Biblical Long Term Solution To The Following Diseases

quote:

---

Biblical Solution = Abstinence from adultery, fornication and sodomy.

---

Not a very adequate solution, though, eh? A better solution would be to abstain from sex altogether. Even in a sanctified, monogamous relationship, you have no way of knowing whether your partner is truly being "faithful". And even if she is the sort of person you can usually trust, everyone has weaknesses, and you never know that she may, in a moment of weakness, dally with the wrong person at the wrong time.No, if one wants to reduce the risk of these diseases as much as possible, one should become totally, completely celibate.As Wounded King points out, even that is not perfect, but at least you would be doing what you can to reduce the risks.

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

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

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

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

Sorry for the delay in response, buz. I only just now noticed that you replied to my last message on this.-

quote:

---

1. Say what? Complete promiscuity to complete celibacy? How did you read this into my OP or subsequent posts?

---

Because that is the topic of your OP. Here is your OP, quoted: To discuss how "medically scientific" something is, you need to discuss what the problem is, what the possible alternative solutions are, the range of options, and what exactly it is that one is trying to accomplish.-

quote:

---

2. Regular use of prophylatics to achieve prophylaxis (I assume that's what you mean by "regular use of") is off topic here. This thread is about abstinence relative to prophylaxis/prevention of disease.

---

The implication in your OP is that abstinence or chastity is somehow a superior solution to some problem. That can only be determined if alternatives are considered.-

quote:

---

3. I have chosen this arbitrary set of behavior because this is the Biblical one which I wish to address as to whether it is medically scientific for the long term prevention of STDs listed in the OP.

---

But if this Biblical "solution" is not compared to anything else, then there is no "medical scientific" validity.-

quote:

---

Without going back, I believe it I was responding to someone as to how this Levitical mandate was relative to prevention of disease and that God implemented it as a factor in the preservation of a nation to become his kingdom on earth.

---

First of all, this was not in your OP. Second, it is not within the domain of medical science to discuss factors in the preservation of a nation to become any god's kingdom on earth.As far as the "medical scientificly" validity of chastity as a preventitive of STDs, one needs to discuss other methods of prevention as well as the relative risks, as well as the amount of risk on wants to assume.If one wants to discuss what should be done to "preserve a nation to become a god's kingdom on earth", assuming that such a god exists, and assuming that we know what that god actually wants, then the discussion is no longer in the domain of "medical science", and this thread belongs in a theology forum.

---

"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