Biblical Long Term Solution To The Following Diseases

IF we are to say that these prophibitions are in any way scientific or medical I think that we would first have to establish that their purpose is to prevent the transmission of these diseases. It is curious that the OP omits any reference to this aspect.As has been pointed out the solution is imperfect because there are other modes of transmission. It is also imperfect in that it appears to be impractical.It should be added that blood transfusions are one of the modes of transmission for at least two of the diseases. The Jehovahs Witnesses hold that the Bible forbids these, too. Should we consider this a scientific and medical prohibition intended to close off this avenue of transmission ? If not, then why should we accept the behavior listed in the OP as scientific and medical prohibition ?

Another thought. If monogamy is beneficial should we support monogamy amongst the homosexual population by endorsing gay marriage ? WOuld that be a "Biblical" thing to do ?

Monogamy works to prevent the transmission of STDs regardless of the sex acts performed within the relationship. Thus I repeat the question of whether it would be in line with your Biblical teaching to promote monogamy through homosexuals through the institution of "gay marriages".u

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

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-defeatingIt's also unBiblical. There is no indication that the rules were instituted with the idea of controlling STDs in the Bible. B

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

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)..