How Could Jesus Have Been Born “Immaculate”?

See the source image

How Could Jesus Have Been Born “Immaculate”?

 James R. Aist

When Adam chose to believe Satan instead of God  and sinned (Genesis 3), two things happened that have affected all subsequent generations of mankind (Psalm 51:5; Psalm 58:3; Romans 5:12; Romans 5:17; and 1 Peter 1:18-19), not through a direct, genetic (biological) inheritance as we know it, but by a mysterious, spiritual inheritance that is associated with biological reproduction. First, we took on a “sin nature” (Colossians 3:9-10), or a predisposition to sin, that has been passed down to all subsequent generations, including ours. We have “inherited”, so to speak, from Adam, a “sin nature”, an inborn desire to reject God’s provision and follow our own path in life. This predisposition to sin is so pervasive as to render us, in our “natural-born” state, in rebellion against, and at enmity with, God. And second, we share in the guilt of the original sin of Adam that has been passed down to all of his descendants, because Adam was the representative of all mankind in his rebellion against God, just as Jesus, the second Adam, is the representative of all of Adam’s descendants who believe and trust in Him for their salvation (Romans 5:19; 1 Corinthians 15:22).

This sin nature and the guilt of Adam’s original sin that we are all born with present a dilemma that may seem irresolvable at first glance: the Lamb of God (Jesus) had to be “immaculate”; that is, without spot or blemish (1 Peter 1:19), entirely free of sin, the sin nature and the guilt of Adam’s original sin. So, how did Jesus escape inheriting the sin nature and the guilt of Adam’s original sin at His conception? All agree that Jesus did not inherit these from His Father, the Holy Spirit. But, what about Mary?

Let’s begin with the Roman Catholic solution to this dilemma.  According to Roman Catholic doctrine, Mary did not ever have a sin nature or guilt of original sin because of the direct intervention of God; Mary was immaculate as a divine privilege. Of course, there is no clear, unequivocal biblical evidence to confirm this view. It appears to me that the Roman Catholic Church invented this doctrine to resolve the dilemma, because they could not discover, in either the Bible or in Roman Catholic tradition, any other suitable resolution. Apparently, the main Bible verse they use is Genesis 3:15, which says “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he will bruise your head, and you will bruise his heel.” They claim that this verse refers to a battle between Mary and Satan, but a natural reading of the verse indicates that the actual battle will be, instead, between Jesus and Satan. Nonetheless, if God did, in fact, solve this dilemma in this way, then it is not for us to declare otherwise apart from the biblical witness.

Another solution, associated with Protestantism, posits that the sin nature and the guilt of original sin are inherited from Adam, generation to generation, through the fathers only, as seems to be implied by Romans 5:17 and 1 Peter 1:18-19 when taken together: Since Jesus did not have a human father to pass the sin nature and the guilt of original sin on to Him (His father was the Holy Spirit) and the sin nature and the guilt of original sin are inherited through the fathers only, then He could not have inherited either the sin nature or any guilt of Adam’s sin. Once He was conceived in Mary’s womb by the Holy Spirit, He would automatically be the Lamb of God “without spot or blemish” (1 Peter 1:19). Problem solved. I have addressed this viewpoint more fully elsewhere (click HERE), and it does have its foundation in the biblical witness.

But, there is yet another feasible solution to the dilemma that I believe may be even more strongly and clearly supported by the biblical witness. This explanation requires knowledge and understanding that the Jewish followers of God, such as Abraham (and, for our purposes, Mary)  had an opportunity to go to Heaven based on their looking ahead to the price to be paid by the Messiah for their sins (based on Old Testament messianic prophesies), just as we today have an opportunity to go to heaven by looking back to the price paid by the Messiah, Jesus, for our sins (based on New Testament fulfillment of Old Testament messianic prophesies). (For a more complete exposition of this biblical teaching, click HERE).

Now, to fully understand this third explanation, I will have to elaborate a bit, so bear with me if you will. Before Mary conceived, an angel spoke to her concerning who Jesus would be: “But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Listen, you will conceive in your womb and bear a Son and shall call His name JESUS. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest. And the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever. And of His kingdom there will be no end.” Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” The angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you. Therefore the Holy One who will be born will be called the Son of God. Mary said, “I am the servant of the Lord. May it be unto me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her (Luke 1:30-35, 38).”

The first point I want you to see here is that, in effect, the angel preached “the Gospel of Jesus Christ” to Mary: 1) He will be the promised Savior (The name “JESUS” means “savior” or “God saves.” See also: Matthew 1:21, “She will bear a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.”); 2) The Holy Spirit will be His father; and 3) therefore, He will be the Son of God. The second point is that, when Mary responded with “May it be unto me according to your word,” she was expressing agreement with, not only becoming pregnant by the Holy Spirit, but also with everything the angel had said concerning Jesus. Thus, it seems that Mary may have been the first person in the New Testament to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ and accept it by faith. The third point is that Mary apparently was saved before Jesus was conceived. This is a critical point, because, if this is true, then, when she was born again through her faith in Jesus, she instantly “became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith”, the righteousness of God in Christ (Genesis 15:6; Hebrews 11:7; Romans 3:22; 2 Corinthians 5:21). In other words, before Jesus was conceived, Mary may have already believed in Him (Luke 1:38) and, if so, she was already the righteousness of God in Christ and could not have passed on to Jesus either any guilt of Adam’s sin or a sin nature.

The gist of this explanation is that, if Mary was, in fact, saved before she became pregnant with Jesus, then there was no avenue whereby either the sin nature or the guilt of Adam’s original sin could have been passed on to Jesus, because  Mary’s new nature in Christ (2 Peter 1:4 speaks of the  “divine nature” of those who believe in Christ) would have already replaced her original sin nature (Colossians 3:9-10) and her righteousness of God in Christ would have erased her guilt of Adam’s original sin before He was conceived. If this explanation is, indeed, true and valid, then it’s a good thing the angel preached the Gospel to Mary before Jesus was conceived!

The “take home message” of this article is this, that one way or another, God saw to it that when Jesus was conceived, He was free of both the guilt of Adam’s original sin and of the sin nature. Add to that a sinless life (Hebrews 4:15) and we have a biblical explanation of how, when Jesus died on the cross, He could bear the sins of others (i.e., us). If He had had sins of His own to bear, then He would have died for His own sins, and our sins would still not be forgiven. In which case, it would not end well for us who believe and trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of our sins and the salvation of our souls!

(To read more of my biblical articles, click HERE)

Abortion: A Biblical Perspective

 

Abortion: A Biblical PerspectiveJewish torah scroll in cover

 James R. Aist

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” (Isaiah 5:20)

Introduction

Although abortion has important social and political ramifications, to those of us who are born-again Christians, the most basic issues have to do with what God has to say about it. For that information, of course, we turn to the Word of God, the Holy Bible. But, can we find in the Bible the spiritual guidance we seek and get a clear understanding of the moral issues surrounding abortion, as well as God’s opinion of it? Let’s find out.

God Knows When Human Life Begins

Who could possibly answer this question better than the God who created human life, the God of the Bible? What does the Bible have to say about when human life begins?

Jeremiah 1:5 – “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you…” God knew Jeremiah before He formed him in the womb (i.e., before he was conceived). In the mind of God, Jeremiah existed as a human being even before he was conceived.

Psalm 51:5 – “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” Let’s think about that for a moment. Could David have been sinful before he was a human being? Of course not; the curse of original sin applies only to human beings. It follows, then, that if David was sinful from the moment of conception, then he must also have been a human being from the moment of conception.

Luke 1:36 – “Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren.” Note that, here, the angel of the Lord states that what Elizabeth conceived was already a “son” (i.e., a male human offspring). The implication is that John the Baptist was already a human being at the moment of his conception.

Conclusion: In the mind of God, we exist as human beings even before we are conceived. Moreover, the Bible speaks of the product of human conception as being already “sinful” or a “son”, both of which are distinctively human attributes. Thus, in the Bible, human life is understood to begin at conception, because the God of the Bible says it does.

When Does God’s Plan for Our Life Begin?

Luke 2:21 – “And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.” God’s plan for Jesus was already in place before he was conceived, as the name given by the angel, “Jesus”, means “Savior.”

Jeremiah 1:5 – “…before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” God ordained Jeremiah a prophet before he was born.

Isaiah 49:1 – “Before I was born the Lord called me; from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name.” Isaiah received his calling from the Lord before he was born.

Judges 16:17 – “I have been a Nazarite dedicated to God from my mother’s womb.” Samson was dedicated to God as a Nazarite before he was born.

Galatians 1:15 – “… God… set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace…” Paul was set apart, by God, to be an Apostle before he was born.

Conclusion: According to the Bible, God has a plan for our lives before we are born!

Why Does the Bible Condemn Abortion As “Sin”?

First, we must understand that God created us, all of us, in His own image: “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them….” (Genesis 1:27). This fact means that we human beings are the pinnacle of God’s creation and are the only living beings that bear the very image of God in themselves.

Second, God said that “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.” (Genesis 9:6). Abortion is undeniably the “shedding of human blood”, and as such it is an act of utter and total disrespect for the image of God himself, a grave offense to the very being of God.

And third, as the shedding of innocent human blood, abortion is the sin of murder and, therefore, a violation of God’s 6th Commandment, “You shall not murder.”

Conclusion: The Bible condemns abortion as sin, because it is murder.

Is It OK to Be “Pro-choice”?

“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others. – 1 Corinthians 10:23-24

People who are “pro-choice” believe that they are just defending the right of the mother to decide whether her unborn child lives or dies; thus, “pro-choice.” At the same time, they deny that they have any responsibility for the death of the unborn child if the mother decides to abort. This is nonsense. By supporting their so-called  “right to choose”, you are, in effect, implying that you believe either choice, life or death, is equally good and moral, and to the extent that you influence them to agree with you, you share in whatever decision they make. Let’s be honest and realistic for a moment: Every time you say, “It’s a woman’s right to choose”, you’re also saying, “It’s OK to murder babies – either male or female – in the womb.” Do you really believe that a woman has a right to murder another woman in the womb? How does it promote “women’s rights” to deny unborn women the most basic human right of all, the right to live? And, what if the choice were up to you? Would you choose to murder your own baby in your womb? If not, then why would you support someone else choosing to do it? The only way you can avoid a shared responsibility in a decision to abort is to take a stand against abortion, i.e., to be “pro-life.” Does the Bible have anything to say about this point? Indeed it does. The Bible has stern rebukes and dire warnings for those who approve of sin or encourage others to sin (Leviticus 19:1; Isaiah 5:20; Malachi 2:17; Matthew 5:19-20; Matthew 18:6; Romans 14:22). Thus, anyone, including born-again Christians, who even approves of or encourages the sin of abortion in any way will, someday, have to answer to God for it. If that’s you, then now is the time to repent!

Conclusion: It is not OK to be “pro-choice”; according to the Bible, it is a sin.

An Appeal for the Rights of the Unborn

If you want to make me cry, then remind me of the accidental traffic death of my daughter, Liesel, when she was only 20 years old. Or, remind me of the accidental drowning deaths of twin toddlers in Knoxville a few days ago. But, if you really want me to weep and mourn deeply, then remind me of the intentional deaths of tens of millions of innocent, helpless, unborn babies, murdered in their mother’s womb, in America since Roe v. Wade. The United States will have no claim whatsoever to any moral high ground concerning anything, unless and until we, as a nation, rise up against this, the most despicable of man’s inhumanity to man, and legally declare it to be what it is: murder of the worst kind. And that’s why we need more and more pro-life justices, judges, governors, legislators, presidents and God-fearing voters to lead the charge against abortion. America, bless God and stand against this national tragedy!

Summary

According to the God of the Bible, human life begins at conception. God has a plan for our lives before we are even conceived, and abortion thwarts the plan of God. We are made in the image of God, and He condemns abortion as sin because it is murder, an act of utter and total disrespect for the image of God himself and a grave offense to the very being of God. And, it is a sin to be “pro-choice”, because a pro-choice position, in effect, approves of and encourages the sin of abortion, even though it is the mother who makes the decision.

You might also want to read this article by John MacArthur (click HERE)

(For more articles on ABORTION, click HERE)

Are Homosexual People Really “Born Gay”?

Born GayAre Homosexual People Really “Born Gay”?

James R. Aist

(Note: the numbers in parentheses refer to specific references listed at the end of the article)

Introduction

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”  — Joseph Goebbels

Since the early 1970s, homosexual people have increasingly claimed that they were “born gay” (1, 27) and that, therefore, they could not change even if they wanted to. In 1976, 9% reportedly claimed to be born gay, the figure increased to 35% by 1989, and by 2004, in one gay community, more than 90% of gays reported that they believe genes are a significant factor in their orientation— which would suggest a ten-fold increase in 28 years. By repeating this claim over and over again for decades now, gay activists have managed to win over a large percentage of heterosexual “believers” to their cause, without any substantial basis in fact to validate the claim that they were “born that way.” “Born gay” is, in fact, a hoax of mammoth proportions that has been accepted by many institutions, organizations and individuals in our culture, even by those in the “Christian church” and even by many apparently “born-again Christians” (1). Therefore, it is necessary to examine carefully the facts concerning the origins and development of homosexuality to see if there is any truth at all to the “born gay” claim. Most of the relevant information can be grouped into three main categories: biological theories, cultural influences, and social and environmental influences. The critical question is whether homosexuality is already determined at birth by biological factors and is immutable (unchangeable), or develops later as a result of post-natal experiences and influences, and is fluid (changeable). As you will see, the evidence strongly supports the view that homosexuality develops primarily as a result of post-natal experiences and influences, and is fluid (changeable); all pre-natal influences combined (including genetics, epi-genetics and hormones) have, at most, a weak and non-determinative role.

Biological Theories of Homosexuality

This research has focused primarily on possible genetic contributions to the development of homosexuality, but other potential biological factors, such as epi-genetics and pre-natal hormones, have received considerable attention as well and remain viable theories.

Gay Gene(s) Theory. Let’s first take a look at evidence for genetic causation of homosexuality. In this regard, it is important to note at the outset that if homosexuality were genetically determined (as opposed to merely being genetically influenced), it most likely would have been bred out of existence in only several generations. It would not exist today because homosexual behavior is a seriously deleterious trait that does not produce offspring.

According to the gene theory of homosexuality, male homosexuals have inherited one or more genes that predispose them to develop homosexuality later in life. Research in the early 1990s suggested the existence of “gay genes” in male homosexuals (31), but these results were not confirmed by other researchers attempting to duplicate the results (35). More powerful and sensitive approaches to finding gay genes have been developed since the 1990s and applied to the entire DNA compliment from large numbers of gay men. Again, different results were obtained by different researchers, some finding region(s) of human DNA that were linked specifically to male homosexuality (33), while others found no such linkages at all (34). Any one gene that would act so strongly as to determine homosexuality would have shown up in all of these newer analyses; thus, there is no single, determinant “gay gene” per se. But, it does appear that there may be several genes that each has a minor and indirect influence on the development of male homosexuality. Thus, it is now well documented that specific genes, although they may have an influence, do not determine (i.e., dictate) male sexual orientation (15,16,17). To date, there have been no reports of the existence of gay genes in lesbians.

Hormone theory: This theory postulates that atypical levels of prenatal steroids, such as testosterone, cause changes in the unborn child (e.g., changes in brain structure) that lead to the development of homosexuality later in life. According to this theory, during a critical stage of fetal development, exposure of a male fetus to a high level of testosterone would lead to typical heterosexual orientation, whereas exposure to a sufficiently lower level would lead to homosexuality. Female fetuses exposed to a high level of testosterone would later develop into lesbians (28). Support for this theory comes primarily from indirect evidence derived from animal studies, speculation based on hormone effects on other aspects of sexual differentiation in humans, brain studies that fail to show any significant changes in brain structure before the ages of 8-11 years old (32) and clinical conditions with significant prenatal hormone changes that are associated with increased incidences of homosexuality. Balthazart (28) concludes that “…this theory remains speculative (and is likely to remain unproven…)” due to the logistical and ethical impossibilities of conducting the necessary experiments on humans, as has been done in animals. Nonetheless, the theory does have merit, and hormones may very well have a minor influence on the development of homosexuality, perhaps in the 16%-27% range (39).

Epigenetics Theory: Epigenetics is a relatively new and vigorously investigated field of biological science that deals with the regulation of gene expression (production of proteins) in cells. The components of chromosomes that regulate genes are called “epi-marks.” These include such things as methylated DNA and variously modified histone proteins, but does not include changes in the DNA sequences themselves that code for specific proteins.

In 2012, Rice et al. (36) published a review article presenting a speculative and hypothetical model (theory) to explain the development of homosexuality in both male and female homosexuals. Their goal was to develop a model that would explain why 1) molecular studies have failed to conclusively identify “gay genes” and 2) concordance for homosexuality between identical twins is low (see following sections). The theory draws on research supporting the “hormone theory” (see above) as well as known properties and functions of epi-marks. The model would explain homosexuality on the basis of epi-mark-controlled prenatal testosterone (a sex hormone) levels, to the virtual exclusion of a role for either a strictly genetic influence or post-natal environmental influences.

Normally, epi-marks regulating sexual orientation are “erased” after they have produced the intended sexual development (i.e., heterosexual males and females). But, occasionally, a mistake is made, and the epi-mark is not erased but is, instead, passed on to the next generation. According to the model, when this mistake is made, epi-mark regulated testosterone overexposure in a female fetus would result in a masculinized female who will prefer females (a lesbian), whereas epi-mark regulated testosterone underexposure in a male fetus would result in a feminized male who will prefer males (a gay). The low concordance in twin studies would be explained not by a low-level genetic influence, as is usually assumed, but by the occasional passing of testosterone-enhancing epi-marks from father to daughter (creating a lesbian) and of testosterone-limiting epi-marks from mother to son (creating a gay man).

It is interesting to note that this model posits homosexuality as an aberrant accident of nature, in which normal prenatal development of a fetus produces the intended effect (heterosexuality), and abnormal prenatal development produces an unintended effect (homosexuality) by mistake. Abnormal prenatal development results when a mistake is made and an epi-mark in a parent is not erased, but is, instead, passed on to the offspring, where its effect (homosexuality) is seen in the subsequent generation. Thus, according to this theory, homosexuality is a mistake of nature.

Although this model is highly speculative and presently has very little, if any, direct experimental support, it does have merit as a scientific hypothesis, because 1) it would explain both male and female homosexuality, 2) it could explain the low concordance for homosexuality found in twin studies, 3) it seems to provide a feasible explanation for the long-term survival of a reproductively deleterious trait in the human population, and 4) it is, at least to some extent, testable. Only further research will determine whether or not this theory will join the many previous theories purporting to represent an almost exclusive influence on the development of homosexuality, all of which have failed.

Twin Studies Overview: As indicated above, most of the more recent research has focused on the degree to which genes, along with other prenatal factors such as hormones and epi-genetics, may influence the development of homosexuality. In this regard, the most conclusive and telling results have come from studies of “identical” twins (who both have virtually the exact same complement of genes). Although it is commonly assumed that twin studies reveal the influence of genes per se on a trait or behavior, the results of such studies have the unique advantage of reflecting, in fact, the combined influence of all possible, pre-natal, biological factors (e.g., genetics, epi-genetics, hormones, etc.) on the development of homosexuality in adults (8). The design of research studies using identical twins has improved greatly since the mid-1990s, with the advent of large, twin registries which can afford much larger data bases and less biased sampling procedures. The former approach of recruiting identical twins via advertisements in gay and lesbian publications is now known to have a very strong “volunteer effect” that produced the appearance of relatively large genetic effects (8). Nevertheless, even with the use of large twin registries, the number of twin pairs found with homosexuality is often very small in individual studies (e.g., 2-4 concordant pairs with 9-16 discordant pairs). Such a low number of twin pairs with homosexuality yields a standard deviation that is greater than the calculated genetic effect, meaning that the results are not statistically different from zero. In other words, the genetic influence or contribution in several of these studies may actually be zero, making definitive conclusions impossible. Whitehead and Whitehead (8) have presented and discussed, in some detail, these and other problems inherent in twin studies of homosexuality and have presented reasons to expect that the genetic influence on, or contribution to, homosexuality will eventually be agreed to be in the 10%-15% range (i.e., weak). One reason for this (anticipated) lower actual genetic influence is that epi-genetic effects operating through identical twins sharing one placenta may represent about 15% of the total influence attributed to genetics in published twin studies (8). Another reason has to do with the predominant influence of post-natal environmental factors on the development of homosexuality (see below). Schumm (26) found that children with homosexual parents are 12-15 times more likely than children of heterosexual parents to be homosexual as adults. This is the strongest environmental influence ever reported for the development of homosexuality, and it involves very close family members, the parent-child relationship. Identical twins share a common bond and common experiences more so than do other siblings, including non-identical twins; siblings can’t be any closer than that. The results of a study by King and McDonald (44) illustrate how such a close, family relationship could inflate the calculated genetic influence on homosexuality in identical twin studies. They studied 46 twin pairs having homosexuality present in one or both of the twins in each pair and found that 54% of the twin pairs had discussed their sexual orientation with each other, 89% had “shared knowledge” of each other’s sexual orientation, and 30% of these twin pairs had actually had sex with each other. Because identical twins identify so closely with each other, and post-natal experiences  – especially close family relationships – strongly affect the development of homosexuality, it seems plausible, if not likely, that  a homosexual member of a twin pair would influence the other member of that pair to embrace and explore homosexuality also, thus inflating the apparent genetic influence reported in identical twin studies. That is to say, a significant portion of what may appear, in identical twin studies, to be a genetic influence on the development of homosexuality may turn out to be, instead, a post-natal, environmental influence involving shared knowledge of sexual orientation and shared sexual experiences within identical twin pairs.

Twin Concordance studies: The “pair-wise concordance” answers the simple question, “Where one twin of an identical pair is homosexual, what percentage of co-twins is also homosexual”. The formula for pair-wise concordance of identical twins is C/C+D, where C is the number of concordant (similar) twin pairs and D is the number of discordant (dissimilar) twin pairs found in the study. For example, if C=1 and D=9, then the pair-wise concordance would be 1/1+9=1/10 or 10%. This result would indicate that for every twin pair with both members being homosexual, there are 9 twin pairs with only one homosexual member.

Using data provided in several reports of large, twin registry studies in different countries, I performed a meta-analysis and calculated the range of pair-wise concordance to be 9.9% to 31.6%, with the average being 13.0% for males, 13.3% for females, and 13.2% when the raw data for males and females were combined. These pair-wise concordance values indicate that for every twin pair with both members being homosexual, there are 7 twin pairs with only one homosexual member. Now, compare this result to the range of theoretically possible outcomes where no twin pairs would both be homosexual (= 0%) and where all twin pairs would both be homosexual (= 100%) and you can see, intuitively, that a pair-wise concordance of only 13.2% would indicate a real, but relatively minor, contribution of genetics to homosexuality. This minor role is similar to the estimated level of genetic contribution to virtually any kind of human behavior (11) and is known to be non-determinative and, in many cases, treatable by therapy and/or counseling. For instance, the best example to date of a genetically related behavior (mono-amine oxidase deficiency leading to aggressive behavior) has shown itself remarkably responsive to counseling (11). Therefore, on the basis of pair-wise concordance in identical twins, it seems appropriate to conclude that there is, at the most, only a minor genetic contribution to the development of homosexuality, and that this relatively minor influence can be overcome (i.e., nullified) through behavioral therapy (8), which we know to be a fact (10, 19).

The other measure of concordance in twin studies is “proband-wise” concordance. This estimate of concordance is necessary in order to use both identical and fraternal twins in a study to disentangle the relative contributions of genetics and environment to homosexuality. The formula used is 2C/2C+D, which, compared to the formula for pair-wise concordance, gives much more weight to the individual twins (probands). The effect is to greatly increase, relative to pair-wise concordance values, the apparent genetic contribution to homosexuality in identical twin studies. To illustrate this point, if we use the example given above where the pair-wise concordance calculates to be 1/10 = 10.0%, the proband-wise concordance calculates to be 2/11 = 18.2%. Although it is less intuitive, proband-wise concordance is generally recognized to give a better overall estimate of “genetic influence” than does pair-wise concordance.

Classical Twin Studies: While pair-wise concordance gives an intuitive indication of the genetic influence on homosexuality as expressed in identical twins, it does not provide information on what factors may provide the remaining, non-genetic influence. To answer this question, researchers are using other measures, broader-ranging questionnaires and more sophisticated statistical procedures to evaluate other such things as heritability, additive genetic effects and postnatal environmental influences. In order to be able to put the results of classical twin studies into perspective, it is important to keep in mind that, by convention in the twin study literature, a genetic contribution of around 25% is considered weak, of around 50% is considered moderate and of 75% or more is considered strong (18).

In a meta-analysis, Whitehead (18), using the results from seven of the recent twin registry studies that were designed to reveal contributions of both genetic and non-genetic factors to homosexuality, found that the mean contribution of genetics to male homosexuality was around 22%, and to female homosexuality, around 33%. Because of the relatively large standard deviations in the data, these two values were not statistically different from each other.  Thus, the genetic contribution to male homosexuality in these studies is weak and to female homosexuality is weak to moderate (at most). Such levels of genetic contribution indicate a real but weak to moderate and indeterminate role of genetics in the development of homosexuality. For comparison, other traits that have around 50% (moderate and indeterminate) genetic contribution in twin studies include such things as divorce and alcoholism, while puberty has a 90% (strong and determinate) genetic contribution (8). Furthermore, the non-shared, post-natal environmental contribution to homosexuality is moderate to strong, around 64%-78%, has a relatively small standard deviation and is consistently around the same percentage (18), indicating that homosexuality is influenced primarily by post-natal environmental factors and experiences that are not directly related to prenatal contributions of any kind or combination.

The recent study by Zietsch, et al. (41) can be used to illustrate representative research results obtained with large samples from twin registries. They used a very large sample (9,884) of twins from the Australian Twin Registry, one of the largest samples to date for twin studies of homosexuality. In this sample, there were 1,840 identical twin pairs (1,133 female and 707 male). Their calculated value of only 24% for the proband-wise concordance for homosexuality indicates a weak genetic influence. Moreover, their calculated figure of 31% for heritability of homosexuality also indicates a weak genetic component. This leaves around 68% of the variance represented by post-natal, “shared environment” and “residual” environmental influences combined.

[For a much more detailed and comprehensive treatment of “twin studies”, see Whitehead and Whitehead (8).]

In view of the fact that twin studies have shown that the combined influence of all possible, pre-natal, biological factors (e.g., genetics, epi-genetics, hormones, etc.) on the development of homosexuality in adults is only weak to moderate, it is important to understand that all of the biological theories discussed above can address only this weak to moderate influence, while ignoring the far more important post-natal influences (discussed below). Furthermore, these results clearly support the inference, based on results obtained through therapy and counseling (14, 20, 21, 22), that post-natal, environmental influences have a far greater role in the development of homosexuality than do pre-natal influences. So what are some of these post-natal influences that, together, could account for two-thirds or more of the total influence on the development of homosexuality?

Cultural Influences

There are several kinds of cultural evidence indicating that homosexuality is not genetically determined, but is, instead, strongly influenced by post-natal events and influences. This evidence was reviewed by Whitehead and Whitehead (4), and I will mention some of the highlights here. If causation of homosexuality were to be genetically determined, then it would appear in about the same percentage in all cultures, but this is clearly not the case. The prevalence of homosexuality has varied considerably in different cultures. For example, Ford and Beach (23) found that in the 79 cultures they surveyed, homosexuality was rare or absent in 29 and lesbianism was found in only 17. Homosexuality is also historically and exceptionally rare in Orthodox Jews. And among the genetically related tribes of the New Guinea Highlands, homosexuality was mandatory among one tribe, practiced by 2-3% of a second tribe and completely unheard of in a third tribe. A significant number of cultures appear not to have practiced homosexuality at all. Moreover, if causation of homosexuality were to be genetically determined, then its occurrence in any given culture would be stable over very long periods of time (e.g., 1,000 years or more), but in some cultures, homosexuality disappeared within several generations. Anthropologists attribute many such sudden changes to Christian influences, which represent a set of post-natal, non-biological, cultural factors.

Two original scientific studies merit particular mention in this regard. Broude and Greene (42) used the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample of 186 societies representing different and independent culture clusters within major areas of the world. This data base is considered to be the best representative sample of world cultures. They found that 12% of these cultures had “No concept of homosexuality.” Moreover, in 59% of these cultures, homosexuality was “Absent or rare.” A necessary conclusion from these results is that homosexuality does not exist in many of the cultures of the world. More recently, Hewlett and Hewlett (43) interviewed 35 members of an Aka forager band and 21 members of a Ngandu farmer village of the Central African Republic. The Aka had no concept of homosexuality; it was absent from their culture. The Ngandu were familiar with the concept of homosexuality from visits by some members to the capitol city, but they had no word for it; it was absent in and around their village. From a review of the literature, these authors concluded that the Euro-American human sexuality literature gives the false impression that homosexuality is a human universality. Whereas, in fact, the Euro-American patterns of homosexuality are quite unusual by cross-cultural standards; homosexuality is more common in this demographic than it is elsewhere. By contrast, sexual practices of the Aka and Ngandu are not unusual by cross-cultural standards.

Sorba (15) has documented numerous examples of adult celebrities and homosexuality advocates who have spontaneously changed from homosexual to heterosexual. Furthermore, at least six specific examples of adults who changed sexual orientation spontaneously, without therapy or counseling, have been documented by NARTH (24).

Homosexuality does not conform to any genetically prescribed model, but does appear to have an overwhelmingly cultural component, ebbing and flowing with changes in cultural values and expectations and with personal experiences (4).

Social and Environmental Influences

In addition to the cultural influences on the development and practice of homosexuality mentioned above, there are several other social and experiential factors that have been shown to have an important role. Let’s take a quick look at a few of these factors.

Childhood sexual abuse has been shown to be associated with the subsequent development of homosexuality in adulthood. Whitehead (40) lists eight relatively recent studies demonstrating this association. For example, in the article by Zeitsch, et al. (41), childhood sexual abuse was associated with an approximately two to three-fold increase in homosexuality in adulthood. According also to Mayer and McHugh (ref), it is well documented that the development of homosexuality is strongly correlated with childhood sexual abuse. Moreover, in a longitudinal study by Wilson and Widom, it was found that those who were sexually abused in childhood were 2.8 times more likely to develop same-sex relationships as adults than were those who were not sexually abused. Thus, these results are in close agreement with those of Zeitsch, et al. (41).

Divorce during childhood has also been shown to be associated with the development of homosexuality in adulthood, as evidenced by homosexual “marriage.” For example, men whose parents divorced before their sixth birthday were 39% more likely to “marry” homosexually than peers from intact parental marriages, and the figure for men whose cohabitation with both parents ended before age 18 years was in the range of 55%-76% (30). In a related study, Wells, et al., (37) found that cohabiting with two heterosexual, non-biological parents until the age of 16 was associated with a two-fold increase in homosexuality in adulthood, compared to cohabiting with both biological parents.

Urban versus rural environment. Whitehead and Whitehead (25) pointed out that the percentage of homosexuality in males reared in urban environments is 3.3 times that of males reared in rural environments, while the corresponding factor for homosexuality in females is 2.3 times, indicating a very strong influence of the urban environment on the development of homosexuality.

Homosexual parents. Schumm (26) found that adults with a homosexual parent are 12 to 15 times as likely to self-identify as homosexual or bisexual as are adults without a homosexual parent, which indicates that post-natal environmental factors associated with having a homosexual parent (such as having a homosexual adult role model and unequivocal acceptance of homosexuality) can play a major role in the development of a homosexual orientation. These results confirmed those of an earlier, much aligned, meta-analysis conducted by Cameron (29), and they suggest a very powerful post-natal influence on the development of homosexuality.

Therapy and Counseling Influences. Aist (19) reviewed and summarized some of the published information on religiously mediated and secularly mediated change in sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Numerous studies have shown that both religiously and secularly mediated change in sexual orientation occurs in highly motivated, dissatisfied homosexuals at a rate that is comparable to the success rates generally achieved by therapists and counselors for psychological disorders and behavioral problems, such as alcoholism. And many studies have found that, for the most part, these are long-term, stable shifts in sexual orientation. In fact, many ex-gays have been happily married with children for several-to-many years. What is the significance of these results relative to the claim that homosexual people are born gay? First, they confirm that pre-natal influences, including genes, do not dictate sexual orientation, because very significant change in sexual orientation has been achieved through therapy and counseling. Such change would not be possible if sexual orientation were fixed at birth. And second, the fact that therapy and counseling are successful at a rate that is comparable to the success rates generally achieved by therapists and counselors for psychological disorders and behavioral problems, such as alcoholism, confirms that any predisposition to homosexuality that may be present at birth is so weak that it can be nullified by subsequent intervention. Socarides (14) put it this way: “As psychoanalysts and psychotherapists, we are treating obligatory homosexuality successfully, changing sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Such a change would be unthinkable if there were any truth at all to the organic or biological or hereditary causation of homosexuality.”

It is virtually impossible to envision how prenatal mechanisms could explain these post-natal associations of increased or decreased homosexuality with social, cultural and experiential factors. But it is easy to envision how these social, cultural and experiential factors could account for the two-thirds or more of post-natal influence on homosexuality that is revealed by the results of twin studies.

Path analysis. A re-interpretation of results obtained using a research technique called “path analysis” has also indicated that post-natal social factors do, in fact, strongly influence the development of homosexuality (9). Two of these studies produced similar results and were found to lend good support to the idea of a constellation of environmental factors influencing the development of homosexuality, rather than biological factors. In these studies, environmental factors accounted for 38% of female homosexuality and 76-78% of male homosexuality. A third study, using a variation on the path analysis approach, showed that one post-natal social factor, gender non-conformity during childhood and adolescence (e.g., sissy-ness or tomboyish-ness), is about 10 times stronger than genetic factors in “predicting” the development of homosexuality later in life. However, whether this type of behavior is a cause of adult homosexuality or a result of (nascent) homosexuality is unclear.

The Role of Choice in Homosexuality

There seems to be some consensus that homosexual people do not choose to have the same-sex attractions and sexual feelings that they experience initially, but that doesn’t mean that living a homosexual life-style does not involve choices. Once that first same-sex sexual attraction is encountered, there is a choice as to whether or not to act on it (either through fantasies or sexual encounters), and the same choice is made every time that attraction is experienced. Bi-sexual people make a choice every time they engage in homosexual sex rather than heterosexual sex. Heterosexual people who are married with children and then forsake their marriage for a homosexual relationship have made a choice to do so. And the fluidity in sexual orientation, found especially in lesbians but also in gays, speaks to the choice of sexual orientation available to many, if not most, homosexual people, at least until their late teens (10).

Models for the Development of Sexual Orientation

Since pre-natal factors apparently have relatively little to do with the development of homosexuality, how, then, can we correctly envision the development of homosexual orientation? Psychologists tell us that the years 0-4 are the most important in terms of a human being’s intellectual and emotional development. Thus, there is plenty of time for a person’s sexual orientation to be influenced by environmental factors before they first experience sexual attractions.

Let‘s first consider the development of heterosexual orientation. Psychologists are unanimous in their belief that heterosexuality is environmentally, not genetically, determined (3). No one appears to be born heterosexual. Rather, heterosexual attraction is learned, developing over a period of time in response to certain environmental factors, in particular:

• Good maternal nurture from the earliest stages and through the first few years

• Identification with and imitation of the parent of the same sex

• Acceptance by and identification with same-sex peer groups

• Identification in a boy with what is culturally “masculine” and in a girl with what is culturally “feminine” (this is called “gender conformity”).

• The day-in-day-out treatment of boys and girl, as boys or girls, respectively

• The biologically programmed hormonal rush of puberty

• Falling in love

• Culturally prescribed sexual behaviors, such as arousal over women’s breasts.

• Personal sexual preferences and behaviors that can be traced back to early sexual arousal in unique circumstances.

It is believed that, for a variety of reasons, homosexuality develops when the normal pattern of heterosexual development is not followed. Reasons include sexual abuse (by men), and a variety of ruptures with same-sex role models. Sometimes this is the father or mother, sometimes peers, probably including siblings. Quite a common consequence is being or feeling less masculine (males) or feminine (females) than others in the same-sex peer group. This can lead to rejection by peers (even other peers who are homosexual) leading to feelings of being different, gender non-conformity and a growing drive to make up the sensed deficit through a strong connection with an individual of the same sex, which becomes eroticized and then manifested as homosexual behavior (3).

Once the pattern of sexual gratification starts, a habit begins, becomes ingrained, and then often addictive. When the process gets to this point, it is very difficult, but not impossible, to effect a change in sexual orientation because the desire for homosexual gratification has become ingrained and extremely powerful. (It is important to note that one gets oneself into this condition through a series of personal choices and decisions made repeatedly over a long period of time; it is not imposed upon him/her by any biological factors, including genes.) It should not be surprising, therefore, that it will take a series of very difficult personal choices and decisions made repeatedly over a long period of time to achieve a reversal of homosexual orientation and/or behavior, but it is possible; many exclusively homosexual people have managed to do so (10, 19).

Homosexual Orientation Is Not from God!

Some homosexuality advocates claim that homosexual people are not only born gay, but that God created them that way (with same-sex attractions). However, such a claim is diametrically opposed to the biblical witness; there are scriptural proofs that God is not the source of the same-sex attractions and desires that homosexual people experience. Firstly, the Bible clearly and consistently condemns homosexual behavior as sin (Genesis 19:5 with Jude 1:7; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9-10; and I Timothy 1:10). Now, if God himself were to instill same-sex attractions and desires into homosexual people, then, by doing so, He would be tempting them to sin sexually. However, the Bible also states, emphatically, that God does not tempt anyone to sin (James 1:13-14). The necessary conclusion is that the God of the Bible would not create anyone homosexual, because to do so would violate His very nature and character, which is to hate sin. And secondly, after God had created Adam and Eve as heterosexual people, the Bible says that “God saw all that he made, and it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). “All that He had made” could not have included homosexuality, because the Bible clearly and consistently condemns homosexual behavior as evil, not good. And that — the creation of Adam and Eve –- was “the last of the work of creation that God was doing” (Genesis 2:2). It follows, then, that God not only would not, but also did not, create anyone homosexual. Homosexuality must have first appeared at some later time, after God had finished creating.

Since same-sex attractions and desires do not come from God, where do they come from? The Bible says that sin entered the world through the “original sin” of Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:1-19) after the last of the work of creation that God was doing (Genesis 2:2), and that “each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed” (James 1:14). Thus, same-sex sexual attraction (i.e., homosexuality) is a result of sin entering the world through the disobedience of Adam.

Moreover, since God does not put the same-sex urges into homosexual people, it follows that such urges do not constitute a valid argument that God approves of their volitional consequences, namely, homosexual acts. Rather, God’s moral laws were given to communicate the sinfulness of our urges (e.g., lying, stealing, vengeance, adultery, fornication, and homosexual sex) that are opposed to His will.

Summary and Conclusions

There is nothing fixed or final about the homosexual orientation and its natural expression, homosexual behavior. No politician, church leader or member, judge, teacher or counselor, or homosexual person, or friend or family of a homosexual person, needs to feel forced into a position on homosexuality based on the apparent immutability of homosexual orientation. Homosexuality is not inborn, not genetically dictated; nor for that matter is heterosexuality or any other human behavior. In fact, our genes do not make us do anything. Whether it’s homosexuality, a foul temper, bed-wetting or addiction to chocolate, our genes have relatively little to do with it. The level of genetic influence could easily be as low as 10%, with the balance of 90% coming from post-natal cultural, social and environmental influences. And that 10% is not a direct genetic influence on homosexual orientation; it is a direct influence on a separate trait that can predispose toward homosexual orientation. Every human being has a 10% genetic influence on behavior of any kind, and that minimal genetic influence drops commensurately with whatever environmental interventions (e.g., cultural influences, social factors, personal experiences and/or therapy and counseling) of an opposing kind are brought to bear upon it (1).

So, the next time a homosexuality advocate tries to convince you that homosexual people are born gay, that God made them that way, that their homosexuality is “natural” and/or that their homosexual orientation cannot change, do not believe them. They are trying to get you to believe a lie, as the evidence clearly shows.

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)

References Cited

1. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2016. Introduction. (click HERE)

2. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2016. Chapter 1. Can genes create sexual preference? (click HERE)

3. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2016. Chapter 3. Are heterosexuals born that way? (click HERE)

4. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2016. Chapter 6. What do different cultures tell us about homosexuality? (click HERE)

5. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2016. Chapter 7. Pre-natal hormones? Stress? Immune attack? (click HERE)

6. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2016. Chapter 8. Are brains gay? (click HERE)

7. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2016. Chapter 9. The “discovery” of the “gay gene”. (click HERE)

8. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2016. Chapter 10. Twin studies: The strongest evidence. (click HERE)

9. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2016. Chapter 11. Path analysis – social factors do lead to homosexuality. (click HERE)

10. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2016. Chapter 12. Can sexual orientation change? (click HERE)

11. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2016. Summary. (click HERE)

13. Socarides, C.W. 1995a. A Freedom Too Far. Adam Margrave Books, Phoenix, AZ. pp.149-150.

14. Socarides, C.W. 1995b. Exploding the myth of constitutional homosexuality. Narth Bulletin, Vol. III, Number 2, pages 17-18.

15. Sorba, R. 2007. The Born Gay Hoax. (click HERE)

16. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2016. My Genes Made Me Do It! – Homosexuality and the scientific evidence. (click HERE)

17. Deem, R. 2012. Genetics and Homosexuality: Are People Born Gay? The Biological Basis for Sexual Orientation. (click HERE)

18. Whitehead, N.E. 2011. Neither Genes nor Choice: Same-sex Attraction is Mostly a Unique Reaction to Environmental Factors. Journal of Human Sexuality 3:81-114. (click HERE)

19. Aist, J. 2012. Homosexuality: Good News! (click HERE)

20. Masters, W. H. & V. E. Johnson. 1979. Homosexuality in Perspective. Little, Brown & Co., Boston.

21. Nicolosi, J. 1991. Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality. Jason Aronson Inc., Northvale, NJ.

22. Siegel, E. V. 1988. Female Homosexuality. Choice without Volition. The Analytical Press, Hillsdale, NJ.

23. Ford, C. and F. Beach. 1951. Patterns of Sexual Behaviour. Harper & Brothers, New York.

24. NARTH, 2012. 7) Spontaneous or Adventitious Change of Sexual Orientation. (click HERE)

25. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2016. Chapter 2. Homosexual numbers show that nurture prevails. (click HERE)

26. Schumm, W. 2010. Children of Homosexuals More Apt to be homosexuals? A Reply to Morrison and to Cameron Based on an Examination of Multiple Sources of Data. Journal of Biosocial Science 42:721-742.

27. Tahir, I. jaz. HOMOSEXUALITY – An Analysis of Biological Theories of Causation. (click HERE)

28. Balthazart, J. 2011. Minireview: Hormones and Human Sexual Orientation. Endocrinology 152:2937-2947.

29. Cameron, P. 2006. Children of homosexuals and transsexuals more apt to be homosexual. Journal of Biosocial Science 38:413-418.

30. Frisch, M. and A. Hviid. 2006. Childhood Family Correlates of Heterosexual and Homosexual Marriages: A National Cohort Study of Two Million Danes. Archives of Sexual Behavior 35:533-547.

31. Hamer, D., et al. 1993. A Linkage Between DNS Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation. Science 261:321-327.

32. Lombardo, M., et al. 2012. Fetal Testosterone Influences Sexually Dimorphic Gray Matter in the Human Brain. Journal of Neuroscience 32:674-680.

33. Mustanski, B., et al. 2005. A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation. Human Genetics 116:272-278.

34. Ramagopalan, S., et al. 2010. A genome-wide scan of male sexual orientation. Journal of Human Genetics 55:131-132.

35. Rice, G., et al. 1999. Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28. Science 284:665-667.

36. Rice, G., et al. 2012. Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development. Quarterly Review of Biology 87:343-368.

37. Wells, J.E., et al. 2011. Multiple Aspects of Sexual Orientation: Prevalence and Sociodemographic Correlates in a New Zealand National Survey. Archives of Sexual Behavior 40:155-168.

39. Whitehead, N. 2012. Prenatal Hormones Play Only a Minor Role in Making Anyone Gay, Straight or Transgender. (click HERE)

40. Whitehead, N. 2012. Book Review of Simon LeVay’s Gay, Straight and the Reason Why. (click HERE)

41. Zietsch, B., et al. 2012. Do Shared Etiological Factors Contribute to the Relationship between Sexual Orientation and Depression? Psychological Medicine 42:521-532. (click HERE)

42. Broude, G. and S. Greene. 1976. Cross-Cultural Codes on Twenty Sexual attitudes and Practices. Ethnology 15:409-430.

43. Hewlett, B. and B. Hewlett. 2010. Sex and Searching For Children Among Aka Foragers and Ngandu Farmers of Central Africa. African Study Monographs 31:107-125.

44. King, M., and E. McDonald. 1992. Homosexuals who are Twins. British Journal of Psychiatry 160: 407-409.

45. Mayer, L. and P. McHugh. 2016. Sexuality and Gender. The New Atlantis Special Report (Click HERE)