As an outsider who shares many values with sincere and faithful Christians, I am troubled with the apparent lack of effectiveness of their most common approaches to The Christian ultimate objective of saving souls is not universallyshared, and arguments from that perspective will not be persuasive to a generalaudience. However, even if we were all to agree to that goal, the current Christianapproaches are allowing far to many bodies and souls to be taken by HIV.The approaches which Christians are taking toward this issue publicly [viz., to outsidersas well as co-religionists] will herein be considered. The essence of the most typicalarguments will be explored. The impact of same will be analyzed, critically. Alternativeswill then be proposed. When pronouncements are made through the media and thepopular press by Christians as Christians, the impact upon perception of the faithful isat least as great as upon the issue in question itself. It is possible to have an ethical position promulgated which has the potential of massappeal without compromising any fundamental principles. Any pronouncements on anissue as critical as HIV must take into consideration the current cultural climate.Wanting of that, the risk of merely offending and the opportunity to reach a recalcitrantmind to a moral perspective is lost [as is the opportunity to save a lost soul].It is also true that, a value-neutral approach is also ultimately doomed to fail. Doorsmay be opened with a non-judgmental approach, but the root causes are notaddressed. Popular opinion notwithstanding, HIV is a consequence of moral decisions.Yet, there is significant cadre of Christians who loathe to even suggest a moral causeand effect.Clearly the most favored approach is what I will call the compassionatenon-judgmental method. This is also most typically used by secular treatment facilitiesand is looked upon approvingly by the mavens of the popular culture. A typical examplecan be found i...
