Where is the Church in the fight against HIV/AIDS?

Townhall.com ^ | 12/19/2005 | Chad Hayward

[moviewatcher]

It’s getting harder to ignore the statistics about HIV/AIDS: 40 million people are infected worldwide. Over half of these are women and children. And in Africa, 14 million children are orphans due to the disease. You hear it on the news, see it in the movies, the President makes speeches about it, and Bono sings about it.

Whose responsibility is it to take on this problem? The Government? The Church? Non-Governmental Organizations? As a Christian and a conservative, I used to demand that the government leave the role of compassionate action to the Church. But are churches doing their part? By one account, there are more government agencies or international organizations involved in HIV care than U.S. churches.

[TChris]

I don't recall him making a point that one sin was worse than another.

The Old Testament is still part of the Holy Bible. Because Christ came and fulfilled the Law, it does not eliminate the truths found in its pages. It is clear from the Law of Moses and its punishments, which came from God, that some sins are more serious than others. That is an unchanging truth.

[Uri’el-2012]

Rick Warren preaches a different Christianity than I believe in. His theology is VERY squishy. But I think it is nice that he is so into charity, though I wish he would first give ALL, and then shame others. I hate it when a zillionaire tells me that I should give more.

Now to the issue: I think AIDS is a largely preventable problem with just a change in moral attitude and behavior. So I'm for preach-for-a-cure charities. Also I could give to children with the disease and others who got the disease through non-sexual, non-drug use, non-irresponsible ways. It's not that I'm not sorry for them; it's just that I have other causes I feel are more deserving. Give charity to the innocent FIRST!

I strongly believe it is wrong for the government to force me to give. Freedom means you deal with your own consequences only with the help of the willing.

13 posted on 12/20/2005 4:11:59 PM MST by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Exalt the Lord our God, and worship at His footstool; He is holy. Ps 99:5)

I too object to giving tithes to the church of haSatan.

The role of government is to protect our borders not provide charity.

Charity is the role of the church.

We need to separate the roles of church and state.

b'shem Y'shua

[laxin4him]

I understand the Old Testament is still part of the Bible and Jesus came to fulfill the law. The law was what people lived by then right? Didn't Jesus come because there was no way that a person could live by every letter of the law. That is why there were sacrifices made for differing sin. I am not trying to be combative but the people had laws thay had to live by or face the punishments. There was no grace whatsoever was there? No second or third chances from my reading. We are not to sin so that grace may abound but are to get rid of all sin as we follow Jesus because only the pure in heart will be able to see God. Could you help me with references about the punishments from different sins? Just trying to learn man. Thanks

[moviewatcher]

"Number one thing the Bible says to do: Preach the gospel. Tell Rick Warren he needs to preach the whole counsel of God. Preach the whole Truth, because a half truth is still a whole lie. When he is doing that, then his good works will matter. Until he sets that straight, the rest means nothing."

So, are you going to start preaching the half Warren preaches or just condemn it? If so, aren't YOU only preaching half?

[TChris]

The law was what people lived by then right?

The Law was what Israel, God's covenant people, were supposed to live.

Didn't Jesus come because there was no way that a person could live by every letter of the law?

Jesus came, in part, to fulfill the Law. The law of sacrifice was given as a powerful, participatory prophecy (forgive my alliteration) of His future atonement. Animal sacrifice was a forshadowing of the final, infinite sacrifice of the Son of God.

You're correct that nobody could obey the law perfectly, except for Jesus. As Paul said, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23) The perfect atonement of the Savior paid that price for all who will come unto Him. Through His grace and atonment, all can be forgiven of their sins.

There was no grace whatsoever was there?

Under the Law, forgiveness came through obedience to the ceremonies outlined in it. (You can find more about the "sin offering" of the Law in Exodus 29) Once Christ came, His sacrifice ended the previous blood sacrifices. Forgiveness of sin is henceforth and forever available through Him and only Him.

Deuteronomy is a good place to look for the different punishments for sins against the Law. For example: Adultery - death of both, Rape - death of the rapist, Theft - repay fivefold , Enslavement - death of the abductor

[CajunConservative]

Where is he not preaching the whole council of God? I've read his book and it's basic Christianity 101. The real sad story is that there are too many immature Christians who need this milk.

[CajunConservative]

I'm sure his giving 25 years of salary back to his church and 90% of his earnings from his book is far more than you or I would ever likely give in all honesty. Besides God doesn't look at the amount a person gives but in what spirit it is given.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I believe if you check out my previous post, I said it was nice that he was into charity. That's not condemnation last I checked. But I do think he should give until his income equals my income before he tells me I am giving to the wrong causes.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I don't think his book is basic Christianity. It's more like basic christianese feelgood therapy. The gospel is not in there. It's all about YOU even though he claims it is not. So add that it is dishonest.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I'm sure his giving 25 years of salary back to his church and 90% of his earnings from his book is far more than you or I would ever likely give in all honesty. Besides God doesn't look at the amount a person gives but in what spirit it is given.

The last part is true and the first part is unknowable. I'm not saying he is wrong in giving. I'm just turned off by his announcing of it. Wouldn't God look better on it if it wasn't plastered all over the news as proof of his devotion? Besides, I think you can be a very charitable person and still not a christian or a preacher of the real gospel. So my point is that that is nowhere near enough. He draws people with an appearance of holiness but he preaches what looks to me like a different gospel than the gospel of Jesus. Jesus started out with the call to repentance.

Further..his giving to his own church is sort of like investing the money back in his own business. He benefits.

[moviewatcher]

"But I do think he should give until his income equals my income before he tells me I am giving to the wrong causes." You sound like a liberal -- what is it now, progressive giving instead of progressive taxation? It doesn't matter if he gives 90% and you give 10%, he's still irrelevant because he's richer? Please.....

[moviewatcher]

"I'm not saying he is wrong in giving. I'm just turned off by his announcing of it."

So first you condemn him for being wealthy, then when you find out he's given most of his money away, you condemn him for letting that fact be known. Kind of sticking him in a no-win situation, aren't you?

[Conservative til I die]

In fact, some sins have far more serious consequences than others. In God's economy, we have all fallen short of his glory, but we generally pay a stiffer price for murder, adultery, etc., than for stealing some paper clips at the office. Pretty logical of him, huh?

Moral relativism. Stealing is stealing, whether it's $1 or $100,000. In the Catholic realm, if you die in a state of unrepentant mortal sin (i.e., you know what you're doing, you know it's a mortal sin, and you do it anyway), you're going to Hell.

[Conservative til I die]

NOPE. Not moral relativism. We suffer the consequences of certain sins more than others. Do you really think your spouse would be as upset to find out you stole a paper clip at the office as if (s)he found out you committed adultery

Of course not. But I wasn't talking about how my spouse would feel. I'm talking about how God would feel.

When we are judged before God, will you be able to stand before Him and say, "Well, stealing office supplies is OK because they don't cost much and everyone does it."

[Conservative til I die]

I was only referring to mortal sin. One could make the case that stealing certain things is not a mortal sin solely because of the gravity of the matter. So I will step back and give you that point that stealing paper clips might not send you to Hell, but it is still sin. However, one does have to ask themselves when the same sin becomes grave. Paper clips? Maybe not. A pencil sharpener? I dunno, costs a little bit more. The computer at your workstation? I'd say yes. But in any event, it is not good to sin, venial or mortal. They're both sin, and actions against God.

[Conservative til I die]

My original point was that it does no good to know what the bible says unless you are willing to love people the way Jesus loved people. Jesus loved those who were outcasts. HE loved those who society rejected. If we are to follow Jesus we must do the same and give of ourselves and resources.

Agreed, but as a general point, we must remember that Jesus didn't come only to befriend outcasts and Jesus did always preach to them to change their ways.

I think that is one area where Christians have misinterpreted the "social gospel". It is one thing to help the homeless by giving to charities that train them to become productive members of society. It's another thing just to give spare change to homeless drug abusers so that they can go buy another fix.

[Conservative til I die]

There is only 1 country in the world that has a declining aids population and that is Cuba. Their solution, anyone that has aids is removed from the general population so they can't infect anyone else and put in a concentration camp which in this case is like a leper colony. When the U.S. gives a nationwide aids test every year to see who is carrying the hiv virus, and then removes those who do from the general population, we too will have a declining hiv population. So lets get hot, make the hard decisions, and take care of the problem.

From a religious (and even political) standpoint, I don't think that provides any longterm answers. Sure, when we have health epidemics, it is right to quarantine people to stem the spread of the disease. However, HIV is different than the flu or TB. HIV is almost solely a disease of behavior. It's the sinful activity that causes the spread of the disease. So the way to fight it is to turn people away from that behavior. If we want to stop HIV in the longterm, we have to stop the root of that disease.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

Yup. Last I knew "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" was still one of the 10 commandments but many churches ignore it and openly endorse homosexuality. They're part of the problem.