Sexuality & Orientation: A question.

[marketandchurch]

This is a question I am very curious about, vis-a-vis the Christian/Muslim/Jew crowd. But atheists are welcome to chime in as well. Do you think sexuality is fixed?

If you think sexuality is fixed, what is your own personal explanation for the existence of other sexualities? Are there several possibilities vis-a-vis orientation, for the human creature? And by fixed nature, what do you believe is the strength of that rigidity?

Do you think it is somewhat of a spectrum wherein there are most of us, who have a fixed heterosexual orientation, a small group who have a fixed homosexual orientation, and an even tinier portion who are "confused," have multiple sexual identities, or no sexual identity at all?

In other words, please explain your view of the matter in full, and I would love to just get a cross-section of where Christians/Muslim/Jew are on the matter. It is incredibly helpful, because the premise we hold will frame the way we approach the issue of same-sex marriage.

Feel free to expand this to the greater Gay-Marriage debate if you wish, so long as it relates to gender, sexual orientation, and its affects on the society at large.

[bluethread]

Again, there is no record of Yeshua having a "drinking problem". Also, He did deny having one in the same way you denied having sex with animals, by calling the accusation it childish. The Scriptures also do not say do not state that they do not directly address female homosexuality because " it doesn't involve sexual penetration or violation of property rights of men". If you are going to insist that all of my points be supported by direct literal references from the Scriptures, you need to do the same.

Nonsense, there is no mention of female homosexuality at all in the bible; period. And the obvious reason is that female homosexuality does not involve sexual penetration or exchange of body fluids or violation of property rights of men, given that the bible was written by men, for men only, and about men's business, where women were regarded as the subservient property of men.

There is also no mention of necrophilia at all in the Scriptures; period. The reasoning you present may be "obvious" to you, but if the Scriptures are about men's property rights and they treat women as subservient property of men, how is it that Leah was able to demand sex from Yacov, because she purchased him from Rachel with her son's mandrakes? Sounds like Yacov was their property and not the other way around.

Are you suggesting that the writers of Matt 11:19 & Luke 7:34 were telling porkies about Jesus' observed drinking behavior. If so, why would they bother to write those verses in the first place, and why didn't they refute those observations, and why didn't Jesus speak out against drunkenness as Mahomet and Paul did, given that drunkenness is involved in other unacceptable behavior, such as adultery etc about which Jesus spoke? Alas, you are just blowing in the wind in trying to pretend that the bible doesn't mention Jesus' observed drinking patterns. Even his first "miracle" describes how he hid the good grog until after the drunken wedding sots had passed out (John 2:1-12). It is clear that Jesus certainly wasn't a teetotaller as some wowsers mistakenly suggest. Indeed, even at his last meal he was into the booze.

Yes, Yeshua drank wine, but their is no record He had a drinking problem. You are ignoring the fact it says in those verses, "they say" and "you say" and that he begins by comparing these accusations to childish behavior, kind of like the references to you loving dogs and cats. Isn't calling something childish a refutation, or were you not refuting the accusation that you make love to dogs when you called that childish? Yeshua did not speak out against drunkenness because it is seen as unwise behavior in the Tanakh. There is no direct commandment against it in HaTorah. There is a direct commandment against adultery. If you will notice, he was not hiding anything at the wedding in Cana. He asked the servants to fill pitchers with water and then after he did a b'ruchah it was turned into good wine. Are you saying that all brewers and vintiners are drunks? Finally, the Seder includes the drinking of wine, but that does not mean that Pesach is a drunken party. This guilt by association and accusation on your part is shameless.

[mitty]

[Replying to post 329 by bluethread] I disagree. Even though the word "necrophilia" isn't mentioned, that is clearly covered in how dead bodies are to be treated. And the word "homosexuality" isn't mentioned either, but if female homosexuality was relevant or naughty, then the biblical writers of Leviticus 18:22 would have simply added "....Likewise a woman shalt not lie with womankind, as with mankind; it is abomination (or even confusion)" as they did with the next verse about bestiality. Or they could have even added another verse. Unfortunately to support your prejudices, they didn't, as they didn't elsewhere in the bible.

Oh come on, you're just blowing in the wind now. Are you seriously suggesting that Jesus waved a magic wand and water magically turned into wine. John 2:9 clearly says that the servants were in the know about how he pulled off the conjuring trick, and how he hid the good grog until after the sots were drunk and who wouldn't know a burgundy from a claret anyway. As I informed another poster, the word "divine" means magic. Personally, I gave up believing in Santa and the tooth fairy and other fantasies, including biblical ones, many decades ago.

Whilst you may be able to point to the odd case in the bible, the overall theme of the bible is that it was a collection of books written by men, for men, about men's business where women were the subservient property and responsibility of men. Even our custom of a father giving his daughter to her husband at a wedding is a quaint carry-over of that ownership and domination of women by men (Gen 3:16).

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 329 by bluethread]

Oh come on, you're just blowing in the wind now. Are you seriously suggesting that Jesus waved a magic wand and water magically turned into wine. John 2:9 says that the servants were in the know about how he pulled off the conjuring trick and how he hid the good grog until after the sots were drunk. As I informed another poster, the word "divine" means magic.

Please provide some specifics from the passage. Where is the word "devine". What the servants know is that they were told to draw water. If they pulled out hidden wine, they were disobeying Yeshua. Also, Yeshua protested when He was asked to do something about the wine, because it wasn't the right time to reveal his status as a prophet.

Whilst you may be able to point to the odd case in the bible, the overall theme of the bible is that it was a collection of books written by men, for men, about men's business where women were the subservient property and responsibility of men. Even our custom of a father giving his daughter to her husband at a wedding is a quaint carry-over of that ownership and domination of women by men (Gen 3:16).

While you may spin yarns and make wild assumptions, rabbinic tradition tells us that there is no requirement of a woman to provide sex to her husband, but there is such a requirement of a husband to provide sex to his wife. The odd cases count. Unlike your methods of exegesis, my exegesis is based on history, grammar and culture, not my desired outcome.

[mitty]

[Replying to post 331 by bluethread] True, the word "divine" or "conjuring" or "magic" isn't mentioned, but all those stories have a realistic explanation before resorting to fantasy and stories of magic. If you want to go down that path, Tolkien or Rowling are better reads anyway. For me, the Jesus story talks about behaving decently to others and to accept others and their differences. That message contrasts starkly with Paul's message of miserableness and guilt and hatred.

Wrong, as we all know "the exception proves the rule", and the overall theme of the bible is that it was written by men, for men, about men's business and their property rights including those of their women who were subservient to them. I'm not interested in rabbinic traditions on which sex can use the headache excuse, and I'm sure those traditions are related to menstruation and the oestrus cycle anyway, which is a female domain as I recall.

[mitty]

[Replying to post 331 by bluethread]

The word "mirage" or optical illusion is derived from the same roots as the word "miracle". Clearly John 2:1-10 describes how Jesus hid the good grog in the water jars to avoid those drunks, who couldn't tell a bordeaux from a claret, from just scoffing it down without any appreciation. Any mediocre illusionist could pull that trick off and the servants were well aware of how it was done, vis "When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew)". If a glass was filled with water and tasted, and then Jesus waved his magic wand and chanted abracadabra, and the contents of the glass was then a good wine instead of water, then you may have some evidence to support your conjecture, although any skilled illusionist could easily pull that trick off too. And similarly, you have no evidence to support your conjecture that Jesus didn't have a drinking problem, since the observations recorded in Matt 11:19 and Luke 7:34 provide far more convincing evidence that he regularly drank excessively with publicans and the riff-raff, and that he simply ignored the observations about his behavior as irrelevant.

[East of Eden]

[Replying to post 331 by bluethread]

The word "mirage" or optical illusion is derived from the same roots as the word "miracle". Clearly John 2:1-10 describes how Jesus hid the good grog in the water jars to avoid those drunks, who couldn't tell a bordeaux from a claret, from just scoffing it down without any appreciation. Any mediocre illusionist could pull that trick off and the servants were well aware of how it was done, vis "When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew)". If a glass was filled with water and tasted, and then Jesus waved his magic wand and chanted abracadabra, and the contents of the glass was then a good wine instead of water, then you may have some evidence to support your conjecture, although any skilled illusionist could easily pull that trick off too. And similarly, you have no evidence to support your conjecture that Jesus didn't have a drinking problem, since the observations recorded in Matt 11:19 and Luke 7:34 provide far more convincing evidence that he regularly drank excessively with publicans and the riff-raff, and that he simply ignored the observations about his behavior as irrelevant.

From carm.org:

"It is possible that Jesus switched the water for wine or had some help in doing it.
There is no indication in the account of John that would lead anyone to believe that this was the case. Given that the six jars of wine were very heavy (minimum of 160 pounds each, maximum 240 pounds each), Jesus would have had help to do this. But, if that is so, who was it and why? Did Jesus secretly arrange for a large supply of wine to be delivered to a party long after it had begun? Again, there is no evidence of this.
It is possible that the members of the party were simply mistaken about the wine running out.
This is possible, but we have the wine steward tasting the wine and commenting on how good it is. His speech displays clarity of thought so he was not drunk. Not being drunk, he was easily able to recognize the quality of the new wine. Therefore, it is very unlikely that this was a mistake regarding the water for wine."


When people do tricks today, we recognize it, just as they would have back then.

[mitty]

[Replying to post 334 by East of Eden]

However the trick was done, one thing's for certain is that water wasn't magically transformed into a quality wine.

[mitty]

[Replying to post 334 by East of Eden]

John 2:6-7 says that each of the six water jars contained about 100 litres of water. Are you seriously suggesting that Jesus magically produced 600 litres of quality wine for the benefit of those remaining wedding guests who weren't already drunk from drinking the cheap plonk. And are you suggesting that Jesus and his boosey mates were really going to write themselves off with that 600 litres of grog? If so, no wonder the writers of Matt 11:19 & Luke 7:34 mentioned his observed excessive drinking habits which he didn't refute. And just where did they get that 600 litres of water from to fill the water jars so quickly, or did they simply connect a hose to the town water supply? And if that 600 litres of grog was just to top up what had already been drunk, just how many hundreds of litres of cheap plonk had those drunken wedding guests already consumed? No wonder the writers of John's gospel recorded such a boosey event. And if Jesus was such a magician, why didn't he just wave his magic wand in the first place and change the cheap plonk, already drunk by the drunken wedding guests, into the better quality wine which Jesus and the less drunk wedding guests later drank.

[East of Eden]

[Replying to post 334 by East of Eden]

However the trick was done, one thing's for certain is that water wasn't magically transformed into a quality wine.

And you know that how? IF Jesus really did do that miracle 2,000 years ago, what evidence would you expect to see today other than the testimony of those who were there and the evidence of their changed lives?

It was only a slightly different miracle than how God works today growing grapes and making wine, just faster.

[mitty]

[Replying to post 334 by East of Eden]

However the trick was done, one thing's for certain is that water wasn't magically transformed into a quality wine.

And you know that how? IF Jesus really did do that miracle 2,000 years ago, what evidence would you expect to see today other than the testimony of those who were there and the evidence of their changed lives?

It was only a slightly different miracle than how God works today growing grapes and making wine, just faster.

The only changed lives I can think of, after that obvious conjuring trick of hiding the containers of good wine in the empty water jars, is that they all had super hang-overs in the morning, or even alcoholic poisoning. And perhaps that's one of the reasons his family didn't notice or acknowledge anything extraordinary about him and ignored him (Matt 12:46-50 John 7:5) as he did them (Matt 12:46-50). And I've never seen a god growing grapes or making wine, but I've seen far more convincing conjuring tricks than the good old wine-containers-in-the-water-jars trick although I guess even that can fool some and particularly if they're half drunk already; but the sober waiters weren't fooled (John 2:9).