So another poster recommended I watch a film called A Fish Out of Water and said they would be interested in my thoughts on the film. The film documents a young woman’s journey of discovering exactly what the Bible has to say regarding homosexuality. It is a subject very close to her as she is a lesbian, herself.
The film employs a number of biblical “scholars” including Bishop John Shelby Spong who is the author of The Sins of Scripture which is a book about the hateful verses in the Bible and its impact on the environment, over breeding, sexism, birth control and, of course, homosexuality, etc. His views are those of a lunatic and don’t resemble anything biblical, much less, Christian. Among his baseless claims in the book is that the Apostle Paul was a self-loathing and repressed homosexual.
For “balance”, the film utilizes Fred Phelps to represent the traditional “Christian” view of homosexuality. For those who don’t know, Fred Phelps is a hateful, hate-filled, gerbil-headed butt-nugget whose views--like those of Spong--are neither biblical nor Christian.
Essentially the film is another regurgitation of the “gay gospel”. The message of the “gay gospel” is effectively that the Bible has been interpreted incorrectly over the last several thousand years with regard to homosexuality and it’s only been in the last decade or so that people have only properly understood these verses which, when understood correctly, do not condemn homosexuality.
What new revelations that have led to this “correct” understanding of these Scriptures are never addressed. Nor is it ever discussed why only the verses on homosexuality are the only verses that have been interpreted incorrectly? What about the rest of them?
The film examines seven verses in the Bible that condemn homosexuality and discuss why the traditional interpretations of these verses are wrong. I will provide their arguments and explain why they are wrong.
Genesis 1
The “Christian position” as presented by the film is that homosexuality is wrong because homosexuals can’t procreate. The pro-gay scholars in the film then explain that the logic of argument is wrong as any heterosexual union would be considered sinful if they (the heterosexual couples) failed to procreate.
This is a straw-man argument. While I’ve seen posters here at DP adopt this position, this has never been the complaint in any serious discussion. The Christian position of Genesis 1 is one of God’s created design…not procreation.
Genesis (Chapters 2 & 3)
The “Christian position” presented by the film is that marriage should only be between one man and one woman. The scholars in the film state that the error with this view is one of translation. The claim of the scholars is that while Adam was, if fact, presented with a woman (wife), the Scriptures--when originally written--used the words “ezer kenegdo” which literally means “suitable helper”. A woman was a “suitable helper” to Adam but argue that a “suitable helper” for a gay man or woman would be someone of the same sex. Since the Scriptures don’t specifically state that it has to be an opposite sex partner then there is no sin.
And the film is correct. The Christian position does state that Genesis defines marriage as being between one man and one woman as this is God’s design. This position originates with God in Genesis 1:27 is reiterated by Christ in Matthew 19:4-6 and reinforced by Paul in Romans 1: 26-27.
By the way, Genesis 1:27 & Matthew 19 are Scriptures the film ignores.
Genesis 19 (Sodom & Gomorrah)
The scholars of the film state that the “sin” of Sodom & Gomorrah was not that of homosexuality but one of inhospitality.
The film goes on to say that as all of the men of the city came down to rape the angels in Lot’s care, Lot came forward and offered to let the crowd rape his two virgin daughters who he--later in the story--got pregnant and that is the real sin of this story.
And their position is--in part--true. The wickedness of Sodom included many things and was not limited to homosexuality but homosexuality was a part of it as evidenced by 2 Peter 2: 2 and 6 and Jude 1:7-8.
Once again, the film ignores these Scriptures, as well.
It also ignores the fact that their rather recent “revelation” of the story of Sodom & Gomorrah not having anything to do with homosexuality means that literally millions of people over the course of thousands of years have been wrong in their interpretations of these Scriptures which are being properly understood for the very first time right now.
Yeah, right.
Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13
The argument from the pro-gay scholars is that while these Scriptures prohibit homosexual sex, they also prohibit the eating of shellfish and wearing of garments made from different fibers. As such, modern Christians are simply “picking and choosing” the laws they wish to follow.
What these “scholars” don’t seem to know is that the Old Testament law was done away with by the New Testament covenant of grace. Modern day Christians aren’t picking and choosing anything. The Scriptures call homosexual sex an “abomination”. And since God does not change (Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8 and James 1:17) we can be confident that His views on the subject have not changed.
The Scholars also go on to claim that the verses do not prohibit all homosexual sex and explain that men used to have sex with women because they were the property of men. They explain that all these Scriptures prohibit is men having sex with other men who are their “property” (slaves, war prisoners, etc.).
The problem is that their claims are simply not supported by the Scriptures themselves which explicitly condemns all homosexual sex between men.
Romans 1:26-27
The argument here is that Paul knew nothing of sexual orientation and so “his” prohibition against homosexual sex is a “cultural” view and not a “natural” view as we can see homosexuality displayed in nature.
1) Paul’s language is rather specific and emphasizes biology. He is saying that homosexual sex is biologically unnatural.
2a) You will also find in nature animals eating their young and killing their mate after sex. Are we to justify these behaviors in humans as well? After all, they are found in nature. Obviously not! We do not judge human behavior based upon the behavior of wild animals. We judge human behavior based upon moral and societal standards like those set forth in the Bible.
2b) Just because an animal tries to hump something of the same sex does not mean that animal has a homosexual orientation. The animal may be trying to show it dominance or simply relieve its most base urges. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that any animal has a homosexual orientation.
Bishop Spong goes on to say that Paul is saying that homosexuality is a punishment from God and he’s only saying that because Paul himself is a repressed, self-loathing homosexual. However, there is simply no evidence to support his claims…at all.
1 Timothy 1:9-10
Here the scholars claim that the term used by Paul, “arsenokotai”, does not condemn homosexuality. It’s a simple matter of a mis-translation. Paul could not have known about anything about homosexual orientation. He would have known about male temple prostitution and that is what he was condemning.
Actually Paul is referring back to the Holiness Code in Leviticus 20:13 which, in the Greek, reads, “hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos”.
For the record “arsenokotai” is the literal translation from the Hebrew “mishkav zakur” which basically means “lying with a male” which is how they used to refer to homosexuality back in the day. But the film won’t tell you that!
1 Corinthians 6:9
The film complains that this is the verse that Christians use to say that Homosexuals are going to burn in Hell. To the best of my knowledge the only “Christians” saying that are Fred Phelps and his band of misfit, back-water, in-bred, hate-spewing, non-Christian, unbiblical, bone-headed losers and this film quotes Phelps often.
And this film simply ignores what is probably the best know Bible verse today known to both Christians and non-Christians--John 3:16. And it states that “everyone” that believes in Christ will be saved. Period!
Jesus Was Silent
Another claim of the movie is one that I hear all the time here at DP. The claim? Jesus was silent about homosexuality so obviously he didn’t have a problem with it.
1. As the last few verses of John’s gospel makes clear, the gospels are not exhaustive. We simply don’t know all of the things that Jesus said and did so we don’t know what Jesus said about homosexuality, if anything.
2. The only sexual relationship that Christ did endorse was that between one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4-6). In fact, that is the only relationship in which sex is allowed throughout the whole Bible. It’s consistently is noteworthy.
In summary, Fish Out of Water is simply an unintelligent film that appeals more to emotion than facts. The gay-gospel fails here for the same reason it fails as an argument anytime it’s used. And that is because it attempts to make the Bible say what it does not while trying to convince you that it doesn’t say what it clearly does.
