Title: The Culture War: Winning Hearts while Slaying Parasitic Unbiblical Ideas

Sexual revolution

Introduction:

Throughout the annals of human history, societies have undergone significant transformations, reshaping their moral and cultural landscapes. However, perhaps no other phenomenon has sparked as intense and divisive a battle as the Sexual Revolution of the modern era. The onslaught of the “anything goes” campaigning justified as individual liberty on the multi-media frontier has reached unprecedented levels, profoundly impacting societies worldwide.

Sexuality lies at the core of our humanity, and the church’s silence or restrictive coverup strategy over this matter did not help when intermittent news headlines immerge exposing the dark reality of sexual misconduct committed by pastors and priests in the Church. These distressing incidents have raised the need for an open and honest dialogue about human sexuality and its place in the realm of faith.  Remember, a whole very graphic book in the Bible is dedicated to sexual intimacy and romance between Solomon and his bride.

Sexuality and Identity

The primary Biblical opposition against the current sexual revolution is the need for its activists to announce their sexual preferences publicly: I am gay, I am lesbian, I am transgender, I am non-binary, concluding that their sexual preferences define their identity. Furthermore, these people who identify themselves as having a certain sexual preference expect greater society to acknowledge, respect, and agree with the proper pronouns on something that is not always outwardly physically knowable.  This again leads to the need for these people to express themselves with particular clothing options and accessories propagating their particular preferences.  “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are 3an abomination to the LORD your God.” (Deut 22:5 NKJV)

That what was once considered private, with the necessary modesty about it, now must be flaunted, expressed, paraded, and exhibited.  See the insightful article about Modesty. 

Surely, humans with various personalities, talents, abilities, and strengths should be defined by our character and the good we accomplish in our lifetime, not our sexual preferences!  

“Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body“ (1 Corinthians 6:13 ESV)

Humankind is distinctly different from animals in many instances, particularly regarding self-identity.  No animal struggles with an identity crisis because their existence is locked within their biological, genetic code.  In contrast, we as humans oscillate between nature and nurture, our biological, DNA, and genetic disposition versus the identity we develop because of culture, religion, social-economic-class, upbringing, and education.  This has led to limitless diverse variations of ethnicities, languages, or group identities. 

The Bible presents a unique higher calling and blueprint to mankind towards sainthood, the center of the ethical morality between animals and angels.  Beginning with the Creation story in Eden, the Bible tells a story of a harmoniously functioning society, city, nation, and tribe (Eden,  Juda, Jerusalem, Temple, Body of Christ) versus a destructive, chaotic society (Nimrod, Babel, Babylon). 

The Bible calls us towards holy sainthood, distinct and separated from the world and other nations and groupings.  The Bible calls this particular group of God-divine-representatives to be a monogamist family unit of holy sanctity between a husband and a wife that gives sufficient protection and stability to raise a godly offspring. (Mal 2:14-15) This union replicates and mirrors the divine holy unity in the trinity.  

Sexual lewdness outside of this marriage union is seen as adultery, no sexual union with close biological family (incest), sex with animals (Bestiality or sodomy), or with the same sex (Homosexuality), or even with partners from foreign pagan nations.

God continues to create order in this desolate physical world that was without form, also the entropy of social chaos.  Setting boundaries to sexual animal-like unrestricted freedom of anything goes!  Our battle is about how God ORDERS the World within the enclosure and bedrock of a righteous family centred around God versus the World’s ideology to axis the world around the individual – I am God.  

Sex is for BONDING – UNION – ONENESS: “Do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, ‘The two will become one flesh’” (1 Corinthians 6:16 ESV) Thus all sexual activity outside of the sacred bond of marriage is considered a sin! “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous”(Hebrews 13:4, ESV). See more Notes on How deeply are we connected in Marital Bonding. Without holiness and sanctity, ONENESS is not possible.  

Pre-marital sex: Dt 22:13-21; 1 Corinthians 7:8-9; Prov 5:1-23

Adultery: Ex 20:14 pp Dt 5:18 See also Lev 18:20; Dt 22:22-24

Prostitution: Lev 19:29; Dt 23:17-18

Rape: Dt 22:25-29; Exodus 22:16-17

Homosexual intercourse: Deut 23:17-18; Lev 18:22, 20:13; Judge 19:22-25; 2 King 23:7; Ro 1:24-27; 1Co 6:15-16; 7:9; Jude 1:7 [1]

Bestiality: Ex 22:19; Lev 18:23; 20:15-16; Dt 27:21

Incest: Lev 18:6-18; 20:17,19; Dt 22:30; 27:20,22-23; Eze 22:11; 1 Corinthians 5:1 [2]

It is thus difficult to agree from a Biblical Lens of the world that secular human rights development is taking us forward; it instead feels and looks more like we are going backward.  

According to the Bible, the highest standard of sainthood is described and demonstrated in the Life of Jesus Christ.  We are the best presentation of our humanity when we are most Christlike; in fact, we can only be completely Christlike when the social group, family, and community are all focused on being Christlike.  The benefits of Christlikeness are clearly best exemplified when a whole community of people lives according to His standard of rightness.  (See 45 values)

Three distinct concepts often find themselves at the center of this battle are sexual expression, gender, and stereotyping. These ideas hold biblical significance and provide valuable directives for believers seeking to navigate these complex issues. By examining the biblical principles behind each concept, we can better understand how to approach them in a way that aligns with God’s Word. Adherends to more explicit unrestrictive sexual openness combines these 3 aspects of our humanity as if one determines the other.  For example, my sexual orientation determines my gender and identity, thus confronting historical stereotypes.  In contrast, a Biblical worldview starts with first grounding our Identity in Christ, which leads to acceptance of our biological disposition, then within the bond and safety of marriage, exploring sexual preferences together. 

Because all Christian activity is directed towards sainthood, anything that reduces or diminishes this purpose and ideal contradicts the Scriptures.

1. Sexual Expression:

The current scientific debate and research is to find a genetic innate code that solves homosexual attraction.  This is hugely important for homosexuals that such evidence be found to finally remove any homophobic stigmas and proof that they have not voluntarily chosen this path.  Who would choose such a difficult path in life and risk possible alienation and controversy? Most homosexual struggles with this question, ‘born this way’ vs. ‘become this way.’  

The way a Christ-centered community deals with any behavior that is considered sinful: gossip, pornography, foul language, addictions, divorce, sexual immorality, etc.  We speak the truth in love. (Eph 4:14) We do not judge from a place of pharisaical pride (Gal 6:1-2); instead, we come alongside people and help them bear their burdens until the find deliverance in Christ.  

Are we born with a sexual orientation?

Although the American Psychological Association has denounced Homosexuality as a mental illness, and a Gallup study reveals that 63% of American Society no longer see homosexual relationships as morally wrong, yet there is still no conclusive evidence of people being born with same-sex sexual attraction.  See Douglas Murray in-depth discussion on this matter. [3]

Why do some have a same-sex attraction?

The biggest question of our broken humanity is: What makes someone have a sexual attraction to the same sex? Remember, the stark reality of these unions is that they cannot have children who carry both partners’ DNA.  That can lead to decreased birthrates of population rates.  

In the quest for greater freedom of sexual attraction, is there any attraction considered harmful? Like having a sexual attraction to children (Paedophiles). Some heterosexuals are addicted to pornography, which is disloyalty and a form of adultery.

Are all these sexual desires the same? 

Sexual fulfillment is fluid and cyclical; increasingly, people are identifying bi-sexual attractions and experiences; on the other hand, some gay, homo, and trans people is opening up to a person of the opposite gender in a truly loving, nurturing relationship.  Some people identify as A-sexual and even some marriages where couples never sexually consummated their union.  

These difficult questions hence have no easy answer because it concerns our deepest longing for reciprocal bonding, unconditional acceptance, and meaningful union. 

Douglas Murray is gay and writes honestly and soberly about the struggle people have to find the best path to live their life.  He explains that listing all these sexual expressions into one group identity is problematic, as this group of people, like gays and lesbians, do not actually socially mix.  Each group is also suspicious of bisexuals thinking they are not honest about their true identity.  The only thing the LGBTQIA+ community has in common is the stigmatization, persecution, and phobic treatment they sometimes receive from mainstream society.  This group has its own problems, where gay Christians who are trying to find and live by a Christlike norm find it hard to associate with the vulgar, explicit, exhibitionist behavior of some at pride rallies.  How are these sadomasochistic actions child-friendly entertainment? It is also clear that the LGBTQA+ agenda has become a political agenda, trying not only to promote their preferences in mainstream culture as normal but actually as better.  They promote same-sex relationships, are sexually more fulfilled, are better parents, and their divorce rate is lower, only among homo-sexuals. 

The Bible sets a high standard for sexual expression, emphasizing the importance of fidelity and the sacred nature of marriage. Jesus teaches that even looking at someone lustfully constitutes adultery in one’s heart (Matthew 5:27-28). Moreover, the Scriptures affirm that sexual acts outside of marriage are considered sinful (1 Corinthians 6:18). God designed sex as a means of procreation and relational marital bonding (Genesis 1:28, 2:24). Any sexual activity outside of these parameters is viewed as self-idolatry and selfish gratification of the flesh, as it deviates from God’s intended purpose. For those unable to engage in sexual bonding with the opposite sex within marriage, the Bible encourages celibacy as a noble and honorable choice (1 Corinthians 7:7-9). By adhering to these biblical directives, believers can pursue sainthood and the fulfillment of their creational purpose of being God’s representatives.

Douglas Murray reveals a very interesting reality of gay sexuality and the quest for what union produces the most pleasurable sexual experiences. Mendelsohn goes on to describe a poem written by a friend about a young gay man who watches football being played by men whom he silently and jealously desires. The poem finishes with a lustful, imaginative description of the players having sex with their girlfriends and of one man ‘falling through her into his own passion’. Mendelsohn describes his own earlier heterosexual experiences, and whilst admitting that there was nothing unpleasant about them, they were, he says, ‘like participating in a sport for which you’re the wrong physical type’. But he adds:

From those indifferent couplings I do remember this: when men have sex with women, they fall into the woman. She is the thing that they desire, or sometimes fear, but in any event she is the end point, the place where they are going. She is the destination. It is gay men who, during sex, fall through their partners back into themselves, over and over again.

He goes on:

I have had sex with many men. Most of them look a certain way. They are medium in height and tend to prettiness. They will probably have blue eyes. They seem, from the street, or across the room, a bit solemn. When I hold them, it is like falling through a reflection back into my desire, into the thing that defines me, my self.[4]

According to Douglas “This is a remarkable and disturbing insight. Because it suggests that there will always be something strange and potentially threatening about gay people – most especially gay men.”

This self-idolatry lies at the root of all sexual misconduct; it is seemingly too difficult to find union with the strange and mysterious opposite other, so we settle for the little that we know – making love with the self.  

In the realm of male-female attraction, I believe there lies a profound and intricate web of unanswered questions. These mysteries and uncertainties permeate every step of the dating process and have been a timeless source of both humor and sorrow. However, the most profound inquiries emerge during the mating ritual itself, beyond the surface-level courting and dating. As a man, I often find myself curious about what drives my wife, what does she desires, and what is most pleasurable for her during our intimate moments. These questions seem to endure throughout history, remaining as enigmatic as ever.  

For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter, because the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also forewarned you and testified. For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness. (1 Thes 4:3-5) 

2. Gender:

The biblical understanding of gender rests upon the belief that God created humankind in His own image, distinctly as male and female (Genesis 1:27).  Futhermore there is a direct instruction, to not question the Creator, like the clay cannot question the potter. (Is. 29:16; Jer. 18:6; Rom. 9:22; 2 Tim. 2:20) 

Certainty of identity for some is a lifelong struggle, particularly when confronted with a lack of godly role models, both male and female guidance and support, a shortage of financial opportunities, and negative critical condescending peers.  Why would one remove innate existing biological markers? Gender and biological preferences are what make you distinctively you! Embrace them and celebrate them in servanthood to your friends and family until the path of your identity becomes clearer. 

Biological physiological differences between males and females can be observed in various aspects of the body’s structure and function. Here are some notable differences:

Reproductive System: Males have testes that produce sperm and secrete testosterone, while females have ovaries that produce eggs and secrete estrogen and progesterone. Males have a prostate gland, while females have a uterus and mammary glands for breastfeeding.

Chromosomes: Males typically have one X and one Y chromosome (XY), while females have two X chromosomes (XX).

Hormones: Males generally have higher levels of androgens, such as testosterone, while females have higher levels of estrogens and progesterone. These hormones contribute to the development and maintenance of sexual characteristics and reproductive functions.

Secondary Sexual Characteristics: During puberty, males develop features like facial and body hair, a deeper voice, broader shoulders, and increased muscle mass. Females develop features like breast development, widened hips, and the onset of menstruation.

Body Composition: Males tend to have a higher muscle mass and lower body fat percentage compared to females. Females generally have a higher body fat percentage, particularly in areas such as the breasts, hips, and thighs.

Metabolism: Basal metabolic rate (BMR) tends to be higher in males due to their higher muscle mass and typically larger body size. Females often have a higher percentage of body fat, which can influence their metabolism.

Cardiovascular System: There are differences in heart size and structure between males and females. Males generally have larger hearts and higher cardiac output, while females may have a higher heart rate and different patterns of blood flow.

Respiratory System: Lung size relative to body size tends to be smaller in females compared to males. This difference can affect lung function and respiratory capacity.

Skeletal System: Males usually have denser bones and a higher peak bone mass compared to females. This contributes to the higher incidence of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

Endocrine System: The endocrine system, responsible for hormone production and regulation, can exhibit variations between males and females. Hormonal fluctuations during the menstrual cycle in females and the production of testosterone in males are notable differences.

Skeleton Differences

Yes, there are some differences between male and female skeletons, although it’s important to note that these differences are not absolute and can vary among individuals. Some common skeletal differences include:

1. Pelvis: The female pelvis tends to be wider and shallower to accommodate childbirth, while the male pelvis is typically narrower and more compact.
2. Skull: Male skulls are generally larger and have more prominent brow ridges, while female skulls are usually smaller and exhibit a smoother forehead.
3. Spine: The lumbar curvature of the female spine tends to be more pronounced, possibly to accommodate pregnancy, whereas the male spine may have a slightly different curvature.
4. Ribcage: Female ribcages are often wider to allow space for the development of internal organs during pregnancy. In contrast, male ribcages are typically narrower.
5. Limb Bones: In general, male limb bones tend to be thicker and more robust than female limb bones, reflecting differences in muscle mass and overall body size.

Phycological Differences

1. Personality Traits:

Meta-analytic studies, such as those conducted by Costa and McCrae (1992) and Feingold (1994), have shown small but consistent differences in personality traits. For example, females tend to score slightly higher on measures of agreeableness and neuroticism, while males tend to score slightly higher on measures of assertiveness and risk-taking.

2. Cognitive Abilities:

Research has found that males, on average, outperform females in certain spatial tasks, such as mental rotation (Voyer et al., 1995). On the other hand, females tend to have an advantage in verbal abilities, including language production and reading comprehension (Hyde, 2005).

3. Emotional Expression and Empathy:

Studies have shown that females tend to express emotions more openly and have higher levels of empathy compared to males (Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004; Kring & Gordon, 1998). However, it is important to note that these differences are not absolute, and there is considerable variability within each gender.

4. Brain Structure and Function:

Neuroimaging research has identified some structural and functional differences between male and female brains. For example, a study by Ruigrok et al. (2014) found that males, on average, have a larger total brain volume, while females tend to have a higher proportion of gray matter relative to white matter. However, the implications and significance of these differences are still areas of ongoing research and debate.

Occupational Differences

Research on male and female occupational differences and natural giftedness in specific occupations has been conducted, shedding light on various patterns and trends. However, it is essential to recognize that individual differences and personal choices play a significant role in career decisions. Here are some meta-analytic findings in this area:

1. Occupational Preferences:

Research indicates that men and women tend to have different preferences when it comes to career choices. Women are more likely to choose occupations in the fields of healthcare, education, and social sciences, while men are more likely to pursue careers in engineering, computer science, and physical sciences (Lippa, 2010).

2. Occupational Representation:

Certain occupations tend to have a disproportionate representation of either males or females. For example, occupations such as nursing, teaching, and administrative roles have a higher proportion of female workers, while engineering, IT, and construction have a higher proportion of male workers (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020).

3. STEM Fields:

STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields have historically shown a gender imbalance, with males being overrepresented. However, efforts are being made to bridge this gap and encourage more female participation in these fields through initiatives promoting gender equality and inclusivity (National Science Foundation, 2019).

4. Occupational Stereotypes and Socialization:

Societal stereotypes and socialization play a role in shaping occupational preferences. Research suggests that cultural and societal expectations regarding gender roles influence individuals’ career choices, reinforcing certain occupations as more suitable for males or females (Eagly & Steffen, 1984).

Gender Reaffirming Surgery

Gender-affirming surgeries, also known as gender confirmation surgeries or gender reassignment surgeries, are performed as part of the medical transition to align an individual’s physical body with their mental construct of gender identity. The surgeries can vary depending on an individual’s desired outcomes and gender identity. Here are some commonly performed gender-affirming surgeries:

1. Top Surgery (Mastectomy or Breast Augmentation): Top surgery involves chest reconstruction to align with an individual’s gender identity. It may involve breast removal (mastectomy) for individuals assigned female at birth who identify as male, or breast augmentation for individuals assigned male at birth who identify as female.
2. Bottom Surgery (Genital Reconstruction): Bottom surgery refers to surgeries involving the genital area. For transgender women (assigned male at birth, identifying as female), it may involve vaginoplasty, which constructs a neovagina. For transgender men (assigned female at birth, identifying as male), it may involve phalloplasty, metoidioplasty, or other procedures to create a neophallus or enhance masculinizing characteristics.
3. Facial Feminization Surgery (FFS): FFS includes various surgical procedures to feminize facial features, such as reducing the brow bone, reshaping the nose, modifying the jawline, and enhancing the lips and cheeks.
4. Voice Surgery: Voice surgery aims to alter the pitch or resonance of an individual’s voice to align with their gender identity. Procedures may involve vocal cord surgery or voice training techniques.
5. Adam’s Apple Reduction (Tracheal Shave): This surgery involves reducing the prominence of the Adam’s apple to achieve a more feminine appearance.

Why gender differentiation is important for healthcare

The article “Sex-based differences in physiology: what should we teach in the medical curriculum?” by Martha L. Blair, published in Advances in Physiology Education in 2007, explores the importance of incorporating sex-based differences in medical education.

The article highlights that recent research has revealed multiple differences between males and females in both normal physiology and the pathophysiology of diseases. However, these differences are often overlooked in medical education, except for reproductive physiology. Therefore, the American Physiological Society Education Committee organized a Refresher Course to address this topic and equip teachers of medical physiology with the necessary background.

The course focused on sex-based differences in the cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, and immune systems and the cellular mechanisms of sex steroid hormone actions on nonreproductive tissues. The presentations provided an overview of these differences and their implications for normal physiological functions.

The article emphasizes the importance of recognizing sex-based differences in disease prevalence, symptoms, and treatment responses. For instance, it highlights the higher incidence of osteoporosis in women and the higher incidence of autoimmune diseases in women compared to men. The article also discusses differences in mental illnesses, such as depression and cardiovascular diseases, between sexes.

The causes of sex-based differences in physiology and disease involve genetic differences, the actions of sex steroid hormones, and societal factors. Genetic differences between males and females, such as genes on the Y chromosome and X chromosome, contribute to physiological variations. Sex steroid hormones, including androgens, estrogens, and progestins, have receptors in various nonreproductive tissues and mediate physiological effects in both males and females.

The article concludes by emphasizing the importance of incorporating sex-based differences in the medical curriculum to prepare future healthcare professionals better. Understanding these differences is essential for accurately diagnosing and treating diseases, promoting personalized medicine, and improving patient outcomes.[5]

If you consider yourself in the wrong body, why would God make it so difficult and expensive to change? What assurance do you have that after you have changed, you are now going to be happy and fulfilled?  

Happiness and fulfillement is found first in your intimacy with God.  

3. Stereotyping:

Stereotyping, or judging others based on appearances or preconceived notions, contradicts biblical teachings. Jesus consistently exhibited compassion towards the marginalized and stigmatized individuals of His time. He demonstrated this compassion when He healed the woman with the issue of blood (Mark 5:25-34) and when He welcomed Mary, who sought to sit at His feet and learn as His disciple (Luke 10:38-42). These examples showcase Jesus’ willingness to break societal norms and challenge stereotypes. The Bible encourages believers to follow this example by treating others with fairness, avoiding snap judgments, and valuing people based on their intrinsic worth as children of God (James 2:1-4). By rejecting stereotyping and embracing the call to love and acceptance, Christians can strive towards sainthood and the realization of their creational purpose.

Conclusion:

In the culture war, the battleground of ideas often centers around sexual expression, gender, and stereotyping. By adhering to biblical directives and recognizing that all Christian activity is directed towards sainthood and fulfilling our creational purpose, believers can navigate these complex topics with love, compassion, and adherence to God’s teachings. The Bible emphasizes the importance of sexual fidelity within the bounds of marriage, the recognition of God’s binary creation of male and female, and the rejection of unfair stereotypes. In doing so, we can engage in meaningful dialogue, seek understanding, and ultimately foster a culture of respect, unity, and Christ-like love. By pursuing sainthood and embracing our creational purpose, Christians become the most beautiful expression of their humanity, as intended by God’s design.

[1] Du Rand, Jan; Nel, Marius. Homoseksualiteit en die Bybel (eBoek): n Gids tot die verstaan van homoseksualiteit (Afrikaans Edition) . Christian Art Distributors Pty Ltd. Kindle Edition.

[2] Manser, Martin H. Dictionary of Bible Themes: The Accessible and Comprehensive Tool for Topical Studies. London: Martin Manser, 2009. Print.

[3] B. S. Mustanski, M. G. Dupree, C. M. Nievergelt et al., ‘A genome- 

‘A genome- scan of male sexual orientation’, Human Genetics, 116 (2005), pp. 272–8; R. Blanchard, J. M. Cantor, A. F. Bogaert et al.,
‘Interaction of fraternal birth order and handedness in the development of male homosexuality’, Hormones and Behavior, 49 (2006), pp. 405–14; J. M. Bailey, M. P. Dunne and N. G. Martin, ‘Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (2000), pp. 524–36. 

Royal College of Psychiatrists’ statement on sexual orientation, Position Statement PS02/2014, April 2014 (https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PS02_2014.pdf). 

Website of the American Psychological Association, ‘Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality’ (http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx)

[4] Daniel Mendelsohn, The Elusive Embrace: Desire and the Riddle of Identity, Alfred  A. Knopf, 1999, pp. 73–5. 

[5] Sex-based differences in physiology: what should we teach in the medical curriculum? Martha L. Blair Advances in Physiology Education 2007 31:1, 23-25