Justice Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 The Bible does not, neither in the Torah, nor the New Testament, reference premarital sex as a sin against God. The Bible's restrictions are placed solely on adultery. Furthermore, the reason for this restriction, is because of the primitive tribal importance of recording direct lineage. New Testament?
Jauronimo Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Because some herpes is also known as freaking "cold sores." It's not indicative of promiscuity. I believe that was Tom's point.
FireChan Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 I believe that was Tom's point. I believe he wasn't specific enough. Especially seeing as someone he just quoted, seemed to be unaware of the harmless nature of most cases.
Jauronimo Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) I believe he wasn't specific enough. Especially seeing as someone he just quoted, seemed to be unaware of the harmless nature of most cases. How did this person seem unaware, exactly? Edited March 31, 2015 by Jauronimo
FireChan Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 How did this person seem unaware, exactly? His incredulity at the incidence of herpes cases.
Jauronimo Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 His incredulity at the incidence of herpes cases. Are you taking stupid pills again?
FireChan Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Are you taking stupid pills again? What are you even talking about? Did you not see where Justice said, "1 out of 6 people aged blah blah blah have herpes. That's astonishing to me." Why would it be astonishing? Is it possible that he's uneducated to the nuances of herpes? Christ, it's like talking to BF4E.
DC Tom Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 His incredulity at the incidence of herpes cases. The CDC does say that about 15-20% of people ages 18-49 have genital herpes. Other studies say HSV-1 and -2 infection rates combined are above 95%. Still other studies include herpes zoster virus and EBV, and infection rates are basically 100%. My point was more that simply saying "herpes" is woefully inexact.
Justice Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 The CDC does say that about 15-20% of people ages 18-49 have genital herpes. Other studies say HSV-1 and -2 infection rates combined are above 95%. Still other studies include herpes zoster virus and EBV, and infection rates are basically 100%. My point was more that simply saying "herpes" is woefully inexact. STDs are a serious problem. I was quoting a link earlier, but I could've gotten more in depth. BTW. The New Testament forbids premarital sex. How do you know which book to read? Serious question.
Jauronimo Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) What are you even talking about? Did you not see where Justice said, "1 out of 6 people aged blah blah blah have herpes. That's astonishing to me." Why would it be astonishing? Is it possible that he's uneducated to the nuances of herpes? Christ, it's like talking to BF4E. Because those stats are correct, and Justice hasn't commented on Tom's point about other strains of Herpes and an estimate of 90% prevalence. At no point did Justice "seem unaware" regarding "the harmless nature" of many strains of the virus. Yes, it is like talking to BF4E, but you don't know what side of the glass you're on. Stop taking stupid pills. Edited March 31, 2015 by Jauronimo
FireChan Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Because those stats are correct, and Justice hasn't commented on Tom's point about other strains of Herpes and an estimate of 90% prevalence. At no point did Justice "seem unaware" regarding "the harmless nature" of many strains of the virus. Yes, it is like talking to BF4E, but you don't know what side of the glass you're on. Stop taking stupid pills. Ah !@#$, I should've checked.
DC Tom Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 BTW. The New Testament forbids premarital sex. How do you know which book to read? Serious question. You're not asking me, are you? I'm a true agnostic.
4merper4mer Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 BTW. The New Testament forbids premarital sex. Does it say anything about unintentional compliance? /TRBJ
Justice Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 You're not asking me, are you? I'm a true agnostic. It goes out to anyone that can answer it.
GG Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 With trichinosis basically eradicated from pork production and the advent of refrigeration, I think its time to deliver the Jews from the bondage of kashrut and into the land of BBQ pork ribs and shrimp. Don't forget bacon.
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 New Testament? There are no specific condemnations of premarital sex, between a man and a woman, in the New Testament.
/dev/null Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Don't forget bacon. Amen to that I know there's stuff in the Bible about not eating pork, but there's also stuff about God being jealous and vengeful. Which leads me to think God put that pork stuff in the Bible because He doesn't want to share the bacon
Chef Jim Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) I would never ever follow a religion that dictates what I can or cannot eat or drink. Edited March 31, 2015 by Chef Jim
LeviF Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 There are no specific condemnations of premarital sex, between a man and a woman, in the New Testament. This is true. But there are general condemnations of illicit sex (that is, sex outside of the bounds of marriage) many times over.
Jauronimo Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 I would never ever follow a religion that dictates what I can or cannot eat or drink. My startup religion 'I Can't Believe It's Not a Cult, Inc.' lets you eat whatever you want except Chili's and Applebee's. I'll need the deed to your house and your social security number. Welcome aboard, brother Jim!
Recommended Posts