Morals are natural

[This_person]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

And here is where my point is that you seem to be missing. I’m not talking about the consistency of the moral standard found the in Bible; I’m talking about how our society interprets that standard differently. I thought this discussion was about the morals of man, not of God. The rules from God may be consistent. Our interpretation is certainly not.

In that vein, in a broad sense, I don’t see much difference in how Christians in our society adhere to standards and how non-believers adhere to the same standards. In fact I would argue that the Christian faith seems to have grown into a "I'm forgiven, it'll be okay" mentality, making their behavior even more reprehensible. That's really a different discussion though.

It seems as though we are saying the same thing from different angles.

I'm saying that the morals don't change, and when a person goes to seek the foundation of the morals, they have remained the same. But, secular society's rules are variable, depending on the mood of the time, and people who choose to look to society for standards will have their standards vary with society's.

You're saying society's standards are variable and changing, but the standards of the Bible are unchanging. When people use society's standards and try and call them Christian standards, they are attempting to change Christianity, but the Bible's standards haven't changed. People's standards may have changed, but the source document of those standards didn't.

The logical conclusion to both of these (since they say the same thing) is that if someone were to follow the religion's standards, their standards wouldn't change. When one doesn't follow their religion's standards but society's secular/changing standards, the standards can change.

I think we're saying the same thing from a different point of view.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by This_person

It seems as though we are saying the same thing from different angles.

I'm saying that the morals don't change, and when a person goes to seek the foundation of the morals, they have remained the same. But, secular society's rules are variable, depending on the mood of the time, and people who choose to look to society for standards will have their standards vary with society's.

You're saying society's standards are variable and changing, but the standards of the Bible are unchanging. When people use society's standards and try and call them Christian standards, they are attempting to change Christianity, but the Bible's standards haven't changed. People's standards may have changed, but the source document of those standards didn't.

The logical conclusion to both of these (since they say the same thing) is that if someone were to follow the religion's standards, their standards wouldn't change. When one doesn't follow their religion's standards but society's secular/changing standards, the standards can change.

I think we're saying the same thing from a different point of view.

Let me ask you this… What is the biblical standard regarding birth control? Show me passages that support your claim. Then explain how it is different denominations, that read the same bible, come to different conclusions?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Let me ask you this… What is the biblical standard regarding birth control? Show me passages that support your claim. Then explain how it is different denominations, that read the same bible, come to different conclusions?

While I'm at it, should I explain why some people are Jews and some Christians?

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by This_person

While I'm at it, should I explain why some people are Jews and some Christians?

Is THAT your answer?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Is THAT your answer?

You're asking me to explain all denominations' stances on birth control, and their biblical references.

Generically, I can say that "be fruitful and multiply" is one reference against the use of BC. The repeated references to children being gifts from God, being the strength of the parents, etc., etc., could cause someone to think that way. The story of Onan and Tamar, with Onan using coitus interruptus to preclude himself from having to split his inheritance with any more kids comes to mind. Someone who would look superficially, like Nuck, at verses without going into the context of the story could easily conclude that Onan being put to death for using a method of BC would imply that BC is forbidden.

Now, is that the reason that some denominations are against BC? I can't answer that for all potential denominations, and I won't try. I do believe that some simply wanted to become the largest sized church simply by having the most number of people, by having the most number of people born into that religion.

Personally, I'm not against BC. It's hard for me to justify someone else's potential reasoning when I don't agree with that reasoning. But, it only takes about three seconds of thought to come up with reasons for them.

However, my point continues to be that if Person A believes the Bible is against BC based on their teachings, their independant study, and their devotion to the Bible, they will continue to believe that for their life. While they may use BC, they will believe they are doing so against their own morals. They will have a consistent moral standard within themselves, based on a consistent reading of their book of standards. An atheist, on the other hand, will have no book of standards to go to, and therefore their morals will shift with the mood they have at the moment, the shifting winds of secular societal morals, etc. A given religion's standards do not shift with societal norms, even if the people choose to accept or not accept the standards.