freshcutgrass

Ah...ridicule...another fabulous christian trait you learned from jesus? Maybe if you concentrated on what jesus DID say, rather than what he did NOT say, you may find yourself getting on the right track.

"That seems quite hostile. Surely there are more loving ways to express your views." Maybe you just don't understand the definitions of words? It may be a little confrontational, but that's the point of a debate...you need to challenge people if anything is to be understood. But understanding requires listening and engaging, and listening doesn't seem to be your strong point, hence you do not directly engage the debate. As far as "hostile" goes, I can cut and paste some lovely stuff off this forum...which seems to be perfectly within everyone's comfort zone. And it's pretty scary stuff.

Disagreeing with someone on scripture is not hostility...it's debate. Hostility is the way some of you on this forum treat homosexuals.

"Dang, how'd this person (fresh cut grass) get in here??? " Unless it's just a rhetorical question, then explain yourself (if you can).

"Reading the entire passage, there is no way that can refer to what you claim it refers to. You are trying to force scripture to say what you want it to say, to justify your errant beliefs." Excactly what I would expect a robot to reply. First of all, i do not come up with beliefs, and then go looking in scripture to justify it. I am a free thinker with an open mind. Secondly, with reference to your reply regarding Paul's letter in Romans, you clearly have no concept of who's writing the letter, who it's written to, who it's talking about, or why it was written....let alone the language in which it's written. How you think you are so sure you know what it means completely escapes me. Paul's writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, pro choice people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious reformers, the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on. Paul is often difficult and confusing to understand. A lot of Paul's writing is very difficult to translate. Since most of his letters were written in response to news from other people, reading Paul can be like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. We know, or think we know, what Paul is saying, but we have to guess what the other side has said. As 2 Peter 3:16-18 pointed out, we have to be on guard against using Paul's writings in unhealthy and destructive ways. Paul wrote Romans from Corinth, the second largest city in the empire and the crossroads of world trade and culture. Pausanius observed at about the same time as Paul that there were over 1,000 religions in Corinth. The most prominent were the fertility cult of Aphrodite, worship of Apollo, and the Delphi Oracle, which was across the bay from Corinth. Paul's readers would have been aware of the religious climate from which he wrote Romans and would have understood Paul a lot better than we do. The theme of the first 3 chapters of Romans is expressed in 1:16: "The gospel is the power of God for spiritual freedom (salvation) for all who believe." Paul showed that all people equally need and can have Jesus in their lives. Paul's gospel is inclusive, as expressed in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Romans 1:26-27 is part of Paul's vigorous denunciation of idolatrous religious worship and rituals. Read all of Romans 1:18 to 2:4 for the context of the verses. Romans 1:26-27 contains some words used only here by Paul. Familiar words are used here in unusual ways. The passage is very difficult to translate. The argument is directed against some form of idolatry that would have been known to Paul's readers. To us, 2,000 years later and in a totally different culture, the argument is vague and indirect. Verse 25 is clearly a denunciation of idol worship, "For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature and not the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."." Paul at no point in his writing dealt with same-sex orientation or the expression of love and affection between two people of the same sex who love each other. The word "passions" (or "affections" as your translation wants to use) in 1:26 is the same word used to speak of the suffering and death of Jesus in Acts 1:3 and does not mean what we mean by "passion" or "affections" today. Eros is the Greek word for romantic love, but eros is never used even once in the New Testament. "Passions" or "affections" in 1:26 probably refers to the frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music. We do not know the meaning of "burn" in 1:27, because Paul never used this particular word anywhere else, and it's origin is uncertain. The term "against nature" is also strange here, since exactly the same term is used by Paul in Romans 11:21-24 to speak of God acting "against nature" by including the Gentiles with the Jews in the family of God. "Against nature" was used to speak of something that was not done in the usual way, but did not necessarily mean that something "against nature" was evil, since God also "acted against nature." on Romans 1:31, where the King James Version translated the Greek word astorgous as "without natural affection." This is one of the characteristics of people "with a reprobate mind" (KJV of 1:28). The word for "reprobate" is more recently translated as "depraved" or "perverted" in order more neatly to fit the sexualizing of everything possible in the list. The literal meaning of "reprobate" (Greek dokimon) is "to fail to measure up" or "to fail to meet the test" and simply means that the list of things that follows is the result of a mind that has abandoned God. The word astorgous, "without natural affection," is used only here and in 2 Timothy 3:3. It has nothing at all to do with homosexuality or with sex. It is the Greek word for "family love" or "family ties" with the negative prefix. It refers to people who despise and reject their family members. Rather than being directed at homosexuals, it is a term that is directed at people who despise and reject their own homosexual children and brothers and sisters! "And still the question is ignored. Who is Jesus to you? " Oh...fer crying out loud, that's just an avoidance tactic. Whenever pre-programed religious people run into snags, they always revert to this kind of crap. Who's jesus to me....not the homophobe one you seem worship, that's for sure.

"their actions ARE unnatural, physically and spiritually, and their actions are condemned by God. " But you don't seem to be listening...I'm saying they are NOT. And you seem to want to ignore any explanations about it. "as for your seeking to understand scripture, i have a hard time understanding how your attempting to do any such thing." Because you choose to believe someon else's homophobic interpretaions blindly...I don't. Scholars spend their lives studying...it's VERY difficult. If some christians want to fob out cherry-picked phrases from the bible they have no clue about, then that's fine. It just isn't informed, obviously, and pretty hypocritical. "my views represent Godly principal as is spelled out in the Bible. " Really...what bible is that? My guess is you don't speak Greek or Hebrew, so you blindly rely on whatever interpretaion given by your "minister" and the various translated versions of it out there. Trust me, if christians are running around using Leviticus and the story Sodom and Gomorrah as proof of god's condemnation of homosexuality, then they are clearly totally ignorant. Most biblical scholars would laugh at you for suggesting such a thing. The bible speaks of homosexual acts only when they are part of sacred prostitution, idolatry, promiscuity, seducing children, rape, or violating hospitality. It condemns all such acts, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or having nothing to do with sex. All bible references that are used to condemn and destroy homosexuals are taken out of context, translated incorrectly, and used to hurt people not intended in the original setting. Religious, academic, ethical and polemical preoccupation with homosexuality in the bible is a vast wasteland of ignorance and speculation that has darkened the minds of multitudes of people and created pain and death that I'm quite sure god never intended. And isn't the saddest part of all this, that all this insanity has turned untold multitudes away from god? Take a bow....here's the t-shirt. Don't bother replying, I can already see I will get the same programed response, and it's getting old. Running around saying things like "praise god" and "have you received jesus as your personal savior yet" is nothing but paying lip service. Maybe you should instead start working on what you are going to say to all those homosexuals you will have to face in the next life.

"I dont see how that is mistranslated. " Of course you don't, because you don't know what those verses mean, because you don't know what context they are in. The Greek word "arsenokoites", is formed from two words meaning "male" and "bed". This word is not found anywhere else in the Bible and has not been found anywhere in the contemporary Greek of Paul's time. We do not know what it means. The word is obscure and uncertain. It probably refers to male prostitutes with female customers, which was a common practice in the Roman world. What you fail to understand, is that the sexual practices eluded to invole idolitry, which was rampant at the time. And this involved mostly heterosexuals obviously. This has absolutely nothing to do with loving, commited, monogomous couples....straight or gay. Three of the passages: Genesis 19:5; I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 are incorrectly translated. The other three: Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27 are taken out of their original setting of condemning idolatrous religious practices and wrongly used to judge and condemn people of the same sex who love each other. None of these passages refer to people of the same sex who love each other. None originally were aimed at homosexuals. You are simply blindly following homophobic teachings based on the bastardization of scripture. That's why I use the term "some" christians, as I am hardly the only person who feels this way.

"freshcut, we don't condemn or hate homosexuals. " Well, I don't know who the "we" it is you're refering to, but a lot of the comments I've read refering to gays sure fall into the catagory. You subscribe to the idea that homosexuals are unnatural, sinful and condemed by jesus, when there is no scripture to support it it, and plenty agaisnt what you are doing. This is gross misuse of the teachings of jesus, and very seriously wrong. And the guy with the rectum/AIDS comments...not sure what that's all about, and I don't even want to go there. "from how it sounds in each of the posts you've made, you have nothing but contempt for scripture, for christians, for anything we stand for. please correct me if i'm wrong." Again...who is the "we" you are refering to? And yes, of course you are wrong. How could I have contempt for scripture, if I seek their real meanings? If I had contempt for it, I would reject it. And it's very presumptuous of you to assume your personal views represent "christianity", and if I disagree with that personal view, then I am in contempt of all christianity, and everything it stands for.

Really...there's no need to repeat the same passages...I know them well...and you just posted them...save the space. "Seems clear that is homosexuality." The only thing that is clear, is you have no understanding of scripture. Neither of these verses in Leviticus refer to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks....stuff of that nature. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality is even implied. The word abomination in Leviticus was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or associated with idol worship. Your problem is not understanding the context of the passages as they pertained to the lifestyle of the time in which they took place. and who they are directed at. You are completely ignorant of their meanings. Not surprising though, as most christians have almost no real knowledge of the old testiment. Like I said before, if you are so enamoured with Leviticus, then by all means stop this hypocritical selective use of it to condemn and reject people, and follow ALL it's laws yourself....have fun.

"Love thy neighbor wasnt meant to mean homosexual love." I did not intend to give the impression it did. And I honestly don't see how anyone would get that impression. "He also made it plain to reject sin. And there is no glossing over the fact that homosexuality is a sin." Well, obviously you have glossed over it, as homosexuality is never mentioned as a sin. Only certain very specific sexual practices are. Is heterosexuality a sin because certain sexual practies are considered sin? No...so why would you apply that to homosexuals?

"Try harder" Oh please....did you not hear me...I said I've seen it all....you really think I'm unaware of the few obsure passages you want to quote to me??????? They are either absurd translations (no word or references to homosexuals appeared in origional scripture), or are mis-understanding the meaning and context of the passages in the first place. Leviticus doesn't say anything about homosexuals at all, but since you want to mention it, go ahead and read ALL of Leviticus...and then tell me how eager you are about following it to the letter. Jesus is quoted as quoting only one passage from Leviticus: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (19:18). Jesus used Leviticus to teach love. Jesus never condemned homosexuals or even mentioned anything that could be taken as a reference to sexual orientation. If you have been led to misuse Leviticus and other parts of the bible in order to condemn and hate and reject people, you are on the wrong path. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has exactly ZERO to do with homosexuality. People who quote this as being so, are people who obviously don't understand that story at all. The truth is, there is nothing in scripture which condems the loving, commited, monogomous relationship between people of the same sex. So what makes some christians think they know better, and become hypocrites, by going against the very teachings of jesus to do it?

"Jesus was a blonde haired blue eyed surfer dude? WOW, what movie was THAT? " I was refering of course to the false depiction of jesus to fit western christianity, which of course bears no resemblance to what the historical jesus would have looked like. If the historical jesus showed up at the US border, he would probably be detained as a possible terrorist. "hey, men may fall in love with men, but it is still both physically unnatural, and biblically forbidden, to act upon that love." On both accounts, you are incorrect...as long as there have been humans, men have fallen in love with men, therefore it is indeed quite natural. What the majority of people do does not make what the minority of people do unnatural. It makes it more "popular" I guess....but that is not the definition of "unnatural". And try as I might (and I have tried hard), I have never found any scripture that forbids it. In fact, if it were such a big deal as "some" christians make it out to be, then I'm sure jesus would be "quoted" as mentioning something about it, and he certainly isn't. If you want to believe dogma preached to you by certain church leaders that somehow gleans this somewhere...go ahead, but I as an independent thinker, have just not seen it, therefore I cannot follow what I do not see blindly. " if you don't like hanging around with people that quote scripture and who are opposed to such films that make it seem as though "it's ok", then you're at the wrong forums." Why the hostility? Are you that threatened by having your ideas challenged? Is this not a discussion forum? But thanks anyway for the gesture to vacate....you display the usual "christian" values I tend to encounter. You spend far too much of your energy on hatred. Sometimes I think christianity is nothing more than a textbook on how and who to hate more than anything else. "i'd far rather watch a movie about a married couple who honor the vows they made to each other, staying faithful and monogamous, against all odds. that's PLENTY of realism right there... uplifting realism at that." Well, that sounds more like fiction to me than anything else. LOL It also makes for pretty boring movies. And yes, we are discussing the MOVIES here ya know. I mean, you must not like 99% of movies then. Which is fine...live your life any way it makes you happy. But then I don't understand all the hostilities towards THIS movie imparticular...it's certainly far less gratuitous in it's "immoral" portrayals than most films, so I just don't get it.

"This movie is a complete fraud from start to finish--even the stars are straight for Pete's sake! I cannot imagine the average American actually wanting to see a movie with two straight guys kissing eachother. It is full of fake emotions, contrived situations, a British actor playing an American cowboy, there isn't a real thing in this movie." Uh...isn't that a silly arguement? ....ALL narrative film is not real...otherwise it would be a documentary. And com'on, if anything christianity is guilty of misleading marketing. Just look at the blonde-haired, blue-eyed surfer dude jesus is portrayed as. What could be farther from the truth? "To be sure, the homosexual "centerpiece", the human rectum with its bacteria of the lower gut, and its incessant disease-ridden practices are not worthy of even a walk-on part" If you ever wish to truly understand the human condition in relationship to homosexuality, you really have to get off this idea that it's all about anal sex. And I must say, I have a slight problem with people who comment about movies they haven't seen. Would I be safe in assuming most, if not all of you fall within that catagory? Ok...due to the demographics of this forum, and given the fact the movie involves the topic of homosexuality, I can understand there being a universal "disaproval" of it in general, regardless of how wrong-headed it may be to do so (another topic). To say it "promotes" homosexuality sounds kinda odd to me, as if that were the intent, they wouldn't have made it so dysfunctional. And I find the whole idea that it's some kind of homo-agenda propoganda to be completely baseless. Where's the big conspiracy here???? ...how does Annie Proulx, who wrote the short story fit into this so-called agenda? How do the married writers who adapted it to a script fit in....they aren't homosexuals, nor are they part of any pro-homosexual agenda...they are just writers looking for good scripts...that's their profession (and they are good at it). Is Ang Lee out to promote homosexuality, or is he just a straight chinese director who makes very different films because he sees it as an art form? The actors in the film, or the technical people behind the film, or the producers are not part of any gay agenda either. It isn't even a "Hollywood" film...it's an independent film. So where does that leave us? Just more imaginary boogymen made up by zealots. If you want to be afraid of this movie (and perhaps you should), at least be honest and educated about how you condem it, and try and not be so knee-jerk about it, cause what I see is a whole lot of bandwagon jumping, immaturity and mindless scripture-quoting. Anyway, from someone who's actually see the film, what we have here folks, is nothing more than good ole fashioned love story. That's it. Regardless of what you think about it, you have to admit that men do fall in love with men. And that's what this story is about, and it captures the elements of it very realistically. And we do love our love stories....and the love stories we love the most, are the ones that include doomed love, tragic love, and lovers who are kept apart by powers beyond their control. And this film covers all of it....it's just a new take on an old subject. Of course none of this matters unless it's well written, well directed, well acted, well scored and well shot....and this film is superb on all accounts. These are not "tricks", this is just good film making. So if the story content bothers you, fine...but you can't fault it technically. Maybe you should just go and see it. Trust me, if you really have it in your head that homosexuality is "wrong", then there is nothing in this film that is going to sway that...it does not glorify it in any way...in fact it may even strengthen your convictions, as it certainly points out the sad consequences of this relationship on not only the two main characters, but everyone around them. It's a highly ambiguous film, which is why it has such surprisingly universal appeal...there's something for everyone well beyond the "gay" thing.