Jason Collins comes out..

17,142 Views | 192 Replies | Last: 13 yr ago by The Duke!
TheAdvisingBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There are many different definitions of what being a Christian is -- and it's typically self-defined. Collins says he's a Christian and who is to say differently without getting messed up in that Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged stuff.

Claiming all the crazy stuff from the Bible is just Old Testament civil laws and superseded by the New Testament doesn't account for the following crazy stuff from the New Testament:

In Corinthians Chapter 11 – men are told they are not allowed to pray with hats on or have long hair. Women aren’t allowed to cut their hair and cannot pray without a head covering.

In Matthew 10:37 we find, “Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” Jesus seems to be insecure and jealous -- no one can be loved more than him.

In Matthew 5, “If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away.” So if you were led into adultery because you saw a good looking woman and were attracted to her, then go get a knife and take out that eye. Actually, do it even if you only lust for her -- the Bible says lusting is just as bad as acting on lust.

Women are considered second class in the New Testament. Corinthians 14 says that the women were forbidden to speak, but were to remain silent, as the Law (Old Testament) says. Timothy 2 forbids women from teaching men, or overseeing men. So much for Hilary Clinton and Condaleeza Rice and their roles in the Federal governement.

Paul hates the gays but is okay with slavery. In Philemon, Paul tells an escaped slave that he must return to his master and submit himself. At least he adds that he hopes the master will set the slave free, but for someone who condemns others very easily, Paul doesn't condemn the master for owning a slave.

Jesus seems to endorse prejudice: Matthew and Mark tell the story of the Syrian woman whose little daughter was possessed by a demon. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter. Jesus talks harshly toward the woman as he first denies her request for help for her daughter by saying “it is not fitting to take the bread of the children and throw it to the dogs” -- dogs being Syrians. It’s only when the woman admits to being a dog that Jesus decides to help her daughter. As long as Syrians debase themselves and are compliant, they can have Jesus’ sympathy and help but not until.

And on the issue of whether the Bible is divine -- that is, it should it be considered the word of God and absolutely true in all cases -- well God needs to decide how Judas died. In Matthew 27 he hangs himself. In Acts 1, he falls and injures himself so badly that his body ruptures and his organs spill out. Which one is it? After resolving that, God needs to edit the criteria for receiving mercy since the Bible contradicts itself on the necessary criteria: Non-believers obtain mercy in Romans, 11:32, only believers can obtain mercy in Romans 14:23, and only baptized believers can obtain mercy in Mark 16. Kinda hard to figure out who gets mercy.


I have no problem with people believing what they want to believe. I may not agree with Catholics who pick and choose what the Pope sets as law, but that's up to them to decide if they can call themselves Catholic if they use birth control and skip weekend Mass. (Or it may be up to the Pope -- but it's certainly not my decision to make.)

It's when people not only believe what they believe but also try to force everyone else to believe the same stuff and influence civil policy based on those beliefs, or when they use the Bible to support their homophobia but disregard other stuff the Bible requires -- that I lose respect for religious people.
The Duke!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AdvisingBear -- Christianity (until only very recently) has never been a "self-defined" thing. Until the 1960s, it has almost always been defined by authoritative doctrines, personalities, and structures (i.e. scripture, counsels, churches, office holders, confessions, etc.). So Broussard is on fairly solid ground when he appeals to what he believes is an authoritative document (i.e. the Bible) to define acceptable Christian behavior.

My point was regarding those who wish to claim Christians are picking and choosing based on their prejudices as evidenced by the fact that they do not follow OT civil or ceremonial laws. If one actually studies what they believe, this is not a contradiction.

You have listed several verses out of context and made incorrect assumptions about many of them. PM me if you are actually interested in why I say this. But your point is nevertheless clear -- you object to many aspects of biblical morality. Others disagree with your objections. One of the reasons I like being a US citizen is that people are free to disagree about this sort of stuff.

But Broussard was not "forcing" anyone to believe the Bible. He was merely expressing his belief that the morality of the Bible ultimately defines what is right and wrong for all people in the eyes of God. If you disagree, I highly doubt that Broussard will attempt to "force" you to believe what he does.
The Duke!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CalBear68;842119481 said:

OK, I'm gonna guess Reform Rosicrucian.

You can hold the mustard on my Pastrami on Rye. Thank you.

Now, try to guess what I am:




Love it! But wrong.
BearyWhite
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Duke!;842119515 said:

My point was regarding those who wish to claim Christians are picking and choosing based on their prejudices as evidenced by the fact that they do not follow OT civil or ceremonial laws. If one actually studies what they believe, this is not a contradiction.
So are you saying that in general people like Broussard follow every stricture of the Bible that's of the same class as the anti-gay rules? (This is the gist of the "pick and choose" -- that they don't abide by all such rules so are guilty of hypocrisy.) Where would an interested party find this particular set of moral rules iterated? (ps: not challenging you, genuinely curious)
OdontoBear66
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Duke!;842119467 said:

My research addresses religious war, politics, and identity in Europe and the Americas in the 16th century. I do not share Professor Sperlich's view (as you have related it), and I find your description of his approach to be a perfect example of the professorial prosyletizing that I despite. I would commend to him William Cavanaugh's The Myth of Religious Violence.

I research and teach the history of Christianity in the late medieval and Reformation eras. I always promise my students to buy them a coffee or a smoothie at the end of the semester if they can correctly guess which broad religious tradition (or lack thereof) that I belong to (i.e. Muslim, Calvinist, Lutheran, Catholic, Anglican, Baptist, Atheist, Quaker, etc.) based on the way I teach each religious system.

What is more, I'll treat any student and a friend to lunch at a nice restaurant if they can correctly guess the more specific denominational community I belong to (i.e. Baptist -- Southern Baptist, Double-predestinarian; Atheist -- Marxist; Jewish -- liberal, reconstructionist, etc.).

I have only ever had to buy one smoothie, and no lunches. But I have had many students guess wrongly.

For the most part, if you are respectful and really try to understand others on their own terms, it is hard for people to tell what you believe. It takes a great deal of intellectual discipline and curiosity to understand people on their own terms. In contrast, I believe that it is bigoted, intellectually lazy, and ignorant to simply dismiss and condemn people for believing in the Bible, for being gay, Catholic, republican, Muslim, libertarian, socialist, etc.


Good read. We certainly need more of your bent teaching many disciplines with the credo you espouse above. Do you have time for political science, capitalism, and journalism too, to name a few. I like your approach---"to understand people on their own terms", and "ignorant to simply dismiss and condemn." Good stuff.
gobears725
How long do you want to ignore this user?
http://tv.yahoo.com/news/christian-group-calls-espn-writers-suspension-jason-collins-213013743.html


I think that this is interesting and relevent to the conversation. A Christian group called Faith Of America is asking that Broussard be suspended.
TheAdvisingBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Duke

1. People define themselves as Christians. There is no central authority where you submit an application and get to use the title. Again, closet case Larry Craig says he's Christian while he engages in anonymous gay sex. Rick Santorum says he's Christian while being opposed to gays, and Barak Obama says he's Christian while he supports gays. The wackos from the Westboro Baptist Church call themselves Christians as do the gays going to the Metropolitan Community Church which was formed for gay Christians. I think all (including Collins), get to call themselves Christian, or else someone has to set up a very specific criteria for the title. Considering how many Christian churches hold opposing views on many issues, I don't think that is going to happen. On my own, I doubt the Westboro idiots can truly be considered Christian, but I don't think it's my place to determine that. Who gets to be the one to determine exactly what being Christian means?

2. My list of New Testament crazy things was to counter the assertion that all the crazy biblical stuff like not touching a women when she has a period, not planting different crops in the same field -- are all Old Testament laws and that the NT cleared up all the crazy stuff. There is still a lot of crazy stuff in the NT.
NYCGOBEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Duke!;842119436 said:

What gives you the impression that I am Christian, much less a "typical" one?


Lemme guess? You are a Jew raised in Reform Judaism. Specifically of the progressive kind practiced by intellectual Jews that typically resided in the Upper West Side of Manhattan. You like and know way too much about pastrami and corned beef and you've been to all the best deli's. You kvetsh like a champ and are a maven in many things. Plus you are an academic specialising in christianity of the middle ages. I could see why a liberal Jew would find that fascinating. Instead of a smoothie, can I please have an egg cream with the sammich you're going to buy me?
The Duke!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NYCGOBEARS;842119617 said:

Lemme guess? You are a Jew raised in Reform Judaism. Specifically of the progressive kind practiced by intellectual Jews that typically resided in the Upper West Side of Manhattan. You like and know way too much about pastrami and corned beef and you've been to all the best deli's. You kvetsh like a champ and are a maven in many things. Plus you are an academic specialising in christianity of the middle ages. I could see why a liberal Jew would find that fascinating. Instead of a smoothie, can I please have an egg cream with the sammich you're going to buy me?


Ethnically and in terms of childhood upbringing, you are getting pretty close. Not correct, but close enough to merit a coffee or smoothie.
The Duke!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearyWhite;842119553 said:

So are you saying that in general people like Broussard follow every stricture of the Bible that's of the same class as the anti-gay rules? (This is the gist of the "pick and choose" -- that they don't abide by all such rules so are guilty of hypocrisy.) Where would an interested party find this particular set of moral rules iterated? (ps: not challenging you, genuinely curious)


I only watch ESPN for highlights, so I am not familiar with Broussard. I certainly can't speak for him. But his view on sexual ethics as being defined by the Bible is consistent with a (sola scriptura) Protestant position that was first defined in the 16th century. I could refer you to a lot of foreign language confessions and catechisms that spell this out very early, or you can skip ahead a little over a century to read an English one. This is from 1646 and is a good summary of the position I described: http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html

The reason I say that Broussard is consistent is that he also condemns all other sorts of sexual relations that either are condemned or aren't supported by scripture. So he isn't picking and choosing. He was being consistent with his beliefs. If he were to say homosexuality is wrong but that premarital heterosexual sex is just a normal part of growing up and is pretty much okay, then he would indeed be a hypocrite. But he didn't say that.

Christianity also has a robust doctrine of sin. In Protestant theology, there is a doctrine called "simul iustus et peccator." This is Latin for "simultaneously justified and a sinner." It means that although they are justified by Christ in the sight of God, Christians always remain sinners. So even if Broussard were to break some of the moral laws that he believes in, he would not be a hypocrite. But he would be a hypocrite, for instance, if he were to affirm the moral law when it comes to sexuality, but not when it comes to other issues such as murder, idolatry, theft, etc.
The Duke!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dear AdvisingBear:

As to your first point, this is a very recent development (since the 60s). And even today it isn't true in all the cases your cite. Santorum says he is a Christian, and as proof he is a member of an organized Christian body with a central authority structure and doctrines that define who is in and who is out. So he is not Catholic because he defines himself as Catholic. He is Catholic because the Catholic Church defines him as Catholic. But you are right about President Obama. He is no longer a member of any Church, and thus his Christian identity is self-defined. But for the vast majority of Christian history (and still today in the vast majority of Churches), individuals weren't and aren't allowed to define Christianity for themselves.

To your second point: Again, I respectfully assert that I don't think you understand the verses that you posted. Feel free to PM me if you would like to know why I say this. I don't want to derail this thread, which is supposed to be about Broussard and Collins. I think if you really studied these verses and their interpretations on their own terms, you *might* end up concluding that they aren't "crazy" (even if you still disagree with their morality).


TheAdvisingBear;842119569 said:

Duke

1. People define themselves as Christians. There is no central authority where you submit an application and get to use the title. Again, closet case Larry Craig says he's Christian while he engages in anonymous gay sex. Rick Santorum says he's Christian while being opposed to gays, and Barak Obama says he's Christian while he supports gays. The wackos from the Westboro Baptist Church call themselves Christians as do the gays going to the Metropolitan Community Church which was formed for gay Christians. I think all (including Collins), get to call themselves Christian, or else someone has to set up a very specific criteria for the title. Considering how many Christian churches hold opposing views on many issues, I don't think that is going to happen. On my own, I doubt the Westboro idiots can truly be considered Christian, but I don't think it's my place to determine that. Who gets to be the one to determine exactly what being Christian means?

2. My list of New Testament crazy things was to counter the assertion that all the crazy biblical stuff like not touching a women when she has a period, not planting different crops in the same field -- are all Old Testament laws and that the NT cleared up all the crazy stuff. There is still a lot of crazy stuff in the NT.
The Duke!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I would also like to bring this thread back to its original topic. This never works on BI, but I'll give it a try anyway:

No one should hate [U]Collins because he is gay[/U].
Everyone should hate Collins [U]because he went to stanfurd.[/U]

No one should hate [U]Broussard because he expressed his religious views on homosexuality[/U].
But if it turns our that Broussard went to stanfurd, then everyone ought to hate to him too.
BearyWhite
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Duke!;842119688 said:

I only watch ESPN for highlights, so I am not familiar with Broussard. I certainly can't speak for him. But his view on sexual ethics as being defined by the Bible is consistent with a (sola scriptura) Protestant position that was first defined in the 16th century. I could refer you to a lot of foreign language confessions and catechisms that spell this out very early, or you can skip ahead a little over a century to read an English one. This is from 1646 and is a good summary of the position I described: http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html

The reason I say that Broussard is consistent is that he also condemns all other sorts of sexual relations that either are condemned or aren't supported by scripture. So he isn't picking and choosing. He was being consistent with his beliefs. If he were to say homosexuality is wrong but that premarital heterosexual sex is just a normal part of growing up and is pretty much okay, then he would indeed be a hypocrite. But he didn't say that.
I think you're looking at the question too narrowly though. Why limit it to sexual ethics? (Setting aside the idea that homosexuality is an "ethical" thing, which the bible may say it is but science says is not.) This concerns the entire spectrum of behavior mandated in the Bible. There's no clause that "sexual sins get you kicked out of Christianity but all the others are just misdemeanors." If Broussard (only using him as a representative of this school of thought; I'm not really familiar with him either) feels entitled to decide who is a Christian, he better abide by every single letter of the Bible -- and I'll bet you good money he doesn't. You think he gives up all "thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations" on the Sabbath day? Let's check in with him next Super Bowl Sunday and see if he's looking for a new religion on Monday. That's the hypocrisy. That's the pick-and-choose.

Quote:

Christianity also has a robust doctrine of sin. In Protestant theology, there is a doctrine called "simul iustus et peccator." This is Latin for "simultaneously justified and a sinner." It means that although they are justified by Christ in the sight of God, Christians always remain sinners. So even if Broussard were to break some of the moral laws that he believes in, he would not be a hypocrite. But he would be a hypocrite, for instance, if he were to affirm the moral law when it comes to sexuality, but not when it comes to other issues such as murder, idolatry, theft, etc.
If I'm understanding correctly, that seems a little contorted too -- that he's entitled to cast others out of Christianity for sinning as long as he's breaking the rules he believes in and not breaking rules because he doesn't believe in them.
slotright20
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NYCGOBEARS;842119617 said:

Lemme guess? You are a Jew raised in Reform Judaism. Specifically of the progressive kind practiced by intellectual Jews that typically resided in the Upper West Side of Manhattan. You like and know way too much about pastrami and corned beef and you've been to all the best deli's. You kvetsh like a champ and are a maven in many things. Plus you are an academic specialising in christianity of the middle ages. I could see why a liberal Jew would find that fascinating. Instead of a smoothie, can I please have an egg cream with the sammich you're going to buy me?


NYC - that is an astute guess. I was thinking Evangelical Lutheran -a moderate branch of that denomination for a few reasons. The time period of Duke's historical interest, his moderate views, and there is a significant Cal connection in that the first female ordained minister in that Church was on campus in the seventies.

Regardless, Duke's observations this week have been exceptional. I like to think that I know the Bible fairly well, but in terms of where the Duke is operating - that is deep water.
jyamada
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Duke!;842119688 said:

The reason I say that Broussard is consistent is that he also condemns all other sorts of sexual relations that either are condemned or aren't supported by scripture. So he isn't picking and choosing. He was being consistent with his beliefs. If he were to say homosexuality is wrong but that premarital heterosexual sex is just a normal part of growing up and is pretty much okay, then he would indeed be a hypocrite. But he didn't say that.


Let's bring Mark Jackson, the coach of the Warriors, into the picture. Although he didn't come out as directly about homosexuality as Broussard did, some of Jackson's quotes lead me to believe their views on the topic are similar. I'm also going to assume adultery is similar to premarital heterosexual sex in that both are condemned and aren't supported by the scripture (correct me if I'm mistaken). Apparently, Jackson carried on an extramarital affair several years back........although Jackson's views on adultery may have changed since his affair came to light, would he be considered a hypocrite?
NYCGOBEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Duke!;842119682 said:

Ethnically and in terms of childhood upbringing, you are getting pretty close. Not correct, but close enough to merit a coffee or smoothie.

Lol. Thanks Duke.
GB54
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Orthodox. I can''t pinpoint which one but assume the smoothie is heresy.
NYCGOBEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GB54;842119726 said:

Eastern Orthodox. I can''t pinpoint which one but assume the smoothie is heresy.

Only drinking Jamba Juice smoothies is heresy as they originate from one of the rings of hell - Palo Alto.
manus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NYCGOBEARS;842119727 said:

Only drinking Jamba Juice smoothies is heresy as they originate from one of the rings of hell - Palo Alto.


No, I believe Jamba Juice was the creation of a Cal Poly student and originated in San Luis Obispo.
NYCGOBEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
manus;842119732 said:

No, I believe Jamba Juice was the creation of a Cal Poly student and originated in San Luis Obispo.

I stand corrected. Thanks manus. For some reason I thought they started in PA.
GB54
How long do you want to ignore this user?
manus;842119732 said:

No, I believe Jamba Juice was the creation of a Cal Poly student and originated in San Luis Obispo.


Also to be confused with Odwalla which was started by a street musician in Santa Cruz
manus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Duke!;842119694 said:

I would also like to bring this thread back to its original topic. This never works on BI, but I'll give it a try anyway...




Too bad, for I was hoping you would discourse on Dominionism and the Quiverfull Movement...

:p
The Duke!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
slotright20;842119717 said:

NYC - that is an astute guess. I was thinking Evangelical Lutheran -a moderate branch of that denomination for a few reasons. The time period of Duke's historical interest, his moderate views, and there is a significant Cal connection in that the first female ordained minister in that Church was on campus in the seventies.

Regardless, Duke's observations this week have been exceptional. I like to think that I know the Bible fairly well, but in terms of where the Duke is operating - that is deep water.


Way off. I don't consider myself a moderate [noun], but I do try to understand all ideas on their own terms and to discourse in a respectful and moderate [adjective] way about them.

But thank you for your comments.
The Duke!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearyWhite;842119716 said:

You think he gives up all "thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations" on the Sabbath day? Let's check in with him next Super Bowl Sunday and see if he's looking for a new religion on Monday. That's the hypocrisy. That's the pick-and-choose.


Many Protestants hold the fourth commandment to be ceremonial law. I assume that a Protestant who works for ESPN would fall into this category.

BearyWhite;842119716 said:

If I'm understanding correctly, that seems a little contorted too -- that he's entitled to cast others out of Christianity for sinning as long as he's breaking the rules he believes in and not breaking rules because he doesn't believe in them.


I can't speak for Broussard's inner feelings. All I can do is analyze his actual words. He did not seem to deny that Collins was a Christian because he had homosexual tendencies, urges, or even experiences. Rather, Broussard's "open rebellion" comment seems to indicate his issue was that Collins is living "openly" and unreservedly as a homosexual, instead of believing that such urges are wrong and fighting them (even if imperfectly). The doctrine of "simul iustus et peccator" recognizes that Christians will struggle and often fail to follow the moral law.

You don't have to agree with Broussard. But his comments, in and of themselves, are not hypocritical.
The Duke!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No to the Eastern Orthodoxy guess. Yes to Jamba Juice making bad smoothies. And yes to stanfurd being the closest terrestrial analogue to the pit of hell.
BearyWhite
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Duke!;842119747 said:

Many Protestants hold the fourth commandment to be ceremonial law. I assume that a Protestant who works for ESPN would fall into this category.
So where are all these laws and their categories iterated? I want a chart! Is there a best source you know of?
The Duke!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearyWhite;842119755 said:

So where are all these laws and their categories iterated? I want a chart! Is there a best source you know of?


Ha! Maybe I can make some money creating a chart outlining the legal opinions of various confessional communities.

I don't know what specifically Broussard believes (apart from sexual sin), so I can't answer your question.

The link I provided you is to an English confession adopted by Presbyterians in the seventeenth century, and later modified and adopted by English speaking Reformed Baptists. I linked to it because of its early date (1646), the fact that it is in English, and because it very clearly states the threefold division of moral, ceremonial, and civil laws in the OT. I did not mean to assert that this is specifically what Broussard believes. I can't speak to that.

Like I said earlier, many churches take exception to aspects of this three-fold division, and there is also disagreement about which category certain laws fall into.

But I can't think of any sola scriptura Protestant community that doesn't believe sexuality falls under the category of moral law. Thus Broussard's comments are logical and consistent considering the sola scriptura understanding of sexual ethics.
manus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearyWhite;842119755 said:

So where are all these laws and their categories iterated? I want a chart! Is there a best source you know of?


Probably in some tome titled, "A Cleric's guide to getting P.T Barnum types into church on Sunday in order to keep that collection basket full." It's all about "full employment," for those who choose to prey on people's anxiety, failure to cope, and fear of death. It is just another way of "making a living."
YuSeeBerkeley
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Duke!;842119758 said:

Ha! Maybe I can make some money creating a chart outlining the legal opinions of various confessional communities.

I don't know what specifically Broussard believes (apart from sexual sin), so I can't answer your question.

The link I provided you is to an English confession adopted by Presbyterians in the seventeenth century, and later modified and adopted by English speaking Reformed Baptists. I linked to it because of its early date (1646), the fact that it is in English, and because it very clearly states the threefold division of moral, ceremonial, and civil laws in the OT. I did not mean to assert that this is specifically what Broussard believes. I can't speak to that.

Like I said earlier, many churches take exception to aspects of this three-fold division, and there is also disagreement about which category certain laws fall into.

But I can't think of any sola scriptura Protestant community that doesn't believe sexuality falls under the category of moral law. Thus Broussard's comments are logical and consistent considering the sola scriptura understanding of sexual ethics.


I'm going to guess Greek Orthodox.
beelzebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My guess: Chaldean Christian with academic parents
The Duke!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
YuSeeBerkeley;842119771 said:

I'm going to guess Greek Orthodox.


Nope.
The Duke!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
beelzebear;842119776 said:

My guess: Chaldean Christian with academic parents


Nope on both accounts. My Mom has a BA and sells prom dresses. My Dad never graduated from college and is an Executive VP of a very major company.
NYCGOBEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Who's coming out of what on this thread?
GB54
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anabaptist or Coptic . Other than that, possible Jonestown survivor
The Duke!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GB54;842119840 said:

Anabaptist or Coptic . Other than that, possible Jonestown survivor


Neither. But the Anabaptist guess was a good one. I might have guessed the same.

I'm going to stop answering these now. But if someone guesses right, I will PM them.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.