AssemblyBoard

Have you seen Brokeback Mountain?  If you haven't, I'd highly reccomend it.  This movie brought tears to my eyes.

Yeah, but not really wowed by it. Why didn't they use the Hispanic character that was in Annie Proulx's original story? The acting was good, but Joaquin Pheonix and ...oh...what's his name from Good Night and Good Luck had it way over Heath and Jake. And as in any adulterous movie, I'd like to see someone for once not "do it all for loooove," but be stand up about their lives and keep the vows they made to their spouses. Like in Casablanca. There was a great movie. I think Hollywood was trying too hard with this movie. If you want to see a movie about a gay character from that era see Capote. He  was a real man and was bold if nothing else.

Would you please tell me a little bit about Capote?

Not sure which Capote you want to know about, the man or the movie. The man was a fantastic writer. Like Wilde or Wolfe he was a dandy. Like Wilde he was gay. And if you see the movie, yes he really spoke that way. He was a Southern writer with a penchant for being the darling of the New York literati.

Capote the movie deals with his writing of In Cold Blood. There is a great part in the movie where he pats Nell (Nell Harper Lee who wrote that little book To Kill a Mockingbird) on the head and congratualtes her on finding a publisher in a dismissive way. Later after her book wins the Pulizer and the movie reigns at the Oscars his reaction is even more amusing. It is a great character study. It has some slow parts for people who like explosions in movies, but some very thoughtful moments about when journalism smothers under art. Also it is about the writer and his love of subject. It is so much better than the self-congratulatory Brokeback because it goes deeper. But it has a far more fascinating subject, a man who knew he was a sinner, knew everyone else was a sinner and was a master at self-invention.

I enjoyed Brokeback mountain because it showed the love between two people.  The two people happened to be men.  It's not a question of whether or not it's wrong or right.  It just is...you know?

It's unfortunate that back in the 60's, to love the way Jack and Ennis loved each other could mean beatings or death.  I don't think that's what Jesus intended.

I'm not trying to be snarky here, but it is not real logical to say "it's not about right or wrong" when refering to the love of two people. "It is just...you know" No, I don't really. Real love "rejoices not in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth." There was not a whole lot of truth between these men and their wives. Hollywood can bring in the soft lenses and magnify a moment in time, but real world love is not like that. Real world love must deal with right and wrong. Real lovers must come to terms with the fact that their love effects other people, their families, their village. My girls were watching Titanic and at the end when they were all swoony as Jack slipped into the deep I said, "Yeah, but how would he have been 15 years down the line when they had four kids and she'd burned dinner." Of course, my girls chided me on my lack of romanticism and I was kidding, but there is a point there. At least in Walk the Line they did deal with the right and wrong of it and tried to make Johnny and his first wife more multi-dimensional. The pandering of Brokeback was just annoying. And the resentful reactions of Ang Lee and Annie Proulx sort of proved that Hollywood did not do right by their agenda by giving the oscar to profanity laced yet way better movie. But you reacted the way they wanted you to. Romance movies are a fine genre, but not a good guide to life. Which I know was not your point, but it became obvious that Lee wanted to use it that way.

Just a few of the movies that made my eyes a bit misty:

Life is Beautiful  (dad tries to soften for his boy the hard reality of being a Jew in a Nazi concentration camp)

Awakenings (with Robin Williams in a serious role)

Regarding men loving each other, I got misty eyes from the 1960 movie “Spartacus” when the Kurt Douglas character as a gladiator had to fight to the death his friend (character played by Tony Curtis).  

But in my mind mixing homosexuality into a movie plot is mixing dead flies into what could otherwise be life-enhancing ointment.  The Lord Jesus Christ said that murders, thefts, adulteries, fornications, etc. defile a man (see Mark 7:21-23).  Incidentally, the word that is translated fornications in this passage truly is in the plural form in the Greek.  I believe the Lord is saying that all kinds of illicit sex from bestiality to homosexuality defile a person – we need to repent of such things and believe on the Savior if we would have His blessings.

Rick Samuel

Just curious.... in regards to "what Jesus intended". Does Sodom and Gommorah relate to this topic at all?

Good-Movie is "The Squid and the Whale" on the travails of divorce. Also just saw "Cinderella Man" really good. Hav'ent seen BBMt and really dont think I have strong enough stomach for it, so I cannot comment. Also Narnia was good, but a little too juvenile for my liking. I know lots of adults like it but I normally don't like fantst/sci-fi stuff. Re-watched "Casablanca" truly great pic...'play it again Sam'. Peace.

What I meant was that I don't think that Jesus condones beating up and/or murdering a person because of their sexuality.  Unfortunately, there are plenty of Christians who feel it is their "duty" to do such things (under the cloak of "christianity").

For example, there was an anti-gay protest in my community, led by "fundementalist Christians".  There was a little boy who held a sign saying, "God hates fags!"  Now, that really bothered me.  It should bother us all.  Jesus didn't go around with signs saying, "God hates this or that..."  Quite the contrary, he gave us John 3:16

I'm with you on that Eulaha. I remember seeing some of those people protesting at Matthew Shepherd's funeral. Horrible testimony. They have missed whole swaths of the New Testament. Abraham did not call down the fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah any more than Moses had a hand in the demise of Dothan. God is judge. I believe God clearly tells us the sin of homosexuality in His word because he wants to keep us from what is destructive to us, not so we can run around telling the world how wrong it is. We need to tell it how right is Jesus. There are cross sections of my life where I am very grateful people didn't show up with signs that read God hates...with a list of my sins there. You know what? Even before I was saved I already knew that. What I needed was the other side of the story.

While I agree wholeheartedly with both Eulaha and Jem, I would like to add one point:

When I lived in California during an earthquake, folks in other parts of the country called wondering if I was OK.  They assumed disaster because the news showed over-and-over again the same scenes of destruction giving people the impression that all of California looked like that scene.  The truth was, most of California was in tact while only a minority (relatively speaking) had enough damage to be newsworthy.

I think of this whenever this homosexual argument comes up.  The fact is, the vast majority of Evangelical Christians have little interest in holding up condemning signs and protesting at gay funerals.  Most would love to show the love of Christ to gays but feel frustrated because Christians and militant gays have come to an impass over the issue of what constitutes sin (other types of adulterers are easier to restore because the man who cheats on his wife may at least admit what he is doing is morally wrong). 

If anything, Christians feel frustrated because of the brazen disregard of God's truth by the Gay community and the manipulation Gay Christians go through to Biblically justify their actions.  Further, Christians feel threatened becaus Gay activists often want to push their lifestyle as normal into established institutions such as the church, boy scouts, and classic western film genre.

But, the Christians who hate gays and go out to condemn them are the minority wackos.  Further, I think the person who is honestly struggling with their broken sexuality would find lots of compassion in many areas of the church.

Ulaha,

I agree with you that Jesus does not condone individuals or mobs beating up/murdering homos.

However, If you are a Christian you accept the doctrine of the Trinity.  If the doctrine of the Trinity is true, the God who destroyed the homos in Sodom is of one nature with the Son.  Therefore we can safely conclude that Jesus did condone the destruction of those people.  He also is of one nature with the Spirit that inspired the OT scriptures that say that Israel should put homos to death.  He also inspired the passage in Romans that says, "they who do such things are worthy of death."

Although it is not the mission of Christians to protest or execute homosexuals, Christians understand that public morality is under assault in our country.  Social disapprobation is one of the ways societies limit evil...and homosexual conduct, according to the Bible that teaches us about Jesus, is an evil worthy of death.

Thomas Maddux

Just to keep the issue in perspective, all sin is worthy of death. Greed, envy, strife, deceit, even gossip, are right in there in the sin list of Romans 1 where Paul says, "Those that do such things deserve death." All have sinned and come way short of the glory of God--it doesn't say that some of us are less evil because we aren't homosexuals, we only gossip. We've all missed the boat and desperately need a Savior. So we can have mercy on our fellow sinners, and hope and pray for the grace of God to reach them and deliver them from the judgment we all deserve.

Margaret,

What you say above is quite true.

But it is also true that scripture singles out homosexuality for special condemnation.  "Worthy of death" to an original reader most likely meant "worthy of execution".  We have an entire OT story about God destroying the earthly lives of homosexuals.  We are also told that Israel was to purge such people from its nation by capital punishment.

Very few other crimes are singled out for such extreme measures.   God will surely deal with them, but there is no indication that they are "worthy of death" by individuals or the state. 

So, I think we are dealing with a special class of sin when we talk about homosexual conduct.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

I agree with what is being said here. All seem to have valid points.

Christians are to be compassionate and not forget that we are no better than others. We also have no place in being militant against sinners in ways that show a lack of reasonable constraint, as has been mentioned here.

But there is also a danger that in our compassion we become people who accept this sin, to one degree or another. And this is just whatsome in the film industry is out to do. They have been working hard to little by little push the acceptance of homosexuality. I wonder who might really be behind that push? So many movies have something in them trying to show homosexuality in a positive perspective and as something quite normal.

The danger that I see in this movie that makes it more dangerous than just a gay movie (and no, I haven't seen the movie) is the message, at least as I see it.

 It is trying to say that you can be the most macho guy around and still be gay.

It is also saying that it is OK to be married and have homosexual encounters on the side.

This is what is going to be pushed more and more to our kids. To me, that's not OK and I don't think I will be recommending it to anyone. I won't go out bashing people or picking up a picket sign either.

I agree that homosexuality is not some sin greater than all other sins. But I do have to mention that when God looked upon Sodom and Gomorrah he didn't say the inhabitants were sinful. He said that they were not only wicked, but "the men of Sodom were wicked, and sinners before the Lord exceedingly". This is the only place I can find in the Bible that says "wicked exceedingly" concerning a group of people. Perhaps it was because of gang rapes, as they wanted to perform on the angels that were in Lot's house. I have heard homosexual groups say that the sin of not showing hospitality is what God was angry with, but I find it hard to believe that this is what would make one "exceedingly wicked" before God. Perhaps someone else could explain why this sin appears to be greater in the eyes of God, and "exceedingly wicked" to Him.

--Joe

My understanding is that the sin God singles out as heinous above all others is the sin of idolatry. This is demonstrated in the ten commandments and in Christ's summary of the law in the two greatest commandments. In the ancient Middle East, sexual immorality was entwined with the worship of false gods and the seeking of "spiritual power" by those means. Thus the penalty of capitol punishment. My understanding is that this is what the men of Sodom wanted with the angels and why God annihilated the place. His insructions to Israel to  completely exterminate certain enemies in battel was for the same reason--they were intensely idolatrous nations, with accompanying sexual worship, human sacrifice, etc.

While what you say above is quite true, it is interesting to note that in the NT God singles out greed as idolatry.  But, He does not call for the death of the greedy.  He does not, to my knowledge, single out homosexuality as idolatry, but he does say that it is worthy  of death. 

I suspect that the reasoning behind Paul's statement is that man is the highest point of all creation because he bears the Imago Dei, even though it was marred by the fall.  If I am right, this is why he places such a severe condemnation upon homosexuality.  "Male and female created he them".

Thomas Maddux

In the NIV greed is listed in Rom 1:29, so I suppose it is included in v.32 where God says that they who do such things deserve death. Aren't we all worthy of death, because the wages of sin--falling short of the glory of God, missing the mark of His holiness--is death?