‘What state is the church in when a Christian college fires a Christian lecturer for defending a Christian understanding of sexuality? This week, news broke of Dr Aaron Edwards, a lecturer at Cliff College, Derbyshire, a Methodist Bible college, who was sacked and even threatened with a counter-terrorism referral for sharing a tweet on human sexuality that went viral. The father of five was told that for sharing the Christian view of sexuality, he had brought “the college into disrepute.” Tim Dieppe is joined by Aaron on this week’s Round the Table, as well as Joe Boot, founder of the Ezra Institute, to discuss how changes in the UK Church’s doctrine on marriage and sexuality is leading to more confusion and cases like this. How are faithful Christians now to respond?’
Sexual
All posts tagged Sexual
‘Explaining the origin of sex is widely recognized as a major dilemma after 150 years of attempts to answer it by some of the world’s leading evolutionists. Since Darwin revolutionized the world with his theory, this “masterpiece of nature” is acknowledged as one of evolutionists’ most difficult evolutionary problems, second only to the origin-of-life problem.[1]
Sexual differences are widespread in animals, but no single rule explains them.
The dominant theory is that asexual reproduction somehow slowly evolved into sexual reproduction. However, the evidence is both overwhelming, and widely recognized even by evolutionists, that evolution by small steps cannot bridge the transition from asexual to sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction cannot occur until both functional and compatible male and female reproductive systems exist. If any part of any component does not exist, reproduction will not occur. Nonetheless, evolutionists continue to look for ways to solve the problem of the origin of sex. One current example is a study by Yadav et al.[2] This study, rather than solve the problem, actually illustrates how difficult it is.
Evolutionists not only readily admit that “eukaryotic sexual reproduction is a mystery,” but also that the “ubiquity of eukaryotic sexual reproduction is a mystery.” In other words, the fact that eukaryotic sexual reproduction exists everywhere in life, from invertebrates to vertebrates, from plants to insects and animals must be explained. Furthermore, a variety of very different types of eukaryotic sexual reproduction systems are observed (see list below). For example, fungi “undergo alternative modes of sexual reproduction (unisexual, pseudosexual, and parasexual) in the laboratory and in nature that share features with alternative sexual processes observed in animals and plants (parthenogenesis, hybridogenesis, gynogenesis, and apomixis).”[3]
Most animals, including humans, after birth live out their entire lives and reproduce as either one sex or the other. With some animals, and many plants, a variety of sex types exist. These will now be briefly described to illustrate the problem this poses for evolution.
The Basic Kinds of Sexual Designs
Unisexual refers to an organism that can reproduce without requiring both male and female gametes. Unisexual plants’ flowers contain either stamens or carpels, but not both. Examples in the plant kingdom include papaya, cucumber, maize, tapioca, pumpkin, musk melon, castor bean, birch, pine (using cones), and watermelon.
Bisexual plant flowers contain both stamens and carpels and require both male and female gametes to reproduce. Common examples include rose, sunflower, hibiscus, lily, and mustard. Attempts to determine patterns related to why some plants can reproduce unisexually, while others require bisexual support, have failed.
Simultaneous hermaphroditism exists in a single organism which has both types of reproductive organs when mature. Consequently, they produce both male and female gametes. In simultaneous hermaphrodites, self-fertilization is possible in some species, but absent in others. Examples include vascular plants, worms, snails, slugs, barnacles, bryozoans (moss), and trematodes (flukes).
Sequential hermaphroditism produces eggs (female gametes) and sperm (male gametes) at different stages in their life. The change from one sex to another is a normal event as part of the organism’s reproductive cycle. The change from male to female is called protandry or protandrous hermaphroditism, and from female to male is called protogyny or protogynous hermaphroditism. Sequential hermaphroditism is actually common in many fish, gastropods, and certain plants.
Bidirectional hermaphrodites possess the capacity for sex change in either direction, male to female and female to male, an alternation potentially repeated several times during the organism’s lifetime.
Pseudosexual includes animals that experience a tertiary physical attraction which mimics sexual attraction but no transfer of gametes occurs. The problem with this behavior is that it does not normally involve successful reproduction.[4]
Parasexual reproduction is a system that results in the recombination of genes from different individuals, but does not involve meiosis nor the formation of a zygote by fertilization as in sexual reproduction. The main examples include fungi and many unicellular organisms.[5]
Parthenogenesis, is a form of reproduction in which an egg develops into an embryo without being fertilized by sperm. It usually results in the development of a female; and very rarely males. Rotifers, along with several insect species, including aphids, bees, wasps, and ants can reproduce by parthenogenesis.
Hybridogenesis, also called sexual parasitism, involves the selective transmission of one of the parental genomes, while the other genome is renewed by mating with the corresponding species. [6]
Gynogenesis is a system of asexual reproduction that requires the presence of sperm but not the contribution of its DNA. The paternal DNA dissolves, or is destroyed by another means, before it can fuse with an egg. The egg cell then is able to develop, unfertilized, into an adult using only maternal DNA. Most gynogenesic animals are fish or amphibians. Why this reproductive mode even exists, given that it combines the disadvantages of both asexual and sexual reproduction, remains another unsolved problem in evolutionary biology.[7]
Androgenesis is the male equivalent of gynogenesis, where the father is the sole contributor of DNA. Thus a zygote is produced with only the paternal nuclear genes.[8]
Apomixis is asexual reproduction in which seeds are produced from unfertilized ovules. Examples include the genera Crataegus (hawthorns), Amelanchier (shadbush), Sorbus (rowans and whitebeams), Rubus (brambles or blackberries), Poa (meadow grasses), Nardus stricta (doormatgrass), Hieracium (hawkweeds) and Taraxacum (dandelions).
Attempts to Explain the Variety of Reproductive Methods Fail
In their PNAS paper (ref. 2), the authors attempt to theorize how and why organisms could have evolved so many different systems for mating-type determination. This, they claim, could advance the understanding of the evolution-of-sex problem itself. Actually, their attempt creates additional major difficulties for understanding the evolution of sex. For example, they write:
the systems by which sex is defined are highly diverse and can even differ between evolutionarily closely related species. While the most commonly known form of sex determination involves males and females in animals, eukaryotic microbes can have as many as thousands of different mating types for the same species. Furthermore,… several examples are also present among vertebrates suggesting that alternative modes of sexual reproduction evolved multiple times throughout evolution.[9]
It is widely recognized that the evolution of sex is an enormous problem: “no other problem has sowed as much confusion” as have attempts to explain the origin of sexual reproduction.[10] As Richard Dawkins asked, “why did sex, that bizarre prevision of straightforward replication, ever arise in the first place? … This is an extremely difficult question for evolutionists to answer” which he admitted he was “going to evade” due to “the difficulty which theorists have with explaining the evolution of sex.”[11] The late Lynn Margulis added in the introduction of her book on sex was so difficult that “becoming sexual [beings] is one [topic] which we will try to steer well clear of throughout this book.”[12]
How Yaiv et al., in their PNAS Article Deal with the Origin of Sex Problem
Yaiv et al. proposed that the variety of sex behaviors they documented did not evolve from some hypothetical original sexual reproduction system, but rather evolved multiple times. They openly stated that “sexual reproduction evolved multiple times throughout evolution.” The problem is, if sex is unlikely to have evolved once, it is far more unlikely to have evolved as many as 12 different times to explain the different sexual systems listed by Yaiv and noted above.
The authors’ phraseology implies that animals can choose their method of reproduction, as if it were a conscious choice made by the organism. They write,
some species have found alternatives to sexual reproduction, and prefer to grow clonally and yet undergo infrequent facultative sexual reproduction. These organisms are mainly invertebrates and microbes.[13]
Summary
Most evolutionists believe that evolution explains the origin of all types of sexual reproduction but struggle to determine when, how, and why sex evolved. The PNAS paper reviewed here is no exception. All past attempts fail, and the paper reviewed here, published in a leading American science journal, is another example of the norm. Now evolutionists have to explain the evolution of over a dozen types of sexual reproduction. But they must admit that sexual reproduction is evolutionarily conserved, meaning that, when examined historically, it has been shown to have not changed.[14] In other words, no evidence exists that any of the sexual systems the authors discussed have evolved. All evolutionists can do is attempt to speculate how one sex system could have evolved into another reproductive method.
References
[1] Trivers, Robert. The evolution of sex: A review of the masterpiece of Nature: The evolution and genetics of sexuality. The Quarterly Review of Biology 58(1):62-67, March 1983.
[2] Yaiv, Vikas, et al. On the evolution of variation in sexual reproduction through the prism of eukaryote microbes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120(10). 3 March 2023; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2219120120.
[3] Yaiv et al., 2023; ref. 2.
[4] Dias, Brian, and David Crews. Regulation of pseudosexual behavior in the parthenogenetic whiptail lizard, Cnemidophorus uniparens. Endocrinology 149(9):4622–4631, September 2008.
[5] Mishra, Abhishek, et al. Parasexuality of Candida species. Frontiers in Cell Infection Microbiology 11:796929; doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2021.796929, 2021.
[6] Lavanchy, Guillaume, and Tanja Schwander.
Hybridogenesis. Current Biology 29(3, 4):539, February 2019.
[7] Schlupp, Ingo. The evolutionary ecology of gynogenesis. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 36:399–417, 2005.
[8] Komma, Donald, and Sharyna Endow. Aploidy and androgenesis in Drosophila. PNAS-Genetics. 92:11884-11888; December 1995.
[9] Yaiv, et al., 2023; ref. 2, italics added.
[10] Bell, Graham. The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, p. 19, 1982.
[11] Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, p. 46, 1976.
[12]Margulis, Lynn, and Dorion Sagan. Origins of Sex. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, p. 3, 1986.
[13] Yaiv, et al., 2023; ref. 2. Emphasis added.
[14] Yaiv, et al., 2023, p. 1; ref. 2.’https://crev.info/2023/03/evolution-of-sex/
It does seem at least to me, that there are today more and more groups calling themselves “Christian” that are applauding and promoting the Sodomite life. However, that lifestyle is not called Sodomy anymore but is now known by letters from the alphabet; LGBTQUIA etc. etc. Well, someone can call themselves whatever they desire but that doesn’t make it true or Biblically accepted. Israel was a theocracy under the headship of the Creator Himself and this is what it says in the Old Testament concerning those called by the name Sodomite.
1Kings 14:24 And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.
1Kings 15:12 And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.
1Kings 22:46 And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.
2Kings 23:7 And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.
Of course most people know of Sodom and what occurred there! Now, in the New Testament we do not find the word Sodomite but we do read of the lifestyle and it is not a lifestyle that finds favour with God. In Romans chapter One and verses 24 through 27 we read concerning this lifestyle and what the Lord thinks of it.
Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Why then do those who profess to be “Christian” push this lifestyle? Is it because they love sin and NOT the Saviour? Is it because they have NEVER had “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus” Acts 20:21?
In that coming day all, whether they be in the Sodomite lifestyle or not, if they refuse to turn from their sin to faith in the Lord Jesus as their own personal Saviour they personally will suffer the consequences. This last judgment is given in Revelation 20:11-15. There we read John saying he ..saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Nevertheless, The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance 2Peter 3:9.
A lesbian mother says she regrets taking steps to transition her four-year-old son. She has since worked to reverse the mistake and said the process has been like “leaving a cult”.
Rose, who wishes to stay anonymous, raised her two sons as gender neutral with her wife, which was reflected in their clothes, toys and language.
When her four-year-old son said he felt like a girl, the mother encouraged him in his new identity – which she has now admitted was a ‘mistake’ that ‘haunts’ her.
Previously she described herself as an activist but now says she is a sceptic. She has written an essay published by Parents With Inconvenient Truth About Trans (PITT) called, “I am no longer a true believer”:
‘This experience for me has felt like leaving a cult, a cult that would have me sacrifice my child to the gods of gender ideology, in the name of social justice and collective liberation. I have left this cult, and I am never turning back.’
When her older son – who had always gravitated more towards women and had an affinity for feminine things – asked if he was a boy or a girl, she told him that he could choose.
She said: ‘I was leading my innocent, sensitive child down a path of lies that were a direct on-ramp to psychological damage and life-long irreversible medical intervention. All in the name of love, acceptance, and liberation.’
Her sons are now eight and nine years of age and live as boys. She had encouraged her eldest son to appear as a girl by changing his name, using female pronouns and female costumes. The social transition was met with praise by her peers.
A gender therapist also encouraged her to break contact with anyone who refused to affirm her son as a girl.
When her younger son, who was three at the time, said he wanted to be a girl like his brother, the mother realised she had made a mistake.
‘Our sons weren’t actually trans. It was something else,’ Rose said. ‘I had led my child into it. All I wanted was to go back in time and undo what I had done’.
Just before her son’s eighth birthday she told him that ‘males cannot be females’ – to which he at first was ‘mad and sad’. But the following day she said he felt ‘incredible relief’ at the revelation.
Now, she says her sons are both ‘blossoming and growing’ as boys – but that her mistake will be one that ‘haunts’ her forever.
She said: ‘The grief and the shock of what we did is so deep, so wide, so sharp and penetrating. How could a mother do this to her child? To her children?’
She added that she only realized her former beliefs were part of a ‘system’ now that she is out of it.
Binary spokeswoman Kirralie Smith said the trans cult is based on lies.
“No one can change their sex. It is impossible,” she said.
“It is a lie to entice children, or anyone, to believe they can be something they are not.
“It is cruel and unkind to put children on a pathway of transitioning that can never be realised.
“Thankfully this mother realised her mistake and took steps to rectify it.”’https://www.binary.org.au/decision_to_transition_four_year_old_haunts_mother?
‘Harvard Medical School students can learn about how to provide healthcare to “infants” who are LGBTQIA+, according to a course catalog description.
“Caring for Patients with Diverse Sexual Orientations, Gender Identities, and Sex Development,” a regularly available med school course, promises to give students a chance to work with “patients [who] identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex or asexual.”
“Clinical exposure and education will focus on serving gender and sexual minority people across the lifespan, from infants to older adults,” according to the course description.’https://www.thecollegefix.com/harvard-med-class-focuses-on-lgbtqia-infants-and-older/
There seems to be a considerable amount of people who have come forward publicly saying they have been abused by someone in a local independent Baptist church. This should never be the experience of someone attending a church that claims to be “the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” The following is a review of a book written by one who suffered such abuse!
‘Sheltered but Not Protected is the story of a young man that was raised in an independent Baptist church (probably listed in our database) and who did all the right things just like the preacher said, but nevertheless was the victim of a female predator in his church. The church culture around him not only permitted but protected this sort of behavior, and instead of reporting the abuser as a child molester, the pastor forced the victim to repent in front of the church. Sound familiar? As the author says, not every church is this way, but there are enough of them out there that it deserves serious attention.
Justin Woodbury is the author of the book Sheltered but not Protected (affiliate link throughout), his story of abuse in an independent Baptist church, both sexual abuse from a trusted adult, as well as the emotional and spiritual abuse that was standard behavior from the leadership. The book begins with a foreword from Justin’s wife Emily, describing the pain and struggles that she experienced as a new wife dealing with the emotional trauma that her husband had suffered. While there’s a “happy ending” of sorts to the book, the scars–spiritual, emotional, and even physical–created thanks to a system of abuse that came from or was at least enabled by good intentions nevertheless will remain with Justin and Emily, and innumerable other victims, for the rest of their lives.
The Best of Intentions
Justin’s childhood is described as wonderful, with loving parents and a great sister. Even his church was a place full of (initially) love, people seeking to serve the LORD from a pure heart. Unfortunately, the way in which they went about trying to serve God became more about control and rigid compliance with rules than seeking God’s will. The writer of this review grew up in a church that shared some similarities with the church described in Sheltered, though I can’t remember things being quite so over-the-top with regards to pastoral control.
However, the whole idea of the pastor being “the Man of God” and that his opinions were actually the leading of the Holy Spirit (Justin’s job at the church was threatened continually if he disagreed with or disobeyed the pastor) is very familiar, and is unfortunately a very common aspect in many independent Baptist churches. I personally recall a significant emphasis on “she-bears” and calling down fire from heaven on disrespectful people being part of the birthright of the pastor. While my pastor didn’t go so far as telling people which color of car they should buy, he certainly interfered in family matters and felt that he had some sort of special line to God and knew better than everyone else how they should live.
What also resonated with me was the repeated detail that the pastor didn’t believe that there was ever a good reason to leave the church. I remember hearing that there were only two good reasons for leaving church: getting called out (to a ministry somewhere), or dragged out (a la Ananias and Saphira). This now seems like a parallel universe compared to my current pastor’s opinion on the matter: if you can’t serve God here, then please find a church where you can serve God; we’d hate to be the reason you can’t be faithful. Perhaps nine times out of ten, the reason they can’t serve God here (wherever that may be) is because they don’t really want to serve God anywhere, but there’s always the possibility that someone just isn’t a good fit and the LORD wants to use them somewhere else. That apparently wasn’t acceptable in the church where Justin grew up.
Ultimately, out of a desire to prevent the young people from experiencing the same disappointments and sins that the church’s founders had been through, they put in place draconian rules all with the intention of preventing impurity. As the rules evolved, becoming ever more restrictive, extreme, and ridiculous, most of the church members just followed along, since after all, “the Man of God” apparently knew something that they didn’t.
OK, Groomer
In his teen years, Justin’s mom became close friends with a woman in church, who was a predator and groomed him for about two years. I’ll let you read the details in his book (again, buy a copy and read it), but the abuse scarred him for life. Of course he felt pressured to keep it secret, since all of those people who had to “confess” in front of the church (whether perpetrator or victim) were publicly shamed and humiliated, and then once he finally opened up to the pastor, he was made to feel as if he were the responsible party. Moreover, the pastor, who is by law required to report sexual abuse, especially involving a minor, did not report, but instead forced Justin to apologize to his abuser’s husband.
So, not only was child sex abuse covered up, but the victim was shamed into admitting fault that was not his. Of course Justin was not the only minor affected by sexual abuse in that church; you’ll read about many other situations of leadership overlooking, dismissing, or mishandling situations to such a degree that it almost seems a caricature of reality. After several years of working in the same church, he faced another public humiliation for a private (and rather chaste) relationship with a girl in the church, and finally left to start a new life elsewhere.
Unfortunately, escaping the place doesn’t change the past, and Justin’s long road toward healing was hindered by the fact that “counseling” in his mind was a series of meetings with the pastor to make sure you were sorry and humiliated enough to be “restored.” He was never encouraged to seek professional assistance for his abuse, partly because the church had no real concept of what damage the abuse inflicted, but mostly because they didn’t see it as abuse, just some sort of adulterous affair–even though the aggressor was an adult woman close to twice the age of the minor that she molested.
God’s Grace is Always More than Sufficient
In the last chapters of Sheltered but not Protected, Justin describes his journey from bitterness to forgiveness, along with the various ways that God stripped away the judgmental, spiteful tendencies that had been inculcated in him throughout his upbringing in a cultish Baptist church. Of course I personally wouldn’t move away from the King James Bible as Justin has, nor would I probably feel comfortable in the church where he believes the LORD brought them, but those are irrelevant points. He overcame the sexual abuse from a child predator, the emotional abuse from a system that was designed to create perfect clones, and spiritual abuse from the men that he should have been able to trust, and has come to a place where he can forgive even the unrepentant abuser in his past.
This brings me to the real point that King James Bible-believing, independent Baptists have to face: why is it that we can have the right Bible (and we do), and the right doctrine (at least for the most part), and yet the fruit of so many ministries is complete destruction of families and individuals that should have been helped? How is it that we, like the Pharisees of old, can have all the right forms and technicalities (even if I disagree with many of the traditions purported to be “Old Time Religion”) yet the end result is one train wreck after another? Where in the Bible does it indicate that every believer should look like, talk like, act like, and sound like “the pastor” or else they should be shunned and ostracized by the church? Where exactly does the Bible say that the “proper” male haircut is a crop-top or a high-and-tight comb-over? Or are we allowing the culture around us to dictate what we do and how we do it, even if it is simply to be opposite of said culture?
Sheltered but not Protected is a gut-wrenching story of abuse, while at the same time a gleam of hope in a world with a church that is “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked” (Revelation 3:17) and where churches actively protect child abusers and rapists. There IS something that we can do, and maybe it starts with reading and understanding the truths that Justin Woodbury shares in this book.
Sheltered but not Protected: Learning to Love, Forgive, and Heal After Emotional and Sexual Abuse can be purchased on Amazon, and Justin Woodbury can be contacted through his website or his Facebook Page.’https://www.kjvchurches.com/review-sheltered-but-not-protected-learning-to-love-forgive-and-heal-after-emotional-and-sexual-abuse-by-justin-woodbury/
2Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
whatyareckon 