sex and abrahamic religions

pandamonk · Aug 21, 2006

JerryL said:
HIV exists *inside* living cells. The things that kill HIV also kill the host.

More transmittable virui survive because they are *more* tolerant than the host to adverse conditions.

Ahh ok. Maybe something like chemotherapy would help then. Because chemo kills rapidly deviding cells, cancer, hair, etc. then the body is left to recover(quicker than the cancer) for a few weeks, then it is blasted with chemo again. Maybe killing the cells HIV exists *inside* then allowing them to repare, or new ones to develop, would help? Anyway, I'm sure scientists have tried that already.

JerryL · Aug 21, 2006

I suspect that you would reinfect yourself... Even in the middle of my bone-marrow-transplant, my white cell count was not zero; and the free-floating virui are not reproducing. Futher, chemo effects cells, not the virus.

TashaN · Aug 21, 2006

nutshell said:
I think there has been a lot of evidence to show the increase of HIV ALL OVER AFRICA.

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA993.htm

TashaN · Aug 21, 2006

pandamonk said:
Well you said that islamic law states that a man can only have sex with his wive and his captives... or something along those lines...

So does this mean if i go and kidnap someone, and have sex with them, it's ok?

Or does it mean a man can have sex with his slaves?

I do not see why either of these are better than having sex with someone you love, before you marry.

This was before 1400 years when Quran was revealed in case you think that the first publish was before a couple of years. There is no more captives now so the only was is to have sex with your lawful spouce. Only your wife.

JerryL · Aug 21, 2006

This was before 1400 years when Quran was revealed in case you think that the first publish was before a couple of years. There is no more captives now so the only was is to have sex with your lawful spouce. Only your wife.

That's not accurate. Muslim Lybia, for example, still has slavery in the south... and that's only addressnig sanctioned slavery.

pandamonk · Aug 21, 2006

The Truth said:
This was before 1400 years when Quran was revealed in case you think that the first publish was before a couple of years. There is no more captives now so the only was is to have sex with your lawful spouce. Only your wife.

I know when the Qur'an was revealed thank you very much. So are you saying the Qur'an is outdated?

TashaN · Aug 21, 2006

pandamonk said:
I know when the Qur'an was revealed thank you very much. So are you saying the Qur'an is outdated?

hehehe i was excpecting this question actually and i wanted to answer it before you even ask but i was in a hurry because i have some exams these days but i try to come in here from the time to another.

You can notice in the verse that it says do that or that so it means if you didn't find one of them so do the other one and also so soon i'll post about the democrasy in Islam and how Islam was trying to eliminate slavery from the soiciety.

TashaN · Aug 21, 2006

JerryL said:
That's not accurate. Muslim Lybia, for example, still has slavery in the south... and that's only addressnig sanctioned slavery.

Definitely, have nothing to do with Islam. It just a country and have their own rules. I hope that you will be pateint enough to wait for my next post about slavery in islam as i mentioned already to pandamonk before.

Long time no see JerryL. We really miss you in here and even i recall that we didn't agree in somthing in the past for about 90% of our discussions but i find it very interesting to discuss with you.

Glad to have you around again.

pandamonk · Aug 21, 2006

The Truth said:
hehehe i was excpecting this question actually and i wanted to answer it before you even ask but i was in a hurry because i have some exams these days but i try to come in here from the time to another.

You can notice in the verse that it says do that or that so it means if you didn't find one of them so do the other one and also so soon i'll post about the democrasy in Islam and how Islam was trying to eliminate slavery from the soiciety.

If they are working to eliminate it then why promote it as a suitable form of sex?

Booko · Aug 21, 2006

Shtef said:
I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who didn't find sex to be one of the most pleasurable things a human can experience. So, how could God give us something so desirable and then put restrictions on it? It's like a parent giving a child a wonderful toy and then telling the child they can't play with it.

Chocolate is also one of the most pleasurable things in life, but I suppose if I overindulge in that, I might come to some harm as well.

The question is, is being freer with love harmful to yourself or anyone else?

If you think it's not, go tell it to all the fatherless children out there. I'm sure they'll be mighty impressed.

And please dont mention birth control to me. I've gotten pregnant on the pill...twice. Never missed one.

Nothing is 100%, and "safe" sex should be called "safer" sex.

HopefulNikki · Aug 21, 2006

Booko said:
Booko said:

And please dont mention birth control to me. I've gotten pregnant on the pill...twice. Never missed one.

Click to expand...

Totally true...my friend's mom was on the pill when she got pregnant with him, and and his dad used a condom when they got pregnant with his brother, lol.

Booko · Aug 21, 2006

HopefulNikki said:
Totally true...my friend's mom was on the pill when she got pregnant with him, and and his dad used a condom when they got pregnant with his brother, lol.

Click to expand...

We had 100% success with the rhythm method. Go figure!

JerryL · Aug 21, 2006

And please dont mention birth control to me. I've gotten pregnant on the pill...twice. Never missed one.

As I'm sure you and your OB/Gyn discussed, there are any number of potential causes here. For some women, even varying the timing screwes up efficacy; and of course there are the occasional "this drug doesn't work for that woman" issues.

Totally true...my friend's mom was on the pill when she got pregnant with him, and and his dad used a condom when they got pregnant with his brother, lol.

This is a statistical improbablity. I suspect either the parents were not using the BC methods properly, or there's been some dishonesty somewhere in the chain (perhaps some parents attempting scare tactics on their kids?).

We had 100% success with the rhythm method. Go figure!

It's quite effective, if you are accurate with it. The problem is when you are not aware of, or miss changes in your fertility period.

Booko · Aug 21, 2006

JerryL said:
[/i] As I'm sure you and your OB/Gyn discussed, there are any number of potential causes here. For some women, even varying the timing screwes up efficacy; and of course there are the occasional "this drug doesn't work for that woman" issues.

Yes, we did, and at some length. For me, it wasn't a problem. I was married already and we were planning to have kids sometime, so it was no biggie.

The point is, sometimes people act like, "Oh there won't be any problems, I'm using birth control!" Yeah, well, it's VERY reliable, but not TOTALLY reliable.

This is a statistical improbablity. I suspect either the parents were not using the BC methods properly, or there's been some dishonesty somewhere in the chain (perhaps some parents attempting scare tactics on their kids?).

Oh, I read that as 2 separate events. In the first the pill failed, and in the 2nd, the condom broke. It's no more statiscially improbable than my situation.

It's quite effective, if you are accurate with it. The problem is when you are not aware of, or miss changes in your fertility period.

Well, that's the thing. Except for when I was on the pill, I never had any changes in my period. I could tell you when I was going to start within 6 hours, and ovulation was just as predictable.

You know how when women live together or spend a lot of time together, their periods will start to coincide? Mine never moved -- everyone else shifted till they were on the same schedule as me. That's a lot of roommates and friends. It's very very weird.

I'm sure that means something. Maybe I just have hellacious pheromones.

JerryL · Aug 21, 2006

The point is, sometimes people act like, "Oh there won't be any problems, I'm using birth control!" Yeah, well, it's VERY reliable, but not TOTALLY reliable.

From a Biblical perspective, even abstinance isn't 100%

But you are definately correct.

Oh, I read that as 2 separate events. In the first the pill failed, and in the 2nd, the condom broke. It's no more statiscially improbable than my situation.

I don't agree. A failure of oral contraceptive is either due to user error taking it or a failure of the hormones to do their job. If you are prone to getting pregnant on the pill, than you are prone to getting pregnant on the pill. I'm not more surprised that it happened twice than I am that it happened once; and that's a statical inevitability.

His friend's case is different. Let me exlore the two options:

1) User error. It's entirely possible that the parents did not properly use the BC methods. If so, I don't doubt that they got pregnant twice, though in this case the error is with the user; not the birth-control method. This is why patches and implants are popular. They are inherently less reliable than oral contraceptives, but they are les prone ot user-error.

2) A failure of the birth control devices. In either individual case, I would consider a given person the statistical anomoly. You are part of the 0.2% of women who will get pregnant on the pill, and though condom failure rates under proper user are <0.1%, they can occur. The chance that the same couple had a woman in the 0.2% group, and also had one of the less-than-one-in-one-thousand condom failures at the point of her fertility; and that someone familiar with the couple as a coincidence is here to tell the story is simply too much to bear. It's just improbable in the extreme.

Booko · Aug 22, 2006

JerryL said:
From a Biblical perspective, even abstinance isn't 100%

Well, there's always parthenogenesis...

I don't agree. A failure of oral contraceptive is either due to user error taking it or a failure of the hormones to do their job. If you are prone to getting pregnant on the pill, than you are prone to getting pregnant on the pill. I'm not more surprised that it happened twice than I am that it happened once; and that's a statical inevitability.

I don't know why the pill fails, only that it does. When I was on it, the stats given were 98% effective, and I understand that stat has been lowered a little since. I'm not sure if that excluded improper use or not. It may mean, as you say, that hormones were involved (likely in my case) or perhaps no one informed the user that taking antibiotics renders it ineffective.

His friend's case is different. Let me exlore the two options:

1) User error. It's entirely possible that the parents did not properly use the BC methods. If so, I don't doubt that they got pregnant twice, though in this case the error is with the user; not the birth-control method. This is why patches and implants are popular. They are inherently less reliable than oral contraceptives, but they are les prone ot user-error.

I have no idea what time frame we're talking about here. Were patches and implants available? By implants, do you mean IUDs? The copper 7 was notorious for its failure due to user error.

[qutoe]2) A failure of the birth control devices. In either individual case, I would consider a given person the statistical anomoly. You are part of the 0.2% of women who will get pregnant on the pill, and though condom failure rates under proper user are <0.1%, they can occur. The chance that the same couple had a woman in the 0.2% group, and also had one of the less-than-one-in-one-thousand condom failures at the point of her fertility; and that someone familiar with the couple as a coincidence is here to tell the story is simply too much to bear. It's just improbable in the extreme.[/quote]

Am I reading this wrong? It seems you're assuming simultaneous use of the pill and condoms. I read the initial post as one failure using only the pill and one failure using a condom.

I agree if you're using both methods, and correctly, it's very unlikely to have this happen twice.

Oh darn. I think I might just have to moderate myself for being off topic.

I suppose we could move this bit to the Health & Healing area...

TashaN · Aug 22, 2006

pandamonk said:
If they are working to eliminate it then why promote it as a suitable form of sex?

In the past only in the time of prophet Mohammed but not anymore because rules have changed and we have no more salvery and i meant in my pervious post that islam WAS (starting from the time of prophet Mohammed) working on getting rid of such a thing and we did it before the west even think about it. Got it now?

HopefulNikki · Aug 22, 2006

JerryL said:
This is a statistical improbablity.

Not really....birth control pills fail, and condoms break, all the time. My friend's parents just happened to get stuck with both mishaps.

JerryL · Aug 22, 2006

I don't know why the pill fails, only that it does. When I was on it, the stats given were 98% effective, and I understand that stat has been lowered a little since. I'm not sure if that excluded improper use or not. It may mean, as you say, that hormones were involved (likely in my case) or perhaps no one informed the user that taking antibiotics renders it ineffective.

Being too lazy to lookup right now:

Used with complete compitence: 99.8% effective.
"Real world" use: 96% effective

I have no idea what time frame we're talking about here. Were patches and implants available? By implants, do you mean IUDs? The copper 7 was notorious for its failure due to user error.

I was not meaning to imply that alternatives like the patch were available. I was underscoring my comment that there's a signifigant difference between the effecacy of oral contraceptive if used correctly and it's efficacy in the real world.

Am I reading this wrong? It seems you're assuming simultaneous use of the pill and condoms. I read the initial post as one failure using only the pill and one failure using a condom.

I'm not sure what phrasing I'm using poorly, but the net effect seems to be that yes, you are reading it wrong.

Two children: One concieved on OC, a later one concieved while using a condom.

Under proper useage, especially of the condom, I fid this unlikely enough to be skeptical of the claim.

Oh darn. I think I might just have to moderate myself for being off topic. I suppose we could move this bit to the Health & Healing area...

But...umm.. I never read that forum

pandamonk · Aug 22, 2006

The Truth said:
In the past only in the time of prophet Mohammed but not anymore because rules have changed and we have no more salvery and i meant in my pervious post that islam WAS (starting from the time of prophet Mohammed) working on getting rid of such a thing and we did it before the west even think about it. Got it now?

If the rules have changed and the Qur'an is still seen to promote slavery, or sex with a spouse or slave, then surely the Qur'an is outdated. Our rules have changed, but the Qur'an, I'm guessing, is God's rules. So he still sees sex with a slave as good.

sex and abrahamic religions

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Active Member

Deviled Hen

Active Member

Deviled Hen

Well-Known Member

Deviled Hen

Well-Known Member

Deviled Hen

Veteran Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member