That’s a bit misleading.
Here’s what their website says. Unless I’m misreading things, it’s not so much that they support it as it is that in some cases they don’t condemn it.
I chose those words carefully to avoid being misleading. Methodists support that access to abortion should be legal. A perspective that places the sanctity of human life at its center is never going to see abortion as anything other than the lesser of two evils.
From your link, which is the same text I was referencing originally.
“Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures.”
But they do in fact use the word support for legal access, not just fail to condemn.
Clarifying only - really not looking for an abortion debate.
The Baptists are firmly opposed to premarital sex, because it can lead to dancing.
It says a woman has to remain a virgin until marriage, but gives no such rule for men. Basically, women are chattel property and so are considered defective if they are given or sold as wives. Deuteronomy says that if a guy buys a wife and finds out she’s not a virgin, that the girl is to be stoned to death in front of her father’s house. There is no corresponding expectation or law for men. Men aren’t allowed to bang other guys’ wives, but they are not explicitly forbidden from pre-marital sex and are implicitly (or sometimes explicitly) allowed to have sex with their own servants or slaves, as well as allowed to have multiple wives and concubines. Adultery and premarital sex is really a property issue in the Bible. Men can fuck all the women they want as long as its their own property (wives and slaves). Women can only fuck their owners. There was no equality of expectation and no expectation or notion whatever that men had to be chaste before marriage or either monogomous or faithful afterwards. “Adultery” for men just means sleeping with another man’s wife. Sleeping with servants or concubines was not adulterous.
OK, I get that you’re a cynic, but trying to say that this is the perspective of the “the Bible” is really misrepresenting it. There are points of Hebrew law that can be summed up this way, and it was most likely practiced that way at some periods in history. However, it isn’t even a fair representation of the whole law. Off the top of my head: if two unmarried people slept together, they could be required to marry and there is condemnation of visiting prostitutes.
In the New Testament, there is a wholly different perspective that focuses on sexual immorality in the bigger sense and not just on issues of sex, marriage and property. Jesus says that lust is equivalent to adultery even in the absence of a physical act. I don’t think He was particularly worried about property laws when he said that, and I think this has a lot more to do with how mainstream Christian churches deal with the issues today.
The New Testament (especially but not solely Paul’s epistles) contains numerous admonishments against what the King James Version translates as “fornication.”
I have seen such verses used as “proof texts” that sex outside of marriage is forbidden, with “fornication” meaning pre-marital or extra-marital sex. The word translated “fornication,” however, means “sexual immorality” and is rendered as such in more modern translations of the Bible.
It is clear in the Bible that some sexual behavior is off limits; it’s not just anything goes. It’s less clear exactly what is forbidden. My impression is that, in most places in the New Testament where sexual immorality is mentioned, Paul (or whoever the writer is) is admonishing people to follow the rules they already know about, not spelling out what those rules are.
To be precise, if a guy rapes a virgin, he is required to marry her (because she is now damaged goods and cannot be sold as a wife). There is no such requirement for an unmarried guy porking his servants.
Which was about temple prostitution, not streetwalkers, but even if it forbid patronizing just regular hookers, so what? It still doesn’t mean that guys had to be virgins before marriage or be faithful afterwards.
Adultery still only referred to other guys’ wives, but yes, I think the cultural paramaters for what constituted acceptable male sexuality were closing in the 1st Century. There is still nothing even in the NT that explicitly, unequivocally states that all sex outside of marriage is forbidden for men (or that men can have only one wife). Paul encouraged even married people to be celibate, but that was because he thought Jesus was going to come back within his own generation, and that people should be focused on that.
Are you sure this is what you meant to say? Paul encouraged unmarried people to be celibate and not to marry, if possible, but I don’t think he advocated married people abstaining from sex.
He says “I say this as a concession, not a command. I wish that all men were as I am.” He was still saying it was better to be celibate than not.
orthodox church says sex only with a spouse. that’s it.
should something else happen… well, that would be where confession would be helpful.
I was raised in a conservative Presbyterian church (Presbyterian Church in America).
The church was definitely not OK with premarital sex or abortion, but was OK with birth control.
As it was explained to me, they saw sex as having two separate purposes–reinforcing the bond between the couple, and reproduction.
They see nothing wrong with birth control as a couple can be having sex for the bonding aspect and not want the reproductive aspect at that time. As a matter of fact, they are OK with pretty much any sexual practice as long as it is between two married, consenting adults.
Emphasis added.
To me, this seems to legitimate abortion *only *in the cases where the mother’s life or physical health is threatened by carrying the pregnancy to term–not when the pregnancy is unwanted for other reasons. Which I believe is also the Catholic position.
It varies from forbidden to it’s love and God is love.
IMHO scripturally it is vague, sexual immorality is to be avoided, but those under grace of Jesus ‘everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial’ - for those under the Law it’s not such a great idea IMHO.