Posted on 12/09/2001 7:20:04 AM PST by Valin
Edited on 04/13/2004 3:36:03 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I do hope you werent referring to nomas in this statement.
The harm comes in that some women, the female church elders, are far more progressed than a new male Christian. Should those women be subjected to those men? I don't think so, and I don't think scripture is telling us that.
Sounds to me like this is not an issue, woman cannot have authority over man.
A little contradictory yeah?
When using condoms, much lower rates of protection against STD's including HIV have been recorded.
Condoms – US GOVT COVER UP
17-Aug-2001 -- EWTN Pro-Family News
PHYSICIANS GROUPS CHARGE US GOVERNMENT WITH CONDOM COVER-UP
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=18100
Groups representing over 10,000 doctors have accused the Centers for Disease Control of covering up the government’s own research that shows that condoms do not protect individuals from most sexually transmitted diseases.
In a statement issued by the Physicians Consortium, retired Congressman Tom Coburn, M.D., Congressman Dave Weldon, M.D. and the Catholic Medical Association, these groups allege that “...the CDC has systematically hidden and misrepresented vital medical information regarding the ineffectiveness of condoms to prevent the transmission of STDs. The CDC’s refusal to acknowledge clinical research has contributed to the massive STD epidemic. The charges stem from the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) release of the “Workshop Summary” on condom effectiveness, a paper written in June 2000 by HHS, the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
According to the physicians groups, this government research found no clinical proof that condoms offer protection from most STDs, such as herpes, syphilis and chylamydia.
Instead of reporting these findings to the public, the physicians groups claim that the CDC attempted to conceal the paper and to delay its release.
The CDC also demanded revisions to the Workshop Summary in order to create “...unwarranted confusion and misinformation to what otherwise is a clear-cut repudiation of condom effectiveness.”
The paper’s most serious findings involve the STD Human Papillomavirus (HPV). The paper’s authors state that “There was no epidemiological evidence that condom use reduced the risk of HPV infection...”
According to Dr. Richard Klausner, the Director of the National Cancer Institute, HPV causes over 90 percent of all cases of cervical cancer. Every year, more than 200,000 women, including 5000 American women, die of cervical cancer.
The federal government knew of this HPV risk even earlier. A 1996 NIH “Consensus Statement” on Cervical Cancer reports that “The data on the use of barrier methods of contraception to prevent the spread of HPV...does not support this as an effective method of prevention...” The CDC has apparently ignored this information for at least five years.
The physicians groups are calling for the resignation of the Director of the CDC, Dr. Jeffrey P. Koplan.
In light of these findings, some conservative critics raise other questions: is the “safe sex” message truly based upon the science of disease-prevention? Since cervical cancer claims the lives of more American women than AIDS, can the promotion of condom use be considered pro-women?
Finally, should the US, as well as the UN, fund condom-distribution worldwide, especially in countries that lack the basic medical services to diagnose and treat HPV before it results in cervical cancer?
As the 1996 Consensus Statement concludes, “Worldwide, cervical cancer is second only to breast cancer as the most common malignancy in both incidence and mortality. More than 471,000 new cases are diagnosed each year, predominantly among the economically disadvantaged…”
The UN is the largest distributor of condoms in the world. Copyright – C-FAM
Yes Lot did have children with his daughters, but that was the beginnings of man. The Old Testament is often quoted in this way. It is meant to detract from scripture.
The Law's were told by Moses, but then Jesus dies to save us from living strictly by the laws because we were incapable of it. We should still try to live by the laws except those refuted by Jesus (i.e. Matthew 15:10-12 What goes into a man's mouth does not make him `unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him `unclean.'")
Jesus thereby repealed the law of eating Pork.
When we were married we became one flesh. I have some authority over her as granted by Jesus. This is not contradictory to me.
Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.
But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.
:-)
I am somewhat curious. If your wife wore something you didnt like, would you expect her to wear soemthing else? How far does your authority extend? Im merely aksing to get a fair assessment of you in my mind.
I hope that I didn't offend either of you, but I will not take the PC attitude and bury my head in the sand. I see that neither of you do either.
God's blessings be upon you and yours.
You earlier posts stated women cant rule over men. Yet you later stated your wife does to an extent wiht you. Your next argument was that it doesnt apply once married(in other terms). So when does it apply?
Doesn't the above constitute speaking for God? As in, you're presuming to know how he'd do it, to say that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.