Abstinence should be the only policy!

I agree that abstinence should be the only acceptible policy.

But, there's an old saying: Stay out of the rain. But, if you're gonna get wet, the least you can do is know how to wear a raincoat.

I don't think that avising on the use of "raincoats" is necessarily condoning "getting wet". Since this is a family board, I'll keep it at that. I can only use so many analogies.

 

Many of these errors result from improper usage. I agree with Johnv, abstinence is the ideal for those not married, but people need to know how to protect themselves. This becomes more than a matter of morals...it becomes a matter of public health.

 

Abstinence only. It works 100% of the time it is used.

Joseph Botwinick

 

That's right, TS.

John's analogy would be as silly as saying, "I am going to jump off the nearest clif on Mount Magazine and protect myself by wearing a helmet.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Does anyone know of an instance in the Bible when God told us not to sin but if we did then here is a way to lessen the negative effects of it? Just curious...

 

I agree.

The article did say the men didn't put the 'raincoats' on properly and that's why all the problems. So if used correctly they do help to keep diseases away, but not every time of course.

You're right TS, abstinence is the only sane health rule along with the only Christian behavior. That's common sense for unmarried Christian's. But the article is talking about everyone in the world. Unbeliever's will keep having sex regardless.

 

We're talking about the unsaved, not Christians, and somehow I don't think the solution to promiscuity is to let AIDS sweep across Africa, infecting innocent women and children, and then say, "I guess that showed them."

I know that is not what you are saying, but it could be read that way!

 

A closer analogy would be a parachute instead of a helmet. Not jumping off cliffs is abstinence. For those who insist on jumping, please use a parachute even though it is not risk free. And learn how to use one before you jump.

 

This board never ceases to amaze me that so many Baptists have patently unbiblical views on certain issues. This topic is another prime example. Sad.

 

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?

 

More like "I'm going to perform a dangerous stunt on my bycicle, so I better wear a helmet". The best advice is to not do the stunt. But if you're going to wear the stunt, at least have the fortitude to wear a helmet. Likewise, the best choice is abstinence. If you're going to be promiscuois, the least you should do it use a "raincoat".

Don't presume that with my "raincoat" analogy I was advocating promiscuity here. Not at all.

 

More evidence for abstinence:

The editor of "Rubber Chemistry and Technology, Dr. C. Michael Roland of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington D.C., spoke about his research on "intrinsic flaws" in latex rubber condoms and surgical gloves (published is Rubber World, June, 1993.

Roland said, "That what I am about to relate is "common knowledge among good scientists who have no political agenda."

Electron microscopy reveals the HIV virus to be about 0.1 microns in size(a micron is a millionth of a meter). It is 60 times smaller than a syphilis bacterium and 450 times smaller than a human sperm..

The standard U.S. government leakage test (ASTM) will detect water leakage through holes only as small as 10 to 12 microns.

Roland says in good tests based on these standards, 33% of all condoms tested allowed HIV-sized particles through, and that "spermicidal agents such as nonoxonol-9 may actually ease the passage."

Roland's paper shows electron microscopy photos of natural latex. You can see the natural holes, or intrinsic flaws. The "inherent defects in natural rubber range between 5 and 70 microns.

And it's not as if governments do not know. A study by Dr. R.F. Carey of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reports that "leakage of HIV-sized particles through latex condoms was detectable for as many as 29 of 89 condoms tested." These were brand new, pre-approved condoms. But Roland says a closer reading of Carey's data actually yields a 78% HIV-leakage rate, and concludes: "That the CDC would promote condoms based on (this) study...suggests its agenda is concerned with something other than public health and welfare." The Federal government's standard tests, he adds, "cannot detect flaws even 70 times larger than the AIDS virus."

So much for "safe sex".

Bro. James

 

Really? Everyone here is promoting abstinence as the biblical view. No one has said anything remotely different.

 

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.

 

Abstinence