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.

[99percentatheism]

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.

You do realize that Israelites are not Christians right?

Your apology is more than likely not coming anytime soon so don't worry about. It's not that important to this debate.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 17 by Divine Insight]

Divine Insight:

Quote:
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.

Just produce scriptures that clearly direct Christians to kill anybody. You seem to know the New Testament in several places. Then please produce the places that direct "Christians" to kill someone OR anyone.

[Danmark]

Just produce scriptures that clearly direct Christians to kill anybody. You seem to know the New Testament in several places. Then please produce the places that direct "Christians" to kill someone OR anyone.

Certainly there is room for debate on this point and the meaning of these scriptural well known references:
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household. " [Mt. 10:34-35]

Tho' I may not agree with the interpretation, these references could certainly be interpreted as issuing a call to violence.

[Divine Insight]

You do realize that Israelites are not Christians right?

Your apology is more than likely not coming anytime soon so don't worry about. It's not that important to this debate.

I have already made it clear that I am not in agreement with your claim that Christianity is solely based upon the New Testament only. And I would have argued with you on that point even back when I was a devout Christian myself.

So we are simply in disagreement on what even constitutes "Christianity".

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

Thus your demand above is empty and devoid of authority.

You are demanding that I "prove it" using your definition of Christianity. You are also obviously suggesting that it is insulting based upon your definition of Christianity.

But I don't accept your definition of Christianity.

I have already made it crystal clear that from my perspective Jesus has no feet of his own upon which to stand. Jesus is not a God in his own right. Jesus sits on the shoulders of the God of the Old Testament as the demigod Son of the God of the Old Testament born through the mortal virgin woman Mary.

And therefore I reject your claim that Christianity can dismiss the Old Testament as not being relevant to the religion.

Thus the "proof" I gave is sufficient within the context of how I see Christianity. Moreover I own you no personal apologies because I don't even recognize your version of Christianity. I personally don't even see how Christianity could be said to make any sense at all when you reject the Old Testament as not being an important and integral part of the religion.

In short, I don't recognize your definition of Christianity as being a valid definition. I'm certainly not going to attempt to prove anything to you based on that definition of Christianity.

I simply do not recognize your definition of Christianity as having any merit.

Sorry.

[99percentatheism]

Danmark

Just produce scriptures that clearly direct Christians to kill anybody. You seem to know the New Testament in several places. Then please produce the places that direct "Christians" to kill someone OR anyone.

Certainly there is room for debate on this point and the meaning of these scriptural well known references:
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household. " [Mt. 10:34-35]

Tho' I may not agree with the interpretation, these references could certainly be interpreted as issuing a call to violence.

What? The "sword" Jesus referenced was a sword used against His followers that they should expect to experience, that "Choosing Christ" is more important than anything or anyone else is just recognizing Jesus and the power and authority of God over man. ANY man. That's my opinion based on actions of the Apostles.

"Christianity" as it was delivered by God and developed by the Apostles shows us what "Christianity" is. It is non-violent to the extremes. It is beauty in community and introspection. That men have used "it" to rule and dominate others should come as no surprise to anyone that can read and understand history in or outside of "Christianity." That this world would be radically better if ALL "Christians" would have delivered "Christianity" the way that Jesus the Christ directed takes no large amount of contemplation to realize. (Such as Ghandi's view.) But not even so-called benevolent and peaceful people want to follow Jesus as He dictates. And even strident opponents of "Christianity" such as atheists seem to understand that Christians should act a certain way IF they are Christians. But enough "Christians" have gotten through the pitfalls of human depravity to make The Church the beautiful reality that has kept to the faith still.

Oh the OP?

I'm still sticking with my opinion. Basically based on selfishness (of the patients and medical hucksters) and the poor child of medical adultery that in many cases can never know who their "other" real parent is.

[99percentatheism]

Divine Insight

You do realize that Israelites are not Christians right?

Your apology is more than likely not coming anytime soon so don't worry about. It's not that important to this debate.

I have already made it clear that I am not in agreement with your claim that Christianity is solely based upon the New Testament only.

I must clarify then. And of course, you being an "ex" Christian and all you should have known that I cannot hold that "Christianity" is disconnected from the Tanakh. Without it there is no Messiah. Jesus or otherwise. But to claim that Jesus preached that violence was to be used to spread the Gospel is idiocy. OR worse. And in my position of course, as a Christian that states connection to the Apostolic movement it is worse to say that violence EVEN towards hateful enemies of Christianity is supportable. According to Jesus that is. The consistent contradictions of a loving God dealing with imperfect mankind made perfectly clear in the scriptures. All the way through!

And I would have argued with you on that point even back when I was a devout Christian myself.

I have no doubt that you would have. Fruit from the tree does not roll far from what it fell off of.

So we are simply in disagreement on what even constitutes "Christianity".

And you must know by now that I am fully aware of that.

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

Thus your demand above is empty and devoid of authority.

I am just a humble Christian defending my Lord and His Church. Contending for the faith as it were.

You are demanding that I "prove it" using your definition of Christianity. You are also obviously suggesting that it is insulting based upon your definition of Christianity.

But I don't accept your definition of Christianity.

Like I said, fruit from the roots. You have made your choice and I fully recognize that.

I have already made it crystal clear that from my perspective Jesus has no feet of his own upon which to stand. Jesus is not a God in his own right. Jesus sits on the shoulders of the God of the Old Testament as the demigod Son of the God of the Old Testament born through the mortal virgin woman Mary.

And therefore I reject your claim that Christianity can dismiss the Old Testament as not being relevant to the religion.

Then I will agree with you a bit. Jesus, The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and His Church cannot be separated from the truth of the Torah, The Prophets and the Writings. Absolutely impossible.

Thus the "proof" I gave is sufficient within the context of how I see Christianity.

No surprise there for me. OK, I agree with how you see the Bible and Christianity. Of course. You have to see it that way. I was once an atheist too.

Moreover I own you no personal apologies because I don't even recognize your version of Christianity.

Whatever. I'll survive without an apology from you or any other detractor of Christians and Christianity. Yeah, I'm sure I'll make it through somehow.

I personally don't even see how Christianity could be said to make any sense at all when you reject the Old Testament as not being an important and integral part of the religion.

100% correct.

In short, I don't recognize your definition of Christianity as being a valid definition. I'm certainly not going to attempt to prove anything to you based on that definition of Christianity.

I simply do not recognize your definition of Christianity as having any merit.

Notice that is why I always reference the scriptures unedited and unchanged? My opinion is that if I deliver the faith as did the writers of the New Testament that I cannot be guilty of all the silly charges made against me by so many non and anti Christians. On The Solid Rock I stand. Rather than shifting sands.

Sorry.[/quote]

Don't say you're sorry. This isn't really all that weighty on me. When we are all dust and ashes, Jesus will still be God.

[dianaiad]

You do realize that Israelites are not Christians right?

Your apology is more than likely not coming anytime soon so don't worry about. It's not that important to this debate.

Moderator Comment

Asking someone to support a claim is one thing. Making personal comments about the poster is another. Don't do that.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Danmark]

Oh the OP?

I'm still sticking with my opinion. Basically based on selfishness (of the patients and medical hucksters) and the poor child of medical adultery that in many cases can never know who their "other" real parent is.

In your opinion is 'mechanical adultery' as great a 'sin' as the regular kind? You know, when a man cheats on his wife or sleeps with another's wife?

Assuming children are happy to be alive, and have loving, wise, and devoted parents, do you think the child of in vitro fertilization wishes he or she had never been born?
How are they different from adopted children in this regard?

[Divine Insight]

But to claim that Jesus preached that violence was to be used to spread the Gospel is idiocy. OR worse.

And what would that have to do with our exchange?

I never implied that Jesus himself ever preached such a thing. So you are clearly not even understanding my position. But I have pointed out that the Gospels do indeed have Jesus proclaiming that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law. And the only law he could have possibly been referring to at that time were the jots and tittles of Old Testament, and specifically the laws handed down through Moses.

So in this sense Jesus gave his support to the Laws of Moses whether you are willing to confess this or not.

And I would have argued with you on that point even back when I was a devout Christian myself.

I have no doubt that you would have. Fruit from the tree does not roll far from what it fell off of.

And what exactly do you intend to imply by this remark?

I am just a humble Christian defending my Lord and His Church. Contending for the faith as it were.

Jesus himself never instructed anyone to go around arguing with non-believers. On the contrary he advised to wipe your feet and walk away.

You are demanding that I "prove it" using your definition of Christianity. You are also obviously suggesting that it is insulting based upon your definition of Christianity.

But I don't accept your definition of Christianity.

Like I said, fruit from the roots. You have made your choice and I fully recognize that.

Sounds like a personal sneer to me with the intent to belittle a non-believer of your faith.

I address the religious myths directly, but it appears to me that you are more intent on taking things to a personal level.

Unlike you, I recognized that it is impossible to make a religion based upon Jesus alone. The cannot be a valid form of Christianity that doesn't basically have Jesus nailed to the Old Testament God (a fitting metaphor for this religion).

I always say that Jesus was crucified twice. Once physically when he was nailed to a pole. And again when the authors of the New Testament metaphorically nailed him to the Old Testament by proclaiming that he was the demigod son of the God of the Old Testament.

So ironically, you and I seem to have at least one thing in common. We both have a desire to defend Jesus. We simply go about it in entirely different ways.

I have already made it crystal clear that from my perspective Jesus has no feet of his own upon which to stand. Jesus is not a God in his own right. Jesus sits on the shoulders of the God of the Old Testament as the demigod Son of the God of the Old Testament born through the mortal virgin woman Mary.

And therefore I reject your claim that Christianity can dismiss the Old Testament as not being relevant to the religion.

Then I will agree with you a bit. Jesus, The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and His Church cannot be separated from the truth of the Torah, The Prophets and the Writings. Absolutely impossible.

That's strange that you would agree with me on this now after you had wrongfully accused me at the opening of your post of proclaiming that Jesus taught people to kill heathens.

Thus the "proof" I gave is sufficient within the context of how I see Christianity.

No surprise there for me. OK, I agree with how you see the Bible and Christianity. Of course. You have to see it that way. I was once an atheist too.

I'm not an atheist in general. And we are all atheists with respect to Zeus.

I don't have to see the Bible in any particular way. I simply accept that it is what it is and I don't try to make excuses for it or pretend that it could be made into something it isn't.

Moreover I own you no personal apologies because I don't even recognize your version of Christianity.

Whatever. I'll survive without an apology from you or any other detractor of Christians and Christianity. Yeah, I'm sure I'll make it through somehow.

Well, I'm glad to hear that because it was never my intent to attack you on a personal level to begin with. I address the dogma not the victims of dogma.

I personally don't even see how Christianity could be said to make any sense at all when you reject the Old Testament as not being an important and integral part of the religion.

100% correct.

I'm glad to see you concurring to my main point.

In short, I don't recognize your definition of Christianity as being a valid definition. I'm certainly not going to attempt to prove anything to you based on that definition of Christianity.

I simply do not recognize your definition of Christianity as having any merit.

Notice that is why I always reference the scriptures unedited and unchanged? My opinion is that if I deliver the faith as did the writers of the New Testament that I cannot be guilty of all the silly charges made against me by so many non and anti Christians. On The Solid Rock I stand. Rather than shifting sands.

I never made any charges against you personally. Nor did I make any negative charges against Jesus. It appears to me that you seem to take exception to the theological views of others, and take those views as a personal attack. You also appear to feel that you need to "defend Jesus" even when no one is attacking him directly either.

I have no problems with Jesus. Your delusions that I am in any way attacking Jesus are a fabrication of your own imagination. On the contrary, I personally believe that Jesus was basically a Jewish Buddhist, and I think he tried very hard to turn a very negative and nasty religion around and simply failed in his attempt.

That is not a negative view of Jesus. On the contrary it's actually a quite honorable and respectable view of him. So for you to act like you are defending Jesus from imagined attacks against him is totally misguided here.

Sorry.

Don't say you're sorry. This isn't really all that weighty on me. When we are all dust and ashes, Jesus will still be God.

I wasn't saying that I'm sorry with the intend to console you. I'm basically just saying that I'm sorry but I'm not interested in your misguided delusions that I am somehow attacking Jesus.

I personally don't believe that Christianity even reflects the views of Jesus. And this is especially true if people are going to use "defending Jesus" as an excuse to support religious bigotries and the exclusion of others who don't believe that Jesus was the demigod son of the God of the Old Testament.

Christianity has, IMHO, become an exclusionary cult that often ends in the degradation and belittlement of anyone who refuses to join the cult and support their beliefs of how they view Jesus. This is not unlike Islam where people use Muhammad for the very same purpose.

In your exchange with me your whole thesis appears to be proclaiming war against me from the stance that you are "Defending Jesus". When in reality I never even attacked this historical character at all. In fact, it's quite possible that there never even was a person named Jesus as described in the Christian New Testament. No one even knows.

You don't need to defend Jesus from me. I'm not out to degrade Jesus. On the contrary if there every was such a person I'm quite confident that he would very much support my views. In fact, IMHO, according to the New Testament he did.

I am in total agreement with the sentiments of Mahatma Gandhi on this issue:

"Your Christians are so unlike your Jesus".

[Danmark]

"Christianity" as it was delivered by God and developed by the Apostles shows us what "Christianity" is. It is non-violent to the extremes.

The doctrine of Hell is violent in the extreme. I am well aware that not all Christians believe in this doctrine, but they still have to contend with the alleged words of Jesus which not only speak of hell but of violent dismemberment and blinding:

Matthew 5:22
22But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

29If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

Matthew 7:13,19
13“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. …

19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Matthew 8:12
12But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.�

Matthew 10:28
28And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matthew 13:30
30Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.�

Matthew 13:42
42and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 13:49-50
49So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just, 50and cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.�

Matthew 18:8
8“If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire.

Matthew 18:9
9And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire.

Matthew 22:13

13Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 24:51
51and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 25:30
30And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 25:41
41“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:

Matthew 25:46
46And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.�

Mark 9:43-48
43If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched

44Where “their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.�

45And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched

46Where “their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.�

47And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire

48Where “their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.�

Luke 3:17
17His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather the wheat into His barn; but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire.�

Luke 12:5
5But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!

Are these references 'non violent in the extreme?"