Christopher Hitchens Died of Cancer. Why?

I know atheists would say it was just some random anomoly that Christopher Hitchens died of cancer, but I find meaning behind it. What lies between sin and death is sickness. One thing I noticed is when Hitchens is in group settings, and I am sure when he is alone too, he is constantly touching his mouth with his hands. Could he have transmitted anything? Even if he didn't I find it not a coincidence that he was so vocal in his faith for atheism and the type of cancer he got prevented him from using his voice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

The message I am taking away from your post is that you believe that those who contract terminal cancer deserve it in some way.
You seem to insinuate that God gave Hitchens cancer to stop him from spreading his atheistic beliefs.

If that is the case I would be curious to know what motivates God to give cancer to over 10,000 children every year.

You have assumed too much. It is possible someone who gets cancer could be genetically predisposed as the sins of the fathers 4 generations above can carry down (the Bible admits this point), but if one is born-again with the indwelling Holy Spirit such illness can often be prevented and overcome. Cancer is an inevitable consequence of nature and the flesh (both the sins of the flesh and self of the flesh even the good of the flesh) which has been corrupted and the flesh is irredeemable. This is why in order to be saved one must die on the cross to the flesh with Christ. But in Hitchens case I know with 100% certainty his cancer was linked to his extreme vocal atheism because of the location of the cancer in his vocal region. I am confident that if you are as adamant as him, something will come upon you also to try to convince you as God does not want you to go to Hell. He wants you accept His only begotten Son for forgiveness of sins and receive eternal life. God does not want anyone to perish. He loves you. He created you in His image to be with Him for eternity, but if you continue to reject Him that's your final decision in this life for perdition in the next an eternal separation from God. I am sad for you. If I were you, I would start with the relinquishing the contradiction in your heart of calling yourself an atheist and agnostic simultaneously. Harboring contradictions lead to further stinkin' thinkin'. This is one of the contradictions that prevent people from believing in the uncreated Creator.

My apologies if I assumed too much.

So, just to make certain I understand what you are saying, it is your belief that the 10,000 children that are diagnosed with cancer every year either deserve it due to their own sins or they deserve it due to the sins of their father's 4 generations back.

Is that correct?

Still you assume too much, because a baby is not guilty who has not reached the age of accountability. Christopher Hitchens though is a baby of sorts if you know what I mean. He acts like one with his adult tantrums and when he goes on a rampage with his hatred of God. You can be 100% certain Hitchens will go to Hell and remain in Hell for eternity. He's a bad guy. This was his free-choice he was committed to.

I'm sorry if I continue to assume too much.

Maybe it would just be easier if you could tell me directly why God gives cancer to babies, that way I won't have to assume.

You never needed to assume in the first place. That's your third mistaken assumption. What was the reason already given? Because it is part of nature.

In this natural world sin is carried down as you would expect in a realistic natural world. I would add to that by saying, it is also to show how devastating that first sin was by choosing to first disobey God the first time. In other words, you're not appreciating how extensive and defiling and problematic sin is even one small sin.

I have something else interesting to say. You try to accuse God of this design, but in your atheistic world you contradict yourself because this natural world exists in which you argue against babies in sin as being unrighteous and unholy of God to allow, yet it is acceptable in your naturalism as part of the natural order of things? The Bible says be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8).

Any position you take that contradicts itself shows the error in your thinking.

See the difference, the difference being God traces this to sin, whereas you trace it not to sin as not being sin. God has a redemptive plan to abolish sin. Whereas, in your scheme, it is not necessarily so, or you might even thing there is no such thing as sin or recompense showing how corrupted your heart is.

I am not 'accusing' God of this design, I am simply trying to understand how these things are explained within your worldview. If God is indeed omnipotent it would seem that nothing would occur that he did not allow. So, if thousands of children contract cancer it would seem to follow that God allowed it.

There is nothing 'doubletongued' about taking hypothetical positions.

I am beginning to suspect this entire forum is one large Poe.
That would be a relief as well as a disappointment.


And after all this, I still fail to see how giving babies cancer is just.

If you felt it is acceptable God allows this as well as your naturalism alone to allow this then you are not contradicting yourself (though your view is deluded), but if you hold one standard for God and a lesser standard for your naturalism then you are contradicting yourself by holding a doublestandard.

Considering you accused of being a "large Poe" (which you have no evidence for) which shows your crassness and "fail to see how giving babies cancer is just," I think you are being dishonest with yourself by not admitting you are holding a doublestandard in which babies with cancer is acceptable in your atheistic scheme but not for God to allow.

God gives free choice and He righteously responds to sin as it can affect loved ones passed down as was already stated which you overlooked when you said you fail to see how giving babies cancer is just. What love is that to sin and knowingly by doing so would place medical conditions upon their own children?

God allows, but God is not the ultimate cause of these consequences to sin, but you are and all humanity as sin begets sin. Take responsibility. Grow up! Don't be like Christopher Hitchens. He's a big baby who is going to be resurrected for Hell.

It's righteous for God to allow free choice to create the maximally greatest beings possible in this realistic naturalistic world with consequences to sin, but it is not just that a child receive a medical condition because of your sinning, so you are unjust. Atheists should not bear children.

I never said babies with cancer is 'acceptable' in an atheistic view... the term 'acceptable' means nothing in that context.
Babies with cancer simply are.

But in a context with an omnipotent God the issue of babies with cancer becomes one that is difficult to understand, because in that context there is an intelligence behind everything in the universe.

If you are truly unable to see the distinction there, or unable to discuss these hypotheticals, then I don't think our conversation can go much further.

Since you favor naturalism then a naturalist says all that happens is natural including babies getting cancer. If you say that is wrong then you are saying naturalism is horribly wrong also. Stop talking out the side of your face.

If you don't address this self-contradiction you harbor then you're just shutting your mind down and can't go much further in the discussion.

I never said it was wrong, I said that in a naturalist framework it simply is.

In the context of a God however I do not understand how babies come to contract cancer while simultaneously under the care of a 'just' God.

Please stop misrepresenting what I am saying, you are being incredibly intellectually dishonest.

It's too bad, I was looking forward to some decent discussion on this site, but if this is the level of discourse that can be expected then I believe I'm done here.

Best of luck to you.

I know that you said in a naturalistic framework that naturalism is alright no matter how horrific. Therein lies the problem which shows how dead your conscience is because you accuse God's treatment of sin as a problem, but not your own horrific atheistic world view when the same events take place.

And you did say God is wrong with this statement: "I still fail to see how giving babies cancer is just" even after I gave the explanation which all I can do is repeat. Sin begets sin and hurts loved ones as the realistic operations of nature. I think a real life example would help you. Let's say you were a profuse smoker and had a baby. This can hurt the baby's development. You should stop blaming God and start blaming yourself. Grow up! Stop blaming others for what you are responsible for.

You are being incredibly intellectually dishonest and disingenuous with yourself. It's too bad you didn't want a genuine sincere conversation, but instead prefer to shut your mind down to the explanation and your obstinate doublestandard.

Christians don't need luck. We have eternal life: not only eternal blessings but an ability to have a relationship with Jesus that which you don't have. Luck won't save you.

So I am now back after a short temp ban for what was referred to as 'doubletalk.'

If possible, I would like to set aside this specific discussion about cancer for a bit and ask, with complete sincerity, what is meant by 'doubletalk' in this context.
I truly don't understand what it is that I did wrong here.

The way I seem to understand it is as follows (and please do correct me if I'm wrong).

You seem to feel that I am being hypocritical because I do not judge 'nature' in the same way I would judge the actions of a God.
Is that what the issue is/was?

Please, be patient with me as I am truly trying to understand where our disconnect was.
Thank you.

Ya, you shouldn't say one thing then mean another or hold a doublestandard. That is doubletalk, contradicting yourself, like calling yourself atheist but you're really agnostic, or claiming what happens to babies is ok in a naturalistic only world but not if God exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scriptur

Ya, you shouldn't say one thing then mean another or hold a doublestandard. That is doubletalk, contradicting yourself, like calling yourself atheist but you're really agnostic, or claiming what happens to babies is ok in a naturalistic only world but not if God exists.

---

I guess what confuses me is that those are two completely different contexts, so it seems clear to me that the standards of judgement would be different.
Let me try to explain as an analogy, and maybe you can tell me where I'm going wrong.

If I said "When I kill someone it's not immoral, but if you do it it's immoral" then that would obviously be a double standard and I would be a hypocrite.
BUT, if I say "When I kill someone it's immoral, but if they die of a heart attack it is not immoral" that seems perfectly logical to me.

The difference is that in one instance there is an intelligent being that caused the action, and in the other there is not.
And, as I see it, those are the same as the scenarios we were discussing - one in which God exists, and one in which He does not.
'Nature' is not an intelligence or a being of any kind - so it has no intention.

I'd be interested to hear where I am going wrong here... or what, if anything I just said, seems illogical.
I feel like I'm not fully understanding your perspective - or perhaps you're not fully understanding mine.
Either way, we seem to have a disconnect that I am hoping to bridge.

I think you messed up your grammar. Try to proof read what you write and double check it. Anyway, these are not different contexts. The context is the same natural event.

When you kill someone you admit it is immoral. But you're contradicting yourself because you said that which in nature whatever happens is ok because nature has no intention. Make up your mind. You are talking out the side of your face. Just as you do this so you hold a false world-view.

But when someone dies of a heart attack that's ultimately not God's fault but it is the fault of sinners no taking care of themselves properly so why blame God? You are committing the fallacy of sinning bearing false witness to form your argument. Even if you weren't sinning bearing false witness, your argument still breaks down because you hold two standards, not treating God as you would like to be treated.

You are holding a doublestandard because naturally it is ok to die of a heart attack you said in your view {say from eating too much chocolate} which you seem to hold lower standards than for God who allows someone to have a heart attack due to their sin. Such a position is morally bankrupt. You are morally decrepit.

Take the point to the extreme. Let's say in a natural only world every second woman was raped and every third man was murdered out of jealousy or other such evil. To you that would be perfectly acceptable because to you nature has no intention even though these acts are really honestly full of intention. Your position is entirely stupid. You live without any moral code. You're evil and you are going to Hell.

Your problem remains, you hold a doublestandard, a lower standard for nature without God and such a position is morally bankrupt. To you what Hitler did, what Stalin did, what Mao Zedong did are alright because they are just part of nature. Whereas God says they were evil acts that will be punished even eternally.

You see I have no doublestandard, but you do. Any belief that contradicts itself eventually breaks down as your faith does. You can carry on this way, but I wouldn't recommend it. It's not healthy for your or anyone you are around.