BuBu

Sex education can and should happen in churches because sex education is not synonymous with encouraging people to have sex. A church can teach abstinence and uphold its position on premarital sex while still ensuring that its congregation is adequately informed about sexual and reproductive health. Conversations about consent, bodily autonomy, boundaries, puberty, relationships, contraception, sexual health and making informed decisions are all part of sex education. Withholding information doesn’t stop people from engaging in sexual activity.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed. The fact that a lesson can be learned from another biblical character does not mean it cannot be learned from Esau. By your logic, why did James use Elijah to teach us about prayer when there are other examples of people who prayed in Scripture? The question is not whether resilience or forgiveness can be learned elsewhere. The question is whether Esau's life demonstrates anything worth learning. And the answer is yes. You don't have to approve of everything a man did before acknowledging something he did right. And please, stop throwing around "itching ears" simply because someone draws a biblical lesson you don't particularly like. That's not what Paul was addressing in 2 Timothy 4:3.

YOU CAN LEARN FROM ESAU WITHOUT ENDORSING HIS MISTAKES. I think some believers need to understand that the Bible is not written merely to tell us who was right and who was wrong. There are lessons to learn from the lives, decisions, successes, failures, and experiences of the people recorded in Scripture. The fact that a biblical character made a terrible decision does not mean there is absolutely nothing positive to learn from that person's life. Esau despised his birthright. Scripture is clear about that, and nobody needs to defend his actions. Genesis 25:29–34 and Hebrews 12:16–17 establish that. But is that everything the Bible tells us about Esau? Certainly not! In Genesis 33, Esau met Jacob with four hundred men. When Jacob offered him gifts, Esau responded in verse 9, "I have enough, my brother; keep that thou hast unto thyself." This was a man who had acquired possessions of his own. Genesis 36:6–8 also records that Esau and Jacob had accumulated so much wealth that the land could not support them together. So, are we supposed to ignore these accounts because Esau once despised his birthright? Interestingly, some people are even arguing as though Esau lost God's choice because he sold his birthright. But Romans 9:10–13 tells us that God's choice of Jacob was established before either brother was born or had done good or evil. Jacob was chosen for the covenantal promise, but that did not mean Esau could not become prosperous or accomplish anything meaningful with his life. And this is where I think the lesson becomes interesting. Not being the chosen heir of the covenant did not mean Esau had to become a failure in every other aspect of life. We must learn to distinguish between God's redemptive purpose in a biblical narrative and other legitimate observations we can make from that same narrative. David committed adultery and arranged Uriah's death. Does that mean we cannot learn courage or leadership from David? Solomon eventually turned away from God. Does that mean his wisdom recorded in Scripture suddenly becomes useless? Peter denied Jesus three times. Does that mean there is nothing to learn from his life? The Bible itself tells us to examine all things and hold fast to what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Of course, every lesson must remain consistent with Scripture. We cannot invent virtues the text does not establish or use someone's achievements to justify their sins. But to suggest that highlighting something positive about Esau is equivalent to introducing another theology, whitewashing sin, or repeating the deception of the serpent in Eden is a serious exaggeration. Teaching a lesson from someone's life is not the same thing as endorsing everything that person did. Not every sermon about Esau must be about his birthright. Not every sermon about David must be about adultery. And not every sermon about Solomon must be about his downfall. The Scriptures are Christ-centred, but that does not mean every legitimate teaching from Scripture must be reduced to only one observation about a biblical character. We need to stop confusing our preferred emphasis in a biblical passage with the only lesson anyone is permitted to teach from it. Sound biblical interpretation requires us to respect what Scripture says, not to condemn every observation that differs from the one we would have chosen to emphasise.

the first launchpad on @github apply early: forks.wiki