organization on the planet, and smothering your baby at birth is literally the best thing you can do for them.

As I'm about to become a first time father, I feel compelled to state that no one should actually kill babies. Unless they believe that would get them into heaven, I guess.

Congrats on this. I have a feeling you won't manage another 7k posts in your next 5 years on 2+2

Quite frankly, I think this is getting a little ridiculous now. You are at war with your neighbor. If you remove all moral implications, and you kill all of the men and leave all of their children alive, this = stupid. One day they almost certainly grow up to kill your own children. The next generation will be fatherless, and probably two times more violent and degenerate than the one you are currently dealing with.

Secondly, the Israelites never carried out the command. If you read on, the nation they were supposed to annihilate later on comes back to attack and harass the Israelites again. I suppose we have to ask ourselves if God is capable of issuing a morally questionable command that HE KNOWS his people will not carry out, perhaps in order to accomplish some other objective. We do have an instance of this in the bible, actually. God commanded someone to sacrifice his own son once, remember.

If cancer, something apparently out of our control, can arise because of our 'corruption', then why not hurricanes, or Tsunamis? Or are there things that appear to be not caused by us that actually are caused by us, and things that aren't? How do you tell the difference to know when one is the result of free will and one not?

If a child dies of cancer, how do you know if it's the result of our corruption or just cells going awry?


I thought that's what you were saying, but see my questions above.

What tortuous mental twists you engage in to make sense of your scriptures. Wouldn't it be more sensible to come to a conclusion that the evidence supports, rather than trying to make the evidence (or lack of it) fit what you want to believe?

There's really not much I can say here. Try to make a post with some actual substance in it, so that I can reply WITH substance.

It was unnecessary, I apologize. I shouldn't post tired and grumpy.

How can you be sure that cells going awry is not because of corruption?

As far as how can I know what is directly from God or not, I really can't. Maybe a hurricane was sent by God, or maybe it's just nature and God simply didn't interfere with it.

Maybe a bit harsh, but it is definitely something I've noticed once I stepped away from Christianity. You often have contradictory statements ("God is all loving, all knowing, and all powerful, but evil exists" or "People are born sinful, sinners go to hell unless they consciously accept Jesus, but babies don't go to hell" or "It's fine that I spend nearly all my money on myself as part of the richest people in the history of the world, even though Jesus slams the wealthy constantly") and, rather than reject one concept or the other to simplify their beliefs and make them logical to someone who isn't a believer, instead they try to cram the beliefs together in a way that takes a thousand pages of convoluted justification and heavy religious indoctrination to make any sense.

Then when a Christian sees a Muslim or a Buddhist doing the same thing, they point to those logical leaps as proof that other religions are nuts.

A rational person allows their beliefs to be changed by logic and evidence, but ask 99% of Christians if they could ever change their belief in God, and you'll get an emphatic "no." When it comes down to it, that's really just the end of any meaningful conversation.

I find that many atheists are just as emphatic in their disbelief and unwillingness to change as religious people are in their belief. Similarly, many people don't believe they can actually control their belief or disbelief. (For example, could you believe in God if you wanted to? Many atheists claim that they couldn't.)

Claiming that this is really about being "a rational person" is probably a wrong-minded approach to the conversation.

Right, most people on this forum are probably in the top tier of rationality compared to the general population. I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying this, but from my perspective, the reason why people are stuck in their position, whether Atheist or Christian, are because of ego/emotional reasons and a lack of awareness. Getting to a place where you can recognize truth requires a great deal of emotional sacrifice. The great thing is there are incentives in place. Once people embody these incentives and inspire others, I believe the world will really begin to change. This isn't an idealistic fantasy; it's what people who are far enough along on the path have become aware of.

Lol. "Couldn't believe if I wanted to" is just demonstrating knowledge of strict Calvinism to get Christians off your back.

We would also claim that we couldn't believe that puppies are made out of chocolate pudding even if we wanted to.

Sure I could. One single piece of actual evidence that God exists and I would believe instantly. This is no different than asking, "Could you believe I'm holding an apple in my hands?" Sure, just show me your hands, and I'll believe accordingly.

I've never met an atheist who claimed, "I wouldn't believe in God even if shown evidence once existed."

Usually this turns into a conversation over what Christians think "evidence" is.

Even this is trickier than it sounds I think. I'm not sure what evidence would convince me that gods are real. Given how many alternative explanations there are for why people do believe (other than gods being real), how could I be sure I wasn't experiencing something similar? And since I don't find any reasons I've yet heard to be convincing I doubt I would be convinced by my own experience. I consider personal experience to be one of the least reliable forms of evidence and it seems to be the most common form of religious evidence or reason for belief.