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.

[Zzyzx]

.
Moderator Final Warning

Please review the Rules.

The next infraction will result in Probation action, one after that will result in Action toward Suspension for a month, one after that will result in banishment action.

Those who wish to test moderator resolve in these matters may continue; however, those who value membership and the ability to post on the website are advised to abide by Forum Rules and Guidelines.

Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.[/b]

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

"Idiocy" is your personal opinion – and is uncivil, unwelcome and not appropriate in debate

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.

Platitudes, religious or not, do not constitute debate.

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.

Scriptures are not a shield against rule infractions regarding personal attacks and preaching

On The Solid Rock I stand. Rather than shifting sands.

Preaching

When we are all dust and ashes, Jesus will still be God.

Preaching

[99percentatheism]

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?

Women can't commit adultery? Why just reference the guy? The "another's wife" would be an adulterer too right? And "mechanical adultery?" No it doesn't sound as bad as people adultery.

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?

Hmm, sounds like an abortion style question. The child of in vitro fertilization was wanted as a child from even before conception.

How are they different from adopted children in this regard?

Adopted children are natural products of natural fertilization.

[Danmark]

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?

Women can't commit adultery? Why just reference the guy? The "another's wife" would be an adulterer too right? And "mechanical adultery?" No it doesn't sound as bad as people adultery.

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?

Hmm, sounds like an abortion style question. The child of in vitro fertilization was wanted as a child from even before conception.

How are they different from adopted children in this regard?

Adopted children are natural products of natural fertilization.

How did you get that from this:

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?

No where did I say or imply that only men can commit adultery.
You failed to answer any of the questions I posed.

[99percentatheism]

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?

Women can't commit adultery? Why just reference the guy? The "another's wife" would be an adulterer too right? And "mechanical adultery?" No it doesn't sound as bad as people adultery.

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?

Hmm, sounds like an abortion style question. The child of in vitro fertilization was wanted as a child from even before conception.

How are they different from adopted children in this regard?

Adopted children are natural products of natural fertilization.

How did you get that from this:

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?

No where did I say or imply that only men can commit adultery.
You failed to answer any of the questions I posed.

Yes I did:

And "mechanical adultery?" No it doesn't sound as bad as people adultery.

[Danmark]

Yes I did:

And "mechanical adultery?" No it doesn't sound as bad as people adultery.

I asked "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?"

"Doesn't sound as bad" doesn't appear to be an answer. BTW what is "people adultery?"

You also have not answered the question violence threatened in the NT re: throwing people into Hell, cutting off their hands or legs, and plucking out their eyeballs. Don't those descriptions, attributed to Jesus, suggest violence?

[99percentatheism]

Yes I did:

And "mechanical adultery?" No it doesn't sound as bad as people adultery.

I asked "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?"

"Doesn't sound as bad" doesn't appear to be an answer. BTW what is "people adultery?"

Mechanical is mechanical. People are people. "People adultery" you should be able to figure that out.

You also have not answered the question violence threatened in the NT re: throwing people into Hell, cutting off their hands or legs, and plucking out their eyeballs. Don't those descriptions, attributed to Jesus, suggest violence?

I think hell and choosing to not sin are both realities Jesus makes a good point about whether in parable, metaphor or actuality. Cutting off ones hands and feet and tearing ones own eyes from their head rather than to stay in ones sins is unnecessary with repenting and forgiveness engaged in as Jesus taught.

I find it incredibly fascinating that Christians see repentance and forgiveness as part of the joy in the Gospels and their detractors see only in negativity and dread.

Totally fascinating.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 36 by 99percentatheism]

I find it incredibly fascinating that Christians see repentance and forgiveness as part of the joy in the Gospels and their detractors see only in negativity and dread.

I would question the integrity of that statement as I know of no non-believer that sees it that way - not even close. Even those that I know who literally hate god don't see it that way.

Perhaps you would like to get to know these non-believers better than you do? Or perhaps not...

[Divine Insight]

I find it incredibly fascinating that Christians see repentance and forgiveness as part of the joy in the Gospels and their detractors see only in negativity and dread.

From your statement above you appear to view all non-Christians as "detractors" (i.e. as people who are trying to detract Christians from their belief).

This is understandable since the Bible does a very good job of brainwashing it's readers into viewing non-believers in this way.

However, non-believers are seldom "detractors" in reality. They are simply people who don't fall for the Biblical dogma, or who have at one time fallen for it themselves but now see its fallacy.

I personally don't care what you believe. And therefore I am not attempting to detract you from anything. I am on an open forum like this for the purpose of raising the awareness of humanity. Bouncing off posts like yours in debate simply offer me a platform to illustrate points that serve to raise awareness.

Now having said this I would like to address the point you have just made.

You say that "Christians see repentance and forgiveness as part of the joy in the Gospels"

I hold to you that what they don't see is the fallacy behind it.

I personally have no problem with concepts such as repentance and forgiveness in the context of some imagined supreme being. If there exists a supreme being then I most certainly repent anything I may have done that might even remotely be considered to be immoral. I've already confessed in another thread that I actually feel guilty for eating meat. Yet ironically that's not even a sin in Christianity. I would have no need to repent for eating meat in Christianity. Thus illustrating that my desire for repentance goes far beyond what Christianity is even demanding.

I would have absolutely no problem repenting any and all immoral deeds I may have been guilty of. And of course I would accept forgiveness from a God who is offering forgiveness. It would be absolutely foolish not to.

So does this mean that I should rush off and repent to Zeus or Allah?

I'm sure that you, as a Christian would say, "No way! Jesus is the one you must seek to be granted repentance and forgiveness".

And you see that's where the problem lies.

Christianity isn't about repentance and forgiveness. On the contrary Christianity is about Christianity. Period amen!

In fact, Christianity absolutely denies repentance and forgiveness for anyone who refuses to confess that Jesus is "The Christ" and the one and only Lord and Savior, etc.

It's not about repentance or forgiveness at all. It's entirely about supporting that Christianity is the ONE TRUE RELIGION.

That is what Christianity is all about.

Christianity was an invention of an ancient culture where neighboring cultures were all in competition to create a religion to trump their neighbor's religions.

This mindset actually started with the Greek (and other Mediterranean cultures). Even though the Greeks believed in many Gods, even they proclaimed Zeus to be the "God of Gods". You can believe in whatever Gods you like as long as you ultimately recognize that Zeus is the Big Chief.

The Hebrews simply took this idea one step further. They took the idea of Zeus, proclaimed him to be the ONE and ONLY God. They even went further and proclaimed him to be jealous of all other Gods that might even be imagined to exist. And they renamed him "Yahweh".

The Christians robbed this God from the ancient Hebrews, nailed him a pole as the sacrificial lamb for all of mankind and renamed him "Jesus".

The Muslims then came along, and rewrote their own version proclaiming that this was done by an illiterate prophet who flew off to heaven on a flying horse. And then renamed their God "Allah" (although three had no doubt already existed previous fables of a God named Allah as well.)

But the bottom line in all of this is that Christianity isn't about repentance and forgiveness at all. On the contrary it's simply a religious cult that refuses to allow that anyone has been sufficiently repented or forgiven until they join and support the cult and all of its decrees.

So I put to you that Christianity is not about repentance and forgiveness at all. It's about refusing to acknowledge repentance and forgiveness for anyone who is Outside of the Christian Cult.

"What? You are not a Christian? You refuse to believe that Jesus is the Christ and Savior? Then obviously you are refusing to repent your sins and you are rejecting God's offer of forgiveness! You are yourself choosing hell!"

That is the mentality of Christianity. That is the core of this cult.

It's not about repentance and forgiveness at all. It's about demeaning anyone who refuses to join and support the cult as being "heathens against God".

How can you not see this?

I have no problem with any God that might exist.

But I do have extreme problems with the underhanded and unethical cult known as "Christianity".

And of course Islam does basically the same thing. They renounce everyone who doesn't worship Allah as having "rejected God" too.

How can you not see that this is just what these ancient religions were doing?

All they were doing is trying to condemn anyone who refused to join their particular religion. And Christianity is no exception.

It's not about repentance and forgiveness. It's about supporting a cult lest you be branded a "heathen".

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 36 by 99percentatheism]

I find it incredibly fascinating that Christians see repentance and forgiveness as part of the joy in the Gospels and their detractors see only in negativity and dread.

I would question the integrity of that statement as I know of no non-believer that sees it that way - not even close. Even those that I know who literally hate god don't see it that way.

Perhaps you would like to get to know these non-believers better than you do? Or perhaps not...

I was once a non-believer living among exclusively other non-believers. I work now among almost exclusively non-believers.

By the way, whatever happened to the OP?

[dianaiad]

I find it incredibly fascinating that Christians see repentance and forgiveness as part of the joy in the Gospels and their detractors see only in negativity and dread.

From your statement above you appear to view all non-Christians as "detractors" (i.e. as people who are trying to detract Christians from their belief).

Point of logic...or reading comprehension, whatever: there is nothing in the statement "....Christians see repentance.....and their detractors see only in negativity and dread" that states, hints, or implies in any way whatsoever, that all non-Christians are detractors.

If there was another statement in 99percentatheism's post that stated, hinted or implied that all non-Christians are indeed detractors, feel free to quote that, but the statement you did use does nothing of the sort.