Abstinence should be the only policy!

I understand that sinners will sin. But honestly I don't care about their "point of view"; I care about God's point of view. God says do not commit adultery, do not fornicate. That same law applies to the believer and unbeliever.

What you are advocating would be similar to telling a murderer to not murder, but if you do murder, just make sure you do it neatly (i.e., clean up the mess, bury the body), so as to not make it a public health issue. I mean, we don't want a rotting dead body lieing around, so here is a coffin for your use, in case you decide to murder someone.

 

Petrel,

So the commands of God are only for the saved and not the unsaved? It's o.k. for the unsaved to sin all they want? </font>[/QUOTE]Ok, I'll play.

The unsaved have a completely different worldview that us. No, they ought not to sin, but from their point of view it's a completely reasonable thing to do, so it's naive to expect them not to.

Because promiscuous sexual activity spreads STDs (and since one, AIDS, is terminal) promiscuity, like Magnetic Poles pointed out, is a public health concern. STDs are not limited to only "sinners." A man may go out and have sex with someone when he shouldn't and then come back and give his wife AIDS when she didn't do anything wrong. Then if she is unknowing, her baby may be born with AIDS. The father is the one who sinned, but his wife and innocent baby will die as well. </font>[/QUOTE]Not to mention that the infected individual could rape other people.

 

Latex hole size--OK, for the sake of argument let us decrease the size one order of magnitude: go from 50x to 5x. You still have a "sieve" which will pass lethal micro-organisms.

What about the CDC and Dr. Carey's data?

Straight dope: most people believe exactly what they want--regardless of the facts.

There is no middle ground.

There is a price to pay for promiscuity, fornication and adultery--the wages of sin is death--it applies to every creature--especially the one called homo sapiens.

Selah,

Bro. James

[ July 29, 2005, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Bro. James ]

 

BTW, this research was for the FDA and not the CDC

 

I support abstinence. But misinformation about condoms weakens the abstinence message.

 

I guess you oppose efforts to keep people from driving while drunk as well then, since that will keep them from getting their just deserts by immolating themselves plus a family of four.

Regarding condoms and their effectiveness versus AIDS:

Pinkerton, S.; Abramson, P. "Effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission," Social Science & Medicine. 1997, 44, 1303.

 

This is the 2nd time you've confused me with DHK whose positions are probably the furthest from mine on this board besides our geographical positions. I'll forgive you, but don't let it happen again.

Misinformation about condoms (both in their efficacy and non-efficacy) hurt the abstinence message.

I learned about contraceptives through the public school system in Toronto and was taught with a priority of abstinence while learning that other methods had varying rates of failure with respect to contraception and STD prevention.

If the rhythym method was shown to be more effective contraceptively than condoms, then it probably compared the highest compliance levels of the rhythym method to the lowest compliance levels of condom use.

 

Since most people who use the rhythm method are called "mommy" and "daddy", I don't see how anyone could remotely make the claim that it's reasonably effective. Not to mention, it may reduce the chance of pregnancy somewhat, but does absolutely nothing to reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases.

The most effective way to reduce the risk of std's is latex condom use (not sheepskin, not any other material). The only way to eliminate the risk of std's is abstinence.

The bottom line is always the same. Even with condom use, if you have sex enough times, you will eventually get pregnant, and/or eventually transmit a disease (if the person/s you're with is/are carries). Kinda like playing roulette. Eventually, the ball always lands on double-zero.

 

Sorry, your analogy fails. Getting drunk and then driving in a car are two mutually exclusive events (or sins); someone can get drunk but not drive. If they do drive while drunk, well then they have sinned again by endangering themselves and others.

Having illicit sex and wearing a condom while having illicit sex are the same thing in the sight of God. Both are sin.

 

Assuming its misinformation (something not proven), how so?

 

No worries, I was just ribbing you.

 

Assuming its misinformation (something not proven), how so? </font>[/QUOTE]You lose the trust of those you are trying to reach with the message.

 

Sorry, your analogy fails. Getting drunk and then driving in a car are two mutually exclusive events (or sins); someone can get drunk but not drive. If they do drive while drunk, well then they have sinned again by endangering themselves and others.

Having illicit sex and wearing a condom while having illicit sex are the same thing in the sight of God. Both are sin. </font>[/QUOTE]Better than your analogy about murder!

Murder is obviously recognized as illegal and obviously results in harm to another. Promiscuity and drunkeness in certain contexts are not illegal. Yet if people choose to be promiscuous or become drunk, we should encourage them to take steps to avoid harming other people. I don't know why this is so controversial.

 

I'm not talking about what is legal or illegal under our civil laws. I'm talking about what it right and what is wrong from a Biblical mindset. And your position is not from a Biblical mindset.

 

What do you think is the biblical approach to advise those who refuse abstinence?

 

The Biblical approach is definitely not telling them to sin more safely.

 

The Biblical approach is definitely not telling them to sin more safely. </font>[/QUOTE]So what is it? They've already decided to sin.