Would You Take a Cure for Cancer--If It Had Been Developed By a Gay Doctor?
- Thread starter seoulsearch
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Imitation Game is a fantastic film, and the British treatment of Turing after the war was appalling to say the least they have recently attempted to posthumously correct it. As far as he original question I have no issue who creates a cure. I honestly feel that would be a ridiculous way to decide what products I was going to use. Another interesting question would be how do you feel about organ donations from people who are gay?
Kim, I've been musing over the following thought the past day or two, and I thought it wise to share here. I know that you really already know this, but here's the analogy that came into my head. When a baby is little, it can do things that are quite wrong for an adult, and still be growing. Barfing on others, shouting during church, etc. The baby needs to eventually grow and stop doing "baby" things, little by little. However, they aren't held to quite that level of accountability yet. It takes wisdom and discernment (which we MUST beg for from God, especially if we are in a leadership position!) to know at what level a person can be and still be growing properly. The gentle-voiced guy who is listening quietly, who just walked in the door to see what church is like, shouldn't be told that he needs to stop sinning right now, because he needs to be loved and have the Gospel explained to him. Conversely, the person who's been saved for a year and wants to lead the children's service can't be sleeping with her boyfriend, because she's trying to be a leader. Also, the leadership needs to let her know that it's not okay to do that, leader or not. By then it's generally beyond time to fish or cut bait, but POSSIBLY nothing should be said to her yet; I'm not trying to make rules. The other ladies in the church should have been helping her all along, though. I think that a lot of the problems in the body arise from folks thinking that giving a teen a ride to church is "doing their duty" and that's all that's needed. We need to ask Jesus to show us how we can help each individual person instead of just warming the bench. The Holy Spirit MUST be involved! 
My thoughts were similar to Lynx. I wouldn't buy rainbow Doritos because that specific item is to help fund lgbt stuff, however I wouldn't and haven't stopped buying regular Doritos. Most every company does something we don't agree with.
So, yes . I would accept the cure. If you had to ask if he was gay, why not ask if he was an adulterous man , or if not married does he commit fornication? They're all sexual sins.
So, yes . I would accept the cure. If you had to ask if he was gay, why not ask if he was an adulterous man , or if not married does he commit fornication? They're all sexual sins.
Hello Everyone,
This thread was inspired by a conversation with a Christian friend who feels strongly convicted about refraining from buying products or services from companies who actively support gay rights (Disney would be a prime example.)
I am curious:
* Do you feel convicted to withhold your business from such companies (who support gay rights) as well?
* If a cure was made available for cancer, would you accept it for yourself or a family member--if the researcher responsible for the cure was gay?
* If so, what would be the difference?
* Would it make a difference to you if you needed the cure for a family member, such as a parent, sibling, or your own child, rather than yourself?
This is NOT meant as a criticism AT ALL. I am genuinely interested in people's answers, which is why I did not write a poll for this thread. I want to actually hear people's reasoning and explanations for their answers.
I'm posting this in Singles because as most know, the Singles Forum is pretty much my CC home, and because as a single person, I have the most control over what products, companies, and services I support. The question of how God is convicting me often comes up in my own heart and in my own day-to-day life.
Please let this thread be a place of respectful discussion. If Sally H. says she boycotts Disney but would accept the cure for cancer even if it was developed and administered by an entire team of gay doctors, please, just hear her out instead of criticizing what she believes. I'm hoping this thread will bring up some interesting thoughts WITHOUT turning in a war zone.
One of the things that helps me greatly in my own Christian walk is hearing about how other Christians deal with the same kinds of challenges and convictions.
Thank you in advance for your thoughts, and even more thanks for respecting the thoughts of others who post as well.
This thread was inspired by a conversation with a Christian friend who feels strongly convicted about refraining from buying products or services from companies who actively support gay rights (Disney would be a prime example.)
I am curious:
* Do you feel convicted to withhold your business from such companies (who support gay rights) as well?
* If a cure was made available for cancer, would you accept it for yourself or a family member--if the researcher responsible for the cure was gay?
* If so, what would be the difference?
* Would it make a difference to you if you needed the cure for a family member, such as a parent, sibling, or your own child, rather than yourself?
This is NOT meant as a criticism AT ALL. I am genuinely interested in people's answers, which is why I did not write a poll for this thread. I want to actually hear people's reasoning and explanations for their answers.
I'm posting this in Singles because as most know, the Singles Forum is pretty much my CC home
, and because as a single person, I have the most control over what products, companies, and services I support. The question of how God is convicting me often comes up in my own heart and in my own day-to-day life. Please let this thread be a place of respectful discussion. If Sally H. says she boycotts Disney but would accept the cure for cancer even if it was developed and administered by an entire team of gay doctors, please, just hear her out instead of criticizing what she believes. I'm hoping this thread will bring up some interesting thoughts WITHOUT turning in a war zone.
One of the things that helps me greatly in my own Christian walk is hearing about how other Christians deal with the same kinds of challenges and convictions.
Thank you in advance for your thoughts, and even more thanks for respecting the thoughts of others who post as well.
If we refuse to deal with sinners we eliminate everyone on the planet including ourselves.
I should mention the Disney example and the cancer cure example is comparing apples to sheet metal. We should avoid Disney because it's a massive money pit. They're all smiling and cheerful there because you're spending money. The smiles never reach their eyes. And everything is deliberately overpriced and it's not really much fun anyway. You could have more fun building sand castles on the beach or playing laser tag.
What? SOMEBODY had to rant about Disney, and nobody else was stepping up to the plate. Now this thread is complete.
What? SOMEBODY had to rant about Disney, and nobody else was stepping up to the plate.
Now this thread is complete.
This.
Is An Awesome Question.
And what if the person was transgendered?
Or of a different race that the receiver does not approve of? (For instance, how would a purple person who hates orange people feel about receiving a kidney from and orange person?)
I realize sexual preference is much different from race and so forth, but thanks, Nautilus, for this very interesting thought.
Is An Awesome Question.
And what if the person was transgendered?
Or of a different race that the receiver does not approve of? (For instance, how would a purple person who hates orange people feel about receiving a kidney from and orange person?)
I realize sexual preference is much different from race and so forth, but thanks, Nautilus, for this very interesting thought.
First off, good job at getting your threads going again, Kim. You are a toughie and you have proved it once again. The Ice Age, the harsh criticisms on CC, nothing can ever get you down!!
Anywhoooo..... This is a good question, Kim and Nautilus has raised another interesting point.
I think we need some context to answer your question. I want to draw an analogy to our position vis-a-vis this issue. In India, we have a particular sect of Hindus called Brahmins. The Brahmins are the purest of the Hindus. Believed to be Aryans, Brahmins spend their time devoted to the spiritual matters, leaving the mundane chores of life (defending the land, trade, farming and sanitation) to the castes beneath them. In some parts of India, the Brahmins also took upon themselves the aristocracy, thereby becoming a demigod to the people of their lands.
There is a particular trait of Brahmin culture - vegetarianism. This stems from the belief that eating anything that is of animals is unholy and defiled. However, what they define as holy and unholy varies from region to region, and on close examination, is often dictated by the local vegetation and diet. For example, in the city I live in, Brahmins do not eat eggs, fish or any livestock meat. However, in a region from Eastern India, Brahmins consider fish as part of their staple diet. This paradox can be explained only by the local vegetation. The region where the latter Brahmins live consists of swamps which are often flooded during the monsoon period. Hence, farming was quite rare and the locals live on a diet of fishes caught from the adjacent sea or the marshes. The Brahmins therefore made an exception to fish as it was a question of their survival - eat fish or die trying to stick to their vegetarian diet.
I want to stretch your question and add 2 different scenarios to it. Please assume that in both situations, the net proceeds from sale of the drugs developed by the gay doctor would go towards furthering the cause of the LGBT community.
Scenario 1 - Would you take a cure for cancer if it had been developed by a gay doctor and there is no other alternative available in the market?
Scenario 2 - Would you take a cure for cancer that has been developed by a gay doctor but there are other alternatives available in the market? (assume both options cost the same, have the same treatment period, give the same side-effects, are launched at the same time, have undergone the same clinical trial process ... something like generic drug vs branded drug)
Will your position change between scenario 1 and scenario 2? I would appreciate your honest responses.
As for me, yes, my position would change. In Scenario 1, I will go with the cure developed by the gay doctor. In Scenario 2, I will not go with the cure developed by the gay doctor. I accept that my behaviour is not consistent, and I have no moral justification for it.
Anywhoooo..... This is a good question, Kim and Nautilus has raised another interesting point.
I think we need some context to answer your question. I want to draw an analogy to our position vis-a-vis this issue. In India, we have a particular sect of Hindus called Brahmins. The Brahmins are the purest of the Hindus. Believed to be Aryans, Brahmins spend their time devoted to the spiritual matters, leaving the mundane chores of life (defending the land, trade, farming and sanitation) to the castes beneath them. In some parts of India, the Brahmins also took upon themselves the aristocracy, thereby becoming a demigod to the people of their lands.
There is a particular trait of Brahmin culture - vegetarianism. This stems from the belief that eating anything that is of animals is unholy and defiled. However, what they define as holy and unholy varies from region to region, and on close examination, is often dictated by the local vegetation and diet. For example, in the city I live in, Brahmins do not eat eggs, fish or any livestock meat. However, in a region from Eastern India, Brahmins consider fish as part of their staple diet. This paradox can be explained only by the local vegetation. The region where the latter Brahmins live consists of swamps which are often flooded during the monsoon period. Hence, farming was quite rare and the locals live on a diet of fishes caught from the adjacent sea or the marshes. The Brahmins therefore made an exception to fish as it was a question of their survival - eat fish or die trying to stick to their vegetarian diet.
I want to stretch your question and add 2 different scenarios to it. Please assume that in both situations, the net proceeds from sale of the drugs developed by the gay doctor would go towards furthering the cause of the LGBT community.
Scenario 1 - Would you take a cure for cancer if it had been developed by a gay doctor and there is no other alternative available in the market?
Scenario 2 - Would you take a cure for cancer that has been developed by a gay doctor but there are other alternatives available in the market? (assume both options cost the same, have the same treatment period, give the same side-effects, are launched at the same time, have undergone the same clinical trial process ... something like generic drug vs branded drug)
Will your position change between scenario 1 and scenario 2? I would appreciate your honest responses.
As for me, yes, my position would change. In Scenario 1, I will go with the cure developed by the gay doctor. In Scenario 2, I will not go with the cure developed by the gay doctor. I accept that my behaviour is not consistent, and I have no moral justification for it.
I should mention the Disney example and the cancer cure example is comparing apples to sheet metal. We should avoid Disney because it's a massive money pit. They're all smiling and cheerful there because you're spending money. The smiles never reach their eyes. And everything is deliberately overpriced and it's not really much fun anyway. You could have more fun building sand castles on the beach or playing laser tag.
What? SOMEBODY had to rant about Disney, and nobody else was stepping up to the plate. Now this thread is complete.
What? SOMEBODY had to rant about Disney, and nobody else was stepping up to the plate.
Now this thread is complete.
First off, good job at getting your threads going again, Kim. You are a toughie and you have proved it once again. The Ice Age, the harsh criticisms on CC, nothing can ever get you down!!
Anywhoooo..... This is a good question, Kim and Nautilus has raised another interesting point.
I think we need some context to answer your question. I want to draw an analogy to our position vis-a-vis this issue. In India, we have a particular sect of Hindus called Brahmins. The Brahmins are the purest of the Hindus. Believed to be Aryans, Brahmins spend their time devoted to the spiritual matters, leaving the mundane chores of life (defending the land, trade, farming and sanitation) to the castes beneath them. In some parts of India, the Brahmins also took upon themselves the aristocracy, thereby becoming a demigod to the people of their lands.
There is a particular trait of Brahmin culture - vegetarianism. This stems from the belief that eating anything that is of animals is unholy and defiled. However, what they define as holy and unholy varies from region to region, and on close examination, is often dictated by the local vegetation and diet. For example, in the city I live in, Brahmins do not eat eggs, fish or any livestock meat. However, in a region from Eastern India, Brahmins consider fish as part of their staple diet. This paradox can be explained only by the local vegetation. The region where the latter Brahmins live consists of swamps which are often flooded during the monsoon period. Hence, farming was quite rare and the locals live on a diet of fishes caught from the adjacent sea or the marshes. The Brahmins therefore made an exception to fish as it was a question of their survival - eat fish or die trying to stick to their vegetarian diet.
I want to stretch your question and add 2 different scenarios to it. Please assume that in both situations, the net proceeds from sale of the drugs developed by the gay doctor would go towards furthering the cause of the LGBT community.
Scenario 1 - Would you take a cure for cancer if it had been developed by a gay doctor and there is no other alternative available in the market?
Scenario 2 - Would you take a cure for cancer that has been developed by a gay doctor but there are other alternatives available in the market? (assume both options cost the same, have the same treatment period, give the same side-effects, are launched at the same time, have undergone the same clinical trial process ... something like generic drug vs branded drug)
Will your position change between scenario 1 and scenario 2? I would appreciate your honest responses.
As for me, yes, my position would change. In Scenario 1, I will go with the cure developed by the gay doctor. In Scenario 2, I will not go with the cure developed by the gay doctor. I accept that my behaviour is not consistent, and I have no moral justification for it.
Anywhoooo..... This is a good question, Kim and Nautilus has raised another interesting point.
I think we need some context to answer your question. I want to draw an analogy to our position vis-a-vis this issue. In India, we have a particular sect of Hindus called Brahmins. The Brahmins are the purest of the Hindus. Believed to be Aryans, Brahmins spend their time devoted to the spiritual matters, leaving the mundane chores of life (defending the land, trade, farming and sanitation) to the castes beneath them. In some parts of India, the Brahmins also took upon themselves the aristocracy, thereby becoming a demigod to the people of their lands.
There is a particular trait of Brahmin culture - vegetarianism. This stems from the belief that eating anything that is of animals is unholy and defiled. However, what they define as holy and unholy varies from region to region, and on close examination, is often dictated by the local vegetation and diet. For example, in the city I live in, Brahmins do not eat eggs, fish or any livestock meat. However, in a region from Eastern India, Brahmins consider fish as part of their staple diet. This paradox can be explained only by the local vegetation. The region where the latter Brahmins live consists of swamps which are often flooded during the monsoon period. Hence, farming was quite rare and the locals live on a diet of fishes caught from the adjacent sea or the marshes. The Brahmins therefore made an exception to fish as it was a question of their survival - eat fish or die trying to stick to their vegetarian diet.
I want to stretch your question and add 2 different scenarios to it. Please assume that in both situations, the net proceeds from sale of the drugs developed by the gay doctor would go towards furthering the cause of the LGBT community.
Scenario 1 - Would you take a cure for cancer if it had been developed by a gay doctor and there is no other alternative available in the market?
Scenario 2 - Would you take a cure for cancer that has been developed by a gay doctor but there are other alternatives available in the market? (assume both options cost the same, have the same treatment period, give the same side-effects, are launched at the same time, have undergone the same clinical trial process ... something like generic drug vs branded drug)
Will your position change between scenario 1 and scenario 2? I would appreciate your honest responses.
As for me, yes, my position would change. In Scenario 1, I will go with the cure developed by the gay doctor. In Scenario 2, I will not go with the cure developed by the gay doctor. I accept that my behaviour is not consistent, and I have no moral justification for it.
Roh,
I always appreciate your posts because you always take the time to include such fascinating cultural details. Thank you for sharing!!!
Even if it DID come with an Ice Age jab
.In my own life, I've known several people who have battled cancer, and a few I was particularly close to. I was also tested for a certain kind of cancer several years ago, and I remember that being a very scary, lonely time. (In my case, the tests came back with no signs of cancer, but I know so many people receive other news.
) I would have to say that in your first scenario, yes, I would accept the treatment, even if it was going to support causes I myself do not believe in as a Christian.
However, I am someone who has been to Disney World as well. For now, it's not a part of my convictions. But if God DID convict me of not accepting the cure because of its origins, that would be another matter.
Which, to me, is really the heart of this discussion, though it could easily become a new thread itself: "If God convicted you, would you not accept a cure for cancer?"
People talk about being willing to die for their faith. But would that include refusing a perfectly good treatment for an otherwise fatal condition? (I do realize some churches shun the medical field in all forms as it is--I was part of a church once who had many well-meaning members who believed this, too.)
In the second scenario, yes, if there were alternative treatments available, yes, I would seek them out. But, I have to be honest in that I've always been someone who is usually the exception to the rule. If only 2 people out of 200 have an allergic reaction to something, guess which group you can bet I'll fall into.
If the other treatments left me with unbearable side effects and the gay doctor's treatment was what worked best for me, yes, I believe I would accept it.
Thank you for the perspective, Kim!
Heh, I go to a church that shuns medical treatment. Worse, if a member undergoes medical treatment, he/she cannot partake of the Lord's table for 6 months! In fact, 4 members of my immediate family have passed away without undergoing any treatment for their ailments.
I am going to digress a bit, but how do you interpret a conviction by God? Christians seem to have an innate aversion to LGBT, that people call homophobia. Is that the conviction by God? Or, is a voice from heaven telling us "Thou shalt not use any medicine that hath been developed by a gay doctor" a conviction from God?
I think that this is a long topic and the closer we analyse this, the more questions we will have.
Heh, I go to a church that shuns medical treatment. Worse, if a member undergoes medical treatment, he/she cannot partake of the Lord's table for 6 months! In fact, 4 members of my immediate family have passed away without undergoing any treatment for their ailments.
I am going to digress a bit, but how do you interpret a conviction by God? Christians seem to have an innate aversion to LGBT, that people call homophobia. Is that the conviction by God? Or, is a voice from heaven telling us "Thou shalt not use any medicine that hath been developed by a gay doctor" a conviction from God?
I think that this is a long topic and the closer we analyse this, the more questions we will have.
Thank you for the perspective, Kim!
Heh, I go to a church that shuns medical treatment. Worse, if a member undergoes medical treatment, he/she cannot partake of the Lord's table for 6 months! In fact, 4 members of my immediate family have passed away without undergoing any treatment for their ailments.
I am going to digress a bit, but how do you interpret a conviction by God? Christians seem to have an innate aversion to LGBT, that people call homophobia. Is that the conviction by God? Or, is a voice from heaven telling us "Thou shalt not use any medicine that hath been developed by a gay doctor" a conviction from God?
I think that this is a long topic and the closer we analyse this, the more questions we will have.
Heh, I go to a church that shuns medical treatment. Worse, if a member undergoes medical treatment, he/she cannot partake of the Lord's table for 6 months! In fact, 4 members of my immediate family have passed away without undergoing any treatment for their ailments.
I am going to digress a bit, but how do you interpret a conviction by God? Christians seem to have an innate aversion to LGBT, that people call homophobia. Is that the conviction by God? Or, is a voice from heaven telling us "Thou shalt not use any medicine that hath been developed by a gay doctor" a conviction from God?
I think that this is a long topic and the closer we analyse this, the more questions we will have.
I am going to pray that you NEVER get sick!
K
Hello Everyone,
This thread was inspired by a conversation with a Christian friend who feels strongly convicted about refraining from buying products or services from companies who actively support gay rights (Disney would be a prime example.)
I am curious:
* Do you feel convicted to withhold your business from such companies (who support gay rights) as well?
* If a cure was made available for cancer, would you accept it for yourself or a family member--if the researcher responsible for the cure was gay?
* If so, what would be the difference?
* Would it make a difference to you if you needed the cure for a family member, such as a parent, sibling, or your own child, rather than yourself?
This is NOT meant as a criticism AT ALL. I am genuinely interested in people's answers, which is why I did not write a poll for this thread. I want to actually hear people's reasoning and explanations for their answers.
I'm posting this in Singles because as most know, the Singles Forum is pretty much my CC home, and because as a single person, I have the most control over what products, companies, and services I support. The question of how God is convicting me often comes up in my own heart and in my own day-to-day life.
Please let this thread be a place of respectful discussion. If Sally H. says she boycotts Disney but would accept the cure for cancer even if it was developed and administered by an entire team of gay doctors, please, just hear her out instead of criticizing what she believes. I'm hoping this thread will bring up some interesting thoughts WITHOUT turning in a war zone.
One of the things that helps me greatly in my own Christian walk is hearing about how other Christians deal with the same kinds of challenges and convictions.
Thank you in advance for your thoughts, and even more thanks for respecting the thoughts of others who post as well.
This thread was inspired by a conversation with a Christian friend who feels strongly convicted about refraining from buying products or services from companies who actively support gay rights (Disney would be a prime example.)
I am curious:
* Do you feel convicted to withhold your business from such companies (who support gay rights) as well?
* If a cure was made available for cancer, would you accept it for yourself or a family member--if the researcher responsible for the cure was gay?
* If so, what would be the difference?
* Would it make a difference to you if you needed the cure for a family member, such as a parent, sibling, or your own child, rather than yourself?
This is NOT meant as a criticism AT ALL. I am genuinely interested in people's answers, which is why I did not write a poll for this thread. I want to actually hear people's reasoning and explanations for their answers.
I'm posting this in Singles because as most know, the Singles Forum is pretty much my CC home
, and because as a single person, I have the most control over what products, companies, and services I support. The question of how God is convicting me often comes up in my own heart and in my own day-to-day life. Please let this thread be a place of respectful discussion. If Sally H. says she boycotts Disney but would accept the cure for cancer even if it was developed and administered by an entire team of gay doctors, please, just hear her out instead of criticizing what she believes. I'm hoping this thread will bring up some interesting thoughts WITHOUT turning in a war zone.
One of the things that helps me greatly in my own Christian walk is hearing about how other Christians deal with the same kinds of challenges and convictions.
Thank you in advance for your thoughts, and even more thanks for respecting the thoughts of others who post as well.
Im hoping this question is open to non singles too? As far as Disney Ive never gone and don't intend to. I dont like rides so Id be left chatting with Snow White all day while hubby takes the rides. No fun.But I have read that there are many Christians who work at Disney at various jobs so perhaps they are telling others about the Lord. Who knows?
I dont support companies that I know are big in the gay agenda. But I also stopped supporting places that refused to say Merry Christmas and would not allow the Salvation Army to have their kettles outside at Christmas. So have various reasons I dont support companies. That being said its getting harder to do because companies want business and they don't care who its from.
My sister cracked me up with this idea of not supporting companies because of convictions. The first place she boycotted was Star Bucks. Now my sister LOVES coffee and we live a long way from a Canadian Tim Hortons which she use to be addicted to. So she seriously went through withdrawal.lol The next place she chose was Target,and she loved to shop there. Then it was Mc Donalds. Well we live about two hours apart and I dont see her often. One day I went to visit her and got in her car and at my feet was a Mc Donalds bag. The look on her face was priceless and she said "oh dont tell dad or my husband,they'd be so upset with me!" I laughed. I thought for sure the coffee would do her in but it was the Mc Donalds! lol lol
As far as a cure for cancer that is very personal for me. I have lost both of my grandmothers,my uncle and my aunt to cancer. She died at the age of forty. But she while she was sick in the hospital she shared the Gospel with so many people. She really touched the nurses that attended her. The end of it all really is that we support gays,alcoholics,porn,liars and thieves {yes politicians} with our money all the time and don't know about it. I watched a documentary once on how many companies,like the phone company that makes large sums of money from porn. So while I disagree with homosexuality and avoid places that are big in their support of gays I think it won't be long before there will be no choice. The Bible says we're in the world not of it. Unless we all want to become Amish we have little choice.
And just as an after thought what Christians have boycotted has changed over time. I met a couple who refused to eat at any restaurant that served alcohol. Other than fast food you're out of luck. Then there were Christians who would not shop on Sunday,some still don't. If I go back to my mothers day in age,she wasn't allowed to go to a movie theater or go bowling. I think a persons convictions are up to them. Its not possible to boycott everything. Each person should do as they feel convicted.
ps. I never read colors on products. I look at the color,decide I like it and buy it. If you ask me the name of the color I couldn't tell you. Mauve, it looks mauve to me.