Is AIDS God's way of punishing homosexuality?

[Powerman]

There is thinking someone is crazy, and then there is telling someone they are crazy. Do you see the difference? More importantly, do you understand it?

Yeah I understand it. But it is a forum. If someone says something crazy shouldn't they expect someone to call them out on it?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Yeah I understand it. But it is a forum. If someone says something crazy shouldn't they expect someone to call them out on it?

Sure.

Here's two ways of responding to the statement that someone thinks that clouds are made of marshmallows.

1) WHAT? The clouds aren't made of Marshmallows. If you think otherwise, you must be a freaking lunatic! What's wrong with all you people?

2) Clouds are actually water vapor, not marshmallows. Here's some references. Do you have any references saying that clouds really are made of marshmallows? Because if you do, I'd sure like to see it, as I've never even heard of marshmallow clouds.

The first one might be more fun to say, and it might make you feel like a badass, but you're stalling debate and not leading anyone towards your belief.

The second one could actually lead to someone learning something, as you're not insinuating that your opponent is an intellectual ingrate every other post. Plus, who knows, maybe you'll be shown some really cool research that suggest clouds really are made of marshmallows...

 

[Powerman]

Touche you do have a good point. But in your example there was proof. It's kinda difficult to point towards proof when it comes to the intentions of God. But I'll tone down the assholery a few notches.

But let me ask you this. What am I supposed to do when I repeatedly offer proof for something but people turn a blind eye to the facts? I guess I should just ignore those people eh?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Touche you do have a good point. But in your example there was proof. It's kinda difficult to point towards proof when it comes to the intentions of God. But I'll tone down the assholery a few notches.

But let me ask you this. What am I supposed to do when I repeatedly offer proof for something but people turn a blind eye to the facts? I guess I should just ignore those people eh?

That would be the preferred response to someone who refuses to acknowledge or dispute proof that you offer. Either that, or when they continue to repeat something that is in disagreement with your source, quote them, and quote your source. Many here are smart enough to make the connection themselves. Heck, they might even disagree about the validity of your source .

 

[Powerman]

That would be the preferred response to someone who refuses to acknowledge or dispute proof that you offer. Either that, or when they continue to repeat something that is in disagreement with your source, quote them, and quote your source. Many here are smart enough to make the connection themselves. Heck, they might even disagree about the validity of your source .

As much as possible I try to use sources such as Wikipedia. I try to stay away from anything that could be construed as bias.

Source of information is very important. For instance there was a thread in which I addressed some of the things said on the website www.evolution-facts.org that were just blatant lies.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

As much as possible I try to use sources such as Wikipedia. I try to stay away from anything that could be construed as bias.

Source of information is very important. For instance there was a thread in which I addressed some of the things said on the website www.evolution-facts.org that were just blatant lies.

Yeah, in that case, you just addressed entirely too much at once for anyone to even attempt to go with you. Bite-size pieces, bite-size pieces.

 

[Powerman]

Yeah, in that case, you just addressed entirely too much at once for anyone to even attempt to go with you. Bite-size pieces, bite-size pieces.

Well I had addressed a lot of them one by one on another forum. I just copied and pasted it pretty much. I've got it all in a word document that I have saved. Yeah I know...loser lol.

 

[GotZoom]

God made clouds.

God made marshmallows.

Then again, I could be wrong.

Or just a lunatic.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

God made clouds.

God made marshmallows.

Then again, I could be wrong.

Or just a lunatic.

But did God make clouds of marshmallows?

OR

Are marshmallows really just captured clouds, in an edible form?

 

[Powerman]

But did God make clouds of marshmallows?

OR

Are marshmallows really just captured clouds, in an edible form?

I think you're missing the real point here. The only reason clouds even exist is from when the Stay Puff Marshmallow man got blown up in the first Ghostbusters movie.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I think you're missing the real point here. The only reason clouds even exist is from when the Stay Puff Marshmallow man got blown up in the first Ghostbusters movie.

That sounds like a creationist theory if I ever heard one...

 

[Powerman]

That sounds like a creationist theory if I ever heard one...

Well you would have to believe in some sort of afterlife or deity to believe in Ghosts would you not? I don't know any atheists who are looking over there shoulder for Casper.

 

[Semper Fi]

Sorry I couldn't respond to the thread after 3 pages, I was at school (imagine that)

Powerman,

Personally, I don't believe that AIDS is a punishment of homosexuals from God. It did cross my mind, I'll admit that, and who knows, it could be right. That's why my text in the thread was 'Just a thought' as opposed to 'It is and if you disagree then you must be gay' or something like that. See what I mean? I feel like I've been pretty clear on what issues I believe in and what issues I do not, and this one was merely a creation to spark conversation, and God forbid someone might actually learn something (and if you saying you'll tone down the assholery rings tru,e then I'd consider the thread a success).

We are (almost) all guilty of acting preemptively and assuming, I've done it myself so rather than to be a hypocrite I forgive you, we are all only human. In the future though, everyone would appreciate it if you keep yourself in check, and honestly keep the profanity to yourself, its never really done any good, at least not on message boards. So, please consider.

Semper Fi

 

[KarlMarx]

Just a thought.

By the way, this thread is not meant to be a slam to children and straight people who have AIDS or HIV, moreover it is meant to be a philosophical discussion.

I'd have to say no. In this country and in Europe HIV/AIDS is primarily a gay/bisexual disease or a disease of intravenous drug abusers. However, go to Africa or Asia and it's a different story, in those places it's definitely a heterosexual disease.

I think HIV/AIDS is more like God's way of saying ... "stop being promiscuous" regardless of people's orientation.....

If I were an atheist, I'd say it's Nature's way of saying the same thing.

Back in the days when the planet a total human population of about 2,000, promiscuous behavior may have served a purpose. Of course, back in those days you had sex with the same two or three people over your entire lifetime (in fact you probably MET only about a dozen or so people in your entire lifetime), so the possibility of getting a disease was a lot lower.

Now... promiscuous behavior can mean anywhere from a handful to hundreds or even thousands of partners. Considering the effect that this behavior has on society (disease, divorce, death and so on), it's just not a good idea. In Africa, HIV affects millions of people as opposed to hundreds of thousands here.

I ignited a quarrel on another thread about this topic, but in this case, I believe that this is an appropriate place to bring it up.

The proven way of combatting an epidemic is to identify the carriers and to isolate them (for instance, Typhoid Mary, after she was identified was placed on an island in New York Harbor for the remainder of her days).

Unfortunately, HIV/AIDS has become so politicized that these measures have not been carried out. Instead, the emphasis has been on protecting the infected individual's privacy. The result has been that many people have been needlessly infected.

I know that there has been a lot of heated discussion over condoms versus abstinence. But let's face it, even if condoms are effective in combatting infection, to some degree, they aren't consistently used, in many cases when they are used, they aren't used properly. And, while I advocate abstinence education, many people are going to ignore that message. What is common to both approaches is education. After twenty years of "safe sex" education you might expect the HIV/AIDS infection rate to be decreasing or, at least, stable. That is not the case, the number of HIV/AIDS cases is now increasing. Clearly, education is not enough.

I believe that, first and foremost, places where promiscuous behavior is practiced should be shut down permanently because they are promoting a spread of the disease and pose a public health risk. That means permanently shutting down the bath houses and the sex clubs. That means gay and straight by the way. Gay bath houses were shut down in San Francisco and in New York during the 1980s and the number of HIV/AIDS cases started to decline. Once those establishments were allowed to reopen, the number of HIV/AIDS cases increased.

I believe that in the case of HIV/AIDS, once a person has been identified, their name should be placed on a list (identify the carriers), they should be legally required to identify all their sexual contacts, when possible.

As for isolating those with the carriers of the disease, I realize that isolating or quarantining the people with the disease isn't practical. I suggested that the list of carriers be made public e.g. through a website... perhaps that approach is draconian, but I don't have any other ideas. My thought was that at least an unifected person can at least look up the name of the person they are thinking of having sex with. Granted, such a list may be open to abuse.

Certainly, there must be a way of protecting innocent people from infection besides requiring the infected person to volunteer the fact that they're infected to a prospective sex partner.

Some people may be honest and conscientious, but many aren't. First, what's the likelihood of an uninfected person knowingly have sex with an infected person? Second, what is the likelihood that an infected person, knowing that they may be turned down, will volunteer that sort of information? Third, in the heat of the moment, it could be overlooked.

So much emphasis has been placed on protecting the privacy of the infected person that protecting the uninfected has been overlooked or disregarded outright. That is a terrible injustice.

 

[Avatar4321]

Just a thought.

By the way, this thread is not meant to be a slam to children and straight people who have AIDS or HIV, moreover it is meant to be a philosophical discussion.

Perhaps its merely to teach people who commit sexual sin and do drugs that there are consequences for their actions. And even innocent people get hurt because of their inappropriate actions.

 

[Avatar4321]

I didn't call anyone an idiot. I didn't have any God slander. I merely stated that IF what this guy was saying was true then God must be a genocidal bigot. And not a very bright one at that because he should have foreseen that the disease would also affect others.

I'm sorry, but how am I supposed to react to such retrograde ideas?

I know it might be difficult for you to understand, but perhaps the purpose of God allowing bad things to happen to people is to teach them rather than to punish them. There are consequences to our actions and that our actions don't effect just ourselves but also effect those around us.

Now, do you really think that the purpose of God allowing a disease is to commit genocide? I mean if He wanted someone dead He could have them die in their sleep tonight. He could have entire nations die in their sleep tonight if He wanted. To assume that that is the only reason God would allow them to have such a disease is ridiculous. Especially considering they are already going to die someday anyway, and the fact that He has already died so risen from the dead so that they can also live again.

Besides, there are punishments far worse than death. Living in your sins for one is a punishment far worse than death.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yeah I just can't believe that I'm actually reading that. That's literally the equivalent of the nutcases that said that Hurricane Katrina was punishment from God. I can not believe that in 2005 someone would think that a disease that spreads beyond the realm of homosexuals is a punishment from God on homosexuals. You have to admit this God isn't very efficient if that was indeed his plan.

I guess that depends on what He was trying to accomplishment and how you measure whether it was efficient.

 

[007]

Is AIDS God's way of punishing homosexuality?

As the old saying goes, "The Lord works in mysterious ways". :halo:

 

[GotZoom]

Why limit the "punishment" to AIDS?

There are many STDs floating around.

 

[Mr. P]

And hey, don’t forget, Sickle cell anemia is Gods way of punishing Black folks for being Black, too.