AIDS and Romans 1:24-32

AIDS can be the result of sexual sin just like other STDs can be the result of sexual sin. I think it is misguided to emphasize AIDS in this regard over other STDs.

Innocent people are adversely affected by the sins of others quite commonly. Example: A drunk driver who kills a carload of people.

 

Diane:
Your post is excellent. God can uses his righteous indignation any way he sees fit. I have often wondered if A.I.D.S. is a punishment for the sin of Homosexuality.
Sin has direct and indirect consequences. This should make us stop and think about how much God hates sin. Hab. 1:13.  Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?

 

And now for some practical applications of this stuff?

 

Diane
I was thinking more about this bit.
"The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. 14 However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die."

If God punishes the innocent children of homosexuals or drug users, what attitude are we supposed to have towards them? I know there was a period in the 80's when groups of Christians used the texts you quoted to justify their attempts in trying to get those children banned from a couple of small towns...

 

And there is another related question.
If a certain course of action can lead to a person catching aids (leading a non-monogamous 'lovelife') and you know that a certain course of action that has nothing to do with repentance (a.k.a. the proper use of condoms) can lead to a diminished chanche of getting punished for your transgression, what does a Bible believing Christian do about the actions of others in such a case?
Should one oppose teaching the use of condoms during sex-education?

 

And since its very rare for lesbians to pass AIDS to each other, does that mean that God frowns on two men being together more than he does two women?

 

The argument over the "why" and "who" of AIDS is irrelevant. The only real question is what is the church going to do in the face of this global pandemic. AIDS is a curable disease in that it is primarily behavioral. The church is the only institution that has the moral basis to address AIDS in a way that can prevent its spread. So why are we so quiet and condemning?

 

Yes contraception is an intrinsically evil act

 

I don't think that anyone should oppose the use of condoms during sex education. They are a valid contraception option. They can be used by saved and unsaved alike for purposes acceptable or unacceptable in God's sight. They are not evil in and of themselves...neither are they "intrinsically evil", BAC.

Now, AIDS...I have had several friends/acquaintances who have had the disease. They didn't go out and cheat on their husbands or wives. They didn't do drugs, nor did they do anything that would have caused them to get the disease, except get a blood transfusion. Too much is made out of the vengeance of God with this disease. Natural occurances of diseases do indeed occur. Indirectly, yes, they are a part of sin, because Adam fell, but some people go far beyond what is real and make EVERYTHING a sin issue.

That's my 2 cents worth!

 

All about Grace ---

Why, you ask? Because it is easier and oh, so much more fun to cast stones than to share the hope and grace of the Gospel. Just my opinion.

 

And typifying all AIDS sufferers as recipients of God's condemnation makes it a lot easier to ignore them all.

We have the ability (and the Scriptural mandate) to be Christ to all people, even those with AIDS. Using Scripture as the executioner's axe is the lazy way out.

 

The practical application of what you are suggesting is not only inhuman, it is unchristian. Are just trying to stir the pot or is what you believe?

 

Just curious....

To what extent are homosexual men responsible for the spread of AIDS ?

 

What more do you need to hear????

 

I have no idea. Probably as responsible as the Red Cross and other blood banks in the early days of the disease...

 

I have no idea. Probably as responsible as the Red Cross and other blood banks in the early days of the disease... </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah. The red cross went around having unprotected promiscuous anal sex ?

Gay men were dying from their bath-house encounters, the government asked them to stop, until they could figure out what was happening, but the gays screamed "opression", we backed off, and now little kids get the disease.

You probably don't buy the fact that they poisoned the blood supply, on purpose, to raise awareness for their disease, either, do you ?

And I know yer gonna call be hateful & lacking the love of Christ, and all other kinds of stuff, but my mind has been made up.

"It appears science and morality teach the same lesson..." Ronald Reagan