NationStates Jolt Archive

"Is it possible to post a thread like this without it turning into a flame war," I muse to myself. I think it is possible. I think if we all really, really, really try extra doubly hard, we can keep this thread dignified and sane. We, those who can be rational, can ignore or humbly answer to the trolls that are sure to appear with their banner of irrationality held high. This is not to say that certain opinions regarding the topic at hand are to be simply dismissed for their point of view (i.e. a person's religious beliefs, though they may be incomprehensible to some of us, should not be ridiculed categorically).

Now.

Is it valid to believe that STD's are a punishment for behavior? Such as homosexuality, promiscuity, carelessness. Mainly what I'm interested in is if people still believe that AIDS (sorry, Fassigen) is a "gay disease", which the poll will reflect. I'm also interested in everyone's opinion about whether or not that is a dangerous opinion to hold and if it is, what should be done about it.

I bite my lip in hopes that all will go well and we can show one another some decency in an area where little decency can be found in the past.

Two words.

Magic Johnson

I often wish people "Happy VD" on Feb 14. Pun-ishment enough?

Is AIDS a gay disease? No. It is not limited to gays, so therefore it cannot properly be called a gay disease.

Are STDs God's punishment on immoral behavior? Of course. All bad things that happen to us are punishment for our behavior. And they are merciful punishments, too.

Our smallest sin earns us the eternal fire. So, in comparison to that, AIDS isn't so bad. Note, that I do not say that AIDS is to be taken lightly. It is a horrible, horrible disease. But in comparison to eternal damnation, the worst thing that you can think of would be more desirable.

Should we just let disease run rampant because it is God's judgment? No. Our aid to the sick is God's vessel of mercy: He gives us the knowledge to find these helps and cures.

Im not even sure we've figured out the true cause of its first contact. I've heard everything from the CIA to a rainforest monkey. Its never struck me as a "gay" disease. supposedly anal sex is alot less sanitary, but that would imply that heterosexual couples dont, which is wrong.

They're called "STI" nowadays.

As for the question, I won't dignify it with a comment.

But, if Jesus truly died to absolve us of our sins, wouldn't it be ungrateful of us not to commit them?

But, if Jesus truly died to absolve us of our sins, wouldn't it be ungrateful of us not to commit them?

My God(pun intended), you're a genius!
In fact, I'm gonna sig you.

Psh, there's nothing to punish usually. If STDs were punishment they'd only strike cheating partners, rapists and child molesters.

Since everyone can get STDs and AIDs, and not just the gays, then I would say no.

Is AIDS a gay disease? No. It is not limited to gays, so therefore it cannot properly be called a gay disease.

Are STDs God's punishment on immoral behavior? Of course. All bad things that happen to us are punishment for our behavior. And they are merciful punishments, too.

Our smallest sin earns us the eternal fire. So, in comparison to that, AIDS isn't so bad. Note, that I do not say that AIDS is to be taken lightly. It is a horrible, horrible disease. But in comparison to eternal damnation, the worst thing that you can think of would be more desirable.

Should we just let disease run rampant because it is God's judgment? No. Our aid to the sick is God's vessel of mercy: He gives us the knowledge to find these helps and cures.

Oh-my-FUCKING-god.

Are you serious?

I often wish people "Happy VD" on Feb 14. Pun-ishment enough?
If you live in the US, you could also do that for vetran's day.

I often wish people "Happy VD" on Feb 14. Pun-ishment enough?

For that crack, you die *charges screaming with battleaxe*

My God(pun intended), you're a genius!
In fact, I'm gonna sig you.

TY! But, credit where credit is due. It's a paraphrase of a Jules Feiffer quote. ;)

Is AIDS a gay disease? No. It is not limited to gays, so therefore it cannot properly be called a gay disease.

Are STDs God's punishment on immoral behavior? Of course. All bad things that happen to us are punishment for our behavior. And they are merciful punishments, too.

Our smallest sin earns us the eternal fire. So, in comparison to that, AIDS isn't so bad. Note, that I do not say that AIDS is to be taken lightly. It is a horrible, horrible disease. But in comparison to eternal damnation, the worst thing that you can think of would be more desirable.

Should we just let disease run rampant because it is God's judgment? No. Our aid to the sick is God's vessel of mercy: He gives us the knowledge to find these helps and cures.

Wow,your God's a prick.

For that crack, you die *charges screaming with battleaxe*

I seem to have found a home :) Probably just the luck of seeing the thread early :p

AIDs

The acronym is AIDS or Aids. "AIDs" is incorrect, as minuscules at the end of an acronym consisting otherwise of majuscules are used to indicate plurality. "AIDs" would signify "Acquired Immune Deficiencies" and not "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome" as "AIDS" does.

"AIDs" is just wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. So stop using it.

IF STDs were limited to just being sexually transmitted, sadly though there's a number you can get through non-sexual means (Getting AIDS through blood transmissions for example), not to mention that STDs may also infect children through blood sharing between mother and embryo.

So unless God is attempting to punish you by killing a child who has not broken the rules regarding sexual contact... No, it cannot be considered punishment any more than catching a cold would be.

Wow,your God's a prick.

Most are, unless you worship pie ;)

Is AIDS a gay disease? No. It is not limited to gays, so therefore it cannot properly be called a gay disease.

Are STDs God's punishment on immoral behavior? Of course. All bad things that happen to us are punishment for our behavior. And they are merciful punishments, too.

Our smallest sin earns us the eternal fire. So, in comparison to that, AIDS isn't so bad. Note, that I do not say that AIDS is to be taken lightly. It is a horrible, horrible disease. But in comparison to eternal damnation, the worst thing that you can think of would be more desirable.

Should we just let disease run rampant because it is God's judgment? No. Our aid to the sick is God's vessel of mercy: He gives us the knowledge to find these helps and cures.

Mommy, I'm scared of this god, make him go away!

Mommy, I'm scared of this god, make him go away!
I have a magical cure for that scary god. Here, take this Atheism pill.

Of course STDs are a punishment, those filthy gays deserve everything they get. God is also punishing all those people in Africa with AIDs, which goes to prove that us whites are superior to blacks. Otherwise they wouldn't all have AIDs, right? :rolleyes:

I have a magical cure for that scary god. Here, take this Atheism pill.

It's all clear and cold.

So now herpes, AIDS, and being a woman are punishments for sin?:confused:

So now herpes, AIDS, and being a woman are punishments for sin?:confused:

Duhh! Haven't you read the Bible*?!?
*as modified by the Westboro Baptist Church

Oh-my-FUCKING-god.

Are you serious?

That's what happens when you take myths literally--you wind up like Edwardis.

Most are, unless you worship pie ;)

mmm pie.

but how could i worship pie when i am the creator of pie?

mmm pie.

but how could i worship pie when i am the creator of pie?

I think he meant pi.

mmm pie.

but how could i worship pie when i am the creator of pie?

Doesn't it make more sense to praise the creation than the creator? Lots of creators are assholes, after all.

AIDS, HIV, and STIs do not discriminate towards any ethnicity, colour, sex, sexual orientation, or geography. Therefore, one cannot label it as a "gay disease."

The idea of disease as punishment is an illogical belief. My uncle, who happened to be a Christian pastor, got cancer and died from it. Was that punishment from god? I don't think so.

Doesn't it make more sense to praise the creation than the creator? Lots of creators are assholes, after all.

and my pies are close to perfection..

HEY was that a slam about me being the creator of pies???

It's all clear and cold.
But it's easy to swallow! It takes like fish! :p

and my pies are close to perfection..

HEY was that a slam about me being the creator of pies???

:D
Not at all. I was mainly thinking of most of the writers I know.

:D
Not at all. I was mainly thinking of most of the writers I know.

oh ok. phew.

one should never diss the creator of pies.

good pies

really good pies

Is AIDS a gay disease? No. It is not limited to gays, so therefore it cannot properly be called a gay disease.

Are STDs God's punishment on immoral behavior? Of course. All bad things that happen to us are punishment for our behavior. And they are merciful punishments, too.

Our smallest sin earns us the eternal fire. So, in comparison to that, AIDS isn't so bad. Note, that I do not say that AIDS is to be taken lightly. It is a horrible, horrible disease. But in comparison to eternal damnation, the worst thing that you can think of would be more desirable.

Should we just let disease run rampant because it is God's judgment? No. Our aid to the sick is God's vessel of mercy: He gives us the knowledge to find these helps and cures.

I seriously can't understand how you believe the bolded part.

I seriously can't understand how you believe the bolded part.
Pretend you're an ignorant Christian who thinks everyone else is wrong simply because God spoke to you while you were touching yourself in the shower, and you suddenly saw the light.

Pretend you're an ignorant Christian who thinks everyone else is wrong simply because God spoke to you while you were touching yourself in the shower, and you suddenly saw the light.

uh.........I don't think I want to.

uh.........I don't think I want to.
It pleases God when people whore themselves out to him.

That's what happens when you take myths literally--you wind up like Edwardis.

Thank Mod I didn't turn out like him.

It pleases God when people whore themselves out to him.

is that what the kids are calling it these days? :eek:

is that what the kids are calling it these days? :eek:
Yeah, it's the new total in. You get the instruction book with each purchase of 'Spoiled Stupid Whore' playset! ;)

God created AIDs to punish the Homosexuals. since then, it has been spread by "Bisexuals" who have carried it over to straight women, who then, in their promiscuity, spread it to other male partners. It is a Gay disease, because the Homosexuals are responsible for it, and the blood of any innocents, including innocent children and those who acquired it through blood transfusions, is on their hands.

God created AIDs to punish the Homosexuals. since then, it has been spread by "Bisexuals" who have carried it over to straight women, who then, in their promiscuity, spread it to other male partners. It is a Gay disease, because the Homosexuals are responsible for it, and the blood of any innocents, including innocent children and those who acquired it through blood transfusions, is on their hands.

yes, all women and catholics are promiscuous.

do you ever get tired of this?!

God created AIDs to punish the Homosexuals. since then, it has been spread by "Bisexuals" who have carried it over to straight women, who then, in their promiscuity, spread it to other male partners. It is a Gay disease, because the Homosexuals are responsible for it, and the blood of any innocents, including innocent children and those who acquired it through blood transfusions, is on their hands.
No, God created AIDS to make people like you, annoying, paranoid pricks who keep their legs shut so that you don't pollute the gene pool.

yes, all women and catholics are promiscuous.

do you ever get tired of this?!
Evidently not.

yes, all women and catholics are promiscuous.

do you ever get tired of this?!

I never said all women are promiscuous, only that promiscuous women would have sex with the AIDs carrying bisexuals, and then have sex with straight males, who in their promiscuity, would pass it on to more women.

And I didn't mention Catholics in this. They have nothing to do with AIDs.

I never said all women are promiscuous, only that promiscuous women would have sex with the AIDs carrying bisexuals, and then have sex with straight males, who in their promiscuity, would pass it on to more women.
Before you look even more foolish (If such a thing were possible) could you PLEASE read up on AIDS, HIV, methods of transmission and possible history thereof.

You're like the poster child for every public health offical's nightmare on AIDS misinformation.

I never said all women are promiscuous, only that promiscuous women would have sex with the AIDs carrying bisexuals, and then have sex with straight males, who in their promiscuity, would pass it on to more women.

And I didn't mention Catholics in this. They have nothing to do with AIDs.

but youve mentioned time and time again that catholics are damnable, so i was wondering.

so... if these "promiscuous" women have sex with men that do not tell them that they have AIDS (AIDS IS NOT A STD, by the way), who is at fault?

but youve mentioned time and time again that catholics are damnable, so i was wondering.

so... if these "promiscuous" women have sex with men that do not tell them that they have AIDS (AIDS IS NOT A STD, by the way), who is at fault?

how is AIDS not a sexually transmitted disease? it's transmitted by sex yes?

I don't understand.

"Is it possible to post a thread like this without it turning into a flame war," I muse to myself. I think it is possible. I think if we all really, really, really try extra doubly hard, we can keep this thread dignified and sane. We, those who can be rational, can ignore or humbly answer to the trolls that are sure to appear with their banner of irrationality held high. This is not to say that certain opinions regarding the topic at hand are to be simply dismissed for their point of view (i.e. a person's religious beliefs, though they may be incomprehensible to some of us, should not be ridiculed categorically).

Now.

Is it valid to believe that STD's are a punishment for behavior? Such as homosexuality, promiscuity, carelessness. Mainly what I'm interested in is if people still believe that AIDs is a "gay disease", which the poll will reflect. I'm also interested in everyone's opinion about whether or not that is a dangerous opinion to hold and if it is, what should be done about it.

I bite my lip in hopes that all will go well and we can show one another some decency in an area where little decency can be found in the past.

STDs (or STIs) are punishment for behavior, but only in the sense that we get a cold because we stood in freezing temperatures for too long, and nothing more. STDs were not created by God to destroy our natural human sexuality (which, in fact, He created).

Obesity isn't punishment for me eating too many damn potato chips; it's only a consequence of my actions.

how is AIDS not a sexually transmitted disease? it's transmitted by sex yes?

I don't understand.

because AIDS is not a disease at all, sexually transmitted or otherwise.

how is AIDS not a sexually transmitted disease? it's transmitted by sex yes?

I don't understand.
Techinically speaking it's not. HIV is an STD (kinda sortta). AIDS developes from being infected by HIV. No one has ever caught AIDS from someone.

how is AIDS not a sexually transmitted disease? it's transmitted by sex yes?

I don't understand.

AIDS isn't a disease at all. It's a set of symptoms brought on by HIV (or Human Immunodeficiency Virus). No one dies from AIDS, but from the multiple infections/illnesses that invade the body after our immune system is destroyed.

it works this way: the virus, HIV, is transmitted through fluid contact, and the consequence, AIDS, happens because the virus destroys the immune system.

because AIDS is not a disease at all, sexually transmitted or otherwise.

what's your definition of a disease?:confused:

STDs (or STIs) are punishment for behavior, but only in the sense that we get a cold because we stood in freezing temperatures for too long, and nothing more. STDs were not created by God to destroy our natural human sexuality (which, in fact, He created).

Obesity isn't punishment for me eating too many damn potato chips; it's only a consequence of my actions.

So me needing to piss real bad during a test is a consequence of what...?

STDs (or STIs) are punishment for behavior, but only in the sense that we get a cold because we stood in freezing temperatures for too long, and nothing more. STDs were not created by God to destroy our natural human sexuality (which, in fact, He created).

Obesity isn't punishment for me eating too many damn potato chips; it's only a consequence of my actions.
Just to nitpick, you don't get colds by standing out in the cold for too long... No matter what you mom may have told you. ;)

what's your definition of a disease?:confused:

read my post about it.

heres the SparkNotes version: AIDS is a symptom of immune system collapse due to HIV, which is a STD

Techinically speaking it's not. HIV is an STD (kinda sortta). AIDS developes from being infected by HIV. No one has ever caught AIDS from someone.
oh.....if that's what they mean then that makes sense.
AIDS isn't a disease at all. It's a set of symptoms brought on by HIV (or Human Immunodeficiency Virus). No one dies from AIDS, but from the multiple infections/illnesses that invade the body after our immune system is destroyed.
I have an auto immune disorder and while it won't kill me, the things that it screws up might, it is a disease. I suppose I see what you mean if you mean waht Nervun said though.

Just to nitpick, you don't get colds by standing out in the cold for too long... No matter what you mom may have told you. ;)

;) yeah, i sort of dumbed that down a little, didnt i?

what's your definition of a disease?:confused:

once again, you fall into the mistake MANY people make.

AIDS is not a disease. It's not a THING at all. You can't gather AIDS or observie it under a microscope. It is a syndrome.

HIV is a disease. HIV is a virus, HIV is an STD.

AIDS is a syndrome. AIDS is a descriptive term to describe the set of symptomes one has when that individual has advanced HIV. There is no "thing" called AIDS, nobody ever "gets" AIDS, nobody ever "contracts" AIDS, you can not see the AIDS virus.

AIDS is simply a descriptive term to describe the condition one has when he has advanced HIV.

I have an auto immune disorder and while it won't kill me, the things that it screws up might, it is a disease. I suppose I see what you mean if you mean waht Nervun said though.

think of it this way (and now im really simplifying things):

you have a shield... call it your immune system. AIDS comes along and takes away the shield.

NOW, AIDS hasnt killed you, but it has opened you up to be killed by something as harmless as the common cold or even the flu.

think of it this way (and now im really simplifying things):

you have a shield... call it your immune system. AIDS comes along and takes away the shield.

NOW, AIDS hasnt killed you, but it has opened you up to be killed by something as harmless as the common cold or even the flu.

yeah I get that, but I thought that because it damages the body in some way that it would be counted as a disease.......

saying nobody dies from HIV but rather dies from infections the body can't fight off due to HIV is like saying nobody dies by jumping off a building but rather dies from the stop at the end.

To take nitpicky to the extreme, there is only one cause of death for a human being, and every single human has died from the same cause.

Neurological failure...brain death.

Everything else, be it a heart attack which stops blood, and thus oxygen from reaching the brain, or strangulation which prevents oxygen from getting into the body, or a bullet through the head, every single cause of death is not really a "cause" at all, but merely an event that lead to the individual's brain dying.

In that sense the only thing that kills any one of us is our brain ceasing to function.

yeah I get that, but I thought that because it damages the body in some way that it would be counted as a disease.......

no, HIV damages your body by removing your immune system, and AIDS is the result...

geez, i shouldve said that first

no, HIV damages your body by removing your immune system, and AIDS is the result...

geez, i shouldve said that first

But you didn't.

yeah I get that, but I thought that because it damages the body in some way that it would be counted as a disease.......

actually some people, a few, have died DIRECTLY FROM HIV. Along with its immune deficiency problems, HIV also causes a degree of neural degeneration, often refered to as "HIV related dimentia". While it's rare, and most people who have HIV die from some infection caused by the lack of an immune system, it does happen that this neurological deterioration caused by HIV has resulted in death, now and again.

So on occassion HIV actually does kill someone directly.

once again, you fall into the mistake MANY people make.

AIDS is not a disease. It's not a THING at all. You can't gather AIDS or observie it under a microscope. It is a syndrome.

HIV is a disease. HIV is a virus, HIV is an STD.

AIDS is a syndrome. AIDS is a descriptive term to describe the set of symptomes one has when that individual has advanced HIV. There is no "thing" called AIDS, nobody ever "gets" AIDS, nobody ever "contracts" AIDS, you can not see the AIDS virus.

AIDS is simply a descriptive term to describe the condition one has when he has advanced HIV.
okay....okay, that totally makes some more sense to me.

it's like a symptom (well, to simplify) it's what happens not what causes.

I think I get it.

Thank you for explaining it in a slightly different way for me.

I think I watch too much TV and too many movies, because I kept hearing the phrase "his HIV is getting serious it will be AIDS soon" like it's when your cold turns into the flu, like a different level of disease....you understand?

once again, you fall into the mistake MANY people make.

AIDS is not a disease. It's not a THING at all. You can't gather AIDS or observie it under a microscope. It is a syndrome.

HIV is a disease. HIV is a virus, HIV is an STD.

AIDS is a syndrome. AIDS is a descriptive term to describe the set of symptomes one has when that individual has advanced HIV. There is no "thing" called AIDS, nobody ever "gets" AIDS, nobody ever "contracts" AIDS, you can not see the AIDS virus.

AIDS is simply a descriptive term to describe the condition one has when he has advanced HIV.
The best example I ever heard to explain the above is the common cold. When people say they have a cold, they describe a set of symptoms that we're all familar with, stuffy nose, fever, cough, and so on. The cause of the symptoms may be any number of viri that can be transmittied from person to person (As I know well, working at a school is like working in a germ factory), however you can't really 'catch' a cold from someone because you would in effect be getting someone else's stuffy nose (which just sounds gross).

;) yeah, i sort of dumbed that down a little, didnt i?
Just a wee bit. ;)

God created AIDs to punish the Homosexuals. since then, it has been spread by "Bisexuals" who have carried it over to straight women, who then, in their promiscuity, spread it to other male partners. It is a Gay disease, because the Homosexuals are responsible for it, and the blood of any innocents, including innocent children and those who acquired it through blood transfusions, is on their hands.

hmmm,fatal flaw in your logic.

as god is purportedly all seeing and all knowing,then wouldnt it be safe to assume that he/she would foresee the transmission to innocent children and innocent partners that have not committed any sin?
that my friend would make him/her an accomplice to murder,far worse then the sinner transmitting it unknowingly.

i am a catholic,was an alter boy for 10 years,and i was always taught that there was menial sin and mortal sin.
sex outside marriage is a menial sin that you can be givin absolution for...murder on the other hand....

so your god is a murderer by your own admission..how nice.

most likely,aids like any other transmissable disease,is nothing more then that..a disease,as can be explained by basic biology.

not some malevolent god smiting us down...just a disease.

i dont know your beliefs,i believe my god is benevolent and gave us free will to do what we will with our lives,good or bad.

create a disease,knowing it will kill inocent people is really beyond the pale.

i would re evaluate your belief system..but thats just me.

and dont call yourself a christian,it insults christians!

I think I watch too much TV and too many movies, because I kept hearing the phrase "his HIV is getting serious it will be AIDS soon" like it's when your cold turns into the flu, like a different level of disease....you understand?
Well, the phrase works because as HIV gets worse, you develop AIDS. It's not like cold into flu, but rather different stages of cancer.

Why wouldn't god just smite the poofs directly, rather than pissing around with teh AIDS?

He's allegedly done smiting in past. Is he over the hill or something now, or what?

I think I watch too much TV and too many movies, because I kept hearing the phrase "his HIV is getting serious it will be AIDS soon" like it's when your cold turns into the flu, like a different level of disease....you understand?

OK...the reason that is is this. You can have HIV in your body and be perfectly healthy. Simply having HIV doesn't mean you feel sick, or have any harmful concequences. If you contract HIV today, you'll feel fine tomorrow.

It takes time for HIV to deteriorate your body. AIDS is basically a descriptive term to say "HIV has deteriorated your immune system X amount, and when HIV has deteriorated your immune system X amount, you have AIDS".

As HIV makes you worse and worse, at some point (I believe it has to do with white blood cell levels in your blood) your condition has crowwed a line and you are now considered to have AIDS. AIDS is basically a cross point. if HIV has deteriorated your immune system to a specific point, you have AIDS. If it hasn't, you don't have AIDS yet.

someone who has "AIDS" is basically someone who has HIV, and that HIV has made them really sick. So that point of your example above is basically someone who has HIV, HIV has made that person sick, but not sick enough to be considered to have AIDS, however if he gets sicker, then he will be sick enough to cross the line and be considered to have AIDS.

That make sense?

and dont call yourself a christian,it insults christians!

hm... i thought the point of this thread was to avoid flaming. hm.

okay....okay, that totally makes some more sense to me.

it's like a symptom (well, to simplify) it's what happens not what causes.

I think I get it.

Thank you for explaining it in a slightly different way for me.

I think I watch too much TV and too many movies, because I kept hearing the phrase "his HIV is getting serious it will be AIDS soon" like it's when your cold turns into the flu, like a different level of disease....you understand?

the thing that is somewhat weird about HIV is this: once in the body, it cannot be stopped. thats why people stress letting other people know about if you have HIV/AIDS or not, because that helps to stop the spread of it.

you know what also helps keep the spread of HIV at bay?

USING CONTRACEPTIVES, LIKE CONDOMS, The Redemption Army

(and i know this is flaming, but he deserves this...) :mp5:

God created AIDs to punish the Homosexuals. since then, it has been spread by "Bisexuals" who have carried it over to straight women, who then, in their promiscuity, spread it to other male partners. It is a Gay disease, because the Homosexuals are responsible for it, and the blood of any innocents, including innocent children and those who acquired it through blood transfusions, is on their hands.
I never said all women are promiscuous, only that promiscuous women would have sex with the AIDs carrying bisexuals, and then have sex with straight males, who in their promiscuity, would pass it on to more women.
And I didn't mention Catholics in this. They have nothing to do with AIDs.
Thou who wouldst make us devils
Thou shalt not poison me
The world hath been persuaded
To believe thy heresy

I spit in the eye of Satan
And I will spit in thine
The devils that surround thee
Liveth only in thine eye

Bad religion, bad religion
I need no gods or devils, I need no pagan rights
Bad religion, bad religion
I need no burning crosses to illuminate my nights

Hey! Hey!
You hear me now? You hear me now?
Hey! Hey!
For thou art Judas, the mark of Cain be on thy brow

Evangelistic Nazis,
You cannot frighten me
The name you take in vain
Shall judge you for eternity

I spit in the eye of Satan
Spit right in your eye too
You are the spooks you're chasing
You know not what you do

Bad religion, bad religion
I know you lie, I know you lie
Bad religion, bad religion
Thieves and liars, cross my heart I hope you die

Hey! Hey!
Remember me? Remember me?
Hey! Hey!
If there be justice burning hell awaits for thee

Liar, liar, liar, liar, liar...

If there be such a being
Then thou art Antichrist
Turn men against their children
Turn beauty into vice

I say thy God shall smite thee
He will perceive thy lust
His wrath shall fall upon thee
Thou that betray His thrust

Bad religion, bad religion
I say that thou art liars, thy souls shall not be saved
Bad religion, bad religion
Here are the days of thunder, the days that thou hast made

Hey! Hey!
Base seducers, I see thy greed
Hey! Hey!
I am more fit for glory than any ten of thee.

Bad religion!

Brought to you by Reverend Lemmy Kilmister of the Holy Church of Motörhead!

Well, the phrase works because as HIV gets worse, you develop AIDS. It's not like cold into flu, but rather different stages of cancer.

that's a good way to describe it. Your body goes through stages when you have HIV, as you get sicker and sicker...right it's not like a cold where you get sick, then get better.

You just keep getting worse and worse, until you die. At some point it gets to a certain bad level, and you are considered to have AIDS, so if ones HIV does get worse, and he gets worse, he would get AIDS.

I BELIEVE that one develops AIDS when HIV causes white blood cells to drop to a specific level. At that point, you're REALLY sick.

Well, the phrase works because as HIV gets worse, you develop AIDS. It's not like cold into flu, but rather different stages of cancer.

OK...the reason that is is this. You can have HIV in your body and be perfectly healthy. Simply having HIV doesn't mean you feel sick, or have any harmful concequences. If you contract HIV today, you'll feel fine tomorrow.

It takes time for HIV to deteriorate your body. AIDS is basically a descriptive term to say "HIV has deteriorated your immune system X amount, and when HIV has deteriorated your immune system X amount, you have AIDS".

As HIV makes you worse and worse, at some point (I believe it has to do with white blood cell levels in your blood) your condition has crowwed a line and you are now considered to have AIDS. AIDS is basically a cross point. if HIV has deteriorated your immune system to a specific point, you have AIDS. If it hasn't, you don't have AIDS yet.

someone who has "AIDS" is basically someone who has HIV, and that HIV has made them really sick. So that point of your example above is basically someone who has HIV, HIV has made that person sick, but not sick enough to be considered to have AIDS, however if he gets sicker, then he will be sick enough to cross the line and be considered to have AIDS.

That make sense?
okay thanks guys, sorry for my ignorance.

okay thanks guys, sorry for my ignorance.

At least your ignorance is curable. That of TRA is another story entirely.

I think he meant pi.

It was (another) pun.

At least your ignorance is curable. That of TRA is another story entirely.

aww... so i guess the chloroform and the hypnotism are no-gos, huh?

okay thanks guys, sorry for my ignorance.
No need to apologize at all, Smunkee, it is a confusing subject and one should never have to say sorry for an education. :)

that's a good way to describe it. Your body goes through stages when you have HIV, as you get sicker and sicker...right it's not like a cold where you get sick, then get better.

You just keep getting worse and worse, until you die. At some point it gets to a certain bad level, and you are considered to have AIDS, so if ones HIV does get worse, and he gets worse, he would get AIDS.

I BELIEVE that one develops AIDS when HIV causes white blood cells to drop to a specific level. At that point, you're REALLY sick.

and there are ways to combat the symptoms of AIDS (Poster boy for this? Magic Johnson) but they are really expensive, so its a good idea to avoid HIV entirely.

No need to apologize at all, Smunkee, it is a confusing subject and one should never have to say sorry for an education. :)

I am just glad that I learned something new today. ;)

mmm pie.

but how could i worship pie when i am the creator of pie?

Many many people worship themselves, though few admit it. And, if I recall correctly, you are pie, as well, are you not?

to make it more complicated, and to really blow your mind...not everyone who has AIDS has HIV.

AIDS means aquired immune deficiency syndrome.

All it means is "your immune system is weak, to a certain level". it doesn't at all say HOW it got that weak. It could be HIV, it could be genetic, it could be another virus, it could be a result of some forms of cancer.

edit: been corrected, AIDS is a specific immune deficiency syndrom caused by HIV. Only HIV causes AIDS, however there are other immune deficiency syndroms that are substantially similar to AIDS that are caused by other things than HIV. So while everyone who has AIDS has hiv, not everyone who has an immune deficiency syndrom has HIV/AIDS

hm... i thought the point of this thread was to avoid flaming. hm.



the thing that is somewhat weird about HIV is this: once in the body, it cannot be stopped. thats why people stress letting other people know about if you have HIV/AIDS or not, because that helps to stop the spread of it.

you know what also helps keep the spread of HIV at bay?

USING CONTRACEPTIVES, LIKE CONDOMS, The Redemption Army

(and i know this is flaming, but he deserves this...) :mp5:

point taken.....my bad

I BELIEVE that one develops AIDS when HIV causes white blood cells to drop to a specific level. At that point, you're REALLY sick.
CDC believes so. If you have less than 200 T-cells per ml of blood, you are considered to have devloped into AIDS. WHO uses a different set of criteria though.

Is AIDS a gay disease? No. It is not limited to gays, so therefore it cannot properly be called a gay disease.

Are STDs God's punishment on immoral behavior? Of course. All bad things that happen to us are punishment for our behavior. And they are merciful punishments, too.

Our smallest sin earns us the eternal fire. So, in comparison to that, AIDS isn't so bad. Note, that I do not say that AIDS is to be taken lightly. It is a horrible, horrible disease. But in comparison to eternal damnation, the worst thing that you can think of would be more desirable.

Should we just let disease run rampant because it is God's judgment? No. Our aid to the sick is God's vessel of mercy: He gives us the knowledge to find these helps and cures.

El' Bullshitto.

I am just glad that I learned something new today. ;)
Well now you know, and knowing is half the battle.
G.I. JOE!

*slap*
Ok, I'll behave myself now.

to make it more complicated, and to really blow your mind...not everyone who has AIDS has HIV.

AIDS means autoimmune deficiency syndrome.

No. AIDS = Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, and it is defined as caused by the HIV virus. You cannot have AIDS and not have an HIV infection.

It is true that there are other immune deficiencies out there (for instance SCID - Severe Combined Immunodeficiency), but they are not termed "AIDS."

So me needing to piss real bad during a test is a consequence of what...?

Not going before.

Not going before.

or maybe you have that enlarging prostate disease i hear so much about.

No. AIDS = Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, and it is defined as caused by the HIV virus.

It is true that there are other immune deficiencies out there (for instance ADA-deficient SCID - Severe Combined Immunodeficiency), but they are not termed "AIDS."

*checks* huh, now I remember reading differently, though you are right it's "acquired" not "auto", my mistake and typing too fast.

OK, lemme amend my statement, AIDS is ONE TYPE of immune deficiency syndroms, and AIDS is the type of immune defiency syndrom that is caused by HIV, but not all immune defiency syndroms are AIDS, and not all are caused by HIV.

statement amended, the general gist is the same, there are things out there that will cause very similar effects to HIV.

Hey, I'm all caught up! Time to log and fall hopelessly out of touch :p

My view is that AIDS is sort of a vengeful disease. It punishes you for casual sex, taking drugs, failure to use condoms, and just plain being stupid.

Pfftt....

Everyone knows AIDS is Active Instrument Deleting Sinners

:rolleyes:

statement amended, the general gist is the same,

Actually, no, the general gist is completely different. The other immunodeficiencies have different etiology, different pathology, different prognoses, different treatmeants, different duration, different symptoms, different onset and so on and so on.

here are things out there that will cause very similar effects to HIV.

"Similar" in the sense that the immune system fails, yes, but in course, symptomatology, treatability and spread? Not at all.

My view is that AIDS is sort of a vengeful disease. It punishes you for casual sex, taking drugs, failure to use condoms, and just plain being stupid.
And where do nursing babies fall into that? Or tattoos? Or blood transfusions during surgery?

And where do nursing babies fall into that? Or tattoos? Or blood transfusions during surgery?

Oh, NERVUN? Don't you know Polio is revenge for swimming in pools?

And where do nursing babies fall into that? Or tattoos? Or blood transfusions during surgery?

Babies come from teh sechs (ohnoes!), tattoos are clearly sinful, and what were you doing that you need someone else's blood?!?!? :p

Oh, NERVUN? Don't you know Polio is revenge for swimming in pools?

Is that Marco Polio?

Is that Marco Polio?

Boo and hiss, to you. Boo and hiss.

Oh, NERVUN? Don't you know Polio is revenge for swimming in pools?

poor FDR, then...

Boo and hiss, to you. Boo and hiss.

*bows*

Is that Marco Polio?
*Grabs dead cod, performs the Monty Python Fish Dance on you*

*Grabs dead cod, performs the Monty Python Fish Dance on you*

*ducks and bows again*

Mommy, I'm scared of this god, make him go away!

Don't worry, it's all make-believe.

Of course I don't think STDs are some sort of divine punishment. But it is simple cause and effect: if you don't wrap it before you stick it, you deserve what you get.

Is it valid to believe that STD's are a punishment for behavior? Such as homosexuality, promiscuity, carelessness. Mainly what I'm interested in is if people still believe that AIDs is a "gay disease", which the poll will reflect. I'm also interested in everyone's opinion about whether or not that is a dangerous opinion to hold and if it is, what should be done about it.

I bite my lip in hopes that all will go well and we can show one another some decency in an area where little decency can be found in the past.

AIDS was started in Africa, likely by the consumption of SIV infected primates, which mutated in HIV. It is transfered by fluid transfer. It was neither started by homosexuals, nor transferred solely by them. Thus, it is not a "Gay Disease".

And where do nursing babies fall into that? Or tattoos? Or blood transfusions during surgery?

Can't you read?!
"and just plain being stupid."

Obviously God is punishing the stupid! Remember everyone, ignorance is a sin. ;)

Is AIDS a gay disease? No. It is not limited to gays, so therefore it cannot properly be called a gay disease.

Are STDs God's punishment on immoral behavior? Of course. All bad things that happen to us are punishment for our behavior. And they are merciful punishments, too.

Our smallest sin earns us the eternal fire. So, in comparison to that, AIDS isn't so bad. Note, that I do not say that AIDS is to be taken lightly. It is a horrible, horrible disease. But in comparison to eternal damnation, the worst thing that you can think of would be more desirable.

Should we just let disease run rampant because it is God's judgment? No. Our aid to the sick is God's vessel of mercy: He gives us the knowledge to find these helps and cures.

Know what this makes me picture?

It makes me picture God as someone playing The Sims. You know, the sort of person who makes his sims go swimming, then takes away the steps when they're in the pool. :D

Well, once you get aids, herpe's starts to look better and better...:(

And where do nursing babies fall into that? Or tattoos? Or blood transfusions during surgery?

Well, nursing babies would fall under "stupidity" on the mother's part, tatoos would fall under "stupidity" on either the tatooer or the tatooee's part, and blood transfusions would fall under (You guessed it) stupidity, on the blood bank's part.

Know what this makes me picture?

It makes me picture God as someone playing The Sims. You know, the sort of person who makes his sims go swimming, then takes away the steps when they're in the pool. :D

i think god is more like the guy that lights the fire in the fireplace then deletes all the doors.

AIDS was started in Africa, likely by the consumption of SIV infected primates, which mutated in HIV. It is transfered by fluid transfer.

Caused likely either by someone being bitten/scratched by a bloodied primate, or by consuming an uncooked one.

Caused likely either by someone being bitten/scratched by a bloodied primate, or by consuming an uncooked one.

I tend to lean towards consumption, as that is something that occurs quite frequently in many parts of africa.

Caused likely either by someone being bitten/scratched by a bloodied primate, or by consuming an uncooked one.

i dont take this too seriously, but there have been people that tell me that AIDS/HIV originated when man had rough anal sex with a monkey in Africa.

... interesting.

i dont take this too seriously, but there have been people that tell me that AIDS/HIV originated when man had rough anal sex with a monkey in Africa.

... interesting.

Well, TECHNICALLY possible, I suppose, I'm not sure how true it would be. It doesn't really account for the level of those infected, as that man can only have sex with so many people.

The main reason why I support the consumption idea is that it allows a far greater number of people to have been infected through non-human contact.

When I read this I thought it was about giving criminals STD's as a punishment.

God created AIDs to punish the Homosexuals. since then, it has been spread by "Bisexuals" who have carried it over to straight women, who then, in their promiscuity, spread it to other male partners. It is a Gay disease, because the Homosexuals are responsible for it, and the blood of any innocents, including innocent children and those who acquired it through blood transfusions, is on their hands.Funny that no one has pointed this out yet, but gays are not necessarily at risk as much as heterosexuals are.

You see, two women having sex are still homosexual, yet bear minimal risk of contracting HIV from eachother, when compared to two men or a heterosexual couple. So if AIDS really was punishment for homosexuality, why can lesbians get away with it so easily?

Are you serious?

I wouldn't joke about something so serious.

I tend to lean towards consumption, as that is something that occurs quite frequently in many parts of africa.

Seems likely.

http://www.avert.org/origins.htm

The 'Hunter' Theory

The most commonly accepted theory is that of the 'hunter'. In this scenario, SIVcpz was transferred to humans as a result of chimps being killed and eaten or their blood getting into cuts or wounds on the hunter. Normally the hunter's body would have fought off SIV, but on a few occasions it adapted itself within its new human host and become HIV-1. The fact that there were several different early strains of HIV, each with a slightly different genetic make-up (the most common of which was HIV-1 group M), would support this theory: every time it passed from a chimpanzee to a man, it would have developed in a slightly different way within his body, and thus produced a slightly different strain.

An article published in The Lancet in 20043, also shows how retroviral transfer from primates to hunters is still occurring even today. In a sample of 1099 individuals in Cameroon , they discovered to ten (1%) were infected with SFV (Simian Foamy Virus), an illness which, like SIV, was previously thought only to infect primates. All these infections were believed to have been acquired through the butchering and consumption of monkey and ape meat. Discoveries such as this have lead to calls for an outright ban on bushmeat hunting to prevent simian viruses being passed to humans.

The Colonialism Theory

The colonialism or 'Heart of Darkness' theory, is one of the more recent theories to have entered into the debate. It is again based on the basic 'hunter' premise, but more thoroughly explains how this original infection could have lead to an epidemic. It was first proposed in 2000 by Jim Moore, an American specialist in primate behaviour, who published his findings in the journal AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses.6

During the late 19th and early 20 th century, much of Africa was ruled by colonial forces. In areas such as French Equatorial Africa and the Belgian Congo, colonial rule was particularly harsh and many Africans were forced into labour camps where sanitation was poor, food was scare and physical demands were extreme. These factors alone would have been sufficient to create poor health in anyone, so SIV could easily have infiltrated the labour force and taken advantage of their weakened immune systems to become HIV. A stray and perhaps sick chimpanzee with SIV would have made a welcome extra source of food for the workers.

Moore also believes that many of the labourers would have been inoculated with unsterile needles against diseases such as smallpox (to keep them alive and working), and that many of the camps actively employed prostitutes to keep the workers happy, creating numerous possibilities for onward transmission. A large number of labourers would have died before they even developed the first symptoms of AIDS, and those that did get sick would not have stood out as any different in an already disease-ridden population. Even if they had been identified, all evidence (including medical records) that the camps existed was destroyed to cover up the fact that a staggering 50% of the local population were wiped out there.

One final factor Moore uses to support his theory, is the fact that the labour camps were set up around the time that HIV was first believed to have passed into humans - the early part of the 20th century.

.

I seriously can't understand how you believe the bolded part.

Look at the Bible. Why do all the bad things happen? Because of someone's sin.

Cain is banished because he killed Able.
Uzzah is smitten for touching the Ark.
The Israelites are constantly conquered and persecuted for their lack of faithfulness to God.
Those who took spoils from the Canaanites were exectuted.
And there are many more examples.

Look at the Bible.

See that? Right there? that's where you went wrong.

See that? Right there? that's where you went wrong.

I'm sorry that that bothers you, but I can do naught else.

When I read this I thought it was about giving criminals STD's as a punishment.

Now there's a novel thought.
"Well, it's your first offense, so we'll let you off with the clap. But next time it's herpes for you!"

Funny that no one has pointed this out yet, but gays are not necessarily at risk as much as heterosexuals are.

You see, two women having sex are still homosexual, yet bear minimal risk of contracting HIV from eachother, when compared to two men or a heterosexual couple. So if AIDS really was punishment for homosexuality, why can lesbians get away with it so easily?

'Cause even God digs watching two chicks?

Why do all the bad things happen? Because of someone's sin.

Cain is banished because he killed Able.
Uzzah is smitten for touching the Ark.
The Israelites are constantly conquered and persecuted for their lack of faithfulness to God.
Those who took spoils from the Canaanites were exectuted.
And there are many more examples.According to whom?

Look at the Bible. Oh. A bunch of men that have been dead for millenia and some of whom never personally witnessed the events they describe.

I wouldn't joke about something so serious.

Well you have me laughing.

Look at the Bible. Why do all the bad things happen? Because of someone's sin.

Cain is banished because he killed Able.
Uzzah is smitten for touching the Ark.
The Israelites are constantly conquered and persecuted for their lack of faithfulness to God.
Those who took spoils from the Canaanites were exectuted.
And there are many more examples.

Yeah, like the story of Job, in which lots of people have horrible things happen to them as a direct result of their sinful behavior. No doubt about it, Job was a terrible person who earned every bit of the misfortune heaped upon him.

And, of course, all those male babies born around the same time as Jesus - they were horrible, sinful babies, right? Of course they were.

But hey, at least you've apparently renounced your religion enough to believe that apostles like Peter and Paul were terrible, sinful people. I mean, it'd take a pretty big sin to merit punishments like decapitation or crucifixion, wouldn't you think?

That......is.....just.....mean.....the idea of using STDs as punishments that is.

That......is.....just.....mean.....the idea of using STDs as punishments that is.
Yes it is. If someone thinks that, they aren't really a good person; they have an evil heart.

I'm here to notify everyone that Ifreann has won this thread per this post:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12007684&postcount=16

Congratulations!

Huzzah, I are win!

Yeah, like the story of Job, in which lots of people have horrible things happen to them as a direct result of their sinful behavior. No doubt about it, Job was a terrible person who earned every bit of the misfortune heaped upon him.

And, of course, all those male babies born around the same time as Jesus - they were horrible, sinful babies, right? Of course they were.

But hey, at least you've apparently renounced your religion enough to believe that apostles like Peter and Paul were terrible, sinful people. I mean, it'd take a pretty big sin to merit punishments like decapitation or crucifixion, wouldn't you think?

If you read the Bible, Paul makes it quite clear that we are all sinful, every single one of us mere humans and are all deserving of death. David tells us of our sinfulness even in the womb: "For in sin my mother concieved me..."

Job deserved everything he got? No. He deserved far worse.

The babies deserved physical death? No. They deserved far worse.

Peter and Paul were horrible sinners? Yes, of course. Paul calls himself a wretch:"Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?"

And you miss what I said earlier: our smallest sin earns us the eternal fire. And anything less than that is merciful. So, the babies and Job and I and you and everyone else who has ever walked this earth (save Jesus) deserves that fire (because we have all sinned) and anything less than being sent immediately to that fire is merciful. Is it pleasent (I don't like using that word, because it tends to trivialize suffering, but I can think of no other)? No, of course not. But it is not unwarranted.

Nowadays, with the public knowledge of how the disease is spread, contracting AIDS can easily be seen as punishment for stupidity. Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.

And while it is not a "gay" disease (the virus makes no mental note of who it infects), it is certainly hundreds of times more transmissible through anal sex than through oral sex or vaginal sex.

Nowadays, with the public knowledge of how the disease is spread, contracting AIDS can easily be seen as punishment for stupidity. Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.

And while it is not a "gay" disease (the virus makes no mental note of who it infects), it is certainly hundreds of times more transmissible through anal sex than through oral sex or vaginal sex.

Shouldn't you cite RAH when you quote him? ;)

If STDs are supposed to be a punishment for fucking, then I've gotta wonder how I'm still clean. I mean, I'm not trying to brag or nothing, but I have a lot of sex. Like, a really lot. Really. A lot.

I guess maybe God doesn't bother punishing evil secularists who are already bound for the fires of Hell...?

Shouldn't you cite RAH when you quote him? ;)

Since everyone knows RAH when they see it...

Nowadays, with the public knowledge of how the disease is spread, contracting AIDS can easily be seen as punishment for stupidity. Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.

And while it is not a "gay" disease (the virus makes no mental note of who it infects), it is certainly hundreds of times more transmissible through anal sex than through oral sex or vaginal sex.This is false. There were a number of people that may have been infected after a man ran amok with a knife, simply because one of the first people he stabbed was HIV positive. They can hardly be considered punished for their stupidity, can they?

If STDs are supposed to be a punishment for fucking, then I've gotta wonder how I'm still clean. I mean, I'm not trying to brag or nothing, but I have a lot of sex. Like, a really lot. Really. A lot.

I guess maybe God doesn't bother punishing evil secularists who are already bound for the fires of Hell...?

Is Bottle channelling RAH?

The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.
The second most preposterous notion is that copulation is inherently sinful.

Nowadays, with the public knowledge of how the disease is spread, contracting AIDS can easily be seen as punishment for stupidity.
Or for poverty. Or for ignorance. Or for religious belief. Seeing as how all of these can directly lead people to not know about correct contraception use, or not be able to access contraception, or feel that it is not possible for them to use contraception to protect themselves.

This is false. There were a number of people that may have been infected after a man ran amok with a knife, simply because one of the first people he stabbed was HIV positive. They can hardly be considered punished for their stupidity, can they?

The number of people who acquire HIV through means other than infected medical products (which isn't their stupidity unless they are sharing needles) or sexual transmission, is tiny.

Very tiny.

For anyone who acquired it through sex, it's stupidity. Not that they had sex, but that they were careless in taking no measures to prevent transmission or reduce the risk.

For anyone who acquired it through sex, it's stupidity. Not that they had sex, but that they were careless in taking no measures to prevent transmission or reduce the risk.
The fastest growing population of new HIV patients is women who live in parts of the world where they do not have much choice in who fucks them, when, or how. They do not have the right to say "no." They do not have the right to choose their partner. They do not have access to contraceptive options.

You probably were specifically refering only to individuals in the Western world who happen to be priviledged enough to have both information and contraception legally (and pragmatically) available to them. However, I think it is very important to remember that such people are the exception to the rule when you look at HIV as a global problem.

And you miss what I said earlier: our smallest sin earns us the eternal fire.

Oh wow....I'm actually beginning to see it now. You're one of those people who believes that any transgression, any breach of morality, anything even remotly considered "wrong" is an immediate, one way trip to hell for all eternity, aren't you?

That's not religion, that's perversion. That's denial of humanity. Anyone who believes that believes in something contrary to what it is to be a person. You actually think that you, me, everyone here, everyone on this planet actually DESERVES to burn in hell. You think we deserve to suffer because we are human, and it's only due to "god's mercy" that some of us don't manage to suffer eternal suffering.

While I dislike the idea of hell at least I somewhat understand an ideology that suggests it's only for "bad people", but you..you think we're all bad, we're all evil, we all deserve endless eternal suffering because we're human, and being human is evil.

You think you are evil. You think you are dirty. You think you are unworthy. Seriously dude, this is not only sick, it's vastly disturbing. You're one step off of locking your penis in a chastity belt to prevent involuntary erections and beatting yourself with a branch of thorns to "cleans yourself of your sins".

This is a seriously, seriously unhealthy attitude

For anyone who acquired it through sex, it's stupidity. Not that they had sex, but that they were careless in taking no measures to prevent transmission or reduce the risk.

I suggest you don't consider everyone to live in educated, advanced, industrialized society where contraception, knowledge how to use it, and the ability to chose sexual partners is commonplace.

It's extreemly american/european centric.

The fastest growing population of new HIV patients is women who live in parts of the world where they do not have much choice in who fucks them, when, or how. They do not have the right to say "no." They do not have the right to choose their partner. They do not have access to contraceptive options.

You probably were specifically refering only to individuals in the Western world who happen to be priviledged enough to have both information and contraception legally (and pragmatically) available to them. However, I think it is very important to remember that such people are the exception to the rule when you look at HIV as a global problem.

Probably. However, the situation in the less developed world is a matter of widespread societal ignorance. Sure, the individuals involved may not be able to make any choices (or are far too ignorant to make one, as in the case of the male truck drivers who cross Africa spreading the disease).

Here in the US though, you don't have an excuse.

Oh wow....I'm actually beginning to see it now. You're one of those people who believes that any transgression, any breach of morality, anything even remotly considered "wrong" is an immediate, one way trip to hell for all eternity, aren't you?

That's not religion, that's perversion. That's denial of humanity. Anyone who believes that believes in something contrary to what it is to be a person. You actually think that you, me, everyone here, everyone on this planet actually DESERVES to burn in hell. You think we deserve to suffer because we are human, and it's only due to "god's mercy" that some of us don't manage to suffer eternal suffering.

While I dislike the idea of hell at least I somewhat understand an ideology that suggests it's only for "bad people", but you..you think we're all bad, we're all evil, we all deserve endless eternal suffering because we're human, and being human is evil.

You think you are evil. You think you are dirty. You think you are unworthy. Seriously dude, this is not only sick, it's vastly disturbing. You're one step off of locking your penis in a chastity belt to prevent involuntary erections and beatting yourself with a branch of thorns to "cleans yourself of your sins".

This is a seriously, seriously unhealthy attitude

It's called predestination, and it's quite the popular religious belief.

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

Oh wow....I'm actually beginning to see it now. You're one of those people who believes that any transgression, any breach of morality, anything even remotly considered "wrong" is an immediate, one way trip to hell for all eternity, aren't you?

That's not religion, that's perversion. That's denial of humanity. Anyone who believes that believes in something contrary to what it is to be a person. You actually think that you, me, everyone here, everyone on this planet actually DESERVES to burn in hell. You think we deserve to suffer because we are human, and it's only due to "god's mercy" that some of us don't manage to suffer eternal suffering.

While I dislike the idea of hell at least I somewhat understand an ideology that suggests it's only for "bad people", but you..you think we're all bad, we're all evil, we all deserve endless eternal suffering because we're human, and being human is evil.

You think you are evil. You think you are dirty. You think you are unworthy. Seriously dude, this is not only sick, it's vastly disturbing. You're one step off of locking your penis in a chastity belt to prevent involuntary erections and beatting yourself with a branch of thorns to "cleans yourself of your sins".

This is a seriously, seriously unhealthy attitude

Well, that's Christianity for you. If it weren't that way, there would be no reason for Christ's death and resurrection, and the would be no Christianity.

As for the chastity belt and whipping myself, you are taking over played stereotypes to the extreme. People who do things like that are sick: they have ignored important parts of the Bible. Sex is not evil in and of itself, though it is perverted very easily and quite often. And why would I whip myself for doing something wrong, when I suffer already from the shame of of the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

Well, that's Christianity for you. If it weren't that way, there would be no reason for Christ's death and resurrection, and the would be no Christianity.

As for the chastity belt and whipping myself, you are taking over played stereotypes to the extreme. People who do things like that are sick: they have ignored important parts of the Bible. Sex is not evil in and of itself, though it is perverted very easily and quite often. And why would I whip myself for doing something wrong, when I suffer already from the shame of of the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

No, that's not christianity, not in the slightest. There's no compassion, no spirituality, no faith in mankind, no belief in good works, no care for the downtrodden.

Your ideology is based on one principle and one principle only. All people are bad, all people are sinners, all people are filthy, all people are evil, all people deserve eternal, unending, aggonizing torment, because they exist. No difference between Hitler and the three day old infant who died from SIDS.

This is not faith, this is not christianity, it is devoid of any compassion, dignity or belief in mankind that are supposed to be hallmarks of that religion.

You believe that we are all an affront to god, we are all an insult to god, we all offend god by our very presence.

That's not faith. That's not spirituality. That's perversion.

And it's sick.

It's called predestination, and it's quite the popular religious belief.

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

not really, not fully. Predestination is only the idea that what one does is predestined. It doesn't say EVERYONE is good or EVERYONE is bad, or EVERYONE is going to heaven or hell.

Only that those who are good are predestined to be good, those who are evil predestined to be evil. Heaven and hell are decided already and you have no actual choice in going where you go.

In fact his viewpoint is quite the OPPOSITE of predestination, he believes we're all hell bound, but by prostrating ourself to god, we can get out of it.

It's not so much predestination as...I dunno...defaultism? hell as default, unless you beg god to be nice and he decides to let you in to heaven.

No, that's not christianity, not in the slightest. There's no compassion, no spirituality, no faith in mankind, no belief in good works, no care for the downtrodden.

Your ideology is based on one principle and one principle only. All people are bad, all people are sinners, all people are filthy, all people are evil, all people deserve eternal, unending, aggonizing torment, because they exist. No difference between Hitler and the three day old infant who died from SIDS.

This is not faith, this is not christianity, it is devoid of any compassion, dignity or belief in mankind that are supposed to be hallmarks of that religion.

You believe that we are all an affront to god, we are all an insult to god, we all offend god by our very presence.

That's not faith. That's not spirituality. That's perversion.

And it's sick.

Easy, lad. It doesn't bear thinking about, and you'll just have to explain to people all the foam collecting around your mouth.

Easy, lad. It doesn't bear thinking about, and you'll just have to explain to people all the foam collecting around your mouth.

forgive me if I generate slight irritation when I am informed that I am evil because I am.

forgive me if I generate slight irritation when I am informed that I am evil because I am.

I know, I know. Just didn't want you getting a vacation from the forum, is all. ;)

I know, I know. Just didn't want you getting a vacation from the forum, is all. ;)

I am well aware of the line. See it? it's right there, 2 inches in front of me.

To OP:

Of course AIDS isn't just a 'gay disease', It's most prominent amongst the poorest people who live in the most awful conditions in the world. If the poor are truly God's children, as Jesus claimed, then why would he punish them for being uneducated and not knowing about the disease? Surely it is us who deserve to be punished for allowing them to suffer with our greed, yet we do not have AIDS to the same scale as they do.

NB: Not a christian, but know some bible and feel very strongly on this issue.

No, that's not christianity, not in the slightest. There's no compassion, no spirituality, no faith in mankind, no belief in good works, no care for the downtrodden.

Your ideology is based on one principle and one principle only. All people are bad, all people are sinners, all people are filthy, all people are evil, all people deserve eternal, unending, aggonizing torment, because they exist. No difference between Hitler and the three day old infant who died from SIDS.

This is not faith, this is not christianity, it is devoid of any compassion, dignity or belief in mankind that are supposed to be hallmarks of that religion.

You believe that we are all an affront to god, we are all an insult to god, we all offend god by our very presence.

That's not faith. That's not spirituality. That's perversion.

And it's sick.

Well said. I applaude you!

Have you ever considered a career in politics?;)

No, that's not christianity, not in the slightest. There's no compassion, no spirituality, no faith in mankind, no belief in good works, no care for the downtrodden.

Have you read the Bible? It doesn't say the things you're saying about these.

Your ideology is based on one principle and one principle only. All people are bad, all people are sinners, all people are filthy, all people are evil, all people deserve eternal, unending, aggonizing torment, because they exist. No difference between Hitler and the three day old infant who died from SIDS.

I didn't say that. Hitler was more depraved than the infant, but the infant was still depraved.

This is not faith, this is not christianity, it is devoid of any compassion, dignity or belief in mankind that are supposed to be hallmarks of that religion.

If anything, Christianity says that faith in mankind is idolatry.

You believe that we are all an affront to god, we are all an insult to god, we all offend god by our very presence.

That's not faith. That's not spirituality. That's perversion.

That's what Scripture teaches.

To OP:

Of course AIDS isn't just a 'gay disease', It's most prominent amongst the poorest people who live in the most awful conditions in the world. If the poor are truly God's children, as Jesus claimed, then why would he punish them for being uneducated and not knowing about the disease? Surely it is us who deserve to be punished for allowing them to suffer with our greed, yet we do not have AIDS to the same scale as they do.

NB: Not a christian, but know some bible and feel very strongly on this issue.

I don't believe AIDS is a gay disease at all. I was interested in if people still felt that way. Some people do but it seems to be very few. With a few others still confused about the issue. I'm just reading and thinking about people's posts.

Have you read the Bible? It doesn't say the things you're saying about these.



I didn't say that. Hitler was more depraved than the infant, but the infant was still depraved.



If anything, Christianity says that faith in mankind is idolatry.



That's what Scripture teaches.

But since we are all sinners, if we all were infected with AIDS then that should be expected?

Have you read the Bible? It doesn't say the things you're saying about these.



I didn't say that. Hitler was more depraved than the infant, but the infant was still depraved.



If anything, Christianity says that faith in mankind is idolatry.



That's what Scripture teaches.

And that's why Scripture sucks :fluffle:

But since we are all sinners, if we all were infected with AIDS then that should be expected?

*grumble* people...do not...get infected....with AIDS....AIDS....is not....a disease....

sorry, that just is one of my irks.

Is AIDS a gay disease? No. It is not limited to gays, so therefore it cannot properly be called a gay disease.

Are STDs God's punishment on immoral behavior? Of course. All bad things that happen to us are punishment for our behavior. And they are merciful punishments, too.

Our smallest sin earns us the eternal fire. So, in comparison to that, AIDS isn't so bad. Note, that I do not say that AIDS is to be taken lightly. It is a horrible, horrible disease. But in comparison to eternal damnation, the worst thing that you can think of would be more desirable.

Should we just let disease run rampant because it is God's judgment? No. Our aid to the sick is God's vessel of mercy: He gives us the knowledge to find these helps and cures.

Edwardis, I hate to do this but I'm smacking you down on this one.

As I stated in another post earlier today: GOD DOES NOT PUNISH PEOPLE DIRECTLY ON EARTH FOR THEIR SINS. To do so would be to negate the whole point of the Crucifixion.

Look at it this way. If I go out and steal a bag of cookies from the store, I have sinned. (Mind you, they'd have to be soft chocolate chip cookies to be worth it.) Now let's suppose that God punishes me for it. Maybe I get a case of food poisoning or whatever. Now that I've been punished, my sin is paid for, isn't it? And if my sin is paid for, then I really don't need a Savior, do I? I can go right on into Heaven without following Jesus Christ.

But we know that in the real world, that's not the case. In the real world, I must repent of my sins and accept Jesus Christ as my Savior. His suffering and death on the cross pays for my sins so that I can enter Heaven purified.

Therefore, VDs are NOT a form of punishment. At the risk of putting too fine a point on it, if God punishes people for sexual sin by giving them disease, does He punish ALL such sinners? In other words, for VDs to be a punishment for sin, then ALL sinners would be punished. And we know that not everyone who commits adultery, fornication etc. become infected with a disease.

Having said that, I will say that if one lives according to God's word and follows the Commandments, the odds of contracting a VD are close to zero. To me, that doesn't say VD is a punishment. It says to me that there are benefits and blessings for obeying Him, and this is an example.

No, that's not christianity, not in the slightest. There's no compassion, no spirituality, no faith in mankind, no belief in good works, no care for the downtrodden.

Your ideology is based on one principle and one principle only. All people are bad, all people are sinners, all people are filthy, all people are evil, all people deserve eternal, unending, aggonizing torment, because they exist. No difference between Hitler and the three day old infant who died from SIDS.

This is not faith, this is not christianity, it is devoid of any compassion, dignity or belief in mankind that are supposed to be hallmarks of that religion.

You believe that we are all an affront to god, we are all an insult to god, we all offend god by our very presence.

That's not faith. That's not spirituality. That's perversion.

And it's sick.

I..... agree with Arthais... This is an extraordinary event ;)

*grumble* people...do not...get infected....with AIDS....AIDS....is not....a disease....

sorry, that just is one of my irks.

I am making horrible mistakes here. Just try to follow what I'm saying and fill in the blanks for your self. In the meantime, I'll try to get my terminology right.

-- snips the very amusing rant --
This is precisely why I avoid debating Edwardis. I find that it is easier to try and make my cat sit up and dance the salsa while singing Ave Maria than to try and reason with someone as religious as him. Mind you, I have nothing against him, I just have come to realise the futility in trying to debate religion with someone who thinks God is a bastard.

Calvinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism) - might want to read this before you try and tell him how God isn't a complete asshole.

But since we are all sinners, if we all were infected with AIDS then that should be expected?

Pardon?

Are you saying that if God treats everyone equally, and everyone is a sinner, that everyone should have AIDS under my logic?

If so, you forget that I do not believe that God treats everyone equally or that He is required to. If wants to allow you to contract AIDS and protect me, He's allowed. If He wants to allow me to have heart troubles (which He has) and not you, He's allowed.

We are His creation: He can do what He wants with us. And because we are sinners, that includes punishment.

Pardon?

Are you saying that if God treats everyone equally, and everyone is a sinner, that everyone should have AIDS under my logic?

If so, you forget that I do not believe that God treats everyone equally or that He is required to. If wants to allow you to contract AIDS and protect me, He's allowed. If He wants to allow me to have heart troubles (which He has) and not you, He's allowed.

We are His creation: He can do what He wants with us. And because we are sinners, that includes punishment.

So, the rules that God applies to us do not apply to God? What is He, some kind of government?

Edwardis, I hate to do this but I'm smacking you down on this one.

Why would you hate to do that?

As I stated in another post earlier today: GOD DOES NOT PUNISH PEOPLE DIRECTLY ON EARTH FOR THEIR SINS. To do so would be to negate the whole point of the Crucifixion.

Ummm, no that would be incorrect. Look all through the Old Testament and you will see that God punishes people in time. Look at the New Testament: people are becoming ill because they are misusing Communion.

Look at it this way. If I go out and steal a bag of cookies from the store, I have sinned. (Mind you, they'd have to be soft chocolate chip cookies to be worth it.) Now let's suppose that God punishes me for it. Maybe I get a case of food poisoning or whatever. Now that I've been punished, my sin is paid for, isn't it? And if my sin is paid for, then I really don't need a Savior, do I? I can go right on into Heaven without following Jesus Christ.

Oh my goodness, no. That sin, the stealing of the cookies, though some might think it small, earns you eternal damnation! Having food poisoning doesn't compare to that! Jesus death atones for all the penalty of sin, something you cannot suffer through temporal punishment.

But we know that in the real world, that's not the case. In the real world, I must repent of my sins and accept Jesus Christ as my Savior. His suffering and death on the cross pays for my sins so that I can enter Heaven purified.

Of course, though I don't like the word accept.

Therefore, VDs are NOT a form of punishment. At the risk of putting too fine a point on it, if God punishes people for sexual sin by giving them disease, does He punish ALL such sinners? In other words, for VDs to be a punishment for sin, then ALL sinners would be punished. And we know that not everyone who commits adultery, fornication etc. become infected with a disease.

God is not required to treat everyone equally. He will have mercy on whom He wills.

Having said that, I will say that if one lives according to God's word and follows the Commandments, the odds of contracting a VD are close to zero. To me, that doesn't say VD is a punishment. It says to me that there are benefits and blessings for obeying Him, and this is an example.

Of course it's a blessing.

So, the rules that God applies to us do not apply to God? What is He, some kind of government?

You can do what you want to what you create. Have you created something (made something out of nothing)? Once you do, you can do whatever you want with it.

Pardon?

Are you saying that if God treats everyone equally, and everyone is a sinner, that everyone should have AIDS under my logic?

If so, you forget that I do not believe that God treats everyone equally or that He is required to. If wants to allow you to contract AIDS and protect me, He's allowed. If He wants to allow me to have heart troubles (which He has) and not you, He's allowed.

We are His creation: He can do what He wants with us. And because we are sinners, that includes punishment.But why would he bother with such a random and unfair distribution of punishment, especially when final judgement is assured?

But why would he bother with such a random and unfair distribution of punishment, especially when final judgement is assured?

For whatever reason. I don't know. I only know what He has revealed and He has not revealed why, only that He does.

I am making horrible mistakes here. Just try to follow what I'm saying and fill in the blanks for your self. In the meantime, I'll try to get my terminology right.

The easiest way to explain it is what I said before. AIDS is not a disease. HIV is a disease. AIDS is not a virus. HIV is a virus. You do not catch AIDS, you catch HIV.

AIDS is a descriptive term. AIDS means a syndrome, caused by an HIV infection which (according to CDC definition) as a result of having HIV your white blood count has dropped to less than 200 white blood cells per m/l of blood.

If you have HIV, and you have less than 200 white blood cells per m/l of blood as a result of having HIV, then you are considered to have developed the aquired immune deficiency syndrome, or AIDS.

AIDS is not a thing, it is a description. You no sooner get AIDS" than you "catch tall" or "get infected by short" or "get Italian", it's a description of a medical state caused by HIV.

For whatever reason. I don't know. I only know what He has revealed and He has not revealed why, only that He does.In that case, wouldn't it be more logical to blame hardships or benefits on the environmental factors that cause them than attributing them to God? If there's no logical reason for him to randomly mess around with people, perhaps he isn't doing that in the first place?

In that case, wouldn't it be more logical to blame hardships or benefits on the environmental factors that cause them than attributing them to God? If there's no logical reason for him to randomly mess around with people, perhaps he isn't doing that in the first place?

Why are the environmental factors there? Because God put them there, or allowed them to be there. The only reason your atoms haven't melted away is because He keeps you together.

Why? Because He wants to. I don't know why He wants to, but I know that Scripture says He does what pleases Him according to His good will and that nothing happens that does not please Him according to His good will.

Why are the environmental factors there? Because God put them there, or allowed them to be there. The only reason your atoms haven't melted away is because He keeps you together.

Why? Because He wants to. I don't know why He wants to, but I know that Scripture says He does what pleases Him according to His good will and that nothing happens that does not please Him according to His good will.

So he also created AIDS and inflicted it upon people that he created in opposition to the laws he set down.

Why are the environmental factors there? Because God put them there, or allowed them to be there. The only reason your atoms haven't melted away is because He keeps you together.

Why? Because He wants to. I don't know why He wants to, but I know that Scripture says He does what pleases Him according to His good will and that nothing happens that does not please Him according to His good will.

here's the problem. Your whole contention is that everything is for no other purpose than because god wills it.

You go to heaven if god wants you to. You go to hell if god wants you to. Gravity makes the ball fall down, unless tomorrow god changes his mind and the ball hovers in mid air. Your entire physical body might dissolve into the ether if god decides that your atoms no longer hold atomic cohesion. Everything we are and everything we do, everything in the universe can be described in four simple words, "the whim of god". Everything about you, about me, is because god, at that moment, feels like it, and he can change his mind at any time.

I live, I eat I breath, I screw, I love, I hate, I feel, I sin, I die because god feels like it.

Live that way if you chose, but I refuse to be anyone's puppet.

So he also created AIDS and inflicted it upon people that he created .

He allowed AIDS to develop. So is the source of it from Him? Yes, but He did not cause it to be the scourge that it is by action. It was lack of action - He withdrew His protection.

I'm not sure what you're talking about with: "in opposition to the laws he set down."

Why are the environmental factors there? Because God put them there, or allowed them to be there. The only reason your atoms haven't melted away is because He keeps you together.

Why? Because He wants to. I don't know why He wants to, but I know that Scripture says He does what pleases Him according to His good will and that nothing happens that does not please Him according to His good will.

That or he is really lazy.

here's the problem. Your whole contention is that everything is for no other purpose than because god wills it.

You go to heaven if god wants you to. You go to hell if god wants you to. Gravity makes the ball fall down, unless tomorrow god changes his mind and the ball hovers in mid air. Your entire physical body might dissolve into the ether if god decides that your atoms no longer hold atomic cohesion. Everything we are and everything we do, everything in the universe can be described in four simple words, "the whim of god". Everything about you, about me, is because god, at that moment, feels like it, and he can change his mind at any time.

I live, I eat I breath, I screw, I love, I hate, I feel, I sin, I die because god feels like it.

Live that way if you chose, but I refuse to be anyone's puppet.

Oh, we are not puppets. If we were puppets we would have no will of our own. We choose to do everything that we do. The exact relationship between God's decree and our free agency is not clear. But we choose to do what we are predestined to do.

He allowed AIDS to develop. So is the source of it from Him? Yes, but He did not cause it to be the scourge that it is by action. It was lack of action - He withdrew His protection.

I'm not sure what you're talking about with: "in opposition to the laws he set down."

If he is omniscient and omnipotent he knows all and controls all. He created people knowing they would not follow his laws and is punishing them. He created AIDS knowing people would get it and die horribly. He controls the atoms of the virus as it destroys people's bodies.

Or are you saying you have a different interpretation of omnipotent/scient?

Oh, we are not puppets. If we were puppets we would have no will of our own. We choose to do everything that we do. The exact relationship between God's decree and our free agency is not clear. But we choose to do what we are predestined to do.

Contradiction.

If he is omniscient and omnipotent he knows all and controls all. He created people knowing they would not follow his laws and is punishing them. He created AIDS knowing people would get it and die horribly. He controls the atoms of the virus as it destroys people's bodies.

Or are you saying you have a different interpretation of omnipotent/scient?

Oh, no. I just didn't understand your statement. I agree, at least with your words.

Contradiction.

No, not really. A paradox, but not a contradiction.

Oh, no. I just didn't understand your statement. I agree, at least with your words.

OK. So you admit that he created people to die horribly. Good.

No, not really. A paradox, but not a contradiction.

You cannot have free will and predestination. The are mutually incompatible. One contradicts the other.

Oh, we are not puppets. If we were puppets we would have no will of our own. We choose to do everything that we do. The exact relationship between God's decree and our free agency is not clear. But we choose to do what we are predestined to do.

nonsense. You said god could cause my atoms to break apart, for no reason. God could by that logic take total control over me, take control over every atom in my body.

A puppet is always a puppet, even if the puppetmaster isn't playing with it at one particular moment

OK. So you admit that he created people to die horribly. Good.

He created people for His glory. Those whom He has regenerated are for the glory of His grace and mercy, those whom He left to their ways are for the glory of His wrath and justice.

Don't misunderstand. I don't take joy (in any measure) about that. I know many people who absolutely refuse to repent. People very close to me, people less close, people I barely know. But it breaks my heart that I will not see them after death. Really, it does. Unless, God willing, they repent before they die.

You cannot have free will and predestination. The are mutually incompatible. One contradicts the other.

Ahh, I didn't say free will. I said free agency. Your will (what you desire) is not free. It is bound to sin. But you still have the free choice (free agency) to do what you want. But because your will is bound to sin, you will always choose sin, unless God gives you a new will.

He created people for His glory. Those whom He has regenerated are for the glory of His grace and mercy, those whom He left to their ways are for the glory of His wrath and justice.

Don't misunderstand. I don't take joy (in any measure) about that. I know many people who absolutely refuse to repent. People very close to me, people less close, people I barely know. But it breaks my heart that I will not see them after death. Really, it does. Unless, God willing, they repent before they die.

And yet he knew who would repent or not and created them thusly to be punished for eternity. Nice.

nonsense. You said god could cause my atoms to break apart, for no reason. God could by that logic take total control over me, take control over every atom in my body.

A puppet is always a puppet, even if the puppetmaster isn't playing with it at one particular moment

God could, but He doesn't. He doesn't possess people.

But you still have the free choice (free agency) to do what you want.

and when god desides he doesn't really want me doing what I want to do...then what?

And yet he knew who would repent or not and created them thusly to be punished for eternity. Nice.

Thusly? Is that a word?

Anyway, that's what the Bible teaches.

God could, but He doesn't. He doesn't possess people.

oh, and now you presume to speak for god? What if he wanted to, just for shits and giggles?

and when god desides he doesn't really want me doing what I want to do...then what?

God has placed you in a position and has ordered things around you so that you will want to do what He has decreed you will do.

Ahh, I didn't say free will. I said free agency. Your will (what you desire) is not free. It is bound to sin. But you still have the free choice (free agency) to do what you want. But because your will is bound to sin, you will always choose sin, unless God gives you a new will.

Not if you're "predestined". If God is omniscient/potent/present then your path has been chosen for you and if you do not "repent" then he created you to be punished. He made it so we will "always choose sin" so he condemns those he created unless he feels otherwise.

Thusly? Is that a word?

Anyway, that's what the Bible teaches.

And you would worship a monster like that?

oh, and now you presume to speak for god? What if he wanted to, just for shits and giggles?

I repeat only what I find in Scripture.

Not if you're "predestined". If God is omniscient/potent/present then your path has been chosen for you and if you do not "repent" then he created you to be punished. He made it so we will "always choose sin" so he condemns those he created unless he feels otherwise.

No. He made us with free will. Adam, the corporate head of the human race, rebelled against God's command and bound the human race to sin. Our will is no longer free. Because of that hatred for and total aversion to God, we have earned ourselves Hell. And He will let us go to it, unless He changes us so that we are able (we want to) repent. And when we are able, we see how wonderful and irresistable He is and we cannot help but go to Him and repent.

And you would worship a monster like that?

He is not a monster. He is God. He is just and wroth, yes. But He is good and loving, also.

Ya know, I thought seriously about placing Edwardis on my ignore list.

But then I would miss my roomies gasps of atonishment that anyone could be that insane when I read his posts to them.

Why are the environmental factors there? Because God put them there, or allowed them to be there. The only reason your atoms haven't melted away is because He keeps you together.

Why? Because He wants to. I don't know why He wants to, but I know that Scripture says He does what pleases Him according to His good will and that nothing happens that does not please Him according to His good will.Yes, but setting that stage requires no intervention on his behalf. Likewise, many of the environmental factors are directly influenced by human free will; God would have nothing to do with it save for creating it all in the first place.

Is "I don't know" all you can retort to this? "The people that wrote the Bible said it so it must be true." Does it not occur to you that these people had direct benefit from cowing their followers into submission and thus may have detracted from God's intended message to ensure that people will follow them? It still happens today: Muslim clerics in Indonesia blaming the tsunami on women not wearing veils, Phelps blaming casualties in Iraq on not persecuting homosexuality, and Pat Roberts blaming Katrina on Ellen Degeneres.

I'm not asking you to question God in any way, but if you don't question the words of those that claim to speak for him, you may well end up doing Satan's work.

Fact is: It is more likely that God doesn't involve himself in your or anyone else's life in a physical manner than God being a random dick, if he truly has good will.

Ya know, I thought seriously about placing Edwardis on my ignore list.

But then I would miss my roomies gasps of atonishment that anyone could be that insane when I read his posts to them.

I'm glad I entertain you.

Sorry, haven't read all this, but this struck me as wrong.

Is AIDS a gay disease? No. It is not limited to gays, so therefore it cannot properly be called a gay disease.

Are STDs God's punishment on immoral behavior? Of course. All bad things that happen to us are punishment for our behavior. And they are merciful punishments, too.

Our smallest sin earns us the eternal fire. So, in comparison to that, AIDS isn't so bad. Note, that I do not say that AIDS is to be taken lightly. It is a horrible, horrible disease. But in comparison to eternal damnation, the worst thing that you can think of would be more desirable.

Should we just let disease run rampant because it is God's judgment? No. Our aid to the sick is God's vessel of mercy: He gives us the knowledge to find these helps and cures.

Not everything we go through that is bad in life is a punishment for something. Sure, you do some things wrong and you have a punishment. IE- you steal something, you go to jail. STDs should NOT be viewed as punishment for something that a person did. That's like saying you did something immoral (and that's still based on opinion) and you deserve to die for it. What about people who have aids and it's no fault of their own? Babies can be born with HIV which they've gotten from their mother. Newborns are about as innocent as you can get. What are they being 'punished' for? What about people who get it through no fault of their own? I know a woman who was 100% loyal to her husband. He had an affair and contracted HIV, and she had unprotected sex with him- how would she have known, she was in an exclusive relationship with him- and she contracted HIV too.

I think we're supposed to be as helpful as possible and compassionate. Say they did do something 'wrong'. Say they got it through having unprotected sex with someone they barely knew or through sharing a needle- where's your right to judge them? After all, we all do things that are 'wrong'.

Ya know, I thought seriously about placing Edwardis on my ignore list.

But then I would miss my roomies gasps of atonishment that anyone could be that insane when I read his posts to them.

you have to admit, it's trainwreck like.

I'm glad I entertain you.

Speaking of which, unless I missed it, you haven't responded to my "ungrateful not to sin" post . . .

Yes, but setting that stage requires no intervention on his behalf. Likewise, many of the environmental factors are directly influenced by human free will; God would have nothing to do with it save for creating it all in the first place.

God is capable of understanding all the webs of relationships and using them when we are incapable of fully understanding fully even the simplest string.

Is "I don't know" all you can retort to this? "The people that wrote the Bible said it so it must be true." Does it not occur to you that these people had direct benefit from cowing their followers into submission and thus may have detracted from God's intended message to ensure that people will follow them?

I really don't see that they had too much benefit. At least not in this world. Is it likely they would suffer persecution and horrible death for lies? No, not really.

It still happens today: Muslim clerics in Indonesia blaming the tsunami on women not wearing veils, Phelps blaming casualties in Iraq on not persecuting homosexuality, and Pat Roberts blaming Katrina on Ellen Degeneres.

And I agree with them. Well not the Muslims, but Phelps is correct: the causalties in Iraq are because of gays. But he forgets (and this is why I can't stand the man) that the causalties are also because of him, and you, and me, and every other person who has ever walked this earth (save Jesus). Same with Katrina.

I'm not asking you to question God in any way, but if you don't question the words of those that claim to speak for him, you may well end up doing Satan's work.

There are many false prophets, yes. Which is why it is important to test everything everyone says against Scripture.

Fact is: It is more likely that God doesn't involve himself in your or anyone else's life in a physical manner than God being a random dick, if he truly has good will.

Correction: It would be more pleasent for our fancies if God were they way you suggest.

Speaking of which, unless I missed it, you haven't responded to my "ungrateful not to sin" post . . .

Which post? Which number is it?

I don't see it.

Sorry, haven't read all this, but this struck me as wrong.

Join the club.

Not everything we go through that is bad in life is a punishment for something. Sure, you do some things wrong and you have a punishment. IE- you steal something, you go to jail. STDs should NOT be viewed as punishment for something that a person did. That's like saying you did something immoral (and that's still based on opinion) and you deserve to die for it. What about people who have aids and it's no fault of their own? Babies can be born with AIDS which they've gotten from their mother. Newborns are about as innocent as you can get. What are they being 'punished' for? What about people who get it through no fault of their own? I know a woman who was 100% loyal to her husband. He had an affair and contracted AIDS, and she had unprotected sex with him- how would she have known, she was in an exclusive relationship with him- and she contracted AIDS too.

"There is no one righteous, no not one"
The baby is being punished for its sinful nature: they are hardly innocent.

I think we're supposed to be as helpful as possible and compasionate. Say they did do something 'wrong'. Say they got it through having unprotected sex with someone they barely knew or through sharing a needle- where's your right to judge them? After all, we all do things that are 'wrong'.

Jesus said you will know a tree by its fruits.

And we are to have compassion. The disease is God's vessel of wrath. Our aid and compassion (and hopefully one day cure) is His vessel of mercy.

Join the club.



"There is no one righteous, no not one"
The baby is being punished for its sinful nature: they are hardly innocent.



Jesus said you will know a tree by its fruits.

And we are to have compassion. The disease is God's vessel of wrath. Our aid and compassion (and hopefully one day cure) is His vessel of mercy.

So following this nature, why aren't all babies born with HIV or birth defects since they're all sinful?

So following this nature, why aren't all babies born with HIV or birth defects since they're all sinful?

God will have mercy on whom He wills.

God is capable of understanding all the webs of relationships and using them when we are incapable of fully understanding fully even the simplest string.And? That does not mean he actually involves himself.
I really don't see that they had too much benefit. At least not in this world. Is it likely they would suffer persecution and horrible death for lies? No, not really.You're thinking mainly of the martyrs and of stories that people wrote about themselves or things they heard. Not to mention, all these were at some point compiled by other people that never met anyone from those days.
And I agree with them. Well not the Muslims, but Phelps is correct: the causalties in Iraq are because of gays. But he forgets (and this is why I can't stand the man) that the causalties are also because of him, and you, and me, and every other person who has ever walked this earth (save Jesus). Same with Katrina.
There are many false prophets, yes. Which is why it is important to test everything everyone says against Scripture.How can you be sure that the scripture is not the work of false prophets or falliable men that left out what they did not want and included what benefitted them?
Correction: It would be more pleasent for our fancies if God were they way you suggest.Which ones?

"There is no one righteous, no not one"
The baby is being punished for its sinful nature: they are hardly innocent.

What is the baby being punished for? Why would such a loving God punish an innocent baby?! That baby hadn't sinned at all, hadn't even had the chance to sin, and it's being punished? Your God is evil, vile, and hateful. He's a homophobic, abusive arse.

15 pages long, I'm sure this has been mentioned but babies can contract the disease from their mothers if they are not extremely careful during birth. Yes that makes perfect sense, punish a child who has just entered the world. You know what HIV is in fact? Nothing more then a really nasty virus.

And? That does not mean he actually involves himself.

Granted.

You're thinking mainly of the martyrs and of stories that people wrote about themselves or things they heard. Not to mention, all these were at some point compiled by other people that never met anyone from those days.

Yes, I am.

How can you be sure that the scripture is not the work of false prophets or falliable men that left out what they did not want and included what benefitted them?

Faith. That's why it's called religion.

Which ones?

The ones which make God into Santa Clause of the Teddy Bear. Or the ones where there is no God at all. Whatever fancy lets us do what we want rather than what we ought.

God will have mercy on whom He wills.

May God have mercy on you...

God will have mercy on whom He wills.

God can go to Hell for all I care then.

What is the baby being punished for? Why would such a loving God punish an innocent baby?! That baby hadn't sinned at all, hadn't even had the chance to sin, and it's being punished? Your God is evil, vile, and hateful. He's a homophobic, abusive arse.

You miss the point. The baby, from the moment it is conceived, is sinful. We aren't sinners because we sin; we sin because we are sinners. Such is the curse of the Fall.

No, God is good (which means He is just, which means He punishes sin). And He is loving. The fact that He provided salvation (even though He is unimaginable wroth with us and has reason to be) shows that He is loving.

Why would God be homophobic? Why would He fear gays? Homosexuals can't do anything to Him.

God can go to Hell for all I care then.

He already did. And He rose again on the third day after taking on our sins and dying for them so that we might repent and come to faith in Him, Jesus Christ, as our Lord and Savior.

The ones which make God into Santa Clause of the Teddy Bear. Or the ones where there is no God at all. Whatever fancy lets us do what we want rather than what we ought.Why? If there is judgement at the end, then there is no need for involvement by God, save broadcasting the message to begin with. The "punishment" we receive today is hardly convincing that there is any intelligence guiding it, hence it hardly promotes living according to a prescribed code.

It's people like you that get all us Christians labeled as preachy and intolerant.

Disclaimer: I do not agree with his beliefs at all.

No, God is good (which means He is just, which means He punishes sin). Why would he not punish sin proportionally?
Why would God be homophobic? Why would He fear gays? Homosexuals can't do anything to Him.Why are some lipids hydrophobic? Why would the fear water?

Why? If there is judgement at the end, then there is no need for involvement by God, save broadcasting the message to begin with. The "punishment" we receive today is hardly convincing that there is any intelligence guiding it, hence it hardly promotes living according to a prescribed code.

Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter V Section 5

"The most wise, righteous, and gracious God, doth oftentimes leave for a season his own children to manifold temptations, and the corruption of their own hearts, to chastise them for their former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of corruption, and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be humbled; and raise them to a more close and constant dependence for their support upon himself, and to make them more watchful against all future occaisions of sin, and for sundry other just and holy ends"

The confession is talking about God leaving Man into temptation, but the same reasons apply for hardships (of whatever degree).

Why would he not punish sin proportionally?
Why are some lipids hydrophobic? Why would the fear water?

Because He is merciful. The smallest sin earns eternal, spiritual death, but He doesn't give it to you (at least not until after death).

Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter V Section 5

"The most wise, righteous, and gracious God, doth oftentimes leave for a season his own children to manifold temptations, and the corruption of their own hearts, to chastise them for their former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of corruption, and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be humbled; and raise them to a more close and constant dependence for their support upon himself, and to make them more watchful against all future occaisions of sin, and for sundry other just and holy ends"

The confession is talking about God leaving Man into temptation, but the same reasons apply for hardships (of whatever degree).Is a constant reminder of injustice, the reminder that the wicked are not always punished and the virtuous are not always unpunished a harsh trial on its own? And would God need to manipulate events instead of simply providing an environment in which such injustice manifests itself on its own? Surely if He is all-powerful, He would be capable of creating something that would not need constant meddling and tampering.

Because He is merciful. The smallest sin earns eternal, spiritual death, but He doesn't give it to you (at least not until after death).Your God is draconian. I pity you, for you are truly lost. :(

Is a constant reminder of injustice, the reminder that the wicked are not always punished and the virtuous are not always unpunished a harsh trial on its own? And would God need to manipulate events instead of simply providing an environment in which such injustice manifests itself on its own? Surely if He is all-powerful, He would be capable of creating something that would not need constant meddling and tampering.

The creation relies on the Creator for its existence.

Your God is draconian. I pity you, for you are truly lost. :(

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way.

I don't think it's a gay disease... I do think of it as a punishment for sexual promiscuity.

As far as Christianity goes, there is a biblical reason for earthly-suffering. In a nutshell, because of Adam and Eve screwing up and original sin and so forth.

Jesus paid for are sins to save us from damnation and spiritual consequence, but we're still accountable for our actions while living. Look at the book of Samuel II. King David sleeps with Bathsheba, gets her pregnant, and kills her husband, Urriah the Hittite. This displeased God, but David repents.

Nathan tells David that he messed up and David prophesies his own punishment in fourfold. Thus, David's first son is killed, his son Amnon rapes Amnon's half sister, Tamar, and gets killed by his half brother, Absalom, and Absalom sleeps withall of David's ladies and then gets killed by Joab and his armor-bearers, then David has his son, Solomon.

An odd happening to be assured.

I don't think it's a gay disease... I do think of it as a punishment for sexual promiscuity.

I want to hug you right now. :fluffle:

As far as Christianity goes, there is a biblical reason for earthly-suffering. In a nutshell, because of Adam and Eve screwing up and original sin and so forth.

Jesus paid for are sins to save us from damnation and spiritual consequence, but we're still accountable for our actions while living. Look at the book of Samuel II. King David sleeps with Bathsheba, gets her pregnant, and kills her husband, Urriah the Hittite. This displeased God, but David repents.

Nathan tells David that he messed up and David prophesies his own punishment in fourfold. Thus, David's first son is killed, his son Amnon rapes Amnon's half sister, Tamar, and gets killed by his half brother, Absalom, and Absalom sleeps withall of David's ladies and then gets killed by Joab and his armor-bearers, then David has his son, Solomon.

An odd happening to be assured.

You too. :fluffle:

Are STDs God's punishment on immoral behavior? Of course. All bad things that happen to us are punishment for our behavior. And they are merciful punishments, too.


In the Bible lot of bad things happen to people merely as test, not to punish any immoral behavior. So even from a religious (at least jewish or christian) point of view you are wrong. Was Job punished for immoral behavior?

The only immoral thing here is your stupidity and I wish a god actually existed to punish you for that.

Which post? Which number is it?

I don't see it.

Page 1, post #7. Thank you in advance! :)

What is the baby being punished for? Why would such a loving God punish an innocent baby?! That baby hadn't sinned at all, hadn't even had the chance to sin, and it's being punished? Your God is evil, vile, and hateful. He's a homophobic, abusive arse.

You must remember, Pancake, that Edwardis and his ilk don't believe in a loving God, nor indeed do they believe in love at all.

Punishment? For human behaviour?

See, this is what I hate about humanity. We are self-centered beyond reason. STDs are not exclusive to humans, you can find them in animals as well. But everything bad happening to humanity must have some form of greater meaning, right? Because we are the be all end all in the universe. Things don't just happen to us, no, we are being punished or rewarded. :rolleyes:

Seriously, do make at least a bit of an effort to get over yourselves.

What about people who get STDs from tatoo and piercing places that re-use needles? Is getting a tatoo SINFUL? What about women with pierced ears?

What about kids that find needles on the street and play with them. What about people who are raped by an infected person. No one is safe.

AIDS isn't just an STD. Most people infected by the HIV virus in Italy got it from the bad habit of using non-sterile needles for injecting heroine.
AIDS is a blood-carried disease: many people in China got HIV because they donated blood. Also lack of sterilisation in surgery (even minor surgery, like dentists) may lead to HIV infection.

Sure - the husbands and wives of cheating spouses deserve to be punished for their loyalty.


:rolleyes:

Folks, trying to debate with the rabidly superstitious is like trying to teach a pig to sing: it doesn't work, it raises your blood pressure, and it annoys the pig.

Folks, trying to debate with the rabidly superstitious is like trying to teach a pig to sing: it doesn't work, it raises your blood pressure, and it annoys the pig.

But there's nothing quite as jolly as an annoyed pig! :p

Folks, trying to debate with the rabidly superstitious is like trying to teach a pig to sing: it doesn't work, it raises your blood pressure, and it annoys the pig.

poor pig just let be

Forgive me for being such a killjoy, but really...don't you think this particular individual has bigger problems to be worrying about, without all of us piling on?

He's flatly opining that FETUSES are sinful creatures who deserve to be punished for the hideous crime of being human life forms. He's insisting that human beings are so filthy and corrupt that they deserve death (spiritual or otherwise), disease, and torment. He's worshipping a diety that visits all these punishments, and more, upon humanity, and believes that we ought to feel blessed lucky for the attention.

This is classic abuse victim thinking.

Just give Ed's quotes a second look (I've put his words in italics):

No, God is good (which means He is just, which means He punishes sin). And He is loving. The fact that He provided salvation (even though He is unimaginable wroth with us and has reason to be) shows that He is loving. = "He hits me because he loves me!"

We are His creation: He can do what He wants with us. And because we are sinners, that includes punishment. = "I'd be nothing without him! I'm just an ugly, stupid, worthless piece of trash, and I'm thankful to have somebody who's willing to put up with me. I don't deserve better."

For whatever reason. I don't know. I only know what He has revealed and He has not revealed why, only that He does. = "I'm sure he knows best. I'm too stupid (and fat, and ugly) to be able to question his brilliant judgment."

God has placed you in a position and has ordered things around you so that you will want to do what He has decreed you will do. = "By locking me in the house and refusing to let me have contact with any other people, he is encouraging me to be faithful and virtuous! I'm lucky to have somebody who structures my life for me so thoughtfully."

I don't know why He wants to, but I know that Scripture says He does what pleases Him according to His good will and that nothing happens that does not please Him according to His good will. = "But he's a really good guy (despite the beatings)! I know he only wants what's best for me."

But, if Jesus truly died to absolve us of our sins, wouldn't it be ungrateful of us not to commit them?

Umm, no. If Jesus truly died for your sins, then you should be grateful and want to do what is commanded by Him.

We are saved by grace through faith unto good works.

Punishment? For human behaviour?

See, this is what I hate about humanity. We are self-centered beyond reason. STDs are not exclusive to humans, you can find them in animals as well. But everything bad happening to humanity must have some form of greater meaning, right? Because we are the be all end all in the universe. Things don't just happen to us, no, we are being punished or rewarded. :rolleyes:

Seriously, do make at least a bit of an effort to get over yourselves.

Why don't you listen to what I'm saying in it's entirety instead of taking the snipets that you want?

That you were not blasted the second you were conceived shows that God is merciful and loving toward you.

<snip>
You win the thread. As usual.

This is classic abuse victim thinking.I think you're on to something. Ed really does sound like an abuse victim...

Umm, no. If Jesus truly died for your sins, then you should be grateful and want to do what is commanded by Him.

We are saved by grace through faith unto good works.

How do we know what Jesus commanded us to do though? None of the gospels were written by his hand.

Why don't you listen to what I'm saying in it's entirety instead of taking the snipets that you want?

That you were not blasted the second you were conceived shows that God is merciful and loving toward you.
Perhaps I am taking this out of context, but this says a lot about your God. A lot. To follow with the abuse victim thing- "He's only beating me. It could be a lot worse."