Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblical Long Term Solution To The Following Diseases
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 111 (280606)
01-21-2006 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by macaroniandcheese
01-21-2006 9:04 PM


Re: it only takes once.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-21-2006 9:04 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 01-22-2006 10:19 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 47 of 111 (280608)
01-21-2006 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by crashfrog
01-21-2006 9:26 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2006 9:26 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 48 of 111 (280663)
01-22-2006 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Buzsaw
01-21-2006 7:41 PM


Re: Ben Has It Right
quote:
The culture in some very promiscuous African nations
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Buzsaw, posted 01-21-2006 7:41 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 111 (280682)
01-22-2006 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by crashfrog
01-21-2006 9:26 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2006 9:26 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2006 6:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 111 (280692)
01-22-2006 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Chiroptera
01-21-2006 9:31 PM


Re: it only takes once.
Chiroptera writes:
And it wasn't even directed toward him, neither.
No, but shall we say, foul do do, stinking up my thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Chiroptera, posted 01-21-2006 9:31 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 51 of 111 (280801)
01-22-2006 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Buzsaw
01-22-2006 10:03 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Buzsaw, posted 01-22-2006 10:03 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 111 (280907)
01-23-2006 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Buzsaw
01-21-2006 6:07 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 01-21-2006 6:07 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2006 2:00 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 53 of 111 (280968)
01-23-2006 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Dan Carroll
01-23-2006 10:31 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-23-2006 10:31 AM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3977
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 54 of 111 (281016)
01-23-2006 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
01-20-2006 6:51 PM


Uh, okay, so what?
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?

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 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 55 of 111 (281070)
01-23-2006 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Buzsaw
01-21-2006 7:41 PM


Re: Ben Has It Right
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Buzsaw, posted 01-21-2006 7:41 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 111 (281080)
01-23-2006 11:01 PM


General Reply
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 FORNICATION
2. 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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-23-2006 11:10 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 58 by jar, posted 01-23-2006 11:34 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 59 by Ben!, posted 01-23-2006 11:40 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 60 by PaulK, posted 01-24-2006 2:34 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 01-24-2006 9:34 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 62 by Chiroptera, posted 01-24-2006 9:50 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 63 by Omnivorous, posted 01-24-2006 9:50 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 65 by AdminWounded, posted 01-24-2006 4:52 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 57 of 111 (281084)
01-23-2006 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Buzsaw
01-23-2006 11:01 PM


Re: General Reply
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Buzsaw, posted 01-23-2006 11:01 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 58 of 111 (281099)
01-23-2006 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Buzsaw
01-23-2006 11:01 PM


Still mixing up stuff and making unsupported assertions
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Buzsaw, posted 01-23-2006 11:01 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Buzsaw, posted 01-24-2006 8:57 PM jar has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 59 of 111 (281103)
01-23-2006 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Buzsaw
01-23-2006 11:01 PM


Re: General Reply
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Buzsaw, posted 01-23-2006 11:01 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 01-24-2006 9:06 PM Ben! has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 60 of 111 (281134)
01-24-2006 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Buzsaw
01-23-2006 11:01 PM


Re: General Reply
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Buzsaw, posted 01-23-2006 11:01 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Buzsaw, posted 01-24-2006 9:34 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024