Another Question to a Methodist Neighbor and His Response

[tparsons]

Regarding Contraception and Abortion

Now I ask why has the Methodist faith done an about-face on this issue within their own history?
For the very same reason that they did an about-face about slavery and women’s rights – because it is the right thing to do. That’s the same reason the Catholics stopped selling indulgences. You were wrong before, and you corrected it. In the 21st century, it is wrong to over-populate a world that can’t feed itself. Methodist belief is based on the Wesleyan “quadrilateral:” Scripture, Tradition, Experience and Reason combine to form the basis of our faith. And, to the horror of fundamentalists, the fact is that there are parts of the Bible that are simply outmoded and out-of-date, that even the most fundamentalist types have chosen to ignore or overlook.

Leviticus abounds with examples! Hate-mongering Christians love to point out that the Bible calls homosexuality an “abomination.” But the same section in Leviticus says that it is an abomination to have a tattoo. Our culture has chosen to discount this proscription as absurd, but to uphold the very un-Christian behavior of hating gays, because…well, because of the phobias of our upbringing. We obey the ones we like, and violate the ones we want to.

If you stand on the infallibility of the Bible, then YOUR tattoo is an ABOMINATION that is equal to being a homosexual!

But we don’t do that. Why not? Because it’s ridiculous, that’s why! This is an example of applying the Reason part of the quadrilateral.

There are exactly 19 of the proscribed behaviors in Leviticus that our culture has dismissed, and that we legitimately “violate” on a routine basis, like eating pork. They didn’t have refrigeration or antibiotics back then, and we have them now, so that sort of thinking is old-fashioned and outdated. This is applying the Experience part. We know, from knowledge attained since the time of Leviticus, that it is safe to eat pork. There is no reason, other than tradition, to honor this proscription.

I know the Catholic dogma would resist allowing Reason and Experience to influence anyone, but in reality it does. They do a pretty good job with Scripture and Tradition, but I was actually surprised at the lack of tradition at St. Bart’s! I have been to Episcopal services that were more Catholic!

 

[Sherlock]

This person is so hostile and inflammatory that I would seriously doubt the use of discussing anything with him. At best, give him some links and books, and let him read them if he has an open mind.

His slur, “Catholic dogma would resist allowing Reason” is ludicrous. Has the man ever read Aquinas? The Catholic intellectual tradition sees no opposition between faith and reason.

The guy sounds like a hostile liberal Protestant. They’re a dying breed, so maybe he’s got just a bit of a chip on his shoulder.

 

[Lorarose]

This guy is stuck on stupid.
The world is not overpopulated, and the word can feed itself.
Sometimes famine and/or political situations arise that lead to starvation - but this is not due to overpopulation.

This guy clearly has not read the saints and theologians throughout the centuries who have applied reason to scripture and tradition to arrive at their conclusions.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Peace be with you!

Be SURE to make this point to him. My mom told me this and I think it is the best defense of pro-life when talking with pro-abortion “Christians”.

In Luke chapter 1, the Archangel Gabriel tells Mary that she will bear the Son of God. At that moment the Incarnation happened. Was Jesus not alive then? Would it have been acceptable for Mary to have aborted him? If your friend says anything other than “yes, he was alive” then he is DENYING CHRIST’S HUMANITY which is heresy.
Also in Luke chapter 1, Mary goes to visit Elizabeth. The child in Elizabeth’s womb (John the Baptist) “leapt for joy”. Was John the Baptist not alive when Mary visited? Could Elizabeth have aborted him if she chose to?

Robert Sungenis wrote about this in an essay of his. He said that (and he was arguing against the Roe v. Wade document) even if “quickening” (the first time the baby moves) was the time that the soul was infused into the body, it would still be ACTING CONTRARY TO GOD’S WILL AND PLAN TO INFUSE THAT BODY WITH A SOUL. So even if, even IF, the child did not yet have a soul, by aborting it you would be interferring with God’s plan for that child. So on the one hand, the being has a soul and you are ending the life of an ensouled human being. On the other side you are stopping God from giving that being a soul, something that He planned to do. So it doesn’t matter if your friend says the baby is alive in the womb or not…you still have these things to say to counter his pro-abortion stance.
Also, ask him if Jesus, if he were here now, would tell people, “yeah, go ahead and have an abortion! There’s too many of you as it is!” Remember God’s commandment to Adam and Eve: “Be fruitful and multiply” not “be fruitful and multiply…but only until a certain point!”

In Christ,
Rand

 

[kp1]

For the very same reason that they did an about-face about slavery and women’s rights – because it is the right thing to do. That’s the same reason the Catholics stopped selling indulgences. You were wrong before, and you corrected it. In the 21st century, it is wrong to over-populate a world that can’t feed itself. Methodist belief is based on the Wesleyan “quadrilateral:” Scripture, Tradition, Experience and Reason combine to form the basis of our faith. And, to the horror of fundamentalists, the fact is that there are parts of the Bible that are simply outmoded and out-of-date, that even the most fundamentalist types have chosen to ignore or overlook.

I just do not see how he can relate indulgences to contraception or abortion. First of all, the RCC did not get rid of indulgences it merely corrected an abuse of selling the indulgences to make money for the church. By doing this, it was letting people pay inadvance of sins not yet committed, thus giving permission to sin in the future. This issue of indulgence was not a doctrine but a practice, something that could be changed because it was not the basis of our faith but a sacramental, something to enhance our spiritual life. the idulgence issue would be better alianed with celebacy since both are practices. The RCC could change its mind on being celebate without changing it’s core beliefs.

Now abortion and contaception get into some of our core beliefs, mainly following God’s will and being open to his blessings. NFP is permitted because the couple must really be trusting of God that their cycles are correct. If God wanted the couple to get prego it would still happen, and if God wanted it to happen and you killed it (Never mind the commandment of Thou Shall Not Kill/Murder), would you be interfereing with God’s plan? The same could not be said for contraception and abortion. This takes faith and openes to God’s will out of the situation. It means the couple has chosen to abandon God and take matters into their own hand. It also means they choose abundance over restrain when it comes to matters of flesh; thus opening another can of worms/sins. When we take matters into our own hands we are basically telling God that we do not need him, and we can do it on our own. This does not sound like a follower of Christ but of the evil challenger. God’s will is not easy but it is God’s will!

I know the Catholic dogma would resist allowing Reason and Experience to influence anyone, but in reality it does. They do a pretty good job with Scripture and Tradition, but I was actually surprised at the lack of tradition at St. Bart’s! I have been to Episcopal services that were more Catholic!

The bible warns us of listening to those who doctor or change the teaching of Christ; Galatians 2:6-10, 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15. As for allowing reason and experience as permission to change things, who’s reasoning are you referring to? How does your neighbor know that his reasoning is pure and not tainted by the demonic? One has to merely turn on the television to see how our world has changed it’s view of what is morally true and proper. Look at how far our TV shows have come in their degeneration of our reasoning. Experience has a lot to do with it. The more one is exposed to something, the more one becomes so desensitized to it. They start to see it as OK and not a big deal. They they think it is acceptable for themselves too. Again the line of fantasy in TV had been blurred into our own lives allowing hollywood’s version of morality to pervail. I read somthing on another thread that was perfect for this: society says it is OK to abort a baby to save the life of the mother but would be horrified to see a mother put her child between a bullet and herself.

Pray for your neighbor that he sees his errors and repents to God. I have this issue with many estranged Catholics, I think it is one thing to leave the church because you could not understand a doctrine but to leave because it was too hard. This would be turning your back on God for something more enjoyable. Sin feels good but there is a heavy price tag.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Peace be with you!

Actually, the indulgence is a doctrine and is still around today. The Church did not sanction sin by allowing people to obtain indulgences. Some priests IN the Church were selling indulgences, but that was not the practice of the Church. The people selling indulgences didn’t just hand the money over to the Church; they would have kept it for themselves. What an indulgence is, and always has been (and you can see this by reading the letters of the popes before and during the crusades), is a form of penance for sins already confessed and forgiven. There is no way to cover future sins except not to sin.

In Christ,
Rand