If she has HIV... Yeah, you kinda are.
Advertisement

by Person012345 » Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:56 pm

by Lialoth » Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:58 pm
Vault 1 wrote:Condoms are meant to be worn. They give no protection when not worn.
And you aren't supposed to wear them with your spouse.

by Runfin » Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:58 pm

by Person012345 » Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:59 pm

by Desperate Measures » Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:59 pm

by Desperate Measures » Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:00 pm

by Person012345 » Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:02 pm
Desperate Measures wrote:Person012345 wrote:[citation needed]
Condoms are effective at preventing HIV, apart from in the extremely rare case that they split.
Or if you don't wear them apparently. Which I wasn't quite clear on. I thought they just had to be in the general vicinity of where I thought an STD or a pregnancy may happen.

by Vault 1 » Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:02 pm
Seperates wrote:Not at all. If one were to create a virus to remind humanity of it's "sins" one would imagine a disease that would kill on thought. Since, according to Jesus, thinking is as bad as doing.
Person012345 wrote:If she has HIV... Yeah, you kinda are.

by Person012345 » Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:03 pm

by Person012345 » Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:05 pm
According to a 2000 report by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), correct and consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85% relative to risk when unprotected, putting the seroconversion rate (infection rate) at 0.9 per 100 person-years with condom, down from 6.7 per 100 person-years.[52] Analysis published in 2007 from the University of Texas Medical Branch [53] and the World Health Organization[54] found similar risk reductions of 80–95%.

by Vault 1 » Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:07 pm
Desperate Measures wrote:Yes you are if you don't want to have a kid. What shit is this?

by Runfin » Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:10 pm
Vault 1 wrote:Desperate Measures wrote:Yes you are if you don't want to have a kid. What shit is this?
You aren't supposed to just plain decide "you don't want to have a kid". Children are essential for mankind's survival. It's not your decision to make, if you weren't meant to have children, you'll just be infertile.
This was the sin of Onan. Unlike the later church interpretation of it as masturbation, the key sin there was that Onan, being married, spilled his seed on the ground so as to avoid a pregnancy. As traditional in times BC, he was, of course, punished by death.

by Seperates » Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:13 pm
Vault 1 wrote:Seperates wrote:Do you know the traditional Christian belief on how to cure STDs and AIDS in particular?
I'm pretty sure it doesn't include raping young girls to transfer it to them.
Any society that considers such ways acceptable - that would consider them even if it actually worked - deserves to be hit a lot worse than it already is.Seperates wrote:There are none, because the Christian faith doesn't deal with the prevention of diseases rather than a few archaic rituals in the OT. And yet... they still advocate abstinence rather than protection and education,
Abstinence has 100% effectiveness.
Protection has pretty much 0% - you are going to go unprotected with your spouse anyway, and you have no business having intercourse with anyone other than your spouse.

by Seperates » Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:16 pm
Vault 1 wrote:Seperates wrote:Not at all. If one were to create a virus to remind humanity of it's "sins" one would imagine a disease that would kill on thought. Since, according to Jesus, thinking is as bad as doing.
That wouldn't work at all. How would you know what the dead person was thinking?
It's a reminder for the society as a whole, the real punishment comes later.
Real reminder when it happens to babies. Yeah, go back to school and learn some theology.
by Seperates » Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:18 pm

by Person012345 » Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:19 pm

by Vault 1 » Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:19 pm
Seperates wrote:Abstinence, in theory, has 100% effetiveness. Unfortunatly, in practice... it doesn't because we are humans and humans are fallible and make mistakes.
Seperates wrote:Real reminder when it happens to babies.

by Person012345 » Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:20 pm

by Farnhamia » Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:21 pm
Vault 1 wrote:Seperates wrote:Abstinence, in theory, has 100% effetiveness. Unfortunatly, in practice... it doesn't because we are humans and humans are fallible and make mistakes.
Then STD are part of the penalty for these mistakes.Seperates wrote:Real reminder when it happens to babies.
In the 10th Plague of Egypt, Lord killed every first born Egyptian child.
An occasional child of sinners is nothing in comparison, and, yes, it is a real reminder.
Anyway, can this thread get back to why teaching of evolution should be eliminated from state schools?

by Desperate Measures » Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:22 pm
Vault 1 wrote:Desperate Measures wrote:Yes you are if you don't want to have a kid. What shit is this?
You aren't supposed to just plain decide "you don't want to have a kid". Children are essential for mankind's survival. It's not your decision to make, if you weren't meant to have children, you'll just be infertile.
This was the sin of Onan. Unlike the later church interpretation of it as masturbation, the key sin there was that Onan, being married, spilled his seed on the ground so as to avoid a pregnancy. As traditional in times BC, he was, of course, punished by death.

by ReVaQ » Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:16 pm

by Dyakovo » Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:40 pm
Katganistan wrote:Inky Noodles wrote:AI LEARNED WHALES WERE LIKE DOGS!
In what way -- other than whales are aquatic mammals (breathe air, females nurse their calves with milk) and dogs are terrestrial mammals (breathe air, females nurse their pups with milk) and that the whale flippers have rather hand-like skeletons within them? that they were also social and tend to move in pods (equivalent to packs)?
More info on whale evolution....

Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Perikuresu, Querria
Advertisement