Yes, we have come up with cures for some of the diseases out there, but as a couple have said, there are far more that are showing up. Fifty years ago, stds were not known save for a few, and now they have multiplied so far have fun just trying to count them. Cures? Not yet. And half of the cases you've mentioned, Andrew, are not cures. We've simply found a way to fight it so it won't affect and kill us. It didn't cure the disease. Vaccines just helps us fight it.

There are other cases that are growing far more rampant like Autism, Down Syndrome, CP, MD, diabetes of all types, Alzheimer's, and the list goes on. Any cures for these? Some things might slow them down, but still no cures. In fact, the vast majority of all our medices are not cures either. They just deal with the symptoms and not with the actual source.

There is something else. Every time we find a 'wonder drug' that kills off certain viruses or bacteria, an new 'brand' of it shows up. The Swine Flu (H1N1) is an example. Our medicines have been able to eradicate most of the flu through shots, immunizations, or other drugs. Then this shows up. Many people think it evolved and adapted to the drugs. I think otherwise. It was always around, but it was the one that was already immune to our medicines and became prevalent as our bodies became trained to only fight the other kinds. H1N1 was more hype than anything else anyway. More people died and were affected by the regular flu than did H1N1.

So is history repeating itself? I'd say so. It is following the course of decay. It is getting harder and harder to find someone without any kind of physical or mental defect these days, and there is no sign of that rate steadying, let alone improving. And from a Biblical standpoint, the only chance of it ever getting better is through divine intervention, ie Christ returning.

It is following the course of decay. It is getting harder and harder to find someone without any kind of physical or mental defect these days, and there is no sign of that rate steadying, let alone improving.

Actually, I have to disagree here: mental defects only seem to be more frequent for several reasons.

1. We have a longer list of disorders. In past centuries, conditions such as depression were seen as character defects, not diseases. Also, many kinds of dysfunction are just being discovered and labeled (such as cluttering).

2. There is no longer a social stigma associated with going to see a psychologist, therefore people are more open about it.

3. Society has begun to make more accommodation for people who have disorders such as autism or down's syndrome, therefore these individuals are more visible than before. In previous generations, such an individual would often be institutionalized: today, even when this happens, these individuals are usually taught how to live semi-independently.

4. Due to modern medicine, there is a much higher survival rate of such individuals.

Lest you still think that such disorders are more frequent today, ever heard the term "village idiot"? It originally referred to an individual who was mentally incapable of regular work, such as people with down syndrome or autism ("idiot" simply meant "unto oneself" in that time, but you can see how it got its present meaning). In a medieval village, these individuals would stand in the town square and do odd jobs---their purpose was to remind others of the blessing of being able to work, of having a vocation.

TBG

Black Glove.
While I will agree, partly, with your stating that many mental, (and I would add some physical) defects are reported more, I don't believe that accounts for all the growing numbers we see today.
But this gets away from the point I am trying to make.
Our faith should be in God, not the works of man.
This does not mean we are to sit on our hands, and do nothing, history attests to many christians who furthered medicin, and other sciences, (Pasteur, Newton, Farraday, to name just a few).

Ya know, if we're talking about history repeating itself, it seems that for every disease we manage to find a cure or treatment for, three new un-treatable ones pop up

Which is only part of the cycle, of course more diseases (or mutations of existing diseases) appear every year, which is why we can get the common cold so many times in one life. But all of these eventually become treatable.

There are other cases that are growing far more rampant like Autism, Down Syndrome, CP, MD, diabetes of all types, Alzheimer's, and the list goes on. Any cures for these? Some things might slow them down, but still no cures. In fact, the vast majority of all our medices are not cures either. They just deal with the symptoms and not with the actual source.

Indeed, well we've discussed this issue far back...there is a very provable cure (eugenics), but the morals of most people will not allow that to happen, correct? Interestingly enough, the theory is also that if our bodies were more advanced, less diseases would effect us.

Also, as TBG stated:

1. We have a longer list of disorders. In past centuries, conditions such as depression were seen as character defects, not diseases. Also, many kinds of dysfunction are just being discovered and labeled (such as cluttering).

2. There is no longer a social stigma associated with going to see a psychologist, therefore people are more open about it.

Our faith should be in God, not the works of man.

So you will never go to a doctor? You won't listen to medical advice on how to live a healthy lifestyle, because that would be "trusting in man" instead of God?

God has given humans incredible minds. I think that means we're supposed to use them. In no way do I see getting treatment from doctors as somehow having less faith.

There was a lady at our church who had a husband and several young children. She was diagnosed with breast cancer, but they caught it in the early stages and it would have been very treatable. However, she refused to do the treatment because she "trusted in God to heal her." Over the course of several years, she deteriorated. Her family had to sit and watch her die slowly, and painfully. I think her husband finally tried to get her into treatment, but by then it was much too late.

Yes, God can (and sometimes does) heal people. But as I said earlier, He has given us the tools -- our minds! -- to research, to study, to find new cures. Taking advantage of this does not signify a lack of faith.

It is following the course of decay. It is getting harder and harder to find someone without any kind of physical or mental defect these days, and there is no sign of that rate steadying, let alone improving.

Actually, I have to disagree here: mental defects only seem to be more frequent for several reasons.

1. We have a longer list of disorders. In past centuries, conditions such as depression were seen as character defects, not diseases. Also, many kinds of dysfunction are just being discovered and labeled (such as cluttering).

2. There is no longer a social stigma associated with going to see a psychologist, therefore people are more open about it.

3. Society has begun to make more accommodation for people who have disorders such as autism or down's syndrome, therefore these individuals are more visible than before. In previous generations, such an individual would often be institutionalized: today, even when this happens, these individuals are usually taught how to live semi-independently.

4. Due to modern medicine, there is a much higher survival rate of such individuals.

Lest you still think that such disorders are more frequent today, ever heard the term "village idiot"? It originally referred to an individual who was mentally incapable of regular work, such as people with down syndrome or autism ("idiot" simply meant "unto oneself" in that time, but you can see how it got its present meaning). In a medieval village, these individuals would stand in the town square and do odd jobs---their purpose was to remind others of the blessing of being able to work, of having a vocation.

TBG

I am well aware of all this, and fully agree that these conditions were existant way back when. But none of those lines of thinking address the alarming high frequency rates that are seen today. And I am also of the belief that a number of them while having shown what happens in a person physically has deeper roots. Depression was mentioned. Depression is not a physical issue. Sure we have discovered what happens in the brain as a result of depression, but it is an emotional and spiritual cause and root. The Bible does say the man is made in body, soul, and spirit, and every one of these affects the other. The problem with a lot of modern medicine (not all), but especially recently with all these new drugs, is that they deal with the physical symptoms, when the real issue is emotional or spiritual. That's the problem with a society that rejects God and replaces him with science. There is more to it than what science can solve.

I have very good reason to suspect that some other mental conditions like bipolar or multi-personality disorders are also not physical issues, even though they have physical symptoms, but are rather demonic in nature. So I wouldn't even classify those as mental disorders because they fit in a totally separate category. (Please note that I am not an educated doctor, and this is just theory.)

Now to address puddleglum's comment about our trust being in God and not in man. Something my pastor told me is important in this issue. Very rarely will God work in the supernatural if he can accomplish it in the natural. And those cases are where God intends to teach a person a particular lesson and he shuts the doors to the natural methods. As for the person in PR's post who refused treatment, I present another similar case. A man lived in a flood plain and the water's came in, forcing him to go the roof. He sat there saying God would take care of him. A large wooden door floated by and he said, 'Nope, God is going to take care of me.' Then a boat came by and the rower told him to get in or he would drown. The man said, 'Nope, God will take care of me.' Then a helicopter came by, lowered the rope, and the man said 'Nope, God will take care of me.' Well, the man died in the flood and when he got to heaven, he complained why God didn't save him. God responded, 'I tried to save you three times and you didn't listen.'

The point in both these cases is that the supernatural will only take place when the provision for other options falls through. God also doesn't hand us things on a silver platter as though we should be waited on. He wants us to be proactive, using the resources he has given us to accomplish what needs to be done. There are times where the resources run out and we need supernatural intervention, but until we have explored those resources, we may not get it. And as for the issue with that woman, she certaily could have trusted God to heal her, but she refused to accept a path that God may have provided for her to be healed. God may have supernaturally healed her down the road, but not unless she would proactively have done what she could. It's sad, but we cannot know what would have happened.

Now Andrew, eugenics does not cure anything, in spite of what it claims to be able to do. I've already told you that the proponents of eugenics are not really after the bettering of society, but rather the control of it. And as I have told you, your answer to curing the mental issues, let alone physical ones, would have me killed and I imagine quite a few others on this forum. What about people like Stephen Hawking (whom I highly disagree with his worldview) who have superb mental abilities but no physical abilities. Do they go too? Eugenics will never solve the issue but instead give a particular group power they should not have.

But none of those lines of thinking address the alarming high frequency rates that are seen today.

Notice my point about higher survival rates than in the past.

Depression is not a physical issue. Sure we have discovered what happens in the brain as a result of depression, but it is an emotional and spiritual cause and root. The Bible does say the man is made in body, soul, and spirit, and every one of these affects the other.

I find no real distinction between "soul" and "spirit" in the Scriptures.

As for depression having spiritual causes, first of all, the emotions are closely tied to our physical nature, second, I know several spiritually mature Christians who suffer from depression.

Even if we look at history, we find Christians suffering from what we would now call depression: Luther, Kierkegaard, and Chesterton would all be diagnosed with depression today. I would call it more of "thorn in the flesh" issue like cancer or Tourette's than a spiritual malady.

TBG

I'm sorry, but claiming that "depression is a spiritual issue" is something that really, really bothers me. There is substantial evidence that a chemical imbalance in the brain can cause depression. I know, because I was diagnosed with severe clinical depression a couple years ago. I've been on medication and it's helped SO much.

Saying depression is a "spiritual issue" makes no more sense than saying cancer, or Down's Syndrome, or any other physical ailment, is a spiritual issue. Now, of course there are varying levels of depression -- people have "the blues" all the time. It's perfectly normal. But telling someone who's been depressed for years that it's a "spiritual issue" is not going to help them.

Editing to clarify a little: I do agree to some extent that there's a kind of "spiritual" aspect to depression...but I think that's mostly due to the fact that it's screwing with your brain. When something messes with your brain, it can affect all areas of your life. For example, with me, I was horribly unmotivated, always sad or just "blah," always tired, etc. I didn't care about anything that I used to enjoy, especially not religion. The medications helped bring my chemical balance back to where it was supposed to be. And then everything else changed -- I was motivated again, felt rested, enjoyed life again. And most of all, I wanted to spend time with God. So fixing the physical problem really does manifest itself in other areas of your life.

Very rarely will God work in the supernatural if he can accomplish it in the natural.

I agree with this 100%. Very well said.

eugenics does not cure anything, in spite of what it claims to be able to do. I've already told you that the proponents of eugenics are not really after the bettering of society, but rather the control of it. And as I have told you, your answer to curing the mental issues, let alone physical ones, would have me killed and I imagine quite a few others on this forum. What about people like Stephen Hawking (whom I highly disagree with his worldview) who have superb mental abilities but no physical abilities. Do they go too? Eugenics will never solve the issue but instead give a particular group power they should not have.

Your claim is no different than me saying that all Christians are evil control freaks because of those who ran the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades. I could even expand this larger and say that all religious people are that way. As you may know, the peace sign is a cross that is broken - why? Because the cross has caused most of the largest wars in history, as well as many other religions. Sure, some proponents of eugenics are going to do that, just as some religious proponents will do so. But not all.

You dislike eugenics because it excludes you (and everyone else alive at this point in time), yet you fail to realize the beauty of it - nobody would have to go through the struggles you've had to, as well as other struggles other people have gone through. It would take our entire race to a whole new level, transcending our current problems. Sure, we'll have new ones, but we will be by all accounts a greater race as a whole.

Of course I personally am not one to run around trying to implement eugenics, mainly because the effects would never be seen in my lifetime and I could care less what happens to the world after I'm gone, but you can't really deny it's mouth-watering benefits without allowing your emotions to control you.

PR. I will thank Fencer for the comment about God working through natural means. This helps clarify things.
I by no means meant that we were not to go to the doctor, or make use of the abilities God gives us.
What I was trying to point out to Andrew was his apparent faith in "as of yet discovered" cures making the consequences moot for immoral behaviore.

Andrew. Thank you for the comment on eugenics. That actually leads to a question I was going to ask.

If moral relativism works, as you have asked about the situation determining the morals, where does it end?
Where do we say it has gone too far?
Eugenics, as fencer has said is about control. Please google Margaret Sanger. She was the founder of what we call Planned Parenthood today. The stated goal of her movement was eugenics, that is the control, or elimination of "undesirables". Whether defined by race, or mental, or physical health.
We have only to look at Nazi germany to show us the result of such thinking. So please use caution.

If moral relativism works, as you have asked about the situation determining the morals, where does it end?
Where do we say it has gone too far?
Eugenics, as fencer has said is about control. Please google Margaret Sanger. She was the founder of what we call Planned Parenthood today. The stated goal of her movement was eugenics, that is the control, or elimination of "undesirables". Whether defined by race, or mental, or physical health.
We have only to look at Nazi germany to show us the result of such thinking. So please use caution.

Situation doesn't determine morality; morals are a figment of the imagination. Too far is an opinion.

Margaret Sanger wanted to emliminate blacks from the population, not because of eugenics but because of racism. If you study her life, she had been promoting birth control among black people long before she travelled to Europe and learned about eugenics, which she worked under the guise of to promote her goal without making everyone hate her.

We've already spent pages in here talking about Nazis, I think my last post sums it all up very well. You all have said nothing against eugenics, only those who have used it for their own means. I am talking about the actual science of eugenics, and what it can do.

Fifty years ago, stds were not known save for a few, and now they have multiplied so far have fun just trying to count them.

Actually, apart from HIV and AIDS there were just as many STDs around. They were called something different fifty years ago, sex education was minimal, people didn't know as much about diseases in general, and when people got such diseases they tended to cover it up a lot more, rather than going for help.

You've heard of smallpox? What is the Great Pox? Yes, it was what we now call Syphilis, rampant in Europe up until the discovery of America, and beyond. Tuberculosis, shortened to TB, used to be called Consumption, and is still around in poorer districts and countries, in antibiotic-resistant forms. Old diseases, considered conquered, or not insurmountable, can still stage a comeback if people don't want to change their behaviour, as well as trusting in God or medicine or both. We all know that smoking can lead to lung cancer and other disorders, but people not only continue to smoke they dabble with other more dangerous addictive substances.

Which is only part of the cycle, of course more diseases (or mutations of existing diseases) appear every year, which is why we can get the common cold so many times in one life. But all of these eventually become treatable.

You're kind of dodging the point.

You're trying to say that a certain Biblical moral is "out of date" because it supposedly protects against diseases that eventually we won't have to worry about because they will eventually be treatable.

However, you ignore the fact that the continual appearance of new diseases or mutations may continue to be a reason to follow such a moral if it protects against them too. (Hint: AIDS did not exist amongst the human population back in Biblical times.)

And while doctors might be able to find a cure or treatment for these diseases, how long will it take? If the disease is lethal, can the cure or treatment be found before the contractor dies? If the disease is easily transmittable, can it be contained before it spreads to everywhere in the world (besides Madagascar)?

And all things considered, does any of this matter to the person who has to decide whether or not she wants to risk contracting AIDS from someone, when the fact of the matter is, there is no cure right now and might not be in her lifetime?

Your argument doesn't work here, I'm afraid.

eugenics does not cure anything, in spite of what it claims to be able to do. I've already told you that the proponents of eugenics are not really after the bettering of society, but rather the control of it. And as I have told you, your answer to curing the mental issues, let alone physical ones, would have me killed and I imagine quite a few others on this forum. What about people like Stephen Hawking (whom I highly disagree with his worldview) who have superb mental abilities but no physical abilities. Do they go too? Eugenics will never solve the issue but instead give a particular group power they should not have.

Your claim is no different than me saying that all Christians are evil control freaks because of those who ran the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades. I could even expand this larger and say that all religious people are that way. As you may know, the peace sign is a cross that is broken - why? Because the cross has caused most of the largest wars in history, as well as many other religions. Sure, some proponents of eugenics are going to do that, just as some religious proponents will do so. But not all.

There is a big difference between what I am saying about eugenics root motive and Christians who did bad things. Eugenics at its root is about control. Determining who is the weaker races, weaker peoples, and eliminating them. Christianity at its root is anything but. Christianity at its root is about serving the least in the world's views. Were the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and those of the like pursuing control? Absolutely. Where they right to do so? Where they actually following the beliefs they taught? Absolutely not. Yes, Christianity is full of hypocrites, and truth be told, the most difficult life to live consistantly is that of a Christian.

As for the peace sign, yes, the cross has caused most of the largest wars in history. But not all of them were started by Christians. Jesus did say that he did not come to bring peace, but a sword that would divide people into different factions. From what you have said, it has happened in your family. There is a clear rift between your Christian parents and yourself. But truth be told, as long as Satan is around, there will always be a war involving Christians. And while Jesus did say 'love your enemies', he did not say 'let them trample over you'. You want to know a more realistic reason why the broken cross was chosen for the symbol of peace? It's because the world wants us Christians to compromise our faith, not to stand up for what we believe to be true, all under the pretense of peace.

Islam and Christianity have been at war for years, ever since Abraham, Ismael and Isaac. To simplify what the Koran teaches, there is only one way to have peace with them: surrender to them and convert to their belief. The Spanish Inquisition and Crusades unfortunately followed this line of thinking as well, but that is not what the Bible teaches. So anyone who does not convert to Islam is considered an enemy and should be treated as such. The Koran also teaches that it is alright to lie to an enemy to keep them off guard. That is why we have Muslims in the US who claim to be peaceful. It is a fasad. The Muslims in the US are also in the minority, but if you look at any country where they are the majority, to be a Christian means your life is at risk. So the peace symbol is not really in response to the atrocities that some Christians have made, but more as a symbol to fight against them.

You dislike eugenics because it excludes you (and everyone else alive at this point in time), yet you fail to realize the beauty of it - nobody would have to go through the struggles you've had to, as well as other struggles other people have gone through. It would take our entire race to a whole new level, transcending our current problems. Sure, we'll have new ones, but we will be by all accounts a greater race as a whole.

Of course I personally am not one to run around trying to implement eugenics, mainly because the effects would never be seen in my lifetime and I could care less what happens to the world after I'm gone, but you can't really deny it's mouth-watering benefits without allowing your emotions to control you.

I've made my arguments against eugenics to show you where it would go on a personal level. Now let me tell you where it has gone on a larger scale. Sadaam Hussein practiced eugenics with the Kurds in northern Iraq. He called it eugenics. We called it genocide. Also known as mass murder. It is quite clear. In order to determine which people have the right to live and don't under any type of eugenics, that person must be alive long enough to see what traits are worth keeping or not. And if not, that person must be killed which == MURDER!!!

Would it be better to not have to deal with the struggles that I or others have had to deal with? I must say no. From your comments, I assume you have never spent any quality time with anyone who has a disability. And you have said numerous times that you do not see a purpose in life. So it is easy from that standpoint to come to the conclusion that you have. But it is faulty. I present this case. Another high schooler with Asperger's Syndrome, much like mine or stardf's . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fw1CcxCUgg

Now I have watched baskeball quite a bit, and I don't see pro's shooting like that very often. Having Asperger's the way my muscles learned thier actions is through memorization. I struggled to learn the actions initially, but once I learned it, I could repeat it over and over again. I could be given a basketball, stand at the half-court line, shoot one, miss it bad, shoot another, make it, shoot another, make it, shoot another, make it.... I could do it over and over and over again until my body got tired, because my body knew exactly what it needed to do to make the shot. It is likely similar with this kid.

Your problem is that you see the problems with these people, but you fail to see positives. I have yet to meet a special needs person (and I've met a few) that didn't have some very special gift that 'normal' people couldn't do. I tell you what, without my Asperger's, I would not be as good as video games as I am. And I would not have had ALL the neighborhood kids staring through my window, refusing to want to play with me because of the Asperger's, but with jealousy that I could do the stuff in the games they never could. Where you have not seen the purpose in life, I do. I believe every person was created for a reason, and the ones with no physical or mental abilities have special gifts elsewhere.

Re TBG: as for your comment about not seeing the difference between the soul and the spirit, I do. The soul is the function of emotions. I have yet to find a reference to the soul that wasn't with an emotional context. The spirit is the function of intuition and communication. It is the spirit that communicates with God and with each other, when language does not. It is also the spirit that alters us of things that we percieve or normally should not know. But the spirit is never referred to in an emotional context. And all three of these, body, soul, and spirit, and very intertwined and all affect the other.

Fencer.
I would add to your comment on Christians, and war.
While I will agree that things have been done in Christ's name, you are correct to point out that those acts, contradicting the teachings of Christ, are not representing Him.
But for those who try to blame most, if not all, wars on religion, I would suggest that they study the history of Stalinist Russia, or China under Mao. Millions were killed under the orders of these "godless" leaders.