Pentecostals encourage man to stop HIV medication

[Deetee]

Nutjobbery of the highest order.

Religious zealots who think god will save them and their kin from disease are a bane to humanity.
Mind you, seeing as how god presumably gave these diseases to the people in the first place, perhaps it should be him who has to save them should he so desire...

 

[mutile]

Agreed, incredibly stupid, almost as stupid as the beliefs of religious moderates.

 

[RockNroll]

Eh.
I am firmly opposed to non-consenting people or minors being affected by crackpot beliefs, but if consenting adults wish to kill themselves for the glory of their imaginary friend(s), I really can't muster much indignation (I can, however, point and laugh). More room for me.

 

[Craig4]

I've seen this in East Africa. It's pretty much a Pentecostal thing there too. I would think that the fact that these people were born in a slum of Nairobi or Dar es Salam would have cemented in their minds that their god doesn't give a flying **** about them but folks are funny. It's a bit astounding really that someone would think, "gee. God let me born to a changa addicted dad and prostitute mother in a slum with cholera outbreaks every time it rains. There's no way he'd let me die of AIDS".

 

[Craig B]

Agreed, incredibly stupid, almost as stupid as the beliefs of religious moderates.

Can you expand on that?

 

[Myriad]

Agreed, incredibly stupid, almost as stupid as the beliefs of religious moderates.

Can you expand on that?

It's the rhetorically amusing but ultimately meaningless equivalence you get when you compare abstract "beliefs" without taking actual practices (such as acting on beliefs) into account. It's a good excuse for being indiscriminate about the beliefs one opposes.

In the abstract, believing in a virgin birth is every bit as irrational as believing Jesus will save your life if you jump off a bridge. But the equivalence goes away once the latter believer contemplates actually jumping off a bridge, or actually does so.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[RockNroll]

It's the rhetorically amusing but ultimately meaningless equivalence you get when you compare abstract "beliefs" without taking actual practices (such as acting on beliefs) into account. It's a good excuse for being indiscriminate about the beliefs one opposes.

In the abstract, believing in a virgin birth is every bit as irrational as believing Jesus will save your life if you jump off a bridge. But the equivalence goes away once the latter believer contemplates actually jumping off a bridge, or actually does so.

Respectfully,
Myriad

I didn't interpret it like that. I figured he/she meant that, since religious people derive their entire belief system from a specific source (their respective religious text), then fundies are at least being more consistent by actually trying to take that book literally (although even the most hardcore fundies will fail at that, given the contradictions present in the texts, and the number of things those texts advocate that would land you in prison in any free modern society), while religious moderates just pick and choose the bits they like while still claiming to be devout followers of that religion.

It's a point I've seen raised quite often. Although, if you ask me, I'll take the wishy-washy moderates over the hardcore literalists any day, consistency be damned. If you're gonna base your life on fantasy, you might as well half-ass it.

Hopefully the poster will come back to shed some light on which interpretation was right.

 

[mutile]

It's the rhetorically amusing but ultimately meaningless equivalence you get when you compare abstract "beliefs" without taking actual practices (such as acting on beliefs) into account. It's a good excuse for being indiscriminate about the beliefs one opposes.

Good point I can't really answer before I think about what you have said a bit more. First thought is that it is not just a comparison about abstract beliefs but a complaint about the hypocrisy and action of professing beliefs you don't stick to.

Further it seems more honest, actions and professed beliefs line up, if we just judge people on their actions then religion should not interfere so much with how society functions, because moderates do not act as if they believe in a God.

It is also partly annoyance that you can talk to a person that says they don't believe God interferes and then later they talk about miracles, usually that personally affects them which seems very selfish and insulting to those who have not been saved by God.

I didn't interpret it like that. I figured he/she meant that, since religious people derive their entire belief system from a specific source (their respective religious text), then fundies are at least being more consistent by actually trying to take that book literally (although even the most hardcore fundies will fail at that, given the contradictions present in the texts, and the number of things those texts advocate that would land you in prison in any free modern society), while religious moderates just pick and choose the bits they like while still claiming to be devout followers of that religion.

It's a point I've seen raised quite often. Although, if you ask me, I'll take the wishy-washy moderates over the hardcore literalists any day, consistency be damned. If you're gonna base your life on fantasy, you might as well half-ass it.

Hopefully the poster will come back to shed some light on which interpretation was right.

I can't really fault either interpretation, but there seems to be an assumption that moderates and fundamentalists are basing on fantasies so therefore fundamentalism is more dangerous, but it is a question of truth, if the believer knows it is a fantasy then I agree fundamentalism is not as good, but both sides believe it is true so should be treated like any other truth claim.

If we are talking about jumping from a bridge, then I prefer a fundamentalist view of physics than a moderate one.

 

[Cainkane1]

Nutjobbery of the highest order.

Religious zealots who think god will save them and their kin from disease are a bane to humanity.
Mind you, seeing as how god presumably gave these diseases to the people in the first place, perhaps it should be him who has to save them should he so desire...

This happens a lot. A little girl with diabetes died because he parents failed to get her medical attention. They felt that prayer was enough. Jehovah Witnesses have allowed their children to die because their religion forbids blood transfusions. Christian scientists do the same thing often.

 

[marplots]

It's a test of faith. One should embrace the opportunity and the honor.

 

[Bogative]

I have a brother who is HIV-positive, and he's going through something similar to this with our Pentecostal church attending mother. While she's not actively encouraging him to stop taking his medication, she keeps filling him with false hope of a "miracle cure" because her pastor is telling her that anyone who gives their life to God will be cured of their ailments. It's very frustrating to watch.

 

[marplots]

I have a brother who is HIV-positive, and he's going through something similar to this with our Pentecostal church attending mother. While she's not actively encouraging him to stop taking his medication, she keeps filling him with false hope of a "miracle cure" because her pastor is telling her that anyone who gives their life to God will be cured of their ailments. It's very frustrating to watch.

Why not go for both? Take the drugs and pray for a miracle. Do the meds somehow prevent God from working his will?

 

[Bogative]

Why not go for both? Take the drugs and pray for a miracle. Do the meds somehow prevent God from working his will?

Fortunately, he hasn't given into the woo and is still taking his medication and he's only been to church once since he was diagnosed with HIV several years ago.

Like most other gay people, he believes he was born that way and I'm sure you're well aware of what kind of problem that causes when reading the bible. He doesn't have much faith in religion anymore, so he should be all right.