Let me get this straight...

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Do you follow the Bible's health care plan?  If you do you will save a ton of money.  Look at the results Jesus got from using it.  

James 5:13-15   https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...CV;NET;CEV

Actually I do. That's what got me through a burst appendix, AIDS, and my Cancer Scare.

People have survived all of those things without the Bible health care plan.  When are you going to levitate a mountain?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

You guys who challenge God for not healing people anymore like he use to, can't seem to stand the idea that he might still be doing that very thing.

You are so special.

[Cyberman]

We had this discussion remember, this is what started the whole You pray 'whatever it takes, even if it means you get AIDS/Cancer, and I will do the same.' Which morphed into "Drich is praying everyone on the forum is to get cancer."

Rather an interesting interpretation of my question; not to mention a revealing one into your recollection of events on record. Still, whatever gets you off at night I suppose. To sleep, that is.

So to answer your question: They shouldn't. My experiences is what it took for me to go from faith to belief. I prayed that God show me the truth, and I was willing to do whatever it took.. The AIDS experience was the first step in that journey. because at the time it was a death sentence with no hope of recovery. This was the first time God took me well past any help any one could offer and set me right again. That process of being beyond the reach of any physical help anyone could offer leaves us at the point where we know that God himself will be the only thing that can bring us out of a given mess. Maybe not once or twice, but a lifetime of this tempers resolve and deepens understanding of God.

Again my Health is just one aspect of being beyond the help of others. I went through it again with my wife, and her addiction(s) and like a light switch a 10 year herion addiction all was turned off. once again with the establishment of the business (A Complete stranger handing me 25K to get started) To 15 years of trials and blessings from that business.

All of these are all things God has done for me, to put me in a position to be unshakable in what I know to be absolutely true. Why? Because I wanted/needed to know before I could solidify my beliefs, and act on my beliefs.

That said, I know I am nothing special. I was not born to a certain family, I grew up hard, and was hard on believers for a very long time. All I did was honestly sought answers and was faithful to what I was given. Which means if some of you who really have been given gifts ever get your heads out of your b-holes Your journeys would no doubt put what I have experienced to shame.

That's the key though. It has to be your journey, Your cancer story and Your miraculous recovery, and 100 or 1000 other impossible things that situations demand or scream God's involvement over the course of your whole life. It's not just a one time "Dear God, if your out there give me a sign. Amen" challenge.

My story's are what it took for me. I was a doubting Thomas. Jesus Commends those who can live by faith, but at the same time He does not condemn the Doubting Thomas' of the world. Rather He did EXACTLY What it took to get Thomas to believe. We just have to hang in their long enough, and let things get dark enough before we can get to a place where we can know without a doubt that if you get out of a given trial, it will only be because the Hand of God pulled you out.

Ok, so in terms of anyone else's position, your experiences are irrelevant; however important they are to you. Thus we can safely ignore them. Thank you.

[KevinM1]

Wait, Drich's "AIDS experience" was him reasonably freaking out due to a false positive from a blood test?  And he attributes the proper results to god saving him rather than the doctors being smart enough to run a few more tests to confirm/deny the original diagnosis?

LMFAO

Again no. AIDS is determined by counting white cells. HIV is just one cause of AIDS. It is not the only cause. I tested positive for AIDS, just not HIV

Are you speaking of ICL?  Because it presents differently than AIDS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiopathic...ocytopenia).  Low T-cell counts != AIDS in and of itself.

But, again, testing positive for something does not mean you have it.  False positives are a thing.  That's why your doctors ordered more tests.  Severe diagnoses, like AIDS, like cancer require further tests to verify.  One test is never usually enough, considering that actual verification usually means expensive and often painful treatments for the patient down the line.  So, doctors are going to make damn sure they get it right before subjecting their patients to that kind of thing.  And false positives were most certainly more common regarding AIDS back in 1990 than they are today.  1990 was the infancy of AIDS detection and treatment.

Basically, it's what I said.  Instead of understanding science (and, you know, the reality it describes), you have the hubris to think that god saved you because you thought really hard about it rather than there most likely being an error (either in detection, or the doctors knowing what they were talking about) and that error being corrected.

Too funny.

[KUSA]

No, it tends to get used for anti-gay assholes, regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof.

So your calling KUSA a homophobe or again, does he get a pass on his comments because he does not believe in God?

I'm not a homophobe. I don't care if you suck dicks. Don't care at all. You consented to it so it's no big deal.

[robvalue]

Choice 1: Learn real stuff

Pros: It helps inform your decisions to make the most sensible ones for yourself and those around you. It puts you in a position to help others with useful, correct information. You can even contribute towards the progression of science and technology. Your children will have you as a reliable, useful guide in their journey. You are less likely to be conned by people spinning tall tales. You can get a better job. You can make full use of your brain, and feel the satisfaction of coming to a good understanding of the world around you.

Cons: It's difficult and time consuming. You must be comfortable with the boundaries of current knowledge.

Choice 2: Make stuff up / believe stuff other people made up

Pros: It's extremely fast. It requires no understanding of anything, no training, no testing, and if you encounter a problem you can just make more stuff up until you're satisfied you have it covered. You can "answer" every question.

Cons: Your stuff is not based on reality. It will contain much which is either demonstrably wrong, or else unfalsifiable and therefor useless. It is worse than not knowing, because it can cause you to make poorer decisions than having no information. Since you fool yourself into thinking you have valid answers to everything, you have less incentive to actually learn anything real or useful. You will possibly confuse and misguide others, including your children. By using garbled thinking, you surrender your intellectual integrity, use litte introspection and will likely be completely unaware of just how broken your "answers" are.

[Drich]

Again no. AIDS is determined by counting white cells. HIV is just one cause of AIDS. It is not the only cause. I tested positive for AIDS, just not HIV

Are you speaking of ICL?  Because it presents differently than AIDS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiopathic...ocytopenia).  Low T-cell counts != AIDS in and of itself.

But, again, testing positive for something does not mean you have it.  False positives are a thing.  That's why your doctors ordered more tests.  Severe diagnoses, like AIDS, like cancer require further tests to verify.  One test is never usually enough, considering that actual verification usually means expensive and often painful treatments for the patient down the line.  So, doctors are going to make damn sure they get it right before subjecting their patients to that kind of thing.  And false positives were most certainly more common regarding AIDS back in 1990 than they are today.  1990 was the infancy of AIDS detection and treatment.

Basically, it's what I said.  Instead of understanding science (and, you know, the reality it describes), you have the hubris to think that god saved you because you thought really hard about it rather than there most likely being an error (either in detection, or the doctors knowing what they were talking about) and that error being corrected.

Too funny.

No I'm talking about non hiv AIDS. 

Again AIDS DESCRIBES A AUTO IMMUNE DEFFENCY of which HIV is a primary cause but can have other causes.

http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/content/37...1.full.pdf

All that is needed for an AIDS diagnosis is a super low white cell count. Once the low white cell count has been confirmed then the look to seek out why. First step? HIV TEST. But again HIV is not the only trigger of AIDS

[Drich]

So your calling KUSA a homophobe or again, does he get a pass on his comments because he does not believe in God?

I'm not a homophobe. I don't care if you suck dicks. Don't care at all. You consented to it so it's no big deal.

I know your not! I'm not the one who called you that. I corrected a Christian who called you a homophobe and one of your brother atheists. By saying only a Christian can be called a homophobe by saying what you said.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Are you speaking of ICL?  Because it presents differently than AIDS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiopathic...ocytopenia).  Low T-cell counts != AIDS in and of itself.

But, again, testing positive for something does not mean you have it.  False positives are a thing.  That's why your doctors ordered more tests.  Severe diagnoses, like AIDS, like cancer require further tests to verify.  One test is never usually enough, considering that actual verification usually means expensive and often painful treatments for the patient down the line.  So, doctors are going to make damn sure they get it right before subjecting their patients to that kind of thing.  And false positives were most certainly more common regarding AIDS back in 1990 than they are today.  1990 was the infancy of AIDS detection and treatment.

Basically, it's what I said.  Instead of understanding science (and, you know, the reality it describes), you have the hubris to think that god saved you because you thought really hard about it rather than there most likely being an error (either in detection, or the doctors knowing what they were talking about) and that error being corrected.

Too funny.

No I'm talking about non hiv AIDS. 

Again AIDS DESCRIBES A AUTO IMMUNE DEFFENCY of which HIV is a primary cause but can have other causes.

http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/content/37...1.full.pdf

All that is needed for an AIDS diagnosis is a super low white cell count. Once the low white cell count has been confirmed then the look to seek out why. First step? HIV TEST. But again HIV is not the only trigger of AIDS

Yeah, that's an article from 1996. I can find no references to the term "non-HIV AIDS" later than 1997, and that article you cite is actually saying that the term "non-HIV AIDS" was a misnomer for simple immune deficiency that cropped up when people suspected that you could get AIDS from sources other than the virus itself (it's called the "AIDS myth" crowd, which was popular in the mid-90s, people who claimed that HIV didn't cause AIDS and it was in fact other elements common in gay communities that was causing it, like the use of certain drugs), a position which today is met with scorn and derision, and is clung to only by the tinfoil-hat crowd, so to speak. 

Did you actually read the article? It's about a conference in which experts met to discuss the possibility that AIDS was caused by something other than HIV, and they found it was not. They coined the term "CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia" to describe what you've been telling us about, here, since the old concept of Non-HIV AIDS was determined to be bunkum. See page 2 of the pdf you cited to, labeled Page 172.

All the references to "non-HIV AIDS" in that article are in reference to the common term used by journalists and some questioning researchers, prior to that conference. That's why you see no references to the term after 1997, when the literature stopped discussing that term, having found it to be bunk.

[KUSA]

Again, Drippy is a troll. He twisted a story about a low white blood count and called it AIDS. Quite deceptive.

Drippy, you spit in the face of all people that really have the disease. Shame on you.