<DIV>Mr. Witmer,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Where in the Bible does Christ preach abstinence? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Where in the Bible does it say sex before marriage is wrong?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Donovan</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR><BR><B><I>Christopher Witmer <christopher.witmer@mizuho-sc.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Mr. Gier's post provides an excellent case in point demonstrating EXACTLY<BR>the sort of thing I was talking about in my post critiquing Mr. Campbell's<BR>flawed arguments the other day.<BR><BR>What Mr. Gier advocates is nothing less than the active promotion of an<BR>anti-Christian religious perspective through the public schools. If<BR>government-funded schools implement Mr. Gier's proposals in this area, they<BR>cannot help but violate the rights of Christians by doing so, because
the<BR>Bible very clearly teaches that sex outside of marriage is sinful. There is<BR>no way that the Bible's teaching and Mr. Gier's teaching can be reconciled,<BR>unless perhaps Mr. Gier is advocating that kids in their early teens get<BR>married so they can legitimatey engage in sexual relations within the<BR>context of marriage. I strongly doubt that is what he has in mind.<BR><BR>This brings me right back to the argument I was making against Mr. Campbell:<BR>how can public funding of education be called a social good when people are<BR>thereby forced to support exactly the sort of moral content in education<BR>that they oppose with every fiber of their being? This is an extremely<BR>fundamental issue, but one which is simply being ignored. If you absolutely<BR>must have public funding of education at all, the ONLY approach that could<BR>be reconcilable with the Constitution would be a voucher system that allows<BR>each family to educate their children in terms of
their own religious<BR>beliefs, without having contrary religious views imposed upon them by the<BR>"one-size-fits-all" approach of the public schools.<BR><BR>There are many other criticisms that I could make of Mr. Gier's arguments,<BR>but I'll just say this: you can't fight something with nothing. In other<BR>words, you can't fight the positive temptation to engage in sex with a<BR>simple prohibition against it. Mr. Gier is probably correct as far as that<BR>goes. But the biblical approach is very different from that, and it is much<BR>more successful. The biblical approach focuses first and foremost on the<BR>positive loving relationship that the Christian child enjoys with God. This<BR>provides the context within which all human relationships are viewed. Our<BR>love for other people and our love for God cannot be separated. For example,<BR>if we love someone else we seek that person's blessing by encouraging that<BR>person to enter into and to remain faithful to a
healthy, loving<BR>relationship with God, which of course includes obeying God's commandments<BR>to keep sexual relations within the context of marriage. Also, the Christian<BR>child is taught to be so committed to his or her future marriage partner<BR>that he or she saves himself or herself exclusively for that person. So the<BR>Christian teen's abstinence is not a case of attempting to fight something<BR>with nothing; rather, the Christian teen's abstinence is a positive<BR>expression of love toward God, love toward one's future marriage partner,<BR>and love towards one's self. When approached in this way, so-called<BR>"abstinence-only sex education" works very well indeed. But, here is the<BR>problem: how can we in good conscience tax the entire populace to promote a<BR>distinctly Christian view of sexual morality in the government-funded<BR>schools? I know this moral perspective is true, and I know it works when<BR>implemented in faith. But I certainly don't want to
force people who<BR>strongly disagree with my Christian beliefs to finance the "Christian"<BR>education of the entire school-age populace, any more than I want Christians<BR>to be forced to pay for the indoctrination of of the entire school-aged<BR>population in terms of some anti-Christian dogma. In this way, we can see<BR>that public funding of education is not a social good at all. Rather, it is<BR>inimical to the spirit and letter of the Constitution, and should be<BR>stopped. Education should be under the authority of the Family, not under<BR>the authority of the State.<BR><BR>-- Chris<BR><BR><BR>=======================================================<BR>List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>http://www.fsr.net <BR>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p> 
<hr size=1>Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51732/*http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/">See how.</a>