AIDS clock

[praying]

While in the hospital for brain surgery, Arthur received the overwhelming news that he was HIV-Positive. He had contracted the virus through a tainted transfusion during his two heart surgeries, almost certainly the second in 1983. Wishing to maintain his and his family’s privacy, and well-aware of the prejudice and paranoia that was often associated with the disease during its first years of existence, the Ashe’s, with help from close friends and trusted medical advisors, were able to keep the startling information from the public’s awareness. At issue were Arthur and Jeanne’s desire to raise their daughter Camera in as normal an environment as possible, a desire that would have been made impossible with a public disclosure.

Because of pressure from a national newspaper that was indicating they had on good record that he had AIDS, Arthur, rather than let the rumors persist, elected to make his condition known to the world through a scheduled a press conference on the morning of April 8, 1992. The knowledge that his life and the lives of his family members would forever be altered was foremost on Arthur’s mind. After his admission to the world, an outpouring of compassion and support arrived, inspiring Arthur to begin AAFDA. This outpouring can only perhaps be compared to the day Lou Gehrig announced his retirement and contraction of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Arthur Ashe passed away on February 6, 1993, having raised awareness of AIDS to a level where paranoia was no longer the overriding emotion.

http://www.cmgww.com/sports/ashe/about/bio2.htm

Thanks! Now that you post that I remember vaguely, but I remember.

 

[stumpjumper]

As a reciever of Sojourners magazine here is a little info from an informing article in this month's issue. First the article started with a quote from a familiar theologian Karl Barth: "Keep in one hand the Bible and in the other hand the daily newspaper."

What the article referenced however was a study done by Emily Oster a Harvard economist who stated that a cost-benefit analysis of the AIDS situation in Africa has shown that money spent on prevention through education and attacking the underlying causes of the problem in Africa, which is poor medical treatment overall, is more beneficial then simply treating the AIDS patients. The misconception is that Africans have more unprotected sex than others, which is not true, but the problem is medical treatment and that Africans have untreated venerial diseases such as gonorrhea or syphilis which leads to open sores and creates an environment in which HIV transmission is easy and prevalent. We have a limited supply of resources and spending it all on antiretrovirals instead of education and antibiotics for some of the other problems is not cost effective says this article.

Instead of blaming it on sex we should look at the environment, the poverty, and the lack of *any* medical treatment as a leading cause. But, alas I drive a nice Nissan with only 45,000 miles on it when what is neccesary in Africa is stable economies and good medical treatment.

We, as Christians, should look at our priorities...

 

[ChristianCenturion]

there is no question that God does not approve of the sin. there is no disagreement there. it is how we get rid of that sin that we differ on, and what we do with the "shell" while we are helping to support the soul.

"we get rid of that sin"?
Wow... simply, wow.

"to me" relates to the way God has been revealed to me personally through scripture. i used the term intentionally to differentiate myself from people who would have their interpretation suffice for all humanity everywhere. that would be the height of arrogance.

The premise that the instruction God gave to man for man's benefit is somehow under the authority of "man's interpretation" or subject to it rather than God is a misplaced focus. I understand the expression that you are "tying to relate in a personal way", but I would disagree on the source of reliance and see a self-centered component when God gave believers brethren to also assist each other. Iron sharpens iron, serving one another, teaching, rebuking, being accountable, lifting each other up, etc. seems to be lost in that tight little box of "it's all between ME and God." You will excuse me if I also don't ignore the arrogance in that "self" interpretation, the relativism, and the pretending that the option doesn't exist where God does have an intent that suffices for all humanity, everywhere, etc.

you need to read more carefully. the provision of works for hygiene is a seperate step from the attempt to break the cycle. but a dead addict rarely recovers from their addiction. the clean paraphanelia is not the rehab. that is clear in the post.

A dead addict or a dead sexually promiscuous person that someone gave a needle or condom to all under the guise that it is "safe" or "safer" is what it is. One may as well be handing out pistols and encouraging a "safer" version of Russian Roulette. Nobody can say that the giving of such will "save them" and while others are continuing because they see through the actions of someone else either directly or indirectly supporting the behavior, the claim is empty.
"Claiming" that giving the paraphernalia is a separate issue and that it saves more than it kills is just words and in the immediate it is contributing.

none of these will be helped by not supplying the works and the condom either, and as you said in an earlier post, it might save some. if ten people were saved, was it worth the effort?

Moral relativism justifying the immoral solution while ignoring the antithesis of equation.

all these things are doing is buying time to reach into the heart. if the intent was to give these things out to encourage the activity, i would agree with you. it is quite obviously the opposite. these can not be seperated just to attempt to win an argument on an internet forum. they are integrally related.

Good intentions do not justify immoral actions. There are sins of commission just as there are sins of omission and ignorance.

somewhere in that list is kindness. does this not apply to you? that is part of the whole of Christian teaching, isn't it? the fruits are a directive of how we should be if the Spirit is in-dwelling. it does not mean that we must expect everyone else to be this way. of course these people are sinning. we don't disagree on that. but how do we save them? how do we show compassion, kindness, gentleness, love? this is where we disagree. i understand the "tough love" concept you are advocating, and accept that a case can be made for it. i have come to a different conclusion.

Yes, I understand that in the intrinsically disordered world of Liberalism and Relativism, it only comes down to fitting the opposition into the grouping of "tough love"; however, the consideration that it is a matter of focused and outweighing love for God and His ways being best eludes that mindset. While I may see the intent and SOME of the reasoning being valid for handing out devices, I also see the flaws and can't ignore the resulting immoral participation by those "trying to help". The ignoring that kindness, gentileness, love, etc. IS present in what has been labeled as the "conservative Christian" method and it all coming back to the difference of giving enabling merchandise used for immoral behavior is still the discussion at hand. While the one side attempts to justify it by saying it "brings people into contact with others that may help", the instruction for a Christian isn't to prostitute their morals in order to set up lures for sinners, but one of "go out, serve and preach the Good News". One is man's lazy solution centered on man's reasoning and the other is active faithfulness, perseverance, hope and reliance in God. The fact that people will die and continue in sin regardless of any attempted help is present in both.

and i see what you are doing as the "...boasting of what he has and does". your conviction that you are right to the exclusion of all others that are obviously operating from an intent to save the lost to me is prideful and in the way it is expressed lacks either kindness or gentleness. my posts have sadly carried the same weakness. i have prayed on it and have decided that one of us being unfriendly is too much, but i only have control of half the situation. i hope your last paragraph is not an implication that i am not a Christian. that is strongly against the rules here and can get you removed from the forums altogether. it seems we all step out of the light now and again. i have in this thread. i extend my hand and an apology to you and to everyone on this thread that has watched my catty behavior. my positions i stand by, of course, but not my attitude.

Again we have that personal address rather than addressing the substance of the post; an alleged apology, while at the same time pointing a finger and making accusations in hypocrisy. Since arrogance is still on the table, let's review that topic. How about the pride involved when considering that God calls His children to be holy as He is Holy, but some in contrast hand out needles and condoms "in the name of love". How about the arrogance that despite God giving instruction as to what BELIEVERS ARE TO DO, some choose to judge that instruction, deem it not suitable enough or "good enough" and choose to exalt their own wisdom as superior and good. The mindset that says, "yeah that sounds good Lord, but you know, it just isn't good enough", that judges God's way as "unloving" or "cruel" is where the arrogance and idolatry resides.
You may also spare me the lecture on the rules and feel free to use the report button instead. I would also suggest reading those SAME rules and considering whether they are applicable to oneself and what has been done before pointing any finger - it may save the moderators the additional time and effort of explaining a few things.
IOW - as long as I abide by the same rules that apply to everyone, my membership affords me the same rights of others and is irrelevant if a few don't like their positions challenged if not corrected. I don't cry the crocodile tears simply because people disagree with what I may have said and I am not impressed when I see it. If what I have said is untrue, then show it rather than making these discussions directed at or about another member. If it helps how my post is inferred, try reading it without the insertion of tone and based on substance.

 

[ottaia]

CC, why do you presume that your interpretation is correct and all other interpretations are wrong?

 

[reverend B]

you are a big man, rev.

no. a very small one, which is why the apology was necessary in the first place. i am only sorry that it was not accepted. i can't control that though.

 

[reverend B]

cc,
i think we have both made our views clear on the subject now. thanks for your time. God bless you, and forgive me for any unkind words that have passed here.
peace and love in the Lord

 

[ChristianCenturion]

CC, why do you presume that your interpretation is correct and all other interpretations are wrong?

One, that would be implying something I haven't said.
Two, the better question is why do people propose that God's instruction is so far out of reach that it is unattainable or if someone does understand it, it is stagnant.
Those that do propose such a notion have a ministry of hopelessness.

What I have said is either correct or it isn't. And if it isn't, then for my own well-being, I would appreciate knowing the correction.

The retort that it all comes down to "interpretation" and nobody's can align or everyone's is legitimate isn't addressing what was said and it is more of the same relativism. It is a deceptive notion that a loving God would give instruction to His children, but only in a form that ALL would be blind to it and that is not the disparity that I have come to know from my God.

Another way to put it so that it can be understood:
Reflecting back to when Jesus preached to the crowds and hearing Him say, "he who has ears, let him hear" only to be followed by some in the crowd pointing at various people and saying, "Look! this one doesn't agree with that one; therefore, how can anyone understand this man Jesus and what is the use!" is focusing on the wrong speaker.

BTW - the OP is not CC.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

cc,
i think we have both made our views clear on the subject now. thanks for your time. God bless you, and forgive me for any unkind words that have passed here.
peace and love in the Lord

I forgive and look forward to having something we can agree upon in the future.
I am sorry if any feelings were hurt and ask forgiveness for a certain lack of tact I am still trying to work on.

Shalom

 

[belladonic-haze]

BTW - the OP is not CC.

No, that is me....

What I wanted to establish is that we think about AIDS and share opinions. We disagree on many things and reading all the posts here, we have a long way to go until we banned the "sinner" thought. Whatever you think, I only know this. Having a friend that is HIV positive - and I do not care how that happened - is horrible. We all know that even though there are meds that can porspone dying, someone with HIV will die. And that is a horrible death......

These people need respect and love and compassion. And there is NO reason whatsoever to point out that they are sinners or whatever. That doesn't help them. The only thing that helps is being there for them. I have seen people dying of AIDS and it isn't pretty (No close friends or relatives by the way)......It will haunt me for the rest of my life.....

I am treated on a regular basis in the hospital. It can happen to me. That one phonecall that tells me that there was infected material used to treat me. It can happen.......to me, to you to anyone...

No-one is 100% safe....even if you are the most holy saint on this planet......that virus can affect us all....

I just hope we realize that and we are smart and compassioned enough to avoid that HIV+ people and AIDS patients are treated no less than you want to be treated if you got infected.....in whatever way....

 

[RenHoek]

No, that is me....

What I wanted to establish is that we think about AIDS and share opinions. We disagree on many things and reading all the posts here, we have a long way to go until we banned the "sinner" thought. Whatever you think, I only know this. Having a friend that is HIV positive - and I do not care how that happened - is horrible. We all know that even though there are meds that can porspone dying, someone with HIV will die. And that is a horrible death......

These people need respect and love and compassion. And there is NO reason whatsoever to point out that they are sinners or whatever. That doesn't help them. The only thing that helps is being there for them. I have seen people dying of AIDS and it isn't pretty (No close friends or relatives by the way)......It will haunt me for the rest of my life.....

I am treated on a regular basis in the hospital. It can happen to me. That one phonecall that tells me that there was infected material used to treat me. It can happen.......to me, to you to anyone...

No-one is 100% safe....even if you are the most holy saint on this planet......that virus can affect us all....

I just hope we realize that and we are smart and compassioned enough to avoid that HIV+ people and AIDS patients are treated no less than you want to be treated if you got infected.....in whatever way....

A fitting end to a thread