Brokeback Mountain

[outlaw]

And your point is??????

The point is that the bible says a lot of things are “abominations” …most of these things are ignored by modern Christians.

 

[Nanee5]

The laws of what was edible and what is was not is not the same as what sins are "abominations" or not. God never changes in Scripture whether or not homosexuality is a sin. It is considered sin throughout Old and New Testements. But, I do see your point, and understand what you are saying. Homosexuality is not the only sexual sin. There are many others, and yes, people take them alot lighter than the former, but God does not.

 

[outlaw]

The laws of what was edible and what is was not is not the same as what sins are "abominations" or not.

Homosexuality is never called a sin…it is called an abomination…just as the eating of shrimp is called an abomination.



Just as dishonest business practices Deuteronomy 25:13 – 16



Just as women wearing pants is an abomination Deut 22:5



Just as pride is an abomination Proverbs 16: 15



These six things doth the LORD hate:
yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,
feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh lies,
and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Proverbs 6: 16 - 19

God never changes in Scripture whether or not homosexuality is a sin. It is considered sin throughout Old and New Testements.

You are trying to justify personal prejudice by suggesting God changed his mind about some things but no others.

There is no differentiation between the many laws of the old testament, no labeling of so called “moral” laws and so called “ceremonial laws. They are all moral laws. Some modern Christians wishing justify their petty personal prejudices pretend that some division of old testament law exists so they can conveniently ignore laws that they find inconvenient and use laws found right next to ignored laws when they wish to condemn others.

A god example of this involves Leviticus 20:13 and Leviticus 20:9 the first is an often used condemnation of gays and lesbians which of course is put into the pretend “moral” law category yet a mere three verses preceding it is a “moral” law detailing one of the many reasons you may use to murder your own child.


Of course pretending there are divisions in old testament law and that SOME laws are in the trash can means ignoring quite a few new testament verses…but if your going to pretend that SOME verse don’t apply then why not a few more?

Matthew 5:17-19 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Luke 16:17 “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid."

Jesus criticized the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 “And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."


Then there is the time Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment Matthew 15:1-7


Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!" Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites!”

But, I do see your point, and understand what you are saying. Homosexuality is not the only sexual sin. There are many others, and yes, people take them alot lighter than the former, but God does not.

The next time you are tempted to applaud prejudice and cheer the condemnation condemn of others for the “sin” of being different you may wish to pause and reflect of Matthew 7:1-2



"Do not judge and criticize and condemn others, so that you may not be judged and criticized and condemned yourselves. For just as you judge and criticize and condemn others, you will be judged and criticized and condemned, and in accordance with the measure you deal out to others, it will be dealt out again to you. "

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

I've read the story. I'd like to see it, but it isn't playing anywhere near me yet.

It will be soon. I thought it was weird that everyone was saying that they had to go far away to see it because they lived in some obscure bible belt town, but really it isnb't in full release yet. It's only been released to a couple cities.

I may actually go see this now.

A lot of things I've read have rated this the best movie of the year, or second best after Munich.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

It will be soon. I thought it was weird that everyone was saying that they had to go far away to see it because they lived in some obscure bible belt town, but really it isnb't in full release yet. It's only been released to a couple cities.

I may actually go see this now.

A lot of things I've read have rated this the best movie of the year, or second best after Munich.

Looking at the site, it opens relatively near me tomorrow, but I will probably wait until friends get back from Christmas break before seeing it.

 

[Rae]

see what GOD has to say about homosexual sex?

--Gods have never said anything about homosexual sex. Humans write things about homosexual sex and attribute it to God, like in the Bible, but that doesn't prove anything about what the Gods think.

As for Brokeback, I hope it comes to my hometown. We have a cheap theater here that doesn't mind showing controversial movies (it was the only place we got to see SuperSize Me, for example).

 

[Marklet12]

I've always fantasized about Maggie Gyllenhall...but after seeing this movie, I'm beginning to lust after Jake (who is, by most accounts, the better looking of the two)...DAMN YOU HOLLYWOOD

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Nope, I haven't seen it, and could care less. Why? Not so much the in your face homosexuality this movie is going to have, but because it does not seem appealing at all to me. I'm waiting for one movie alone, and that doesn't come out till June 30. Superman Returns!!! Yeah, I'm a nerd, deal with it.

 

[Arnold_Philips]

Nope, I haven't seen it, and could care less. Why? Not so much the in your face homosexuality this movie is going to have, but because it does not seem appealing at all to me. I'm waiting for one movie alone, and that doesn't come out till June 30. Superman Returns!!! Yeah, I'm a nerd, deal with it.

It's not really in your face. I think it's pretty tasteful, actually (unless you're wholly disgusted even by the thought of it). Seen it twice now. Would see it again if invited.

 

[Ananel]

The laws of what was edible and what is was not is not the same as what sins are "abominations" or not. God never changes in Scripture whether or not homosexuality is a sin. It is considered sin throughout Old and New Testements. But, I do see your point, and understand what you are saying. Homosexuality is not the only sexual sin. There are many others, and yes, people take them alot lighter than the former, but God does not.

I must protest your statement, Nanee5. I must protest it most stringently, and it becomes inevitably quite clear that you are not in the least bit familiar with the hebrew terms that are translated as abomination in English. If you were, you would not have said that abomination is somehow different from the abomination of food laws.

First of all, there are two terms worth noting: Sheqes/Shiqqus, To'ebah.

Sheqes/Shiqqus is used in a variety of contexts. Depending upon the conjugation of the term, it has a meaning that is either related to ritual cleanliness specifically or to idolatry specifically. There is some variation in usage, but generally, these are the two primary meanings. Most food laws make use of Sheqes. However, it is worth noting that the septuagint translation of the term is identical to that of To'ebah, meaning that the term is seen as nearly synonymous with abomination. Even in cases of food laws, it was no small thing to be unclean before God. If you wish to contest me on this, I would ask that you speak with the High Priest Aaron's sons (Leviticus 10, not concerning food laws, but if you're going to imply that things 'ceremonial' are not so important as things 'moral,' you should be reminded of YHWH's opinion on matters.

However, I digress from the point. The term in contention is To'ebah, as this is the term we find present in Leviticus 18 and 20. If you don't mind, I would like to cite the uses of the term, as drawn from Archer, Harris and Waltke's Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament-Volume 2, Moody Press, Chicago, 1980, pp. 976-977 (Entries 2530 and 2530a)

The nuances of to'eba are numerous indeed (for teh complete recent study of both the noun and the verb, cf. P. Humbert, "Le substantif to'eba et le verge t'b dans 'Ancien Testament," ZAW 72:217-37). As with the verb, so also with the noun the abomination may be of a physical, ritual, or ethical nature and may be abhored by God or man. Sharing a meal with a Hebrew was ritually offensive to an Egyptian (Gen 43:32), as was offering certain kinds of sacrifices (Ex 8:22). Homosexuality and other perversions are repugnant to God and fall under his judgment (Leviticus 18:22-30; 20:13). Idolatry (Deut 7:23), human sacrifice (Deut 12:31), eating ritually unclean animals (Deut 14:3-8), sacrificing defective animals (Deut 17:1), engaging in occult activities (Deut 18:9-14), conducting one's business dishonestly (Deut 25:13-16), practicing ritual prostitution (1 Kgs 14:23f), and similar acts of disbedience (for seven more abominations, see the list in Prov 6:16-19) were sure to bring God's wrath on those who perpetrated them...

The laws of what was edible ARE the same. The Law of Moses is mentioned a in Joshua 8:31-32, 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6, 23:5; 2 Chronicles 23:18, 30:16; Ezra 3:2, 7:6; Nehemiah 8:1; Daniel 9:11-13; Luke 2:22, 24:44; John 7:23; Acts 13:39, 15:5, 28:23; 1 Corinthians 9:9 and Hebrews 10:28. Pieces of the Law are sometimes mentioned in these passages, sometimes not. However, the Law of Moses is never referred to as a divided thing. It is whole, and its entirety is to be obeyed under the OT Covenant, and this proves a pivotal distinction in Acts 15, wher the NT Covenant is seen to no longer apply this same law against the Gentiles, save in four separate verses.

You make a distinction between the individual laws of Moses, saying that the "Abominations" or "Detestable Things" of the food laws are distinct and separate from those of the sexual indictments of Leviticus 18 and 20? The word used makes no such distinction. YHWH makes no such distinction, and it is for their refusal to obey these laws that God enacts the judgments declared, as stated in Daniel 9.

You make distinctions YHWH Himself does not make, and I will stand by God, not your personal opinion. There is no distinction made here, and all of the fine-tuning and wheedling will not turn food laws into a small matter and sexual laws into a big matter. Both were abominations, and both were part of the Law of Moses, part of the Old Covenant. This distinction is your fabrication, and based upon the shaky ground of an interpretation of a term that does not mesh with the word's meaning, the translation of the septuagint available in Christ's age or with the actions and statements of YHWH Himself concerning that Law.

They are the same.

 

[Ananel]

As to the film itself:

I am quite certain many Christians will be enraged by it. Robert Gagnon will most likely be screaming in a rage most likely. He's wont to do such things now and again.

The film does seek to normalize a gay relationship, but does so in a fashion that will surprise some of you. It simply has a gay relationship. It does not parade politics. There are no quips of "Can't we just be allowed to love each other?" Outside of the reflections on Ennis' past, wherein a possibly gay man was killed by local thugs, no reference to the cultural environs is truly made. It is worth noting that more flesh is seen in sexual acts in the married sex scene between Ennis and his wife than in anything seen of the two men or of Jack with his wife.

The movie is about two adulterous lovers who never stop their affair, despite intervening marriages and relationships. It deals primarily with the weaknesses of character in both of them: Ennis' spinelessness and refusal to give up his few closely held things or take risks and Jack's over-active libido, pushiness and demanding nature.

Neither character is truly noble in my estimation. I despised Ennis from the beginning, and barely tolerated Jack, loathing what I see of myself in his behavior. Ennis' wife is highly judgmental, but with good reason (The man is cheating on her, after all.). Jack's wife is a cold, pragmatic woman who is colder to her own husband. Perhaps the only remotely noble characters are Ennis' daughters and his brief girlfriend post marriage, and that is a stretch in the latter case, though she is a far cry better than the leads. The movie is a tragedy of unrequited love (yes, despite the fact that there is a considerable amount of sex, it is unrequited. As Jack puts it so well, all they have is Brokeback Mountain, the only foundation of their 'relationship.').

The most scandalous element of this movie to a culture-war advocate will be the simple fact that the movie completely normalizes the gay relationship. Had you removed or altered Ennis' recollection, the leads could have been a male and female very easily without significantly altering the movie's flow. Their 'gayness' is virtually unaddressed in the movie, and this is its most powerful action in a 'cultural war.' It treats a gay relationship as the same as any other adulterous relationship, not one whit different. The prices are the same, the acts, the hurts of those spurned, the motives, the pains of the fallen 'heroes.'

I enjoyed the movie to an extent, but I found it lacking. I could identify only very slightly with Jack and not at all with any of the other characters. I felt considerable sympathy for Ennis' wife, but she is such a minor character in the end, that the piece had a somewhat hollow quality for me. The cultural battles will rage over this, and perhaps with good reason. After all, if we start to treat gay affairs just like any other affair, then we're treating gay sex like any other sex.

...not that I think that's a bad thing, mind you.