Is it wrong to have sex for fun, knowing it might possibly lead to an abortion?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by SetiAlpha6, Feb 12, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    I endorse and trust God.

    Even with difficult and unknown things.

    Knowing I could not do them myself because I am not Him, and I do not have His understanding, wisdom, knowledge, perspective, and on and on...


    Stopping evil and creating deterrents is not evil in itself!

    Evil will be eventually destroyed one way or another.

    I call that good!

    Don’t you hope for that?

    Or do you love evil?

    Do you want evil to go on forever?

    I trust God to do the right thing in the bigger picture.

    As you know innocents are being killed now by the millions through abortion.

    Are you OK with that?

    Are you really saying that women have the right to kill their own children in the womb but the God who made them has no rights? That would be nonsense to me.

    They created a baby. God created them.
    Equal rights for women and God!!!

    Transfer women’s rights to God. I am wondering how you will twist and invert it...

    I trust God to do the right thing in the bigger picture with that as well.

    So many great and thoughtful questions! I have already answered some of them, and I only have so much time.
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2019
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member


    If you base your morality on the Bible, then you are obligated to kill gays. It's right there in black and white, no other options. If you pick and choose which part of the Bible to heed (which most sane Christians do) then you are not obligated to kill gays. However, by definition, there is then no standard Bible-based morality, since resulting moralities will vary greatly upon which part of the Bible one heeds.
    I highlighted the critical word there. And I am sure you agree that there are many Christians who do not read the Bible properly (according to you) - which is why there's no standard Christian morality. For example, I am sure you would agree that the Christian Identity people are not reading the Bible properly.
    In Matthew 5:18, where Christ tells his followers that the Law (the Old Testament) is to be followed 100%.

    Again, that's a part you can decide to disregard, and say that people who heed those words are following the Bible improperly. Or perhaps you think that Jesus was wrong that one time. Or that it was mis-translated. Or he didn't really mean it. Or whatever. No worries. It just means that you are going to end up with a LOT of different interpretations.

    And to be clear, I am not arguing that selective reading of the Bible is bad. It's good, and moral people will approach such selective reading wisely and sift out all the kill-the-gays and kill-the-children-but-leave-the-virgins-for-the-soldiers stuff. But that also means you have to come into the process with solid morals so you know what to disregard. Doing the reverse (starting without morals, and looking to the Bible as your sole moral guidance) is a disaster.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    The Golden Rule is good for how we relate to each other as humans.

    But when it comes to our relationship with God, the Golden Rule becomes multidimensional.

    Encompassing both how we treat others, and how we treat Him.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    No! Physicians would certainly be able to come up with merciful, ethical, moral, exemptions to a general blanket Law against abortion. No problem at all. And gray areas would be decided in court like everything else is.
  8. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    I asked earlier if God can predict the future.

    Are you only answering that now?
  9. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    They all have the same designer!

    Micro is certainly there and proven within a species. God’s brilliant design to help life to adapt to various conditions for survival.

    But Micro is working in reverse of the way we are taught. Mutations destroy genetic information over time.

    Haven’t you noticed that through all the crap scientists say, where they use unknown to prove unknown to prove unknown to prove even more unknowns, that never seems to end, that evolution is actually destroying life on Earth over time, not creating it?
  10. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Yeah, um... Did I actually quote that?
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    ?? The anti-abortion laws on the books say that physicians go to jail for making merciful, ethical, moral, exemptions to the law.

    If you proposed a law that said no abortions unless the patient and doctor agreed it was the merciful, ethical, and moral thing to do, then I would support that law.
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    ?? Not at all.

    Look at Idiurus Macrotis. It's a flying squirrel. It has a mutation; it has one extra bone, an extra radius. That's a common mutation where you get one extra of something. For people, that means an extra finger, and it's usually removed because we don't need an extra finger. But the flying squirrel uses that extra bone to prop his flying membrane out a little farther so he can glide better.

    That's a mutation that has created brand new information. Give them another million years and you might well see that extra bone get longer, and evolve into a proper wing, instead of the little stubby wing it gives the squirrel now.

    Or bacteria, that evolve new proteins that resist antibiotics. Or moths, that evolve new coloration to hide better on dirty trees. All new information.

    And again, micro and macro are the same, as that flying squirrel is showing you.
    Nope. No one is saying that, only you.
  13. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Because the Exodus actually happened and has a ton of evidence for it sitting out in the desert. And my ancestors went through the Red Sea themselves and lived to write about it.

    But that is another thread!

    And it involves miracles which you cannot comprehend because you limit existence only to naturalism. At least I think you are doing that.

    Cut yourself off from miracles and you will never see evidence for God, though it is all around you!
  14. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Still bacteria. Still moths. Still Squirrels. Fits what I said well.

    How many extinctions did you say?

    How about birth defects?

    There have been studies on this, how many more generations before our genetic code is too corrupted to keep us going?

    I think it is called genetic entropy.

    Dang sometimes empirical science just kind of gets in the way of all those imaginary tales people want to believe in.

    How many new forms of life have been created?
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2019
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Well, now a flying squirrel. And in a million years, a future version of you might look at that squirrel's descendants and say "See? Still a bird. Just like God made it."
    What about them?
    Will never happen. Because of evolution.
    About half a dozen. Why?
  16. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Macro has never happened because of genetic entropy.

    We live in a dying Universe.

    On a dying world.

    Within a dying race.

    In a dying body.

    With no hope but Jesus Christ!

  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    See, I actually don't believe you're that ignorant, and it's such a stupid question I'm not sure quite how to address it.

    Historically speaking, though, the Christian bible with Old and New Testaments is a political usurpation; that's hardly a new point of mine, and you've been around threads when I've discussed it (cf., post in re fundamentalist Christians↗).

    More like narrative context. The story of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible makes the point (cf., post in re notorious political figure↗), but for as much as I might have recalled it over the years, it's also true the evangelical atheists I know never really pick up on it.

    Whether it is cynical or simply uninformed, your question is nearly disqualifying.

    But this would be your own fallacy to deal with, and think of it this way: Are you going out of your way to disqualify for some obscure satisfaction, or shall we accept that you really are so ignorant and incompetent?

    I prefer the RSV and NASB, but a lot is discussed with KJV; there are resources to help us understand how the words and sentences are translated; we should always be wary of NIV and other simplified translations.

    But a "Christian properly read printed version", while it's hard to figure precisely what you meant, would seem the wrong question; if its meaning is covetously calculated, then it doesn't matter what translation or printed version one reads.

    Of course you missed that part in order to ask about the "Christian properly read printed version".

    That's a more modern temptation. I actually have a bit on that stowed away, and if I've never brought it here in detail, it's because it's a dynamic and usnettled thesis, and there isn't really much point to presenting in a room insisting on heroic cluelessness. Indeed, someone else stumbled into the DIY question, too, sort of. Maybe it's time.

    The spoiler alert, of course, is that it will disappoint evangelical atheists, even if it doesn't shine up religious knobs any.

    (Note: Unicode for the inverted question mark that goes at the front of the interrogative is u00bf, and the Alt code, apparently, is 0191.)​

    Well, given that the answer is to ask people from the fourth and fifth centuries, and virutally every major player on the prevailing side of settling that record was working political angles (cf., post in re Jesus, James, and biblical canon↗), which also discussion of usurpation, as well as reading and interpreting the Bible). Your question, however, seems rootless, and in this way: Why leave them out, then?

    And here is the key to understanding that question: Should you stop and consider the question, what is the Bible to you, part of the point is that pretty much everyone answers it differently, and, sure, there will be some bloc themes, but your question seems more based on your contemporary perspective, and part of the difficulty about answering it has to do with the old line, "Can you tell me where it hurts?" because the most obvious answers are apparently insufficient, and you are either unable or unwilling to explain why.

    So, whether your retorts were arbitrary, self-satisfying contrarianism, or an actual display of ignorance, there isn't really much to tell you, at this point, but it's also true anyone can make the note in order to help them assess what you have to say in the future.
  18. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Genetic Extinction of the human race due to genetic entropy has been calculated to take place at some point within 268 generations from now.
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    No such thing.
    Well aren't you a Debbie Downer. I guess religion will do that to you.
  20. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    There is such a thing.

    Harmful mutations are far more common then beneficial mutations.

    And it compounds over time as more harmful mutations are passed down than beneficial ones from generation to generation.

    Resulting in eventual extinction.

    It just keeps compounding until the organism can no longer survive.

    That is why there are birth defects.

    Evolution is certainly real but it very clearly runs in reverse. In a downward spiral from God’s original design.

    The faith is strong with this one!
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2019
  21. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Since the focus is solely on women, is it wrong if men have unprotected sex for fun, if it may result in an abortion?
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Yes. And those harmful mutations die out due to natural selection. The beneficial mutations are propagated. Evolution in action! An excellent example.
    Nope. Dead organisms don't propagate, so those genes are not passed down. The beneficial ones are.
    Again, nope. See above,
    You don't really understand evolution, do you.
  23. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    People with harmful micro-mutations are not dead, they reproduce and the harmful mutations spread throughout the population, and every generation gets just a tiny bit worse. Imperceptibly worse, so it can’t even be selected out.

    This is actually testable, and falsifiable, so you might want to kinda ignore it or something.

    People with all kinds of genetic mutations in them are reproducing right now. Diabetes, genetic heart defects, and on and on...

    There are always more harmful than beneficial mutations in any population, and it is inevitable that our species will go extinct because of them.

    Why does diabetes even exist now?

    It should have been selected out millions of years ago.

    This is absolutely real!

    The traditional view of evolution is dead!
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2019
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page