Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-19-2019 12:44 PM
29 online now:
AZPaul3, edge, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo, Sarah Bellum, xongsmith (8 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,034 Year: 12,070/19,786 Month: 1,851/2,641 Week: 360/708 Day: 54/81 Hour: 3/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345678Next
Author Topic:   Biblical Long Term Solution To The Following Diseases
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 111 (280376)
01-20-2006 6:51 PM


Aids
Genital Herpes
Syphilis
Gonorrhea
Hepatitis B
Human Herpes Virus 8 (HHV-8)

Biblical Solution = Abstinence from adultery, fornication and sodomy.

Is this medically scientific?

This purpose of this thread is not to preach morality, but to examine the medical scientific aspects of these Biblical inhibitions relative to the above stated diseases of humanity, given that practitioners often advocate various abstinences in treatment and prevention of diseases.

(promoted from Biblical Long Term Solution To The Following Diseases by AdminNWR)


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Wounded King, posted 01-20-2006 7:02 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 3 by jar, posted 01-20-2006 7:10 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 01-20-2006 7:50 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 01-20-2006 8:33 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 16 by Coragyps, posted 01-20-2006 9:51 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Ben!, posted 01-20-2006 10:02 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 21 by nator, posted 01-20-2006 10:27 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 28 by PaulK, posted 01-21-2006 4:04 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 54 by Omnivorous, posted 01-23-2006 4:47 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2290 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 2 of 111 (280378)
01-20-2006 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
01-20-2006 6:51 PM


Does abstaining from sexual activity or limiting ones activity to only one partner prevent, or at least greatly reduce, the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease? Yes, obviously, because they are sexually transmitted diseases.

Even if everyone were to be abstinent or monogamous there might still be some spread of some of these diseases by non sexual exchanges of bodily fluids such as medical blood contamination, sharing of needles during intravenous drug use. Widespread adoption of abstinence and monogamy would certainly greatly reduce the spread of these diseases.

I don't think there is any need to isolate sodomy in particular, it may increase the risk of infection to a degree but if one is either abstinent or in a monogamous relationship then the type of sexual activity indulged in shouldn't matter a dickie bird.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2006 6:51 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2006 8:28 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31071
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 3 of 111 (280379)
01-20-2006 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
01-20-2006 6:51 PM


This purpose of this thread is not to preach morality, but to examine the medical scientific aspects of these Biblical inhibitions relative to the above stated diseases of humanity, given that practitioners often advocate various abstinences in treatment and prevention of diseases.

IMHO it is simply yet another example of people reaching to find imaginary support for a weak and baseless faith.

Herpes and Hepatitis can also be transmitted by other means such as kissing. Aids can be transmitted through things such as contact with blood, IV, blood transfusion.

Furthermore, there were also many requirements in the Bible that we would consider today as incouraging promiscuity such as the mandate for the surviving brother to marry his brothers widow. Finally, abstinence is only a factor even in Christian or Judaic communities before marriage and so does nothing to limit transmittal after marriage.

Claiming this was some God given medical marvel is but reaching and imagination just like most Biblical prophecy.

There's nothing astounding about it.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2006 6:51 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-20-2006 8:23 PM jar has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Coragyps, posted 01-20-2006 8:35 PM jar has responded
 Message 10 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2006 9:01 PM jar has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6698
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 4 of 111 (280390)
01-20-2006 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
01-20-2006 6:51 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2006 6:51 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2006 9:27 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2123 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 5 of 111 (280396)
01-20-2006 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
01-20-2006 7:10 PM


you can get hepatitis and some other "stds" from non-human contact through contaminated surfaces. the bacterial types can like in any moist environment as far as i know.

it's really all a stretch. and just because not boning might prevent getting aids doesn't justify the rest of the book. cause yeah.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 01-20-2006 7:10 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2006 9:47 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 111 (280398)
01-20-2006 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Wounded King
01-20-2006 7:02 PM


Think Long Term As Per Thread Title
Wounded King writes:

Does abstaining from sexual activity or limiting ones activity to only one partner prevent, or at least greatly reduce, the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease? Yes, obviously, because they are sexually transmitted diseases.
Even if everyone were to be abstinent or monogamous there might still be some spread of some of these diseases by non sexual exchanges of bodily fluids such as medical blood contamination, sharing of needles during intravenous drug use. Widespread adoption of abstinence and monogamy would certainly greatly reduce the spread of these diseases.

1. So can we assume by this statement that you agree that the long term Biblical solution is medically scientific?

2. Would you agree that the small percentage of nonsexual causes of SDIs would also decrease if more were to abstain from the three listed practices?

WK writes:

I don't think there is any need to isolate sodomy in particular, it may increase the risk of infection to a degree but if one is either abstinent or in a monogamous relationship then the type of sexual activity indulged in shouldn't matter a dickie bird.

But I didn't isolate sodomy. I included it in the list of three sexual practices.


Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Wounded King, posted 01-20-2006 7:02 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 111 (280402)
01-20-2006 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
01-20-2006 6:51 PM


Biblical Solution = Abstinence from adultery, fornication and sodomy.

Is this medically scientific?

No. Abstinence usually is about only 30% effective over time for preventing the contraction of STD's or pregnancy. Moreover, even waiting to marry someone positive for these diseases, and being completely monogamous with them, will not prevent you from contracting the disease from them

So, no. I'd say there isn't much medical validity to the idea of "abstinence" as a prophilactic. The fact that it hasn't ever stemmed the tide of a disease in several thousand years should have been your first indicator.

Retarding the spread of a disease is one prong of fighting an epidemic; actual treatments for the infected are the second. How, exactly, does abstinence until marriage help the poor sod with gonorrhea?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2006 6:51 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2006 10:18 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5396
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 8 of 111 (280403)
01-20-2006 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
01-20-2006 7:10 PM


Aids can be transmitted through things such as contact with blood, IV, blood transfusion.

Or even slaughtering Amekelites, huh?
There's no need at all to think that the anti-sex rules in Deuteronomy had anything to do with health. They were for keeping the desired social order the way it was - "don't mess with my wife, and maybe I won't mess with yours."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 01-20-2006 7:10 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 01-20-2006 8:40 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31071
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 9 of 111 (280405)
01-20-2006 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Coragyps
01-20-2006 8:35 PM


I agree. There was no health component involved, rather they were designed for minimizing or ritualizing (providing a monetary or professional outlet) for agression.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Coragyps, posted 01-20-2006 8:35 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 111 (280409)
01-20-2006 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
01-20-2006 7:10 PM


jar writes:

IMHO it is simply yet another example of people reaching to find imaginary support for a weak and baseless faith.

Off topic. This thread is to discuss/debate the medically scientific merits of the OP proposition. It is not a discussion of faith aspects of the Bible.

jar writes:

Herpes and Hepatitis can also be transmitted by other means such as kissing. Aids can be transmitted through things such as contact with blood, IV, blood transfusion.

1. The overall percentage of SDIs is relatively very small by these means of infection.

2. The infectious bacteria of SDIs are relatively delicate.

3. Can we agree that the more who abstain from the three listed practices, the less the incidence from all causes on the long haul, including nonsexual causes? If not, why not?

jar writes:

Furthermore, there were also many requirements in the Bible that we would consider today as incouraging promiscuity such as the mandate for the surviving brother to marry his brothers widow. Finally, abstinence is only a factor even in Christian or Judaic communities before marriage and so does nothing to limit transmittal after marriage.

1. It is logical that if the deceased husband of the surviving widow abstained from the three practices the chance of the brother contacting SDI would be minimal.

2. Strawman: This topic is not pertaining to cultures, race or religious belief. It pertains to all cultures, races and religions conglomerate. Those cultures which are more promiscuous will obviously have different stats than those which are not.

jar writes:

Claiming this was some God given medical marvel is but reaching and imagination just like most Biblical prophecy.

There's nothing astounding about it.

Jar, please cut the inflamitory stuff, keep this thread civil and debate the topic minus the nasties. Nobody said it is a medical marvel nor is it imaginary. You as admin should know better.


Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 01-20-2006 7:10 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 01-20-2006 9:12 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31071
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 11 of 111 (280411)
01-20-2006 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Buzsaw
01-20-2006 9:01 PM


Buz,


  • they had nothing to do with health considerations.

  • they will do nothing to minimize the initial exposure to STDs from non-sexual sources.

  • they will do nothing to reduce the incidence or transmission of STDs after marriage.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2006 9:01 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Ben!, posted 01-20-2006 10:06 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 111 (280416)
01-20-2006 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Chiroptera
01-20-2006 7:50 PM


Chiroptera writes:

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.

The OP pertains to overall conglomerate abstinence. Can we agree that the more who abstain from the mentioned practices, the less incidence of SDIs the stats will show over the long haul?

ChiropteraNo, if one wants to reduce the risk of these diseases as much as possible, one should become totally, completely celibate.

Are you saying "no, abstinence of the three practices do not diminish the incidence of SDIs apart from complete celibacy?" If not, what is your point relative to the OP?

Chiroptera writes:

As Wounded King points out, even that is not perfect, but at least you would be doing what you can to reduce the risks.

Oh, so your answer to the OP question is both "no" and "yes," for the long haul? Which is it? Please bear in mind that I did not ask in the OP whether the Biblical solution would totally eradicate SDIs. I asked if it is a medically scientific long term solution to the problem.


Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 01-20-2006 7:50 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Iblis, posted 01-20-2006 9:46 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Chiroptera, posted 01-20-2006 10:57 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 111 (280417)
01-20-2006 9:31 PM


The thing about solutions to diseases is that they have to be socially practical. If everyone on Earth were to be celibate for 120+ years, then we could wipe out all human diseases (and all humans), but that just isn't going to happen.

Also, many STDs can be passed on in utero.


  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 2091 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 14 of 111 (280419)
01-20-2006 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Buzsaw
01-20-2006 9:27 PM


No
As long as we are debating the relative value of a totally unworkable but perhaps-true-in-the-abstract-if-you-ignore-half-the-facts kind of solution, let me offer up an alternative.

All these bacteria and viruses should just abstain from infecting us. This one is actually more workable from the viewpoint you seem to be holding, because these little critters don't have the "free will" that we were cursed with, so they might actually obey a command from their creator. We won't.

Or how about if we abstain from contact with other human beings altogether and make our babies in sterile labs? That one has a very good chance of actually working in the real world in a limited population. It's not in the Bible though, so you don't feel any need to try and sell it to us under these false pretenses.

The primary method used in say Africa and Haiti for these purposes is the Islamic & Catholic respectively version of your same abstinence-from-abominations solution above. And that's where these diseases develop and spread from!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2006 9:27 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 111 (280420)
01-20-2006 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by macaroniandcheese
01-20-2006 8:23 PM


Hep B Blood & Mucous Membrane Transmuted
brennakimi writes:

you can get hepatitis and some other "stds" from non-human contact through contaminated surfaces. the bacterial types can like in any moist environment as far as i know.

Please note that I specified Hep B in the OP list. Hep B is transmitted via the blood or by mucous membrane contact, sexual contact being by far the primary cause.


Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-20-2006 8:23 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-20-2006 11:50 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
1
2345678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019