"Tell me about the last time you saw another man's sack." (1 Viewer)

[IvanKaramazov]

BTW, there's about a 70% chance that we find out Broussard is gay within 10 years.

Did you even listen to the clip that was posted? Because it is different from the quote you attributed to him.

I clicked on Broussard clip expecting to hear something outrageous. Instead what I got was a clip of an ESPN anchor specifically asking him about how/whether homosexuality can be reconciled with Christianity, and Broussard giving an honest and absolutely standard answer to that question. It's like people are watching a different segment than the one that was linked to in this thread.

On a side note, I had no idea that Jason Collins or this Broussard person existed prior to this story. Everything about this episode seems completely artificial.

 

[Parrothead]

when does he sign a book deal?

 

[Sweet J]

It's funny -- I'm just a hair turned off by the "look at me" aspect of his article. Why not just say "yup, I'm gay," and leaving it at that?

Because it IS a big deal. It's awesome that most people are shrugging their shoulders and moving on. But it's a big deal to be the first to come out and doing it this way lets him map out the conversation a bit instead of a short statement on twitter where comments and backlash can attach to the original article.

I guess so. But I also think about Jackie Robinson and how he acted. Writing his own magazine article to explain why it is such a big deal to be the first black player doesn't seem like something he'd have done.

 

[SWC]

It's funny -- I'm just a hair turned off by the "look at me" aspect of his article. Why not just say "yup, I'm gay," and leaving it at that?

Because it IS a big deal. It's awesome that most people are shrugging their shoulders and moving on. But it's a big deal to be the first to come out and doing it this way lets him map out the conversation a bit instead of a short statement on twitter where comments and backlash can attach to the original article.

I guess so. But I also think about Jackie Robinson and how he acted. Writing his own magazine article to explain why it is such a big deal to be the first black player doesn't seem like something he'd have done.

stuff was a lot different back then brohan so it does not make much sense to try and say if or what jackie would have done back then with respect to a news article also it is not like jackie was hiding that he was black he was and that was the barrier that he broke guys like jason have been compelled to cover up and hide who they are so coming out and writing about it just a different math problem mathaletearino and here is one more thing i do not understand why guys are saying well so and so would have done this or that well i am saying who cares this is what this brohan did and i am proud of him for doing it and i am pretty angry with those here who want to run him down for standing up to hate and bigotry especialy those who try to make it a religous debate god loves and the bible is about love it is not about hate plain and simple and so no go quote leviticus or whatever brohans i have been around the block and i have heard it all and not just about gays its a tired act and soon the church will abandon it to i might not be here to see it but trust me they will and to those of you standing up for intolerance and hatred you are on the wrong side of history bromigos and you can take that to the bank

 

[larry_boy_44]

Wow, just read Broussard's comments. He's done right?(please let him be done)

Why would he be done?

Because of the things he said as a public representative of ESPN

Did he say something that reflects poorly on ESPN?

Yes

Personally, I dont believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly, like premarital sex between heterosexuals. If youre openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits. It says that, you know, thats a sin. If youre openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, whatever it maybe, I believe thats walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. So I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I dont think the bible would characterize them as a Chr

istian.

Yeah, I already knew what he said and he was pretty much spot on. Maybe there's a separation of religion of at espn that I don't know about but otherwise I don't think he should be fired for saying what he believes.

So if Colin Cowherd comes out in the morning and says "I believe the real problem with this country is black people" he shouldn't get fired because that's what he believes?People get fired all the time for saying what they believe while representing a company. Especially in the media.

He didn't say Collins was a bad person or anything like that. All he did was express his religious beliefs that have nothing to do with secular society.

Its like no one realizes that Christians believe premarital sex, extramarital sex, lying, cheating, stealing, gambling, drinking, drug use, smoking, and a ton of other things are sinful, too. And we all are friends with tons of people who do those things. We are ok with people existing and doing tons of those things. I guess the problem is that, by what they say, some Christians don't seem to realize...

 

[larry_boy_44]

Wow, just read Broussard's comments. He's done right?

(please let him be done)

Why would he be done?

Because of the things he said as a public representative of ESPN

Did he say something that reflects poorly on ESPN?

Yes

>Personally, I don’t believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly, like premarital sex between heterosexuals. If you’re openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits. It says that, you know, that’s a sin. If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, whatever it maybe, I believe that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. So I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I don’t think the bible would characterize them as a Chr

istian.

Whats the problem with this?

It isn't me that fears/hates gay people sin, its God.

fixed for ya. God doesn't hate any people, He loves us more than we could ever even begin to understand. But He hates sin, and He won't stand for unrepentant sin in our lives.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Wow, just read Broussard's comments. He's done right?(please let him be done)

Why would he be done?

Because of the things he said as a public representative of ESPN

Did he say something that reflects poorly on ESPN?

Yes

Personally, I dont believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly, like premarital sex between heterosexuals. If youre openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits. It says that, you know, thats a sin. If youre openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, whatever it maybe, I believe thats walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. So I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I dont think the bible would characterize them as a Chr

istian.

Yeah, I already knew what he said and he was pretty much spot on. Maybe there's a separation of religion of at espn that I don't know about but otherwise I don't think he should be fired for saying what he believes.

So if Colin Cowherd comes out in the morning and says "I believe the real problem with this country is black people" he shouldn't get fired because that's what he believes?People get fired all the time for saying what they believe while representing a company. Especially in the media.

Well, saying something that's considered racist is a big no no at ESPN, so no, I'd say he'd probably be in some trouble if he went there. But I don't consider what Broussard said is remotely comparable. I find the irony rich that the same people that want to throw a parade for Collins for coming out about his life style choice, want Broussard to be fired for coming out with his Christian beliefs. YAY TOLERANCE!

 

[larry_boy_44]

I wanted Broussard fired yesterday because he's terrible.As far as this issue goes though, saying "I dont believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle" is hate speech and yes I do think he should be fired for it.

that's not what he said...

I mean, it technically is, but you cut out half the sentence and completely changed the meaning of the comment.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Wow, just read Broussard's comments. He's done right?(please let him be done)

Why would he be done?

Because of the things he said as a public representative of ESPN

Did he say something that reflects poorly on ESPN?

Yes

Personally, I dont believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly, like premarital sex between heterosexuals. If youre openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits. It says that, you know, thats a sin. If youre openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, whatever it maybe, I believe thats walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. So I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I dont think the bible would characterize them as a Chr<

/p> istian.ockquote>

Yeah, I already knew what he said and he was pretty much spot on. Maybe there's a separation of religion of at espn that I don't know about but otherwise I don't think he should be fired for saying what he believes.

So if Colin Cowherd comes out in the morning and says "I believe the real problem with this country is black people" he shouldn't get fired because that's what he believes?People get fired all the time for saying what they believe while representing a company. Especially in the media.

Well, saying something that's considered racist is a big no no at ESPN, so no, I'd say he'd probably be in some trouble if he went there. But I don't consider what Broussard said is remotely comparable. I find the irony rich that the same people that want to throw a parade for Collins for coming out about his life style choice, want Broussard to be fired for coming out with his Christian beliefs. YAY TOLERANCE!

Sorry, but they're totally different. One is living your life as you choose, the other is dictating how you feel others should live their lives. Hiding behind organized religion doesn't change this fundamental difference between the two things. If it makes you feel better to say that those condemning Broussard are intolerant of intolerance, so be it. That doesn't change the important distinction between being who you are and telling others what you think they should be.

ETA: I'm not saying that means Broussard should be fired. I'm saying it makes him an #######. ESPN can decide if it wants to employ this particular brand of ####### or not as a business matter.

 

[SWC]

larry boy you are on the wrong side of history just think about this man you join those who used religion to support slavery who used religion to support segregation who used religion to repress women and who now are using religion to hate gays that is a pretty exclusive club but not one i want to be a part of and i am sad that you are a member

 

[larry_boy_44]

I don't see a huge problem with Broussard's comments.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's ludicrous and of course, a dumb thing to say.

But he was discussing homosexuality as it relates to his view of his religion. His only real derogatory comment was essentially that he didn't think unrepentant homosexuals can be considered Christians. As far as I know, that's a fairly common view amongst Christians.

We live in a society where people generally accept Christianity as being true and are fine with public figures believing in this stuff, so I think we've just got to accept these sorts of comments.

But if ESPN wants to fire him for talking about things that are just better off not discussed publicly, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Or if ESPN takes the position of, "Hey, Chris, it's none of your ####### business what religion a jouneyman NBA center truly belongs to" I could see that too.

Pretty good post. He was smart enough to couch non-homosexual sins in with his judgment. He may be "wrong" on a few things such as: all people are sinners and can continue to sin and still be Christians, or the fact that he hasn't made the same speech about adulterers and all the other sinners abounding in the sports world. THe bolded is the core of this though. Should any ESPN commentator be making such arguable remarks and bring on the possibly unjustified wrath of the emotional public?

You should look at the segment that is from. ESPN purposefully brought him on to "debate" a gay individual about the morality of homosexuality as related to Christianity. That was the whole point of the segment.

As far as "same speech", maybe he has and ESPN just didn't decide to air it on E60 or Outside the Lines like they asked him to go on the air and do yesterday.

 

[larry_boy_44]

How many times has Broussard felt the need to go on TV and rail against straight guys he knows are cheating on their wives? Fostering children out of wedlock? Skipping out on child support payments? Did he have a lot to say when Kobe was up on a rape charge?

Is this his full-time schtick? Or did he just bust out the sinner stick for the gay guy?

you act like he gets to go on TV whenever he wants to say whatever he wants about anything he wants...

ESPN knows his beliefs and that he is willing to be open about them. So they use him when they think it can make them $$. You guys took the bait.

They now have people paying attention to them.

Broussard did his job, he isn't getting fired.

 

[BobbyLayne]

It's funny -- I'm just a hair turned off by the "look at me" aspect of his article. Why not just say "yup, I'm gay," and leaving it at that?

Because it IS a big deal. It's awesome that most people are shrugging their shoulders and moving on. But it's a big deal to be the first to come out and doing it this way lets him map out the conversation a bit instead of a short statement on twitter where comments and backlash can attach to the original article.

I guess so. But I also think about Jackie Robinson and how he acted. Writing his own magazine article to explain why it is such a big deal to be the first black player doesn't seem like something he'd have done.

Jackie Robinson, editor

 

[BigSteelThrill]

It's funny -- I'm just a hair turned off by the "look at me" aspect of his article. Why not just say "yup, I'm gay," and leaving it at that?

Because it IS a big deal. It's awesome that most people are shrugging their shoulders and moving on. But it's a big deal to be the first to come out and doing it this way lets him map out the conversation a bit instead of a short statement on twitter where comments and backlash can attach to the original article.

I guess so. But I also think about Jackie Robinson and how he acted. Writing his own magazine article to explain why it is such a big deal to be the first black player doesn't seem like something he'd have done.

Jackie Robinson, editor

EPICALLY OWNED.

 

[larry_boy_44]

. Fifteen years ago you may have lost your job if you had spoken out for gay rights and spoke on your beliefs. That wouldn't have been right either.

That's not equal. One is being tolerant of others, one is intolerance.

Like walking in the Southern black activist rallys... or rallying against blacks ever having any rights. It doesn't matter if you hide behind religion to do it, either.

So is it intolerant to say that murder is a sin?

Is it intolerant to say lying is a sin?

Is it intolerant to say that drinking alcohol is a sin?

 

[B-Deep]

I'd do him

imagine the story you could tell your grandkids

"you remember the first active athlete to say he was gay? yeah, we had teh sex...."

no one trumps that story

 

[SWC]

. Fifteen years ago you may have lost your job if you had spoken out for gay rights and spoke on your beliefs. That wouldn't have been right either.

That's not equal. One is being tolerant of others, one is intolerance.

Like walking in the Southern black activist rallys... or rallying against blacks ever having any rights. It doesn't matter if you hide behind religion to do it, either.

So is it intolerant to say that murder is a sin?

Is it intolerant to say lying is a sin?

Is it intolerant to say that drinking alcohol is a sin?

is it intolerant to say that being free is a sin is it intolerant to say that being black is a sin is it intolerant to say that not be separate but equal is a sin is it interolerant to say that being a woman and having carreer dreams is a sin you are losing against history larry boy

 

[Smack Tripper]

I wonder how much of the old Testament Chris Brossard follows? I assume he's cool with slavery?

 

[pollardsvision]

I don't see a huge problem with Broussard's comments. Don't get me wrong, I think it's ludicrous and of course, a dumb thing to say. But he was discussing homosexuality as it relates to his view of his religion. His only real derogatory comment was essentially that he didn't think unrepentant homosexuals can be considered Christians. As far as I know, that's a fairly common view amongst Christians. We live in a society where people generally accept Christianity as being true and are fine with public figures believing in this stuff, so I think we've just got to accept these sorts of comments. But if ESPN wants to fire him for talking about things that are just better off not discussed publicly, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Or if ESPN takes the position of, "Hey, Chris, it's none of your ####### business what religion a jouneyman NBA center truly belongs to" I could see that too.

Pretty good post. He was smart enough to couch non-homosexual sins in with his judgment. He may be "wrong" on a few things such as: all people are sinners and can continue to sin and still be Christians, or the fact that he hasn't made the same speech about adulterers and all the other sinners abounding in the sports world. THe bolded is the core of this though. Should any ESPN commentator be making such arguable remarks and bring on the possibly unjustified wrath of the emotional public?

You should look at the segment that is from. ESPN purposefully brought him on to "debate" a gay individual about the morality of homosexuality as related to Christianity. That was the whole point of the segment. As far as "same speech", maybe he has and ESPN just didn't decide to air it on E60 or Outside the Lines like they asked him to go on the air and do yesterday.

I agree. I didn't realize the context at the time.Broussard shouldn't be fired and everything I said about Broussard applies to ESPN. They ordered the Code Red.The E60/OTL thing is interesting, but I don't think this would've fit there either. They discuss personal matters, but as far as I know, they haven't taken up the topic of fate of an athlete's immortal soul.They want to discuss an athlete's downward spiral when it's a reckless lifestyle putting other's and themselves at risk, okay, but this is far different.As far as we know, Collins is perfectly happy with who he is, as are those around him.

 

[jonessed]

Sorry, but they're totally different. One is living your life as you choose, the other is dictating how you feel others should live their lives. Hiding behind organized religion doesn't change this fundamental difference between the two things. If it makes you feel better to say that those condemning Broussard are intolerant of intolerance, so be it. That doesn't change the important distinction between being who you are and telling others what you think they should be. ETA: I'm not saying that means Broussard should be fired. I'm saying it makes him an #######. ESPN can decide if it wants to employ this particular brand of ####### or not as a business matter.

He isn't dictating his views any more than you are. He just has a bigger platform.The idea that he is going to get fired is silly. He was asked the question specifically to generate this controversy. ESPN got the attention they wanted. I imagine they are thrilled.

 

[SWC]

Sorry, but they're totally different. One is living your life as you choose, the other is dictating how you feel others should live their lives. Hiding behind organized religion doesn't change this fundamental difference between the two things. If it makes you feel better to say that those condemning Broussard are intolerant of intolerance, so be it. That doesn't change the important distinction between being who you are and telling others what you think they should be. ETA: I'm not saying that means Broussard should be fired. I'm saying it makes him an #######. ESPN can decide if it wants to employ this particular brand of ####### or not as a business matter.

He isn't dictating his views any more than you are. He just has a bigger platform.The idea that he is going to get fired is silly. He was asked the question specifically to generate this controversy. ESPN got the attention they wanted. I imagine they are thrilled.

yes he is giving anyone a platform to get up and say well you can not be a christian and love god if you are gay is giving someone a platform to dictate his views although i do not really know what you are saying by dictate but the point is this is no different than when folks would write columns using the bible to support slavery back in the day or to support segregation or to support putting women down and it does not matter if they are trying to use some fancy pants framing to paint putting hate speech on the air as a debate between shcolars or whatever it just is what it is which is hate talk on the air and if carrying on that the tradition is what broussard and espn want then good for them but in my mind that is a crappy legacy and one that i hope follows them around

 

[larry_boy_44]

Sorry, but they're totally different. One is living your life as you choose, the other is dictating how you feel others should live their lives. Hiding behind organized religion doesn't change this fundamental difference between the two things. If it makes you feel better to say that those condemning Broussard are intolerant of intolerance, so be it. That doesn't change the important distinction between being who you are and telling others what you think they should be.

ETA: I'm not saying that means Broussard should be fired. I'm saying it makes him an #######. ESPN can decide if it wants to employ this particular brand of ####### or not as a business matter.

Why? Again, is he that because he believes that drinking alcohol is a sin and anyone who is openly drinking alcohol is living in open rebellion against God?

He was specifically asked about his religious beliefs, he didn't just bring them up out of nowhere. He didn't insert religion into the discussion, he was asked. He said that any unrepentant sins puts you in open rebellion against God.

He didn't say Gays shouldn't have civil rights, he didn't say they shouldn't be allowed to vote or drink from the same bubblers/water fountains or eat in the same restaurants. He didn't even say they shouldn't be allowed to "marry" (I use quotes because, to me, marry is a religious word and I'm only married because of my vow to God in front of my pastor/family, not because of the certificate the government approves of).

you are mixing completely different issues together (to be fair, most Christians are, too), and it makes everything an even bigger mess and makes everyone look worse.

 

[larry_boy_44]

larry boy you are on the wrong side of history just think about this man you join those who used religion to support slavery who used religion to support segregation who used religion to repress women and who now are using religion to hate gays that is a pretty exclusive club but not one i want to be a part of and i am sad that you are a member

you say I'm on the wrong side of history...

But if I'm right about the existence of God and the Bible being His message for humanity, then I'm not on the wrong side of history.

You only say I'm on the wrong side of history because you disagree with my belief about what life is. That isn't being on the wrong side of history, its disagreeing on what history is.

also, it is not the same people who were using the Bible to support slavery and suppressing women as are against homosexuality now. There is some overlap, but there were Christians leading civil rights and abolitionist movements. (See: Martin Luther King for one huge example. He was a baptist minister)

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

BTW, there's about a 70% chance that we find out Broussard is gay within 10 years.

Did you even listen to the clip that was posted? Because it is different from the quote you attributed to him.

I clicked on Broussard clip expecting to hear something outrageous. Instead what I got was a clip of an ESPN anchor specifically asking him about how/whether homosexuality can be reconciled with Christianity, and Broussard giving an honest and absolutely standard answer to that question. It's like people are watching a different segment than the one that was linked to in this thread.

On a side note, I had no idea that Jason Collins or this Broussard person existed prior to this story. Everything about this episode seems completely artificial.

You clearly do not follow the NBA at all.

I'm sure Broussard was a virgin until getting married.

 

[larry_boy_44]

. Fifteen years ago you may have lost your job if you had spoken out for gay rights and spoke on your beliefs. That wouldn't have been right either.

That's not equal. One is being tolerant of others, one is intolerance.

Like walking in the Southern black activist rallys... or rallying against blacks ever having any rights. It doesn't matter if you hide behind religion to do it, either.

So is it intolerant to say that murder is a sin?

Is it intolerant to say lying is a sin?

Is it intolerant to say that drinking alcohol is a sin?

is it intolerant to say that being free is a sin is it intolerant to say that being black is a sin is it intolerant to say that not be separate but equal is a sin is it interolerant to say that being a woman and having carreer dreams is a sin you are losing against history larry boy

so you don't understand the question? OK, I'll wait for someone who does.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I wonder how much of the old Testament Chris Brossard follows? I assume he's cool with slavery?

If you'd ever read it, slavery in the Old Testament is nothing like slavery in colonial America. One was suppression of a people based on race, the other was a system of repayment of debt that had specific end dates (seriously, go read it).

 

[Bonzai]

larry boy you are on the wrong side of history just think about this man you join those who used religion to support slavery who used religion to support segregation who used religion to repress women and who now are using religion to hate gays that is a pretty exclusive club but not one i want to be a part of and i am sad that you are a member

you say I'm on the wrong side of history... But if I'm right about the existence of God and the Bible being His message for humanity, then I'm not on the wrong side of history. You only say I'm on the wrong side of history because you disagree with my belief about what life is. That isn't being on the wrong side of history, its disagreeing on what history is. also, it is not the same people who were using the Bible to support slavery and suppressing women as are against homosexuality now. There is some overlap, but there were Christians leading civil rights and abolitionist movements. (See: Martin Luther King for one huge example. He was a baptist minister)

Plenty of Christians believe that homosexuality can be reconciled with their faith. Believing in God and accepting homosexuality aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

Did we settle how Jesus and Chris Brossard feel about Jason Collins holding hands with another man in public?

This is crucial. I need to know if I should tolerate this type of behavior.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I don't see a huge problem with Broussard's comments. Don't get me wrong, I think it's ludicrous and of course, a dumb thing to say. But he was discussing homosexuality as it relates to his view of his religion. His only real derogatory comment was essentially that he didn't think unrepentant homosexuals can be considered Christians. As far as I know, that's a fairly common view amongst Christians. We live in a society where people generally accept Christianity as being true and are fine with public figures believing in this stuff, so I think we've just got to accept these sorts of comments. But if ESPN wants to fire him for talking about things that are just better off not discussed publicly, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Or if ESPN takes the position of, "Hey, Chris, it's none of your ####### business what religion a jouneyman NBA center truly belongs to" I could see that too.

Pretty good post. He was smart enough to couch non-homosexual sins in with his judgment. He may be "wrong" on a few things such as: all people are sinners and can continue to sin and still be Christians, or the fact that he hasn't made the same speech about adulterers and all the other sinners abounding in the sports world. THe bolded is the core of this though. Should any ESPN commentator be making such arguable remarks and bring on the possibly unjustified wrath of the emotional public?

You should look at the segment that is from. ESPN purposefully brought him on to "debate" a gay individual about the morality of homosexuality as related to Christianity. That was the whole point of the segment. As far as "same speech", maybe he has and ESPN just didn't decide to air it on E60 or Outside the Lines like they asked him to go on the air and do yesterday.

I agree. I didn't realize the context at the time.Broussard shouldn't be fired and everything I said about Broussard applies to ESPN. They ordered the Code Red.The E60/OTL thing is interesting, but I don't think this would've fit there either. They discuss personal matters, but as far as I know, they haven't taken up the topic of fate of an athlete's immortal soul.They want to discuss an athlete's downward spiral when it's a reckless lifestyle putting other's and themselves at risk, okay, but this is far different.As far as we know, Collins is perfectly happy with who he is, as are those around him.

I agree. And that's the other thing. Broussard (and me) can think all we want that homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes. You and anyone else are free to disagree. One day we'll stand before Him (according to my beliefs) and find out who is right and who is not, but we have the freedom to choose what we believe and how we act based upon that choice.

I have no interest in restricting your (or anyone else's) actions except in those cases where those actions would be directly harmful to another person.

 

[Hang 10]

BTW, there's about a 70% chance that we find out Broussard is gay within 10 years.

Did you even listen to the clip that was posted? Because it is different from the quote you attributed to him.

I clicked on Broussard clip expecting to hear something outrageous. Instead what I got was a clip of an ESPN anchor specifically asking him about how/whether homosexuality can be reconciled with Christianity, and Broussard giving an honest and absolutely standard answer to that question. It's like people are watching a different segment than the one that was linked to in this thread.

On a side note, I had no idea that Jason Collins or this Broussard person existed prior to this story. Everything about this episode seems completely artificial.

You clearly do not follow the NBA at all.

I'm sure Broussard was a virgin until getting married.

So what if Broussard had premarital sex? Just because a Christian slips up, doesn't make him a hypocrite. Everyone sins...even...gasp...Christians. But there's a difference between "living in sin" and making a mistake and being repentant about it.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

I wonder how much of the old Testament Chris Brossard follows? I assume he's cool with slavery?

If you'd ever read it, slavery in the Old Testament is nothing like slavery in colonial America. One was suppression of a people based on race, the other was a system of repayment of debt that had specific end dates (seriously, go read it).

Hello, exactly. And it was enforced with dragons. Kinda like Game of Thrones.

 

[squistion]

I wonder how much of the old Testament Chris Brossard follows? I assume he's cool with slavery?

If you'd ever read it, slavery in the Old Testament is nothing like slavery in colonial America. One was suppression of a people based on race, the other was a system of repayment of debt that had specific end dates (seriously, go read it).

Yeah, like that really makes a difference to the person enslaved.

 

[larry_boy_44]

BTW, there's about a 70% chance that we find out Broussard is gay within 10 years.

Did you even listen to the clip that was posted? Because it is different from the quote you attributed to him.

I clicked on Broussard clip expecting to hear something outrageous. Instead what I got was a clip of an ESPN anchor specifically asking him about how/whether homosexuality can be reconciled with Christianity, and Broussard giving an honest and absolutely standard answer to that question. It's like people are watching a different segment than the one that was linked to in this thread.

On a side note, I had no idea that Jason Collins or this Broussard person existed prior to this story. Everything about this episode seems completely artificial.

You clearly do not follow the NBA at all.

I'm sure Broussard was a virgin until getting married.

You should look up "unrepentant". You don't have to be perfect to say that God has requirements for us.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

Question: when the Jewish slaves (not a race, just a collection of misers) left Egypt, they were just walking out after their expiration date? Time served and all that? Man, Yul Brynner was a real spoil sport.

 

[larry_boy_44]

larry boy you are on the wrong side of history just think about this man you join those who used religion to support slavery who used religion to support segregation who used religion to repress women and who now are using religion to hate gays that is a pretty exclusive club but not one i want to be a part of and i am sad that you are a member

you say I'm on the wrong side of history... But if I'm right about the existence of God and the Bible being His message for humanity, then I'm not on the wrong side of history. You only say I'm on the wrong side of history because you disagree with my belief about what life is. That isn't being on the wrong side of history, its disagreeing on what history is. also, it is not the same people who were using the Bible to support slavery and suppressing women as are against homosexuality now. There is some overlap, but there were Christians leading civil rights and abolitionist movements. (See: Martin Luther King for one huge example. He was a baptist minister)

Plenty of Christians believe that homosexuality can be reconciled with their faith. Believing in God and accepting homosexuality aren't mutually exclusive.

Oh, I know.

But the fact is that if God really does see homosexuality as a sin, those people are actually in open rebellion against Him. So they might call themselves Christians, but they aren't following Jesus.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Did we settle how Jesus and Chris Brossard feel about Jason Collins holding hands with another man in public?

This is crucial. I need to know if I should tolerate this type of behavior.

Pretty sure that if Jason Collins wants to live that life he can. He did not enter a life-covenant with God (as Israel did), so he isn't violating any promise of his own that was made with any consequences to it and he has free will to live as he pleases.

Doesn't mean it is (or is not) a sin, but he can do what he wants and you should tolerate it and let him make his decisions (right or wrong) as long as they aren't harming other people.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I wonder how much of the old Testament Chris Brossard follows? I assume he's cool with slavery?

If you'd ever read it, slavery in the Old Testament is nothing like slavery in colonial America. One was suppression of a people based on race, the other was a system of repayment of debt that had specific end dates (seriously, go read it).

Yeah, like that really makes a difference to the person enslaved.

Again, you should really read the parts of the Old Testament law that cover slavery and the "Year of Jubilee" and returning of family property to the family.

Because it made a HUGE difference to the person enslaved. But you wouldn't have the first clue what the Bible actually says because you're just going off some website that says that the Bible said slavery was ok, but never actually read it for yourself, right?

 

[squistion]

I wonder how much of the old Testament Chris Brossard follows? I assume he's cool with slavery?

If you'd ever read it, slavery in the Old Testament is nothing like slavery in colonial America. One was suppression of a people based on race, the other was a system of repayment of debt that had specific end dates (seriously, go read it).

Yeah, like that really makes a difference to the person enslaved.

Again, you should really read the parts of the Old Testament law that cover slavery and the "Year of Jubilee" and returning of family property to the family.

Because it made a HUGE difference to the person enslaved. But you wouldn't have the first clue what the Bible actually says because you're just going off some website that says that the Bible said slavery was ok, but never actually read it for yourself, right?

Those who used the Bible to justify slavery in this country did not make the distinction you are making.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

BTW, there's about a 70% chance that we find out Broussard is gay within 10 years.

Did you even listen to the clip that was posted? Because it is different from the quote you attributed to him.

I clicked on Broussard clip expecting to hear something outrageous. Instead what I got was a clip of an ESPN anchor specifically asking him about how/whether homosexuality can be reconciled with Christianity, and Broussard giving an honest and absolutely standard answer to that question. It's like people are watching a different segment than the one that was linked to in this thread.

On a side note, I had no idea that Jason Collins or this Broussard person existed prior to this story. Everything about this episode seems completely artificial.

You clearly do not follow the NBA at all.

I'm sure Broussard was a virgin until getting married.

You're right -- I don't follow the NBA. I also watch ESPN very rarely. I'm happy with both of those decisions.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I wonder how much of the old Testament Chris Brossard follows? I assume he's cool with slavery?

If you'd ever read it, slavery in the Old Testament is nothing like slavery in colonial America. One was suppression of a people based on race, the other was a system of repayment of debt that had specific end dates (seriously, go read it).

Yeah, like that really makes a difference to the person enslaved.

Again, you should really read the parts of the Old Testament law that cover slavery and the "Year of Jubilee" and returning of family property to the family.

Because it made a HUGE difference to the person enslaved. But you wouldn't have the first clue what the Bible actually says because you're just going off some website that says that the Bible said slavery was ok, but never actually read it for yourself, right?

Those who used the Bible to justify slavery in this country did not make the distinction you are making.

I am aware. However, that just means that they were ignorant about what the Bible actually says.

There is nothing in the Bible that supports enslaving people based on skin color, there never was. There is a system given to ancient Israel about using slavery as a way of repaying debt. Again, if you are going to speak about this, you really should go look it up and read it for yourself sometime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(biblical)

the Deuteronomic code requires that Hebrew slaves be liberated during their 7th year of service

 

[squistion]

larry boy you are on the wrong side of history just think about this man you join those who used religion to support slavery who used religion to support segregation who used religion to repress women and who now are using religion to hate gays that is a pretty exclusive club but not one i want to be a part of and i am sad that you are a member

you say I'm on the wrong side of history...

But if I'm right about the existence of God and the Bible being His message for humanity, then I'm not on the wrong side of history.

You only say I'm on the wrong side of history because you disagree with my belief about what life is. That isn't being on the wrong side of history, its disagreeing on what history is.

also, it is not the same people who were using the Bible to support slavery and suppressing women as are against homosexuality now. There is some overlap, but there were Christians leading civil rights and abolitionist movements. (See: Martin Luther King for one huge example. He was a baptist minister)

You know you are on the wrong side of history when SWC makes more sense than you do.

 

[mad sweeney]

Wow, just read Broussard's comments. He's done right?(please let him be done)

Why would he be done?

Because of the things he said as a public representative of ESPN

Did he say something that reflects poorly on ESPN?

Yes

Personally, I dont believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly, like premarital sex between heterosexuals. If youre openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits. It says that, you know, thats a sin. If youre openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, whatever it maybe, I believe thats walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. So I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I dont think the bible would characterize them as a Chr<

/p>istian.

Yeah, I already knew what he said and he was pretty much spot on. Maybe there's a separation of religion of at espn that I don't know about but otherwise I don't think he should be fired for saying what he believes.

So if Colin Cowherd comes out in the morning and says "I believe the real problem with this country is black people" he shouldn't get fired because that's what he believes?People get fired all the time for saying what they believe while representing a company. Especially in the media.

He didn't say Collins was a bad person or anything like that. All he did was express his religious beliefs that have nothing to do with secular society.

Its like no one realizes that Christians believe premarital sex, extramarital sex, lying, cheating, stealing, gambling, drinking, drug use, smoking, and a ton of other things are sinful, too. And we all are friends with tons of people who do those things. We are ok with people existing and doing tons of those things. I guess the problem is that, by what they say, some Christians don't seem to realize...

That's because they usually don't take to the airwaves and tell everyone how much of a sin those things are and how they can't be real Christians if they do this stuff. But when it's a gay issue, then all of a sudden it's time to let the world know who's a sinner.

 

[Smack Tripper]

I wonder how much of the old Testament Chris Brossard follows? I assume he's cool with slavery?

If you'd ever read it, slavery in the Old Testament is nothing like slavery in colonial America. One was suppression of a people based on race, the other was a system of repayment of debt that had specific end dates (seriously, go read it).

Yeah, like that really makes a difference to the person enslaved.

Again, you should really read the parts of the Old Testament law that cover slavery and the "Year of Jubilee" and returning of family property to the family. Because it made a HUGE difference to the person enslaved. But you wouldn't have the first clue what the Bible actually says because you're just going off some website that says that the Bible said slavery was ok, but never actually read it for yourself, right?

Larry I could throw a rock and find stuff that is antiquated in the old testament and abandoned. But there was something about not throwing stones that we are supposed to follow too. Or was that judge not lest thee be, wait wait, that's not it. Christ said that. What's that got to do with Christianity?You know who follows the old testament?Jews. Which is fine and they as a people are infinitely more tolerant than so called Christians with a fundamentalist bent. If you hate gays, that's your business, not christ's. So don't do it in his name.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Wow, just read Broussard's comments. He's done right?(please let him be done)

Why would he be done?

Because of the things he said as a public representative of ESPN

Did he say something that reflects poorly on ESPN?

Yes

Personally, I dont believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly, like premarital sex between heterosexuals. If youre openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits. It says that, you know, thats a sin. If youre openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, whatever it maybe, I believe thats walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. So I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I dont think the bible would characterize them as a Chr<

/p> istian.

Yeah, I already knew what he said and he was pretty much spot on. Maybe there's a separation of religion of at espn that I don't know about but otherwise I don't think he should be fired for saying what he believes.

So if Colin Cowherd comes out in the morning and says "I believe the real problem with this country is black people" he shouldn't get fired because that's what he believes?People get fired all the time for saying what they believe while representing a company. Especially in the media.

He didn't say Collins was a bad person or anything like that. All he did was express his religious beliefs that have nothing to do with secular society.

Its like no one realizes that Christians believe premarital sex, extramarital sex, lying, cheating, stealing, gambling, drinking, drug use, smoking, and a ton of other things are sinful, too. And we all are friends with tons of people who do those things. We are ok with people existing and doing tons of those things. I guess the problem is that, by what they say, some Christians don't seem to realize...

That's because they usually don't take to the airwaves and tell everyone how much of a sin those things are and how they can't be real Christians if they do this stuff. But when it's a gay issue, then all of a sudden it's time to let the world know who's a sinner.

You should re-watch the video where he said that. He didn't "take to the airwaves", ESPN asked him on the show to discuss the moral/religious implications of being gay with a homosexual activist.

So, what you're really saying is that no one ever asks Christians on their show to state whether adultery or fornication are sins? Because that's what happened.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I wonder how much of the old Testament Chris Brossard follows? I assume he's cool with slavery?

If you'd ever read it, slavery in the Old Testament is nothing like slavery in colonial America. One was suppression of a people based on race, the other was a system of repayment of debt that had specific end dates (seriously, go read it).

Yeah, like that really makes a difference to the person enslaved.

Again, you should really read the parts of the Old Testament law that cover slavery and the "Year of Jubilee" and returning of family property to the family. Because it made a HUGE difference to the person enslaved. But you wouldn't have the first clue what the Bible actually says because you're just going off some website that says that the Bible said slavery was ok, but never actually read it for yourself, right?

Larry I could throw a rock and find stuff that is antiquated in the old testament and abandoned.But there was something about not throwing stones that we are supposed to follow too. Or was that judge not lest thee be, wait wait, that's not it. Christ said that. What's that got to do with Christianity?You know who follows the old testament?Jews.Which is fine and they as a people are infinitely more tolerant than so called Christians with a fundamentalist bent.If you hate gays, that's your business, not christ's. So don't do it in his name.

Do you understand the word "context"?

 

[roadkill1292]

I'm a little intrigued by this lynching party being organized to punish Wood for his transgressions against Iggles fans.

 

[Smack Tripper]

I wonder how much of the old Testament Chris Brossard follows? I assume he's cool with slavery?

If you'd ever read it, slavery in the Old Testament is nothing like slavery in colonial America. One was suppression of a people based on race, the other was a system of repayment of debt that had specific end dates (seriously, go read it).

Yeah, like that really makes a difference to the person enslaved.

Again, you should really read the parts of the Old Testament law that cover slavery and the "Year of Jubilee" and returning of family property to the family. Because it made a HUGE difference to the person enslaved. But you wouldn't have the first clue what the Bible actually says because you're just going off some website that says that the Bible said slavery was ok, but never actually read it for yourself, right?

Larry I could throw a rock and find stuff that is antiquated in the old testament and abandoned.But there was something about not throwing stones that we are supposed to follow too. Or was that judge not lest thee be, wait wait, that's not it. Christ said that. What's that got to do with Christianity?You know who follows the old testament?Jews.Which is fine and they as a people are infinitely more tolerant than so called Christians with a fundamentalist bent.If you hate gays, that's your business, not christ's. So don't do it in his name.

Do you understand the word "context"?

Good one dude. Do you?Because I made none of the inferred inroads that you did with respect to Broussard and slavery. You chose to lawyer up the good book. I merely wondered aloud what Broussard would have thought about the green light on slavery in the bible in any context. But thank you you for being the voice of the "willfully" indentured of thousands of years ago

 

[Slapdash]

I wonder how much of the old Testament Chris Brossard follows? I assume he's cool with slavery?

If you'd ever read it, slavery in the Old Testament is nothing like slavery in colonial America. One was suppression of a people based on race, the other was a system of repayment of debt that had specific end dates (seriously, go read it).

Sounds like today.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Sorry, but they're totally different. One is living your life as you choose, the other is dictating how you feel others should live their lives. Hiding behind organized religion doesn't change this fundamental difference between the two things. If it makes you feel better to say that those condemning Broussard are intolerant of intolerance, so be it. That doesn't change the important distinction between being who you are and telling others what you think they should be.

ETA: I'm not saying that means Broussard should be fired. I'm saying it makes him an #######. ESPN can decide if it wants to employ this particular brand of ####### or not as a business matter.

Why? Again, is he that because he believes that drinking alcohol is a sin and anyone who is openly drinking alcohol is living in open rebellion against God?

He was specifically asked about his religious beliefs, he didn't just bring them up out of nowhere. He didn't insert religion into the discussion, he was asked. He said that any unrepentant sins puts you in open rebellion against God.

He didn't say Gays shouldn't have civil rights, he didn't say they shouldn't be allowed to vote or drink from the same bubblers/water fountains or eat in the same restaurants. He didn't even say they shouldn't be allowed to "marry" (I use quotes because, to me, marry is a religious word and I'm only married because of my vow to God in front of my pastor/family, not because of the certificate the government approves of).

you are mixing completely different issues together (to be fair, most Christians are, too), and it makes everything an even bigger mess and makes everyone look worse.

I was speaking specifically to the notion that Christians/Broussard are entitled to equal protection for their views as Collins is for his homosexuality, because we should be "tolerant" of both. Sorry, but I don't see the need to be tolerant of intolerance. If that makes as all intolerant, fine. I'm not interested in a semantic games. I'm interested in letting people live their own lives free from the judgment of others, and only one side of this discussion is doing that. If you're on the other side, then you're on the wrong side, no matter what you hide behind.

Like I said, not interested in discussing whether they should fire him or not. That's a business decision. I'm only interested in the fact that he is wrong and he's an #######. I don't see how that's remotely controversial. If you go on TV for no purpose other than to express your disapproval of how others live their lives even though they are bringing no harm to you or anyone else, you're an #######. End of debate.

 

[mad sweeney]

larry_boy_44, on 30 Apr 2013 - 08:05, said:

mad sweeney, on 30 Apr 2013 - 08:03, said:

larry_boy_44, on 30 Apr 2013 - 06:50, said:

PlasmaDogPlasma, on 29 Apr 2013 - 17:32, said:

Hang 10, on 29 Apr 2013 - 17:17, said:

PlasmaDogPlasma, on 29 Apr 2013 - 17:11, said:

Hang 10, on 29 Apr 2013 - 17:09, said:

PlasmaDogPlasma, on 29 Apr 2013 - 17:06, said:

Hang 10, on 29 Apr 2013 - 16:57, said:Why would he be done?

Because of the things he said as a public representative of ESPN

Did he say something that reflects poorly on ESPN?

Yes

>Chri<p>s <p&g<p>t;Broussard saidersonally, I dont believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly, like premarital sex between heterosexuals. If youre openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits. It says that, you know, thats a sin. If youre openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, whatever it maybe, I believe thats walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. So I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I dont think the bible would characterize them as a Chr</p> istian.

>

Yeah, I already knew what he said and he was pretty much spot on. Maybe there's a separation of religion of at espn that I don't know about but otherwise I don't think he should be fired for saying what he believes.

So if Colin Cowherd comes out in the morning and says "I believe the real problem with this country is black people" he shouldn't get fired because that's what he believes?People get fired all the time for saying what they believe while representing a company. Especially in the media.

He didn't say Collins was a bad person or anything like that. All he did was express his religious beliefs that have nothing to do with secular society.Its like no one realizes that Christians believe premarital sex, extramarital sex, lying, cheating, stealing, gambling, drinking, drug use, smoking, and a ton of other things are sinful, too. And we all are friends with tons of people who do those things. We are ok with people existing and doing tons of those things. I guess the problem is that, by what they say, some Christians don't seem to realize...

That's because they usually don't take to the airwaves and tell everyone how much of a sin those things are and how they can't be real Christians if they do this stuff. But when it's a gay issue, then all of a sudden it's time to let the world know who's a sinner.

You should re-watch the video where he said that. He didn't "take to the airwaves", ESPN asked him on the show to discuss the moral/religious implications of being gay with a homosexual activist.So, what you're really saying is that no one ever asks Christians on their show to state whether adultery or fornication are sins? Because that's what happened.

Well, I did use the word "they", which is plural, so it implies more than one person and incident. So chances are that I was talking about more than just this person and incident. I also very rarely like to use absolutes like "ever" because it only takes one example to refute it. However, for the most part people speak out over how homosexuality is a sin/gays aren't Christians/Bible is against it far, far, far more than they do over the other sins he listed. And what I'm really saying.... is exactly what I said.