homosexual invasion

Honestly, very often Christians will not advocate that position because they think that it means we are "sending mixed messages" or advocating sex outside of marriage, etc. However, I can't help but remember that the same God that says "I hate divorce" in Malachi also told the Hebrews in the Torah how to divorce their wives.

Yes, He did this as a concession to their fallenness. My point is that it clearly does not logically follow that if we do similar things in our own dealings with others in society (since society, by definition is composed of unregenerate people as well as us) that we "must" be "sending mixed messages" or giving approval to what they may do. Likewise, we have mandatory seat belt laws, but this does not mean we advocate reckless driving, and, for the record, seatbelts are several times less safe than condoms.

 

Honestly, very often Christians will not advocate that position because they think that it means we are "sending mixed messages" or advocating sex outside of marriage, etc. However, I can't help but remember that the same God that says "I hate divorce" in Malachi also told the Hebrews in the Torah how to divorce their wives.</font>[/QUOTE]Ridiculous! You can clothe yourself in scripture all day but sooner or later you have to take a shower.

Baloney. Just another effort to excuse homosexuality.

 

Thank you Gene. Good points. Even within marriage, understanding how to use contraception is important to reduce risks. For example, people who have a high risk of miscarriage or disease transmission; or those who have reached a certain age and do not want more children, etc. Many do not believe that "abortion" is appropriate after conception. Thus, it is important to avoid conception. While people are living longer lives, we must consider that being older does not automatically mean that there is a decline for intimacy of this nature.
With regard to ministering to single people or those who engage in extramarital affairs, there is an entirely different set of issues. Of course the first course is to educate people on the finer points of abstinence and alternative ways to express love (love notes, an evening out, etc.) for singles; working through the feelings(family counseling or therapy, spiritual accountability, mentoring, individual counseling, etc.) for marrieds. The problem being that most college students fall away for a while upon entering college and begin to experiment with relationships in a setting of the world that challenges their very belief system.
A perfect example is that of the sociology or psychology course. I'm not certain how many really know that homosexuality (as only a point of example) used to be identified as a mental disorder of sorts. This is no longer so. It is now being taught as "alternative life style choice" in many (if not most) Universities.
At the college I attend (though I will not name it), the health education department has placed condoms in bathrooms, around campus and in several locations around the health services department. This in itself is one issue; but there was something new for me to see in that they have added several "flavored" lubricants with these. You would not believe the look I received from the nurses when I asked; "Where are the instructions?" You could have heard a pin drop. I explained to them that I was a social worker and was concerned that most of the young people scooping these into their pockets have no clue that if you keep it in your wallet, you will ruin it, not to mention how to wear it!.
The comment I received was "They don't take the instructions and would'nt read it, anyway." Well, if one young person does, then there may be one less pregnancy, one less diseased person, etc.
The point being that the school is going to hand out the condom regardless. They need to be at least somewhat responsible and offer the opportunity for someone to learn how to use it!
Anyhow, my two pence worth. Thoughts?

 

Sorry IveyLeaguer. My fault. I pulled away from the subject of homosexuality to talk about educating EVERYONE about contraception.
Best regards.

 

No problem, brother. God Bless.

 

Could i "educate" you about contraceptions? Condoms don't prevent pregnancy. Sperms actually get through the walls of the condom! The HIV virus is many times smaller than a sperm. Condoms really can't protect against AIDS.

Giving out condoms is but a way to protect the promiscuous lifestyle whilst the Word of God says one partner, one man for one woman, one lifetime.

 

Of course you may "educate" me about contraceptions. I actually agree with what you say. However, while a condom is not 100% effective, it is much better than nothing at all and, if used properly, can reduce the risk. I guess after going through 18 years of college and knowing many "fathers" who say things like; "She didn't want to use a condom." or "Condoms don't work anyhow, so I figured..." or "It's her responsibility to protect herself." etc. that it would be nice to continue to EXPECT these "little [minded], educated boys to take some responsibility for their choices when the item is totally accessible and free to them. What about the occasional woman who gives in only one time to the person who she "loves" that leave as soon as his desires are met? She contracts HIV or PID or something else and then meets the one she "really" loves, marries, and passes it on to her spouse and children. Abstinence is the only real protection. But we live in the real world. I have heard about more pregancy, disease, depression, and suicide (in part due to contracting diseases or becoming pregnant), and abortions than I ever want to. Now considering that males only have one, idiotic way of reducing risk, I would much rather have them believe that they owe their significant other and themselves to be at least somewhat responsible for their choices.

 

Oh, and by the way, not eveyone accepts the word of God, though I wish they did~! Ever tried to hand out tracts and literature at the student health building?

 

After reading Su's response;

Could i "educate" you about contraceptions? Condoms don't prevent pregnancy. Sperms actually get through the walls of the condom! The HIV virus is many times smaller than a sperm. Condoms really can't protect against AIDS.

Giving out condoms is but a way to protect the promiscuous lifestyle whilst the Word of God says one partner, one man for one woman, one lifetime. </font>[/QUOTE]I felt it important to post at least a bit of information given by more experienced sources that support some of the points Su makes.

For Release October 16, 2002
Contact: Jeff Rosenberg - (301) 972-0646


Scientific Review of Condom Effectiveness Research Reveals Condoms Provide
Inadequate Risk Reduction for Sexually Transmitted Diseases
WASHINGTON, DC (October 16, 2002) ñ A new scientific report released today reveals that condoms, even when used 100 percent of the time, fail to reduce the risk of some of the most common and potentially dangerous sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) to an acceptable level.

Sex, Condoms, and STDs: What We Now Know, released today by The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, reviews findings of all significant research and professional presentations about the ability of condoms to reduce the risk of STDs. The report is authored by some of the nationís leading experts on sexually transmitted diseases and condom research.

ìAmerica is facing an epidemic of STDs ñ more than 15 million new STD infections per year,î commented Joe S. McIlhaney, Jr., MD, president of The Medical Institute. ìIt is imperative that Americans understand what the science says about the limits of condoms in keeping them safe from STDs, many of which can have life-altering consequences, including infertility and cancer.î

Key findings of Sex, Condoms, and STDs include:

Condoms must be used 100 percent of the time and used correctly during all the years an unmarried individual is engaged in sexual activity to provide any reasonable hope of avoiding STD infection and potential disease from infected partners (except for herpes and HIV where less than 100 percent condom use can provide some risk reduction).

Even 100 percent condom use does not eliminate the risk of any STD including HIV.

One hundred percent use of condoms for many years is so uncommon that it is almost a purely theoretical concept except for very few, very meticulous individuals. Even among adults who knew that their partner had HIV, only 56 percent used condoms every time (and the median follow up was only 24 months).

There is no evidence of any risk reduction for sexual transmission of human papillomavirus infection (HPV) even with 100 percent condom use.

Syphilis transmission is reduced from 29 percent to 50 percent with 100 percent condom use, leaving 50 to 71 percent relative risk of infection. (ìRelative riskî does not mean the actual percentage risk of infection but rather refers to the calculated difference of risk between using a condom and not using a condom.)

Gonorrhea transmission is reduced by approximately 50 percent with 100 percent condom use leaving an approximate 50 percent relative risk of infection.

Chlamydia transmission is reduced by approximately 50 percent with 100 percent condom use, still leaving an approximate 50 percent risk of becoming infected with Chlamydia.

A recent study showed that with 25 percent or more condom use, the risk of transmission of genital herpes is reduced for females but not for males. Expanded data by the same author, as yet unpublished but presented at a national STD conference, show risk reduction of approximately 40 percent for both males and females when condoms were used for 65 percent or more of sex acts leaving an approximate 60 percent relative risk of infection.

HIV sexual transmission is reduced by approximately 85 percent with 100 percent condom use leaving an approximate 15 percent relative risk of infection with this usually fatal disease.

For the approximately twenty other STDs, not enough data exist to say whether or not condoms offer any risk reduction from sexual transmission.

As a social worker, the intent is to reduce the chance of infections and pregnancy as much as possible in those who do not accept abstinance as acceptable. Some of us do continue to request equal access to abstinence literature, tracts, etc. in places where condoms are available at no cost. Yet, it is the "patient" or "client" that will make the ultimate decision over whether they will accept it.

 

Don't assume the worst. I generally don't accept tracts, and I've been saved for over 20 years.

 

posted by DavidFWhite

Isaiah 53:6 tells us, "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one his own way; and Lord hath laid on him (Christ) the iniquity of us all." the word homosexual does not appear in the Bible once because the idea of a sexual orientation is not Biblical, the word was created by Satan to make sodomizing seem like an orientation, Leviticus 18:22 says, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

your neighbor
Fishnbread

final post.

 

Wonderful. Praise be to God! I don't assume the worst. I just wondered if the other person I posted that for had handed out tracts and such at student health. Anyway. Have a great evening.

 

I have to agree. The idea of orientation is a well designed copout, IMO, designed to free offenders from accountability. So they can do what THEY want with impunity. We have yet to learn exactly how homosexuality operates and we probably never will.

I have my own ideas but they are worthless. Environmental, psychological, and in some cases physiological factors are involved, IMHO, but so are spiritual factors. We have God's Word, that should be enough for any Christian.

Final post. God bless each and every one.

 

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle.It is a behavior.A women who is not feminine or a man is metrosexual who likes clothes ,hair,being around other men.That does not make someone gay.Having sexual relations with someone of the same sex is what makes someone a homosexual.It is the behavior we must focus on and piont out in scripture thats what God said was sin in Mosaic law .Paul calls it SIN in Romans2:27-28 and from that we can safley assume that every time sexual immorallity,impurity,and perversion is referenced,it encompasses the behavior of homosexuality.

 

Comprehensive sexuality education for preventing HIV/STD's says a sum total of zero about homosexuality. Where in my post did I even mention it in connection with homosexuality? I remind you that it was those that dispute that position that popularized the lie that HIV can pass through latex condoms. Is it right to enshrine lies in the name of perpetuating their point of view?

Or one can measure one's words and actions carefully by Scripture. The fact remains that God said "I hate divorce," all the while giving His own people instructions on how to obtain them. Comprehensive prevention education does just that. We are to be like God. Teaching persons how to prevent STD's in a comprehensive manner is no more sending them mixed messages than it was for God to give divorce instructions to His own people while saying that He hates divorce and not to do it. How is a comprehensive approach to prevention education less Scriptural than abstinence only education, given this simple principle? I agree on what God's standards are for sex. I teach them. However, too many of us seem to stop there and forget that there is more to such matters to be found in God's own pattern of dealing with persons, as I have shown in the example I cited.

The fact remains that nobody knows what their children will be exposed to or do after they leave the home. For that matter, I have personally been in churches where members can tell you the in's and out's of doctrines like supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism, but those same members think you can get HIV from a swimming pool. (Yes, I did witness this in a seminar on this issue in an SBC church that is over 5000 in membership). That's a problem, a huge problem. There are whole school systems in this nation that promote abstinence only education, even having church leaders come and lead it. Some of those same towns have ever increasing rates of STD's and pregnancies.

Ah, and now we have the very lie I mentioned earlier cropping up. This is very, VERY false, Su Wei. HIV and sperm can pass through skin condoms, not latex condoms that are used consistently and correctly every time. (Christianbsw provided an excellent citation for you)

This myth about latex condoms actually misrepresents the way latex condoms are made. Those that perpetuate it assume that latex condoms are made the same way as latex gloves. Latex glove molds are dipped only once in latex. HIV can pass through them. (This is why vinyl gloves are often used). Latex condoms are dipped twice, not once in latex, Su Wei. HIV is a molecule bigger than water, (H2O). Basic chemistry tells us that an H20 molecule is the smallest possible molecule, as it has the smallest possible atomic structure. Sperm and HIV are larger than water molecules, by many times. Latex condoms are tested with water, by filling them with water, and, if five in a batch of 100 fail the test, the entire batch is thrown out. Each one is tested multiple times to ensure reliability. Now, I ask you, Su Wei, if HIV and sperm are larger molecules than water, how is it even possible for HIV, much less sperm, to pass through one, if water molecules will not pass through them?

The answer is, it isn't. Basic high school chemistry proves it. When these medical devices (and, yes, they are regulated as medical devices) fail, it is because of one thing: HUMAN ERROR. Because people do not use them consistently and especially because they do not use them correctly, they fail leading to STD infection or pregnancy.

If you screw up your computer when you add a printer because you didn't know how to install it correctly, who is at fault? You or the maker of the hardware that supplies the instructions? Just as the fact that people misuse the Bible does not mean the Bible has errors in it or the Bible itself is flawed, or that your screwing up your computer is not the fault of the hardware itself or the instructions, so it is with medical devices like condoms.

I agree it can be used that way, but it is also a way to save lives. HBV and HCV are far deadlier than HIV, and one can get HBV in particular from more sources than sex. As I wrote above, if God did not think it was protecting divorce to tell people how to get them, instead as you say endorsing one parter, one man for one one, one lifetime, how then can you say, biblically and logically that giving out condoms is a way to protect "the promiscuous lifestyle." Do you also think that seat belt laws promote reckless driving? (Seat belts that are even used all the time and correctly, FYI, are several times less effective than condoms that are NOT used consistently and correctly).

We live in a fallen world, and, by definition, NOBODY SEEKS GOD, and man can only do acts of relative good. It's a nice Sunday School idea that if we teach only abstinence that everybody will go along, but that assumes that they are listening. I believe the Word of God that says:

Now, is that true or not? If it is, then perhaps we need to reevaluate our approach a bit, because, if we use only the Word of God to teach abstinence only education in our approach to unregenerate people in particular, we are assuming they can do something that the Word of God itself clearly, without equivocation says, they can not do, e.g. submit even their minds to the law of God. They can do acts of relative good, and, yes they can freely choose not to have sex, but they do not do so with God in mind, which is the point that I'm making. We need to recognize that and quit treating nonChristians like they are Christians. Conversely, I do have a higher set of expectations for Christians, because, after regeneration, they DO have that ability restored to them, albeit imperfectly.

Let's be consistent with our application of Scriptural principles in both the way we do sexuality education and in our treatment of homosexuals. Where Scripture does not directly address these issues, let's exercise some restraint toward each other in the way that Paul exhorts his readers in the concluding chapters of Romans and again in 1 Corinthians. Finaly, let's be sure we get our basic facts correct when it comes to the perpetuation of myths like the one cited in this thread.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Gene, I completely misread and misunderstood what you were talking about. I didn't even get the subject right. Had I read it correctly I would have had no response at all.

Apologies to you and the Board. IveyLeaguer.

 

Isaiah 53:6 tells us, "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one his own way; and Lord hath laid on him (Christ) the iniquity of us all." the word homosexual does not appear in the Bible once because the idea of a sexual orientation is not Biblical, the word was created by Satan to make sodomizing seem like an orientation, Leviticus 18:22 says, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

your neighbor
Fishnbread

final post. </font>[/QUOTE]Didn't answer my questions. Why not?

 

The Teletubbies are merely tv characters, and the purpole doll is in NO way a homosexual doll!

In this sad day and age, it's a certain thing that so-called 'same-sex RELATIONSHIPS' (I REFUSE to call them 'marriages' because they clearly are not) wil be passed worldwide, and even as Chrisitans, the government will enact laws which will force everyone to let on they accept it.

But labeling innocent dolls kids play with as 'queer dolls' is really something else!

 

I think if they truly repend and accept Christ and ask for forgivness for past sins and past lifestyles and ask for a Miricle in the name of Jesus he will heal you of Sodomy..

 

The common sense (helper) the holy spirit

tells me 90% plus are born that way..for example

Aslanspal

Your post has been edited both for the pictures and for the content which are unacceptable. If the Holy Spirit tells you anything He will tell you through Scripture which you can post.

However you may no longer do it here (in this thread).
Your profile indicates that you are a non-denominational Mennonite, and you are posting in a Baptist only forum. Please refrain from doing so in the future. There are other places for non-Baptists to post in.
DHK

[ March 03, 2005, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: DHK ]