Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblical Long Term Solution To The Following Diseases
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 61 of 111 (281166)
01-24-2006 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Buzsaw
01-23-2006 11:01 PM


Re: General Reply
IS THE ABOVE MEDICALLY SCIENTIFIC?
No.
Advice that is impossible or impractical to follow has no medical validity. The "cure" for the common cold, after all, is to never contract a cold virus. But the reason that's not the advice of doctors is because avoiding cold viruses requires a life spent in immunological isolation, which is impossible or impractical for just about everyone.
3. NO SODOMY, (I.E. HOMOSEXUALITY, AS PER MY DICTIONARY)
Homosexuals are not "sodomites"; anal sex is an act much more likely to be done by straight couples than gay ones. (Try to imagine why or how lesbians would have anal sex.) Your continued inclusion of "sodomy" on this list even though it isn't an epidemologically relevant activity is baffling.

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 79 by Buzsaw, posted 01-25-2006 11:54 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 111 (281168)
01-24-2006 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Buzsaw
01-23-2006 11:01 PM


Re: General Reply
quote:
IS THE ABOVE MEDICALLY SCIENTIFIC?
No. The reason is that you have taken a continuum of behavior, namely complete promiscuity to complete celibacy, and have chosen one arbitrary point on that continuum. Furthermore, you have ignored complications to this continuum, like the regular use of prophylaxis, regular health screenings, and the like. You have chosen this one arbitrary set of behaviors because an implicit idea of what is "good" or "referrable", value judgements that are not part of any scientific investigation.
Furthermore:
quote:
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.
A future messianic kingdom is the concern of neither science nor medicine.

"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 56 by Buzsaw, posted 01-23-2006 11:01 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Buzsaw, posted 01-26-2006 10:43 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 63 of 111 (281170)
01-24-2006 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Buzsaw
01-23-2006 11:01 PM


Re: General Reply
Buz, you obfuscated by using a term that means male/male sex to you, but generally means socially-determined taboo sex acts to most dictionaries.
Here are some sample dictionary entries (Encarta doesn't want you to know anything about it):
Encarta:
Language Advisory
The dictionary entry you requested contains language that may be considered offensive.
Compact Oxford:
anal intercourse.
Merriam Webster:
1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal
2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex
Cambridge International:
the sexual act of putting the penis into a man's or woman's anus
American Heritage:
Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.
Infoplease:
1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
3. bestiality (def. 4).
In your worldview, is it still sodomy if husband and wife do it? Are only sexual acts that include the possibility of conception moral?
When you find yourself questioning whether multiple interlocutors are being obfuscatory, perhaps it is time to consider an alternative explanation, e.g., you are attempting to oversimplify a complex issue in part by stripping a word of its full panoply of definitions.
BY THE WAY, PLEASE STOP SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS WHEN YOU ARE FRUSTRATED, IT'S RUDE AND HARD TO READ.

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

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 64 of 111 (281274)
01-24-2006 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Buzsaw
01-20-2006 11:18 PM


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.
You make it sound like the 'problem' of AIDS in Africa had spread from a homosexual population to the heterosexual population, due to the promiscuity of hetero's within African nations. Is this your understanding or were you unclear?
Of course this still ignores the fact that whether we are monogamous or not does not erase the chance for contracting a sexually transmitted disease. (IE. AIDS was most likely contracted from eating an infected primate.) Perhaps we should follow the logical order and enforce our religious views onto the animal kingdom as well. Those damn promiscuous apes keep infecting our meat!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2006 11:18 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 111 (281311)
01-24-2006 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Buzsaw
01-23-2006 11:01 PM


Re: General Reply
Buz writes:
(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.)
Except me and NWR of course, you should have put your Admin hat on so you too might have been imbued with the neccessary prophetic powers.
TTFN,
AW

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 92 by Buzsaw, posted 01-26-2006 11:42 PM AdminWounded has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 111 (281361)
01-24-2006 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by jar
01-23-2006 11:34 PM


Re: Still mixing up stuff and making unsupported assertions
jar writes:
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.
If in all your years of Bible study you've never understood that God is preserving a Zionistic Jewish nation for his kingdom, you best get back studying. Simple logic says minimizing STDs factors in bigtime in this regard.
jar writes:
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.
From the stats I read, Aids in the US is about 8 times greater among gay men than among heterosexuals.
jar writes:
In addition, you have not addressed the fact that the initial cause in any chain will be infection from a source other than sexual.
1. I'm not sure that's been proven in all cases.
2. Even if it's true, abstinence of the three deviances mentioned would greatly minimize it's chance of spreading.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by jar, posted 01-23-2006 11:34 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by jar, posted 01-24-2006 10:03 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 01-25-2006 2:46 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 111 (281364)
01-24-2006 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Ben!
01-23-2006 11:40 PM


Re: General Reply
Ben writes:
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.
1. No capital punishment in either US or Japan for promiscuousness. Apples and oranges to Levitical law senario.
2. I am thinking that Americans are highly more promiscuous than japanese.
3. Americans consume far more junk food than Japanese which compounds any health problem.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Ben!, posted 01-23-2006 11:40 PM Ben! has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by nator, posted 01-24-2006 10:01 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 111 (281369)
01-24-2006 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by PaulK
01-24-2006 2:34 AM


Re: General Reply
PaulK writes:
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.
1. Are you serious? In my 47 years of marriage I've never considered endangering my wife's health and dirtying myself up in her feces when there's the proper and ever so wonderful provision for this activity! YUK!! I'm very confident that the Jewish folks under the Levitical law were above such deviant activity as are most civilized heterosexuals.
PaulK writes:
Likely 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.
Why do you think the Jews, having been scattered for nearly two milleniums have held their identiy as Jews so as to return to Israel as identifiable Jews, re-establishing the nation? They've had to be quite family oriented to achieve this highly unlikely phenomenon.
PaulK writes:
It's also unBiblical. There is no indication that the rules were instituted with the idea of controlling STDs in the Bible.
It is highly Biblically implied. See my reply to Jar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by PaulK, posted 01-24-2006 2:34 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by nator, posted 01-24-2006 10:05 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 01-25-2006 2:23 AM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 69 of 111 (281372)
01-24-2006 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Buzsaw
01-24-2006 9:06 PM


Re: General Reply
quote:
2. I am thinking that Americans are highly more promiscuous than japanese.
I really, really think you are wrong about that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 01-24-2006 9:06 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 70 of 111 (281374)
01-24-2006 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Buzsaw
01-24-2006 8:57 PM


Re: Still mixing up stuff and making unsupported assertions
Please point out the passages in the Bible that deal with preventing STDs.
From the stats I read, Aids in the US is about 8 times greater among gay men than among heterosexuals.
What a totally absurd statement. First, let's see your statistics and the sources. Second, what the hell do US stats have to do with your assertion? Are you now trying to change the goal posts again? When that position is shown to be wrong will you change it to some state, or county, or city, or block? What you asked is if abstinence was a medically viable option, not viable for just the US.
If you are really concerned with preventing the incidence of STDs then the Christian thing is to:
  • support universal sex ed in all public and private schools beginning in late grade school and continuing through high school.
  • support the distribution of condoms in the US and world wide.
  • support equal rights for all people in the US, including homosexuals.
  • oppose all Faith Based Health Care restriction.
  • support HPV vaccination for all girls age 12 and older.

Anything less is an complete abrogation of basic Christian principles.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Buzsaw, posted 01-24-2006 8:57 PM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 71 of 111 (281375)
01-24-2006 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Buzsaw
01-24-2006 9:34 PM


Re: General Reply
quote:
1. Are you serious? In my 47 years of marriage I've never considered endangering my wife's health and dirtying myself up in her feces when there's the proper and ever so wonderful provision for this activity! YUK!! I'm very confident that the Jewish folks under the Levitical law were above such deviant activity as are most civilized heterosexuals.
Jewish folks under levitical law also had slaves and considered females as property, especially when they were taken as the spoils of war.
These are much more "deviant" activities than anal sex.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Buzsaw, posted 01-24-2006 9:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 01-24-2006 10:16 PM nator has replied

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


Message 72 of 111 (281378)
01-24-2006 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by nator
01-24-2006 10:05 PM


Re: General Reply
At least 25% of surveyed heterosexual couples have had anal sex at least once.
Also, about the Japanese - I don't know about promiscuity, but according to surveys of frequency of intercourse, the Japanese have about one third of the amount of sex that Americans have. I don't have a cite offhand but I understand that Japan's culture of labor doesn't put much emphasis on a husband's home and personal life.
Sorry, I don't know much more than that. I'd say that, in the country where you can buy used schoolgirl's panties in vending machines (or used to, until they shut them down under violation of the Antiquities Act, of all things), all sexual bets are off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by nator, posted 01-24-2006 10:05 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by nator, posted 01-25-2006 8:59 AM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 73 of 111 (281412)
01-25-2006 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Buzsaw
01-24-2006 9:34 PM


Re: General Reply
I would imagine that anal sex between male and female is more common in societies without reliable contraception, but I have heard that it does happen and I see no reason to doubt that. Even if it only happened rarely it should be included in the ban if the ban were for health reasons. If it isn't then either the ban is not for health reasons or the omission of male-female anal intercourse is an error.
Your answers to my other points - the ones you do try to answer - are no better. Pointing to "Family identity" doesn't change the fact that these practices can help spread STDs.
Asserting that something is "highly implied" when it is not implied at all is just a joke. As I've already pointed out the punishment from failing to follow the rules (according to you) is a greater threat than STDs. All the tribes from the Kingdom of Israel are gone. But you can't produce one example of a people in the area lost to STDs.
This message has been edited by PaulK, 01-25-2006 03:17 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Buzsaw, posted 01-24-2006 9:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 74 of 111 (281413)
01-25-2006 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Buzsaw
01-24-2006 8:57 PM


Re: Still mixing up stuff and making unsupported assertions
I'll reply to the supposed "implication" here, and the other points, too.
quote:
Simple logic says minimizing STDs factors in bigtime in this regard.
Simple logic would say that the importance of dealing with STDs is based on the degree of threat. There is no evidence that STDs are a "bigtime" threat.
Simple logic would say that God could have wiped out STDs. That God could have made the Israelites immune to STDs. That God could do a lot better than a flawed set of rules.
SO there is no reason to suppose that STDs were a serious concern at all - and if they were the response seems to be rather ineffective (or when God is held to have responded himself the response seems to be worse than the actual thread from STDs).
In fact we can't even say if actually inflicting the death penalty would have saved more lives than it cost.
quote:
From the stats I read, Aids in the US is about 8 times greater among gay men than among heterosexuals.
As I understand it that is mainly due to very high promiscuity in the US gay culture at the time the disease (the greater risk of transmission from anal intercourse being only a contributory factor - and one that applies to heterosexuals, too). So including homosexuals in the laws against adultery and fornication - whoich requires allowing them to marry - should be at least as effective as a ban on homosexual intercourse.
quote:
jar writes:
In addition, you have not addressed the fact that the initial cause in any chain will be infection from a source other than sexual.
1. I'm not sure that's been proven in all cases.
2. Even if it's true, abstinence of the three deviances mentioned would greatly minimize it's chance of spreading.
Point 1 really is simple logic. Sexual transmission only occurs when an uninfected person has intercourse with an infected person. Since humanity has only existed for a finite period of time there must be a first link in each chain of transmission. And by definition that person must have become infected by some other means.
Point 2 is only disputed in the case of homosexual intercourse and that only partially - and doesn't really address the point. (Again I note that polygamy and remarriage provide avenues for sexual transmission that can potentially reach quite widely)..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Buzsaw, posted 01-24-2006 8:57 PM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 75 of 111 (281466)
01-25-2006 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by crashfrog
01-24-2006 10:16 PM


Re: General Reply
quote:
Sorry, I don't know much more than that. I'd say that, in the country where you can buy used schoolgirl's panties in vending machines (or used to, until they shut them down under violation of the Antiquities Act, of all things), all sexual bets are off.
The thing is, husbands and wives are not considered to be "soulmates" or anything there.
Prostitution is very common in certain districts in Tokyo. Let me tell you how fun it was to walk around there with my husband and his friend a little ways ahead of me and watch hooker after hooker proposition them. They thought it was a hoot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 01-24-2006 10:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2006 9:30 AM nator has not replied
 Message 77 by Ben!, posted 01-25-2006 10:27 AM nator 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