Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God and viruses (namely AIDS)
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 1 of 21 (530097)
10-12-2009 9:05 AM


Reading what Mr Jack wrote in Message 29, on the Why did Noah's descendents forsake God so quickly? thread, it made me think of this:
What is the Christian answer for why we have viruses, namely AIDS?
The AIDS virus has been traced to have been spread from chimp to man around the late 19th to early 20th century.
We know this because, found in Wiki,
Wiki writes:
HIV-1 is closely related to a virus found in chimpanzees, and molecular phylogenetics indicates that the HIV-1 virus appeared sometime between 1884 and 1924 in equatorial Africa.
To stray from a direct cut and paste, the usage of molecular phylogenetics has led top researchers to the conclusion that AIDS did indeed originate from primates. For a bible literalist, god had to have created the virus, since, according to them, He created all life.
As we know them, a virus can be classified as a life form:
Wiki writes:
Viruses consist of two or three parts: all viruses have genes made from either DNA or RNA, long molecules that carry genetic information; all have a protein coat that protects these genes; and some have an envelope of fat that surrounds them when they are outside a cell.
In a biblical literalist's view, this must mean that one of two things happened:
-1: At least one of the chimps aboard the Ark was stricken with the disease. (wasn't all evil supposed to be wiped from the earth?)
Genesis 6:7 writes:
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Then went ahead and put a sick monkey on the ark?
-2: God gave chimps the disease after the flood. (I will leave that to you to explain.)
In both of these scenarios, god inflicted us/chimps with this plague. How do you wrap your head around a god whom would put such a terrible disease like this on the planet? I understand the fall of man and being born into sin, but to put a disease on this planet that causes such slow and painful death? How can this be that of a loving god?
Now, you might want to argue the point that he gave it to simian's and it was our fault we got it. Then explain why he would have given such a deleterious disease to one of his creations.
I would prefer realistic answers as opposed to fanciful ones, so can this go in a science section?
(note: this is my first PNT, so if there are too many points of contention, we can whittle it down. Just let me know )
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by ICANT, posted 10-12-2009 2:58 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 21 (530111)
10-12-2009 10:03 AM


Added Info
The post is good, but I'd like to see some evidence provided for the religious conclusions you've made since you want it in the science thread (I'm assuming accuracy and inerrancy, if not clarify that also). So evidence needs to be provided for the conclusions you made concerning the literalist's positions you presented.
IOW, I don't see how you came up with your two options.

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 3 of 21 (530117)
10-12-2009 10:55 AM


Re: Added Info
see edited message 1

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 4 of 21 (530146)
10-12-2009 12:50 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the God and viruses (namely AIDS) thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 5 of 21 (530163)
10-12-2009 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by hooah212002
10-12-2009 9:05 AM


Re Virus
Hi hooah,
hooah212002 writes:
To stray from a direct cut and paste, the usage of molecular phylogenetics has led top researchers to the conclusion that AIDS did indeed originate from primates.
How did you get from this to this:
hooah212002 writes:
At least one of the chimps aboard the Ark was stricken with the disease.
To this:
hooah212002 writes:
Then went ahead and put a sick monkey on the ark?
When the earliest related HIV virus is thought to be 14 m years old and possibly 85 m years old found in the grey mouse lemur population. The lemur is a primate. Source
Notice you start out with a primate.
Which turns into a chimp.
Which turns into a monkey.
hooah212002 writes:
At least one of the chimps aboard the Ark was stricken with the disease.
If as you assert the disease was transported by a chimp on the Ark, why would it have to be stricken with the disease?
All that would be necessary would be it be HIV positive.
hooah212002 writes:
(wasn't all evil supposed to be wiped from the earth?)
I don't find where all evil was to be wiped from the earth.
Evil was not wiped from the earth as it still exists today.
hooah212002 writes:
In both of these scenarios, god inflicted us/chimps with this plague. How do you wrap your head around a god whom would put such a terrible disease like this on the planet? I understand the fall of man and being born into sin, but to put a disease on this planet that causes such slow and painful death? How can this be that of a loving god?
First you are under the impression that God is the only one who can inflict disease and death.
God did not kill Job's children and grand children. Neither did he inflict Job with boils.
But if God provided the disease as a judgment, He has the right to inflict any judgment on His creation He desires for it's disobedience.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by hooah212002, posted 10-12-2009 9:05 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by hooah212002, posted 10-12-2009 9:38 PM ICANT has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 6 of 21 (530295)
10-12-2009 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by ICANT
10-12-2009 2:58 PM


Re: Re Virus
When the earliest related HIV virus is thought to be 14 m years old and possibly 85 m years old found in the grey mouse lemur population. The lemur is a primate.
So then you are an Old Earth Creationist? You believe this virus evolved on it's own or was created by god himself?
Notice you start out with a primate.
Which turns into a chimp.
Which turns into a monkey.
Ok, I should not have used the terms interchangeably. I should have said non-human primates.
If as you assert the disease was transported by a chimp on the Ark, why would it have to be stricken with the disease?
All that would be necessary would be it be HIV positive.
True. Good point.
I don't find where all evil was to be wiped from the earth.
Evil was not wiped from the earth as it still exists today.
Genesis 6:5-7 writes:
5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Ok, maybe it doesn't exactly SAY evil exactly. However, is it not assumed that the flud was a fresh start? Isn't that the argued purpose of the flud? Why carry over disease and pestilince?
First you are under the impression that God is the only one who can inflict disease and death.
So do you assert that the AIDS virus evolved?
God did not kill Job's children and grand children. Neither did he inflict Job with boils.
Where did I say anything about Job? I requested this to be in the science section for a reason......
But if God provided the disease as a judgment, He has the right to inflict any judgment on His creation He desires for it's disobedience.
And THAT is precisely the point I am trying to make. How can you claim a just, fair, loving god when he (according to my understanding of what literalists would say) created such a vile, painful disease?
God Bless,
and may His Noodly Holiness touch you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by ICANT, posted 10-12-2009 2:58 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ICANT, posted 10-13-2009 11:22 AM hooah212002 has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 7 of 21 (530333)
10-13-2009 2:33 AM


Aids made by Humans not God
there is a lot of research into Aids and one theory is that it was a result of a bad batch of Polio vaccine
quote:
Here is an article for more information:
in part the reasons researchers give are as follows:
* The location coincides dramatically. The earliest known cases of AIDS occurred in central Africa, in the same regions where Koprowski's polio vaccine was given to over a million people in 1957-1960.
* The timing coincides. There is no documented case of HIV infection or AIDS before 1959. Centuries of the slave trade and European exploitation of Africa exposed Africans and others to all other diseases then known; it is implausible that HIV could have been present and spreading in Africa without being recognised.
* Polio vaccines are grown (cultured) on monkey kidneys which could have been contaminated by SIVs. Polio vaccines could not be screened for SIV contamination before 1985.
* Another monkey virus, SV-40, is known to have been passed to humans through polio vaccines. A specific pool of Koprowski's vaccine was later shown to have been contaminated by an unknown virus.
* In order for a virus to infect a different species, it is helpful to reduce the resistance of the new host's immune system. Koprowski's polio vaccine was given to many children less than one month old, before their immune systems were fully developed. Indeed, in one trial, infants were given 15 times the standard dose in order to ensure effective immunisation.
If this theory is correct, it has serious ethical, health and policy implications. In particular, it points to the danger of interspecies transfer of material through vaccinations, organ transplants, etc., which could lead to new variants of AIDS as well as other new diseases. As well, studying the theory may lead to insights about responding to AIDS and preventing new diseases.
I would put many diseases, and the spread of them, solely in the responsibility of man himself. We are pretty stupid when it comes to nature.

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by greyseal, posted 10-13-2009 2:59 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 9 by hooah212002, posted 10-13-2009 3:40 AM Peg has replied
 Message 11 by Dr Jack, posted 10-13-2009 4:51 AM Peg has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 8 of 21 (530337)
10-13-2009 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Peg
10-13-2009 2:33 AM


Re: Aids made by Humans not God
Health News | myVMC
Peg, this link would indicate you are wrong.
For starters, the issue would have been that prior to the 1970's/1980's, nobody would have been able to tell what AIDS or HIV was - they didn't know about it.
Repeat after me (because even scientists need to remind themselves of this occasionally) "correlation is not causation".
They've studied the monkey viruses and the human viruses (there are MANY strains) and they're pretty sure where it came from.
Monkeys and apes have it, they're immune.
Humans have only recently been exposed to it, and most people are not.
What you are repeating is aids denialist false propaganda with likely less than no merit and was designed to scare-monger.
A real doctor, somebody with training who knows what they're talking about, could (and hopefully will) shred that nugget to pieces.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Peg, posted 10-13-2009 2:33 AM Peg has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 9 of 21 (530339)
10-13-2009 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Peg
10-13-2009 2:33 AM


Re: Aids made by Humans not God
From the Wiki article regarding the Oral Polio Vaccine theory:
The All Knowing Wiki writes:
Data from molecular biology and phylogenetic studies contradict the OPV AIDS hypothesis; consequently, scientific consensus regards the hypothesis as disproven,[3][4][5][6] with an article in the journal Nature describing the hypothesis as "refuted".[7]
Here is the extract from the article in Nature they refer to:
Nature writes:
Despite strong evidence to the contrary1, 2, 3, 4, 5, speculation continues that the AIDS virus, human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1), may have crossed into humans as a result of contamination of the oral polio vaccine (OPV)6, 7, 8. This 'OPV/AIDS theory' claims that chimpanzees from the vicinity of Stanleyville now Kisangani in the Democratic Republic of Congo were the source of a simian immunodeficiency virus (SIVcpz) that was transmitted to humans when chimpanzee tissues were allegedly used in the preparation of OPV6, 7. Here we show that SIVcpz is indeed endemic in wild chimpanzees of this region but that the circulating virus is phylogenetically distinct from all strains of HIV-1, providing direct evidence that these chimpanzees were not the source of the human AIDS pandemic.
The All Knowing Wiki writes:
The OPV AIDS hypothesis has been examined and criticized by members of the scientific and medical communities as being unsupported or directly contradicted by available data, and inconsistent with HIV epidemiology.
So that theory has been refuted.
While I agree that mankind has been pretty careless in nature and with disease control, such is not the case here.
Edited by hooah212002, : fixed quote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Peg, posted 10-13-2009 2:33 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Peg, posted 10-13-2009 4:37 AM hooah212002 has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 10 of 21 (530347)
10-13-2009 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by hooah212002
10-13-2009 3:40 AM


Re: Aids made by Humans not God
of course that theory is refuted! the medical fraternity would never be trusted again if people believed it was their own vaccinations that caused such a killer
they can refute it all they like
others will continue to refute them because they have spent a lot of time researching the facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by hooah212002, posted 10-13-2009 3:40 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by hooah212002, posted 10-13-2009 5:09 AM Peg has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 11 of 21 (530349)
10-13-2009 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Peg
10-13-2009 2:33 AM


Re: Aids made by Humans not God
Even if that little spot of paranoid dellusion was true it still wouldn't mean AIDs was made by man not God. Under Creationist mythology God made the retrovirus, fashioned it with his hand, and then left it lurking in the cells of monkeys just waiting for its chance to come and infect us.
Mind you, I guess the guy has prior on that one... (Genesis 3:3)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Peg, posted 10-13-2009 2:33 AM Peg has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 12 of 21 (530351)
10-13-2009 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Peg
10-13-2009 4:37 AM


Re: Aids made by Humans not God
I'm not going to play "who has a better link" with you. I showed you an article from a well respected source.
I will take your answer to my initial question to be: man did it. Fair enough. You can believe as you wish. Even though well respected scientists and the scientific community seem to think otherwise. People that don't subscribe to crackpot ideas that have been disproven.
I followd the links in that PDF to find this: a paper that was submitted to Science, and rejected. It seems, according to your source, that numerous attempts to publish this theory have been rejected. But it's a conspiracy, right? Scientists are out to kill humanity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Peg, posted 10-13-2009 4:37 AM Peg has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 13 of 21 (530405)
10-13-2009 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by hooah212002
10-12-2009 9:38 PM


Re: Virus
Hi hooah,
hooah writes:
Ok, maybe it doesn't exactly SAY evil exactly. However, is it not assumed that the flud was a fresh start? Isn't that the argued purpose of the flud? Why carry over disease and pestilince?
God did not make everything new which He would have had to do to start all over.
To accomplish that He would have to have performed something like a big crunch and started all over from scratch with nothing but the energy He used in the beginning.
hooah writes:
So do you assert that the AIDS virus evolved?
A virus can only evolve in a living cell. They lack any form of energy, carbon metabolism, and without a host cell viruses are inanimate complex organic matter.
I believe either God or Satan provided the virus which lay dormant until it was manifest in mankind.
I can find no scientific reason for viruses to exist. If you know some I would like to read about them.
hooah writes:
And THAT is precisely the point I am trying to make. How can you claim a just, fair, loving god when he (according to my understanding of what literalists would say) created such a vile, painful disease?
I mentioned Job's boils and death of his children and grand children to point out that God is not the only one who can provide those things.
Satan could have very well have provided the HIV virus. There is no way of knowing. I would tend to believe he did provide it as well as all other bad things.
Because God is a loving God.
But God is also a God of justice. Which requires punishment for disobedience.
God is not like the generation that was raised on the teachings of Dr. Benjamin Spock.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by hooah212002, posted 10-12-2009 9:38 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by hooah212002, posted 10-13-2009 11:32 AM ICANT has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 14 of 21 (530407)
10-13-2009 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by ICANT
10-13-2009 11:22 AM


Re: Virus
To accomplish that He would have to have performed something like a big crunch and started all over from scratch with nothing but the energy He used in the beginning.
Well now, that is quite the odd position for a biblical literalist to take. Or are you not a literalist? (honest question, no offense)
I believe either God or Satan provided the virus which lay dormant until it was manifest in mankind.
That's nice that you believe that, but I specifically requested the science section for a reason. I'm not going to argue with you about your belief system.
But God is also a God of justice. Which requires punishment for disobedience.
Well then. So AIDS is ok for a punishment? Have you seen what AIDS causes? Have you ever met anyone with the disease? What action would warrant that sort of "punishment"?
God is not like the generation that was raised on the teachings of Dr. Benjamin Spock.
What in the bloody hell are you implying? It's ok for god to be a prick? Again, this is what I am trying to wrap my head around: how can you christians accept that your god does this crap and still say he loves you?
And since you keep asserting that maybe satan did it: you also assert that satan has the same ability as god? gee, some god he is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ICANT, posted 10-13-2009 11:22 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by purpledawn, posted 10-13-2009 2:05 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 15 of 21 (530444)
10-13-2009 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by hooah212002
10-13-2009 11:32 AM


Evidence
quote:
That's nice that you believe that, but I specifically requested the science section for a reason. I'm not going to argue with you about your belief system.
Evidence goes both ways. What evidence from the Bible tells you that God put a virus in chimps?
ICANT gave evidence from a Bible story that Satan is also capable of inflicting harm on mankind.
quote:
Well then. So AIDS is ok for a punishment? Have you seen what AIDS causes? Have you ever met anyone with the disease? What action would warrant that sort of "punishment"?
Irrelevant to the discussion. The reality of the Bible times was that disease was punishment from God/gods. The point of the book of Job was that bad things happen to good or bad people.
quote:
What in the bloody hell are you implying? It's ok for god to be a prick? Again, this is what I am trying to wrap my head around: how can you christians accept that your god does this crap and still say he loves you?
And since you keep asserting that maybe satan did it: you also assert that satan has the same ability as god? gee, some god he is.
Again, irrelevant to the discussion. If you don't want to discuss belief systems, then stop attacking perceived beliefs. Don't flit from addressing the text to addressing various perceived teachings.
What do you think Bible literalism means?
Biblical literalism (also called Biblicism or Biblical fundamentalism) is the interpretation or translation of the explicit and primary sense of words in the Bible.[1][2] A literal, Biblical interpretation is associated with the fundamentalist and evangelical hermeneutical approach to Scripture, and is used by most conservative Christians today.[3] The essence of this approach focuses upon the author's intent as the primary meaning of the text.[4] Literal interpretation does place emphasis upon the referential aspect of the words or terms in the text. It does not, however, mean a complete denial of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor).[5] Also literalism does not necessarily lead to total and complete agreement upon one single interpretation for any given passage.
Bottom line, there really isn't anything in the Bible texts that truly addresses your question.
Just as it is incongruous to project current beliefs onto the ancient Bible texts, it is also incongruous to project current medical knowledge onto the ancient texts.
Try to stay consistent. The text of the flood story isn't about diseases.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by hooah212002, posted 10-13-2009 11:32 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by hooah212002, posted 10-13-2009 3:36 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024