Does this movie promote homosexuality?
Why make such an immoral movie?
share
The fact that you think homosexuality is a 'moral' issue is disgusting and archaically ignorant.
Rather than patronize your ignorance and homophobia I'll just quote Oscar Wilde himself from the NOVEL this film is based on.
'There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.' - Oscar Wilde about The Picture of Dorian Gray novel, 1891.
I never thought I'd meet a Victorian era biggot.
Preface of The picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde.
Preface
The artist is the creator of beautiful things. To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim. The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things.
The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography. Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.
Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope. They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only beauty.
There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.
The nineteenth century dislike of realism is the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass.
The nineteenth century dislike of romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in a glass. The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium. No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true can be proved. No artist has ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style. No artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything. Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art. Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art. From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the musician. From the point of view of feeling, the actor's craft is the type. All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital. When critics disagree, the artist is in accord with himself. We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.
All art is quite useless.
JTheGoblinKing - that is a great reply. Well done
share
Thank you.
1. Homosexuality is NOT a choice. Only people living in the dark ages think that. You spoke like a Victorian farmer. Do you like that your intellect is stuck in the eighteen eighties lower classes?
2. Oscar Wilde suffered just because he was born gay. The poor guy was thrown in prison and lost everything and died shortly after. You are a cruel, depraved, individual. There's nothing more immoral than the loss of compassion and mercy. I believe it was Jesus who said that.
3. The story is a morality play. The main character learns the hard way that beauty isn't everything. He dies at the end. His hedonism is not promoted. It's not anti-gay but it is teaching that there are more important things to life than youth and beauty and if you don't learn this lesson than in years to come you will be empty and hollow and your soul will be corrupted (His painting). But you're far too shallow to see that.
4. Homosexuality was common place in Ancient Rome and Ancient Japan. Most of the bible's condemnations against homosexuality were added by the clergy of King James in the year 1610 and in that era 'sodomy' meant any sexual act that was not strictly for procreation, missionary, between a married couple. It's only in the last two hundred years that the word Sodomy has been narrowed in definition. If you so much as let your wife go on top you are committing sodomy by the Biblical standard.
I took a course in parapsychology which had modules in Spirituality. Perhaps you should learn a little bit about religion before using that as the road map for morality.
Perhaps you should remember
'Judge not lest ye shall be judged.' And 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.'
The fact that your mind is trapped in nineteenth century social conformity I am amazed you're able to turn on this new fangled contraption here.
'There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.' - Oscar Wilde about The Picture of Dorian Gray novel, 1891.
Sexuality should never be a moral issue. Philosophically moralitiy stems from concepts of good and evil. Good are forces of creation, preservation of well being, and compassion. Evil is forces of destruction and suffering. There is no evil to be had in love. There is nothing destructive in any sexuality between consenting adults.
Hedonism in general usually leads to suffering or selfishness to some degree but that's NOT a condition of homosexuality. It's the condition of any human unable to express compassion, love or mercy. It's a cruel selfishness.
The Ghost of Christmas Past in Charles' Dickens Christmas Carol warned that the two most evil things in the world are the two children of Man. Want and Ignorance. Ignorance was the one to be feared above all else. YOU perpetuate ignorance. Therefor by Charles Dickens' standards, YOU are the most immoral person here.
Sexuality usually is an expression of love and there's nothing more pure or natural.
Why don't you go yell at the homosexual animals on The Discovery Channel.
Basic human psychology would have been a useful subject for your education, that and religious history and philosophy. It's called reading. You should try it one day.
'There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.' - Oscar Wilde about The Picture of Dorian Gray novel, 1891.
People, I only have one question: Does one really have to stick something to a hole in order to be able to love properly?
(Btw, look at the meaning of the question before replying!)
All those OUTRAGED over perceived attack on homosexuallity are only doing so because homosexuality is the in thing at the moment and they only want to potray their own pcism and trendiness to the world; they don't give two hoots about gay poeple really.
Only those with no valid argument pick holes in people's spelling and grammar.
You are making no sense, hun. I didn't say anything about the Bible. But since you brought it up:
1) Nothing was added "by clergy" to the King James Bible. The references are there in the ancient manuscripts.
2) The word sodomy in the Bible refers to homosexual activity only. " Marriage is honourable IN ALL and the marriage bed is undefiled" (Non-marital heterosexual activity is adultery or fornication).
3) No-one is "born gay". The idea is nonsensical. Every person alive on the planet is constitutionally heterosexual. What you mean when you say you are gay is that you experience homosexual attractions. These are a sexual ADAPTATION to the emotionally painful experiences you have had whilst growing up. You have sexualized what is unattainable to you. Deep down, you KNOW all this, even though you will aggressively deny it.
4) Whether homosexual behaviour is moral or immoral is a matter of personal opinion. Much will depend on your world-view - on how you understand the world, and what you believe to be the ultimate meaning of things.
5) I never said that homosexuals should be made to suffer or be treated harshly in any way. Don't put words in my mouth. I am a sexual libertarian. I believe that from the age of about 15 and over, the law should allow people to do whatever they want.
6) Homosexuality was not common in the ancient world. You are confusing homosexuality in the modern sense with sexual experimentation (always common during periods of cultural decadence) and erotic protocols between older and younger men or between men of high and low rank, which usually had a religious or educative function.
7) Read the verse you quoted in its entirety. It says, do not judge unrighteously; that is, do not judge by human standards (because then, you too will be judged by someone else's human standards) but judge righteously, that is, by God's standards. You have just broken this commandment by judging me by your own human standard.
Thanks.
Superfluous lists and Bible quotes aside, you're basically saying that for a man to love another man, or a woman to love another woman, is wrong. You're saying that love is immoral. Do you really think that?
"To each his own magic."
No. People should love one another. I'm talking about sexual conduct. But then you already knew that.
shareSo you're saying that two men are allowed to love each other, but they're not allowed to have sex? I'm genuinely just trying to figure out to what exactly you're objecting.
"To each his own magic."
You are confusing love with lust, hun. And you are doing it intentionally.
shareI'm pretty sure I'm not, and I'll thank you not to use such a patronising and belittling tone, you self-righteous bigot.
"To each his own magic."
You are throwing words around, kneazle. There is no discipline to your conversation. Don't use the word bigot in debate. It's meaningless.
shareI'm not even going to try to reason with you - everyone reading this thread knows who the idiot is here, and it's not me.
"To each his own magic."
I find this thread most offensive and ignorant.
First of all, morality is a social construct for the most part. We are conditioned from birth on what is right and wrong. Our current morality is derived from an archaic christian philosophy. The truth is there is no true definition of what is right or wrong.
However we do know love. If one thing is true, it is Love. Our society does a great disservice to Love. We in our arrogance and fear dare to restrain it. Something such as gender shouldn't be such a important factor in sweet golden Love. How can you ever truly know it if it is?
Let us think of Alexander the Great and Hephaestion, of Antinous and Hadrian. They deeply loved each other and were almost destroyed upon their lovers deaths. They deified them.
There are many famous lovers throughout the classical world, it's even shown in mythology. Zeus and Ganymede, Herakles and Iolaus (Plutarch says Herakles male lovers were beyond counting), Apollo and Hyacinthus who was killed by the jealousy of Zephyrus, Apollo and Cyparissus, Achilles and Patroclus, Dionysus and Ampelos, Dionysus and Polymnos/Hyplipnos. Eros was the patron of male love. I could go on and on.
You are ignorant. Anyone who defames Love in any of it's forms is not only disgusting but is a enemy to Love itself. How dare you.
[deleted]
To put refined sugar in your coffee is "un-natural" (and angers the caffeine god), to chop cows into hamburgers is unnatural to drive cars is unnatural...to hump anything with a pulse (regardless of gender) is on the other hand very natural, even if it´s turns out to be something genetic, a disease or just pure choice.
I would surely question the "intelligence" behind any design. Some say a dog have a comparable intelligence of a two year old human child.
Also it´s interesting hearing puppets talk about free will, if someone were to have free will it would be of the same magnitude as the will capable to create a world. Also free will grants someone the power to decide for themselves what constitutes right or wrong.
- Nothing to see here -
it is a defilement of the sacred child bearing body of the sacred female. Woman are child bearers and they produce life from their wombs, to defile this with sexual intercourse with another woman is un-natural and purely lust.What century is this? I am a heterosexual woman and I find that common extremely offensive and destructive. You're basically saying that any woman who doesn't want to have children is unnatural, and that women have no basis for existence outside of thier childrearing abilities. That worldview has destroyed far more lives throughout history than sexuality ever could.
Formerly therewasnothingleft-1 share
'it is a defilement of the sacred child bearing body of the sacred female. Woman are child bearers and they produce life from their wombs, to defile this with sexual intercourse with another woman is un-natural and purely lust.'
Actually by your view, the strictly lust would be the child bearing. Whatever idiot made this comment is mysogynistic, homophobic and cnearly has sadly, never felt actual love in thier entire lust to assume all homosexual attraction is based on the body...
And such a view does not belong on this forum.
As offensive as they are try not to feed the trolls. This thread should not have lasted this long.
those who presume to preach morality to others tend to be lacking in that department themselves.
it is,in fact,a knee jerk of insecurity,without fail.
And what? Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the only "credible" sources? That's a load of BS. You're not realizing that there are other beliefs out there, whether it's from the present or the past. What we think as Greek and Roman mythology now, as well as other mythologies, were once the religions in their respective cultures. And in each culture, they viewed homosexuality differently.
And by the way, you're such a hypocrite. You said that you're "sick of people trying to tell others how to think and how to view behaviors." Well, that's exactly what you're doing. It seems to me that you're trying to cram what you believe down other peoples' throats, whether they like it or not.
"3) No-one is "born gay". The idea is nonsensical. Every person alive on the planet is constitutionally heterosexual. What you mean when you say you are gay is that you experience homosexual attractions. These are a sexual ADAPTATION to the emotionally painful experiences you have had whilst growing up. You have sexualized what is unattainable to you. Deep down, you KNOW all this, even though you will aggressively deny it. "
This is interesting. It is true that when we're born we are born male and female and we have complimentary parts which can then reproduce with each other. If all beings were created homosexual, the body would have adapted to disallow the complimentary reproductive systems between male and female, or it would have evolved to create a new system whereby 2 of the same sex could reproduce. I'm looking at it from a biological science, not what is good or bad. There are creatures that are both male and female which can reproduce -- the slug for instance. Each slug has a penis and can impregnate the other slug. Some animals reproduce through cloning themselves.
So when one is born homosexual, it is something that is different in their brains but not in their bodies. Being homosexual does not automatically render your reproductive system unable to function. It is a difference that exists in the mind, whereby you desire to have sexual relations with the same instead of opposite sex.
If a person were to be truly born gay they would have different bodily reproductive functions. Seeing as how people say homosexuality has been around for eons, I'm curious as to why the reproductive organs of gay people have not evolved to accommodate their desires. That is, where 2 women who have gay desires also have corresponding physical abilities to produce offspring together without any need for a male. As it is today, you can not create a new human being without one part from a male and one part from a female. The reproductive system is the origin of all sexuality, and sexual feelings exist in order for us to reproduce. the body has not evolved a way for people who want to copulate with their own sex to produce offspring. This essentially to me says that there may be some "faulty wiring" in the brains of homosexual people, but that does not make them BAD in any way. It is simply a natural anomaly, as we are all subject to such things in one way or another and should not be punished for it.
But you know, to go around telling people who think homosexuality is immoral for whatever reason isn't being tolerant, either. You can't go around casting judgment on them for judging, because you're just condemning them for the same thing you're doing. It makes no sense. What do you care if someone doesn't think homosexuality is moral, anyway? they're allowed to think what they want, unless you want to institute a police state and have all our thoughts adhere to strict rules about what we can and can not think.
There is only light, my light, my naked light, my gift to you all. Experience my bliss.
[deleted]
According to major studies around 5 per cent of the whole population are totally homosexual.
And in my humble opinion, this figure would not be significant to the nature (or the evolution) to create an entirely new reproductive system for human species. [The current one (common to all) is not so bad you know]
Also to the nature, some gay population might be a tool to control overpopulation. So again making up new reproductive system would be wrong.
This is my take.
Also to the nature, some gay population might be a tool to control overpopulation. So again making up new reproductive system would be wrong.
the other part of that natural "tool" is to weed off the weak/flawed genes limiting their reproductivity. try as they might, two males will never procreate a child.
***
Thread ender. share
[deleted]
[deleted]
Why so hung up on the homosexual aspect of the narrative, hmm hubert?
Anything in your closet that's bothering you, perhaps?
Do you know you get to see some nice T&A and S&M and other scenes of lusty straight sex as well in the movie, or did you only see the solitary scene of men kissing each other?
Nah, let's forget that. Let's believe you're straight, all wholesome-like, like myself. But in that case, then you're either a troll kicking up unnecessary arguments on internet threads, or you're really a sad (bigoted) character.
hubert18, you are an ignorant.
Take your distorted "morality" and shove it up your @ss.
No, I'll not be polite with narrow minds like yours.
for someone named hubert...i am assuming you are male...you certainly call a lot of people hun lol.the only people i know who still use that term are gayer than oscar wilde at love parade.not that there's anything wrong with that.
perhaps you should do a bit of soul searching.
the metaphor of dorian gray is quite applicable to your particular predicament.
The world will be better when sky-fairy-fearing *beep* bigots like yourself drop dead. Please report to the nearest suicide booth immediately.
-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl
Just because something is different and does not serve a biological fuction does not make it wrong by default. Otherwise you may as well say infertile people are evil if they have sex too.
Evil is supposed to define acts of destruction and suffering. Neither come out of homosexuality. Hedonism and selfishness, yes. Homosexuality, no.
If the lust is between two consenting adults than it harms no one.
'And it harm no one, do as thou wilt.' - Wiccan Reede.
Every religion's definition of evil requires the end result to be harmful to others or one self. So therefor by the grand scheme of things and the more universal definition of good and evil, homosexuality is not immoral.
Dude, exactly. The idea that someone is born gay and can't help but love someone of their own sex doesn't make sense. It's the same as saying someone is born incestuous and thus commits incest or someone is born a serial killer and therefore kills people on a spree. You can argue the same point but when you do people counterpoint and say, no people who commit incest or bestiality or pedophilia or kill are crazy. Well, most of people who commit these acts can't help the way they think or feel, that doesn't make them any less immoral, same as the people who commit homosexual acts supposedly can't help the way they think or feel.
shareYep , very true, people are so ignorant nowadays, there minds have been brainwashed, and they are moral cowards.
shareThe idea that someone is born gay and can't help but love someone of their own sex doesn't make sense. It's the same as saying someone is born incestuous and thus commits incest or someone is born a serial killer and therefore kills people on a spree. You can argue the same point but when you do people counterpoint and say, no people who commit incest or bestiality or pedophilia or kill are crazy. Well, most of people who commit these acts can't help the way they think or feel, that doesn't make them any less immoral, same as the people who commit homosexual acts supposedly can't help the way they think or feel.Actually, being gay is very different from being a child molester or a serial killer, because IT DOESN'T HURT ANYBODY!!!!!!!!! You have serious issues if you think otherwise.
Hedwig and the Angry Inch...that's all I have to say about that share
Piss off.
shareAlso, you are a twat.
share[deleted]
Hubert18 ...I agree with most of what you've said. Stay strong. It's truly hard to stand up for what you believe in, in this society.
When there is a topic that is wrong, there is hardly anyone to stand against it (even though they may agree). As soon as you put up "gay is wrong" or any touchy subject, everyone jumps in the band wagon. Why isn't it the other way around? or at least equal in the support during a debate?
Why can a person who believes in gays or whatever be allowed to say they support it without getting any heat, but someone who doesn't gets completely ridiculed. What a society. Be proud that you, who embrace individualism and personal choice, stomp on those who have given their opinions - to try to make them think JUST. LIKE. YOU.
"Are you telling me I no longer can think how I want because you don't agree with it? ..But I don't agree with how you think. Ah, but that doesn't matter- You have a team who's got your back so it's easier for you to speak immaturely and without respect for another being."
the king james bible does indeed differ in wording to other translations of the bible, subtle deviations which can make a big difference. the bible also was indeed edited by the church at the council of nicea where they edited out entire books of the bible and decided which ones would from then on be considered correct. other writings which were believed equally by some to be the word of god were completly discarded just like that. kind of an all words of god are equal but some are more equal than others approach to things.
what does your interpretation (disputed by others of the same belief) of a text (which is disputed by people of other beliefs) have to do with anything? we can decide what laws we make based on what is best and what helps and protects people most, we dont outlaw meat on fridays simply because an old text suggests it, nor do we need to conduct our lives or laws based solely upon those words if there is no other reason for them. murder and theft are outlawed even by cultures with no hint of the judeo christian texts, they benefit people in a civilised society, with or without those texts also advising it.
out of all men in the world only 8% have their hair grow anti clockwise from the crown, this is something that can never be changed by any means and is there from birth, 30% of gay men have their hair grow anti clockwise, this shows there is something actually different in the body from birth, genetic evidence that it is as natural to them as your hetrosexuality is to you, most gay men do not experience trauma, that is nonsense. there is also evidence of hormone differences etc which have been recognised for decades and why hormone treatment was abused to treat homosexuality, because even when it was considered a crime to be gay it was acknowledged that it was often not a voluntary choice. dont quote that people choose to be gay unless your saying you were born sexually ambivalent and had to choose and struggle to be hetrosexual, due to your life experiences and collections of trauma, it makes equal sense.
wether its moral is not personal opinion, its, are they hurting me in any way shape or form? no, so is it my business? does it make any difference to my life unless i choose to make a big deal out of it? no..... then how is it up to other people to decide who someone else may fall in love with, that is like saying that the race laws that stopped black and white people marrying was moral or immoral based on an individuals world view.
homosexuality wasnt stigmatised in many of the cultures of the ancient world, it wasnt due to decadence as it was acceptable in many tribal cultures which werent going through times of plenty like the romano greek societies, there just wasnt any artificial judeo christian ethic saying it was wrong, there are gay animals, so it never seemed particularly odd until social conventions created rules about diet, lifestyle etc. usually had an educative function? your talking solely about a particular period in some greek city states, the ancient world includes everywhere including african, chinese and 'barbarian' cultures that all had open homosexuality without the mentoring relationship of greece. there were gay aztecs for petes sake.
also in what way does showing something promote it? did the godfather and goodfellas make people feel the need to go kiss the ring of the don of the local mafia clan? did thelma and louise promote committing murder then driving off a cliff? does flags of our fathers promote killing asian people and flag pole raising? how many movies show someone get shot? are they advocating going home and shooting someone? it showed homosexuality, that doesnt mean its promoting it or attacking it, just like film makers dont think, oh my, i want to make more hetrosexuals, lets throw in some love scenes to indoctrinate the masses.
Michael if you read what he wrote, you'd realize that 99% of his post is what OSCAR WILDE wrote. There's nary an original thought from the poster in that post and he neglected to put proper quote marks around the swiped copy. So you should be thanking Wilde, not the poster.
There is only light, my light, my naked light, my gift to you all. Experience my bliss.
'Michael if you read what he wrote, you'd realize that 99% of his post is what OSCAR WILDE wrote. There's nary an original thought from the poster in that post and he neglected to put proper quote marks around the swiped copy. So you should be thanking Wilde, not the poster.'
It's from the preface of The Picture of Dorian Gray novel. Considering this is the Dorian Gray forum I sort of thought it would be recongized immediately. I was quoting THIS book. You know, being ironic. I didn't think anyone would not know what it was from.
In fact I said it was the preface for the novel before I copied it. SO YES, credit was given to the great Oscar Wilde.
'1) Nothing was added "by clergy" to the King James Bible. The references are there in the ancient manuscripts.'
I know you don't want to believe it but it was. I have seen some of the older manuscripts. Entire sections of text were 're-worded' removed or out right added. See the History Channel's Banned from the Bible (available on DVD through the website for the History Channel). There's a reason there are religious scholars who want to republish the original texts in exact word for word translations, because so much was changed with the King James' version. Why do you think there are so many different versions floating around with different lengths?
The New World edition of the Bible is quite different from the King James Bible just as the American standard Bible is quite different from the English standard. Just as the Hebrew Torah no longer fully resembles the Old Testament of the King James edition. Each omits different parts or re-words things which alters meanings.
--------------------------------------------------------------
'2) The word sodomy in the Bible refers to homosexual activity only. " Marriage is honourable IN ALL and the marriage bed is undefiled" (Non-marital heterosexual activity is adultery or fornication).'
History of Sex on the history channel.
Also dictionary.com proves you wrong too.
–noun
1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
3. bestiality (def. 4).
Origin:
1250–1300; ME sodomie < OF. See Sodom, -y 3
There's this thing called Google. If you don't believe an historic fact you can look it up. It pretty much meant any non-missionary sexual act.
----------------------------------------------
'3) No-one is "born gay". The idea is nonsensical. Every person alive on the planet is constitutionally heterosexual. What you mean when you say you are gay is that you experience homosexual attractions. These are a sexual ADAPTATION to the emotionally painful experiences you have had whilst growing up. You have sexualized what is unattainable to you. Deep down, you KNOW all this, even though you will aggressively deny it.'
If this is true than how is it there are lesbian cats and birds in the wild?
-----------------------------------
'4) Whether homosexual behaviour is moral or immoral is a matter of personal opinion. Much will depend on your world-view - on how you understand the world, and what you believe to be the ultimate meaning of things.'
Good and Evil should not be about what is fashionable or trendy. It should not be about personal view otherwise you might as well quote Anne Rice's Interview with the vampire where Lestat says 'Evil is a point of view...' Morality is meant to be that, a code of standard of right and wrong. What you are describing isn't code of conduct. It's fashion and taste. You're a shallow, horrible person if you think that constitutes morality.
-------------------------------------------------------------
'5) I never said that homosexuals should be made to suffer or be treated harshly in any way. Don't put words in my mouth. I am a sexual libertarian. I believe that from the age of about 15 and over, the law should allow people to do whatever they want.'
You condemned Oscar Wilde and the poor guy suffered a lot.
---------------------------------------------------------------
'6) Homosexuality was not common in the ancient world.'
Fact: Ancient Japanese had no word for homosexuality. It was just sexuality whether with a man or a woman. And most Samurai had sex with other men for pleasure. Sex with women was usually for procreation. History of Japan and History of Sex, available on DVD via the History Channel.
Fact: Now I'm just an awe at the utter ignorance of this.
You honestly think Ancient Rome and Greece were purely heterosexual!? Seriously? Have you never read the work of Ovid or Homer? Never read the Greek myths? Apollo the sun God had male and female lovers, just for a start. And the Greek Gods were used to represent social norms of the era. They were practically diety soap operas.
It's historical fact that Alexander The Great had male and female lovers.
The very word Lesbian used to just mean you were from the Greek Island of Lesbos, an island that according to myth was dominated by women who preferred the company of women, a real island not far from the Island of Crete. The very name Dorian was chosen by Oscar Wilde because of the Greek implications associated with it.
See The books The stories of the Greeks By Rex Warner, Mythology: Timeless tales of Gods and heroes by Edith Hamilton, Adventures of the Greek Heroes, Myths and Legends of the Greeks, Myths and legends of Many lands published by the library of congress.
---------------------------------------
'7) Read the verse you quoted in its entirety. It says, do not judge unrighteously;'
Not in the original text. Remember the one passage that says 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.' That's another of those brilliant mistranslations. Early English editions had it that 'Thou shalt not suffer a criminal to live.' and before that 'an enemy of God.' Now some Scholars say the passage might not have ever originally existed in the original testament because of how it contradicts the commandments.
Judge righteously was NEVER in any text. And it completely contradicts what Jesus taught. Think about it. You're implying that he told his flock to judge in the way they think God would judge. How many times did he say not to try to understand God's reasoning? And now you're saying he told them to condemn what they think God would condemn? If this was true he'd have never said 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.'
Why am I suddenly reminded of the Voltaire song called God Thinks? The song God Thinks is about how people put their own views into what they THINK God wants as a means of justification.
Perhaps you shouldn't have tried to dance with someone who collects antique books and paid attention in social studies.
1) The King James text is a precise translation of the original manuscripts. No evidence exists that anything was added or taken out. Don't bother with the other versions that you mention. Mostly, they interpret the Biblical text in a humanistic, man-centred way. I have no idea what the History Channel documentary has to do with this. If memory serves me right, it was about the heretical Gnostic gospels.
2) The BIBLICAL meaning of the word sodomy is homosexual conduct. The Bible says that ALL marital sexual behaviour is "honourable" and "undefiled". Bestiality is listed separately in the Bible as another sexual sin.
3) Homosexual animals don't exist. You are confusing hierarchical behaviour in the animal kingdom which is usually temporary and the result of population stress with homosexuality in the human sense.
4) Don't know what you are talking about. I said one's sense of morality is related to his worldview, religious or otherwise, not trends and fashions.
5) I did no such thing. I was talking about the morality of his sexual behaviour.
6) ? ? ?
You seem to be agreeing with me here. I did not say homosexual behaviour did not take place in the ancient world. I said that homosexuality in the modern sense, as a more or less permanent and exclusive orientation, was rare.
7) Jesus never said anything about "the reasoning of God". He said, If you love me you will obey my commandments and you will not find them grievous. He warned again and again of the consequences of disobedience. And do not forget: he told the woman taken in adultery and about to be stoned, Go and sin no more. He did not say, Go and join an adulterers' pride parade.
[deleted]
"The BIBLICAL meaning of the word sodomy is homosexual conduct. The Bible says that ALL marital sexual behaviour is "honourable" and "undefiled". Bestiality is listed separately in the Bible as another sexual sin."
Nope, way up into the Middle Ages sodomy was anything that did not constitute vaginal sex.
Besides, I wouldn't take much stock on the Bible. After Sodom is destroyed by God for all its evil sins, Lot (the righteous man who was saved from the destruction) has sex with his daughters after getting drunk. 'Cause a parable of incest is a OK, but homosexuality is nasty.
I find it ironic and stupid that we're being told a word invented in the 1300's was even the word used in the Bible originally. It was an English translation and the original English word meant any sexual act that wasn't between a married couple for the sake of procreation as confirmed by the history provided by dictionary.com. It was any recreational and or non-procreative sex. It's only in the last two hundred years that it's come to mean homosexuality.
By the way why is this thread not being deleted for it's homophobic content.
I think I remember a homosexual couple or two in the bible. Some king. I forget. Rusty on my bible.
share
Funny fact about the bible, there are ten times as many condemnations against heterosexual couples than there are against homosexual couples. If you're straight and ever had a lusty thought you're 'immoral.'
You remember correctly. I'm Catholic but there's no denying the relationship between Ruth and Esther I think it was, and King David and Jonathan.
"You may say, I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one"
Cook's Crue member #13
Let us start from the very beginning.
Does this movie promote homosexuality?
No movie promotes anything. We all have free will to decide if to do something or not to do it. Just because it is in a movie doesn't mean we should do it.
Why make such an immoral movie?
The movie is not immoral. The act you see as immoral is due to your own visions of how the world should work. The act that others don't see as immoral is due to their visions of how the world should work. It is this difference in opinion that makes the world 1. a very exciting place and 2. causes the most greif.
If anything this movie shows that Dorien was a manipulative soul. He seduced Basil to get his own way just as he seduced the mother when he didnt want finding out about his relations with the daughter and also to win a bet. He manipulated lives for his own gain. Wouldn't that, in any opinion, be classed as immoral?
---
A man's called a traitor - or liberator
A rich man's a thief - or philanthropist
Is one a crusader - or ruthless invader?
It's all in which label Is able to persist
[deleted]
Ruth and Esther were lesbians and David and Jonathan were gay? I'm sorry, you mean to tell me that every best friend you've had has been your lover? Ruth and Esther were friends and David and Jonathan were best friends and nothing more. I've had best friends I'd do anything for, that doesn't mean I'd hump their bones whenever I had the chance. That's sick. You're weird if you think that friends automatically means lovers.
shareRuth and Esther were friends and David and Jonathan were best friends and nothing more.
Sweetheart, you're either uninformed, or willfully blind. The professions of love made by both couples are much more than friends. Even Saul accuses Jonathan of what he considered an indecent relationship: "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?" (1 Sam.20:30) He wasn't accusing Jonathan of something that wasn't true.
'Friends' doesn't automatically mean 'lovers,' but in the instances of Ruth & Naomi and David & Jonathan it did.
§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§ share
"there's no denying the relationship between Ruth and Esther"
Apart from the fact that they appear in different books of the Bible.
Actually it is well known that the King James Bible was edited to reflect James's fears about religion. That is why the Church of England doesn't use it in the vast majority of its churches. How do I know this? My mother is a Church of England vicar and I have grown up with the morality of the church.
Incidentally, my mother regularly does blessings of homosexual partnerships and is one of the many many vicars who strongly believes that marriage should be legal for homosexual couples.
Also, as a woman, I'd like to add that sodomy between a man and a woman really does happen and with the right lubricant can be exceptionally enjoyable.
I am a bisexual woman and I've never had any choice in the matter. I'm just born that way. If we truly had choice in our sexualities, why would anyone choose to be persecuted? And especially over values inflicted by society hundreds of years ago. I agree with the Wiccan Rede: and it harm none, do what you will. As long as the sex is safe, sane and consensual, then what does it matter who it is with?
I've just come from seeing the movie and found it compelling to watch. The acting is superb and I highly recommend it.
silvercrossofthehuntress aka silvercross
It is well known to me that the catholic church has long since been infiltrated by practitioners of satanism, and that your mother partook in the habitual destruction of an already spiritually dead religion. After all you to worship everyone except he who has died for your sins, Jesus Christ.
God will never bless a homosexual marriage, it is a defilement of the human race. The only true power is that of the heavenly creator who has made mankind in his own image. This very fact is the reason why the fallen angel Lucifer and his demons hate your guts and want to drag you straight to hell, because he was given no second chance at redemption.
There is nothing worse than hate and ignorance particularly on a day of love and compassion.
I said that homosexuality in the modern sense, as a more or less permanent and exclusive orientation, was rare.You, hubert, are the one who makes homosexuality into a permanent and exclusive orientation. Prior to the Victorian era, there were plenty of people who engaged in same-sex relations, but it wasn't until the Victorian era when such acts were deemed immoral enough to make someone an entirely different species, a "homosexual" rather than a human being with a variety of genetic traits. Furthermore, homosexuals in the ancient world weren't just "experimenting" as you say, it was seen as a legitimate form of love. Proof of this is in Aristophanes' myth in Plato's Symposium. Here's an idiot-proof translation for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YO9FpWX57E. This shows that ancient philosphers saw homosexual love as legitimate, and equal to heterosexual love. The only reason homosexuality has become a "permanent and exclusive orientation" as you say, is because people like you think its important enough to completely constitute a person's personality.
Formerly therewasnothingleft-1 share
[deleted]
hey... hubert18 is a troll with a ton of psychological issues that stalks gay movie forums and incites a lot of hate.
ignore him, don't feed the troll!
1) The King James text is a precise translation of the original manuscripts. No evidence exists that anything was added or taken out. Don't bother with the other versions that you mention. Mostly, they interpret the Biblical text in a humanistic, man-centred way. I have no idea what the History Channel documentary has to do with this. If memory serves me right, it was about the heretical Gnostic gospels.
Hon, there are no 'original manuscripts.' Yes, there's plenty of evidence that more was added, since the Greek cursives on which the KJV is mainly based are late, nearly contemporary with the KJV itself.
But these interpolations are not germane to the discussion of homosexuality in the Bible. It's how the KJV translators chose to translate certain Hebrew and Greek terms into English, and these translations depended on cultural assumptions of the time. The ways in which translators have rendered passages like Leviticus 18:22 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 has varied throughout the centuries. The fact is that the peculiar words used in these passages don't refer to anything going on today. Leviticus was prohibiting a Canaanite religious practice, one which was still practiced in Greece at the time Corinthians was written, but which faded shortly thereafter. Today, there's no analog to temple prostitution; there are no more qadashim.
2) The BIBLICAL meaning of the word sodomy is homosexual conduct. The Bible says that ALL marital sexual behaviour is "honourable" and "undefiled". Bestiality is listed separately in the Bible as another sexual sin.
'Sodomy' does not occur in the Bible. It's a term coined in the 12th century. If you want to know how the authors of the Bible defined the sin of Sodom, then it's in the Bible you should look.
Ezekiel 16:49,50:
49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."
Nothing about homosexuality there.
How about the New Testament? Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but he did mention Sodom. He compares inhospitality to his disciples to the behavior of Sodom, in Matthew 10:14-15:
14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
3) Homosexual animals don't exist. You are confusing hierarchical behaviour in the animal kingdom which is usually temporary and the result of population stress with homosexuality in the human sense.
You need to read Bruce Bagemihl's Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity:
http://tinyurl.com/y8v828b
4) Don't know what you are talking about. I said one's sense of morality is related to his worldview, religious or otherwise, not trends and fashions.
I concur: your worldview makes you a horrible, shallow, fatuous person.
5) I did no such thing. I was talking about the morality of his sexual behaviour.
The same thing the British courts were talking about when they condemned Wilde.
6) ? ? ?
You seem to be agreeing with me here. I did not say homosexual behaviour did not take place in the ancient world. I said that homosexuality in the modern sense, as a more or less permanent and exclusive orientation, was rare.
So?
7) Jesus never said anything about "the reasoning of God". He said, If you love me you will obey my commandments and you will not find them grievous. He warned again and again of the consequences of disobedience. And do not forget: he told the woman taken in adultery and about to be stoned, Go and sin no more. He did not say, Go and join an adulterers' pride parade.
You have no basis for characterizing homosexuality as a sin comparable to adultery. It is not mentioned among the Ten Commandments. If you're making the claim that when Jesus referred to "my commandments," saying that they were not "grievous," that he meant the 613 statutes of the Holiness Code, then you're going against the whole thrust of New Testament theology. Not to mention the fact that you're choosing to apply only one out of the 613, while disregarding others like the laws against eating shellfish, or wearing mixed garments.
§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§ share
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]