Christians and Your Views on AIDS

[LifeMaiden]

I was not sure where this thread would go, either here or in the Christian section, but I figured the Socratic Club was as good a place to put this because it opens up many controversial avenues of debate. If the mods think this is too extreme a subject for the forum please remove it at your discretion.


One of the most loved members here, Inkspot, posted in one of the threads regarding Evangelical Christians and how they as a group were the least likely to donate money to AIDS-related charities, especially in Africa, but I am sure also the US charities as well. I was fairly aware that as a whole AIDS doesn't seem to be a big cause amongst Evangelical Christians.

What in your opinion, as a Christian, are the root causes of this? Do you feel that there is a lack of sympathy or donations for AIDS related charities because of the prejudice some have against the gay lifestyle ( although we know AIDS is not largely a gay disease but one that is spread amongst the majority of the population by other ways of infection) or because of misinformation about the disease itself? ( i.e., that AIDS was 'caused' or spread by those who practice an alternative albeit sinful lifestyle).


One thing that deeply disturbs me is that as Christians, no matter what your views are about a certain lifestyle, we are called to help others in need. To me regardless of that need and how it arose to be in the first place...is worthy of help and donation of time and money. I've actually heard some Christians state that people 'deserve' to die of AIDS or get the disease because they led a 'sinful life against God' because of their choices in life.


So, why the hesitation amongst some evangelical Christians when it comes to AIDS causes? And what are your views regarding this matter?


I think some of it might be misinformation. In Africa, and other third world countries especially, there is deeply entrenched views about sex to begin with...i.e., the men should never have to protect themselves, etc) and superstition as well ( it's a curse from the gods rather than a medical emergency). Here in the US, for example, there was a case that bought tears to my eyes and anger because of the way this person was treated. In a small Southern community ( very close knit and very conservatively Christian), there was a man who openly acknowledged having led a lifestyle that led to him getting HIV.


His parents had originally disowned him for that, but agreed to let him come back to die in his hometown. Unfortunately, news got around that he had the virus, and soon, people were walking away from him on the streets, refusing to let their children swim with him in the public pool, and treating his family badly. Many believed he deserved his fate, and his family could no longer tolerate the ostracism they faced, so they told him to leave. He died in a San Fransisco hospice for AIDS patients, alone without any relatives, and only a few friends.


To me, this might seem like an extreme example, but it is one of the most heart wrenching. I cannot believe that Christian brethren would turn this man away and treat him with such hatred. That is so not acting like Christ in that case...and it burns me up whenever I think about it. How hard is it, no matter how much you 'hate a person's sin' that you can't embrace him when he's dying? Or when he needs Christian friends and family the most?

[EveningStar]

This will sound a bit heartless, but I promise you I am not heartless.

Charitable resources are overwhelmed by the great needs. For every dollar given there are three people needing that dollar to live. Evangelical Christians face this the way everyone must face it. They must exercise some sort of decision making process. Evangelicals give according to their beliefs, which means if two people need money and they have enough for one, they will choose the person with more entitlement from a faith-based perspective.

If two people needed a massive donation of blood to live, and one was a little girl that fell out of a moving car and the other was a drug dealer that got shot during a standoff with police, yes, absolutely, I would give my blood to the little girl. That's not to say that I wished the drug dealer dead, or that I would have moral qualms about him receiving a blood donation FROM SOMEWHERE OUT THERE. But I would not give him blood at the expense of letting an innocent child die. And I feel no shame in saying that. None.

[Sunrise]

I'd be personally curious to see some kind of breakdown of evangelical giving across the board - i.e. what charities DO receive the most funding vs. the least...for that matter, what percentage of evangelicals tithe on a regular basis. When you start talking about how people spend their money, you get to the heart of a lot of issues within the church at large, the main one being how serious people really are about their faith vs. this material world. "Putting your money where your mouth is," is the appropriate phrase here.

As far as AIDS goes, I think there's a level of practicality to it to some extent. Nobody would argue that the AIDS epidemic is a tragedy (I hope - I guess there are still those who want to say its the curse of God or something), but perhaps, as Eveningstar hinted, many Christians feel that if there's a choice between giving to AIDS relief and something else, their money is better spent elsewhere. I can think of a few practical reasons for this:

1. We know how to stop spreading AIDS. As a contagious disease, it's completely containable. The problem is, nobody is willing to grow the backbone and push abstinence because of the hue and cry from various groups who would call that "legislating morality". So instead of pouring money into programs that would be most successful (promoting abstinence, getting people off drugs, etc.) the money goes into "safe sex" educational programs, which are chancy at best, and into drug research that wouldn't be as necessary if we could stop the spread of the disease in the first place. I can see how a lot of Christians would consider this to be throwing their money away when it could be better spent in direct relief through feeding or housing programs.

2. AIDS is a hot charity for celebrities, the entertainment industry, and various big-money/big-name groups. I've read a statistic somewhere that said between government funding and charitable giving, more money goes into AIDS research than into any other disease. Perhaps Christians feel that further assistance from them is unnecessary, particularly in light of point #1, and the fact that the conservative christian community generally resents it when Hollywood tells them which great causes they are supposed to care about. Of course there is a distinction to be made between research and relief, but probably a lot of folks don't make it.

3. So let's talk about relief - and in this instance I'm thinking specifically of the situation in Africa, since many of its AIDS victims are children who certainly cannot be accused of "getting what they deserve" as far as contracting the disease because of a sinful lifestyle. This is where the situation is most heartbreaking, since no amount of promoting abstinence will be in time to save these kids. I think I've also read that the virus is spread rampantly because of unhygenic practices in hospitals and clinics there. In this case, I'm not sure why there is less charity offered...my cynical side wonders if it's because people sort of feel like, what good will it do - these people are dying anyway because there is no cure, so better to put my money into feeding them and housing them and sharing the gospel with them, so as to make them as comfortable as possible for this life and get them ready for the next. I'm just guessing here; I hope I don't sound heartless. I can't speak for every evangelical out there.

There's an element of judgement to it, sure...like there is to everything in life. I would hope that it's due to Christians balancing compassion with practicality rather than condemnation in this case...but that's between each person and God, ultimately.

[inkspot]

Sunrise may be on to something there: Christians perceive the AIDS epidemic as too big for them to do anything about, so why bother? It would be like throwing good money after bad. But this is true of many ministries in Africa, because the continent is so huge, most of the nations are so poor, and the governments tend to be so corrupt that it seems impossible to be sure the love and funds you send get where they should go and make a real difference.

I do not have a breakdown on all charitable giving among evangelicals, but according to the book, "The aWAKE Project," A BARNA Research poll shows that evangelical Christians are the least likely group to help AIDS victims in Africa—less than 3 percent said they would financially help a Christian organization minister to an AIDS orphan.

My first thought was to attribute this to racism, because these children could not possibly have done anything to "deserve" death from AIDS or starvation because their parents had died from AIDS ... but IM pointed out, perhaps the stigma of AIDS as a "gay" disease simply keeps evangelicals from giving toward any AIDS-related cause.

While I agree that everyone has to decide based on their own heart how to divvy up their charitable giving, it seems pretty mean-spirited if Christians as a group will not feed hungry children or provide them with life-prolonging medicine simply because AIDS is somehow related to their troubles.

As far as any person really deserving the death sentence of AIDS because of their lifestyle choice, when you get right down to it, all of us "deserve" the death sentence of sin because of our choices and actions. The Bible says all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God -- this means every one of us is in the same boat as the gay person with AIDS, so we have no right to be snooty about it.

Granted, AIDS in the US is preventable primarily by practicing self-control, but then all sin is preventable by practicing self-control, and yet even "us Christians" keep sinning. It's not right, and it's a terrible witness, for believers in Christ to decide the victims of one sin-sickness in particular do not deserve His love. And surely it is not right for us to neglect hungry children because of the sins of their parents.

[EveningStar]

If what you are saying is that people are imperfect and their reasoning is flawed and prejudiced, I would agree with you.

However Evangelical Christianity is not the cause of this. Neither is Buddhism, Sikhism, Zoroastianism, Judaism, Islam or the Cult of Elvis. I've never even met an agnostic or athiest that wasn't prejudiced against SOMETHING.

[inkspot]

Agreed. I just expect more of Christians because of the example Christ gave us ... I shouldn't be so naive.
:)

[LifeMaiden]

True, but what about my comment regarding the person who was treated like cr*p because he HAD AIDS? Was Christian charity to help that man too much to ask not to give him help that required NO money, just the emotional support he asked for?


Never mind, I just reread Inky's post LOL the last sentences.


I'm not completely sure I agree with the idea or opinion that Christians would rather give to the living than the dying. The drugs that are needed to prolong life are pricey, and there's so precious little of that in AIDS ravaged Africa. Not ALL those people are dying, some of them have the VIRUS itself, but does this mean that we can't donate money for the medicines to keep them alive and healthy for as long as possible? To say that Christians concentrate on those who are alive should be modified to Christians should concentrate on those who need help the most...and to me, a starving, HIV positive family in Africa needs a lot more help than someone here in America who might be temporarily homeless, albeit 'alive'.

If it's a prejudice towards gays or the gay lifestyle, well, yeah, it might be true that all religions and all creeds are prejudiced in one way or another, but as Christians, we have a higher calling to help those in need regardless of what we think they 'deserve' or what lifestyle we don't care for.

[EveningStar]

When a ship goes down, why do they say women and children first? The ones least responsible for the tragedy are given highest priority. It's the honorable thing to do...it's ALWAYS the honorable thing to do. Nobody deserves to go down with the ship, but some bear more responsibility than others. That's why the Captain goes last.

On the one hand I hate to see irrational prejudice against people who are suffering. I always do.

On the other hand I hate to be told that everyone with medical needs is equally entitled. This may shock you, but if I had one ambulance and I had to choose between the daredevil that tried to jump 30 vans with a motorcycle or the member of the audience he landed on, I would take the audience member.

Having unprotected sex is one of those things like hang gliding and freestyle skiing that is inherently dangerous and, while you might not want to see it banned, you also do it of your own free will, accepting the risks. I don't think there should be a law against jumping 30 vans with a motorcycle. But I also do not think society owes someone restitution who only jumps 29 of them.

[LifeMaiden]

When a ship goes down, why do they say women and children first? The ones least responsible for the tragedy are given highest priority. It's the honorable thing to do...it's ALWAYS the honorable thing to do. Nobody deserves to go down with the ship, but some bear more responsibility than others. That's why the Captain goes last.

On the one hand I hate to see irrational prejudice against people who are suffering. I always do.

On the other hand I hate to be told that everyone with medical needs is equally entitled. This may shock you, but if I had one ambulance and I had to choose between the daredevil that tried to jump 30 vans with a motorcycle or the member of the audience he landed on, I would take the audience member.

Having unprotected sex is one of those things like hang gliding and freestyle skiing that is inherently dangerous and, while you might not want to see it banned, you also do it of your own free will, accepting the risks. I don't think there should be a law against jumping 30 vans with a motorcycle. But I also do not think society owes someone restitution who only jumps 29 of them.


So basically what you are saying is that you put people with AIDS on a lower priority list because they 'engaged' in risky behavior to begin with. That's strange, because most of the people in Africa and other third world countries are uneducated about the risks involved in unprotected sex. How can they accept risk they don't know exist, or haven't been told about? And let's not forget that AIDS isn't always transmitted by 'unsafe' sex but plenty of people have gotten it through blood transfusions and drug use. To me, people who need help are people who need help...and donating to the homeless in New Orleans, helping people with cancer and helping people with AIDS are all in the same boat to me. I can't say that I'm going to go and give my money to someone who 'needs it more' because I feel AIDs patients have led risky lifestyles and others haven't. What have the people in third world countries done except be ignorant of the risks they take? That means they have lower priority than say, someone in this country who has cancer or can't feed themselves?


What you're saying ES is that Christians are picking and choosing what people are in need more than others. That doesn't sound very charitable to me when you consider just how much NEED is there in Africa and Third World Countries. A person in Africa starving, living in a country torn by civil wars and famine, disease and everything else under the sun, plus in addition to having AIDS, sounds like a top priority to me. He would be the person in the audience you're talking about...not the guy jumping over motorcycles. The guy jumping over the motorcycles might possibly BE a gay person OR a person who has engaged in risky lifestyle behavior and therefore, understandably, might not be the person you'd want to help first. But how can you say that people in other countries, dire in their need for assistance of any kind, many ignorant and unaware of their risky behavior, AND ESPECIALLY the innocent children who have done NOTHING risky except be born in a poor country whose mother or father had AIDS...not be on the top of one's list to help?

[LifeMaiden]

Sunrise may be on to something there: Christians perceive the AIDS epidemic as too big for them to do anything about, so why bother? It would be like throwing good money after bad. But this is true of many ministries in Africa, because the continent is so huge, most of the nations are so poor, and the governments tend to be so corrupt that it seems impossible to be sure the love and funds you send get where they should go and make a real difference.

I do not have a breakdown on all charitable giving among evangelicals, but according to the book, "The aWAKE Project," A BARNA Research poll shows that evangelical Christians are the least likely group to help AIDS victims in Africa—less than 3 percent said they would financially help a Christian organization minister to an AIDS orphan.

My first thought was to attribute this to racism, because these children could not possibly have done anything to "deserve" death from AIDS or starvation because their parents had died from AIDS ... but IM pointed out, perhaps the stigma of AIDS as a "gay" disease simply keeps evangelicals from giving toward any AIDS-related cause.

While I agree that everyone has to decide based on their own heart how to divvy up their charitable giving, it seems pretty mean-spirited if Christians as a group will not feed hungry children or provide them with life-prolonging medicine simply because AIDS is somehow related to their troubles.

As far as any person really deserving the death sentence of AIDS because of their lifestyle choice, when you get right down to it, all of us "deserve" the death sentence of sin because of our choices and actions. The Bible says all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God -- this means every one of us is in the same boat as the gay person with AIDS, so we have no right to be snooty about it.

Granted, AIDS in the US is preventable primarily by practicing self-control, but then all sin is preventable by practicing self-control, and yet even "us Christians" keep sinning. It's not right, and it's a terrible witness, for believers in Christ to decide the victims of one sin-sickness in particular do not deserve His love. And surely it is not right for us to neglect hungry children because of the sins of their parents.

You said it far more eloquently than I could, Inky.

[inkspot]

I hear you saying that because gay people know AIDS is out there and still have unprotected sex, they have less right to evangelicals' supply of charitable giving -- or society's supply of health-care dollars -- than do people who do not have unprotected gay sex. While this is one viewpoint, shouldn't it also to apply to anyone who endangers their physical health through their behavior like people who smoke, drink, over-eat, scuba dive, sky dive, ride in cars, work with elephants, etc?

But even if this viewpoint were true (which it may well be), it has nothgin to do with AIDS orphans, or children who received AIDS from their HIV+ mums during childbirth. Their behavior did nothing to land them in their situation, yet less than 3% of evangelicals would give a dime toward their support or sustenance. I'm not saying I know what evangelicals should send their money to -- heaven knows in my line of work, I constantly am exposed to many ministries with important missions and worthy of charitable giving. It just seems heartless that we Christians shouldn't be known as the ones most likely to give to a hungry AIDS orphan or a child with AIDS.

Thankfully, I know there are Christians who care, and who put their love in action. An old co-worker of mine died from AIDS contracted through his own behavior and weakness, maybe a decade ago. Knowing that he had brought it on himself did not make me one little bit less disposed to care for him and wish for anything but a death sentence. He was, by this time, living in another state, and died in a hospice. His own family was "too busy" to visit him even once ... but his Christian friends did support him, and I know he chose to follow Jesus before he died.

To me, we're all sick in some way because of our own choices, and Jesus loves us anyway, and wants for us to love each other. Maybe the person who destroys their own physical health through their own bad choices doesn't deserve the government's money or my help ... but as much as anyone else they deserve Christ's love.

[Lucy the Marshwiggle]

WOW Inkspot. I couldn't have said it better. I agree with you 100%.

[EveningStar]

Everybody on this forum knows how I feel about children, especially children that watched their parents die horribly and know they're going to die the same way before they can ever fall in love, hold down a job or see the world.

Now that we've settled that, nobody can rebut my assertion that charitable giving is below the need because it's a known fact. I run a nonprofit and ought to know that hard decisions are a daily thing.

A religious faith that does not guide daily behavior is not worth the paper it's printed on. We all have to face God someday and the rightness or wrongness of our willingness to give and the targets of our largesse are a matter between ourselves and our God. I feel the generous ones are not nearly in for the scolding coming to the ones that never share at all. If I had limitless funds, I would give indiscriminantly, but since I only have limited resources, they not only CAN but WILL reflect my sense of values, and this parity between faith and works is an important part of my walk of faith.

Every time I pray the Lord's Prayer and say "Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven," I sincerely mean it as much for the prisoner on death row who genuinely repents, the man who lost his family to his career, and the latchkey kids that find their love and affection from gang members and drug users. I want Jesus to be wherever there is pain and darkness. Nothing I have said or ever will say should be construed as a contradiction of this general statement.

[Lucy the Marshwiggle]

Its so hard because all of you have made such great points.

[EveningStar]

Precisely the point. We lack the grand sweeping vision of God and so we thrust our rude and clumsy hands into the delicate fabric of His kingdom, breaking bottles, frightening birds and trampling flowers into the mud. Sometimes we do more good than harm and it is in those moments we see God smiling down on us, looking at the rough cut crayon colored valentines we offer him with benevolent amusement and affection.

I don't claim to have all the answers, and sometimes I throw up my hands in helpless frustration. That doesn't keep me from trying again and again.

John

[inkspot]

John, I didn't mean you, particularly, had no pity for AIDS orphans or anything of the kind. You are an exemplary Christian brother, and everyone knows it ...
:)

[EveningStar]

Thank you, Inky. I wear a medium sized sweater and have a marked preference for wool or cashmere in steely gray or blue. Remember my birthday is Sept 27th. :D Nothing says you care like L. L. Bean.... ;)

[Narborg]

I think it is a shame that a lot of christians have a jagdmental attitured taowds aids and see it as a judgment form God for "imorral behaive". They forget that all of us are sinners who should by rights full under the judgemnt of God, and are only freed form it by his greace. We are called to love those around us anf to feed the hungrey , care for the sick etc. This menas that we should be helping those efected by aids.
Evening Star, I take your point about ther being many needs, but I think that tyhere are still a lot of inocent people efeced by aid. I also think that the weat could find the money to end poverty,its a matter of geting it to those who need it.

[EveningStar]

Let me take a moment on the soapbox to tell you how it is. In the Bible..and I am Christian so of course I have to quote from it sooner or later..it speaks of cheerful giving.

Cheerful giving is not when you give out of a guilt trip. Charities these days fill your living room TV with starving kids and smashed houses to try and guilt trip you into giving. You give in order to feel better about yourself. That's what the Bible speaks about on your reward being in THIS WORLD not the NEXT. That you gave to increase your comfort level.

Cheerful giving is when you gladly help. I'll give you an example. When Star Wars first came out, some people lined up on the sidewalk the day before the opening of the film so they could make sure they be sure to plunk down their money and get a ticket to see the film. When Windows 95 went on sale, it was distributed to stores in advance with the strict warning that it was not to be sold before the official "rollout" date. People went to stores that stayed open past midnight just to let the shoppers buy it when it was technically October 14.

Funny thing is when you ask these people about being one of the first to see Star Wars or get Windows 95 they enjoy telling the story. It remains a happy memory, and one they can laugh about.

Nobody feels that way that gives money to salve a guilty conscience.

If people could be as excited about ending poverty or curing AIDS, they too would line up at midnight to plunk down their money to have that memorable experience.

AIDS is one of those fatigue charities. People like to see progress. We don't even know beyond a doubt there IS a cure at all, or if there is one that we will ever find it. You give year after year and people still die of it.

People give toward rebuiliding New Orleans and they can see clean streets and new houses and think "A hundred bucks worth of that is mine!"

People get fatigued and overwhelmed and ultimately discouraged.

John

[LifeMaiden]

Included in my list of donations are several animal welfare causes such as Humane Society of Reno, SPCA, a no-kill cat shelter, and soon, Timbalionguy's Reno Zoo :). As terrible as you guys might think this sounds, for me, animals have always been top priority. Maybe that is because at times, I like them even better than people ;)


I always start to worry or get annoyed when celebrities start heading charities or some rich person does...because there are some people who donate to the AIDs cause for recognition or show-off purposes. I personally believe the truest at heart volunteers and donations are giving their time and money more anonymously. Unless you have so much like Bill Gates.


I am doubtful there will be a cure for AIDs. Another disease of that proportion will most likely take its place in some form if a cure came out, or another strain of the virus. There also is no explanation when certain people have HIV and don't really have any negative effects from it as long as they take their medicine ( in other words, no steadily increasing AIDS symptoms)

[inkspot]

Oh, I support SPCA, too -- I figure a lot of people are supporting the poor, but who thinks about the animals? And the LSU veterinary school in Baton Rouge helped hundreds of Katrina storm pets, bless their hearts -- dogs, cats, guinea pigs, even a real pig, donkeys and horses.

It is so true that it's easy to feel discouraged when you give to a need, and then that need keeps coming back for me. This may be one reason people don't give to AIDS in Africa: it is overwhelming, and you think the small amount you have to give will make a bigger difference in some other cause.

I wonder how we can remain cheerful in giving? If I could put some of that in a bottle, I would be a hero with my clients.
:)

[LifeMaiden]

I think when it comes to donating, also, I could never understand these rich society people and celebrities who have 'fund raisers' for causes when they could DONATE their own money directly. It just seems facetious to hear that a certain celebrity raised " One Million Dollars" for AIDS when that same person could have donated their own million, since this person is known to be worth 200 million. What on earth would a person do with all that money? To me, it's like POTW said....The more you have, the more you want. Materialism owns you, you do not own your possessions.


In terms of charity, a rich person could easily throw around millions like their pennies, expect recognition for it and fame for their charity, when the truly generous are the ones who have little to share, and still share it.


I heard that the richest states ( Connecticut and RI) give the least to charity and the poorest, Mississippi, gives the most.

[inkspot]

Jesus had something to say about that. When a poor widow put 2 pennies into the collection box, He praised her and said she had given more than anyone elese because the others gave out of their prosperity, and she gave out of her poverty.

It kind of cracks me up that Jesus was sitting around watching what people put into the offering box. :)

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Pertinent to those people who say that those who get AIDS are being judged by God, Lewis wrote an interesting essay on that idea, which he called "Historicism" (the essay is in Christian Reflections). Since God alone knows all details about something, it is presumptuous of we humans to call anything the "judgement of God", since to say that would imply that we know things that we do not.

It is not presumptuous to make the obvious statement that certain lifestyle choices can lead to certain naturally observable consequences. If someone smokes, it is not judgmental to warn them that that will make them prone to respiratory disease. If someone builds their home on a flood plain, it is not judgmental to warn them they could be flooded. If someone engages in sexual activity outside a monogamous lifelong relationship, it is not judgmental to point out that they might acquire a life-threatening disease. Also, it is not just for an emphysema patient, or a flooded out homeowner, or an AIDS patient who is responsible for his own condition, to blame others for their condition. A mature person takes responsibility for his own condition.

That being said, I think I agree with Lewis that once someone is in dire straits for any reason, they should receive compassion and the best medical care that is reasonable. There have been many cases of people dying of AIDS turning back to God as death approached. He does not disdain even such desperation conversions; He'll take sinners any way He can get them. (or, as Lewis put it, "It is no compliment to God to be considered the only alternative to hell, but He will stoop that low.")

Though I don't agree with them, a word in defense of those who wouldn't contribute to helping AIDS orphans: in the U.S. the militant homosexual lobby is so strident and in-your-face that they try to make things out that everyone but they are responsible for their condition, even though AIDS is one of the most avoidable diseases on the planet. As a result, some people shy away from anything to do with it. I don't agree with that, since the plight of a toddler who got AIDS from his now-dead mother is a totally different moral question than an activist seeking to get taxpayers to pay thousands a month for a condition he could have avoided by behavior changes, but it does explain a few things.

[Sunrise]

I think when it comes to donating, also, I could never understand these rich society people and celebrities who have 'fund raisers' for causes when they could DONATE their own money directly. It just seems facetious to hear that a certain celebrity raised " One Million Dollars" for AIDS when that same person could have donated their own million, since this person is known to be worth 200 million. What on earth would a person do with all that money? To me, it's like POTW said....The more you have, the more you want. Materialism owns you, you do not own your possessions.


In terms of charity, a rich person could easily throw around millions like their pennies, expect recognition for it and fame for their charity, when the truly generous are the ones who have little to share, and still share it.


I heard that the richest states ( Connecticut and RI) give the least to charity and the poorest, Mississippi, gives the most.

That's what I was talking about with AIDS being a "hot" celebrity charity - probably because it's so rampant within the entertainment community. All these rich folks throwing big parties to "raise awareness" when if they'd take the funds they put into the parties (and their clothing, jewelry, and publicization of such parties) and put it directly toward the charities, the recipients would be better off. It's pretty much a publicity stunt.

[LifeMaiden]

I definitely believe that at times very wealthy people often donate just to show off and have their names put on university benches. And as POTW told me in an e mail, it's very true that " the more people have the more they want."

Just as important however as donating money is donating TIME. Volunteering is one of the most charitable things a person can do...you aren't just tossing money into a collection box so to speak, but you're getting down and sometimes very 'dirty' LOL when you volunteer directly, such as going to New Orleans and helping out the survivors there, volunteering to search for a lost person, and going to foreign countries to do missionary work amongst the poor.


In the past, there have been some very off beat charities I've donated to, and one of them was this JAZZ music station in the Bay Area. I love old jazz, and this station existed solely on donations. They always had fundraisers for support. There was also a charity that helped women who were formerly on welfare and trying to find careers...and they accepted donations of suits and other more formal clothes to wear to offices. Like stuff a secretary would wear. I gave a lot of my dresses and suits to them, things I didn't need and were in great condition.


I often like to donate to charities that are unusual ones, ones that most people might not think of. Let's face it too...while I asked why Evangelical Christians don't seem to put AIDS causes as their top priority, AIDS charities have raised millions upon millions of dollars by other means. And to me, PREVENTION OF AIDS is the most important thing to help ease it's suffering...in the US people are well aware of abstinence and safe sex, and the fact that dirty needles and IV drug use spread the disease. There is only a minority of people who get AIDS from blood transfusions. Most of AIDS here, anyways, is preventable.


An old roommate of mine who was HIV positive for many years and a guinea pig for many experimental drugs had lived this incredibly wild lifestyle. I asked him if he had ever considered the repercussions of that lifestyle, and he said, " At the time, I didn't care, and I didn't think twice about all that wild stuff I did." Well, it wasn't for me or anyone to say he therefore 'deserved AIDS,' but to not even try to be aware of your lifestyle's crazy behavior is pretty darn careless.

[inkspot]

Your friend's attitude is typical, though, among the wildly promiscuous people I have known. CS Lewis reckoned something went wrong with the human sex drive when sin entered the world, and I think it may be true: people will do outlandish things to gratify it, self-destructive things. It's very sad, and very difficult to change.

[LifeMaiden]

Your friend's attitude is typical, though, among the wildly promiscuous people I have known. CS Lewis reckoned something went wrong with the human sex drive when sin entered the world, and I think it may be true: people will do outlandish things to gratify it, self-destructive things. It's very sad, and very difficult to change.


He said a lot of very interesting things on that subject in MERE CHRISTIANITY that made a lot of sense. I won't recount it here though :D

[inkspot]

He said a lot of very interesting things on that subject in MERE CHRISTIANITY that made a lot of sense. I won't recount it here though :D
Are you reading it? Please feel free to come over to the Mere Christianity reading group at http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3070 and post your thoughts. I love the book, and have read each chapter multiple times (sometimes I have to read it twice to get it because I am a bit of a scatter brain, but still).

On an AIDS note:
Me old mum is joining up with the Granny Brigade of one of the ministries I am privileged to serve, to head for South Africa and spend some time helping out in an AIDS orphanage, among other children's ministries. She is pretty excited about it. The leader of the group is 80 years old, and me mum is coming up hard on that age herself. I think that's pretty cool.

:)

[Ephinie]

Are you reading it? Please feel free to come over to the Mere Christianity reading group at http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3070 and post your thoughts. I love the book, and have read each chapter multiple times (sometimes I have to read it twice to get it because I am a bit of a scatter brain, but still).

On an AIDS note:
Me old mum is joining up with the Granny Brigade of one of the ministries I am privileged to serve, to head for South Africa and spend some time helping out in an AIDS orphanage, among other children's ministries. She is pretty excited about it. The leader of the group is 80 years old, and me mum is coming up hard on that age herself. I think that's pretty cool.

:)Granny Brigade? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That is so awesome... I assume I'm too young to join, but that sounds like something that would be cool to be a part of.

[inkspot]

I know, ain't it cool? The grannies go and play with the kids and hold the babies and sing to them ... just like their own grannies would do if they were around ...

[LifeMaiden]

My old gay roommate used to do a lot of work with the AIDS charities. He mentioned that he met Elizabeth Taylor, and he said that she was very sincere about her AIDS cause...that at first, none of the celebrities wanted to have anything to do with her cause. So she was essentially the first pioneer of the celebrity AIDS thing, but at least she truly believed in it. And I think having led a life that was full of chaos and difficulties for all her beauty and fame made her sympathetic to people who needed help. But he mentioned that other stars, such as Shirley McClaine and several others, only did their AIDS charity thing to jump on the bandwagon and make themselves look good.


Granny brigade? :) Sounds totally cool to me!

[Aravis Kenobi]

I feel really sorry for kids in Africa who get it because of their parents. And for those who get AIDS by a blood transfusion or something like that. I don't feel sorry for those who get it because of their, um, questionable activity. If they'd vow abstinence until marriage, it would solve a lot of problems. I always argue with those commercial on herpes or something like that. I say, "If you wouldn't sleep around, you wouldn't get that stuff." People are sometimes so ignorant of this stuff that they go around the most obvious solution:abstinence.

[LifeMaiden]

I feel really sorry for kids in Africa who get it because of their parents. And for those who get AIDS by a blood transfusion or something like that. I don't feel sorry for those who get it because of their, um, questionable activity. If they'd vow abstinence until marriage, it would solve a lot of problems. I always argue with those commercial on herpes or something like that. I say, "If you wouldn't sleep around, you wouldn't get that stuff." People are sometimes so ignorant of this stuff that they go around the most obvious solution:abstinence.


Yes but that's the argument as to why evangelical Christians don't donate to AIDS causes...because they assume if you get AIDS it's because you're sleeping around or that you deserve to get it because of 'questionable activity'. To me, it isn't a very Christian attitude to say you don't feel sorry for those with AIDS just because they get it from not practicing abstinence. We know a lot of Christians don't practice abstinence either.

[Aravis Kenobi]

That's true, and it's a sad fact. I'm not heartless towards those who have AIDS, but it is smart to use abstinence. But, like I said, a lot of people either get it from their parents or from a blood transfusion or something like that.

[LifeMaiden]

Oh no, I agree Aravis. I think what I meant was I was looking at the whole sympathy issue of AIDS in regards to evangelical Christians and their reluctance to donate to that cause, primarily because it's still associated with a lifestyle that is adverse to Christian principles. I openly admit that my old roommate lived a life where he had no reservations or thoughts as to the consequences of his behavior. I told him he shouldn't therefore be surprised at the disease he contracted, and he agreed with me.


Abstinence would take care of a lot of the problems we associate with STDs as well obviously :D.

[inkspot]

Again, I don't think it is fair (or Christian) to say we have no sympathy for someone who contracts AIDS through their sinful conduct. We each of us have a sin problem, and we compound it through our sinful conduct. Jesus did not, on the cross, say, "I don't feel sorry for you freaks who are going to hell because of your sinful actions, I only feel sorry for the innocent babies and children who did nothing sinful and yet are born already condemned." He did not excuse only those people who had not yet sinned of their own volition, He excused all of us, He said it's not the healthy who need a physician, but the sick. He said He came to seek and save the LOST, not those who were already found.

Yes, people who get diseases because of their sinful actions would have been smarter not to have done the sinful actions, but they are the same as you and me: they have sinned, just as we have, and to say they do not deserve our sympathy while they die a terrible death is very, very harsh. What if Jesus looked at you, spiritually dying because of your sinful behavior (lying, gossipping, disobeying parents, thinking evil thoughts, lust, anger, greed cussing, overeating, whatever it may be), and said: you did that to yourself, I have no sympathy for you? He would never! He loves you! He loves AIDS victims. He does feel sorry for us, and thank God He does.

[LifeMaiden]

I could say with impunity that I have 'less sympathy' if someone obviously leads a careless lifestyle and almost proudly displays or flaunts how their sinful lifestyle. I told my roommate that he shouldn't be surprised that he got the disease and he didn't disagree with me...he regretted his past actions. He couldn't even remember half the things he'd done because he had been high on drugs...an even riskier element to add to his lifestyle choice to begin with. I actually got mad at him about it ...we were close friends so I could afford to get mad at him sometimes. I said, "Man, what did you expect?!"


But of course, that was not to say that I didn't feel for him...as a friend of mine he suffered daily and had to take about 30 different meds. But he was also doing a good thing by becoming a sort of guinea pig for experimental AIDS drugs...he said if there was anything he could do to help others and the future of AIDs, then there was a purpose for him, and even a purpose as to why he got the disease. A couple of times he ended up in the hospital. I had friends who asked me if I was 'scared' to live with someone with AIDS and I said no, because I had informed myself about how you contact it.



I think part of the problem too, today, is that we live in a society where we can't often express views about right and wrong behavior for fear of being labeled prejudiced, not politically correct, or even narrow minded. To say that I think certain lifestyles are sinful doesn't mean I am going to condemn the people who practice it, it just means I don't agree with it. But I'm going to let my opinion be known.

[echoscot]

I am of a divided mind about this. There are many "innocent" victims of the AIDS epidemic. And actually I know of several Evangelical churches that send missionaries out to help in Africa with those. A local Christian Radio Station sponsored a trip and one of their DJ's reported back on a daily basis. He talked of families who were uneducated in medical practices. They would administer a prescription for a child, then find out the whole family was "sharing" the prescription, so the child wouldn't get the dosages they needed. A whole re-education was required. A good friend of mine who I walked with through a severe drug-addiction is now married and has been sober for about 5 years. He and his wife just returned from a trip to Africa, and because I sponsor them regularly, they sent pictures and a note talking about, specifically, the AIDS people they were trying to help.

On the other hand, we have the epidemic in the US. I am of the mind that there is NO EXCUSE for this here. I am not unsympathetic, but that weighs in my mind. As a matter of fact in the Gay-bar scene, there are individuals who are actively looking to receive AIDS and those actively looking to spread it. There are perverse nicknames for it. I got this information off of a "conservative" gay website. It seems to be a common practice in the nightclub scene. They have codes so they can meet and get uhhm, enjoyment, from the spread of the disease. When I learned of this I was furious. I consulted a few other websites and did a search on the terms and found that there were monumental amounts of hits. EveningStar, I am trying to keep this family friendly, I hope I succeeded. But the point needed to be made.

Because of this I am of a divided mind. If you go to a play on Broadway, the performers will meet you in the lobby with buckets "Equity fights AIDS". I have donated, but I also wonder if they are fighting the innocent victims or if it is a political rallying cry. I am so unsure. I lost two or three friends and coworkers to this awful disease over the last 10 years.

So I say again, I am of a divided mind about how to deal with it.

[inkspot]

There is not much we can do to "deal with it" except pray for those poor lost souls, and help where and when we can to alleviate the suffering. Everyone in America is aware of how it is spread, and the "safe sex" thing just doesn't work foracertain segment of the population. Only real-life transformation of their hearts and minds will help them.

[Sir Godfrey]

Well I'm sad for those who have aids or are born with it. But ultiamtly I'm angry because of where it began. People did some really immoral things that brought this sickness to the world. Plus it spreads only by a few ways, one blood or... The other way.

[LifeMaiden]

Well I'm sad for those who have aids or are born with it. But ultiamtly I'm angry because of where it began. People did some really immoral things that brought this sickness to the world. Plus it spreads only by a few ways, one blood or... The other way.


AIDS was not started by gay people, which is the most common stereotype. It was spread first amongst monkeys in Africa.

[echoscot]

AIDS was not started by gay people, which is the most common stereotype. It was spread first amongst monkeys in Africa.
Although that creates even more grotesque images of how it got to the human race....

[EveningStar]

Well, yes, but it was more likely a bite or scratch rather than something more snuggly.... I mean, you might not realize this, but those folks ATE monkeys, and nine out of ten monkeys surveyed prefer to remain uneaten.

[inkspot]

LOL -- monkeys have a real thing about getting eaten!

In Africa, I believe, a lot more women get AIDS than men because it is very easily transmitted from a man to a woman during normal sexual activity; it is not a "gay" disease there, at all.