Irresponsible event encourages immorality
The front page of the September 18 Indiana Daily Student featured a large full color picture of three students wearing pig noses and pig ears placing condoms on fake bananas. The back page had another large full color photo of a student placing a condom on a fake banana.
Is this really necessary? Did the IDS really need to have large full-color pictures of people putting condoms on fake bananas on the front page of Thursday’s newspaper, especially considering that the newspaper is distributed throughout downtown and in various grocery stores in Bloomington? Did the silly pictures actually serve to enlighten people and advance the discussion of how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases in a substantive way? Or was it sensationalism for the sake of sensationalism?
(Read more after the leap)
While Trojan may believe that they are performing a public service by educating people about condom use, I think they are missing the point. I found the following statement worthy of comment. Trojan Communications Manager and Sexual Health Educator Kari Kuka, interviewed by the IDS, had this to say:
“We can’t get into high schools,” Kuka said, “so the best we can do is hopefully start education so that every college student knows the risks of engaging in unprotected sex and why it’s so important to use a condom every time.”
Why is it “so important to use a condom every time”, Ms. Kuka? Is it because people are having sex with people they do not know as well as they should? If you know your partner well enough, you should know if he or she has a sexually transmitted disease. To put it another way, if you are not sure whether someone has a sexually transmitted disease or not, why are you having sex with that person? If you knew for certain that someone has AIDS or some other STD, would you knowingly place yourself at risk, even with a condom as “protection”?
The answer is not to use barrier methods to protect against disease, the answer is avoiding sex with someone who is infected with a sexually transmitted disease. The only certain way to do that is to avoid sex until marriage and to marry someone who has made the same choice. Some will scoff at this and claim it is impossible, irresponsible or unrealistic, but the fact of the matter is that STD’s are behaviorally spread diseases and the only sure way to avoid the disease is to avoid the behavior that puts one at risk of the disease.
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. — 1 Corinthians 6:18
This post is also available at ConservaTibbs.
September 24th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Well, after all, it’s the Daily Stupid. Who reads it, anyway?
September 24th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
If you know your partner well enough, you should know if he or she has a sexually transmitted disease.
My sister-in-law was stabbed by a needle when cleaning a medical office, because some idiot tossed a syringe in the trash instead of the sharps box.
She took an HIV test fairly soon, but they told her that even though it was negative, she should be tested annually for seven years, because it can take that long to show up on a blood test, and even longer for symptoms to appear.
So tell me, since the medical experts don’t seem have this information, how do you tell when someone else has a sexually-transmitted disease? I’d like to pass that information along to her, because she and her husband would like to have kids, and they are horrified at the possibility of bearing an baby that’s HIV-positive.
September 24th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
My sister-in-law was stabbed by a needle when cleaning a medical office,
Yes, there are exceptions to the general truth that “the fact of the matter is that STD’s are behaviorally spread diseases and the only sure way to avoid the disease is to avoid the behavior that puts one at risk of the disease.” But statistically insignificant exceptions do not invalidate the general truth.
If a prospective sex partner has engaged in the behavior that spreads disease, then the safe thing to do is avoid sex with that person - “protected” or not. And the safest thing to do is not have sex until marriage and marry someone who made the same choice.
September 25th, 2008 at 8:20 am
But statistically insignificant exceptions do not invalidate the general truth.
Good point. Couples that practice abstinence have pregnancy rates higher than the rest of the population. They probably have higher rates of STDs, too. Those who get abstinence-only sex education have a 25% STD rate.
If a prospective sex partner has engaged in the behavior that spreads disease, then the safe thing to do is avoid sex with that person - “protected” or not.
So one should never marry anyone who empties waste baskets, anyone who has ever had her teeth cleaned, anyone who has ever had a needle penetrate their skin. Come to think of it, the only way you know if someone has engaged in such practices is if they never, ever, ever, lie.
You know anyone who never ever, ever, lies, Scott?
And the safest thing to do is not have sex until marriage and marry someone who made the same choice.
Well, actually, it’d be safer still to never, ever, ever, ever engage in sex. Because you don’t know that your potential spouse never engaged in risky behavior.
And even if you could possibly know that, it could turn out later that they are engaging in risky behavior, such as extramarital sex or getting their teeth cleaned or emptying wastebaskets.
Carolyn Hanson is getting a divorce because Sarah Palin was supposedly bonking her husband. Other reports suggest Mrs. Palin was playing with Jim Burdett as well. And obviously Bristol found that choosing to not have sex before marriage doesn’t work.
I’m not criticizing the Palin women. They seem to be good Christians, just as nice as could be, but less than perfect. I don’t know any perfect people. Are you perfect, Scott? As far as I know, the stories about Sarah Palin are untrue - but how can Todd Palin be sure?. For that matter, how does Sarah know that Todd hasn’t left deposits in banks all over Wasilla.
I don’t think my wife has ever stepped out on me, but I couldn’t possibly know. And it really doesn’t matter. She’s my wife 24 hours a day, and I married all of her, not just her genitals.
You quote Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians in your post as if it’s relevant. Sin can only be defined by God. When God passed down the commandments, adultery (violation of the marriage vow) was prohibited rather than fornication(intercourse absent any vows). My God certainly knows how to spell “fornication”, and he’s bright enough to say exactly what he means. If you’re worshipping some dim bulb, you’re attending the wrong church.
September 25th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Great logic again Harl:
Couples that practice abstinence have pregnancy rates higher than the rest of the population.
I didn’t realize that miraculous conceptions were so prevalent.
And your understanding of scripture is poor as well. Deut 22:20ff is clearly setting out laws about having sex outside of marriage. I know that is not one of the “10 Commandments”, but those are not the entirety of “the commandments”. In addition, Jesus spoke about fornication as being sin (e.g. Matthew 15:19). Fornication was opposed by the early church (e.g. Acts 15:20ff).
September 25th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I didn’t realize that miraculous conceptions were so prevalent.
Every conception is a miracle, Joel.
Deut 22:20ff is clearly setting out laws about having sex outside of marriage.
Deuteronomy 22:20 isn’t about sex, it’s about slander. If you are accused of passing off your daughter as a virgin, and the man claims she wasn’t, you’re asked to produce the bloody sheets that prove she was. Either he pays you another 100 shekels for defamation, or else your daughter is killed and he keeps the dowry.
Deuteronomy 22:22 is clearly about sex, though. It’s about adultery, though, not fornication. It starts out “If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband”
Deuteronomy 21:11-14 clearly says it’s OK to take a slave woman for a test drive, then dump her if you don’t want to marry her.
Of course, that says that slavery is OK, doesn’t it? And Deuteronomy 21:15 says that having multiple wives is OK.
Gee, maybe we ought to realize that Deuteronomy was not God’s commandment, but the civil law of the Habiru. A violation of Deuteronomy is no more immoral than having a loud muffler, or parking overtime.
And considering that virtually everyone’s underwear violates Deuteronomy 22:11, wouldn’t you say that’s a good thing?
I know that is not one of the “10 Commandments”, but those are not the entirety of “the commandments”.
Actually, they are. Take another look at the first commandment. God gets to write commandments, and nobody else.
September 25th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Good job intentionally misinterpreting my statement on miraculous conceptions. Great.
So the woman is to be killed because her father lied? Hummm. I don’t think that passes the smell test.
So the real issue here is that you are selecting down what is scripture. I.e. it doesn’t agree with my concept of what scripture is so give me a knife and I’ll cut it out.
My point (that you never seem to get) is that, at least the Jews, see the Torah (which includes Deuteronomy) as God’s law. God’s commands extend beyond Exodus 20.
Obviously we are not going to see eye to eye on this any more than anything else. But let’s agree that your interpretation that part of the Torah is not from God is not shared by MANY people. Let’s also agree that many believe that Jesus spoke for God and he was fairly clear on the issue.
September 25th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Joel, it doesn’t appear that we’re going to come to any sort of agreement.
For instance, you assert the torah is all law. Torah has multiple meanings, one of which means the whole body of Jewish law and teachings, but I assume you mean the pentateuch, which Jews call the tanakh. Most jews consider Bereishith to be fable, Shemoth and Bamidbar to be history, while Vayiqra is civil law of the ancient Hibaru nation, and Devarim is a second book of their civil law.
Jesus said “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
Which means that Deuteronomy 21:11, which specifically approves of premarital sex, would be valid.
God’s commands extend beyond Exodus 20.
Of course. There are two versions of the Commandments in the Bible. The “Mount Sinai” version of the Commandments is at Exodus 19:23 and the “Horeb” version is at Deuteronomy 5:2.
According to the Bible, God wrote the Commandments and nothing else. If your preacher is telling you something else, he’s guilty of malpractice.
September 25th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
When you say that the Bible says that “God wrote the Commandments and nothing else” that has a smidgeon of truth. That is the part that it says that he wrote with his own hand, yes.
But when 2 Tim says “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” the claim is that God was more than just casually involved in “All Scripture”. There can be discussion as to what is being referred to as scripture, but the statement about God only writing the 10 commandments is misleading. If your preacher is telling you something else, he’s guilty of malpractice.
Jesus, by the way, seemed to have a larger view of “the commandments” than just the 10.
September 25th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Scott’s view is awfully un-pragmatic. Abstinence-only education doesn’t work. I’d rather high school and college kids use condoms than get pregnant.
September 25th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
mikeyc, I didn’t even mention anything about Abstinence-only education. I said people should abstain from sex until marriage. It’s not impossible. People do it all the time.
September 25th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Couples that practice abstinence have pregnancy rates higher than the rest of the population.
This is not only false, it is medically impossible. Those who abstain from intercourse cannot get pregnant apart from divine intervention. In human history, that has only happened once. Attempting to practice abstinence and actually practicing abstinence are two very different things.
And obviously Bristol found that choosing to not have sex before marriage doesn’t work.
Except that Bristol Palin did have sex before marriage.
September 25th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
I was starting to think I was the only one bothered by Harl’s bossiness and acting like he’s got the only answer to rather tough issues. Glad to see he’s on this post too.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
sometimes it’s better to close your mouth and be thought a fool rather than open it and remove all doubt. This principal applies to Harl. I’ll be a bit more lenient on mikey since he’s a kid–i think he has homework to do anyway.
September 26th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Couples that practice abstinence have pregnancy rates higher than the rest of the population.
This is not only false, it is medically impossible. Those who abstain from intercourse cannot get pregnant apart from divine intervention.
There’s a difference between golf practice and getting around the course in 18 strikes, Scott. Of all the common means of birth control, abstinence has the highest failure rate.
And obviously Bristol found that choosing to not have sex before marriage doesn’t work.
Except that Bristol Palin did have sex before marriage.
Exactly my point. Her choice failed her. If she’d used the pill or rubbers or a diaphragm or an IUD, she probably wouldn’t be pregnant.
But when 2 Tim says “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” the claim is that God was more than just casually involved in “All Scripture”. There can be discussion as to what is being referred to as scripture
Even at the time of the Festal Epistle of Athanasius, the pastorals (Timothy and Titus) were understood to inauthentic, rather than being written by Paul. For one thing, they are written using a vocabulary that Paul didn’t use in the authentic letters. They were included because it was the clergy who established the canon, and Timothy and Titus provided guidance for an episcopal church structure.
Even if they had been written by Paul, you might want to take his writing with a grain of salt. He was not a friend of Christ, and in fact, his family business was defense contracting, selling tents to the enemy - the Romans who had conquered Israel. Paul was repeatedly called back to Jerusalem by the early Christian church and punished for teaching things that were untrue - the punishment for blasphemy was 39 strokes, just one stroke short of the punishment of death.
Jesus, by the way, seemed to have a larger view of “the commandments” than just the 10.
Yes. He was an Essene. He kept Kosher. He did not round his face, and we did not wear clothing of mixed fabrics.
Are you aware that a hassidic jew does not touch his wife during her period? In fact, at the dinner table, she cannot even pass him the bowl of mashed potatoes. She has to set it down on the table before he picks it up, so that they cannot both be holding the same bowl at the same time.
Those are commandments, but they are not god-given. It’s like the Amish Ordnung. It’s not a sin for a hassidic jew to touch his wife when she is ritually unclean, nor a sin for him to eat a pork chop, and it’s not a sin for an Amish man to own a tractor instead of a horse, or to wear a moustache.
If a hassidic jew were to accidently touch his wife, he wouldn’t pray to God for forgiveness, because it is not a sin. Similarly, Amish feel free to change their Ordnung from community to community and from year to year, because it’s not divine ordinance.
God defines sin. Adultery is a sin; fornication is not.
sometimes it’s better to close your mouth and be thought a fool rather than open it and remove all doubt.
Your joke would work better if you told it right. It’s better to keep your mouth shut and be thought DUMB than to open it and remove all doubt. That’s a play on the multiple meanings of the word “dumb”, which is a synonym for “mute” as well as meaning “stupid.”
Sometimes insults say more about the person issuing the insult than the person being insulted.
September 26th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Yes, Harl. And you spend all of your time spouting insults around here. That says something profound about you.
I repeat my earlier comment. We work with different assumptions. Since I actually believe that the Bible (as we have it today) is from God, then when I read it saying something (like attributing itself to God) then I believe it. Since you do not share that belief, you feel free to cut out the parts that disagree with your position. Then you have the audacity to accuse others who believe differently as being “guilty of malpractice”.
Please go away with your swill.