I hope you learn to stop hating yourself some day.

I genuinely feel sorry for you.

Your head's so full of the Old Testament and righteous condemnation of lesser human beings that you have no room left in it for love.

I too feel sorry for you and I don't say that in a patronising way. Your beliefs and your sexuality must cause a lot of difficulties for you. I am a gay man, happy and intend to stay that way. I disagree with many parts of what you say in the article, but particularly in relation to Old Testament theology. You come from the point of view that homosexuality is sinful and one must control their feelings. I come from the point of view that many things in the bible simply are not true, including what the book of Genesis has to say on a whole matter of issues, not least the way we were created. That said I do believe Jesus was real and is the son of God. He never actually describeD homosexuality as sinful. That is my solace.

Actually, David seems to be carrying out his beliefs in a way I have to respect. There's no tacit condemnation of gays who are active sexually. There's no judgement passed on entire segments of society. I don't agree with David and the reasons for his celibacy; However, I'll fight to the death on his behalf to maintain those rights. Why? Because he's done it in such a way that it doesn't attack or destroy people, reputations and families.

For the record, Franklin Park Mall is now called Westfield Shoppingtowne at Franklin Park.

Two minutes from my house.

And this probably isn't the thread to throw around stereotypical words, but that's a rather ... um ... "fabulous" ... name for a mall.

I think that while you're very well-written and seem to be highly intelligent, you may have missed the point of that movie. I agree that it was difficult to watch the men cheat and not feel some sort of anger for the wives and children involved. The point is that for their own safety, they needed to pretend that they were not "sinners". I don't think that that necessarily means that they did not love their wives and children, they just had a different kind of love reserved for them.

Had they been living in a more open-minded environment, they may have made different choices. The ending of the movie proves that it was a life or death decision.

Also, I would just like to say that it must be a whole lot easier to live life in black and white terms, that way you never have to make the difficult decisions, but you also may lose something in the process. In other words, the bible is a wonderful tool for guidance, however, the world is a whole lot of shades of gray rather than black or white. I just hope you know that it's ok to love yourself for who you are, instead of beating yourself up for not being who you're "supposed" to be.

Not very convincing. I hope that some day you will be able to love yourself.

Hello Ian,

You said Jesus "never actually described homosexuality as sinful." As the I AM - the Preexistent Word (who became flesh and blood and dwelt among humans) - He is the One who spoke to Moses and gave the Torah to Israel, which includes the prohibition against practicing homosexuality.

As Jesus, He clearly stated that He did not come to destroy the Law and the Prophets (whom He inspired), but to magnify or fulfill them, making them even more relevant in attitude and in action, in word and in works.

It is because our loving Creator God wants the best for us, that He instructs us to avoid certain things like the plague. This is revealed within God and the Gays: What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality.

Those of us who are learning, through the conversion process, how to properly love God and our neighbors as ourselves, trust Father knows best.

Thank you Silas Kain for recognizing I'm not about condemning people but practices, although everybody must learn for themselves and I maintain friendships with my "gay" friends who disagree with me on this issue. Such is life, eh?

Thanks Matthew T. Sussman for identifying the former Franklin Park Mall by its new name of Westfield Shoppingtowne at Franklin Park.

I also appreciate each and every comment posted, even while disagreeing with parts of some. Isn't the internet a marvelous thing?

"T" wrote:

"I don't think that that necessarily means that they did not love their wives and children, they just had a different kind of love reserved for them."

In other words an "open relationship" that was kept secret? Aren't you basically saying the cheatin' fellows were victims, focusing on them rather than their victims? Even if "society" accepted them, would they accept themselves, due to that nagging thing called conscience? Is that why they drank so much in the film? Trying to drown out uncomfortable thoughts? What if they went and lived alone somewhere, would they continue to drink heavily or become alcoholics (if they weren't already) and beat each other and then get bored with their abusive relationship and decide to have an open relationship or just cheat on each other as is "normal" in 9 out of 10 "gay" relationships I've known? Who could be blamed then? The unhappy gays....

Instead of wrong desires that only lead to self-destruction

I feel for you, that you believe the desires within your own self are destructive.

I'm in a 20 year relationship with anothe rman, raising a child and couldn't be happier with my own world, which is positive, affirming and instead of destructive, is actually full of love and energy.

I'm sorry you feel that being gay is self-destructive, because it is actually the outside forces/pressure that make life for gay people destructive. Love between adults is not destructive, the denial of love is.

You make the assumption that because the two characters marry, they are capable of being sexually stimulated by their spouses. That is an assumption and you acknowledge that they marry due to external pressure but refuse to look at the concept any further, when it clearly runs very deep. It's possible they really didn't love their spouse at all, but were simply too weak to withstand the massive amount of societal expectations placed upon them. Expectations that were often enforced with violence.

Even if "society" accepted them, would they accept themselves, due to that nagging thing called conscience?

You don't have to limit the concept to just gay people. You can look at any oppressed minority in this world and see that outside condemnation creates self-loathing. Drug abuse, promiscuity, the inability to maintain relationships, all these factors and much more like alcoholism increase in any oppressed group. In areas where homosexuality is more tolerated (people are allowed to marry for example) you can see a reverse of this trend and an increase in self-respect.

Please look at the world and the facts around you before you jump to conclusions.

Steve S. -

You've jumped to the conclusion that if everybody would just accept homosexuality as normal, everything would be peachy-keen. Not so. Many would still have that nagging thing called conscience (unless they're IN DENIAL) reminding them that something "just ain't right." If they continued to harden their heart against such common sense, then they'd become reprobate, as is evident among many, whether practicing homosexuals (in denial) or those who promote abortion or pimp for a "Palestinian" state.

As I mention within Beyond Babylon: Europe's Rise and Fall, quoting John Underwood from the Boston Globe: "In a society where anything goes, every thing will." Ever hear of Sodom and Gomorrha? It wasn't just queer folk engaging in every abomination, but "straight" people too, if folks would read all the accounts about it in the Bible and not just focus on the homosexual aspect. It revealed a society that was immoral and amoral.

God save us all. :-)

I am a straight male, married with 3 kids. There are women who I emotionally loved in my past and at the time could not make a move to marry them. Now happily married for 7 years, I still long for them at times and if I was put in the wrong situation could be intimate with them both physically and emotionally. Relationship Love is a combination of emotion, passion and commitment and all three needed for an ideal relationship. Out of the three two are subjective and one, being commitment, is objective. Sometimes I hate having to be committed but it is the foundation that keeps stability in a healthy anything. Relationships based on passion or emotion are straw houses.

My problem with the movie was the cowboys were shown as victims. Take the gay theme out of the picture and you have a human condition that we all face which is the pasture always seems greener on the other side and sometimes we don't care what boundaries or hearts we break to get there.

The story ends in death but there could have been a BM2 where the guys lived together and found out they couldn't stand each other.

My hat's off to the above reviewer for staying committed to his beliefs.

well David...i must disagree with you assessment that folks would have "that nagging feeling" if the outside societal pressures were removed

many folks i know, of all persuasions, that have been brought up in an accepting environment have NO such "nagging feeings" because they were never oppressed by forces which painted their behavior as "wrong"

that fits for many circumstances ...as varying as racial, religious and sexual

check outside the restrictive boundaries apparent in your writings Viewpoint and you might find the same

you have the inherent Right to live as you see fit (as long as it does not harm others, of course)...and so does everyone else

matters such as these are quite difficult to discuss between folks when some have a restricted Opinion stemming from Dogma rather than Knowledge

just a Thought

Excelsior!

David,

Well written piece and the comments in response were VERY predictable for this site.

How someone can read that and pull out of it that you are a self-loathing person is beyond me. To most commenters here vows and promises do in fact seem to mean nothing and self-discipline is a sign of self-hate.

Most accomplishments in life come THROUGH self-discipline, not in SPITE of it and failure usually comes from a LACK of it.

Vic

Steve S. - You've jumped to the conclusion that if everybody would just accept homosexuality as normal, everything would be peachy-keen.

actually, after I posted my comment I thought that it would be better worded as being brought up to the level of heterosexuals and how they view their relationships, which is far from perfect.

I disagree with this nagging conscious that you think everybody has. If that were the case, there would be far more people trying to enter ex-gay ministries than there are. Most people learn to accept themselves.

To Vic, I would just say in friendly disagreement that self-discipline is not a sign of self-hate. Denial of part of one's self is though. Sexual orientation is not like a preference for hamburgers or golfing.

I find it funny that the justification for hatred and religious based discrimination is based on three lines out of this booked called the bible.

If you really followed the bible you would be living in a dirt hut (because to have money means you will not get into heaven), not eating cheese on you hamburger, selling your daughters into slavery, stoning the whore down the street and married to your dead brothers wife.

So before you sling rocks at someone you should pick up your "holy book" (that was written by men and rewritten by other men over and over again) and take a look at your self first. But maybe you have and you see something you don't like so you need to point at others and make them the problem.

Brokeback Mountain is a mirror of the truth about the 1960's. Like it or not. It's a great movie because Mister Lee had the guts to tell it like it is.
One final note: To have religious faith is to relinquish logic and do as you are told.

bgjohn,

Dirt hut: It's not MONEY that's evil, it's the LOVE of money. When it takes over your life above everything else.

As to your other examples, you'd need a Jew to respond, since Christ boiled everything down to a much simpler level (although I'm really confused about the "cheese" comment).

The bible was NOT rewritten. In fact it is the most well documented ancient document that exists, with literally thousands of copies (at least of the New Testament) in existance that only differ from each other by less than 5%.

As to your final note, I disagree. I've heard it stated before that it's "blind faith", but it's not. Nothing I say will convince you otherwise so I won't bother trying, but thanks for trying to educate us poor, ignorant believers.

Vic

"I find it funny that the justification for hatred and religious based discrimination is based on three lines out of this booked called the bible."

With all due respect and some sarcasm, maybe anyone with a disagreeing opinion should go in the closet for fear of being said he was full of hatred. Your understanding of hatred is clouded by your personal emotions.

If it's not possible to have strong differences of opinion with other people without being labeled as a hater then I guess we all hate each other. This of course is absurd and not logical.

David,

Now that I see your personal understanding of the bible, I can tell that for sure the analysis that the book migh include is far from accurate. It amazes me how much damage can a series of bad translations make in narrow minded/victim people who is educated to repeat wihout questioning for years and years.

Sadly your article could be reduced to> "repress yourself and buy my book". Coincidentally the same thing that the church says "repress yourself and buy my book". David and church: please stop "helping" people. And let "love as a force of nature" to "come out".

I would rather bring my partner to bed with me every night than an old dog eared King James Bible.

Jesus asked us to love each other. He didn't say that terms and conditions apply. And I'm disgusted, utterly disgusted, that you would dare to suggest that sexual love between people of the opposite or same sex is unholy.

What a lonely life you are living. What a sad, lonely life, you poor thing. I suppose the only communication you have with the world is to tel them all how much more sinful they are than you. Is that how you get your rocks off these days?

David,

May I suggest you spend all your abundant free time (no dates, remember?) reading the Bible instead of bashing other gays with it?

John Adams

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

maphere:

You're right. Regardless of gay or straight, the two fellas in the movie CHEATED on their significant other, their partners, their lovers, their WIVES. Their wives and children were the victims who didn't ask to be a part of some experiment.

Thanks for the encouragement of remaining true to my personal convictions some would have me deny and live a lie.

Vic:

Many of the replies were definitely predictable, but my beliefs can weather such storms of protest and howls of discontent against those who dare to change or keep their appetites under control rather than be mindlessly controlled by them.

Cheers!

Interesting discussion. My mom had no trouble reconciling her membership in the 700 Club with the love for her gay son.

I hope you don't end up like Ennis...looking out the window of your trailer with regret, wondering what your life might have been like had you followed your heart (the same heart God gave you).

Let's pray for each other!

Wow, very intelligent discussion for the most part.

We all have issues and issues aren't limited to people who deviate from the "norm". While I am somewhat sad for David in the path he's chosen with regard to his own sexuality, I understand completely where he's coming from. From a personal standpoint, my life has come full circle in the last few weeks. Demons that have haunted me for years have been confronted and delegated to their proper places. Let's get back to the subject...

I've seen Brokeback several times now and continue to learn something new from it every viewing. When it makes its way to DVD, I'll be among the first at the video store. I plan on showing Far from Heaven back-to-back with Brokeback. (That sounded SO gay.). Why? Because Far from Heaven is a great depiction of what life was like in 50's New England. Dennis Quaid's character is tormented by his homosexuality yet nothing could have been worse than what happened with Julianne Moore's character. Here we had a white woman in the 50's attracted to a black man. Talk about scandal. Part of the reason why I want to present these works of art together is to educate. Far from Heaven and Brokeback Mountain are as real as it gets for the times they explored.

Puna:

I respect your point but God also gave us a soul and mind and he asks us to love him with all our heart, soul, and mind. The mind processes data, the heart gives counsel and your soul makes the decision. This is tough because the heart can be easily swayed, the mind could have bad or insufficient data and that's why Christians lean on the Holy Spirit for direction to help our souls find their way.

In regards to regret, Ennis could just as easy looked to a picture of his family and regret that he just threw them away for what was behind door number 2.

That being said, I join you in our prayers for each other.

In regards to regret, Ennis could just as easy looked to a picture of his family and regret that he just threw them away for what was behind door number 2.

Actually, the whole point of the movie was that he was homosexual, so no, that would be an implausible scenario, since it is not a choice.

If it was a choice, then the author of this post wouldn't be identifying as a celibate gay, but as a straight person.

I just watched the movie, it was phenomenal. It seems that most commenters on all the BBM threads here have completely missed the message, but I don't say that with any negativity on commenters. I think the message has been missed for generations, for thousands of years, so I'm not surprised that a 2+ hour movie doesn't provide the answers to many.

Homosexuality is not a choice. Due to external forces, the two men tried to make it a choice, and at least one of them lived to regret it.

If Ennis or Jack were truly homosexual, rather than what they clearly were - BISEXUAL - they wouldn't have been able to rise to the occassion and have children.

E & J made the CHOICE to engage in heterosexual sex (something that never appealed to me as a homosexual), they made the choice to get married, they made the choice to have children - and they made the choice to CHEAT on their wives, break their vows, and they made the choice to act like dogs in heat with each other, selfishly.

How romantic.

If Ennis or Jack were truly homosexual, rather than what they clearly were - BISEXUAL - they wouldn't have been able to rise to the occassion and have children.

That is false. Many straight men, who are sent to prison, are able to engage in same sex encounters because of circumstance. Same with those men in a different era, in a different environment.

It was circumstance, albeit a different one than external confinement, but it was circumstance that led them to try to live lives they clearly weren't meant to live.

Many gay people can perform very well with real women, I happen to know this for a fact! For many the ability to perform sexually isn't 100% aligned with attraction. Otherwise, the blow up doll market, for example, would be non-existant. Many people can have sex without love involved. Straight and gay people do this all the time. I don't recommend it of course, but it would be foolhardy to assume it isn't a fact.

E & J made the CHOICE to engage in heterosexual sex (something that never appealed to me as a homosexual), they made the choice to get married, they made the choice to have children - and they made the choice to CHEAT on their wives, break their vows

Yes, David, those were choices. That is one of the points of the movie. They were bad choices stemming from outside pressure. If there was no outside pressure, I am fairly certain they wouldn't have made those bad choices, but who can say.

they made the choice to act like dogs in heat with each other, selfishly.

Whether you are straight or gay, acting like a dog in heat with the one you love is very romantic!

Sad. You seem so trapped within your conflict and esire to preach that you failed to really enjoy a brilliant movie.

Of course two men can fall in love bibically. David and Jonathan did. They loved one another as their own souls. It is a love superior to the love of a man for a woman as David said when Jonathan died.

I would like to sympathize for you in your agony, but your self-righteous attempt to preach is scary. Don't you know that Romans 1 condemns those people commtting idolatry, and Romans 2 condemns those people condemning those people in Romans 1?

If you are going to speak for Paul, then let it be known that he included both or all in Romans 3, and that he would have been more distressed over the self-righteous adulterers in their minds in Romans 2, since the people in Romans 1 can see their sin, while self-righteous people are more often blind to sin, since it is in the heart and not readily visible. It is self-righteousness that paves the way to Hell, thinking they don't need a Savior but are better than everyone else and must be good enough for God.

Everyone is in one camp or the other. I left Romans 1. You appear to be still in Romans 2. And because of that, you sound doubly conflicted. You would have been better off being a sinner in Romans 1. That way you could have stopped your sin because it would have been readily visible. But you don't see it, which solodifies your place in Romans 2, which is where much of the church is today.

Good luck with your spiritual journey. Perhaps when you realize that intolerance and judgmental spirits are what keep people from the heart of God you will mature. And I'm not talking about tolerance of sin. God hates sin, especially a proud look.

One of the premises of the movie is that external forces causes the gay man to experience some form of despising of his 'self' and he then denies that part of himself. Ultimately such an act leads to his pain and the pain of those around him.

I would submit for gay men who watch this movie to then self reflect on if they know of such an incident, with the external force perhaps being an interpretation of religion. Perhaps there are gay men who use religion to condemn part of themselves and experience pain because of it. Such a thing IS the premise of the movie.

I cannot say anything too strong here; I have no idea what you have gone through in your life to get to where you are right now. I do agree with several folks: I just hope that you will one day find peace with yourself. As far as your review goes, you were all over the map. The main idea of the movie was that "love is a force of nature" and it is a tragedy for EVERYONE involved when two people aren't true to that nature. As far as I can see, that is the only sin involved in this story.

I feel for David. We must realize that for some it is impossible to ever accept yourself, but he is at least much more honest about it than most. He has recognized his homosexuality and has decided not to act on it. The characters in Brokeback tried to do the same and were unable to, and hurt their families. David is stronger and perhaps more self-aware than they. His iron will is exceptional and buttressed by deeply-held religious faith.

I personally feel he would be infinitely happier if he could accept his sexual feelings, and imagine that his self-repression must be quite a burden. (I certainly couldn't bear it.) To share yourself with another emotionally and sexually is certainly one of the most magical and joyous experiences we humans may share. To forgo this is an enormous loss. But perhaps if David tried to embrace his feelings he knows he would never completely succeed, any chance for self-acceptance would be always undermined by his deepest beliefs.

I have to respect those who choose principled self-denial honestly, though I may think they choose wrongly. For most of us, like Ennis and Jack in Brokeback Mountain, their choice is not ours, and would lead only to crushing lonliness and regret for love and happiness that might have been.

I say "follow your heart", but for those who chose not to, I respect their choice, as I hope they will mine.

David, David, David! You're worshipping a God
whose favorite humans included skanks like Solomon with is 200 wives and 300 concubines (in modern-speak, that's "sluts"); and garbage like
Jacob whose deceitfulness and treachery and
lying you God apparently thought was wonderful --why did your God prefer Jacob over Esau, his brother? After all, Esau was a lot like you --earnest, serious, honest, hardworking... and Jacob was treacherous and evil. How about God's other favorite sons --think of them all-- who stole, pillaged, and were disgusting creeps who I wouldn't even want living in my neighborhood!

This is the God you worship? This is the God
you're contorting and twisting your natural sexuality for?

Let me suggest something to you m'man! That God
of your Bible is less morally developed than the average American today. Look at the Muslem world where a few cartoons make so many of them want to kill all Westerners. THAT'S the kind of world your God is mired in --a mentality from over 2,000 years ago-- and that same backward
mentality remains in large parts of the middle east.

The Enlightenment changed things. Morality, individual choice and rights... it's hundreds of years old, going back to the 1700's... and it has developed a lot since then. Why do you insist on adhering to a mentality that is 2,000
years old. The Ayatollahs in Iran and Saudi Arabia would be proud of you! After all, they believe in the Bible too... the old Testament, and you're adhering to their belief SYSTEM... and you're rejecting the Enlightenment. UGH!
And by the way... how old are you? You write like confused teenager.

Dan in Baltimore

The Enlightment happened in Europe hundreds of
years ago... and was the beginning of Western ideas of social and economic freedom...the same
freedoms that are what America is all about.
Our freedoms are the offshoot of this enlightenment... we have enlightened views on individual autonomy and freedom of expression and freedom of speech... and of assembly....it is these freedoms that has allowed the West to advance FAR ahead of the rest of the world.

The Moslem world has NEVER had an enlightenment.
They are still mired in ideology from 2000 years ago. That's what you want to be a part of?
I don't get it.... the Old Testament is bunk.
You might as well convert to Wahabbi Islam if that's how you want to live... but in your daily life and view of the world, you're probably much more WEstern than you even know... it seems as though only on the issue of homosexuality do you want to revert to ancient times...
My sense of things is that you have been irreparably damaged by religiosity. I'm sorry for you. You seem horribly confused, and, as I understand your post, you're over 40 years old.
Man! That's really really sad. SOunds like you haven't come to terms with anything.

Dan in Baltimore

Hello, I read your artical with great interest. However your interpretation of the Film was through the eyes and soul of someone who has choosen to oppress thier inner feelings, thus leading to a judgemental and distorted view of life, people and sexuality.

Why do you feel the need to inform the reader whether your friends are gay or straight, are they not all friends? I find it bizarre that you wish to catagorize, maybe this is to conform to your veiw of societies "Rules and regulations and norms"

You imply that the love between Ennis & Jack only grew due to the topography and isolation of the land, this is true in one way, as for the first time they could actually be true to their selves; away from the bigots and those who judge.

They both married, not through choice, but because they felt they had to, the film made that quite clear, "If you cant fix it you have to stand it" No choice made, Ennis could not even articulate how he felt about Jack, until the end if the film.

I am greatly saddend by your views, firstly for your personal happiness, but also that you are contributing to the oppression of many others who struggle with their sexuality, like Jack and Ennis.

My personal view is, always be true to yourself, otherwise you can never be true to other people. I am not a religous man, but I am a human being, who hopfully is kind, open and non-judgmental ( I have friends who would kick me otherwise!!)

I hope one day you will find true happiness.

Best wishes

Glen
London

PS: My Mother who is 70 (Old folk), said what ways is she set in? She thought the film was intelligent and thought provoking, and the more people that go and see it the better!!

Some would pervert a perfect example of pure male bonding into something that a closer examination of the biblical accounts proves just plain wrong:

Straight Talk About David and Jonathan

"My personal view is, always be true to yourself, otherwise you can never be true to other people....I hope one day you will find true happiness."
Glen
London

Glen you fail to see that I AM being true to myself and honest with all, having a mind and not just a body.

You assume that I haven't found true happiness, as if I could be happy living a lie pretending that practicing homosexuality is acceptable to our Great Creator God when it clearly isn't - for those honest enough to submit to the Word and Will of God and say, despite peer pressure and all too human feelings (that mature adults control rather than be controlled by), "Nevertheless, thy will be done."

There's far more to life than having sex and being "gay." When's the last time you OPENED YOUR EYES to the unhappy "gay" world and faced its ugly reality exposed within God and the Gays: What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality.

I'm not saying a long-term "gay" relationship isn't possible, although extremely RARE (rare if it's not an "open" relationship, which is no relationship in my book worth having), but it still doesn't make it right. That's how I strongly feel and I choose to live true to myself rather than just blindly follow those who believe otherwise and who try to "convert" me to their way of thinking (Romans 1:32). I've stated my opinion and haven't asked anybody to endorse it, unlike those who disagree, and don't need others' approval - unlike so many other homosexuals.

I don't want to be one of those who foolishly throw away the pure gift of eternal life, found outside the Kingdom-Family of God looking in, with weeping and gnashing of teeth before being destroyed, for being a slave to their senses. It is a personal choice to act upon homosexual, adulterous or illicit sexual feelings. I choose not to, so help me God, even if it means scorn, "pity" and condemnation by those who just don't get it.

Give my regards to the Queen (the real one),

David
Toledo

"I am not sure which... Church of Christ you belong to.. I know that sometimes God uses Doctors... even while praying and trusting God to heal me..."
Kevin Surbaugh

Hello Kevin,

I'm a baptized member of the Sabbath-keeping Church of God, none of the above mentioned.

I also know that God can use doctors, but that each must decide for themselves to what extent they believe God will work in and through them and when they've crossed the line and are "playing God." It's a personal decision, as you know.

David, you keep going on about gay people, who choose differently than you, and choose to accept themselves completely and without denial as being slaves to the senses.

It is about loving someone with your heart and soul, and as such then heterosexuals are nothing more than slaves to their senses too. You compared gay men to dogs in heat, but if it is love, then heterosexuals are nothing more than dogs in heat too. You disregard the emotional aspect of gay love and choose to only focus on the physical, attempting to define all gay men by a physical act, yet you choose to not define yourself that way. You have no idea how many gay men participate in what you condemn. You assume everybody but yourself.

SteveS: "...you keep going on about gay people.. as being slaves to the senses."

If and whenever the senses are opposed to the Word and Will of God, they're idolatrous if exalted above the Word of God, regardless of whether gay or straight.

"You compared gay men to dogs in heat,"

No, I didn't. I compared two married men, cheating on their wives they vowed to love and cherish and be faithful to, as two horny dogs.

"You disregard the emotional aspect of gay love"

I understand and have experienced it, but I know that such illicit love should never have been permitted to develop, but should have been nipped in the bud. Just like a married man should "repress" any illicit thoughts for his neighbor's wife (or husband). It can happen, but it shouldn't ideally.

"choose to only focus on the physical, attempting to define all gay men by a physical act,"

Since heterosexuality or homosexuality is sexual orientation, it stands to reason such feelings are confirmed/fulfilled by sexual actions and those who participate in such sexual actions become conditioned by such repeated actions. If being "gay" isn't mainly about having sex, why do so many gay men get upset that I choose not to act upon my sexual urges, so help me God? Have I asked anybody not to, while expressing my feelings about this controversial subject?

I've merely stated what I clearly believe to be the biblical position on it, and folks can take it or leave it. My queer friends (they're all queer in their own way) still love me and I love them, but I won't categorize it as gay love - just the love of friends (philos).

why do so many gay men get upset that I choose not to act upon my sexual urges

I can't speak for all gay men, but I would GUESS, and it's only a guess, that it is because gay men see, time and time again, how religion promotes the denial of the self and how it creates a scenario where one despises part of himself, etc.

You say you are happy with your life and the way things are for you, for that I am glad, but I think the initial impulse of gay men is to assume the opposite. You have to understand that, even if you don't agree with it. Gay men have seen far too many of their community harmed by religion rather than helped by it. Certainly the majority believe, and I believe correctly so, that any denial of the self and of love is not spiritually positive or what God would want. But ultimately to each his own. What may seem like an attack by other gay people is more likely stemming from a feeling that you are being hurt, and there is good intent behind it, even if it doesn't seem that way.

Those who feel that denial of the self are clearly at odds with Jesus and Paul who taught we're to die to the self and live for God, according to His standards.

Jesus clearly taught just the opposite of those who don't ever want to deny themselves any forbidden fruit, and said we're not worthy of Him if we don't bear our burdens and follow Him.

It's easy to say we love God, until He slaughters our sacred cows or expects more of us than we're willing to surrender, short-sighted mortals that we tend to be.

Why should we care what a half-baked book from a couple of milennia ago says or doesn't say about what men (or women) do with each other?

"Why should we care what a... book from a couple of milennia ago says or doesn't say about what men (or women) do with each other?"

Especially when we're not willing to submit to its Wisdom and don't want to be blinded by the Light, preferring our traditional darkness, eh?

Question here..but in the film..doesn't one of those men get beaten to death?

now, i'll grant you, there is an Ethical lapse against an Abstract(the marriage vows)...but isn't the real "crime" here the murder of a person?

shouldn't THAT be what folks of high "moral values" be screaming about?

anything less seems a bit petty and Agenda driven...

just a Thought

Excelsior!

There are some parts of Australia where the movie is
not being distributed.

What do you think of that?

I think whatever part of Australia or America or anywhere that chooses not to show the film are merely exercising their right. It's their prerogative, eh?

I would love to visit Australia! One of my best friends (from London) that I met while serving as a kibbutz volunteer in Israel (and hitched around Europe and Israel with), ended up marrying an Aussie roommate we had on the Sea of Galilee at Kibbutz Ha'On. They now live in Brisbane.

I made it to South Africa to visit friends from various kibbutzim I made, and Lord-willing I'd sure love to get to Australia and see it all.

Gonzo, homphobes don't talk about the murder in the film. Some of them justify it, while not vocally, in their black hearts nonetheless.

On another note, I never said David and Jonathan were gay. Hugging and kissing doesn't make one gay, and the bible attests to that conduct on both their parts, with Jonathan actually stripping down to give David his honor at one point. Not to mention Jonathan's father Saul telling Jonathan that he was an embarrassment to his mother because of his passionate love for David.

Oh, and one man's biased opinion such as the one you pointed out on David and Jonathan hardly makes that gospel.

Keep plugging your book, though. Some poor soul here will seek out comfort for his homophobia eventually.

I do appreciate you noting that Sodom was not destroyed because of homosexuality. Because it wasn't. People want to use that scene with the angels as the reference point for God's destruction, and the destruction of Sodom was determined way back before that when Abraham failed to negotiate the saving of the city apart from Lot and his family. And God didn't say then He was doing it because of homosexuality.

That was when Sodom's fate was sealed, not when the people gathered around Lot's house for the angels which were there to warn Lot to leave.

And Leviticus was a command to Jews. I am not a Jew. That command is as valuable as the one to not eat anything with a split hoof, if you are a Jew and God is raising you into a holy nation. Both episodes have passed.

Christ fulfills the law for us. If we have to hold to the Leviticus example you give, then James says we have to keep the entire law or we have broken it all. Besides I'm a Gentile, that law wasn't given to my people. But the law to receive salvation in the name of Jesus Christ was. And I accepted it.

And I have peace about my sexuality. And lets keep in mind that the kingdom of God is neither male nor female, nor is there marriage there. And that kingdom is among us and within us if we believe.

None of this has anything to do with the movie, which is brilliant, and is changing our world for the better. Gay people will be considered as legitimate in their humanity and relationships as they should be, and this movie will have helped by contributing to the change in hearts and minds, and by blowing the stereotypes out of the water, and making the homophobes come to terms with the world they share with everyone else, not the world they think they own as they have until now.

I have a question about the old Testament.
It seems to have a lot of commandments and prohibitions that don't make any sense.

For example, forbidding eating pork and demanding that we stone a non-virgin bride to death. Nobody enforces these. It also condones bigamy and slavery in places. Nobody pays attention to this.
Why do we make a big deal about just this particular absurd command, condemning homosexuals to death?

I respect faith, but interpreting the bible literally and selectively this way doesn't make any sense to me at all.

If Jesus, who I do respect, didn't waste his time condemning homsexuality, why should we place all this emphasis on this one particularly bloody and judgmental line in Leviticus, while ignoring so much else?

Being an enlightened soul, one does not need a book or books to see the light

amen, Aaman

would that more could see the Truth so easily...

namaste', my Friend

Excelsior!

in response to #53... "I respect faith, but interpreting the bible literally and selectively this way doesn't make any sense to me at all."

John....
it's called cafeteria style theology...where people pick and choose what they want to believe to suit their own prejudices and agendas.

i've said this before on another thread (a BM thread, no less) that any clever mind can manipulate the Bible to suit their own, often times, extremist attitudes. it's been done throughout history, just like you pointed out with slavery and bigamy, for example.

if you look back at our own American history, minority groups, at one time or another, have had to pay their dues to fight for equality --women's suffrage, civil rights, etc.--- and now the acceptance of homosexuality with the right for gay marriage is just another example. the good news is as humans we do eventually evolve, and attitudes change.

so someday, sooner rather than later, i believe, everyone will be seen as equal in the eyes of the law as we already are in the eyes of God.

commenter 52 was brilliant. If you have a URL/blog, I wish you would share.

I agree with chantal (#56) about why the bible's statements are selectively chosen. Overall, I believe it's primary purpose is to distract.

My own thoughts: We have a government that spies on it's citizens, wages illegimate war, slashes medicare and assistance for the poor while pandering to corporate elites and giving them tax breaks, etc. and all this can be done if the populace is kept busy frothing at the mouth about two men in love, which is exactly what is happening.

Note that the bible makes three references to homosexuality but has literally hundreds of references condemning the hoarding of wealth and the love of money. Yet there is no outcry over the millions that people like Pat Robertson, Dobson or those who claim to speak for the Lord, have.

It's a very selective ministry, it's used to distract the populace, and it's why I became disillusioned and went agnostic. I truly believe that the House of the Lord™ is now a House of Evil.

whereas i feel very confident and secure about my faith in God and my savior Jesus Christ, i often...no, almost always...feel very confused and conflicted about my religion.

Christianity is such a beautiful faith....when the focus is on what Jesus actually taught. but even during the time of Christ, He was often misunderstood. at that time, Israel was occupied by the romans, so when the "savior" and "king of kings" came on to the scene, many Jews assumed it was to liberate them from their physical occupiers. they didn't consider He was their to free them from the bondage of sin.

to me it just makes sense that if Jesus was misunderstood when He was performing miracles in front of people's faces, of course He's going to be misunderstood 2,000 years later.

but the thing that attracted me to this faith in the first place was that it's all about a personal relationship with God. He comes to live in us. any "born-again" Christian will tell you that one of our goals and purpose is to spread the Word and advance the Kingdom of God. the mistake that MANY make is that they focus on the parts of the Bible than are MISINTERPRETED to suit their own prejudices.

the person who introduced Christianity to me, about 15 years ago, was a young man named Alan. i was in ireland at the time, and Alan was a born and raised irish catholic, and carried all the guilt about his own homosexuality that comes with that. he was, just like the author of this thread, one who chose to suppress his homosexuality, and he actually believed that through prayer and faith, he could be converted.

aside from all of that, the thing that Alan said to me that really stood out, was that Christianity wasn't all about the rules and regulations that so many religions try to preach. we don't have to dress a certain way, or pray in a specific way. there are no rituals that will guarantee our salvation. all we have to do is accept Jesus as our Lord and savior. all we need is personal relationship with God, and the rest will follow.

i've since lost contact with my dear friend, Alan, but i hope and pray that he has come to terms with his sexuality, that he he has learned to accept himself as the beautiful creature that God made, and that he is loved just the way he is.

its upsetting to see so much fighting over a faith thats essence is about love and peace. i honestly don't believe that God cares if you are straight or gay or bisexual. God wants us to love one another, to not judge, to be charitable to one another, to help those in need, to be kind, and to lead productive, moral lives. and two men, or two women in committed relationships are fine examples of that.

(the more i type, the less guilty i feel about skipping church this morning, by the way...)

my belief is that the old testament is fill with wonderful stories that can often be used to illustrate a point that can be applied to today's living. but it bothers me when someone puts so much emphasis on what is written in the OT but claims to be Christian.

Christ came to fulfill the prophesy of the OT, and by doing so, and by dying for all of our sins, He fulfilled the Law of the OT, that no man before was able to do. and in doing that, he made that old law obsolete. as Christians, we no longer are bound by the strict tenants of the old law. Christ has set us free. so we no longer have to stone non-virgin brides and adulterers. we can feel free to wear a garment made of more than one fabric. and we can eat shrimp and lobster with no worries.

Jesus said for us to "love one another". (am i preaching too much? i apologize, but this is such a heavy burden on my heart) who cares if a man loves a man or a woman loves a woman? there's nothing sinful about LOVE.....in fact, its part of God's commandment.

John, do two wrongs make a right? You wrote: "If Jesus...didn't waste his time condemning homsexuality, why should we place all this emphasis on this one particularly bloody and judgmental line in Leviticus, while ignoring so much else?"

First it wasn't an issue in Jesus' day, nor was reminding folks they shouldn't eat certain foods, because they all knew and agreed with the Torah (Law). Jesus did uphold Leviticus but tempered judgment with mercy, depending on the attitude of the person involved, such as the adulterous woman who He commanded to go and sin no more (not some more). He pardoned and empowered her, expecting her to "repress" adulterous thoughts and actions or condemn herself. He didn't justify her sins or pretend they weren't sins.

Jesus did speak against practicing homosexuality when He said He did not come to destroy the Law and the Prophets. He upheld the Law. Do you still respect Him? Can you honestly call Him "Lord?" (1 John 2:4).

The Law and the Prophets also set the standard, the ideal for which we should strive. If we discipline ourselves, we don't need to worry about suffering the consequences for disobedience.

The prophecies clearly reveal Jesus will teach Torah when He reigns as King in Jerusalem, and all mankind will have to learn to think like God (Isa. 55:7-9), and repent of idolatrous thoughts that would contradict His Word and Will. It's all part of the conversion process from human to divine.

Steve: Sodom and Gomorrha were destroyed, in part, for homosexuality. But as noted in God and the Gays, it wasn't only for homosexuality. The depraved men, blinded and yet still filled with lust and violence, banging at Lot's door, proved how degenerate tolerant Sodom and Gomorrha had become, which is why our great Creator God refused to further tolerate the reprobate cities.

Jude 1:7
7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

"Leviticus was a command to Jews. I am not a Jew. That command is as valuable as the one to not eat anything with a split hoof, if you are a Jew and God is raising you into a holy nation. Both episodes have passed."

Leviticus was a light, a command, for Jews and Israelites to share with all the world, restoring this truth that had been on Earth since Noah, which is why the Noahide laws include dietary restrictions and sexual codes for all mankind, as the Jerusalem Council decreed in Acts 15:29.

You must not be aware that the dietary laws have been in effect since Creation, and you must have failed to notice that the Gentile Noah brought two of every unclean critter into the Ark and SEVEN of every clean animal into the Ark before the Flood (Gen. 7:2).

"Christ fulfills the law for us."

Then why did He command the woman to go and sin no more? Why did He foretell such a heresy, a license to sin that He never issued, when He said many would call Him "Lord" and He would reject them, knowing they're living in sin and in denial and are nothing but liars, according to John 2:4?

If Christ lives in you, then He'll love and respect the Law and the Prophets He inspired and upheld and taught - not rebel against them.

"If we have to hold to the Leviticus example you give, then James says we have to keep the entire law or we have broken it all."

James was making the point that we're imperfect and must trust in the grace of God, that the blood of the Passover Lamb (not Easter bunny) covers us, if and when we truly submit to Jesus as Lord and Saviour, one who saves us from the death penalty of sin, and who can daily help us be saved from sinning to the degree we yield to Him and approach the Throne of Grace for help in time of need; receiving not just the pardon, but the POWER. That's why James said faith without works is dead. And Titus 1:16 speaks of those who take Jesus' name in vain, professing Him with their mouths and denying Him by their sinful lives, their unrepentant lives, living the lie that we've got a get out of jail free card and don't need to go through the conversion process, overcoming, growing, until the finishing tough of perfection is given at the Resurrection.

"And that kingdom is among us and within us if we believe. "

Belief must be based upon a foundation, and such a false belief is based upon the misunderstanding of Jesus' words to those who hated Him, when He told them the Kingdom of God was in their midst, not in them, but in Him as its representative. Go back and look in the margin that explains this and you'll see that it's true. We still pray "Thy Kingdom Come" because it hasn't arrived yet, Christ doesn't yet rule in Jerusalem and teach Torah like He shall, and the world isn't at peace, but it will be.

Some, imagining themselves enlightened, descend further into the depths of deception, having blindly followed the Dark One (who disguises himself as an angel of light), while thinking they're only following their own way. Such misguided souls steal the divine prerogative of determing what is good and what is evil, setting up their own idolatrous thoughts and standards (forbidden fruit) over the Word of God (revelation/Tree of Life/Bible) and will also find themselves outside of the Garden and wandering in their spiritual bewilderment.

some think that the very Scripture you are Quoting...compiled by Iraneus, the bishop of Lyon around 180 AD..ratified by Constantine at Nicea..

could very well be the Work of a demi-Urge who seeks to distract and distort the Teachings...thus driving Man into chaos and strife...setting them up against each other following the False...

much of what many speak of is from St Paul (Saul of Tarsus) who had his "moment" on the road to Damascus...strange how both he and Constantine both experienced their "enlightenment" and then used such as a club to beat down the "heretics" and unify the Church into a political instrument of Power...

but i digress...

my Question concerning the lack of Outrage at the death of a Man at the hands of a bigot remains unaddressed...

curious that

is murder less a "Sin" that should be denounced that the breaking of a Vow, which seems to be an Obsession for some...

side Note: chantal...thank you for Posting, a needed breath of Air in the Judgemental darkness...

"those who have two good ears better listen"

nuff said?

Excelsior!

That's ok Chantal, Jesus kept the Sabbath, setting us an example to follow, but NEVER ON A SUNDAY. :-)

Which Day is the Christian Sabbath?


Is Chantal French?

Steve, you keep forgetting about the two wives that were CHEATED ON by men who supposedly loved them enough to marry them and take a VOW to love them and be faithful to them until death did them part. ..not until an old flame showed up and scrap the vows and the love that supposedly was and forget the children too. How selfish! Why neglect the wives in your posts? As I originally posted, regardless of whether they're gay or straight, the story is about an ADULTEROUS AFFAIR, two cheatin' men. It just ain't right.

chantal is french, but i am not....

gonzo...you're welcome, and thank YOU!

which day?..the day decreed by Constantine..check your History

since christianity was to replace the very popular Roman Sun God religion, the new Church commandeered many things, form making the "sun" day the sabbath...to the allegorical use of a "halo"

still...i Ask..

what about the Murder?

Excelsior!

The SUNday pawned off on the world by that pagan Constantine, who thought to change the times and the seaons, is null and void to Bible-believers who follow Jesus' example, keeping the fourth commandment in loving obedience to God.

Gonzo M, why do you ignore the breaking of the seventh commandment - against ADULTERY (and all immorality by extension and principle as magnified/fulfilled elsewhere) - to speak out against an alleged breaking of the commandment against murder?

To be technical, we are left wondering if Jack was murdered (I believe he was), and we are left assuming if he was murdered it was connected to his homosexuality. Since the movie doesn't tell us, it could be safe to say he was murdered for cheating with the lover of some gay man!

adultery IS selfish. but the point is that if these two men didn't have to hide their homosexuality, perhaps they wouldn't have married women in the first place, thus leading to their adulterous affair.

i don't think anyone here is condoning adultery, but many can relate and/or understand the circumstances that led these two men to the act.

the lesson is that if TOLERANCE was the norm, then so many lives would not have to be destroyed.

David..if you scroll up and actually read what i typed, you will see i easily acknowledged the Ethical violation of their Vows

my concern is the MUCH larger greivance of the murder...and why none seem to be speaking about THAT

read the short story

as for theological discussions...i find it quite difficult to take some folks too seriously

good luck with the sales of your book

Excelsior!

Those women who were cheated on, whose marriages were destroyed, whose love was lost, hearts broken and dreams smashed, all due to the ADULTEROUS AFFAIR of their lying men, would undoubtedly feel they died in many ways only someone in their situation could understand.

As for the sales of my book, it's priceless at Beyond Babylon: Europe's Rise and Fall, where it can be downloaded for free, and it's also graciously available to read online. That's because I'm more interested in getting my message out rather than getting paid for my labor of love, although I'm definitely entitled to it, as is every author.

Are you justifying their ADULTEROUS AFFAIR by blaming it on society? Is it no longer "the devil made me do it" but now "society forced me to do it?" Do marriage vows taken before both God and man mean nothing?

Chantal, don't you think America the Beautiful is big and wide enough for "Jack and Ennis" to have their tryst or keep their relationship going before they got married? After all, one stayed in Wyoming and the other moved to Texas. I'm sure they could have found some part of these big United States that would have been more "tolerant" of their sins than other places. There have always been havens for sin, whether hetero or homo, but then they couldn't play victims or have a movie - at least not the same kind to abuse your emotions, as is a clever tactic brought out and exposed in The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party (that I've read twice and heard the author lecture on in Jerusalem). There's another book called "The Marketing of Evil," but I don't remember that author's name. They offer some interesting insight worth pondering, at least for those with open minds willing to think outside the box (office).

I disagree with the idea that the author isn't judging practicing gays - his use of quotation marks around words such as gay and lover indicate otherwise, as does the self-loathing that pervades nearly every sentence of this article. This brought tears to my eyes; I have this urge to give the author a big, comforting hug and remind him that he is as the Creator made him and that the Creator loves him unconditionally. That said, I must give him credit for living up to his principles.

I absolutely understand his point about honoring promises made. I remain in an unhappy, celibate marriage only because of vows taken long ago and because of "the kids." But I refuse to judge those who - in the interest of survival and sanity ('cause Lord knows this sort of life is neither survivable nor sane) - find they must renege on their promises and I understand all too well how difficult it is to ignore real love when it appears. Yes, I have been successful in walking away from it before vows are broken (the only sins I see in the film are adultery and lying), but it doesn't make me a happier human. Yeah, I am true to my word, but it creates only misery, for me and my suffering spouse. If that's what God wants for us, we have good reason to wonder about God.

So far, I have not been able to see Brokeback Mountain, though I did read and love Annie Proulx's story. Can't wait to view the film -- because whatever some believe and despite all the late-night show jokes and controversies generated by bigots and ignorant people, it's a story of star-crossed lovers like Romeo and Juliet, and I'm a sucker for a sad love story. The main important difference? Adultery. And only one member of the star-crossed pair dies. (The previous sentence contains a spoiler. Highlight it with your cursor if you are interested in reading the words.)

One more note: Bisexuals *enjoy* sex with members of either gender. It is absolutely possible for gays to have sex with heterosexuals - it does not follow necessarily that enjoyment or arousal or anything positive or healthy is involved. Merely *having* sex doesn't make a person anything other than sexually active - the defining comes from what arouses a person, from their basic orientation. Trust me on that one; I have two kids, and while I love and cherish them endlessly and am fortunate to have them, I did not enjoy what I had to endure to make them.

Ooh, and check out his #73: Yes, he is indeed judgmental. Which is his right.

Chantal Stone wrote, "...if TOLERANCE was the norm, then so many lives would not have to be destroyed."

Speaking as one of the destroyed, a-a-a-men. Thanks, Ms. Stone, for your humanity and compassion.

David, you are not gay. It is all in your head. You do not have to be gay if you don't want to.

But you must be het, whether or not you want to be, if you want to be seen as good, virtuous, worthy of legal equality, etc.

Bleh.

Are you justifying their ADULTEROUS AFFAIR by blaming it on society? Is it no longer "the devil made me do it" but now "society forced me to do it?" Do marriage vows taken before both God and man mean nothing?

I think you are grasping at anything you can find, in order to condemn someone from your mantle of superiority. What they did was wrong, however they did succumb to outside pressure. You can point your holy finger and pass judgement on them for being weak all you want. Heaven forbid you should find compassion for the weak. It was a hostile environment/society that they were in. Too bad everybody can't handle that with indignant righteousness like you.

People, straight and gay, get 'married' for all types of reasons, from financial security, to the fact that a woman might find she's pregnant and the man and the woman feels obligated to marry for the kids, and also the fact that many people think they are in love, make commitments and find out later it was more along the lines of lust.

I'm not rationalizing adultery. In an ideal situation, the adulterer would get out of the marriage first, before moving on, but it's not an ideal world, something that those who would pass judgement on others from their holy throne might not be able to see.

I've read your responses and need to pull out of this because endless arguing is not my thing. I put forth my case and leave it at that.

Regarding the adultery in the movie you want to concentrate on, you are missing the point again. The movie does not downplay the damage to family as a result of the mens' struggle.

I have spoken repeatedly on Brokeback Mountain in other threads about their adultery, which if it were in another movie you would simply accept as the token sex scene, and you do accept it or you don't watch movies today. And you wouldn't be protesting about it because you don't. Your problem is same sex love and your strange belief that it cannot happen and that is if does God cannot bless it. But God is not in your little box.

Brokeback Mountain is a tragic story of human love that cannot be, something every gay person has experienced at some time in life, as well as straight people. Their genders don't matter.

David, you sound like you are in a religious system which requires the law be kept. Paul in Galatians said the people who add the law to salvation are under a curse. The law is there for instruction in righteousness, but christ kept it, we can't and the most we can do is recognize that God sent us a Savior because we can't keep the law. He saves us from sin, yes, and thereby saved us from the law.

You conclude that others who don't see things like you are 'tricked unbelievers.' Yet you are a very narrow, bigoted, force of a modern day pharisee. You look alright on the outside, but on the inside you are full of legalism and distortion, twisting the scriptures to justify your own 'personal enlightenment.'

I've been a Christian for 24 years, pulled from the gutter of life into the arms of a loving God when I had no hope. Pulled from a self-destructive life that could not hold up its own righteousness in any given circumstance, ever.

And as soon as I came into the family of God I was resented by many of the churchgoers, the religious ones who had been doing 'everything right.' But God wasn't blessing them like he was me. He was building me new from the ground up, they didn't have the power of that type of conversion. They didn't have the power to see their sin. Oh, they saw the bad things they did. They didn't always see their wicked hearts. I knew mine inside out. And it was easy to spot the phonies.

I was the prodigal son in Luke 15. You come off as the older brother in Luke 16. I was a Christian broadcaster in a major metropolitan area for nearly a decade. And you are going to throw scriptures back at me as if I deliberately misinterpret? Please. I have had one of the strongest conversions and upbringings around, born again on fundamental theology such as J. Vernon Magee, Chuck Swindoll, Charles Spurgeon, Charles Stanley, Watchman Nee, Billy Graham, John Darby, and even the likes of Kenneth and Gloria Copeland and James Dobson, the latter from which I have removed myself because of his lack of Christian compassion and understanding, kKnd of like our 'born again' President. Rich, powerful and clueless. But the first shall be last.

But I also know the works of Corrie Ten Boom, Rebecca Pippert, Carol Balizet, Jo Berry and others whose knowledge of the love of God is what they seek to know. He who still fears is not perfected in love. Your rants are loaded to the gills with fear.

I leave this endless debate, because the scriptures tell me to do so.

You are scary. I thought like you once. Thank God I was set free from that rigidity that causes one to see little as it really is, but everything as s/he wants it to be. You skirt the real issues for which you have no answer, and are quick to provide response to those for which you believe you do. You mix real substance in with jello, almost like a cult, where they hide the lie between two truths. That is what I get from your posts.

Sexual immorality and perversions you note in Jude are also committed by heterosexuals. And the men in BBM were two heterosexual men who, despite the horror of everything they could want or imagine, found themselves in love and their souls knit together for life. As a result, their lives are destroyed and so are the lives around them. That is the beauty and passion of this story. No 'gay cowboys.' And the film had very limited activity in it. I find it so odd when people take issue with that. What planet are they on?

And we don't pray, "Thy kingdom come." Perhaps you do, but I'm not religious and vain repetitions are to be put away. Religious people pray what the call the Lord's Prayer, or Apostle's Prayer, but Christ would be horified at the position that prayer has been given in Christiandom, except for the fact that he knew it would happen. We are Kingdom people, and the Spirit of God within us confirms that the good thing He has begun within us will continue until the day of Jesus Christ. That's kingdom living here and now, not Beatitudes for the coming reign.

May you someday see things in life for what they truly are instead of what you are told they are by others or by your determined self that has been heard in the past and apparently adored for its messages, and now can't let go of that raised stature.

And Jesus didn't tell Mary Magdalene to go and sin no more because she needed to keep the law. He knew that if she did what she had done again, He wouldn't be there to protect her the next time. But He also knew that she was converting to him, and thereby assured her of her newfound state of life, to walk in it, enjoy the results of repentance.

Chantal and Steve S, I appreciated your posts.

But I'm outta here.

Steve, that should be a post in itself, and we'd be glad to have it on DC/BC

But I do leave with levity.

The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision. - Lynn Lavner

And thank you, Aaman. I'll check it out.

Thank you Natalie Davis for recognizing I strive to live by my honest principles, and for agreeing that promises made should be promises kept.

Steve, you can struggle to rationalize away the sins of adultery and homosexuality all you please, but the Word of God remains true.

Your convenient brand of "Christianity" (apparently reflective of an "itching ears" denomination) that condemns one who reads and believes the Bible as, in your words, "a very narrow, bigoted, force of a modern day pharisee," could only be thrown up by those who remain in rebellion against God and has yet to learn what it means to surrender and honestly call Jesus "Lord" (1 John 2:4).

In time, all will cease and desist from putting their idolatrous thoughts above God's clear commandments, and learn to think like God (Isa. 55:7-9) and submit Father knows best, and have the law written upon the tablets of our hearts and minds, in attitude and in action, so help us God.

Steve, you can struggle to rationalize away the sins of adultery and homosexuality all you please, but the Word of God remains true.

Or he could just laugh off the archaic notion of 'sin' and the fantasy that is the 'word of god' and live by an internal moral code like a rational human being.

Dave

A truly rational human being would recognize there must be a standard that determines what is right and what is wrong, an absolute, otherwise there would be spiritual anarchy. That's why the wise recognize that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, the Tree of Life, a gracious God-given Instruction Manual for mankind to save themselves from unnecessary sin, suffering, misery and death.

Hate to tell ya, but here in the good old US of A there IS spiritual anarchy. That's because the government doesn't regulate our spiritual lives and we are all free to believe what we want.

As it should be, and has been for quite a while.

Spiritual freedom is not the enemy. Intolerance is.

The United States does have its share of spiritual anarchy, although this country was founded upon biblical ideals whether or not fascist liberals want to acknowledge this plain truth. The enemy of intolerance against conservatives cloaks itself in a self-righteousness that rivals any traditional religionist.

There are regulars on this site who are MUCH more schooled in American history, but I would venture to guess that this country was founded by individuals with a strong sense of historically popular beliefs of the time, yet they crafted a constitution allowing room for other beliefs. This includes a legal system that permits the practice of any peaceful belief system. These beliefs may or may not include the bible. You're free to judge, but not on a social or political level.

Upon re-read I could have worded that better, but y'all know what I'm tryin to say!

;)

I've been sober and celibate for 24 years, and only through the power of Jesus Christ my Lord as evidenced in the Word of God, which I studied faithfully for 12 years.

You remain confused, and God is not the author of confusion. Look at your opening sentence, you want to see the movie, you don't want to see the movie. Nuff said. And you lack compassion and understanding as evidenced in your writings, which are laden with fear and judgement.

I've posted these last comments for the rest of the readers who already can tell where my brand of Christianity comes from and where yours stands.

It is starting to get to the point where people like you make me ashamed to call myself a Christian, not the cross of Christ which is where the offense should be.

You need to leave the power of conviction to the Holy Spirit who is here for that purpose, and yield to him so that he can fill you with love and compassion for a lost and dying world.

He isn't condemning the world as you are, He is rescuing it.

Get on the bandwagon against divorce, which God says He hates, rampant pride within the church, which God says He hates, and a lying tongue, as you have readily evidenced here, which God says he hates.

The only thing you appear to know about Christ as Lord is the saying. If Jesus were like you, all men would flee.

David sez...
*The United States does have its share of spiritual anarchy, although this country was founded upon biblical ideals whether or not fascist liberals want to acknowledge this plain truth.*

you just lost me here...and revealed that all that Mr Nalle postulated about the organization you belong to is at the very least, close to accurate

the Nation was founded on the Rule of Law, and ethical set of standard by Men who reasoned and rationally deliberated that "morals" could NEVER be legislated, and that NO such thing as a claimed "divine right" was possible

check the back of your dollar bill...

novo ordus seclorum

and the Great Seal...a Masonic emblem, NOT any kind of "christian" one

now, you are correct ni stating that MANY of the Founders were indeed Christians...but MANY of the framers were indeed Deists, NOT theists in their spiritual outlook...

and we thank whatever we hold IMportant for such happenstance...

it has kept us a secular Nation where ANY kind of "religion" can be observed (as long as it harms no others)...while raising NONE of these mythologies above another

as for the "liberal fascist" oxy-moron...that bit of prose has secured your writings into the intellectually destitute propagandist dustbin with all the other False Profits

"know your enemy"

nuff said?

Excelsior!

Interesting.

I visited your website and see that one of your favorite books was written by cult leader Herbert W. Armstrong, of the Plain Truth and the Worldwide Church of God.

No wonder you struggle with biblical grace and truth and put yourself under the law. And don't think I am not familiar with Armstrongism, my mother was in it for several decades before Christ set her free. Her dream while I was growing up was to see me go to their college in Pasadena. I used to drive her for over an hour to get to one of his churches.

Fortunately, God has caused a split in that cult whereby true believers are coming out of it as evidenced in a great report in Christianity Today a while back, one of the largest such spiritual awakenings in modern history, which happened way too late for Herbert W., whose take on the twelve tribes being Great Britain and the United States, as well as several other heretical stands kept him from being a credible spokesman for God's truth and Christianity. He led millions astray, putting them under the laws of Israel for tithing 10% to his congregation or else they were excommunicated, and a bunch of other bizarre, legalistic crap that helped make him rich and famous.

The article is here:

Regardless, I watched my mother struggle for a long time trying to separate truth from error after coming out of that cult. Poison just doesn't wash out of our spirits very easily.

But that explains everything. Now I understand your stand on Christ, who, by the way is God in the flesh. And I wouldn't be interested in spiritual food from any of the splinter groups coming out of Armstrongism at this time. It's very likely to be tainted.

So, one of your favorite books was written by a heretic. And you are the spokesman here for biblical truth. Yeah, right.

And now I am really gone.

Who's confused Steve? How many times have you said you were gone? Regardless, your condemnation of honesty in expressing my conflicts of interest about seeing the movie prove you would probably accuse the Apostle Paul of being "confused" too when he called himself a wretched man and confessed how he struggled with his human nature. Such confessions aren't to be condemned but commended, since that's what the true conversion process if all about - wrestling and overcoming, become more like God and Christ.

You can falsely accuse the Sabbath-keeping Church of God as a cult, but it won't change the plain truth that we follow the real Jesus and keep the same days and ways and beliefs He did and taught - unlike traditional Churchianity.

If you read and submitted to the Word of God instead of idolatrous traditions of men, "ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth," and accepted Jesus as Lord over all of your life, then you would confess and forsake pagan holidays and other unclean practices (spiritual Babylon), and gladly anticipate the return and reign of Christ when He will teach Torah, not tinsel traditions, when He will teach (just like the Sabbath-keeping Church of God does today) that all nations are to keep the Feast of Tabernacles (it doesn't say Xmas or Ishtar). But some will consider the King of the Jews, the King of Israel a "cult" leader and foolishly oppose Him...until their opposition literally melts away (Zechariah 14).

Thankfully, the Lord is most merciful and warns all to forsake Babylon or suffer the consequences. Those who truly are His People hear and heed and come out of that false religious system with all its traditional trappings.

May you read the Bible and believe and understand that when Jesus, the prophets and apostles condemn practices, like I do, it is TOUGH LOVE and meant to save people. But folks can't repent unless they know what sin constitutes (1 John 3:4, 2:4), that's why God has some "cry aloud and spare not" (Isaiah 58:1), even if others misunderstand or disapprove. Our nations will be left without excuse before they fall: believe it or not.

ewwwwww.

Okay, you're certainly entitled to hate the movie, of course, I no longer have any interest in any debate. I'm sure you don't want debate anyway, just to advocate your point of view, (and your book).

As a separate topic, one thing that always gets to me, is that in all the discussions where religious people debate things, whether it is economics, the cinema (like this), foreign policy, marriage issues (divorce, adultery, same-sex, etc.) each and every single time, the discussion degenerates into theological interpretation and the spouting of biblical verses.

What you don't get is that when someone doesn't follow your faith, that carries as much 'weight' in the debate as spouting famous cinematic one-liners at them. Who cares what Romans 1 is, who cares what John and Paul did, who cares about some Tree of Life or whatever.

If we were to debate the death penalty and I started spouting out quotes from The Color Purple, would I win you over? Hmmm........

David, i find it fascinating that you keep insisting on following yeshua's tenets, but the VAST majority of the scripture you quote is Pauline at best

each and every time, rather than quoting the Teacher...you cite examples written by Men who merely claim thay were "inspired"

a case in point...previously you have mentioned Noahide Law, and pointed out the dictum that such applies to all non-jews

now, within the Noahide Laws resides a strict injunction AGAINST incest...

so, if you can, answer me this...

since you are taking the allegory of Noah as Literal Truth, and since the Story states that NOah, his wife, their sons and their wives were the ONLY humans on that ark...and thus all humans are descended form them...

hwo do you reconcile such with the undeniable Fact that after ONE generation , there would have to be siblings and cousins fucking and having children

which is, by definition, incest

just curious

Excelsior1

Steve what are you doing but advocating your point of view? What other position would you advocate? I gladly agree to disagree about the movie that I thought was great DRAMA, but I see all the conflicts of interest and have expressed them.

What book are you referring to that you allege I'm "advocating?" The free "God and the Gays"? or Beyond Babylon that's also available for free (unlike too many authors provide). I feel no shame. LOL

"Spouting" of biblical verses? I thought you said you were a Christian? "Iron sharpens iron." That is, if you're iron and noble like the Bereans who checked out the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true (and it was).

As for the Color Purple, I loved it!

but again...the Points i raise are ignored, interesting indeed

David continuously points out the adultery, yet neglects the murder

and then avoids any issue with the texts he holds as literal "truth"

a fascinating set of tactics, but you do realize you do no good for your "cause" by adhereing to what appears to be hypocritical standards?

not that i expect any answers, but i do think the Questions need to be raised

Excelsior!

Hmm, I'm not sure how I can rephrase it to how I mean it. Let me try this again.

I am advocating my point of view on the movie, you are advocating what you believe is God's point of view on the movie, ergo, it seems to me that it is impossible to debate with you as you would see it as trying to debate the Word of God. I don't know if that makes sense, or if I can word it differently. What I mean is, it seems like you don't want to debate a movie, you want to advocate your beliefs as is evidenced by the constant spewage of biblical rhetoric.

Okay, your books are free, I withdraw that comment, I made an assumption that I shouldn't have.

As for my beliefs, I was baptized, I usually point that out in debates with religious people, it seems to make a difference but I'm not sure why. I am currently agnostic. I don't know or care to debate Scripture, I don't believe it is necessary, I believe God (if he/she/it exists) is in the heart and is Love and not a set of rules from thousands of years ago.

Having said that, I think any debate of this movie, what little debate there was, is done, and the rest is just spouting biblical interpretation and I have no interest in that.

This conversation has become downright terrifying.

Re: Armstrongians... They scare the heaven right out of me. I've read a lot of HWA's stuff for opposition-research purposes. Chilling. If the alleged heaven is reserved for them, I don't want to go there. If Jesus supports what HWA taught - or what Mr. Ben-Ariel is preaching - he isn't my savior.

The Noahide Laws are recognized by the United States Congress.

Regarding your question about Noah's descendants, the best reply I could find in principle (just happened to read this the other day, actually) comes from "Answers from Genesis," a former publication of the (former) Worldwide Church of God (when it was God's Church). I'll type it here for you, as a labor of love:

* "Can you tell me where Cain got his wife?"

The answer becomes obvious when one considers the time factor of Genesis 4. Time obviously had elapsed since Adam's and Eve's creation. Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel were not the only human beings on the earth when Cain killed Abel. By this time other children had been born to Adam and Eve. Genesis 5:4-5: "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were 800 years; and he begat sons and daughters: and all the days that Adam lived were 930 years: and he died."

Notice that Adam begat daughters. It is quite obvious that Cain married one of his sisters - Adam's daughter. There simply weren't any unrelated females for him to marry. Adam was the first man (1 Cor. 15:45), and Eve was the mother of all humans with the exception of Adam (gen. 3:20).

Perhaps because of modern laws concerning marriage to those near of kin, many have not see this obvious solution. But it was not wrong for brothers and sisters to marry at that early time in human history. Abraham married his half sister Sarah (Gen. 20:12). His brother Nahor married his brother Haran's daughter (Gen. 11:29). There was no genetic harm to the children. However, by the time of Moses, marriage between close relatives was prohibited (Lev. 18). Such marriages should not take place today.

******************

Hope this helps!

you have no interest in condeming the Color Purple because the men raped and abused the women? Okay. Enough said.

Ms Davis...no worries

any simple study will show that what is being Advocated has preciousl little to do with the Teachings themselves, but is instead a pot pourri of Pauline doctrines and some other fun stuff tossed in by the founders of this sect

when outrage over adultery is greater than outrage over murder...

well, by the fruit of their tree shall they be known, eh?

Excelsior!

seems to me the sins there are a little worse than adultery, if we were to put them on a scale.

eh, gonzo, I went full circle with my Color Purple analogy to your adultery/murder scenario without even realizing it. I should have just deferred it to you, you're several steps ahead of me!

"Okay, your books are free, I withdraw that comment, I made an assumption that I shouldn't have."

Thanks Steve, I appreciate that. Thanks also for the clarification that you're an agnostic, not a Christian, which explains why the Scriptures don't necessarily hold weight for you.

Have a good night and week.

If you read