I have yet to listen to an intelligent, thought out, argument which is against the film. And until such time as someone can bring forth such an argument, please shut your cake-hole about it! The original short story, the screenplay, and the resulting film are all brilliant. One cannot deny the inherent greatness of the story for its raw emotion and passion and ability to produce an emotional response (even if the emotion is based in fear and ignorance) through exploring the lives and resulting struggles of the characters.
Now, for those who slag the film (or the story or the actors or the director or the caterer who fed all those people), there are only ever two reasons for such unwarranted condemnation: ignorance and fear. Ignorance I can deal with. But fear?
Yes, fear. Homophobia and/or homoerotophobia. The fear of homosexuals and/or the fear of being sexually aroused by homosexuality. Of these two fears, there are typically two groups of people who hold them: secular and sacred. I will first deal with the secular.
Homo(eroto)phobia for the secular person is typically borne of ignorance, or more often of disgust. When rooted in ignorance, there is no excuse. Get over it. When rooted in disgust, I would challenge on this point: most males who are homophobic are only unipolar in that fear; they fear homosexual men, but for some unconceivable, incontrovertible, reason accept (and often want to embrace) homosexual women. This is completely illogical. Homosexuality, whether male or female, is the same thing. Just as heterosexuality, whether male or female, is the same thing. And with the absence of logic, you're merely stupid, and you have no point and no argument.
I've had numerous conversations with a friend who is extremely homophobic, out of ignorance. Somewhere along the path to enlightenment, he has misunderstood both physiology and sexuality (which amounts to sexology). The types of nerve cells which form the glans, are the very same cells which form the clitoris, and surprisingly (for the ignorant) the anus. If g is P and c is P and a is P, then P = g = c = a. Where P is pleasure, g is glans, c is clitoris, and a is anus. Here is some news for you homoerotophobic people: anal sex can be pleasurable! And many, many heterosexual couples practice this from of sex.
The sacred person is altogether totally different in motivation, but equal in outcome.
Now, I may not have a degree in theology, or know koine Greek, or have ever been able to read Hebrew, but I can read English, and have read the Bible several times in its entirety. And I can assure you that when compared, heterosexuality and homosexuality, there is far more damaging judgment passed against heterosexuality than there is against homosexuality. I am not here and now going to argue point by point any homophobic prooftext. (And believe me when I say, I know all the passages you are going to bring up, and I know that all of them are misread and misunderstood and misrepresented. Anytime, anyplace, I am ready to argue you on this.)
But for the sacred, this argument transcends mere homosexuality versus heterosexuality. It actually attains a plateau of generalisation so seldom found in the "church", that it's actually quite laughable in its idiocy. Allow me to explain further.
If I ever hear of anything more illogical than that statement, I will definitely let you know by posting it on this blog.
This is purely etymological.
Verb X becomes an agent noun with the addition of the suffix -er. An agent noun is the thing which performs the action of the verb. Verb X becomes a present participle with the addition of the suffix -ing. A present participle is the ongoing action or state of the noun, and functions as an adjective (the modifier of a noun or pronoun).
Example:
- (to) farm
- farmer
- farming
A farmer is one who farms, and is considered to be farming, typically at all times, even when on vacation. This is the farmer's occupation: farming. No one would deny that these three are intrinsically related to each other. If one is omitted then the other two cease to make any sense. A farmer not farming?
The being and the doing are so interrelated, interwoven, intertwined, with each other, that it is impossible for us to understand the being apart from the doing. In fact, it cannot be understood rationally. To claim understanding is a misnomer and a mistake.
Whether this is meant to be or ought to be, being and doing are virtually the same thing. One cannot describe oneself with being some thing, or doing that same thing. And it is in this that within the soul, the two meld together to a point at which one can no longer distinguish between the being and doing.
Am I a farmer, or am I merely farming? Am I farming because I am a farmer, or am I a farmer because I am farming?
But none would likely argue with me on this, as farmers are usually viewed as generous people and the occupation of farming is usually understood as something which is amoral.
Now let us consider this in the most general of all sets of terms: sin, sinner, sinning. Considering the above argument, please explain to me how one can set these three apart from each other. Please explain how the other two can exist without the presence of the third. Please explain how you can hate farming and not hate the farmer. (Though I have requested an explanation, I know that none will be provided, because it is logically and rationally impossible to provide such an explanation which has any merit or contains any value.) The farmer, in his being, has defined and finds definition in doing the farming. They are inseparable.
"...we've compiled this long and sorry record as sinners (both us and them) and proved that we are utterly incapable of living the glorious lives God wills for us" (Romans 3:23, The Message).
The verb. The agent noun. The present participle.
Sin. Sinner. Sinning.
Farm. Farmer. Farming.
Being and doing.
When you "hate the sin", you also hate the sinner.
Where there is hate, there is no love.
"You're familiar with the old written law, 'Love your friend,' and its unwritten companion, 'Hate your enemy.' I'm challenging that. I'm telling you to love your enemies" (Matthew 5:43-44, The Message).
"Jesus said, 'Love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and intelligence.' This is the most important, the first on any list. But there is a second to set alongside it: 'Love others as well as you love yourself'" (Matthew 22:37-39, The Message).
Now you, who is definitely a sinner, yet claiming to hate sin, but loving yourself, claim to hate sinning and love sinner? But in reality it means that you also love your sin, because you fail to cease sinning.
Explain then how this is acceptable when considering yourself, but it is unacceptable when considering others? That others suddenly come under some alternate rule of authority; tongue-in-cheek you are claiming to hate and love the same thing but all the while actually only hating. Vehemently spitting out venomous accusations against a person who cannot differentiate farmer from farming (and neither can you), while you pretend to differentiate sinner from sinning. But you cannot! The two are inseparable! Hypocrite! Even though you claim to separate and differentiate this in others, in yourself you continue to love both.
Loving people you do not want to love is an act of grace. And grace is the only guiding principle which is completely and utterly unique to the church. Ironically, it is also the only guiding principle which is most often absent from the church.
So please stop spouting off this rhetorical cliché about loving sinners and hating sinning, when in reality, you're simply hating everyone and everything who is not being and doing what you think they ought to be being and doing. You're only making a fool of yourself, and a mockery of Jesus.
Back to Brokeback Mountain. If you haven't seen it, then go rent it. Let me know, and then we can schedule a time for me to discuss why you wish to remain ignorant.
No comments:
Post a Comment