|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Biblical Long Term Solution To The Following Diseases | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
And it wasn't even directed toward him, neither.
"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3953 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
i think he's referring to man-on-man-sex and playing into the fallacy that only gays get aids or that most people with aids are gay men.
the truth is that right now the most people with aids are heterosexual black women. unless something has changed recently.
Simple logic - you can't get a disease from someone who doesn't have one, and you can be infected by your first and only sexual partner. i knew a girl in high school who was infected with her lifelong tapeworm of goo the night she lost her virginity. sucks to be her eh? This message has been edited by brennakimi, 01-21-2006 09:37 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Buz, the problem in these "very promiscuous Aftican nations" you keep specifying is not really the promiscuity. The problem with the spread of AIDS and other STD's in these places is due to several factors: 1) There is shameful denial of the scope and gravity of the problem from the highest seats in some of their governments. 2) As such, there is widespread ignorance among the population about the diseases and how they are transmitted. There exists a widespread tragic myth among men in these nations that having sex with a virgin girl will cure AIDS. 3) Strict religious (Christian or Moslem mostly) rules often frown upon the use of condoms, and they are also very difficult to obtain. 4) Oppression of women in these patriarchal and religious cultures make it much more difficult for a woman to refuse a man's sexual advances, let alone inquire about his disease-free status, let alone insist upon a condom, and thus men are infecting women, who in turn infect the babies they give birth to. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-22-2006 09:22 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Crashfrog writes: If having an unwanted tapeworm or an unwanted bacteria or an unwanted virus is a disease, then an unwanted pregnancy is a disease. What is a disease, if not a lifeform in your body that you don't want there? CF, if you want to romote your pregnancey=disease nonscience, please do your own thread. It's off topic here and not included in the STDs listed in the OP. Strawmen are not conducive to productive debate.
CF writes: Simple logic - you can't get a disease from someone who doesn't have one, and you can be infected by your first and only sexual partner. STD highly unlikely if you and your first folllow ( AbE: Biblical guidelines. )
CF writes: How about you tell me what the hell you're talking about? Juggling the letters around doesn't tell me what you mean. Most folks who've gotten this far in the thread have MMS figured out. It means male/male sex. This message has been edited by buzsaw, 01-22-2006 10:07 AM This message has been edited by buzsaw, 01-22-2006 10:09 AM Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Chiroptera writes: And it wasn't even directed toward him, neither. No, but shall we say, foul do do, stinking up my thread?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
STD highly unlikely if you and your first folllow But then you're advocating exactly what I'm advocating - don't expose yourself to infected persons, and investigate about your partner's medical and sexual history. How would you know, after all, that they'd followed the "Biblical guidelines?"
Most folks who've gotten this far in the thread have MMS figured out. It means male/male sex. Male/male intercourse is not the leading cause of AIDS infections, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, and before you repeated the claim to me. Why did you continue to repeat a claim that you knew was false?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
The topic question pertains to the three practices, one of which is sodomy. This catagory includes the practice of monogamous homosexuality. Would abstinence from this practice reduce the incidence of one or more of the sexual diseases in the list significantly, say in the US? Short answer: no. If two guys both get tested for every disease on your list, and come up negative, then proceed to have completely monogamous sex like crazed gay bunnies, they will neither contract nor spread any of the diseases you listed through sexual contact. Therefore, their sexual activities will be irrelevant to your list. As a side note, I like the word "permiscous". It's cute, like when a kid says "pasghetti." "I fail to comprehend your indignation, sir. I've simply made the logical deduction that you are a liar." -Spock
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
A point that seems to have been neglected (apologies if I have missed it) is that while anal sex is more likely to transmit sexual diseases than vaginal intercourse it does not matter if the anus is a man's or a woman's. So if this aspect is a health practice it should not single out male homosexuals - it should specifically rule out anal intercourse.
l
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3986 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
buzsaw writes: Biblical Solution = Abstinence from adultery, fornication and sodomy. Is this medically scientific? Universal acceptance of Biblical injunctions against adultery and fornication would certainly drop STD stats, though the prevalence of rape would vitiate the effect considerably. Maybe you should add that to your list, though I'm not sure where the Bible stands on rape, given a few of its stories... Anyway--witness a few millenia of Christian behavior--your Biblical injunction scenario ain't gonna happen, and that's one reason it is not scientific. The Biblical "cure" for STDs is not "medically scientific" because it presupposes human behavior patterns that are at odds with scientifically demonstrable modes of human behavior. You could announce a "hot cautery" cure for plantar warts, and it would work, but you're not going to abolish the damned things with it because it ain't gonna happen. Why stop there, though? Paul advocated celibacy, but noted it wasn't gonna happen. Why not draw the line where he did? Neither your version nor his is gonna happen, but at least the scope of his non-solution is grander. I'm not sure what sodomy--generally defined as any "abnormal" or "condemned" sexual act, and usually taken to mean anal or oral sex--is doing on the list. I'd hazard a guess that more heterosexual men and women than gay men have engaged in sodomy, regardless of how the word is defined. Now, Buz, let me ask you something in return. A vaccine against the virus that causes most cervical cancers has been developed. Some Christians have already spoken out against it, since it might influence young ladies to be sexually active, a Christian perspective we encounter often in discussions of sex education: Death must guard the gates of her Virtue. Would you immunize your children against STDs? Should vaccines be used by Christians if there are Biblical inhibitions on the disease? If faithful adherence to Biblical injunctions would be protective, should the afflicted be cured, or the innocent protected?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1424 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
This is why some cultures and families have little or no incidence of STDs and others are plagued with them. Like I said in my original response to your OP, I think you'd have to do a lot more work to eliminate other factors and pin incidence of STDs to the level of promiscuity of cultures. Not to mention backing up all your statements of data with actual figures. Which you may have done and I missed it. But without all those things, I just don't see it as a strong or compelling case. Too many "what if's" or unaddressed questions for my taste. I'd love it to get the answers though...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
I'm getting all this flack about this form of deviation and that form. You people are obfuscating by complicating the proposition of the OP, which advocates abstinence of these three, PERIOD.
OK, let me simplify the proposition as set forth in the Levitical law of the Bible. Here it is, and mind you, it was for the nation of Israel so as for Jehovah God to SANCTIFY and PRESERVE a nation on planet earth by which he was to establish a future messianic kingdom ON EARTH. In order to preserve this nation, there had to be some rigid rules of conduct FOR THE GOOD OF THE JEWS and for their long term survival. Here was the deal: 1. NO FORNICATION2. NO ADULTERY 3. NO SODOMY, (I.E. HOMOSEXUALITY, AS PER MY DICTIONARY) PUNISHMENT FOR ANY OF THE ABOVE = DEATH!! GOD'S OBJECTIVE: STDs A RARITY AT THE MAX FOR THE PRESERVATION AND WELL BEING OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD, THE NATION OF ISRAEL REGARDING THEIR SEXUAL CONDUCT. AT TIMES WHEN THE NATION DISOBEYED THE LAW, THEY WERE SCATTERED FROM BEING A NATION BUT PROMISE OF RESTORATION FOR MILLENIAL KINGDOM. IS THE ABOVE MEDICALLY SCIENTIFIC? NOTE: There was no "if this or if that" with God. It was, "one strike and your're out!!" (It appears that Admins NWR and WOUNDED were right when they advised that I elaborate more in the OP, but one doesn't always forsee and forknow how discussions will progress.) Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3953 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
dude. chill out. great. everyone keeps they junk in they pants. great.
you still haven't responded to my mention that these diseases are spread through non-sexual means. you wanna tell me about the latex gloves that jewish doctors used in the lovely bc desert? you keep ignoring anything that anyone says about anything non-sexual and yelling at everyone who says anything aboutsexual deviation from the rules. guess why "your thread" is going nowhere. i guess why you're getting flack is because you need a nap. or maybe we're all just conspiring against you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
First you claim:
GOD'S OBJECTIVE: STDs A RARITY AT THE MAX FOR THE PRESERVATION AND WELL BEING OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD, THE NATION OF ISRAEL REGARDING THEIR SEXUAL CONDUCT. Im all my years of bible study I've never come across the passages where GOD says he wants to minimize STDs. You are making an assertion here with absolutely no support that I can tell.
3. NO SODOMY, (I.E. HOMOSEXUALITY, AS PER MY DICTIONARY)
Maybe in your dictionary, but as everyone has pointed out to you, homosexuality is NOT a prime vector for transmitting STDs, and any of the practices carry exactly the same risk whether between two people of the same sex or a bisexual encounter. In addition, you have not addressed the fact that the initial cause in any chain will be infection from a source other than sexual. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1424 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
IS THE ABOVE MEDICALLY SCIENTIFIC No. In 1997, there were about 532,980 cases of gonnhorea in the USA. In Japan, there were less than 9000. Unless you think Americans are 60X more promiscuous than Japanese, then your oversimplified analysis is not scientific. There are other factors. See previous posts for suggestions on what other factors may be involved, and what questions need to be answered. For stats, see:Japaense: tpc223.html (Table 1) American: National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP) | CDC (Slide 9) and http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p23-194.pdf (p. 7)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
No, it's not scientific. The death penalty is justifiable on scientific grounds. The ban on sodomy if it only refers to male homosexuality rather than a general ban on anal intercourse is pointless on the grounds that anally penetrating a female is equally risky and because if the fornication and adultery rules actually worked there would be no need to ban anal intercourse at all. Polygamy and remarriages would have undermined the effects of bans on fornication and adultery. Quite frankly the penalty of "scattering" the people for disobedience seems to have been a greater threat to the supposed objective than the behaviour being banned (as shown by the fact that only the tribes of the kingdom of Judah are still around). And as far as I know, none of the peoples of the Near East in that period were wiped out or even seriously weakened by STDs.
In other words the prescription is unscientific. The belief in a serious threat from STDs is unscientific. "Scattering" the people to "preserve" them is a foolish response, likely to be self-defeating It's also unBiblical. There is no indication that the rules were instituted with the idea of controlling STDs in the Bible. B
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024