Why did God create cancer?

Question: Why did God create cancer?

Bad answer that I've heard many times: God did not create cancer. Rather, it came to be as a result of the Fall.

Why it's a bad answer: God himself created the consequences of the Fall, so he's obviously not off the hook for this one.

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
Question: Why did God create cancer?

Bad answer that I've heard many times: God did not create cancer. Rather, it came to be as a result of the Fall.

Why it's a bad answer: God himself created the consequences of the Fall, so he's obviously not off the hook for this one.

The implications of saying that God created the fall is that God created sin. However, if God is a holy God and without sin then how could this be?

Sin is by definition a deviation from a holy God's perfect will. At best you could say that one does not have free will thus he created one to deviate from his perfect will that is without sin. However, it would be like God purposefully going against his own will. It would be akin to one banging the head into a wall. The only alternative is to say that God's will is for us to sin which would implicate him as not being holy.

As for myself, the issue revolves around "free will". Did God create within us the ability beyond his power to accept/reject sin or the deviation from his perfect will without causing us to do so? I say yes, however, those who argue against the concept of free will along side an all knowing and all powerful God would say no.

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
Question: Why did God create cancer?

Bad answer that I've heard many times: God did not create cancer. Rather, it came to be as a result of the Fall.

Why it's a bad answer: God himself created the consequences of the Fall, so he's obviously not off the hook for this one.

Cancer is just a part of life.

Originally posted by whodey
The implications of saying that God created the fall is that God created sin. However, if God is a holy God and without sin then how could this be?

Sin is by definition a deviation from a holy God's perfect will. At best you could say that one does not have free will thus he created one to deviate from his perfect will that is without sin. However, it ...[text shortened]... gainst the concept of free will along side an all knowing and all powerful God would say no.

Sin may be, theologically speaking, by definition “a deviation from a holy God’s perfect will.” It is not however, even theologically speaking, by definition a moral term.

Originally posted by vistesd
Sin may be, theologically speaking, by definition “a deviation from a holy God’s perfect will.” It is not however, even theologically speaking, by definition a moral term.

Please explain. How is sin considered not to be a moral term theologically?

Originally posted by whodey
The implications of saying that God created the fall is that God created sin. However, if God is a holy God and without sin then how could this be?

I didn't say that God CREATED the Fall. I said that God created the CONSEQUENCES of the Fall. There is a huge difference.

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
I didn't say that God CREATED the Fall. I said that God created the CONSEQUENCES of the Fall. There is a huge difference.

I see. Lets look at this from another angle then shall we? If God is the source of all life and we choose to reject him what are we rejecting? Did God create death or is it simply a byproduct of rejecting the source of all life?

Originally posted by whodey
Please explain. How is sin considered not to be a moral term theologically?

From the Philokalia (translated by G.E.H Palmer, Philip Sherrard and (now Archbishop) Kallistos Ware), in the translator’s glossary of terms, here is the commentary on the word “sin”—

_____________________________________

SIN (hamartia): the primary meaning of the Greek word is ‘failure’ or, more specifically, “failure to hit the mark’ and so a ‘missing of the mark’, a ‘going astray’ or, ultimately, ‘failure to achieve the purpose for which one is created’. It is closely related, therefore to illusion (q.v.). The translation ‘sin’ should be read with these connotations in mind.

ILLUSION (plani): in our version sometimes also translated ‘delusion’. Literally, wandering astray, deflection from the right path; hence error, beguilement, the acceptance of a mirage mistaken for truth. Cf. the literal sense of sin (q.v.) as ‘missing the mark’.

(My bold.)

_____________________________________


This is not my only source, but these guys are Greek scholars in the Orthodox tradition. And the root meaning of soterias (“salvation” ) is to make whole or well, to heal.

With that said, I should add that hamartia can be due to moral lapse, but it need not be. I don’t think this distinction need contradict, in any way, your understanding of sin as a deviation from agape.

Originally posted by vistesd
With that said, I should add that hamartia can be due to moral lapse, but it need not be. I don’t think this distinction need contradict, in any way, your understanding of sin as a deviation from agape.[/b]

So sin can be a moral term but not necessarily so?

Also, how is my understanding of sin a deviation from agape? If one walks in agape one never sins.

Originally posted by vistesd
From the Philokalia (translated by G.E.H Palmer, Philip Sherrard and (now Archbishop) Kallistos Ware), in the translator’s glossary of terms, here is the commentary on the word “sin”—

_____________________________________

SIN (hamartia): the primary meaning of the Greek word is ‘failure’ or, more specifically, “failure to hit the mark’ and so a ...[text shortened]... inction need contradict, in any way, your understanding of sin as a deviation from agape.

I'm confused here too. Aristotle's "doctrine of the mean" regarding virtues makes use of the idea of hitting or missing the mark. The courageous person responds appropriately to fear, he hits the mark and avoids the dual errors of brashness and cowardice. To miss the mark as the bravado or the coward does is to make an ethical error. This does not entail that the bravado or coward is ultimately responsible for their error, but it is an error regardless. They can be assessed as lacking virtue, failing in wisdom, being defective, being improperly oriented towards eudaimonia, etc., even though the ability to hit the mark was not in their power. Why can't the Christian claim the same about sin? Couldn't the Christian claim that sin is a thoroughly moralized notion, and we can assess people on the basis of their sinning, but we cannot always hold people ultimately responsible for their sins, since people don't create their own characters.

Originally posted by bbarr
I'm confused here too. Aristotle's "doctrine of the mean" regarding virtues makes use of the idea of hitting or missing the mark. The courageous person responds appropriately to fear, he hits the mark and avoids the dual errors of brashness and cowardice. To miss the mark as the bravado or the coward does is to make an ethical error. This does not entail t ...[text shortened]... le ultimately responsible for their sins, since people don't create their own characters.

Interesting point. But I think the scriptural data would uphold the notion that there is indeed an aspect of ourselves, our character, which is in our power to affect. Lord knows, I don't wish to get into another discussion of free will; suffice it to say there exists a complicated relationship in the heart of every person between the natural impulses of the "flesh" and the agency of the will (having its seat in the mind). That which God holds people accountable for is impossible to precisely define in each individual case, but what exactly it is is nevertheless known. For instance, the capacity to surrender oneself to Christ is universal. But that universal capacity does not, of course, necessarily mean all people will surrender themselves. Still, because it is in everyone's power to choose surrender, the Lord judges people accordingly.

Sorry, vistesd, I didn't mean to Bogart your response. Have at it.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Interesting point. But I think the scriptural data would uphold the notion that there is indeed an aspect of ourselves, our character, which is in our power to affect. Lord knows, I don't wish to get into another discussion of free will; suffice it to say there exists a complicated relationship in the heart of every person between the natural impulses ...[text shortened]... people accordingly.

Sorry, vistesd, I didn't mean to Bogart your response. Have at it.

Are you familiar with the distinction between proximate causes and ultimate causes?

Originally posted by bbarr
Are you familiar with the distinction between proximate causes and ultimate causes?

Sorry, no, I am not aware of that distinction, as I haven't been to college yet. Fortunately I am starting this spring semester. Maybe you might explain their significance in the meantime? Thanks.

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
Question: Why did God create cancer?

Bad answer that I've heard many times: God did not create cancer. Rather, it came to be as a result of the Fall.

Why it's a bad answer: God himself created the consequences of the Fall, so he's obviously not off the hook for this one.

He cursed the earth after the fall, cancer is just a result of the curse.
Kelly

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
Question: Why did God create cancer?

Bad answer that I've heard many times: God did not create cancer. Rather, it came to be as a result of the Fall.

Why it's a bad answer: God himself created the consequences of the Fall, so he's obviously not off the hook for this one.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
(Isaiah 45:7, KJV)