Cancer is Eve's fault

Ray Comfort's answer to an audience question during the debate really struck me as to how poorly Christians are unable to understand basic questions put to them. Comfort misses the point again and again - failing to answer the question.

Is this a deliberate effort of lying by misdirection, or is it an honest inability to understand the question as put to him? The (Christian) audience claps in response to his answer (you hear the start of it, but it is then cut off in this edit) so perhaps many of them feel the same way.

Mankind fell, according to Christian mythology, due to original sin. That original sin was due to Eve taking the first bite of forbidden fruit. Therefore it is Eve's fault that there is suffering, that there is cancer.

That's what I love about Christianity, it is so friendly toward women.



Can you answer the question this woman is trying to ask? If eyes are designed, then what about cancer? Is cancer designed? Or is it merely cells gone wrong? Points taken off for equating cancer to earthquakes or other disasters.

24 comments:

MLD said...

Another secular lie?
"That original sin was due to Eve taking the first bite of forbidden fruit"

I thought you said that you used to be a Christian! How dare you misstate the facts.

The sin was first bringing into question God's command and then disobeying the command.

Come on buddy, if you want to play in the big leagues ya gotta get it right!

Chris Elrod said...

I also have no clue why Christianity is so hard on women. If Christians truly look at what the Scriptures say in Genesis...sin did not enter the world when Eve took a bite of the forbidden fruit. Sin entered the world when Adam took the bite...

Calladus said...

Mld,

I just love how you interpret things.

Calladus said...

And who first "brought into question" God's command? And how she disobey his command?

MLD said...

calladus,
When you say, "I just love how you interpret things." do you mean because I do it correctly? :-)

As the only Christian in my family (my parents side of the family - brother cousind uncles etc) I been through all of the discussions - I just ask that you guys get the facts of what the Bible says before you try to knock it down.

You don't like it when we misquote the science book.

MLD said...

chris elrod,
do you find the New Testament hard on women?
I find it to be the most "freeing" document of it's time for women.

It makes women equal to man in all aspects before God - which had not been done before, especially since the New Testament speaks universally.

I would like to hear your view. If you would rather email try
mld1517@yahoo.com

Calladus said...

Yes, that's why Susan B. Anthony was such a fine Christian woman.

MLD said...

It was the philosophy of Voltaire, Rousseau and John Locke that this country was founded on and the same that enslaved blacks and women.
It was the political system of man, not the Bible.

lor said...

this whole Adam and Eve thing... I think many of us have wanted to rebel against God and be responsible for our own life, our own decisions, our own way? doesn't that drive atheism in a way? the thought that no entity holds dominion over me? Adam could've said no, but he didn't. And then he tried to blame her, instead of taking responsibility for his own decision. please...

Considering the culture of the time, Christianity was alone in its value of women. Mary and Martha were dear to Jesus. He cared for the spiritual welfare of men and women both, and welcomed them into his ministry. He appeared first to Mary and trusted her to spread the word of his ressurection. Women were valued, welcomed and educated by Jesus.

Now, not quite sure where Paul lost that particular lesson...

Calladus said...

I see. Now tell me how the Southern Baptist Convention was formed to free the slaves?

Calladus said...

Lor,

I'm not sure I understand. You said that Jesus welcomed women into his ministry. I think you mean that he ministered to them, and wanted them to be taught.

What I want to know is if your take on Jesus also includes installing women as leaders in the church.

Is it biblical for women to become preachers, ministers, clergy? Can they lead a church, denomination or Christian body?

MLD said...

I couldn't let this pass because I think you know the answer but like to stir the pot. Many Christian denominations allow women pastors (the Episcopal Church, the ELCA lutherans, Methodists, Four Square, Nazarene among others. The Episcopal Church has a female leader over the whole organization.

So what's the beef?

Calladus said...

The beef is that either women pastors are allowed, or they are not. The churches that allow this are either following doctrine, or they are not. And if they are not following doctrine in this, then what else might they get wrong?

Should I study with this group, or with another? Which denomination is riding the bus to Heaven, and which is not? My eternal salvation is on the line here, I should be choosy.

MLD said...

I don't understand why you would deny that atheist walk in lock step with each other but then require the church to do so.

Why can't local bodies choose who they want their leaders to be?

Also, your eternal salvation does not depend on whether or not women are allowed to pastor or lead churches (straw man).

but you do know what your eternal salvation does depend on!

We spoke earlier about those 6 areas.

Gotta go (for real) I will check back.

lor said...

I suppose you can split these hairs and say that all Christianity is without value because there are differences in how we interpret it. I disagree.

Some churches are geared more towards men, does that mean they don't value women? Some churches are more literal in how they interpret the Word, does that mean they're the only ones God loves? I think not.

God gifts us and expects us to use those gifts - for some women that is serving as "Reverend" and for some men it means they excell in the two-year-old room. As Christians we find the church, the place and the purpose that God gifts you for. If the doctrines are not identical, so be it.

For me, the bottom line is this, if we admit that we sin, believe that Christ died for our sins and choose to live life as a dedicated Christ follower - to fulfill the two greatest commandments that we love God and love one another as best we know how - then God is okay with that.

We all fall short, and Jesus was quite right in that none of us is in any position to pick up a stone.

And there are Christians out there who would disagree with me. I'm okay with that, too. I suppose this may seem simplistic to you, but it really doesn't need to be complicated, ya know?

Scientiae said...

MLD, your comments- both on this entry and the one immediately preceding it- are either terminally underinformed or extremely disingenuous.

"It was the philosophy of Voltaire, Rousseau and John Locke that this country was founded on and the same that enslaved blacks and women." Never mind that those philosophies were heavily, HEAVILY based on Christianity, and that Rousseau in particular drew a great many of his starting presuppositions on the innate evil of mankind from the Old Testament. Locke's theories of property were based entirely on the religious concept of "God's law as natural law", including his exclusion of women from his considerations on legitimate property ownership.

Leaving aside the Christian basis of the philosophers you describe- "It was the political system of man, not the Bible"? Yes, because the Bible, with its blame towards a woman for committing the original sin, its dictates on disposing of women like property or cattle, its refusal to let women own or dispose of property or have any say in the fate of their own children, its attribution of blame and punishment for shared sins to women- was dispassionate and equitable in its treatment of women compared to the political systems you reference. Actually, you statements can't be disingenuous- the magnitude of the inaccuracies veers more towards active dishonesty.

I was raised as a very strict Roman Catholic, and have a degree in political science. If you're going to misstate the precepts of Christianity, the statements in the Bible, or political history online, be aware that those who have read the same documents you have and have no vested interest in distorting them will be aware of what you're doing.

Scientiae said...

Oh yeah, Cal- the answer to your original question is that cancer is built into the process of cellular apoptosis, in the sense that any one of a hundred things going wrong during that cycle will trigger a cell that propagates its own undying state to the other cells around it, causing an unproductive mass of cells that grows at a geometric rate and chokes off function in whatever part of the body to which it spreads.

So yes, cancer is a very basic part of how cells function- their design- and preventing it requires knowledge of how to short-circuit that cycle, not just prevent mutations, whether internally or externally caused, that trigger it. If cells are designed, then cancer is designed- otherwise, the cycle itself would have been designed to circumvent it.

MLD said...

Scientiae,
Your comments are absolutely wrong. All of the people I mentioned were secularists and far from being Christians. If they used the Bible, it shows the power of that document over man's crazed self gratifying wisdom. I thought that secularists got their thought from their own wisdom.

God came to Adam and asked if he (Adam)had eaten the fruit (do you think that God didn't know who did what?). He came to Adam because it was Adam who was given the command not to eat (and then Adam probably told Eve).

So, contrary to what you say, women were not singled out for special punishment. (Adam was given a punishment also.)

Therefore, if your fellow secularists/atheists have to use the Bible to somehow "prove" their point that women carry only property value - that is shame on your side.

Now, as far as misstating Christianity, you my lady are stepping right there. The New Testaments states that women are equal with men. I commend you to the New Testament passage below;

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

So, let us not hear anymore of this gender baiting.

Scientiae said...

Yes, MLD, well done. I tell you you're wrong, and you come back with "Are not!" Against my better judgment (and for the last time) I'm going to come back with the time-honored response- "Are too!"

You really want to tell me that Locke, the child of Puritans, the man who wrote The Reasonableness of Christianity, wasn't Christian? That Thomas Hobbes, son of a vicar, educated in the church, whose Book III of Leviathian is devoted solely to demonstrating that his political philosophy is consistent with standard Christian doctrine, was not in fact Christian?

Let me clue you in to something- just because a fact doesn't fit your preconceived perception of the world, it isn't automatically untrue.

As far as what the Bible does or does not say- it says many, many things about women, the bulk of which are negative. Congratulations on having found one of the few that isn't.

Christian thought in the first thousand years of its existence did indeed blame original sin on women, and built a rich and solid historical tradition of misogyny enshrined in its institutions and in society's concepts. The fact that you have drawn a different conclusion is laudable, but certainly not representative of all Christianity- nor are the rest of your conclusions.

Your beliefs are your own, but they do not erase the text that exists, nor the contents of history, regardless of whether or not either of the above agree with what you think.

MLD said...

Scientiae,
I don't understand your logic.
1.) because someone was the son of a clergyman does not make one a Christian. You cannot be born a Christian, it is a religion that you must affirm on your own. Hence the old saying, God has children, but no grandchildren. Everyone comes on their own. So, Locke and Hobbs parent could have been the Pope - it does not make them a Christian.

2.) Because someone uses a certain text as their liftoff for a book, does not make it a Christian book or theme. It just means that they were looking for something to lend credibility to their writing. These folks knew if they just came out and titled their books "The thoughts of an atheist" that no one would read it let alone buy it.

3.) You keep pointing at Christianity to say look how poorly they treated women. Since Christianity started with Jesus and the New Testament, can you point to those text that treat women poorly or tell men not to honor women? I would be very interested in the scholarship of one who was brought up as a strict Roman Catholic.
(now I am not saying that people have not misused text to pervert things to their own doing, but it does not come out of the text itself)
Educate me! (oh yea - "is not!")

Calladus said...

Oh yes, women would never be called "The weaker vessel" in the new testament. They'd never be excluded from positions of authority in the church, or not allowed to teach their husbands in the home.

Women should submit, should remain silent. Is any of this familiar to you? As you said to me in self-righteousness, "C'mon Buddy, you gotta get it right."

Scientiae said...

MLD, that you don't understand my logic is evident.

Hobbes and Locke were Christian. Read any reputable biography of either. You've obviously never read anything by them, or written about them by any historian, and are more interested in denying their religious beliefs than in acknowledging the results of it on their political philosophies.

Since you're uninterested in historical fact, there really isn't much point in continuing this dialogue. Our premises are different. Mine are based on facts; yours are based on flat denial, willful ignorance, and selective distortion of any statement I make.

I decline your invitation to educate you. You desire nothing but a forum to parade factless beliefs, and while Cal may be willing to provide a forum for your deliberate obtuseness, I decline to participate further in its display. You're eminently capable of reaffirming your own beliefs while ignoring any fact which contradicts them on your own.

jimmy@relevantchristian said...

Wow...this argument could go on forever and has been going on for a long time.
I grew up in a denomination that did not allow women to have a voice let alone be a pastor or teacher.
On the other hand...my grandmother pastored a church for decades and was a great preacher and person and made a great impact on the community where she lived.
Calladus, you are correct that there are times when women are called the greater vessel, and Paul had some strong opinions toward women leaders.
That being said...there are numerous times in the bible where a woman is what made THE difference. Esther, Jezebel, Mary Magdalen, Mary the mother of Jesus, just to name a few.
I hate it when christians, or anyone else for that matter, quotes that scripture about 'women submitting to their husbands' but omit what it says to the man..'husbands love your wives as christ loved the church'...in other words...be willing to lay down your life for her, strengthen her, walk hand in hand with her.
Lastly, the whole argument about Eve being the one to blame for the original sin is off base...what we forget is that Adam and Eve were not treated as separate individuals but as ONE.

Just my thoughts!

Peace!
Jimmy

jimmy@relevantchristian said...

Uh...the second line in the third paragraph should have read 'women are called the weaker vessel'.

geeze...what a dork.