AIDS clock

[LittleNipper]

Promiscuity of at least one partner is certainly a major issue; but in all fairness, injected drug use is also a player. The remaining portion is very small comparatively.

Do you really think a guy who is going to share a needle with someone isn't going to share a cute chick with someone. Seems to go without saying.....

 

[LittleNipper]

Well, I am not telling an adult he/she cannot have sex, because he/she isn't married. You've gotta be realiztic. People have sex...

By the way, same gender couples can't get married in so many countries.....

So ABC

Abstain
Be faithful
use Condoms

and educate...educate teens....adults....everybody!!!!

Oh well.... I guess there is your answer. Those that do are simply at a disadvantage of their own choosing...

 

[Lokisdottir]

The virus is terrible, but if people only had sex after marriage and only with their marriage partner, AIDS would have no effect on the human population ---- and that is the simple fact of it.

In your perfect world, sure. But in the real world, people are going to have sex. No amount of preaching is going to change this fundamental instinct. Maybe that's a mistake, but is it one that people deserve to die for?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

In your perfect world, sure. But in the real world, people are going to have sex. No amount of preaching is going to change this fundamental instinct. Maybe that's a mistake, but is it one that people deserve to die for?

Irrelevant.
Apparently, those that hold that value system or lack thereof allegedly have their "safe" way around any consequences. You will have to pardon me if I don't feel "responsible" or a need to share in whether or not someone else actually ends up paying those consequences. I have pity, charity, sorrow for it, but not responsibility for it - especially since I echo the plea to turn from the cause.

 

[reverend B]

it is amazing to me that over twenty years after the discovery of this disease, we still have people that think blaming the victim is part of the solution. let he who is without sin...
one guy acknowledged that the clean needle program might help some, but he still wasn't buying the idea of abetting their use. even if it might help some. if it does, that equates to some people not dying. that's not worth it?
how do we protect the partner that believes they are in a monogamous relationship when they are not? we need to be blind to the victim and be vicious with solutions. our judgment is useless. our love is our responsibility.

 

[reverend B]

Irrelevant.
Apparently, those that hold that value system or lack thereof allegedly have their "safe" way around any consequences. You will have to pardon me if I don't feel "responsible" or a need to share in whether or not someone else actually ends up paying those consequences. I have pity, charity, sorrow for it, but not responsibility for it - especially since I echo the plea to turn from the cause.

is that what Jesus did when the woman was to be stoned for her adultery? no. first He saved her life from people who had to recognize they were just as much of a sinner as she was. only then did he preach to her, and when he did, he refused to condemn her. he just said don't do it anymore. saving her life was not conditioned upon her not doing it anymore. saving her life was His first priority. i prefer to use this as a model as to how i will treat these people. let them see Jesus in my treatment of them.

 

[Helo]

The virus is terrible, but if people only had sex after marriage and only with their marriage partner, AIDS would have no effect on the human population ---- and that is the simple fact of it.

This really ****es me off. AIDS is NOT strictly an STD. As someone else pointed out, its possible to spread AIDS through drug use (Needles) and it frequently happens that way. Its also possible to spread it by touching and or ingesting infected blood.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

is that what Jesus did when the woman was to be stoned for her adultery? no. first He saved her life from people who had to recognize they were just as much of a sinner as she was. only then did he preach to her, and when he did, he refused to condemn her. he just said don't do it anymore. saving her life was not conditioned upon her not doing it anymore. saving her life was His first priority. i prefer to use this as a model as to how i will treat these people. let them see Jesus in my treatment of them.

I would probably be more appreciative if next time a quoting my post is done, the full context were left in tact - rather than stripped and arguing against something not said.
The portion you selected is my reply to another member regarding a particular group that rejects the message Christians have to share (shall I cite Jesus' words on shaking the dust off now? IOW - the message isn't forced) and as for the serving sinners, I suggest reading the entire thread. Perhaps even this post:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=21315575&postcount=19
And no, the possible hidden premise that my post somehow equates condemning due to wicked deeds reaping consequences is not accepted.


Let's also not pretend to omit that the over-used reference you cite was in reality intended to be a trap for Jesus Christ and that the way the scenario was handled was even against the Law i.e. where was the man, hearing with witnesses before the Sanhedrin, etc. IOW - even if a person is dying from consequences, the message is STILL the preaching of repentance AND FORGIVENESS; therefore, no condemnation.

 

[Archivist]

The virus is terrible, but if people only had sex after marriage and only with their marriage partner, AIDS would have no effect on the human population ---- and that is the simple fact of it.

Tell that to the innocent marriage partner whose spouse is sleeping around. It isn't such a "simple fact" as you make it out to be.

 

[Lokisdottir]

Tell that to the innocent marriage partner whose spouse is sleeping around. It isn't such a "simple fact" as you make it out to be.

Again, he's talking about an ideal world in which no one ever cheats. He says "if only," as though it were a mere trifle for everyone to suddenly be perfect.

 

[reverend B]

I would probably be more appreciative if next time a quoting my post is done, the full context were left in tact - rather than stripped and arguing against something not said.
The portion you selected is my reply to another member regarding a particular group that rejects the message Christians have to share (shall I cite Jesus' words on shaking the dust off now? IOW - the message isn't forced) and as for the serving sinners, I suggest reading the entire thread. Perhaps even this post:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=21315575&postcount=19
And no, the possible hidden premise that my post somehow equates condemning due to wicked deeds reaping consequences is not accepted.


Let's also not pretend to omit that the over-used reference you cite was in reality intended to be a trap for Jesus Christ and that the way the scenario was handled was even against the Law i.e. where was the man, hearing with witnesses before the Sanhedrin, etc. IOW - even if a person is dying from consequences, the message is STILL the preaching of repentance AND FORGIVENESS; therefore, no condemnation.

i quoted the whole post. sorry if it was incomplete. was i to have quoted all of your posts in this thread? didn't know that etiquette. nothing changes the fact that Jesus saved first, taught later.
and i have been with the thread since the beginning. my post stands. thanks though.
and i am sorry you find the scripture over-used. very sorry. and i am very well versed in its meaning. "the trap" is not exciting new territory. it also doesn't have any impact on what Christ's priority was. first her life was spared. then the teaching.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

i quoted the whole post. sorry if it was incomplete. was i to have quoted all of your posts in this thread? didn't know that etiquette. nothing changes the fact that Jesus saved first, taught later.
and i have been with the thread since the beginning. my post stands. thanks though.
and i am sorry you find the scripture over-used. very sorry. and i am very well versed in its meaning. "the trap" is not exciting new territory. it also doesn't have any impact on what Christ's priority was. first her life was spared. then the teaching.

Yes the mis-matched address to what I said compared with the response being what it was, the "over-use" would be when it is applied as a catch-all and out-of-context... say when it tends to imply the "inverse" or other position is allegedly "taking the life" because it isn't enabling the sin.

No matter how much the Liberal mindset may try, it won't be successful in trying to guilt, blame, or condemn those that do what is right, preach what is right and refuse to share in certain sins. Kind of a little thing referred as each being accountable. If giving out condoms and needles for illegal drug use "in the name of Jesus" is your version of... whatever that would be, knock yourself out.

 

[Phylogeny]

The virus is terrible, but if people only had sex after marriage and only with their marriage partner, AIDS would have no effect on the human population ---- and that is the simple fact of it.

Ok, that is NOT a simple fact.

this is for everyone who thinks of AIDS purely as an STD---in China, AIDS has hit poor farmers the hardest, and you want to know why? It's not because they are having promiscious sex, it's not because they are using needles, it is because they are selling their plasma in unsanitary ways. Few Chinese people donate blood, so hospitals buys them from volunteers. Farmers can make good money by selling their plasma on a regular basis. The way it's done is to get a bunch of farmers together, suck out their blood into one big vat. The vat then takes out the plasma and shoots back the rest into the farmers.

I don't think it takes a doctor to figure out this is unhealthy? Why was this perpetuated? Because the people who buy the plasma are not physicians. They are middlemen who are operating a business with few safety regulations and no oversight. Hospitals screen the blood, but they don't ask how the blood was gotten. The middleman is some poor farmer eeking out a living trying to buy and sell blood plasma in the most efficient way possible. China has a drugs problem, it has promiscious citizens, but the vast majority of initial AIDS victims were poor farmers who are ignorant of modern medicine and clean hygiene!!

Yes, I guess you could say, in a perfect world with no poverty and strict government oversight of all health related activities, AND everyone was faithful to their partner and had no premartial sex AND did not share needles AND had perfect screening of blood supply for transplant AND.....

Gee, in a perfect world, we wouldn't have ANY problems, would we? Too bad we don't, so what ya gonna do about it?

EDIT:
AIDS can also be transferred via mother to child during childbirth. AIDS can also be transferred via rape and incest. AIDs can be transferred whenever an infected individual transfers their blood to a noninfected individual. Sex is just one (common) pathway, but I always wonder why people are so fixated on this idea....hepititis can be transmitted via sex yet I don't see that disease gets as much stigma as AIDS in this country.

 

[reverend B]

Yes the mis-matched address to what I said compared with the response being what it was, the "over-use" would be when it is applied as a catch-all and out-of-context... say when it tends to imply the "inverse" or other position is allegedly "taking the life" because it isn't enabling the sin.

No matter how much the Liberal mindset may try, it won't be successful in trying to guilt, blame, or condemn those that do what is right, preach what is right and refuse to share in certain sins. Kind of a little thing referred as each being accountable. If giving out condoms and needles for illegal drug use "in the name of Jesus" is your version of... whatever that would be, knock yourself out.

your permission is greatly appreciated, as i know you have authority in scriptural interpretation. bless you, sir, for this crumb.
it is the self-righteousness of this kind of post that makes people rightly question the loving nature of the conservative brand of the faith. if someone walked on thin ice and fell in, would they have to promise to give up such irresponsible behavior before you threw them a line? of course not. Jesus didn't think so either. always love first, preach later. prove that you value your neighbor as they are before you go about the business of trying to change them.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

your permission is greatly appreciated, as i know you have authority in scriptural interpretation. bless you, sir, for this crumb.
it is the self-righteousness of this kind of post that makes people rightly question the loving nature of the conservative brand of the faith.

Umm... no. The correction would be that the self-righteousness resides with those that pass out condoms and needles for illegal drug use only to call it "love" and "what Jesus would do". Those that rant on about interpretation have a good distance of twisting to do before that EVER becomes a legitimate "interpretation". There is very little brain activity required to see that preaching repentance and forgiveness, caring for the needy, and living a life in accordance with the wisdom God gave us matches Christendom as opposed to the those that use a few castrated proof texts to advance what the world already acclaim as "its wisdom".

if someone walked on thin ice and fell in, would they have to promise to give up such irresponsible behavior before you threw them a line? of course not. Jesus didn't think so either. always love first, preach later. prove that you value your neighbor as they are before you go about the business of trying to change them.

I must have missed where this was shown as actually addressing something said.

Last I checked, there was agreement on educating, agreement on caring for, agreement on ministering to, and agreement on trying to clean up what is left of a person's life. The difference only seemed to be in the condoms and needles. You will have to excuse some of us in not being so ignorant in buying the latter part being the "significant" demonstration of love... or even love for that matter. While the distorted view is passing out condoms and needles trying to save the shell, patting themselves on the back and saying how Christlike they are for it, how much more loving they are than "others", the soul is neglected. Save using the analogy in a morally sound issue (ice-life line) in an attempt for justifying immoral means (condoms-needles) with someone more... naive, please.

 

[reverend B]

Umm... no. The correction would be that the self-righteousness resides with those that pass out condoms and needles for illegal drug use only to call it "love" and "what Jesus would do". Those that rant on about interpretation have a good distance of twisting to do before that EVER becomes a legitimate "interpretation". There is very little brain activity required to see that preaching repentance and forgiveness, caring for the needy, and living a life in accordance with the wisdom God gave us matches Christendom as opposed to the those that use a few castrated proof texts to advance what the world already acclaim as "its wisdom".

I must have missed where this was shown as actually addressing something said.

Last I checked, there was agreement on educating, agreement on caring for, agreement on ministering to, and agreement on trying to clean up what is left of a person's life. The difference only seemed to be in the condoms and needles. You will have to excuse some of us in not being so ignorant in buying the latter part being the "significant" demonstration of love... or even love for that matter. While the distorted view is passing out condoms and needles trying to save the shell, patting themselves on the back and saying how Christlike they are for it, how much more loving they are than "others", the soul is neglected. Save using the analogy in a morally sound issue (ice-life line) in an attempt for justifying immoral means (condoms-needles) with someone more... naive, please.

from your first post to me you have had an attitude. is it your belief that being rude will be the magic that will give your argument validity. my belief is if the "shell" dies before you get to care for the soul, what good did your holding out do? first things first.
if you want to continue the conversation, please drop the chip on your shoulder. i don't mind being disagreed with. i hate childishness. we disagree. i can handle that without being insulted. but lets drop the holier than thou rap regarding interpretation. i wont demonize you for yours if you can agree to do the same. if someone is not going to quit the needle, keeping them alive long enough to quit seems loving to me. judge me unkindly if you like, but don't imagine you understand the motive or are the final authority on the topic. read isaiah 55:9. you may not understand it fully. i may not either. in fact, you can take it to the bank that we don't. if i am judged for the mistake of loving too much or erring on the side of saving a life, i believe my punishment will be small. allowing the least of us to perish seems like a big deal to me. feel free to see it differently and share that with me and everyone else here, but save the bullying. check the fruits of the Spirit and meet me back here.
i will apologize for my last post. you pushed my buttons, but those buttons are mine and i am responsible for them. and you are responsible for yours.

 

[ottaia]

your permission is greatly appreciated, as i know you have authority in scriptural interpretation. bless you, sir, for this crumb.
it is the self-righteousness of this kind of post that makes people rightly question the loving nature of the conservative brand of the faith. if someone walked on thin ice and fell in, would they have to promise to give up such irresponsible behavior before you threw them a line? of course not. Jesus didn't think so either. always love first, preach later. prove that you value your neighbor as they are before you go about the business of trying to change them.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to reverend B again.

​

 

[ChristianCenturion]

from your first post to me you have had an attitude. is it your belief that being rude will be the magic that will give your argument validity. my belief is if the "shell" dies before you get to care for the soul, what good did your holding out do? first things first.
if you want to continue the conversation, please drop the chip on your shoulder. i don't mind being disagreed with. i hate childishness. we disagree. i can handle that without being insulted. but lets drop the holier than thou rap regarding interpretation. i wont demonize you for yours if you can agree to do the same. if someone is not going to quit the needle, keeping them alive long enough to quit seems loving to me. judge me unkindly if you like, but don't imagine you understand the motive or are the final authority on the topic. read isaiah 55:9. you may not understand it fully. i may not either. in fact, you can take it to the bank that we don't. if i am judged for the mistake of loving too much or erring on the side of saving a life, i believe my punishment will be small. allowing the least of us to perish seems like a big deal to me. feel free to see it differently and share that with me and everyone else here, but save the bullying. check the fruits of the Spirit and meet me back here.
i will apologize for my last post. you pushed my buttons, but those buttons are mine and i am responsible for them. and you are responsible for yours.

A little reality check there with that whole lecture on chip on shoulders, taking issue with another's view, bullying, and all the rest of the hypocrisy:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=21318277&postcount=25
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=21318393&postcount=26

Something about he without sin casting the FIRST stone seems truly ironic considering who was attempting to use it. I'm not hesitant in referring to God's wisdom given to man and I don't need to claim that such wisdom comes from me - despite the attempt to claim it is "mine" or "my interpretation". If the reminder of where that line is shown between God and worldly is too much to handle, I suggest next time not quoting someone that actually adheres to His instruction or in the least... how did you put it?... "from your first post to me you have had an attitude."

With that further correction, I suggest the OP actually be addressed now.

 

[spinto]

The virus is terrible, but if people only had sex after marriage and only with their marriage partner, AIDS would have no effect on the human population ---- and that is the simple fact of it.

I'm sorry but this is a bit ignorant. Sorry I don't mean to insult. But I can say that for certain that marriage does not make AIDS go away. So fact you say? Nope, I don't think so.

 

[reverend B]

A little reality check there with that whole lecture on chip on shoulders, taking issue with another's view, bullying, and all the rest of the hypocrisy:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=21318277&postcount=25
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=21318393&postcount=26

Something about he without sin casting the FIRST stone seems truly ironic considering who was attempting to use it. I'm not hesitant in referring to God's wisdom given to man and I don't need to claim that such wisdom comes from me - despite the attempt to claim it is "mine" or "my interpretation". If the reminder of where that line is shown between God and worldly is too much to handle, I suggest next time not quoting someone that actually adheres to His instruction or in the least... how did you put it?... "from your first post to me you have had an attitude."

With that further correction, I suggest the OP actually be addressed now.

that's why i had the audacity to apologize. i had hoped this would encourage you to talk with some respect. i misjudged you, so i apologize again. instead, you have decided to take the road of selling the wisdom of God as coming through you, that you were just in the way when it landed, and the rest of us have been misled by satan. it is awesome to share this thread with you. i have been undeniably privileged.
it is also nice to know i have met the person who has beaten the odds. i had actually believed that scripture where we have been told that none of us is righteous, not one. but now i have met the guy who "...actually adheres to His instruction...". it must be humiliating for you to be stuck here on earth with us.
i hope folks go to the linked posts and evaluate my ruthlessness. this is really bizarre.