I didn’t actually watch the Golden Globes this year; I was too busy watching Chumscrubber. I have, however, read a lot about it on the web and have heard various things from other sources. I’m a bit saddened and disappointed to hear lots of talk about the “Gay Globes” and “No Christian Hoorays for Hollywood“. I don’t agree with the way people are treating these films.
I consider myself a christian. Sometimes I’m proud of that and other times not. Those “not” times are usually a direct result of seeing the negative effects my fellow “christians” have had on others. Because of this, I sometimes try not to advertise some of my beliefs. I’d rather just come off as a ‘normal’ person instead of being judged right from the start for others’ actions.
So what’s wrong with a movie that contains some homo-sexual content? Are we afraid our kids might see this? That could be a valid concern, however, most movies containing this content are rated R. So if little kids are seeing them that means an adult took them or they somehow snuck in. Let’s just assume kids won’t see them because parents are responsible.
Are we mad about these films because they are an abomination? Last I checked the “Seven Deadly Sins” are pride, avarice/greed, envy, wrath/anger, lust, gluttony and slothfulness. I don’t see homosexuality in that list. Now I won’t say that the Bible promotes this, but it’s not one of the ‘big ones’ that people like to always point out.
Do people think that these movies are just going to be crap? That could be a possible opinion. What I think is a good movie and what anybody else think is a good movie aren’t always going to agree. For example, I enjoy dramas. For some reason dramas tend to be one of the least attended movie genres. Maybe this is because they’re ’slow and boring’ or maybe this is because some ‘gay’ movies are dramas. Brokeback Mountain is considered a drama, and a romance. Transamerica is considered a drama, adventure and comedy. Capote is a drama and a biography. So you might say the common thread is drama. So do all dramas suck? I’d have to disagree with that one personally. Maybe you don’t agree with the people that give out the awards. Maybe new types of awards need to be created. Maybe you’re just a philistine and need to acquire better taste.
Another possibility could be people are afraid of these movies. I’ll admit I used to be a bit homophobic in my younger days. I think that was a product of culture and tradition. Do I have a problem with these people today? Not really. I like to think I’ve really grown up in that area of my life in the past seven years or so. These are people just like everybody else. Why are some so opposed? If they’re reason is that these people are doing something wrong does this mean the opposed are perfect and do no wrong themselves? I’d be careful claiming that reason.
Ok, so lets see what we got here for reasons:
- Indecent content being shown to minors - They shouldn’t be seeing it anyways
- Abomination - Who gave it that classification?
- Crappy movies - Personal opinion
- Afraid - Personal problem
If you ask me, I’m not seeing any really good reasons here. Oh wait, here’s one. People are just mean, cruel, unprofessional and immature sometimes. Could that possibly be a reason? Please comment if you have any thoughts/opinions/ideas on this one.
Amen, Chalupa. I’m ready to listen to honest opinions about movies, but I don’t want to hear any film criticized based on close-mindedness. The kinds of people who protest movies like Brokeback Mountain in groups just “on principle” often do so without even seeing them.
Some facts about me:
I am a Christian in the most basic definition of the word.
I do not believe homosexuality is a sin (and most of my friends know this, whether or not they agree with me).
I loved Brokeback Mountain.
I thought Capote was pretty great, and Phil Hoffman was incredible.
I think that they both deserved their awards, and I don’t think that those awards have anything to do with their gay content. (Except perhaps that Brokeback has had more publicity than it would have if it were about a man and a woman — but then, why would it have been made?)
Anyway. That’s my story.
Interesting Post! Now that I know where your blog is, I’ll have to read it more often. The promblem with homosexuality is that it is hard to get around the fact that the Bible does name it as a sin. I think I’d have trouble taking my son to a movie that glorifies or accepts homosexuality, just like I would have trouble taking them to one that does the same with lieing, infidelity, or a host of other things I’d want to stear my son away from. By the way, I don’t have a son =). It just helps me to put things into perspective to think that way.
Interesting topic though, I’ll have to think more about it
I’ll throw in a few. Here are some facts about me as well.
1. I am a Christian (in the basic sense like Liz mentioned).
2. I also loved Brokeback Mountain.
3. My opinion on homosexuality is that I do not believe it is a sin and that society (and Christianity in particular) has turned our culture into something shameful.
4. Philip Seymour Hoffman is sweet.
5. I seem to not be saying anything new that wasn’t in Liz’s post.
6. I was thrilled to see the awards that were given. Jake needed something I thought, but he got a Spirit award, so that’s something.
Two things: First, is sure seems that Hollywood is revelling in the fact that this movie has gotten all the conservatives in a hissy fit. I haven’t seen the movie and don’t see enough movies to be able to judge their quality anyway, but I can’t help but wonder whether it is getting awards because it is genuinely the best movie to come out this year or because giving it an award lets voters get back at the moralists who have been harrassing them.
Second, I few months ago I finally asked a Christian I know who is a practicing homosexual how he justified it in light of the verses that seem to pretty obviously condemn it. He explained that those verses were not talking about the kind of relationship that he had with his partner, they were about pagan temple prostitution rituals involving boys. I did not find this very convincing, but at the same time it was obvious that my friend did not believe that he was disobeying God in his relationship, and that was good enough for me. If God has a problem with it, God will deal with it, and in a time of his choosing not mine. I think we should encourage each other to obey God, but we should be very careful to tell someone how they should go about obeying God. I can be concerned that my friend might be disobeying God, but to treat him as an outcast would be wrong. Judge not lest you be judged: I have just as many things I disobey God in I’m sure, even if they aren’t the same things or aren’t hot-button issues. I’m still planning to teach my kids that heterosexuality is God’s intention for us, but I’m also going to teach them that demonizing homosexuals is wrong.
Am I going to see Brokeback Mountain? No. I’m not interested in watching a love story, whether it’s between 2 gay cowboys or between Tristan and Isolde. But the fact that the love story is between 2 gay cowboys pushes me farther away. Call me a bigot or close-minded or whatever you want. I have no interest in seeing it whatsoever.
The thing is, I should be just as adamant about skipping out on the movies that prance naked women around on the big screen. What bugs me most is that Christians are so angered by the thought of homosexuality, but they don’t get as angry about gossip, lying, cheating, etc. God hates all of those things equally. So we can take the easy way out and say that none of them are that bad. Or we can take the hard way and say that, yes, all are sins because the Bible is very clear, and we should hate all of those sins equally.
Thanks for all the comments. I was hoping to generate some discussion here. I’d like to start off by saying I pretty much agree with everything that’s been said so far.
I’m not attacking anybody for saying they don’t want to see this movie, just trying to make people think a bit.
Davis - I totally agree with you. Just because it’s a man and a woman doesn’t mean it’s better to watch.
Joe - I liked how you said you’re going to teach your children to love people equally. Loving the person and not liking the action is something people get mixed up a lot.
Tara, Liz and Robby - Thanks for your thoughts on movies in general. I too was glad to see them get awards. I also try not to have an opinion on a movie/book/music/etc if I haven’t experienced it yet.
Chalupa wanted discussion, so I’ll throw one more thing out there…
It’s to Eric. (Hi, by the way!) I gave up believing a long time ago that the Bible was straightforward on anything. Yes, lying is condemned, but then Rahab is praised for lying to save the lives of God’s people.
Perhaps the Bible was clear in the days that it was understood in its original context and language, but I don’t believe that our English translations, influenced by the Church, are to be taken at face value. The ORIGINAL words (or as close as we can get to the original) should be studied, analyzed, and examined, and we should form our beliefs on that.
If we aren’t scholars of ancient languages, we should investigate the various interpretations. That’s where the debate comes in on issues like homosexuality. An evaluation of the original words leads to some radically different conclusions.
That’s what I’ve done, anyway. It’s not my place to try to convince you that homosexuality is okay, but I figure I may as well speak up and say that those of us who believe it’s an okay thing to be, Christian or not — we do have a Biblical basis for our thoughts.
Chalupa — Way to go on the discussion-related post.
And Joe, I like what you have to say about trusting your friend to believe what he believes.
Robby — So we’re good on not letting COMMENCEMENT see the light of day?
I think there are two extremes to avoid in Bible interpretation. The first one trivializes the fact that it is humans with all their frailties that are doing the interpreting. The second one trivializes the fact that the Bible is God’s Word. Both paradoxically make the same error: they emphasize man’s opinon too much. In the legalistic extreme man’s opinion is treated like it is carved in stone right next to the Ten Commandments. In the relativistic extreme man’s opinion is treated like it trumps what God has to say.
I think both errors are being made in the area of homosexuality. “God Hates Fags” types are just the most idiotic example of focusing too closely on what you think God has said and refusing to consider anything that might cast doubt on that interpretation. Those that say that homosexuality is a-okay, though, I think may have gone too far in casting what the Bible says into a fashionable form. I’d really be interested Liz in hearing how you see acceptance of homosexuality in Scripture becasue I know there are plenty of people who see that but I’m not sure where.
Yes on not letting the film go forward. I would have liked to give Jamin the spotlight though, but we could do dso much better now and with a better storyline…hmm…that’s a thought…
This post has been removed by the author.
Hey Liz…I understand your point about the translations. That’s something I’m going to have to talk about with some people much more scholarly than I. But it sounds like what you’re saying is that, unless we don’t know what the original text was, we really don’t have any basis for our faith, because we can’t take the Bible at face value.
As far as Rahab goes, the passage in Hebrews doesn’t mention anything about the lie, only her faith. Her faith in God, by taking in the spies, is what she was praised for.
I’d like to hear what you found out through your study and how it led you to conclude that homosexuality wasn’t a sin. It would be difficult for me to believe that the Bible is wrong each time it says that homosexuality, or sexual perversion, is wrong.
As far as the “God hates fags” people, specifically those from the Kansas church, I’d like to know what Bible they’re reading. I bet it’s a real trip! They were down my way recently to protest at an Iraq War soldier’s funeral.
Oh, Davis… I almost forgot to add something else about not being able to take the Bible at face value. For some things, I think it’s okay. But for an issue that means life or death to a lot of people, I have to question EVERYTHING to find the truth, Bible included.
People write huge books about these things, so I doubt I can fully explain it in a short comment, but… here are the things that I think are the most interesting on the issue.
1) There are VERY few verses in the Bible that talk about homosexuality. There are some in the Old Testament that people quote as saying that people who commit homosexual acts should be put to death. The Old Testament ALSO says that a couple who has sex during the woman’s period should be put to death, and the same goes for adulterers. I wonder why we keep clinging to the issue of homosexuality and let go of the other issues. Even if we say, okay, we’re not going to put you to death, but it’s still wrong… is it morally WRONG for a woman to have sex during her period?
2) Jesus NEVER says anything about homosexuality. In fact, none of the prophets do, either.
3) The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is one of the most misunderstood passages in the Old Testament, in my opinion. I know that no one has brought it up in this conversation, but people often do. In Ekekiel 15:49 it says: “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.” NOTHING about sexual immorality or homosexuality.
4) Biblical translations. You can find a better explanation of this in the pdf file found here: http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/whatthebiblesays.pdf, but the important thing to take away is that it was not until 1958 that the word “arsenokoitai” was translated into “homosexuals” in the Bible. Before that, there was no clear understanding of the original word. However, a closer reading would imply that this is not talking about a loving gay couple, but rather, older (married) men who hire young (possible pre-pubescent) boys for sexual pleasure. In other words, it’s addressing a fairly specific pedophilia and NOT a sexual orientation.
5) Psychology. I think it is dangerous to ignore the fact that very few psychologists believe that homosexuality is something that needs to be cured. Some would call this a cultural leaning, but psychologists began to say this LONG before there would have been any pressure from culture. They would have been terribly ridiculed for saying this, but they saw the damage that was done to gay individuals who were told directly or indirectly that they were sinning by simply being who they were. There is almost no evidence that a person can change his orientation — even the founders of the (in my opinion, dangerous) group Exodus International fell in love and began committed, loving, gay relationship. There are untold dangers to reparative therapy and questionable research tactics done by “Christian” organizations that try to fix people. Like the claim that 99% of gays and lesbains were abused, which is absolutely untrue. Think about it. In psychology, if you have 40% of any given population with one correlating factor, that’s unheard of.
Like I said in an earlier post — I won’t get angry with someone who doesn’t believe this, so long as they are willing to prayerfully, thoughtfully, and Biblically consider the issue. I know that I was doing that when I still thought it was wrong — however, through a lot of study, one-on-one interactions, and prayer, I’ve come to believe something different than I once did.
Sometimes the Internets can be tricky — I hope it’s obvious that I’m not frustrated or annoyed! My heart’s not even racing, and that ALWAYS happens when I get into a debate. This is good conversation.
I’d recommend checking out what places like Soulforce.org have to say (that’s where I got help summarizing my beliefs for this post), and consider reading books like The Children are Free by Jeff Miner and John Tyler Connoley, Stranger at the Gate by Mel White, and other things that address this much more in depth. Those books sure helped me.
Thanks for letting me ramble on!
That’s cool Liz, thanks for the info. I’d heard about the pedophilia interpretation but not the details behind it. One more question, and maybe it’s answered at those resources you mentioned. What about the Romans 1 passage? Verse 26 in particular seems to be referring to lesbianism, that’s why I haven’t found the pedophilia apology very convincing in the past since 26 cannot be referring to it. BTW I got my Bachelor’s in Biblical Languages so even though I’m rusty, fire away, I’m interested and can understand it.
Let me make sure everyone knows I’m not trying to start a fight, I’m genuinely curious where others different than myself are coming from.
hey Liz…I’ll look at that stuff and get back on here some time this weekend.
Joe, I don’t think you’re trying to start a fight. In fact, I’m excited about how pleasant this conversation is. Chalupa sure has rational friends!
I’ve read several different things on the Romans 1:26 discussion, and it’s pretty interesting. Instead of going into the description myself, here is an interesting site that lays out the different views: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc.htm
You can go to the section that you want, whether the interpretation by religious conservatives or religious liberals. Both are interesting and worth reading.
However, I’d say that there is better coverage of these verses in books I’ve read. This website seems a little basic/simple.
It’s worth a look, though!
**Just to continue on the theme, I am not trying to make anyone mad either.**
Hey Liz, sorry it’s taken me so long to get back to you, but I wanted to get all of your information right. I read the pamphlet from soulforce. It was interesting. It seemed like the author used the first four premises to set up the reader to make his points easier to digest. I don’t fault him for doing that because it’s supposed to be a persuasive piece. However, he keeps referring to “homosexuality as we understand it today.” It’s dangerous to start saying that, since our culture allows certain things today, it’s OK. We don’t need to make the Bible relevant because it is equally as applicable today as it was when it was written.
I’ll respond to your points in the same numerical order.
1. The frequency of a subject in the Bible has no bearing on whether or not it is legitimate. Regarding Leviticus, Rev. White is choosing only 2 verses to make his point and leaving out the entire chapter! According to his line of thinking, we should be able to have sex with animals, relatives, and in-laws! I’m not saying this to be sarcastic. He takes Lev. 18:19 (about the woman’s period) and makes a point about 18:22 (man w/ man). What if I wanted to use 18:19 to make a point about 18:23 (sex w/ animals) or 18:14 (sex w/ an aunt)? Would I be right? Absolutely not!
2. Jesus doesn’t mention a lot things by name, but he mentions sexual immorality. If Jesus had said all we needed to know, there would be no use for any of the scriptures besides the gospels.
3. In reading about this whole thing, I came across someone who also cited Ezekial 16:49. They left out verse 50 which says “They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.” I’m not saying I know what the “detestable things” were, but it’s not possible for you to speak so definitely about the sins of Sodom by citing both verses. Dr. White left that part out.
4. That pamphlet that Dr. White wrote didn’t say why the word “homosexual” was added in 1958. It is convenient to attack the timeline without saying why that word was added. I don’t know why that word was added, I’m just saying I would like to know why that word was placed into the new translations.
5. I don’t want to say that the psychologists are wrong, because I only took one semester of it and did just enough to pass. I would be interested to hear what Christian psychologists had to say. There are scientists who say that evolution is true, and I was taught that subject in school, but that doesn’t mean I believe it. If a scientist is not a Christian, then his world view is completely different than mine. A secular psychologist is going to come to conclusions that fit his world view, just as a secular biologist would.
I want to be clear. I’m not saying that a homosexual can’t go to Heaven. I believe it’s a sin, just like lying, gossiping, drunkenness, or pride. If God saved all of those sinners, then he also saved the homosexual, as long as they each accept Christ as their Savior and believe that He saved them from their sins. We can’t just pick and choose which parts of the Bible we believe. I understand what you’re saying about the translations, but my Bibles say that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. At some point, faith in an all-knowing, all-powerful, and always-present God takes over and we have to believe that He has placed the correct words in our hands.
I also want to provide some verses that make me look at Dr. White’s interpretation skeptically. These verses tell me to be aware when, what God sees as, is viewed as the norm:
Romans 1:32- Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
1 Timothy 4:1-3- 1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
2 Timothy 3:1-5- 1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.
2 Timothy 4:3- For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
Hey, Davis,
Let me see if I can summarize some of my thoughts on the issues you brought up. I have a few…
1) The things prohibited in the Old Testament (like in Leviticus) are part of the Holiness Code. To be holy, as we are often told, means to be set apart. In the same way that the Isrealites didn’t eat certain things or make clothes out of blended fabrics, sexual behavior was governed by God’s instructions that they were to be different from the Gentiles.
All of the other sexual behaviors (bestiality, adultery, etc) are referenced in parts of the law other than the Holiness Code, but male/male sex is ONLY prohibited here. That leads many people to believe that the only statement the Old Testament is making against male/male sex is that it us “unclean.” (Hence, the word “abomination.”)
However, something that is unclean is not necessarily sinful. It was also unclean for a woman to be on her period, for an individual to suffer from skin disease, and to eat certain foods. In Acts 10:11-15, God declares that what was once unclean is now clean.
2) I still think it’s noteworthy that Jesus doesn’t mention what one would think is such a major issue. However, even more noteworthy is the interpretation that based on comparative vocabulary used in the Gospels, the Centurian and his servant had a sexual relationshp, and Jesus did not condemn them.
This is obviously a debatable point and I wouldn’t swear by it, but it is at least interesting. (For more information on this, you can research the meaning of words like pais, doulos, and entimos in regards to this story.)
3) I think that Ezekiel 16:50 references vs. 49. Nowhere in the Bible is Sodom linked to sexual sin, except for references in Jude that the men of Sodom yearned for “alien flesh.” This is referring to the fact that they wanted to rape angels/divine beings.
4) The adding of “homosexual” was in correlation with the difficulty in identifying the word “arsenokoitai.” I did some more research on that word, and it has been translated as: homosexuals, sodomites, child molestors, perverts, homosexual perverts, people of infamous habits, and masturbators.
5) I don’t know a lot of psychologists, but my mom’s cousin is a Christian and psychologist, and she believes that homosexuality is an amoral sexual orientation that cannot and should not be changed. (She is one of the founding members of one of America’s most prominent Christian psychological associations — I’ll have to find out which one for you later, when my mom is back from India.)
***
I would also take into consideration the following issues:
1) The passages of the Bible that are quoted to condemn homosexuality ALL go back to male/male sex. There is no mention of female/female sex in the Bible. What does that say about the condemnation of the actual orientation? What does it say about the act?
2) I know this is really controversial to say this, and I was hesitant to accept even the idea of it at first, but there are a LOT of sexual undertones between Jonathan and David. Even Saul’s reaction to their relationship is quite volatile. I’d examine the texts of their “covanent friendship” and see if there isn’t something there that at least leans towards gay love.
3) It is important to differentiate between what the Biblical writers meant when they mentioned male/male sex as opposed to homosexuality “as we understand it today.” There are huge differences in meaning and context. For some explanations of those, I’d check out WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY SAYS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY by Dr. Daniel A. Helminiak, a Roman Catholic priest. He is a bit dismissive in his attitude, but his book is interesting and well thought out. He goes to great lengths to differentiate between the two concepts, and the Biblical evidence is strong.
4) Actually, as for the verses that you mention, I am more inclined to believe that they are talking about people who condemn homosexuality rather than people who are seeing it as part of God’s creation. But that’s just a difference of opinion, I guess.
I have a feeling that this conversation can only go one way — into endless back and forth quotations and interpretations. It’s probably better that we all study what we have available to us (thanks to the Internet, that’s everything!) and make up our own minds.
It is good to be constantly questioning, which is what I am doing. Believe me, books of mine like Helminiak’s have columns filled with questions and doubts.
However, I should mention to Joe that it has a large section on the Romans verses, and although it was a bit dense, I think it is at least somewhat accurate.
I guess that’s it for now. Whew… I’m kind of worn out!
Liz, I hope you were at commonway this weekend. I think the “binding and loosing” concept has some significant implications for this whole topic.