Topic awaiting preservation: AIDS as Punishment (Page 1 of 1)

So, I received an e-mail from a visitor to a certain page on The Big Waste of Space, in which I wrote about the Hollywood United Methodist Church and its large, red ribbon ...

quote:

---

The church isn't easy to miss with its highly visible, 20-foot AIDS ribbon secured to the front of the chapel's majestic tower. The famous red ribbon was added in 1992 to express the church's commitment to those affected by the disease, defying many denominations' ignorant belief that AIDS is a punishment sent from Heaven directed toward homosexuals.

---

The author of the e-mail was pleasant, but asked me the question, "are you certain the belief of several protestant denomimations that disease contracted through sinful means is punishment indeed ignorant?"

First, I told him the statement wasn't mine, it was that of the HUMC, though I agreed with them. Secondly, I pointed out his egregious qualifier to the statement, turning "AIDS" into "disease contracted through sinful means," and stated simply that HIV does not discriminate.

I think what I have here is yet another dope, the type of which is the root of the ignorance I wrote about, who believes that AIDS targets gays and other "sinners."

It baffles me that anyone can actually believe that any disease is sent to infect certain people.

Hey, influenze kills more people than HIV; who is that targeted toward?

Not to mention the fact that the occurance of HIV and AIDS is actually several times larger in heterosexual couples than in homosexual ones. How exactly do they explain people receiving the HIV virus from blood transfusions? Is some 6 year old girl who needs an operation a "sinner" for receiving tainted blood?

People are stupid.


It's only after we've lost everything...
That we're free to do anything...

So is it wrong for me to think that natural selection targets the stupid? 'Cause that would kind of undermine the whole idea behind the Darwin awards...


___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org

quote:

---

the occurance of HIV and AIDS is actually several times larger in heterosexual couples than in homosexual ones

---

True, but unfortunately, the typical religinut response would be "well, if they were only having sex in a committed marriage, they wouldn't be getting it, either."

i find the idea of any disease targeting anyone rather odd, but isn't it tough to argue that practicing intimacy in a committed relationship and not having multiple sexual partners or injecting drugs greatly lowers the chances of AIDS?

chris


KAIROSinteractive

quote:

---

"well, if they were only having sex in a committed marriage, they wouldn't be getting it, either."

---

Sex or AIDS?

I do not believe that AIDS was specifically sent to kill anyone. I don't think it was "sent" at all. Sin, all of our sin, is the reason we live in a world where *any* disease exists in the first place. Death entered this world because of sin long ago and we are stuck with it.

God's people should be the first in line to be helping those inflicted with disease. In fact, that is normally the case. Sadly, and to my shame as a Xian, many of my brethren see AIDS as an exception to this rule.

The way many ignorant and hateful religious types regard this disease sickens me. But we mustn't forget about the propoganda that seeks to hide the fact that in this country AIDS still primarily effects intravenous drug users and male homosexuals. It is in Africa where it effects the heterosexual population, not here. It has been said of AIDS, that it is the first disease with civil rights. The fact that it did hit gays very hard complicated the handling of this disease. Immediately it was not just a disease, but it was a disease linked to a very current societal issue, the Gay Rights movement. I think this was very unfortunate because it hindered medical science from treating this disease as effectively as they otherwise could.

. . : slicePuzzle

A story I wrote about AIDS, if you are bored ---> ClIcK mE

bugimus quote

quote:

---

I do not believe that AIDS was specifically sent to kill anyone. I don't think it was "sent" at all. Sin, all of our sin, is the reason we live in a world where *any* disease exists in the first place. Death entered this world because of sin long ago and we are stuck with it.

---

so, the bigger question must be about:
altered quote from the page

quote:

---

(many denominations' ignorant) christian belief that (AIDS) SIN is a punishment sent from Heaven directed toward (homosexuals) all the world.

---

?/out



[This message has been edited by outcydr (edited 12-08-2003).]

If I'm reading you correctly, outcydr, then the point is that no one is being singled out for punishment. We are all deserving of our current situation. Life as we know it always ends in death either by disease or old age. It was not meant to be like that and it was our sin that caused death to be a reality. I hope that's addressing your point.

my point is this:

have you, as a christian, ever wondered why, by the SIN of one man (Adam) we are all condemned to SIN. like you said, it wasn't supposed to be that way. or was it? do you believe we are born into this life guilty, without a reason?

ed: trying to clarify--was his SIN so great, that god condemned not only him, but all his seed after him? do you believe in life BEFORE life? life everlasting? maybe i'm just confusing matters.



[This message has been edited by outcydr (edited 12-09-2003).]

I have definitely wondered why sin entered the world through the first human we call Adam. On the surface it strikes me as totally unfair. So what would be fair? A fairer arrangement would be to judge each human on their actions.

In fact, I believe this is precisely what the Garden story teaches. We spend so much time arguing about evolution and creationism in Genesis that we totally miss the more important point. That point is that each of us sins. Every single one of us, assuming we live to the age of accountability, commits transgressions against ourselves, others, and/or God. Genesis tells us this reality. Whether you accept the formal doctrine of Original Sin matters not when you look at it the way I just explained. We have all sinned and therefore deserve its consequences.

I actually avoid some of the deeper theological questions you're bringing up by taking this very practical view of the Genesis story. In other words, it's an interesting thing to ponder exactly HOW sin comes to each of us but what cannot be denied is that it DOES come to each of us. So from that foundation, I move on with life and leave the theological issues that cannot be answered positively to other discussions.

But I would like to offer my view of the big picture, but remember this is how it is according to Bugs

We are born into this life completely innocent just like the animals. In fact, I believe we are no more than animals until we develop to the point of accessing spiritual connection. The first moment each of us does something that we know to be wrong, our conscience puts up a red flag and at that very moment we relive what was described in the Garden story. Yes, even the slightest transgression is deserving of death because the standard we are measured against is pure perfection. There is absolutely no place for sin when compared to God's perfection. If we fall short of that, we then become deserving of the consequences of sin and require redemption to ever pull out again. This redemption through centuries of effort by God has been made available to all through His Son.

That was quick and I hope it makes some sense, I would be very interested to hear more about how you view this stuff.

. . : slicePuzzle

Bugs, why is that called Original Sin? I never really understood this - I always considered, that there was sin in the world before Adam and Eve - and that it started with Lucifer (the revolt against Heaven). Surely that was a sin, according to what a sin is (going against god).

Or is this perception wrong?

And why did god put that tree in the Garden, anyway? Just so Eve could go and get tempted?

I realise that this isn't directed at me. but:

quote:

---

...why is that called Original Sin? I never really understood this - I always considered, that there was sin in the world before Adam and Eve - and that it started with Lucifer (the revolt against Heaven). Surely that was a sin, according to what a sin is (going against god).

Or is this perception wrong?

And why did god put that tree in the Garden, anyway? Just so Eve could go and get tempted?

---

From a strictly Jesus-happy Christian perspective, There was a snake (Devil), a tree and two people, Adam and Eve. Eve eats the fruit from the tree because the Devil tempted her to do it, and they were cast out of the Garden of Eden.

But, I'm guess that this is a metaphor. There probably wasn't a talking snake, although there might have been a tree. In my opinion, it was either a metaphor or a true, slightly romanticized story that goes to show that man is imperfect.

Now, assuming that this is all true, then tehre would of had to have been original sin. In Genesis, it talks about how Adam and Eve were able to talk with God and whatnot before they sinned, because they (maybe) had a little peice of God in them, or they were perfect, but when they first sinned, that little peice was destroyed, and they were no longer able to be in God's presence, because they were imperfect. Or something.

In regards to Satan's revolt, that was sin in another dimension (String theory?). It wasn't on earth. This is the first sin that MAN commited against GOD.

If there was a tree, then it was there so that they would get tempted. It was a test of faith that God knew they were bound to fail.



"I make and I sell soap."

bugimus quotes

quote:

---

I actually avoid some of the deeper theological questions you're bringing up by taking this very practical view of the Genesis story.

---

duh?

quote:

---

We are born into this life completely innocent

---

to my way of understanding, we are born into sin, and sin from day one, even though we may not be aware it is sin until the "age of accountability". for some that may be very early on, for others it may not ever even happen (in this life).

shaman: i think your perception is pretty much right on the mark.

cfb quote

quote:

---

In regards to Satan's revolt, that was sin in another dimension (String theory?). It wasn't on earth. This is the first sin that MAN commited against GOD.

---

actually i think it was not exactly (but in a sense it was) another dimension, but another "age" prior to the creation (as taught by most) of genesis. that "age" was destroyed between "God created the heavens and earth" and " the earth WAS (was = it came to be, or, it became) without form, and void;. . ."


i'm out of time for now

A perception I have on original sin is that we are born into death by birthright. We are born mortal and wounded with the original sins commited by past, present and future generations. Since there is no time frame where God is and God is always living in the present, we are man first and last. The story of the first ancestors is a lesson to me in our present. Man born yesterday and today was meant to be immortal, to live eternally in everlasting perfection. Almost Godlike. I think along with Bugs. Adam(which means mankind in hebrew) was created immortal. His original sin meant death to the soul. Just like ours sins do. So when new souls come into the world they inherit the original death of Adam, which is mortality. Baptism for Christians gives us the sanctifying grace to overcome death by washing away the sin and receiving the spirit of God. Our soul awakens to the spirit . Spiritually speaking we can be born again many times. In my thinking the story of Genesis uses symbols. Mankinds soul living in eternal perfection represents the garden of eden (paradise). Man thru reasoning (temptation) who comes to the conclusion he doesnt need a God and stands on his own wisdom in paradise(earth) attempts to be God in picking from the tree of all knowledge(God). In Adams break with God, he becomes naked. There was no real nakedness here but naked is used to describe God looking at the soul as it really is, as so much shame one knows by the light of Gods reason an act against God was committed. Here if you don't think a sin against God was commited, you remain a mortal soul forever.. If you know a sin was commited and you feel remorse and repent then there is hope for immortality of your soul by promise of redemption.


Getting back to the topic like Bugs I think in the Christian way of thinking all death, diseases including AIDS, suffering, etc is not of God.
It comes from the acts of mankind. We punish ourselves. The more turning away from God in the world like the story of our ancestors the more decadence, diseases, perils, wars, etc.

jade quote

quote:

---

Man born yesterday and today was meant to be immortal, to live eternally in everlasting perfection. Almost Godlike. I think along with Bugs. Adam(which means mankind in hebrew) was created immortal.

---

i don't mean to be disrespectful of your beliefs, but i think you are mistaken. i think (and this is all NOT according to IF you believe the bible or not, but according to what it says if you delve deep enough) we were made flesh for the very reason, to be liable to die; both physically and spiritually. now, let me expand a bit on your hebrew. on the sixth day god CREATED 'adam', meaning mankind in general (as you noted). on the eighth day god FORMED
(not created) 'eth'Ha'adham' in the Hebrew, with the article and particle. The particle 'eth' is always emphatic, and 'Ha' is for extra emphasis, pointing to a special condition. this particular adam was the establishment of a particular bloodline. can you guess it?


ok, enough. i think wes's point was more about what kind of cockamamee crap some people believe. i guess it all depends on what you are exposed to, intentionally or not. aids is indescriminate in who it affects, effects, whatever. but i don't think i will go walk out in front of a speeding truck because i think god will protect me. he may just be busy elsewhere.



[This message has been edited by outcydr (edited 12-12-2003).]

outcydr, I am extremely interested in understanding your point of view on this but I am very confused. Can you please explain more clearly what you are telling us the Bible says about Adam, original sin, etc.? I was trying to follow what you just said but I am honestly not able to do so. I need it clearly stated because I really don't want to put words in your mouth or assume anything. Thanks very much.

. . : slicePuzzle

I must adimit, that I am also curious. Does that mean (or am I reading that wrong) that God created the Hebrew Bloodline with Adam?

On the way home last night the word "identity" crept into my mind concerning this conversation. outcydr, that wouldn't be it, would it?

WS

No. Not the Hebrew bloodline. I was talking about translation from the hebrew language in text in the bible. From what I have read the name Adam was given to give an identity to mankind. Just like the female face of God was given a name Eve. Don't know what other christians view is on this. Theirs may be different.

I'm so anxious I'm just going to ask you directly, outcydr. Are you referring to the white race when you refer to the original bloodline of the Adam? Or am I totally off base in thinking you subscribe to the teachings of the Christian Identity movement?

. . : slicePuzzle

sorry bugs, words always seem to get in my way. you can't just explain these things in a few paragraps. studying one thing ties to the study of another and another, until the bigger picture begins to emerge.

the bloodline is that of the man Jesus. among other things, the bible is the geneology of that man. all those begets and begats aren't there just to take up space. all through history satan has sought to corrupt or destroy that bloodline, even up to herod's slaughter of infants. and now, those who accept Christ as savior are adopted into that line. thus, satan is now out to destroy THEM.

ed: i don't know anything about this Christian Identity thing. i'll have to go look it up. i pretty much study on my own, but use a lot of sources. "here a little, there a little", ya know?

ed2: did a quick search on that, and i must answer; absolutely NOT.

[This message has been edited by outcydr (edited 12-12-2003).]