Apparently, Bill Gates is sponsoring efforts to develop a better condom, and apart from the obvious "Microsoft" jokes and the points about the reliability of anything coming from Gates' company in a place so critical, let's ask some more basic questions. Questions about whether it even makes sense, of course.
This is apart from questions over how effective they are today, or whether they can be improved to be better. As we'll see, that's really beside the point.
For condoms to be needed, we must assume that a large group of people do not have the self-control to refuse to "go to bed" when they're not ready to have a child, or when they're not sure that their partner is STD-free.
For condoms to be useful, we must assume that this same group of people will have the self-control to carry condoms, use them properly, and refuse sex to those who refuse to use condoms.
In other words, the two assumptions are mutually contradictory, and thus, for the purposes of preventing STDs and pregnancy, condoms, no matter how good they are, are a dead end.
Mission is people - What can we do around avoiding entryism? How do we remain focused on what is prime? Is there such a thing as a mission for the church? Are we not merely th...
2 hours ago