Medical Adultery ?

[McCulloch]

my use of of the term scientific adultery is perfectly accurate.

Really?

Are you applying the disciplines of science on the behavior of adultery?

Yup.

"Scientific adultery" how is that not accurate to in vitro fertilization OR using a fertilized egg OR one of the couple having sex with someone else to "make the baby" for a couple of female homosexuals or a couple of male homosexuals that are "married" to one another? I stand on my definition. And I think that if you contemplate this for a second or two, you will too.

Two "married" men or two "married" women cannot make a baby together.

Yeah, I'm fairly cool with my description.

How is the term adultery defined? OK, you might think that I am daft. "Don't you know what adultery means?" Is adultery about only sex, procreation or both? If a married person has a sexual relationship with someone who is not his or her spouse, that is called adultery. But what about ways of getting pregnant that do not involve sex? Is it adultery for a physician to perform in vitro fertilization and embryo implantation? Are surrogate mothers committing adultery? Are sperm donors necessarily adulterers? What if it is their wives who collect the samples?

1. Alice's sister cannot keep a pregnancy to term. She offers to carry the embryo created from her sister's egg and her sister's husband, Brad's sperm in her womb for them.
2. Caroline's husband is impotent, but they want to have a baby. She has one of her eggs fertilized by an anonymous donor.
3. In each of the previous cases, the physician doing the procedures is named Dianne.

[Danmark]

Many fundamentalist Christians share a very similar vision as the Taliban, including the creation of a theocracy based on a rigid interpretation of Christian dogma and featuring virulent sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and opposition to other religious beliefs and non-beliefs. Christian Dominionists come to mind. They are the Western version of the Taliban.

I agree that some Christians are like some Muslims. It is ironic that certain types of fundamentalism, or fundamentalists have more in common with each other, than they have with those with whom they share a broader allegiance.

Here's one philosopher's take:
" There are some chilling parallels between Christian and Islamic fundamentalists. Both divide the world between believers and unbelievers, and by deciding for themselves who is saved and who is damned, they think that they can play God with our lives. Both have also declared war on the secular culture of liberal democracy, the most peaceful and prosperous means of social organization ever devised by humankind. They both reject the separation of church and state and would set up governments based on their own views of divine laws. "
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/parallels.htm

Perhaps even more telling:
"Another parallel between Christian and Islamic fundamentalism is a desire to make religious laws the laws of the land. In his regular column in Wilson’s Credenda Agenda (vol. 3: nos. 9, 11), Greg Dickison, member of Wilson’s Christ Church and a Moscow public defender, states that "if we could have it our way,� then there would be capital punishment for “kidnapping, sorcery, bestiality, adultery, homosexuality, and cursing one's parents.� Dickison also quotes biblical passages (without qualification) that support slavery as "ordained and regulated by God," death for apostasy (Deut. 13.6-9), and cutting off a woman’s hand for touching a strange man's genitals (Deut. 25.11,12)."
Ibid
The rage against homosexuality is certainly one of the things the Muslim extremists on the right share with Christian extremists on the right.

[Divine Insight]

By the way, the "Christian" portion of "the Bible" is to be found in what is called "The New Testament" section.

Everything in your post is based upon this premise. I do not accept this premise at all. On the contrary Christianity is based upon the entire biblical canon, and Jesus himself has absolutely no authority beyond supposedly having been the son of the God of the Old Testament.

So your claim that Christianity is to be found in "The New Testament" section of the Bible doesn't stand. Especially in terms of the arguments being made in the OP of this thread.

[dianaiad]

my use of of the term scientific adultery is perfectly accurate.

Really?

Are you applying the disciplines of science on the behavior of adultery?

Yup.

"Scientific adultery" how is that not accurate to in vitro fertilization OR using a fertilized egg OR one of the couple having sex with someone else to "make the baby" for a couple of female homosexuals or a couple of male homosexuals that are "married" to one another? I stand on my definition. And I think that if you contemplate this for a second or two, you will too.

Two "married" men or two "married" women cannot make a baby together.

Yeah, I'm fairly cool with my description.

How is the term adultery defined? OK, you might think that I am daft. "Don't you know what adultery means?" Is adultery about only sex, procreation or both? If a married person has a sexual relationship with someone who is not his or her spouse, that is called adultery. But what about ways of getting pregnant that do not involve sex? Is it adultery for a physician to perform in vitro fertilization and embryo implantation? Are surrogate mothers committing adultery? Are sperm donors necessarily adulterers? What if it is their wives who collect the samples?

1. Alice's sister cannot keep a pregnancy to term. She offers to carry the embryo created from her sister's egg and her sister's husband, Brad's sperm in her womb for them.
2. Caroline's husband is impotent, but they want to have a baby. She has one of her eggs fertilized by an anonymous donor.
3. In each of the previous cases, the physician doing the procedures is named Dianne.

As far as I am aware (and from all the research I've just done, looking at five dictionaries, two encyclopedias and a couple of sociology texts), adultery is defined as "voluntary sex between a spouse and anyone other than that spouse.' Procreation doesn't seem to enter into it; sex does.

The problem lies in the cheating, and the breaking of the promises made during the marriage ceremony. In other words, if you aren't breaking a promise, you aren't committing adultery.

This pretty much eliminates the idea of sperm and egg donors being part of an adulterous relationship, I'd think.

[Divine Insight]

In fact, if we're truly going to take the Bible seriously as are moral mandate then we would need to kill all non-Christians as heathens,

and even kill the women and children of any man who is a heathen.

Especially if they are preaching another religion.

Because the Bible makes it clear that this is what must be done to anyone who preaches of Gods that are not the God of the Bible.

Prove that or retract it and issue an apology for being insulting.

Deuteronomy Chapter 13.

I'm pretty sure there are places in Leviticus too.

If you feel that this is insulting then apparently you feel that the Bible is an insult to humanity.

[dianaiad]

In fact, if we're truly going to take the Bible seriously as are moral mandate then we would need to kill all non-Christians as heathens,

and even kill the women and children of any man who is a heathen.

Especially if they are preaching another religion.

Because the Bible makes it clear that this is what must be done to anyone who preaches of Gods that are not the God of the Bible.

Prove that or retract it and issue an apology for being insulting.

Deuteronomy Chapter 13.

I'm pretty sure there are places in Leviticus too.

If you feel that this is insulting then apparently you feel that your own religion is insulting.

Dear Divine Insight:

I am getting quite tired of the equivocation aoing on here, with critics insisting that Christians must follow the Law of Moses and the OT. The entire idea behind Christianity is that Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses; no Christian is bound by it, or required to live according to the precepts of the OT. That's why Christians are not Jews.

It would be a good idea if you would remember this; it does your position in this matter no good at all to keep erecting this strawman and attacking it.

You were asked to prove your claim. You were also reminded that Christians find their commandments (the ones they must live by) in the NT.

For you to keep quoting the OT in this matter is like insisting that my nephew, a geologist, MUST go by all the information found in my father's copy of "Historical Geology," published in 1949. Yes, it is valuable. Yes, it has a great deal of good information in it. Yes, it reflects the thinking of the folks who wrote it at the time, but since it has absolutely no reference to plate tectonics, modern geologists are not required to use it as their 'go to' resource for all things geology. Nobody works with the 'static earth' model.

Christians work with the NT. They are not bound by the Law of Moses. Again, that's why they are Christians, and not Jews.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 15 by dianaiad]

They are not bound by the Law of Moses.

Perhaps, though it would seem to make sense to discard the OT from the christian bible in as much as it's followed and not used as a reference.
Though they may not be bound by the OT, they sure can quote it when it suits their purposes, and ignore it when it doesn't
But I suppose one could make that argument with the entire bible....

[Divine Insight]

In fact, if we're truly going to take the Bible seriously as are moral mandate then we would need to kill all non-Christians as heathens,

and even kill the women and children of any man who is a heathen.

Especially if they are preaching another religion.

Because the Bible makes it clear that this is what must be done to anyone who preaches of Gods that are not the God of the Bible.

Prove that or retract it and issue an apology for being insulting.

Deuteronomy Chapter 13.

I'm pretty sure there are places in Leviticus too.

If you feel that this is insulting then apparently you feel that your own religion is insulting.

Dear Divine Insight:

I am getting quite tired of the equivocation aoing on here, with critics insisting that Christians must follow the Law of Moses and the OT. The entire idea behind Christianity is that Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses; no Christian is bound by it, or required to live according to the precepts of the OT. That's why Christians are not Jews.

It would be a good idea if you would remember this; it does your position in this matter no good at all to keep erecting this strawman and attacking it.

You were asked to prove your claim. You were also reminded that Christians find their commandments (the ones they must live by) in the NT.

For you to keep quoting the OT in this matter is like insisting that my nephew, a geologist, MUST go by all the information found in my father's copy of "Historical Geology," published in 1949. Yes, it is valuable. Yes, it has a great deal of good information in it. Yes, it reflects the thinking of the folks who wrote it at the time, but since it has absolutely no reference to plate tectonics, modern geologists are not required to use it as their 'go to' resource for all things geology. Nobody works with the 'static earth' model.

Christians work with the NT. They are not bound by the Law of Moses. Again, that's why they are Christians, and not Jews.

To begin with I don't necessarily agree with your views on "Christianity". Nor do I need to. This is one fact about Christianity that serves my arguments very well.

All Christian denominations are not in agreement with your views. In fact, I think this should be clear even on this forum where not everyone who debates for Christianity necessarily agrees with your views.

The entire idea behind Christianity is that Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses; no Christian is bound by it, or required to live according to the precepts of the OT. That's why Christians are not Jews.

I'm sure Charles (Cnorman18) would passionately reject your implication that the Jews are in any way required to live according to the Laws of Moses. But that's another matter entirely.

However, getting back to Christianity I will quote from the New Testament directly:

Matthew 5:
[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
[18] 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.

To begin with a person doesn't "fulfill laws". The only thing they can possibly fulfill would be prophecy.

In verse 18 Jesus makes it crystal clear that not one jot nor one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

The only jots and tittles that Jesus could have been referring to in this context would have been the Jewish Laws of Moses that are said to have been given by God.

Therefore to claim that Jesus was in any way preaching that the laws of the Old Testament no longer apply is Christian nonsense. Moreover it's extremely hypocritical of them if they are going to root through the Old Testament in an effort to proclaim that God hates homosexuality anyway.

So I don't buy into this Christian argument that Jesus represents a change in the laws. In fact, this would violate the idea of a God who is unchanging in any case.

Moreover, if the Christians were going to truly take this stance then they should toss out the Old Testament and quit referencing it altogether. I would also argue that most of Paul's writings is actually Paul doing nothing more than dredging up the laws of the Old Testament and preaching them under the authority of Jesus' names. And ironically this actually flies in the face of the gospel of Matthew above.

So I think it's wrong to say that Christianity represent an abolition of the Old Testament laws. Clearly the modern day Jews don't still go around stoning heathens to death either.

What makes far more sense is that no one truly believes in what these ancient texts have to say.

The Christians are trying to make a brand new religion out of this claiming that only the New Testament counts now, but far too many of them continue to point to the ancient texts to support many of their bigotries, etc.

So no. I'm not making a false straw man. I'm just pointing out the truth.

Jesus is a nobody without the God of the Old Testament. Having been proclaimed to be the demigod Son of the God of the Old Testament is precisely what is supposed to give Jesus any clout to begin with.

Jesus has no feet of his own. He stands entirely on the shoulders of the God of the Old Testament. And the New Testament has him proclaiming that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law, as cited above.

So there's nothing straw man about my position. A Jesus who is not standing on the shoulders of Yahweh is nothing.

In fact, to argue that Jesus represents a totally different morality can only mean on of two things. Either this original God's "Absolutely Morality" has changed dramatically, or Jesus is a whole new God.

This is actually a huge problem with the religion overall.

It's simply not possible to separate Jesus from the God of the Old Testament. I know that Christians would love to do this because they are in love with Jesus and they don't particularly care for the God of the Old Testament either.

But Jesus cannot be taken off the shoulders of the God of the Old Testament. Jesus has no feet of his own. It's not possible to make that into a viable religion.

Moreover, ask yourself why Christians themselves are attempting to do this?

They are attempting to do this because even they can see that the behavior and commandments of the God of the Old Testament are highly immoral and absurd. So they want to distance themselves from this immoral God.

But all they are saying there is that the God of the Old Testament was indeed immoral. But how does that help anything? It's supposedly the same God today.

So it's not straw man on my part at all. On the contrary Christianity absolutely depends upon the God of the Old Testament being morally accountable.

You can't pretend that Jesus represents a totally independent God. That's simply not the Biblical story.

[Danmark]

Dear Divine Insight:

I am getting quite tired of the equivocation aoing on here, with critics insisting that Christians must follow the Law of Moses and the OT. The entire idea behind Christianity is that Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses; no Christian is bound by it, or required to live according to the precepts of the OT. That's why Christians are not Jews.

It would be a good idea if you would remember this; it does your position in this matter no good at all to keep erecting this strawman and attacking it.

You were asked to prove your claim. You were also reminded that Christians find their commandments (the ones they must live by) in the NT.

For you to keep quoting the OT in this matter is like insisting that my nephew, a geologist, MUST go by all the information found in my father's copy of "Historical Geology," published in 1949. Yes, it is valuable. Yes, it has a great deal of good information in it. Yes, it reflects the thinking of the folks who wrote it at the time, but since it has absolutely no reference to plate tectonics, modern geologists are not required to use it as their 'go to' resource for all things geology. Nobody works with the 'static earth' model.

Christians work with the NT. They are not bound by the Law of Moses. Again, that's why they are Christians, and not Jews.

But Christians are equivocal themselves, if not individually, then certainly collectively. Wouldn't you agree that many segments/practitioners of Christianity pick and choose which mosaic laws they hold sacred? Paul certainly did. He made a big deal about not having to be circumcised, and not having to observe special days or dietary restrictions, but he was hidebound when it came to a woman's place in the church, just as some Christian factions are today.

The current topic is a perfect example of old testament legalisms that are observed by the Roman Catholic church as well as some Jews. Completely missing the point about adultery as faithlessness, the breaking of a promise [as both of us have asserted] and going the hypertechnical direction of calling in vitro fertilization "mechanical adultery" is absurd, legalistic, scoffs at the spiritual essence of the law and makes DI's point that Christians, some of them, do indeed follow Mosaic law when they choose to.
Tho' I agree they also base their case against a loving, committed, and lifelong marriage between members of the same sex, to some degree on NT writing, their principal objections come from the Jewish Bible. Just like Paul, they pick and choose which 'Old Testament' rules they want to follow. They strain gnats and swallow camels.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 15 by dianaiad]

They are not bound by the Law of Moses.

Perhaps, though it would seem to make sense to discard the OT from the christian bible in as much as it's followed and not used as a reference.
Though they may not be bound by the OT, they sure can quote it when it suits their purposes, and ignore it when it doesn't
But I suppose one could make that argument with the entire bible....

Actually there's a bit of a problem with that as well. The Christians could actually toss out the Old Testament and they would still have quite a bit of it in the writings of Paul.

Paul was very good at dredging up nasty stuff from the Old Testament and preaching it in Jesus' name.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 19 by Divine Insight]

Paul was very good at dredging up nasty stuff from the Old Testament and preaching it in Jesus' name.

Maybe that's why so many christians like Paul....?
Power and influence towards those different from them.
Go figure