Christians speak out about the suicides of LGBTQ youth

[Rabrrrrrr]

All from Union Seminary of New York City.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T5kVGae5ZU

For anyone who has been wondering "Where are the voices of the other Christians in this travesty?" here they are - they're out there, but the media doesn't give a shit. That's the biggest problem. The media will bring in psychologists and others who will speak out against the hate and for acceptance of gays, but they'll never bring in any of the liberal religious voices to speak to the country. Pisses me off.

[darkstar3]

1. And why do you think that is?

[fascisthunter]

2. why? Because Liberals Make Better Christians?

good is boring and bad for ratings... who knows.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. I'm afraid I don't agree.

Liberal christians are unquestionably usually better people, but I think that - especially on issues like homosexuality - conservatives are the ones whose views more closely accord with those of the founders of Christianity and the teachings of the bible.

One can kind-of-sort-of get around Leviticus, but I think that the letters of St Paul make it fairly clear what early Christians thought of homosexuality, and if you believe it (I reckon it's 50/50) then the episode of the woman taken in adultery (often referred to by liberals who haven't really thought things through as evidence that homosexuality and Christianity are not incompatible) makes it fairly clear that Jesus (like pretty much all other religious 0BC Jews) would have thought it was sinful.

If I were converted to Christianity in a flash of blue light, I think I would almost certainly also become anti-gay (although not necessarily anti gay-rights, in a reversion of the common Conservative attitude), anti abortion, and anti gender equality.

[fascisthunter]

6. From a dogmatic Point of View, I would Agree with That

[Liberal Insights]

7. Who "founded" Christianity, Paul or Jesus ?

Although Jesus is believed to be the founder because he came first, "History" as they say "is written by the victors". Although Jesus clearly planned to have his movement perpetuated by his chosen "apostles" - which didn't include Paul of Tarsus, who was alive at the time.- no sooner had Jesus left the scene but Paul moved in, claimed to have been sent by Jesus to be "apostle of the Gentitles" and by dint of his superior entrepreneural ambition, energy, writing and organizational skills and the help of the Roman army which destroyed Jerusalem and its church, Paul of Tarsus made himself the founder of the Christianity which would survice to subsequent centuries.

While Liberals who call themselves "Christian" are inspirted by the teaching and example of Jesus of Nazareth,
Conservatives who call themselves "Christian" are inspirted by the teaching and example of Paul of Tarsus, as I show at http://liberalslikechrist.org/Paulvsall.html ,

[trotsky]

8. Paul's writings are the oldest.

They predate all the gospels. It could be argued that if it hadn't been for Paul, there wouldn't have been any Christianity whatsoever.

[dimbear]

9. Well, let's not leave the impression Paul and the Romans were pals.

It's pretty generally accepted they put him to death in the late 50's or early 60's, before the fall of Jerusalem. Paul's writings were far more acceptable to Roman tastes than the flood of competing gospels and letters, and over time the Roman Empire suppressed the remainder. This big change happened mostly around and after 150 AD. Paul had long vanished from the scene.

The original books of the Jerusalem Church, which would have been the most direct thread holding Christian ideas, were ignored, destroyed, and finally burned. For those curious, search for the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Nazorenes, etc. All lost. We're not even sure they were separate books.

It's a wonderful lesson showing that the early church really didn't much care about history.

[onager]

10. Paul was a Roman citizen, and a slippery character.

I've learned that the words "generally accepted" usually mean "generally accepted by the believers."

For example, even Wikipedia notes: Neither the Bible nor any other history says how or when Paul died. According to Christian tradition, Paul was beheaded in Rome during the reign of Nero around the mid-60s...

There are questions about Paul's Roman citizenship, which Paul himself bragged about...and used to delay his legal case for 5-6 years, according to the Babble. And even more questions about his religious status - was he a Pharisee? Maybe, maybe not.

One thing is consistent - both when he claimed to be a Jew and claimed to be a Xian, Paul was an arrogant, insufferable asshole who greatly enjoyed persecuting non-believers.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

3. That has always frustrate dme --

when a "christian" voice is needed on an issue, they almost always pick a RW Southern Baptist. If the issue is specifically about the Vatican they roll out Crazy Bill. That seems to be default Christianity here -- no liberal Christians of any denominination need apply.

[trotsky]

5. They don't bring in many atheists to speak about it either.

That's because atheists AND liberal Christians are minorities. Atheists know and acknowledge this. Liberal Christians are in denial.