Methinks Chris Broussard WANTS to get fired

Chris Broussard

Chris Broussard

Methinks ESPN’s Chris Broussard WANTS to get fired. Following Chris Broussard’s declaration that newly-out gay NBA player Jason Collins is “not a Christian,” which I discussed yesterday, we have this interview where Broussard argues on the New York-based Power 105.1 “Breakfast Club” radio show, that gays can be saved if they ask for God’s forgiveness.

What startles me is the theological ignorance and the inconsistency and irrationality of his argument that immediately becomes apparent when he begins to elaborate his views on homosexuality, AND his misunderstanding of the relationship between the Hebrew Bible (Christian Old Testament) and the New Testament. Gone are thoughts of Jesus in Matt 5:17-19, where he says:

Matt. 5:17  “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Matt. 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Matt. 5:19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Rather, we see a textbook example of the theological fallacy of Christian “Replacement Theology,” where Christians feel that the NT “trumps” the OT, but only in places they want it to. So while Broussard points out Peter’s vision of the “unclean” animals in Acts 10 is used to dismiss kosher regulations banning unclean foods, he uses the abolition of this one regulation to dismiss all other Old Testament laws…at least those he doesn’t consider to be “moral” laws.

If it sounds confusing, it’s because it IS confusing and makes no sense.

At one point, the hosts even say, “You sound like the white guy who says, ‘Hey, Im not racist. I got black friends’.”

Here are some transcripts I made from the interview:

Broussard:

“All of us fall and stumble, and I have fallen and stumbled many times since I’ve been a Christian, but I always, you know, repent and ask God for his forgiveness, and, you know, I’m movin’ forward from there. I think that’s the mark of a Christian. And I think if a person…that…

Stumbling and falling while you’re tryin’ to live for the Lord is different than goin’ out huntin’ for sin. You know, I’m goin’ out and gettin’ into it tonight. I’m gonna be mad if I don’t get into any sin. So… you know, I’m tryin’ to make you to accept my sin life. I don’t care what God said, I’m just livin’ like this. That’s different than a person who’s sincerely strivin’ to live the right way and stumbles, legitimately falls. Get back up. Get on your path. You’re forgiven. And let’s keep tryin’.”

Host: “What exactly does the Bible say about homosexuality?”

Broussard:

“It says it’s a sin. First Corinthians chapter six verse nine says fornicators, homosexuals, robbers, thieves, adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God. It goes on to list a few other things. Romans chapter one says it’s unnatural. Obviously the Old Testament talks about it bein’ wrong…”

Host: “Well Chris, Deuteronomy 14:8 condemns the eating of pork, but I bet you love bacon.”

Broussard:

“I sure do, man, I sure do. But, you know, the Old Testament dietary laws don’t apply in the New Covenant. Acts chapter 10, Peter, you know, talks about that as the Lord revealed it to Peter, so all of the Old Testament laws, there’s 613 laws in the Old Testament that they had to follow under the old covenant. We’re under grace. We don’t have to follow all of those 613 laws to have peace with God. But the moral covenant, because it’s outlined in the New Covenant, the New Testament, as I said, First Corinthians six, Ephesians, Romans, Galatians chapter five, talk about the new covenant still following the moral code of the Old Testament. So the moral laws of the Old Testament that we were taught still apply, but not eatin’ shrimp, and wearin’ blended cloth and fabric and things like that.”

So wait, because ONE of the laws (dietary) are trumped in the NT, ALL of the OT laws are dismissed? And who distinguished the ‘moral’ laws from the…well, what do we even call the ‘non-moral’ laws of the Old Testament?

This is one of the most ignorant, uninformed understandings of the Hebrew Bible I’ve ever heard. (Actually, I’ve heard worse, but…) Note how Broussard says, “We’re under grace. We don’t have to follow all of those 613 laws to have peace with God.” Note he said we don’t have to follow all of them…just the ones he wants to continue to enforce, like condemning gays.

But it gets worse:

Broussard:

“I’m married seventeen years. Never cheated on my wife. But man, I’ve been tempted. You know what I’m sayin’? I mean, I cover the NBA. I see beautiful women all the time. I’ve had actresses throw me a little rhythm. But I gotta resist. I gotta fight against temptation. And that’s the life of a Christian. That you fight against the temptation. And if you stumble and fall, then you get back up, you repent, you ask God for forgiveness, and you move on. And I think that applies to homosexuals as well. If a person who’s a same-sex attracted, you know, is sincerely tryin’ to live for the Lord, and they fall, and they fall in the same-sex relationship or act, and they, they is really tryin’ to serve the Lord, they repent, and they ask for forgiveness, and they keep trying to serve God and they fall time and time again consistently, I believe that person is a Christian.

But that’s why I said yesterday it’s about unrepentant sin. There’s a difference. Am I repenting, or am I just saying, ‘Yo, this is how I am God, I don’t care what you say. I don’t care what your word – I’m not even askin’ for forgiveness. How you gonna be forgiven if you ain’t even askin’ for it?”

Then Broussard continues:

“The question is your heart. Add you know that. Are you really tryin’ not to fornicate, not to sleep with that girl over and over again. Because God…the Bible says God is not mocked. God ain’t no punk. You ain’t no punk. I ain’t no punk. None of y’all punks. If I come to you and I say, ‘Yo man, I wanna be in covenant with you, I wanna be your boy. We cool.’ But behind your back, I’m goin’ out time and time again and dissin’ you and doggin’ you on purpose, but when I see you in your face, I’m like, “Yo man, you know, I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I’m sorry man,’ but I don’t really mean it, then, you ain’t gonna go for that once you find out the truth because you ain’t no punk. You ain’t mocked. And it’s the same thing with God. We created in his image. So if we ain’t punks and gonna fall for that, then he certainly ain’t gonna go for that. BUT, if I’m your boy and I sincerely mess up. I just happen to do something wrong against you and you know I’m really sorry, and I’m like, ‘Yo man, my bad. I ain’t gonna do it no more, dog. I’m sorry,’ then you’ll forgive me in many cases, and it’s the same with God.”

Again, this is an example of theological dilettantism.

So, in Broussard’s mind, it’s OK to sin again and again and again heterosexually, and if you ask for forgiveness, you’re OK, because “God knows your heart”, and you’re “his boy”. BUT, if your sin is homosexual and you sin again and again habitually, and you ask for forgiveness, then you’re “not God’s boy”, because “God ain’t no punk”. And since homosexuals are always “goin’ out huntin’ for sin,” they aren’t asking for forgiveness, so they aren’t Christian. Because “God ain’t no punk” and “God is not mocked”. But if you’re straight, and you “ain’t gonna do it no more, dog,” then God will forgive you (“in many cases”).

Now I’ll ask again the larger question:

  • What does ANY of this have to do with Jason Collins announcing he’s gay in the NBA?
  • How is a theological conversation and condemnation a topic for discussion for ESPN?
  • And why would ESPN want THIS conversation about the condemnation of homosexuality entering into the conversation about a professional policy of tolerance for different sexual preferences in the NBA?

Why won’t Chris Broussard shut up about this? Perhaps because he knows it’s coming. And if he’s getting fired, he wants to portray ESPN as firing him for his religious beliefs, and not for his lack of professional discernment between those personal religious issues of faith, and those professional issues of policy. He knows he’s about to get fired, so he’s positioning himself as a martyr. And that will play and gain some traction among the most conservative Evangelicals in the country, who are always looking for a Christian martyr they can point to and say, “See, there is religious intolerance toward Christians in America.”

Yes. Religious intolerance in America. Against Christians. Of course.

By the way, at one point in his rambling toward the end of the interview, Broussard even talks about people who aren’t Christian using “condoms and strap-ons”, which elicits a audible sigh (“Ah, yeah…OK”) from a female host in the studio. Don’t miss that one.

ESPN might tolerate a mistake, but I don’t think they’ll tolerate an evangelist talking down to NBA fans.

Even the show’s hosts, who did an excellent job demonstrating patience throughout the interview, and asked some smart questions, tried to cut him off at the end of the interview. ESPN will do the same soon.

About these ads

28 Responses

  1. He is right just imagine the stupidity the arrogance of choosing to be gay while knowing an ETERNAL Punishment awaits in a never ending burning fire G-D is HOLY those who choose to fight against HIM are most certainly doomed please every homosexual repent of your sin if you do not admit you are a sinner makes no difference the evil acts of sodomy and sexual depravity you are engaged in is destroying You and it is a Curse Please repent and turn from homosexual lust which is demonic you are cursed and no matter what you do you cannot escape unless you cincerely repent and turn to the G-D of Israel for help in HIS only begotten Son’s Name YESHU’A more commonly known as JESUS repent and be set FREE

  2. um…ok. we’ll count that as a vote for broussard.

  3. Seems as if somebody doesn’t understand the Holiness Code(Google it) of Leviticus. Regurgitation of the same Anti-Biblical nonsense. However we don’t need to use the Old Testament to see God’s thoughts on Homosexual behavior.

    In God’s word to the Romans we see that Acting out Homosexual desires is UNNATURAL from God’s original design. Romans 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

    We See Jesus defining Marriage between a Man and a Woman in Matthew 19.

    We see in 1 Tim 1: 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

    We see in 1 Cor 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

    But the good news in 1 Cor is actually the next verse 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

    There were some people who Changed from practicing Homosexuality and other sins! Doesn’t mean they were sinless it means they recognized they were sinning against God and repented and Turned to Jesus Christ for Salvation. That’s the Good news!

    Now take note, God never said Having Same sex desires is the sin. However acting out on those desires is what is sinful. Jesus said Deny yourself and follow me. I feel for those who have that heavier cross to bear but at the end it will be worth it and you will receive you reward. Look to Jesus Christ today!

  4. Wow, that lack of punctuation is definitely a sin, repent and go back to school in order to achieve grammatical salvation, you are a curse to the English language and absolutely and a disgrace to any serious academician; and no, home schooling doesn’t count.

    Robert, your article was sharp as always, your voice should be on TV more frequently, it would definitely increase the IQ of your fellow Americans, something desperately needed these days.

    Best regards

  5. Gotta love it.

    Broussard and his ilk love to claim that the Old Testament stuff they DO like … still applies, but that the OT stuff they DON’T like . . . no longer applies because of the supposed “New Covenant”.

    Funny . . . I keep asking people like Broussard to tell me WHERE PRECISELY AND EXPLICITLY (1) there is reference to a “New Covenant” that explicitly deletes certain OT laws/rules and (2) there is a list of such “deleted laws/rules” but . . . so far, no one has come up with an answer to either question.

    But it’s OK . . . I’ll wait for an answer, HERE. Sounds like we have a number of good, learned Christian scholars who post on this site for whom these questions will quickly and easily be answered . . . right ?

    OK . . . so I will just WAIT.

    waiting . . . waiting . . . waiting . . . .

  6. Of course. But we’re talking here about belief. So when you bring scientific evidence, they reject it, because they believe something different, and it’s not subject to pesky facts and evidence.
    So you you bring biblical/scriptural evidence, but they reject it also, because they believe something different. Or perhaps they say that you’re not interpreting or understanding it properly. And by ‘properly’ they mean in a way that is congruent with what they believe.

    This is the problem with belief: it can be anything you want it to be. And if your beliefs cause you to condemn someone, OK. And if someone condemns you for condemning someone else, that’s discrimination against their beliefs.

    See how sweet of a deal that is? It doesn’t matter that it’s irrational and circular. I condemn others, and if you condemn me, you’re discriminating against me. Win-win.

    It’s absurd, but THAT’S what passes for conservative Christianity today. (And it’s precisely why it’s on the decline.)

  7. Just so we know, I think I said it first — Broussard should be fired.
    In addition, there is this other little pesky circular bit of so-called dogma in Christianity which claims that the only one you can possibly expect true forgiveness from is god. What a lot of hooey that is. You can only experience true foregiveness from the ones you have hurt personally. The idea that a person can torture, murder, commit adultery, etc. and then either go to confession or just “ask god” to forgive him/her is at least a nitwit (see all the idiot Southern evangelists who have “sinned” –gah) and at the most a conniving psychopath.

  8. Take it from an expert, Broussard is no stranger to the touch of another man. The skeletons will come tumbling out of the closet soon enough. It has been my experience that sometimes people persecute others because of their own dark desires which they hope will go away if they beat the other guy up. Never works kinda like putting a lid on a simmering pot of soup….just a matter of time before stuff starts boiling over.

    As far as choosing to be gay is concerned I can only say what I have said since I was 18. I didn’t choose to be gay, it was as much of a shock to me as it was to anyone else. What I did choose was to accept that I was gay. I chose to be able to look myself in the mirror without a mask. To stand up and be counted for who I am as I am. I chose not to live a half-life lie but to live a full and responsible existence. I have never been able to figure out what is so great about being straight and believe me unlike Mr. Repent (see first comment above) I have studied my subject very closely and carefully over the years.

    The conclusion I reached at around 19 years old is that human nature is the same despite gender, race, religious background, gender preference or economic status. The only difference is HOW the human condition is expressed based on the above categories. Men have just as much of a need for security as women they just go about achieving it differently and usually a tad later than women. Rich people get lonely just like poor folks do they just have different means available to them to remedy the situation.

    But this is America where we prefer to emphasize our differences ignoring the reality that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

  9. I’m kind of surprised that you’re apparently unaware that the Mosaic laws, in some Christian traditions, are divided into three categories: the moral code, which is eternal and unchanging, and are summarized in the Ten Commandments; the civil laws, which expired when ancient Israel ceased to be a nation; and the cultic laws, which expired in 70 CE.

    Now I have no idea whether Broussard has a well-developed OT theology along these lines; and one could argue whether the prohibitions of homosexuality are moral or cultic; nor am I asking you to like this division of the Mosaic laws. But it’s not like this is a novel theology that’s just a couple decades old.

  10. I’m certain that different religious traditions (old and new) group laws into certain categories for the purposes of dismissing them and retaining them. I’d argue that the very act of saying, “This biblical law goes for this reason, but this one stays for this reason,” is nothing more than an organized system of picking and choosing.

    For instance, would slavery be a moral code or a civil code? If civil, why did the NT retain it (e.g., “slaves obey your masters” instead of “I have a dream! It’s wrong to own people and pass them on as property.”)

    Arguing that some laws (that the divine, omniscient, future-knowing, unchanging God of the universe gave) get trumped and some (like slavery) get retained in the NT has been what distinguishes one denomination from another. My guess is that Mr. Broussard was told by someone one day, “Here’s why you can eat shrimp, wear mixed fabrics, inter-racially marry, get tattoos, don’t really have to sell all that you own and give it to the poor, and why slaves don’t really have to obey their masters, but why gays are still wrong.”

    It’s all picking and choosing. It’s all a matter of saying that we’re ‘walking under grace’, and so God will forgive us if we violate God’s old commands, but why he won’t if we still violate these commands.

    It’s not theologically sophisticated at all: it’s systematized cherry picking.

  11. One of the tragedies of this brand of Christianity is that it encourages one who wrongs another to seek forgiveness from God primarily, and the wronged person secondarily. Matt 5:23-24 are neglected because it’s hard and it requires work and conflict resolution and you have to be patient and humble and you might be rejected, whereas asking God to forgive you and then believing you’re forgiven requires nothing, because if you wrong someone else, you just ask God for forgiveness again.

    It’s easier to ask from a God you believe forgives you than to reconcile with a person who may not want to.

  12. Don:

    Where IN THE BIBLE is this three-fold division of laws/rules stated, along with the “expiration” information that pertains to some of those laws/rules ? All of this is new to me . . . I wonder why your fellow Christians have been unable to CITE IN THE BIBLE what you are now stating to be clearly Christian doctrine STATED IN THE BIBLE.

    But I am glad that you are here, and can easily CITE WHERE IN THE BIBLE what you are claiming as Christian doctrine DOES appear.

    Thanks. I am glad that my waiting has finally paid off.

    waiting . . . waiting . . . waiting . . . .

  13. Just today I ran across a quote that sums up the problem nicely: “If you meet someone who gets his morals from the Old Testament, I think you’d be wise to give him a wide berth.” — Richard Dawkins

  14. cd.dedalus,
    First of all, don’t misquote me. As I rather clearly implied, this is not a universal theology among Christians. Some reject all OT laws and not only that, but almost all the teachings in the Gospels, such as the Sermon on the Mount–everything before the resurrection. This may be attributed to “Christ fulfilled the Law” but may come pretty close to antinomianism.

    Other traditions are, as Dr. Cargill suggested in his comment, rather ad-hoc and perhaps low on thoughtfulness. I have no other explanation as to how Smilin’ Joel O. came out against eating pork a few years ago.

    Anyway, I know that the distinction between the eternal moral laws and the temporary civic and cultic laws is present in Reformed theology, but I don’t know whether it’s unique to or originated there. The idea isn’t fully worked out in Scripture–gotta keep the systematic theologians employed, I guess–but is derived from passages such as Mark 7:19, where Jesus declared all foods are clean. There’s also the whole book of Galatians, which vehemently argues that trying to obey all the commands of the Law is useless, and even counterproductive, for obtaining salvation in Christ; and Hebrews, which demonstrates that Christ’s high priesthood is superior to the whole Mosaic sacrificial system.

  15. I can’t help suspect that Broussard falls into the old trap of thinking the Bible is the “last word” in Christian belief/ theology. If he would only see the Bible as the first word, that is the starting point, then he would not wind up swinging around in self contradictory circles of nonsense. The biblical texts contradict each other, they argue with themselves – trying to mine them for end-points to conclude a question is an exercise in futility. If the christian uses the bible as the first word, he/she can turn to it as a series of documents which;
    1. identify the key issues for the faith (human/divine relations, violence, purity, nationalism, identity, poverty) iwothu necessarily comign to any colcusions about these things,
    2. show how these issues have been dealt with over specific time and space, revealing some of the successes and failures of such efforts to deal with these issues.

    The bible fails as a moral rule book. but then again, I don’t think it is, or ever was a moral rule book…..

  16. I can’t help suspect that Broussard falls into the old trap of thinking the Bible is the “last word” in Christian belief/ theology. If he would only see the Bible as the first word, that is the starting point, then he would not wind up swinging around in self contradictory circles of nonsense. The biblical texts contradict each other, they argue with themselves – trying to mine them for end-points to conclude a question is an exercise in futility. If the christian uses the bible as the first word, he/she can turn to it as a series of documents which;
    1. identify the key issues for the faith (human/divine relations, violence, purity, nationalism, identity, poverty) iwothu necessarily comign to any colcusions about these things,
    2. show how these issues have been dealt with over specific time and space, revealing some of the successes and failures of such efforts to deal with these issues.

    The bible fails as a moral rule book. but then again, I don’t think it is, or ever was a moral rule book…..

  17. Dr. Cargill

    This a great post and I heartily agree with most of your criticisms. I just have one point to nitpick. You say:

    “So, in Broussard’s mind, it’s OK to sin again and again and again heterosexually, and if you ask for forgiveness, you’re OK, because “God knows your heart”, and you’re “his boy”. BUT, if your sin is homosexual and you sin again and again habitually, and you ask for forgiveness, then you’re “not God’s boy”, because “God ain’t no punk””

    But if you read closely, that’s not what Broussard was saying. Starting with:

    “And I think that applies to homosexuals as well”

    He does try to say that homosexuals can be forgiven, even if they fall again and again.

    When he then back pedals from this idea, to insist that God can’t be mocked by repeated unrepentant sin, he begins with a heterosexual example, not a homosexual one

    “The question is your heart. Add you know that. Are you really tryin’ not to fornicate, not to sleep with that girl over and over again. Because God…the Bible says God is not mocked. God ain’t no punk.”

    So I think you misread him on that point.

    Don’t get me wrong, I can’t stand Broussard; he has no business peddling his religious hate speech on ESPN; I hope they fire him.

    I just thought you’d want to represent what he says correctly.

  18. Actually, I saw it exactly for what it was: a rhetorical trap. Note that he sets up the heterosexual sinner as the one who can be forgiven, while the homosexual in the unrepentant, wanton sinner looking for sin. And while he realizes that he needs to offer the condemnation to the heterosexual as well (to avoid looking like a glaring hypocrite), it’s where he places them and how he frames his argument that reveals how he feels about them. Unless he ceases his activity the homosexual man is condemned. The heterosexual man can also sin and be condemned, but if he repents and marries (a woman!), then he can have sex. But not the homosexual. He has to…what, remain abstinent?

    He offers his qualifiers, but it’s where the straight man and the gay man are framed in the argument that reveals his true intent. It’s a rhetorical device.

  19. I see what you mean about the placement of the argument revealing his true feelings. I have to wonder though if he’s revealing his prejudice in spite of himself. Broussard doesn’t strike me as intelligent enough to set up a rhetorical trap. He doesn’t seem to know where his mouth is taking him half the time.

  20. I think he’s repeating what someone told him. I agree that it’s not a sophisticated argument.

  21. Don:

    First of all, don’t accuse me of “misquoting” you when . . . I didn’t misquote you. Please dispense with the misrepresentation, okay ?

    Second, don’t pretend to disavow a position and then proceed to embrace it.

    Third, don’t pretend that you “clearly implied” a position when you did no such thing.

    You have NO basis in the Bible (any version) for your contentions, and you know it. So please be honest enough to admit it.

  22. cd.dedalus,
    First: You said, quote, “you are now stating to be clearly Christian doctrine STATED IN THE BIBLE.” Whereas what I actually said was, quote, “… in some Christian traditions…” But if I said that this was clearly stated somewhere in the Bible, then show me where I said that. I must have forgotten what I wrote.

    Second: I’m not disavowing anything. I’m explaining a range of existing Christian interpretations, not (in these comments) claiming to embrace nor disavow any of them in particular.

    Third: If “in some traditions” does not imply “is not universal,” then I don’t know what does.

    If I could so suggest, maybe you should read what I have actually written instead of what you think your stereotype of me would write.

  23. Don:

    You are still wrong. I did NOT misquote you. So you need to acknowledge that.

    I simply wanted you to cite for me — if you could — where IN THE BIBLE such a position as you were advancing … could be found.

    So if you are unable to make such a citation, then be a Big Boy and say so.

    No need by you to get defensive and play “victim” and accuse me of something I didn’t do. Maybe this approach works in your church, but it doesn’t work in the real world.

    Happy to help.

  24. Memo to group:

    Looks like Don doesn’t have an answer to the question I posed, so . . . does anyone else ?

    Thx.

  25. cd.dedalus,

    Just to remind you, you claimed (in your May 4, 2013 at 10:15 am comment) that in discussing the three-fold division of the Law, I was “stating to be clearly Christian doctrine STATED IN THE BIBLE.” I guess you’re still looking for a verse that explicitly defines this division, but now you’re no longer claiming that _I_ said such a verse exists. In fact, not every Christian doctrine can be read off from one or two prooftexts. In my May 5, 2013 at 10:53 pm response to you, I mentioned Galatians and Hebrews specifically. I’d encourage you to read these books, and especially consider the teachings on (respectively) whether salvation comes thru obeying the Law, and Christ’s superiority to Moses. You could also consider how/why Jesus abrogated the Old Testament dietary restrictions in Mark 7:19. Now, if you have any responses to these suggestions, or if you’re interested in discussion, or if this isn’t the sort of citations you’re expecting or ready to accept, then please let me know. But if you’d rather disregard what I’ve written and again claim I’m not answering you, then I’ll leave the last word to you.

  26. Don:

    I never made such a claim, so it is odd that you continue to state that I did. The way I was raised, I would never accuse someone of something they didn’t do, but perhaps your upbringing (your church?) taught you differently ? False accusations are never OK … for me, but apparently are OK for you. We obviously differ.

    You concede that there is nothing definitive showing the position you described. Great . . . you are making progress. Fabricating doctrines by “implication” from this or that verse is a familiar trick, though . . . and one on which you rely. OK . . . GOT IT. Without the ability to use such a technique . . . would we really HAVE thousands of Christian denominations, each of which pretends that “it” is the “best” and “truest” and “most like the way it was in the beginning of Christianity” ?

    . . . and, in the end, what we are dealing with is . . . a collection of folk tales, which believers claim are accurate historical accounts. Go figure.

  27. cd.dedalus,

    I took your statement, “stating to be clearly Christian doctrine STATED IN THE BIBLE” to mean that this doctrine could be simply read out of the Bible because it is explicitly stated somewhere in the text. You apparently are denying that this is what you meant, so I’m not sure what you do mean, but I apologize for misconstruing you.

    Anyway, thanks for sharing your point of view. Let me know if you become interested in interacting with the texts I suggested.

  28. Don;

    You are now changing what you have been saying that I said … which is wise. I never put words in your mouth; I simply was asking you for biblical verification of what you were stating.

    YES, I am interested to know WHERE in the Bible (any version) the claim re: “those OT verses don’t apply anymore” can be authenticated. This claim is made but when I seek biblical authentication … the claimants disappear, which brings us to the question of: what is the basis of the claim, if NOT in the Bible (any version) ?

    If the basis of the claim is some sort of clever “twist” or implication of this or that NT verse, then the claimant is in trouble … because the nature of that claim is so important.

    An important claim like that is to depend on a “twist” or implication of this or that verse (sometimes more than one verse is cited, even though the verses have nothing to do with each other) ? YIKES.

    Yet, in fairness, it must be said that much (most ?) of theology depends upon “verse twists and implications” (and without the marvelous invention of circular logic and resort to “faith” as an escape hatch for difficult questions, where would theology be … at all ?). John Calvin (who helped engineer (led ?) the murder of religious dissenter/heretic Michael Servetus (who disagreed with Calvin, you see) by having him burned at the stake) is famous for use of this technique, but he is hardly alone . . . and his role in the murder of Servetus, Calvin no doubt was able to rationalize by use of one or more “twist or implication” from the Bible (any version), and — having done so — slept well ever after, secure in the knowledge that he had the OK of “God” for what he had done to someone who had the nerve to disagree with him.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,001 other followers

%d bloggers like this: