HIV and God

[Saiyn]

Before I start I would like to say I am 100% Atheist.

Alright so as most of you know a baby was cured of HIV on March the third by a woman named Hannah Gay. Now i'm curious to know what the religious people will think about homosexuality and how it was a sin and how supposedly God gave gays HIV. Most of the credit for the cure is going to God (From the Christian point of view). What's gonna happen with homosexuality now?

Point of thread: If God gave gays HIV and then "he cures" HIV what happen to homosexuality?

/Discuss.

 

[Fendle]

Can't really comment as I am Atheist but, I believe the whole HIV and gays is just propaganda to put young Christians off being gay,

 

[Saiyn]

Can't really comment as I am Atheist but, I believe the whole HIV and gays is just propaganda to put young Christians off being gay,

I myself am Atheist as stated and I was wondering how a Christian would reply to this. But yeah half the Bibles propaganda in my view.

 

Slightly off topic but not really in the grand scheme of things;

I wonder how messed up the child will be (if at all) after being pumped up with a "three-drug infusion" right as it was born.*

Also, what source tells you that "most of the credit for the cure is going to God"?

And lastly, why do you assume God gave gays HIV? Assuming there is a God who gives us diseases, wouldn't it be more accurate to say he gave humanity HIV?

 

[Saiyn]

Slightly off topic but not really in the grand scheme of things;

I wonder how messed up the child will be (if at all) after being pumped up with a "three-drug infusion" right as it was born.*

Also, what source tells you that "most of the credit for the cure is going to God"?

And lastly, why do you assume God gave gays HIV? Assuming there is a God who gives us diseases, wouldn't it be more accurate to say he gave humanity HIV?

Romans 1:18-32 is an indictment of the heathen, idolatrous world. It starts with these words: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men.” This passage teaches that the sin of homosexuality has its roots in a denial of God. It brings about shame, degradation, and a “due penalty.” Since STDs such as AIDS / HIV are attendant, for the most part, upon sexual sin, they must be considered as part of the “penalty” which reveals “the wrath of God” against the wickedness of men (verse 18). A key phrase is “God gave them over,” which occurs three times. God gave them over to sexual impurity (verse 24); to shameful lusts (verse 26); and to a depraved mind (verse 28). The meaning is that mankind chose to go its own way, and God allowed it. Granting mankind the freedom to go even further astray was itself a punishment on previous sin.

http://www.gotquestions.org/AIDS-HIV.html

 

[Snoopchicken]

You're targeting a very specific group of religious people:

1. Those who claim God has made HIV as a "penalty".
2. Those who claim that God made HIV primarily for gays.
3. Those who claim that this baby was cured by God and God only.

Now my question is, what is the purpose behind your question? Sounds like we're desperately trying to find a contradiction within skewed beliefs.

 

Sounds like we're desperately trying to find a contradiction within skewed beliefs.

Yep.
Science has always been fucking up religion over the years. Religion says something and over time science will do something that completely fucks their idea.
Now what are religious people going to think? If God made HIV an then got rid f it does that mean he wants gay people now? No. It means science.

(I'm in work atm so don't have time to write a proper argument.)

So for now...
Science bitches!

 

[Snoopchicken]

Yep.

Lol, I was criticizing the TC though.

Science has always been fucking up religion over the years. Religion says something and over time science will do something that completely fucks their idea.
Now what are religious people going to think? If God made HIV an then got rid f it does that mean he wants gay people now? No. It means science.

*Fanatically religious people, not religion. Majority of the people who claim that God created HIV to kill gay people are extreme lunatics. I don't find it wise to think that disproving their claims would, ultimately, disprove God's existence. That's the main, underlying purpose behind all threads like this, isn't it?

 

[Saiyn]

I was just curious in finding out what happens to the group of Christians who believed HIV was a punishment.

 

[Fendle]

TL'DR

Science pisses all over religion.

I don't get this whole God thing when there is people dying of terminal cancer etc etc.

 

[Snoopchicken]

I don't get this whole God thing when there is people dying of terminal cancer etc etc.

"Death" wouldn't be such a bad thing if God existed now, would it?

Your argument is something like this: "How can an all-good God exist if He lets children die of cancer?"

First, this is an appeal to emotion fallacy. Second, you have to assume a premise is true (or prove false) before criticizing someone else's logic. Either the premise is "God exists, there is an afterlife, etc." or "God doesn't exist, there is no afterlife, etc." If you choose the latter, you cannot even make the argument above. However, if you choose the former (which is what you should do if you're arguing against a religious person - you try to find logical inconsistencies within their line of thought, not contradictions with yours), then "death" does not exist. Rather, it's more of a passing from one state to another - and hence, there shouldn't be a negative connotation associated with it. So, children "dying of cancer" would, in the end, simply be changing state - not experiencing a cessation of existence.

Don't forget, I'm just telling you that if you "cannot understand how a God exists when people are dying of terminal cancer", it's because you're conflicting two contradictory premises. I'm not arguing for the existence of anything.

 

[Fendle]

"Death" wouldn't be such a bad thing if God existed now, would it?

Your argument is something like this: "How can an all-good God exist if He lets children die of cancer?"

First, this is an appeal to emotion fallacy. Second, you have to assume a premise is true (or prove false) before criticizing someone else's logic. Either the premise is "God exists, there is an afterlife, etc." or "God doesn't exist, there is no afterlife, etc." If you choose the latter, you cannot even make the argument above. However, if you choose the former (which is what you should do if you're arguing against a religious person - you try to find logical inconsistencies within their line of thought, not contradictions with yours), then "death" does not exist. Rather, it's more of a passing from one state to another - and hence, there shouldn't be a negative connotation associated with it. So, children "dying of cancer" would, in the end, simply be changing state - not experiencing a cessation of existence.

Don't forget, I'm just telling you that if you "cannot understand how a God exists when people are dying of terminal cancer", it's because you're conflicting two contradictory premises. I'm not arguing for the existence of anything.

Mhm, religious people are generally easily fooled like that asshole Peter Popoff who is a fraud lol