# Is AIDS a disease?



## PEZenfuego (Sep 15, 2009)

Okay, here is the problem:

I'm having an argument with a friend (not serious) about AIDS. I think that it is not a disease, but he is firm in the belief that it is.

My premise is that diseases MUST have characteristic symptoms and AIDS does not.

His premise is that syndrome=disease.

Acquired Immunodeficiency syndrome



Now, what do you think?

PLEASE use sources.


----------



## shicklegroober (Sep 15, 2009)

AIDS is the result of a disease, so I think it could be argued either way


----------



## MTGjumper (Sep 15, 2009)

Wikipedia says that AIDs is a disease, therefore AIDs is not a disease.


----------



## El Veintitres (Sep 15, 2009)

MTGjumper said:


> Wikipedia says that AIDs is a disease, therefore AIDs is not a disease.


 
Disagree, Wikipedia is the best.

On the more serious topic, no AIDS is not a disease, it is the condition that results from the virus HIV.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Sep 15, 2009)

El Veintitres said:


> MTGjumper said:
> 
> 
> > Wikipedia says that AIDs is a disease, therefore AIDs is not a disease.
> ...



Agreed.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Sep 15, 2009)

AIDS is obviously caused by not accepting Jesus into a person's life, therefore it isn't a disease, it's a disorder.


----------



## ConnorCuber (Sep 15, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> AIDS is obviously caused by not accepting Jesus into a person's life, therefore it isn't a disease, it's a disorder.



But SUPER AIDS is a whole different story....


----------



## Muesli (Sep 15, 2009)

HIV and AIDS are completely different things, although AIDS develops from HIV. You could argue that AIDS is a condition _caused_ by the HIV virus, but then Cholera is a condition _caused_ by the Cholera bacteria.

This leads you to wonder wether diseases like Parkinsons are really diseases, or just conditions _caused_ by certain factors.

tl;dr: Disease is such a broad term. It really isn't accurate enough a definition to argue either way.


----------



## elcarc (Sep 16, 2009)

isnt aids an std (sexually transmitted *disease*)
i could be wrong though


----------



## mcciff2112 (Sep 16, 2009)

I think this has to do with the way you look at it. IMO, a disease is something that causes someone to be sick, permanently or temporarily, mentally or physically. So I would say yes. But this is just my view. Others may look at the word "disease" in a different way.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Sep 16, 2009)

elcarc said:


> isnt aids an std (sexually transmitted *disease*)
> i could be wrong though



HIV is an STD. However it has been renamed an STI standing for a Sexually Transmitted Infection. AIDS can result from the HIV virus however AIDS itself is not an STD/STI.


----------



## Lorenzo (Sep 16, 2009)

El Veintitres said:


> MTGjumper said:
> 
> 
> > Wikipedia says that AIDs is a disease, therefore AIDs is not a disease.
> ...



On Wikipedia, anyone can just make an account and change whatever information they want. Don't rely on it too much. But if you already knew that, then ok.


----------



## Kian (Sep 16, 2009)

puzzlemaster said:


> elcarc said:
> 
> 
> > isnt aids an std (sexually transmitted *disease*)
> ...



I don't think you understand the difference between an STD and an STI. While the two are basically interchangeable, you may consider someone to have an STI if they are a carrier but do not show signs of disease. It wasn't changed because it can be both (depending on different stages and the like).

On Topic- AIDS is certainly a disease. A disease is basically anything that inhibits normal body functions with some pretty basic exceptions, of course. HIV is the cause for the disease, like the H1N1 virus is the cause for "Swine Flu", or anything else. I'd suggest some light reading on what a "disease" is if you'd like to understand further but it's really quite obvious that AIDS is a disease.


----------



## DAE_JA_VOO (Sep 16, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> AIDS is obviously caused by not accepting Jesus into a person's life, therefore it isn't a disease, it's a disorder.



This kind of joke is REALLY uncalled for. Have some respect for people on this forum who ARE Christians.


----------



## rahulkadukar (Sep 16, 2009)

AIDS is a condition caused by HIV where your body is defenceless. Theoretically you could develop AIDS even without HIV


----------



## Escher (Sep 16, 2009)

DAE_JA_VOO said:


> Ethan Rosen said:
> 
> 
> > AIDS is obviously caused by not accepting Jesus into a person's life, therefore it isn't a disease, it's a disorder.
> ...



I'm not Christian, but I thought that it was just a parody of a ridiculous view that some hold and then try to back up using their religion. It's no parody of the religion itself (which clearly teaches acceptance etc etc).


----------



## Tyson (Sep 16, 2009)

DAE_JA_VOO said:


> Ethan Rosen said:
> 
> 
> > AIDS is obviously caused by not accepting Jesus into a person's life, therefore it isn't a disease, it's a disorder.
> ...



I find it uncalled for that you insult his Christianity by telling him to have respect for people who are Christians. There's nothing in the Bible about AIDS. Leviticus 18:22 says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." As AIDS is easily transmitted through homosexual intercourse, it is completely reasonable, if you believe in the bible and in Christianity, that god created AIDS as a way to punish homosexuals for their sins.

It's like how women who use epidural anesthesia are also sinning and going against god. The Bible says that a woman's pain during childbirth is punishment for Eve's original sin. For a woman not to feel pain during childbirth is going against god's wishes.


----------



## elcarc (Sep 16, 2009)

Tyson said:


> DAE_JA_VOO said:
> 
> 
> > Ethan Rosen said:
> ...



almost the same way you have to care and pay attention to crops. its bassicly punishment for sin


----------



## Tyson (Sep 16, 2009)

Speaking of which, you should probably burn all your clothes that are polyester nylon blends. I'm pretty sure god wants everyone's clothes to be of only one material.

"Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together." -- Deuteronomy 22:11

This statement is pretty clear. If you go through and read all of Deuteronomy in context, it doesn't change the meaning of this verse. Bon fire anyone?

Wait wait wait... Ethan is totally right! If you get AIDS, it's your own fault!

"If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee." -- Exodus 15:26

Right there, it says that if you get AIDS, it means that you are not right with Jesus.


----------



## brunson (Sep 16, 2009)

Be careful, there are a lot of people here that don't get subtlety and sarcasm. What's that principle that states it's impossible to differentiate between a fundamentalist and someone mocking fundamentalism?


----------



## Tyson (Sep 16, 2009)

Poe's Law - http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's_Law

_Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing._

I'm not really being sarcastic. The Bible says pretty clearly, that if you get AIDS, it means that you are not right with god. If you believe in The Bible, then you have to accept that diseases are the result of not being right with god.


----------



## elcarc (Sep 16, 2009)

obviously you did something wrong if you got aids, (unless your married, and your partner didnt tell you about the aids, in that case, i dont know what to say)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 16, 2009)

elcarc said:


> obviously you did something wrong if you got aids, (unless your married, and your partner didnt tell you about the aids, in that case, i dont know what to say)



Yes, those babies born with AIDS obviously have done something terribly wrong to deserve such a fate.


----------



## Tyson (Sep 16, 2009)

Well obviously if you got married and you got AIDS from your spouse, then you sinned in some other manner. Or it could be simply as sinning by marrying someone who was not right with god.

Two quick glances at that porn magazine when you were 12? AIDS for the *REST OF YOUR LIFE UR GONNA ROT IN HELL!*

As for babies, they obviously committed sins while inside the womb. By accepting Jesus Christ as their lord and savior, god will cure them of AIDS. No one has been cured of AIDS because no one with AIDS truly believes.


----------



## elcarc (Sep 16, 2009)

Tyson said:


> Well obviously if you got married and you got AIDS from your spouse, then you sinned in some other manner. Or it could be simply as sinning by marrying someone who was not right with god.
> 
> Two quick glances at that porn magazine when you were 12? AIDS for the *REST OF YOUR LIFE UR GONNA ROT IN HELL!*
> 
> As for babies, they obviously committed sins while inside the womb. By accepting Jesus Christ as their lord and savior, god will cure them of AIDS. No one has been cured of AIDS because no one with AIDS truly believes.



why do i get a sense of sarcasm from that post


----------



## Tyson (Sep 16, 2009)

If you read The Bible accurately, can you come to any other interpretation?


----------



## LNZ (Sep 16, 2009)

AIDS/HIV is a condition that with drugs should never kill someone. To prevent AIDS, pratice safe sex by using condoms and thinking before actually having sex. 

I live in Australia and I'm lucky. In my country, we've never had the absistance/no sex before marriage vs safe sex with condoms debate that cripples the USA right now.

But in the mid 1980's, people panicked about AIDS. In year 10 at high school (1985), the school offered sex education that included advice about AIDS. 

Then my parents were very homophobic and any mention of AIDS would off seen them sign a consent form to preclude me from this sex education class. 

But I burnt the constent form that my parents could of signed to get me out of these classes before theyeven saw it. The school assumed that no returned signed consent form with objection equated to 100% approval for the classes for me.

I attended all 5 sex ed classes with mention of safe sex and AIDS. I told my parents in my mid 30's (about 2005) that I did this and they totally approved of my actions.


----------



## Tyson (Sep 16, 2009)

AIDS won't kill you if you live in a germ free bubble too. Australia has its own set of problems though...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article6830145.ece


----------



## Novriil (Sep 16, 2009)

Lorenzo said:


> El Veintitres said:
> 
> 
> > MTGjumper said:
> ...



That's why there are administrators who check that and alot of other stuff...

I know.. I know...


----------



## PEZenfuego (Sep 16, 2009)

Wow, this is a difficult question to which I assume there is no correct answer.


----------



## Innocence (Sep 16, 2009)

PEZenfuego said:


> Wow, this is a difficult question to which I assume there is no correct answer.



I agree. Sometimes I think the sole purpose of all these threads is to create arguments.

To everybody involved in the whole christian debate: The "pro" side are making impressionable people (the vast majority) believe that we are all a bunch of bible-bashers. The "con" side are making what the pro side are doing worse. So if we want to make a conversation about religion, let's make it private or in another thread, maybe?

I don't know, this is kind of a pointless debate. Not really sure where I stand, it really seems quite trivial.


----------



## Kian (Sep 17, 2009)

Tyson said:


> If you read The Bible accurately, can you come to any other interpretation?



Well, if you choose to only read the Old Testament, sure. But quoting Deuteronomy and Exodus without the context of the talk of repentance and forgiveness that Jesus Christ floods the New Testament with is not compatible with the Christian faith.


----------



## Tyson (Sep 17, 2009)

That's your interpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman


----------



## Ton (Sep 17, 2009)

Tyson said:


> If you read The Bible accurately, can you come to any other interpretation?



Well, this is the point, you try to use text in the bible to prove/make an argument, in my view using the bible without context and understanding the difference of the old an new testament is useless. You could also use a dictionary


----------



## Kian (Sep 17, 2009)

Tyson said:


> That's your interpretation.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman



Yes, it is my interpretation. So obviously one can come to another interpretation, which you seemed to dismiss. And many, many would agree. Casually dismissing what amounts to the majority of the Christian faith (the teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament) for most Christians in order to make a point does not make a valid argument.


----------



## Innocence (Sep 17, 2009)

That's right, ignore me, I don't care.


----------



## elcarc (Sep 17, 2009)

to me the bible sends out the same message, but you recieve it in different ways


----------

