I believe NYCGOBEARS already called it: Jewish.

jyamada;842119723 said:

---

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?

---

Sorry for not responding sooner. Your post must have gotten lost in the pile. I don't know anything about Jackson's statement, so I can't comment.

But if Jackson indeed believes that homosexuality is a sin because it is defined as such by the Bible, but does not believe that an extramarital heterosexual affair is sinful, then he would indeed be a hypocrite. If his standard for evaluating sexual ethics is the Bible, he should apply it to all areas of sexuality (like Broussard did).

But again, I have no idea what Jackson did or what he believes.

The Duke!;842119890 said:

---

Sorry for not responding sooner. Your post must have gotten lost in the pile. I don't know anything about Jackson's statement, so I can't comment.

But if Jackson indeed believes that homosexuality is a sin because it is defined as such by the Bible, but does not believe that an extramarital heterosexual affair is sinful, then he would indeed be a hypocrite. If his standard for evaluating sexual ethics is the Bible, he should apply it to all areas of sexuality (like Broussard did).

But again, I have no idea what Jackson did or what he believes.

---

Here is what Jackson said:

Mark Jackson was asked on Monday to respond to Jason Collins' disclosure of his status as a gay man.

Jackson, who works for openly gay team president Rick Welts, has received attention for his ubiquitous Christianity as head coach of the Golden State Warriors.

"As a Christian man, I have beliefs of what's right and what's wrong," replied Jackson. "That being said, I know Jason Collins, I know his family and I'm certainly praying for them at this time."

Jackson was asked if Collins would be welcomed on the Warriors.

"If he had game. If he could help this team. Right now, he can't help this team."

*******************************************************


Jackson is also a minister. I read somewhere that Jackson was remorseful and apologetic about his extramarital fling......so he knew it was wrong. I haven't seen a clip of what Broussard has said and don't have any knowledge of how he lives his life but Jackson's statement smacks of hypocrisy.

The Duke!;842119890 said:

---

Sorry for not responding sooner. Your post must have gotten lost in the pile. I don't know anything about Jackson's statement, so I can't comment.

But if Jackson indeed believes that homosexuality is a sin because it is defined as such by the Bible, but does not believe that an extramarital heterosexual affair is sinful, then he would indeed be a hypocrite. If his standard for evaluating sexual ethics is the Bible, he should apply it to all areas of sexuality (like Broussard did).

But again, I have no idea what Jackson did or what he believes.

---

Do you think it's right to consider the question so narrowly though? I think Jackson (and Broussard and the many other people who think this way) are hypocrites if they break any biblical rules -- not just those under "sexual ethics" -- while trying to kick someone out of the club for breaking a rule. (When I get some time I'm going to be going through that link to find a rule that they're sure to have broken .) Since you're probably a lot more familiar with the Bible than either Broussard or Jackson, are you thinking there's a logic to confining the hypocrisy assessment to this one category of "rule"?

BearyWhite;842119911 said:

---

Do you think it's right to consider the question so narrowly though? I think Jackson (and Broussard and the many other people who think this way) are hypocrites if they break any biblical rules -- not just those under "sexual ethics" -- while trying to kick someone out of the club for breaking a rule. (When I get some time I'm going to be going through that link to find a rule that they're sure to have broken .) Since you're probably a lot more familiar with the Bible than either Broussard or Jackson, are you thinking there's a logic to confining the hypocrisy assessment to this one category of "rule"?

---

Not that I agree with Broussard, and it seriously pains me to write this, but Broussard would point out that he has repented for his sins (even in the interview he says "unreptented sins" a handful of times, as I recall), and Jason Collins is not repenting for his "sin".

BearyWhite;842119911 said:

---

Do you think it's right to consider the question so narrowly though? I think Jackson (and Broussard and the many other people who think this way) are hypocrites if they break any biblical rules -- not just those under "sexual ethics" -- while trying to kick someone out of the club for breaking a rule. (When I get some time I'm going to be going through that link to find a rule that they're sure to have broken .) Since you're probably a lot more familiar with the Bible than either Broussard or Jackson, are you thinking there's a logic to confining the hypocrisy assessment to this one category of "rule"?

---

They would only be hypocrites if they believed or stated that Christians cannot sin. If they said that Christians are incapable of committing sexual sins but then went on to commit them anyway, then they would certainly be hypocrites. But to the best of my knowledge, they never said that.

Please see my previous explanation of simul iustus et peccator. The standard (i.e. Lutheran and Reformed) Protestant understanding of the moral law is that it binds all people, and that it is impossible to keep perfectly. The Christian is nevertheless supposed to strive after obedience, but all the while knowing that he or she will fail repeatedly. When this happens, the Christian is supposed to confess his or her sin, express contrition, and then repent.

So no, it is not hypocrisy. According to standard Protestant doctrine, a Christian can and should affirm the moral law in its entirety. But this does not mean that they can or will obey it perfectly.

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.

---

So, I finally read some of that text from 1646. It seems to say that God's "moral law" wasn't as broad as I think you were saying:

Quote:

---

I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.

II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.

III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.

IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

---

From this, it sounds like only the Ten Commandments survived the Old Testament, and as we know, none of them deal with gay stuff. Am I missing something here?

ducktilldeath;842119985 said:

---

open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ!!

---

This occurred to me while going through that other thread about the gay slur. I guarantee that many of our recruits are Christian. This open hostility towards Christians is highly offensive and could be absolutely appalling for the parents of recruits. I wanted to note that there are many great Christian groups on campus and encourage potential recruits to ignore the ignorance of the few posters on this board who seem to have deep seated issues with Christianity.

YuSeeBerkeley;842120511 said:

---

This occurred to me while going through that other thread about the gay slur. I guarantee that many of our recruits are Christian. This open hostility towards Christians is highly offensive and could be absolutely appalling for the parents of recruits. I wanted to note that there are many great Christian groups on campus and encourage potential recruits to ignore the ignorance of the few posters on this board who seem to have deep seated issues with Christianity.

---

If recruits to Cal are worried about their ideas and beliefs being challenged, they are looking at the wrong place.

YuSeeBerkeley;842120511 said:

---

This occurred to me while going through that other thread about the gay slur. I guarantee that many of our recruits are Christian. This open hostility towards Christians is highly offensive and could be absolutely appalling for the parents of recruits. I wanted to note that there are many great Christian groups on campus and encourage potential recruits to ignore the ignorance of the few posters on this board who seem to have deep seated issues with Christianity.

---

This "open hostility" is limited to one or two posters. I think (hope) our recruits are intelligent enough to resist choosing or not choosing a school based on the opinions of a couple of anonymous individuals about things other than Cal.

BearyWhite;842120602 said:

---

This "open hostility" is limited to one or two posters. I think (hope) our recruits are intelligent enough to resist choosing or not choosing a school based on the opinions of a couple of anonymous individuals about things other than Cal.

---

And he is a duck at that with little redeeming value so just dump him.

Hi Beary: The document I linked to is one of a three-part series of doctrinal standards adopted by English speaking Protestants in the seventeenth century. The link I posted earlier was to the confession. But attached to the confession are two catechisms: a shorter one for children to memorize, and a larger one as a reference for adults.

The catechisms include the duties that are required and the sins that are forbidden under each of the ten commandments. These duties and prohibitions are taken from those other portions of scripture which illuminate the commandments.

Sexual sin falls under the rubric of the seventh commandment. The larger catechism defines the commandment like this:

Question 137: Which is the seventh commandment?
Answer: The seventh commandment is, Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Question 138: What are the duties required in the seventh commandment?
Answer: The duties required in the seventh commandment are, chastity in body, mind, affections, words, and behavior; and the preservation of it in ourselves and others; watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses; temperance, keeping of chaste company, modesty in apparel; marriage by those that have not the gift of continency, conjugal love, and cohabitation; diligent labor in our callings; shunning all occasions of uncleanness, and resisting temptations thereunto.

Question 139: What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections;all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behavior, immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life, undue delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce, or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays; and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.
Source:https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Westminster_Larger_Catechism#Q._101-150

As you can see, the biblical prohibitions against homosexuality (aka "sodomy" to seventeenth-century English speakers) was, and still is by Sola Scriptura Protestants, thought to fall under the category of the seventh commandment.

Further, all instructions in the New Testament are thought to be further explications of the moral law. Like the Old Testament, the New Testament also clearly forbids homosexuality. Thus, Sola Scriptura Protestants believe that God has clearly proscribed homosexuality through a series of consistent moral laws that were written in both the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament, and that these laws reflect the perfect will of God for all human beings.

As you can see, homosexuality is just one of a very long series of sexual sins that Sola Scriptura Protestants have historically identified. This seems to be more or less consistent with what Broussard was saying, as he also listed a whole series of sins that he understood to be prohibited by the Bible's moral teachings.

But again I wish to emphasize that very few Sola Scriptura Protestants hold to this specific confession or catechism. As I said earlier, many dispute whether the fourth commandment is a moral law, as there are questions about its nature and because it is difficult to find where it is affirmed in the New Testament. I only linked to these specific documents because: 1) they are very old and thus demonstrate that Broussard's thinking is hardly controversial or novel in Christian theology, 2) they clearly demonstrate the three-fold division between the Bible's moral, civil, and ceremonial laws, and 3) they are in the English language. It is a very good general outline of historic Protestantism, and you can learn a lot from it. But it is not a universal outline for all Protestant communities.

You are free to disagree with these beliefs, doctrines, and interpretations. But they are logically consistent and coherent. They are not hypocritical, and they are not picking and choosing.

This whole thread really needs to be moved to the "Off Topic" board. It started about a difference of opinion between pro basketball player and an ESPN commentator, and it has descended to the Duck fan posting ignorant and prejudiced pictures and me teaching Sunday school lessons to Beary (something those who know me well would never think I would do). I'm happy to continue, but this has absolutely nothing to do with Cal football. This isn't a knock on Beary -- despite some slightly intemperate comments earlier in the thread, I judge him to be generally curious and interested, if naturally skeptical. And I am happy to answer his questions. But this board is about Cal football and burritos, not about a former stanfurd basketball player, his critic, and their religious opinions.