Sex and Relationship education for 5-10 year olds.

[webquack]

Hi everyone. I'm looking for mums who are as angry as I am about the current government proposals to introduce compulsory sex and relationship education (SRE)for 5-10 year olds. I am also unashamedly asking for more signatures on the No. 10 website which is asking Gordon Brown to conduct a 12 week public consultation on these proposals so that parents and others can have their say. Britain has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, and this inspite of decades of sex education in secondary schools. SRE hasn't worked. So what does the government do? They introduce the more SRE! Do you want your five-year-old to be naming body parts, being informed about intimacy and what is and isn't appropriate touching? Do you want your child sexualised at an early age and to lose their innocence any earlier than necessary? If not please join the growing chorus of concerned parents by going to: petitions.number10.gov.uk/Parentchoice

Hello Cory, thanks for answering the question. Homosexuality is spoken against in the New Testament also, in Romans 1:26-27. I think it is clear from these words what the NT teaches.
This therefore demolishes your argument about rules against homosexuality being abolished in the new dispensation (New Testament times) along with other regulations such as those about pork for example. I wouldn't like to assume you are not an evangelical Christian but I think on this point you are compromised. I wonder what the others in your group think about it?

I think we need to worry more about our own sins than sins that other people might be committing. I think that God prefers us to control our own behaviour than critise other people.

But I did not say that it was demolished in NT; I said that some rules were (i.e. pork) but others (observing the Sabbath) were not: Jesus made it quite clear that he expected the Sabbath to be observed, but also that charity took precedent.

The others in my group understand that I cannot pretend and go against my conscience. I may be compromised- God will have to be the judge of that.

ReallyTired expresses exactly what I feel.

Yes we do need to examine ourselves first. I agree. It also says take the plank out of your own eye so that you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. In other words God does not expect us to suspend all proper judgement of things but to make a right judgement of them. and when I use the word judgement I do not mean the condemnation of others which no person is at liberty to do. And yes God will be the judge of what we believe. I think that is a good stance to take providing our consciences are clear, we have examined the scriptures and discussed it to our satisfaction with other believers. Our salvation does not depend on us having it all sewn up but rather on trusting in Christ.

Blimey, this is all getting very deep and meaningful

Well I've turned DH's office upside down but can't find what I'm after. I've found a few things I wish I didn't know about mind - like how much money he blew on my Christmas present

He's back tomorrow night. I'll get the info then hopefully.

Night all. Live and let live and all that

'God does not expect us to suspend all proper judgement of things but to make a right judgement of them.'

How do you square that with 'judge not, lest ye be judged'?

Couldn't be clearer, but I'm sure you'll find a way to work around it...

Cory - I'm not a Christian, but what an impressive post

Once again webquack misunderstands scripture - your salvation depends on grace - just that, nothing else - not what you have posted further up "so we could be good".

We cannot be good and that's why we have grace.

Cory, your post was really moving.

Now is probably a good time for Christians to seek specific guidance.

Webquack - how is Cory's Christianity compromised? She has just used the teachings of Christ to explain her position. Just because it is different from your position you think she is compromised? What does it matter what her associates think? I thought you were the one who was saying majority opinion should not matter. Cory is my idea of a true Christian and what Christ would have wanted his legacy to be. Her post has done more to spread the word of Christ imo than you ever could in a million years.

Oh, now I'm really depressed. A more aggressive and un-winsome way to put your case, webquack, couldn't be found.

I find it very difficult to believe you are genuinely an evangelical Christian, because you've put all the classical Evangelical positions with all the nuances and charm of a brick. I rather think you might be a troll who has found a nice hot-button ticket in the trad-evangelical Christian social position.

As it happens, I agree with many of those traditional evangelical positions, and I home-educate my children (who are all quite familiar with the names for their body-parts, and the process of reproduction, having seen me go through pregnancy a number of times). I have a policy of 'answer the question asked', and my children ask lots of questions. Not all parents want to do that, so what are their children supposed to do?

You don't appear to have convinced anyone, and your manner has just dunked all who may share some of your views in the potty. We're to be reproached for preaching Christ - not for being obnoxious and prurient.

I had 'the talk' with my DD when we had warning from the school that theirs was coming up. I wanted to ensure that she understood before all her friends started exaggerating the facts. She is still in primary school and I am not expecting her to run off with the nearest boy just because I told her where she comes from! (which incidentally she already seemed to know)

Kayharker, since you "agree with all those classical evangelical positions" I take it that includes the one which says homosexuality is wrong.
Frankly I rate lukewarm christians as having about as much clout as The Mother's Union on a bad-hair day, indulging in meaningless activites such as posing topless in middle age for calendar photographs to scrape together a few bob. I mean..........really......now that's going to change the world for the better, isn't it?
If for you Christianity is all about blending in with the crowd - i suggest you quit now - cos you are gonna have ZERO IMPACT. e.g like our unfortunate friends in the beleaguered C of E.
Take a closer look at Christ - how is it that he caused such a stir everywhere he went?

Nominal Christians do the devils work. I cannot see how Christians can be faithful to Christ and his word and NOT receive such bigoted and ill-informed criticism. It is to be expected - just look at the way the Master went.

Yes and look at all the trouble He had with the Pharisees who couldn't get Him to condemn all the people they wanted Him to condemn.

who is condemning? (yawn, this is getting repetitive and boring now)

webquack, the homosexuality issue is one which is actually very personal to me, and I made some pretty big life-choices based on what I believe the bible teaches about it. It's not a topic I wish to bat back and forth in a point-scoring session.

I have no real wish to blend in with the crowd. I rarely manage it anyway. I have my failings, which are manifold, but I try to be true to the Gospel - which doesn't include any information on SRE in schools, funnily enough.

You've convinced a lot of people here that you are a law-keeper. I find myself wondering what you make of the One who came, not for the righteous, but for sinners?

You are making the assumption that everybody who does not share your views on this one issue is a lukewarm Christian and only a nominal Christian.

The Pharisees made similar assumptions about Jesus's commitment to God, based on his unwillingness to take as strict a stand on several religious issues as they expected him to.

Incidentally, I have never had contact with a Mother's Union but I would be wary of assuming that they or any other group are excluded from doing God's work. He chooses some strange people at times.

What do you mean what do i make of the one who came not for the righteous but sinners? There is nothing to "make of" it - it is just that. He came for the sinners. What's new?

What does the Bible teach, KayHarker, on homosexuality? And how do you square that with the fact the gov. has approved reading material for primary schools which depict gay relationships? RU ok with that?

Kayharker - are you born again?

How very convenient that Christians who don't agree with you are "nominal Christians who do the devils' work".

You are bigoted and prejudiced and seem to not exactly at all be filled with the love and grace of the Holy Spirit.

Your condemnation of others outs you as one who is angry and judgemental.

Try moving in love, not hate.

oh boy...webquack...i feel sorry for your child(ren), they can't be gay, they can't have sex outside of marriage, they can't know the names of their body parts before they are ten...you are going to have some pretty disastorous teenage years with smothered kids who are going to rebel beyond beleif...good luck!

webquack, by the gift of God, through the death of Jesus Christ in my deserved place, I have been born from above, yes.

Our society lets a lot of things slide which aren't consistent with biblical morality. It's only to be expected in a secular democracy. I see absolutely no reason why a secular democracy wouldn't have books representing all legal permutations of human behaviour. On what basis could I presume to suggest that they shouldn't? We don't live in a theocracy, and our remit is not to recreate the legal system of ancient national Israel.