Christopher Hitchens Died of Cancer. Why?

[Scriptur]

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

[Skeptic]

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.

[Scriptur]

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.

[Skeptic]

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?

[Scriptur]

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.

[Skeptic]

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.

[Scriptur]

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.

[Skeptic]

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.

[Scriptur]

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.

[Skeptic]

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.