Brokeback Mountain Review

[Guest LadyC]

ian, you're way too defensive, man, lighten up. seems like you and freshcutgrass just can't resist accusing us of hatred. telling someone the truth about what scripture says is not hateful, it's an act of love.

nobody hear has given any indication that they hate gays.

if you want to see people who claim to love God while spewing hatred about gays, then look up "reverand" phelps and his church. then ask the God-loving people at this board what we think of that church's attitude towards homosexuals. i bet you'll find every one of us feel nothing but disgust for people who express such hatred towards gays... and none of us here have done that.

by the way, lemme ask you the same question that neither trever nor freshcut would answer. do you know Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour?

Edited February 17, 2006 by LadyC

[Guest LadyC]

oh, one more thing. you say that homosexual behavior, unlike adultry, does not hurt anyone? i beg to differ. for one thing, this thread is about the movie brokeback mountain. in that movie, the homosexual cowboys had adultrous affairs that ripped apart the lives of their wives and children.

second of all, yes, aids is still predominantly transferred from person to person directly through homosexual sex acts. that injures the person who gets aids, and it injures anyone else they may ever have a sexual relationship with, puts unborn children at extreme risk should the man impregnate a woman, and puts at risk any medical personell or other individual who may come in contact with their blood or bodily fluid.

but worst of all, it is an act which puts man at odds with his creator.

[Reish Vedaur]

[deleted]

Edited April 28, 2016 by Reish Vedaur
I used to be a terrible person.

[Guest LadyC]

i agree it's overhyped. i went to boxofficemojo.com and pulled up some figures just for the heck of it.

brokback mountain has been in theaters for 69 days. the total box office revenue for this film is:

Domestic: $67,821,000 63.5%

+ Overseas: $39,000,000 36.5%

= Worldwide: $106,821,000

now, by comparison...

the movie Chronicles of Narnia has ALSO been in theaters for 69 days... here's some irony. notice how brokeback's domestic audience accounted for 63% of the total.

narnia's audience was mostly foriegn, with only 43% of all tickets being sold within our US borders... AND YET... in the U.S. alone, narnia has already more than doubled the number of TOTAL sales (US and overseas combined) of brokeback!

Domestic: $285,283,677 43.4%

+ Overseas: $371,878,000 56.6%

= Worldwide: $657,161,677

now, one more comparison... remember the passion of the Christ? let's see how it stacked up to brokeback... it ran in theaters much longer than brokeback has though, so i'll have to compare the weekly stats of the passion with the total stats of brokeback.

are you ready for this?

by the end of the FIFTH DAY in theatres, passion had already earned 25M more box office revenue within the united states only as brokeback mountain has earned worldwide to date!

brokeback may be winning awards, but it has nothing to do with people's opinions. ticket sales is the bottom line here, and that mountain's very much broke.

[nebula]

Calling God a "homophobe" - that takes the cake!

God hates sin. Period!

Calling homosexuality a sin is not "homophobic," any more than calling adultery a sin is "adultryphobic."

One big difference. adultery causes harm and misery to others. Homosexuality is between two consenting adults and affects no one else.

Affecs no one else, eh?

Tell me, how long would a society full of homosexuals last?

Not going to be much of a third or fourth generation, will there?

Have you no fear of the Lord, Ian T?

[Guest shiloh357]

Libertine individuals will always love homosexuality & aborticide. What else is new?

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

tell me what you make of this Arthur

http://www.jesusmcc.org/freespirit/freespirit.html

http://www.jesusmcc.org/freespirit/not09.html

I can't agree. Translating language is not an absolute. There is always a choice of words, some of which have a number of meanings. The translation is always open to the interpretation and possibly views of the translator. You think the original author(s) is a homophobe, they don't. It is not clear cut like you say. especially as a fellow bilingual (i speak German) I find this a strange stance.

You are completely off , Trever. First of all translation is an absolute. The meaning of a word is not open at all to the views of the translator. The translator's job is to determine the intent of the author. It is more than just the meaning of the word, but the context in which the word is used. Context always determines word meanings. The arguement that a word can several different meanings is bogus, because context will always tell you what the word means within the given line of thought. If you say you "Love" your mother, and you also say that you "Love" a particular food, we will know by the contexts of those two statements how you are using the word "love." Clearly, you are using love in reference to your mother in a different context than your favorite food.

When people who don't believe the bible kick a word around and talk about its meaning, they say, "it could mean this, it could mean that," "it could mean 'up,' it could mean 'down'," and so forth. They do this to avoid the true meaning of the word.

The purpose of translating is to know what the author was intending to convey. Often those who promote homosexuality attempt to deflect attention away from the author by trying to tell us that no one can REALLY know what this, or that word really means and therefore cannot claim that homosexuality is wrong according to Scripture.

I will demonstrate why they have no credibility, and I will use one of the quotes from the links you provided.

"The Hebrew word 'toevah,' here translated 'abomination,' does not usually signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft (discussed elsewhere in Leviticus), but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in these same chapters."

John Boswell, Professor of History, Yale University, New Haven.

This is where the guy is wrong. The guy just doesn't know Hebrew and for some reason doesn't think anyone is smart enough to check his facts, or recognize that his lack of skill in Hebrew.

Does to'eivah refer to something as ritually unclean???? Nope. What Boswell ignores is that to'eivah is never used in reference to the animals. There are three words translated in English as Abominations. Namely, we have to'eivah, peggul, and shekh-ets.

Peg-gul and shekets are used in connection with the animals as being filthy or dirty.

To'eivah is used 117 times in the OT. It is always connected with idolatry, incest, sex with animals, sex with someone of the same gender, child sacrifice, any sacrifice offered to God that imitated the sacrifices pagans made to their gods, men wearing womens clothes, and vice versa, and prostitution.

If we wanted to talk about somethnig that is "ritually unclean" for Jews, then the word to use is, tah-mei. Frankly, Boswell just doesn't know what he is talking about, and he is banking on people like you to not look at the substance of his remarks and check his facts. He banks on people like you who take his word for it and run quoting him.

There are many of us who study the biblical languages and I guarantee you, that Boswell would not last two minutes in debate if he used this argument that I have quoted above. I don't have time to tear the other quotes apart, but they are equally as lame. Perhaps YOU need to do some fact checking before run around posting links to faulty, inept scholars who pretty much don't know what they are talking about.

[ted]

.....about as important to cinema as The Monkey's movie "Hair."

The Monkey's made the movie "Hair"?

I thought Hair was a movie version of the Broadway play of the same name with Treat Williams and Donnie Dacus?

t.

[Gerioke]

.....about as important to cinema as The Monkey's movie "Hair."

The Monkey's made the movie "Hair"?

I thought Hair was a movie version of the Broadway play of the same name with Treat Williams and Donnie Dacus?

t.

I believe he was refering to the monkee's movie "Head".

[Guest Gladiator4God]

they labeled Al roker and matt lauer's ride on a sled down the olympic sled hill "broke back mountain" since al was ontop , was a good laugh to see it

[Guest truespirit]

I think the main problem that most people have here deep down might not be as much about this particular movie, per say, as they have w/ the overall onslaught of movies coming out of Hollywood these days, the messages that so many of them have.

I went to a movie a few weeks ago and they ran a preview add for an upcoming horror movie. Let me tell you what-if any of our parents let their teenagers in to see that one, they're going to be deranged for life. I think I can honestly say that after watching just a few moments of the previews. I think this is all part of the hidden warfare taking place right before us.

In respect to the issue at hand here, that of homosexuality, I can remember a buddy and me forging the signature of one of our parents back in high school so that we could sneak into Basic Instinct. If I remember correctly, there were three or more very explicit sex scenes in that one along with various murder scenes.

As a sinner myself, I have a hard time judging others. I used to do some of that, but I just won't do that anymore. There are far too many problems at work both here at home and abroad for me to ever single out a particular group of sinners. I have to leave that up to God Himself.

Yet, I think that everyone's eyebrows go up a little bit when a movie like this one is put out there. Just another sign of all of the negatives taking place in our world.

However, as somebody that's watched movies like Basic Instinct and others, I just don't feel entitled to judgement in this area.

God hates sin, but never the sinner. That said, this is probably one of those areas where we're bound to look down on Hollywood for releasing a film like this one. But if we do that, we should also be condemning every other sex related and/or violent themed movie that is released. And to make sure that we're not watching any of those ourselves, either.

Before we allow ourselves to feel "Complete hatred" for Hollywood, however, I think that there's still a little bit of hope. Last fall I went to a movie called "Dreamer," which was a story about a horse and a family that was absolutely wonderful. Someone mentioned "Narnia." Over the Holidays I went to the remake of the film that had the couple marry with all of the little delinquent children. The movie wasn't so hot, but it was fairly innocent, I felt.

One of the things that dissapoints me a lot about so many of these films is the language. A lot of them could be just as funny and/or meaningful without the bad language.

Most of today's major movies don't have the amount of nudity that was found back in the 80's, so that's good. Outside of the select few like this one that seem to carry a "Message," the biggest ones I have a problem with are these horror/mystery films today. Those particular films have become absolutely terrible, denomic. I went to "King Kong" a couple of months ago, that which was moreless advertised as a "Family movie/event." If any of you happened to see that one, I'm sure you noticed the way that they through in that ten minute segment on the island that was nothing, nothing short of some sort of denomic cult like ceremony. No reason for that to be in the movie whatsover, but there it was.

I'd just like to sort of know whether or not there's a paper trail in Hollywood when it comes to a few of the particular writers and/or directors. One can only hope there aren't hundreds of different minds like that at work in Hollywood.

Edited February 18, 2006 by truespirit