Sex education

[Shaker]

You're avoiding, Gonners, because you know I'm right.

He's not avoiding anything. In fact he's just made an extremely good point that any compassionate, kindly, normally-constituted person with a conscience (i.e. not you) either with or without a religious adherence would make.

[Gonnagle]

Dear ad o,

Sorry mate but you are the one avoiding, you stand on your righteous Scripture and shout sinner instead of asking God to look into your own manky little heart and ask for forgiveness, I don't know what your Church teaches about meeting your maker, I just hope I am not behind you in the queue, I could have a long wait to get to the bar.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear ad o,

Sorry mate but you are the one avoiding, you stand on your righteous Scripture and shout sinner instead of asking God to look into your own manky little heart and ask for forgiveness, I don't know what your Church teaches about meeting your maker, I just hope I am not behind you in the queue, I could have a long wait to get to the bar.

Gonnagle.

I'll get the drinks in

[Humph Warden Bennett]

While I couldn't agree with you more than I do, would it actually make any difference? Would they act otherwise - if they wanted to keep their job?

It might make them less unsympathetic to those borrowers who face difficulties, which may well encourage those in difficulty to make some kind of arrangement rather than sticking their heads in the sand. Ultimately of course the decision to evict borrowers is not taken by young people who answer the telephone, but by their bosses. (I know this is a derail but I thought your question should be answered)

[Rhiannon]

You're avoiding, Gonners, because you know I'm right.

No, as has been pointed out you are the one avoiding. Not Gonners.

Have you ever considered your lack of compassion for others slightly different from you?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabs,

Dear me - I was there for the births of all four of our children, and that's not a description that resonates for me particularly (though for one of them Mrs b did squeeze my hand hard and it really hurt. Did she apologise? Did she eckers-like...).

Anyways, I digress - isn't this "this is childbirth then girls" approach as narrow in its way as no sex ed at all? I heartily support sex ed, but there's a lot more to having children than the birth itself I'd have thought and surely sex ed should reflect that too shouldn't it?

BHS

Given how much it hurt your hand I am surprised you went on to have more kids.

The guidance from the government on sex education seems to be that the biology needs to be covered - puberty, intercourse, childbirth by the end of Primary - and then in secondary school, the other main purpose of the education is to reduce teenage pregnancies and STIs as they cost the State a lot. I think in that context the aim is to discourage teenage sex and other risky behaviour that leads to teenage pregnancies. So the education also covers what is risky behaviour including the effects of alcohol and drugs, and trying to teach young people the skills to neutralise peer pressure, as the opinion of peers has more influence than anything a teacher will say to young people.

 

[ad_orientem]

Dear ad o,

Sorry mate but you are the one avoiding, you stand on your righteous Scripture and shout sinner instead of asking God to look into your own manky little heart and ask for forgiveness, I don't know what your Church teaches about meeting your maker, I just hope I am not behind you in the queue, I could have a long wait to get to the bar.

Gonnagle.

Did I say I was without fault? No and we take confession very seriously (whilst the liberals hardly practice it or even scorn it). What you're doing is the usual liberal tactic of using the Gospel to approve of sin but what did Christ say to the woman caught in adultery? "Now sin no more". He didn't say, "Carry on".

[Shaker]

Did I say I was without fault? No.

Well you couldn't, could you.

[Spud]

ao,

1. No they're not. You can find other gobbets that contradict the bit on which you rest your bigotry.

2. Why in any case pick that bit rather focus your ire on, say, the shellfish eaters of the mixed fibre wearer?

The shellfish-type laws were for the Israelites only. However the laws about worshipping other gods (by sacrificing to them), committing murder (by drinking an animal's blood, cf Genesis 9), and sexual sins applied, if you read Leviticus 17-18 in detail, to God-fearing foreigners living with the Israelites as well as for the Israelites themselves. This indicates that those actions are wrong for all people. That the apostles (Acts 15)  prohibited non-Jewish Christians from the same actions centuries later, indicates that they are wrong for all time.
Ad_o is right that the Bible is clear about this issue.

[Shaker]

Interesting phenomenon, this thinking that ancient middle eastern laws take precedence over basic human compassion and charity toward others, especially when those others are involved in something not only not-bad but as positively and actively good as a loving relationship.

But then some people are just plain weird, I guess, and have to lean on weird beliefs to try to justify their weirdness to themselves and others.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

Given how much it hurt your hand I am surprised you went on to have more kids.

That was a gentle dig at us men, no it was, Gabriella is having a dig at us poor down trodden men.

Dear Gabriella,

Not thought about it too much but yes you are right, show the kids all the horrors, just like religion, give them the facts, the good the bad and the downright ugly, sex is a serious subject, if we gloss over it we do the kids an injustice.

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Dear ad o,

I am not asking you to approve sin, I am asking you to have good long hard look at yourself and that old son takes a life time, you don't have time to point fingers and it is not your job.

Gonnagle.

[Rhiannon]

Did I say I was without fault? No and we take confession very seriously (whilst the liberals hardly practice it or even scorn it). What you're doing is the usual liberal tactic of using the Gospel to approve of sin but what did Christ say to the woman caught in adultery? "Now sin no more". He didn't say, "Carry on".

So how's the 'sin no more' going for you at the moment, ad-o?

[Samuel]

Dear Blue,

That was a gentle dig at us men, no it was, Gabriella is having a dig at us poor down trodden men.

Dear Gabriella,

Not thought about it too much but yes you are right, show the kids all the horrors, just like religion, give them the facts, the good the bad and the downright ugly, sex is a serious subject, if we gloss over it we do the kids an injustice.

Gonnagle.

My four year old girl says she's never having babies as it would hurt too much... we've never misled her about the realities of childbearing, but we didn't go as far as including all the gory details.

[ad_orientem]

So how's the 'sin no more' going for you at the moment, ad-o?

With difficulty. What's your point?

[floo]

The shellfish-type laws were for the Israelites only. However the laws about worshipping other gods (by sacrificing to them), committing murder (by drinking an animal's blood, cf Genesis 9), and sexual sins applied, if you read Leviticus 17-18 in detail, to God-fearing foreigners living with the Israelites as well as for the Israelites themselves. This indicates that those actions are wrong for all people. That the apostles (Acts 15)  prohibited non-Jewish Christians from the same actions centuries later, indicates that they are wrong for all time.
Ad_o is right that the Bible is clear about this issue.

Big deal! The Bible is WRONG about many things!

[Rhiannon]

With difficulty. What's your point?

If that is an honest assessment of your own failings then maybe you could show some compassion to others?

[ad_orientem]

If that is an honest assessment of your own failings then maybe you could show some compassion to others?

But by "compassion" you inevitably mean "approve" but no Christian can approve.

[Shaker]

But by "compassion" you inevitably mean "approve" but no Christian can approve.

Plenty seem to manage with nary a sign of strain.

[floo]

But by "compassion" you inevitably mean "approve" but no Christian can approve.

Garbage!

[Rhiannon]

But by "compassion" you inevitably mean "approve" but no Christian can approve.

How about not judging? Live and let live? That kind of thing?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

My four year old girl says she's never having babies as it would hurt too much... we've never misled her about the realities of childbearing, but we didn't go as far as including all the gory details.

I think it's only in Year 6 that they have the opportunity to watch a live birth video - will check with my kids.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rhiannon,

Confession, old ad o has confession, the Priest tells him to go and sin no more, mean while God is thinking, haud oan, haud the bus ( God is a Glaswegian ) who made that wee nyaff God

Dear ad o,

But by "compassion" you inevitably mean "approve" but no Christian can approve.

Or point the finger.

But I will leave you here, I need to believe that deep down you know you are wrong and that God will soften your heart so that you embrace all of Gods children, well except for Celtic supporters and Tories, oh and eastcoasters.

Gonnagle.

[ad_orientem]

How about not judging? Live and let live? That kind of thing?

Calling something sinful is not the same as judging a person. You have to be able to recognise sin before you can even begin to deal with it in your own life. As for live and let live, that just means we can all do what the hell we want, but again a Christian can never approve of that.

[Samuel]

I think it's only in Year 6 that they have the opportunity to watch a live birth video - will check with my kids.

I'm all for the technical specifications about our biology being supplied to our children, but I sincerely hope it comes with the more important stuff, like the emotional implications and significance of those events, the role of relationships etc.