A fox news article I just read is quite disturbing. A report that is advocated by the International Planned Parenthood Federation states that children should be given a comprehensive sex education at the age of 10 and above, and the report goes on to belittle the Catholic and Islamic movements for depriving their children of such an education. This report condones that the government should be resposible to teach young children about the repoductive process as well the "pleasures" involved.
sex education should be "recast" to show sexuality as a "positive force for change and development, as a source of pleasure, an embodiment of human
rights and an expression of self."
In the words of Hillary Clinton "it takes a village to raise children" so this report goes further to tear down the role of Mom and Dad. I encourage all Christians and conservatives to not only read this report, but be on guard, pray, contact your representatives, and board of education. This should not be tolerated, and Planned Parenthood should not be allowed to define what a parent's role is in the home.
To take John 6:53 as Jesus telling the disciples to literally eat of His flesh and blood is a grave mistake. The interpreter should assume that a passage uses non-figurative language unless this assumption creates an absurdity or the general context indicates otherwise (Gibbs 2004, 261). The belief that Jesus was condoning cannibalism is quite an absurdity, and in effect violates the general context of what Jesus was teaching his disciples. God’s laws from the Old Testament state that we should not murder in Deuteronomy 5:17, and the prophecies of the Messiah’s death are clearly in the Scriptures and cannibalism does not fit into the gospel plan. There is nowhere in the Bible where we here of cannibalism being acceptable to God, or even a necessary evil to survive. This all stands to support that this belief would be an obvious absurdity
The interpreter must know that the meaning of a phrase must be consistent with the sense of it’s immediate context, and must be consistent with the book’s general flow of thought. In order for a believer to interpret passages about living in the spirit and having freedom in Christ as being permission to disobey direct New Testament commands would have had to ignore this rule. Take Galatians 5:18 for instance, this verse does not imply that we are somehow free to ignore New Testament commands. The actual immediate context would ask the opposite of its readers. The book of Galatians itself is a decree of spiritual freedom from the Old Testament laws and rituals of the Jews whereby the Apostle Paul states clearly to walk in the Holy Spirit and not the flesh or law. To regard this command of the Apostle Paul and disregard the rest of the New Testament would be an apparent oxymoron in itself, and it would suppose that somehow the Holy Spirit is now taking a new direction from the original plan He set in place.
