Chris Broussard stands against Jason Collins beliefs

lol...i gave one example ...all of this supports scripture. The archeological evidence for scripture is the most amazing part of it all.

But what you have to understand is...all of history is primarily based on historical record. Authenticity is based on numbers of manuscripts and how close the earliest known manuscripts were with all the other manuscripts that you have.

Living witnesses do not really apply here or in any ancient history. So ALL ancient history has the same criteria for authenticity. Scripture just has much much more then anything else.

Carbon dating is very useful tool in proving scriptural occurrences.

There is not "way" or method of proving historical fact. That is not used in scriptural evidences...and used to the most effective ways possible.

I understand your point...the problem is... this is all we have to prove ancient history. there were not video or pictures...and no living witness can be produced. So ALLLLL historical record must meet certain criteria in order justify authenticity.

Scripture and many of its characters and events are just as provable or more so in many cases then anything else you study about in your history book.

In other words if you apply your logic to all other history as you are doing to scripture then throw out the history book from 1600 or so and below. Because none of its provable.

 

You're the one that made the broad claim. I'm asking you to clarify if you actually believe that claim. This shouldn't be hard if you do. Is it always intolerant to call people idiots for their beliefs, as in the case of calling Hiter and idiot? Or just when they are certain beliefs that you agree with?

 

Your arrogance is saddening. I hope other people don't follow this example.

 

well I guess that is presumptuous but in regards to the questions most people ask...i have. I mean I have read and studied a book that is over 1200 pages that states arguments for and against nearly every possible topic.

From manuscript authenticity, to carbon dating, to archeological support, to even Grammatical Analysis of the authorship to each book.

I mean id be shocked if someone asked a question that I didn't remember being covered or couldn't drum up pretty quickly is all i meant.

 

I think the point is that even if you were reading the exact documents written by people who were alive at the exact moments they write about it doesn't actually prove that the events they wrote about or true.

 

What I was referring to is the hypocritical views of alot of the posters. One says they believe this and bashes the others for not accepting their views while the others do the same. Neither of these is acceptance, and if you're preaching acceptance shouldn't you do the same no matter if you have the same beliefs.

I believe being gay is a choice. I don't believe it is moral. I do believe that everyone is free to make their own choices. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it or accept what their doing is right in my mind. It doesn't give me the right to bash them. So in return I would like the same.

 

i feel as though all my posting is pointless. But I just had to say something.

Just for the record. I didn't post to attack homosexuals nor do I even know why this was brought into the discussion. I do not know why Christians seem to hate gays more than anyone else whose lifestyle they do not agree with...but I dont.

Just a lil fyi

 

Not really, the credibility of most modern-day mainstream religions was shot to hell about two or three centuries. Broussard is just following suit, as usual.

 

Your statement would make sense if I said anything about myself. I didn't. I didn't claim to know anything beyond the basics. It was a nice try to show me as being a hypocrite. I'm sorry it didn't work for you. Because certainly there are areas where I am one.

 

Bingo.

 

This thread has lessened my faith in the human race even more.

But yeah, me speaking out is gonna do anything, shut down my account now (inside reference I hope someone got).

 

"Christianity is stupid"?
I guess you're entitled to your opinion.

Also, FYI, Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship with Jesus Christ.

 

Is that you Bill O'Reilly? So how I wish what you said is true. NO MORE tax exemptions for churces.

 

More likely, he mentioned premarital sex because he believes it. I don't think he was hoping that telling the overwhelming majority of his adult viewership and bosses that they had been living or are currently living in open rebellion to God was going to shield him from consequences.

I recognize his theological position -- it's a common position in the church and a rational one for someone who believes the Bible. He's got all the church-speak down. He's not speaking from a reflexive anti-gay bigotry, imo, he's expressing a trained theological point of view regarding sin and salvation.

And, given what I think I know about him from his comments, I have to think he anticipated the reaction he got, he knew it was going to be hard and he'd be persecuted for his religious convictions, and he did it anyway. Whether he knew it or not, though, he is going to hurt for it.

I do think he messed up, but not because he think homosexuality is a sin. I know why he believes it, and it makes sense within the larger paradigm of his religion. I think he messed up because he's talking about homosexuals and other sinners, generally, and most of them have more basic faith-in-Christ issues before their lifestyle sins are even relevant, from a Christian perspective (and this goes for most Bible-thumping, not just his). If you got all those sinners to repent and not commit those enumerated sins any longer, but they still don't believe in Jesus, they go to hell anyway. If you're going to hell regardless, you may as well engage in what sins you like in the meantime. All the stuff in the Bible about homosexuals and fornicators and embezzlers and gossips -- those proscriptions are for Christians. If you (Broussard) haven't first established a common belief in Jesus as Savior and the Bible as the Word of God, rejecting those people for their particular sins is intolerant. And, if he's sure to love them anyway (as he should) but wants to hold the flag for Christ and demarcate the behavior that is open rebellion -- well, it's a waste of time, because the people you're talking to either don't agree or don't care.

It would be a very different dynamic if Broussard and Collins were both Christians, attended the same church, were both members and swore oaths to be under the authority of the church leadership. Then Broussard could come to him with kindness and say the Bible says what he's doing is wrong and he should repent. If he believes what the Bible says is true, he'd probably try to lisen. If he doesn't listen, Broussard could come back with friends to persuade him. And if he still doesn't listen, he could bring in the church leadership. That's the model for reproaching sin laid out in the Bible. Unfortunately (for whatever sin reasons of their own), many Christians err on both counts, shrinking from criticizing unrepentant sin within their ranks, and being quick to criticize nonChristians for doing things they would have no reason to believe were sins in the first place while doing nothing to bring them to Christ.

 

The bible also says that slaves are okay also. I wonder what Broussard thinks about that?

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/04/29/ESPN-apologizes-Broussard

 

If someone tried to tell you the world was flat, would you be a hypocrite if you called them stupid?

Maybe a dumb analogy, but heres the thing- Most of us realize that being gay isn't a choice. Thats why we call the opposite view stupid. To us, being against that is just as stupid as people who are racist. I had a very good, very religious friend who was gay. It took him a very long time to come to terms with it, and he hated himself for a while for it. Why would that person choose to be gay? Really, why would so many people choose to be gay? Specially when some of these people are outcasted, bullied, rejected by friends and family, rejected by their religion, and sometimes even driven to suicide. At what point did you choose to be straight? I know there wasn't a point where I said "Hmm, I could be gay, but I'm going to be straight". No, I was just always attracted to women. I don't see how there'd be any benefit to choosing to be gay, yet if it is a choice, then it seems tons of people do it.

So yes, I think people who are completely against it are a bit dumb, because I don't see how they could think its a choice. What are you basing that on? A passage from a 2000 year old book with a WHOLE lot of questionable passages? Do you follow all those other passages in it?

 

I think the Breitbart doesn't have the conflict defined right -- this isn't a left and right thing. This is a Fundies vs. Humanists thing.

 

there is no tyranny of expression, if you're a public broadcaster, with a public persona, and you say things that make the public hate you, well, eh.

Hey, is it rational? not really. love and let live. But maybe now some people have perspective for what it was like for homosexuals some 2000 years or so, thanks to arbitrary religious taboos.

 

Meh. Calling liberal commentators intolerant if they are saying Broussard should be punished/fired for his comments is fair to me. But simply stating the opinion that Broussard shouldn't have said what he said isn't any more intolerant than Broussard lecturing us on why gay people are sinners before God.