Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Biblical Long Term Solution To The Following Diseases
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 16 of 111 (280421)
01-20-2006 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
01-20-2006 6:51 PM


Not strictly on topic, perhaps, but the OT would not have been too concerned about at least some of those ailments. Syphilis was apparently confined to the Americas before Columbus, and AIDS didn't jump to humans until perhaps the 1940's.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2006 6:51 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 17 of 111 (280423)
01-20-2006 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
01-20-2006 6:51 PM


This purpose of this thread is not to preach morality, but to examine the medical scientific aspects of these Biblical inhibitions relative to the above stated diseases of humanity, given that practitioners often advocate various abstinences in treatment and prevention of diseases.
A true scientific study of abstinence would have to examine behavioral consequences of abstinence. Abstinence is a behavioral change, and may affect other behavioral changes. Perhaps people become more aggressive, and violent crime increases. Perhaps people become more passive; the will to procreate is lost and we suffer population loss. Or a lack of innovation.
I don't know. All I know is that large-scale abstinence is a huge change, and like any huge change, would come along with side-effects. Without anticipating those, you can't properly anticipate whether abstinence will accomplish what you hope.
Remember, you're talking about people. And many of the people are without the faith you have. How do you think abstinence, whether forced (mandated) or chosen, would affect us all?
Is this medically scientific?
What are the medical effects of a lack of sex? Really, we'd need to know that in order to try to predict behavioral changes. And like I said, you need to know behavioral changes to be able to predict how these different diseases will change.
It all seems so implausible, I can't imagine giving any real answer. I don't see how it could be done, so I don't have any idea how it would effect people, let alone entire societies, let alone the balance of societies in the world.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2006 6:51 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by nator, posted 01-20-2006 10:31 PM Ben! has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 18 of 111 (280424)
01-20-2006 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
01-20-2006 9:12 PM


  • they will do nothing to reduce the incidence or transmission of STDs after marriage.
  • If you reduce the incidence of STDs before marriage, then (assuming monogamy in marriage), you would reduce the incidence in marriage. Less partners would have the disease, so less partners would transmit the disease to their partners. I.e. less incidence in the overall population of married people.
    At least, that's what my little brain is telling me.
    they will do nothing to minimize the initial exposure to STDs from non-sexual sources.
    Same thing goes here too. If you have less people carrying STDs (because you reduced sexual transmission), then you have less people possibly transmitting an STD from a non-sexual source. You'd have less blood donors who might have STDs, for example. Or less kissing partners with STDs.
    At least, that's what my pop-tart supported brain is telling me today.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 11 by jar, posted 01-20-2006 9:12 PM jar has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 42 by Buzsaw, posted 01-21-2006 7:41 PM Ben! has replied

      
    Buzsaw
    Inactive Member


    Message 19 of 111 (280425)
    01-20-2006 10:18 PM
    Reply to: Message 7 by crashfrog
    01-20-2006 8:33 PM


    Crashfrog writes:
    No. Abstinence usually is about only 30% effective over time for preventing the contraction of STD's or pregnancy.
    1. The topic has nothing to do with pregnancy. Do your stats include pregnancy? If so they are a strawman as per this topic.
    2. Where are you getting your stats and what time frame?
    crashfrog writes:
    Moreover, even waiting to marry someone positive for these diseases, and being completely monogamous with them, will not prevent you from contracting the disease from them
    Would you agree that monogamous heterosexual practice reduces the incidence of these diseases?
    crashfrog writes:
    So, no. I'd say there isn't much medical validity to the idea of "abstinence" as a prophilactic. The fact that it hasn't ever stemmed the tide of a disease in several thousand years should have been your first indicator.
    Given that the vast majority of aids infections are MSM, would you agree that MSM sexual abstinence would greatly reduce incidence of aids on the long haul?

    Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 01-20-2006 8:33 PM crashfrog has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 20 by Coragyps, posted 01-20-2006 10:23 PM Buzsaw has replied
     Message 22 by Iblis, posted 01-20-2006 10:31 PM Buzsaw has not replied
     Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2006 10:22 AM Buzsaw has replied

      
    Coragyps
    Member (Idle past 735 days)
    Posts: 5553
    From: Snyder, Texas, USA
    Joined: 11-12-2002


    Message 20 of 111 (280426)
    01-20-2006 10:23 PM
    Reply to: Message 19 by Buzsaw
    01-20-2006 10:18 PM


    Given that the vast majority of aids infections are MSM
    MSM=??, Buz? Male/male sex? That's not even cause of a simple majority of AIDS cases in this century. In the 80's in the US it was, but that isn't now.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 19 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2006 10:18 PM Buzsaw has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 25 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2006 11:18 PM Coragyps has not replied

      
    nator
    Member (Idle past 2170 days)
    Posts: 12961
    From: Ann Arbor
    Joined: 12-09-2001


    Message 21 of 111 (280427)
    01-20-2006 10:27 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
    01-20-2006 6:51 PM


    quote:
    Aids
    Genital Herpes
    Syphilis
    Gonorrhea
    Hepatitis B
    Human Herpes Virus 8 (HHV-8)
    Biblical Solution = Abstinence from adultery, fornication and sodomy.
    Well, since the bible doesn't particularly condemn rape, and rather assumes it will happen and treats it as a fairly minor crime against property insead of a violation of a human being, all of your efforts to keep people from willingly spread STD's will come to naught.
    Hey, you've even got the most staunch activist fundamentalist Christian husbands sodomizing their narcoleptic wives.
    Sicko.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2006 6:51 PM Buzsaw has not replied

      
    Iblis
    Member (Idle past 3896 days)
    Posts: 663
    Joined: 11-17-2005


    Message 22 of 111 (280428)
    01-20-2006 10:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 19 by Buzsaw
    01-20-2006 10:18 PM


    still No
    the vast majority of aids infections are MSM
    No, false-to-form and false-to-fact. The reason it looks that way historically in the US is because our Carrier 0 was an incredibly promiscuous gay male flight attendant.
    The vast majority of infections worldwide are females engaging in heterosexual activity, with males engaging in the receiving side of anal sex as a distant second. The same is true of statistical incidence of new infections currently even in the US. The reason the penetrated have a greater chance of getting it is because the vast majority of genetic material is travelling to them rather than from them.
    A fairly common situation during the transition (google Atlanta +AIDS) is the apparently faithful husband who is actually gay, has to be covert about it, gets infected from receiving anal sex, carries it home to his innocent wife and passes it on to her. The guys he lets do him are much less likely to get it from him than the women he does though.
    There's your comparison in a nutshell, it is safer for a man to boofoo someone than it is for a woman to accept her husband.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 19 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2006 10:18 PM Buzsaw has not replied

      
    nator
    Member (Idle past 2170 days)
    Posts: 12961
    From: Ann Arbor
    Joined: 12-09-2001


    Message 23 of 111 (280429)
    01-20-2006 10:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 17 by Ben!
    01-20-2006 10:02 PM


    quote:
    What are the medical effects of a lack of sex? Really, we'd need to know that in order to try to predict behavioral changes. And like I said, you need to know behavioral changes to be able to predict how these different diseases will change.
    It all seems so implausible, I can't imagine giving any real answer. I don't see how it could be done, so I don't have any idea how it would effect people, let alone entire societies, let alone the balance of societies in the world.
    We could do long-term studies of the people in religious orders which are cleibate; i.e. monks, preiests, and nuns.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 17 by Ben!, posted 01-20-2006 10:02 PM Ben! has not replied

      
    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 24 of 111 (280431)
    01-20-2006 10:57 PM
    Reply to: Message 12 by Buzsaw
    01-20-2006 9:27 PM


    Hi, buz.
    What we can agree on is that, indeed, we are talking about a continuum of risk vs. safety vis a vis STDs. The less sex one has, the less risk one has of contracting an STD, with the least risk associated with no sex at all. The fewer sexual partners one has, the less risk one has of contracting an STD, with the least risk associated with 0 sexual partners. The less contact ones, er, mucus membranes are in contact with other's, the less risk of contracting an STD, with the least risk associated with restricting your sexual partners to your own hand.
    Now, if one decides that one is going to engage in some sort of sexual bahavior with another human being, then one assumes more risk. Of course, we are talking about a continuous function of numbers of sexual partners; I'm not sure why restricting one's sexual activity to a single person for life is supposed to be the best option. Complete celibacy is preferrable in terms of the least risk of contracting an STD, but at the expense of foregoing what may be a very pleasant experience. Complete promiscuity would be preferrable in terms of experiencing this particular physical and emotionally pleasurable experience, but at the cost of increase risk of contracting an STD. Where one decides to place one's limits is going to depend on what one feels is necessary to lead a pleasant life and what risks one is willing to undertake to meet these needs.

    "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2006 9:27 PM Buzsaw has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 27 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-20-2006 11:52 PM Chiroptera has replied

      
    Buzsaw
    Inactive Member


    Message 25 of 111 (280433)
    01-20-2006 11:18 PM
    Reply to: Message 20 by Coragyps
    01-20-2006 10:23 PM


    chiroptera writes:
    MSM=??, Buz? Male/male sex? That's not even cause of a simple majority of AIDS cases in this century. In the 80's in the US it was, but that isn't now.
    I meant to specify the US where MMS related aids is about 8 times that of hetersexuals. This in spite of the fact that a small percentage of partners are MMS. In foreign countries like many permiscous African nations the problem has spread to heterosexuals. This is likely due to largely to the high incidence of permiscuous conduct also among heterosexuals. I don't know what the world stats are on that. Do you?

    Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 20 by Coragyps, posted 01-20-2006 10:23 PM Coragyps has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 64 by DBlevins, posted 01-24-2006 2:22 PM Buzsaw has not replied

      
    macaroniandcheese 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
    Posts: 4258
    Joined: 05-24-2004


    Message 26 of 111 (280437)
    01-20-2006 11:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 15 by Buzsaw
    01-20-2006 9:47 PM


    Re: Hep B Blood & Mucous Membrane Transmuted
    hep b is also a virus. note. hep c is the nasty one... and the one without a vaccine. Division of Viral Hepatitis | CDC this suggests that hep c is rarely spread through sexual contact and testing is not recommended for such individuals. funny. let's see what they say about hep b (change the c to a b in the link). they have no similar chart for it... why? because there is a vaccine. did you know there's a d and e? d is allegedly sex related. e is associated with fecal contamination. that's why you don't drink the water in mexico. well. south asia and north africa. by the way, a is also associated with fecal contamination. i personally think it's quite possible that the rest (namely b and c and d) are probably able to be transmitted through fecal contamination. feces are gross like that. they probably have a shorter viability outside the cell though which limits this possibility. so yes, how nice of you to have conveniently framed your topic. so what? you said nothing about bacteria. but then i suppose god gave us penicillin eh?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2006 9:47 PM Buzsaw has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 01-21-2006 5:53 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

      
    macaroniandcheese 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
    Posts: 4258
    Joined: 05-24-2004


    Message 27 of 111 (280438)
    01-20-2006 11:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 24 by Chiroptera
    01-20-2006 10:57 PM


    less risk means nothing. it only takes once.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 24 by Chiroptera, posted 01-20-2006 10:57 PM Chiroptera has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 30 by Chiroptera, posted 01-21-2006 12:32 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 17822
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 2.2


    Message 28 of 111 (280456)
    01-21-2006 4:04 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
    01-20-2006 6:51 PM


    IF we are to say that these prophibitions are in any way scientific or medical I think that we would first have to establish that their purpose is to prevent the transmission of these diseases. It is curious that the OP omits any reference to this aspect.
    As has been pointed out the solution is imperfect because there are other modes of transmission. It is also imperfect in that it appears to be impractical.
    It should be added that blood transfusions are one of the modes of transmission for at least two of the diseases. The Jehovahs Witnesses hold that the Bible forbids these, too. Should we consider this a scientific and medical prohibition intended to close off this avenue of transmission ? If not, then why should we accept the behavior listed in the OP as scientific and medical prohibition ?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2006 6:51 PM Buzsaw has not replied

      
    crashfrog
    Member (Idle past 1467 days)
    Posts: 19762
    From: Silver Spring, MD
    Joined: 03-20-2003


    Message 29 of 111 (280507)
    01-21-2006 10:22 AM
    Reply to: Message 19 by Buzsaw
    01-20-2006 10:18 PM


    The topic has nothing to do with pregnancy.
    Undesired pregnancy is an STD, if you ask me.
    Would you agree that monogamous heterosexual practice reduces the incidence of these diseases?
    Not really; avoiding sexual contact with infected persons is the only way to prevent contracting these diseases. Conflating that with monogamy is dangerous at best.
    Given that the vast majority of aids infections are MSM, would you agree that MSM sexual abstinence would greatly reduce incidence of aids on the long haul?
    MSM? I don't understand.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 19 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2006 10:18 PM Buzsaw has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 35 by Buzsaw, posted 01-21-2006 6:25 PM crashfrog has replied

      
    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 30 of 111 (280543)
    01-21-2006 12:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 27 by macaroniandcheese
    01-20-2006 11:52 PM


    I guess I'm not sure what your point is. Since "less risk means nothing", do you mean that you engage in promiscuous sex without protection? Or do you lead a completely celibate life? Or do you consider the (meaningless) risks and adjust your behavior accordingly?
    Added by edit:
    When I cross the street, sometimes I walk all the way down to the crosswalk and wait for the light to change, sometimes will cross in the middle of the block, and, yes, I have and will again run through relatively busy traffic to get to the other side quickly. Depending on things like the inconvenience of walking several blocks to the light, the need to be at an appointment on time, or being just out for a stroll with no real goal in mind, I will adjust my behavior based on convenience versus the risks involved. Despite that it would just take once to be hit by a car and killed, I do not find the risks at all meaningless.
    But then, "meaning" is a very subjective term. You may find "reduced risk" meaningless, I find it very meaningful. buzsaw finds Biblical prohibitions meaningful, I find them meaningless.
    This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 21-Jan-2006 05:52 PM

    "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 27 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-20-2006 11:52 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 38 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-21-2006 7:07 PM Chiroptera has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024