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?