Chris Broussard stands against Jason Collins beliefs

I already did scroll up. This right here shows a complete ignorance of scripture. Their are two laws in scripture ....Ceremonial Law and general Moral Law based on the ten commandments.

God Himself told peter to eat this "unclean" food and when peter refused under ceremonial law...God told him do not call unclean what God has made clean. This in correlation with the epistles of paul we understand that the Jewish ceremonial was fulfilled through Christ...that it no longer serves any purpose. I could go on about this.... into deeper theological levels that would take up many paragraphs...but for times sake just know that... you stating what you did shows a complete lack of even remedial scriptural knowledge.


I already posted Scriptures that refer homosexuality as a sin and that it will prohibit you from salvation....

Its not provable in the since that I can provide you with a video of Jesus and post it on youtube....but the acts, characters an miracles are very provable...as is the authenticity of scripture and the amazing reliability of it in comparison to other historical documents. So is the logic of Creation and of divinity in our world around us.

 

once again...very low level of education on the matter obviously. spend ten minutes on google before you spoke and you wouldnt look so foolish.

The scriptures, especially the gospels found in the new testament are the most provable and accurate pieces of ancient literature in the world.

For times sake ill reference the foremost expert on the subject Josh McDowell

"McDowell: To discover the accuracy of copying for the New Testament material and see whether or not it has been “changed,” you have to look at two factors: One, the number of manuscripts existing today; and two, the time period between the original document and the earliest manuscripts still in existence today. The more manuscripts we have and the closer the manuscripts are to the original, the more we are able to determine where copyist errors happened and which copies reflect the original.

For example, the book Natural History, written by Pliny Secundus, has 7 manuscript copies with a 750-year gap between the earliest copy and the original text. The number two book in all of history in manuscript authority is The Iliad, written by Homer, which has 643 copies with a 400-year gap.

Now this is a little startling: the New Testament has currently 24,970 manuscript copies, completely towering over all other works of antiquity. In addition, we have one fragment of the New Testament (NT) with only a 50-year gap from the original, whole books with only a 100-year gap, and the whole NT with only a 225-250-year gap. I don’t think there is any question from all of these early copies that we know exactly what the original documents said. "

 

You've made a strange logic leap. What you are talking about isn't whether the gospels are provable. You're talking about whether they are accurate when compared to the original stories. That doesn't make the original stories any more or less provable.

 

basically...God...gave us more then enough evidence to satisfy the most doubting of people. We have a piece scripture dated within 50 years of when the NT was written...and it says the exact something the other 25,000 manuscripts say that have spread through out history.

I am an avid researcher..the questioned Christianity...then researched to extreme levels that I doubt many ever have...and came away more secure in my beliefs the I ever dreamed possible. As did one very notable atheist C.S Lewis.

In short there is not a question that you will bring up that I did not already myself...think of...and answer to complete satisfaction.

 

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

 

Then nothing we have in history is provable my friend....

The criteria that I presented is the same criteria that we base all of historical fact on. Its just substantially more reliable then anything else that you can compare it to.

By your logic you should believe in anything you have been taught about any historical character... Rome did exsist...neither did Greece...oh and pharaohs and Egyptian culture were all mythology.

 

I agree completely...I never said I was the best example of a christian still working on that...but I do however have a deep historical and theological knowledge. I guess that is arrogance...but I look at it more as passion.

And when nearly everyone you know blindly believes what they are told and do not seek truth for themselves...it creates passion...to try and help provoke thought.

Its just too BIG of a deal to make a mistake simply by lack of effort. I hate not being able to guide everyone to truth...and I have noticed that the way I speak rejects some people. But I guess i feel its better to get info out there then let people believe a lie. Even if it makes me look like a jerk.

Forgive me for my attitude. But its at least rooted in the right intention.

 

Quick question. Why is it that I just have to tolerate or believe in one person's choices or views blindly, and in return the same token is not reciprocated? When someone says you are an idiot and close minded for not believing as someone else does, you are being hypocritical and close minded in the same way. Everyone has a right to their own opinion no matter what it is. People are quick to dismiss Christianity and say don't stuff religion or any "non-tolerant" view down others throats. Well stop trying to stuff your beliefs down others in return.

I am a pretty open minded person, I don't think being gay is natural and that is my belief, but at the same time to each it's own.

 

You are incorrect. Again you are talking about whether the copies are close to the original not proving the actual events. There are plenty of other ways to check events, from living witnesses, carbon dating, artifacts etc. The Iliad isn't nonfiction the fact that copies may have been made hundreds of years after the original don't in any way prove or disprove the events of the Iliad.

You may not know how the accuracy of history is actually determined to begin with.

 

That's probably one of biggest reasons that I don't follow the gospels, because of unequivocal, eternal damnation for not living a certain manner or believing in certain things, yet you were either created to be that way by such a Creator, or that creator knew what path you would take in the first place.

Oftentimes, people will say sin is sin, all sinners are alike, but I have hard time believing that. I will never see the similarity between a person who gives up on society, goes out into the woods, and lives in a small cottage house for the rest of their human life without religion or governmental structure to live under versus...oh I don't know Joseph Stalin or Pot Pol. Millions of people slaughtered under political motivations and tyrannical influences. I will never see either party, as equal guilty under any circumstance. Even if the latter believes in Jesus Christ with all of his heart, and genuinely remorseful for his sins, he took lives of millions and left millions more in destitute. For the sake the argument, let's say the hermit is an atheist or agnostic, but still a good-hearted person and would be willing to help strangers who past by his cottage house out at a moment's notice. Has done this for most of his life until death. Yet, he will be condemned to hell, because he never realized or accepted Jesus Christ as his savior, or did not believe in the Gospels and question the existence of God.


That's patently insane and nowhere near the concept of justice.

 

I have a passion for it as well. But I wouldn't presume to say that means I've thought of every question and doubt there is and answered them all.

 

We have physical evidence for all those things. Pyramids, Colusseums, Parthenons, tombs, etc. And we have carbon dating to date them all.

 

So are all views equal in your mind? If I say Hitler was an idiot for believing that genocide was good, am I close-minded? Or some current Hitler supporter is an idiot for supporting him? Do I need to stop pushing that view?

 

Which I don't understand. Why is he arguing about that? For someone so passionate about the study of this stuff you'd think he'd have a better understanding of the work of historians and validity of research and how that's determined. It isn't by knowing which copy of something original was closest to the original.

 

It saddens me he said this. I actually know Chris to some degree and he's a standup guy otherwise from my limited experiences and encounters.

 

Typical for someone to immediately expand to something completely and utterly off topic and in no way related. The subject here is homosexuality. I believe in one way you believe in another. If I am to accept your views why is that not done in return.

 

Because accepting intolerance isn't the same as accepting tolerance.

 

Uh oh, Chris Broussard on the side of Christianity. Is that the dagger to the religion?

 

Tolerance and Intolerance have nothing to do with it. Opinion is what's at stake. I don't care if someone is gay, I just don't particularly care for it or think it is moral.

 

to be admired by others

I doubt he is doing this to be admired by anyone. But I guess that is up for interpretation.