Being gay and raised Christian sucks.

[Kulindahr]

The book "The God Box" by Alex Sanchez is about a gay christian boy dealing with his faith and sexuality - I highly recommend it!

Thanks for the recomend -- I just put it on my "get this one" list.

I expect to find it interesting since I spent most of my youth denying I was sexual at all, which sort of screwed up any chance of dealing with more specific issues.

 

[71390S]

Thanks for the recomend -- I just put it on my "get this one" list.

I expect to find it interesting since I spent most of my youth denying I was sexual at all, which sort of screwed up any chance of dealing with more specific issues.

Oooh, you HAVE to let me know how you like it. Seriously! The main character goes through pretty much what you just described.

 

[Kulindahr]

Oooh, you HAVE to let me know how you like it. Seriously! The main character goes through pretty much what you just described.

That's kinda scary.

But I think I've gotten used to my family dissing me, enough anyway that I can tackle this.

Now, let's see -- Barnes & Noble web site.....

 

[71390S]

No one should have to get used to being dissed

 

[ABoyNamedSue]

I was raised Southern Methodist, and I drifted away from that when I came to the realization that I was when I was 13 years old. From there I went into the pagan camp for a little while, and that feel out when I was a senior and high school. I went to a Catholic College, and oddly enough I started to have a lot of respect for the Church's teachings, but that came to a screaming holt, and for awhile I simply didn't think about religion at all, and for a long while I studied and praticed Buddhism.

I do not know what I call myself at the current. I believe the Dalai Lama explains my views best. He said, "My religion is compassion," and that is something that I can believe in.

I have also came to the conclusion recently that religion and faith in general can be a very special thing when you divorce it from dogma. I am no more anti Christian than I am anti Muslim or anything else. It was not the words of God that drove me away from Religion, it was those who praticed it.

It is easy to pick and chooose which scriptures to read and follow and which not to. And, that is what a lot of people do, and I am not excluding myself. But, I think if more people would pay more attention to "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," we would make a lot of progress.

It is said there are many paths that lead up to the mountain but there is only one mountain.

 

[Mariatenebre]

I believe that religion and Christianity can bring positive influences on people. I don't think one can make a blanket statement about how negative Christianity is and that it makes one feel guilty. Would a lot of the great schools exist if it weren't for their foundations in Christianity? Being a big music fan, I can only imagine if we would have songs like this were it not for Christianity:





For those that don't realize that this song is a prayer which stems from the Latin Mass (Kýrie, eléison = Lord, have mercy); you get people who believe the first line of the chorus is:

Carry a laser down the road that I must travel

To me, this is a great example of Christianity being a positive influence and helps one to stay focused towards a goal. Even if certain individuals are not religious or believe in Christianity, it can still be recognized that there are representations of Christianity which play a positive role in the lives of man, be they through education, charity or music.

Holy shit when I heard this song I thought it was about a girl named Kyrie! Well I guess we can chock this up to something good that came out of Christianity.


Though on the topic at hand hell being raised a woman and Christian is hard enough. I mean we are blamed for everything, in christianity, we are viewed as inferior to men, denied leadership positions and we are not even allowed to preach in our own churches! Though this all is a political move of the patriarchal religions to deny women leadership in order to allow them to do whatever evil they wish. Though even though I was raised Christian I atleast think Mary that I was not raised a Muslim!

 

[Kulindahr]

Please stop using "Christian" as interchange-able with "fundamentalist" - thanks!

Fundamentalist is a subset of Christian, as are Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, etc.

 

[Kulindahr]

My own humble opinion; It's easier being a Catholic than any other denomination, but the Catholic Church isn't a denomination, and the reason that is: The Catholic Church has been, and still is the Bulwork of Faith, guided by the Holy Spirit through its History, withstood the test of persecutions, and never split off of any other body of Religion except from Judaism, and that is because the Apostles were forced to split, they were banned from the Temple of Jerusalemn.

The Catholic (universal) church may not be a denomination (it comprises many), but the Roman Catholic Church certainly is, since Rome split off from the rest of the Church back in 1054, when Rome tried to steal the title of Ecumenical Patriarch and demanded that the other patriarchates bow down to the patriarch of Rome.

 

[poolerboy]

...The Catholic Church has been, and still is the Bulwork of Faith, guided by the Holy Spirit through its History...

I'm sure you didn't get this from Wikipedia?

 

[poolerboy]

It's just you said it so matter-of-factly as though it's verifiable.

Carry on.

 

[Pumpkin]

The First Council of Nicea tired to codify what it is to be Catholic/Christian. I say tried because it left a great number out in the rain and they went of and did their own thing. The only reason their are not more splits in the Catholic Church presently is because they allow a lot of monastic groups to be rather autonomous and self governing to keep them under the umbrella.

They preach a good message, but they also have used every force imaginable to enforce that message. Probably why their has been so many schisms and continue to be. Could well be why so many have looked out side the Christian faith to find something more reflective of who they are.

 

[hvk1989]

Without stepping on the feet of any one else's religious beliefs or getting into the "mine is better than yours" discussion, I'd just like to say I wholeheartedly agree with the original post---Being gay and raised Christian sucks (church of christ, btw).

The First Council of Nicea tired to codify what it is to be Catholic/Christian.

It's amazing to me how few people within my church even realize it was the actions at the Council of Nicea that decided which "books" actually made it into the modern day Bible and from henceforth all other beliefs and books were declared heretical.

 

[Kulindahr]

The First Council of Nicea tired to codify what it is to be Catholic/Christian. I say tried because it left a great number out in the rain and they went of and did their own thing.

It's amazing to me how few people within my church even realize it was the actions at the Council of Nicea that decided which "books" actually made it into the modern day Bible and from henceforth all other beliefs and books were declared heretical.

Nicea didn't decide what books were to be included: they took the consensus which existed and acknowledged it. It was the culmination of a process that began while Paul was still writing letters, and not even all the Gospels had been written.

Essentially they said, "Okay, everybody's had their say; this is the consensus, so let's make it official".

 

[poolerboy]

N.T. scholar:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAoL9w07aV0[/ame]

The first time any author from Christian antiquity lists our twenty-seven books and indicates that they are the only twenty-seven books of the canon comes in the year 367 CE. However, this list of Athanasius's did not end all discussion of the matter. No worldwide church council ever ratified Athanasius's list for over a millenium, although popular usage provided a kind of de facto ratification. The Synod of Hippo is often brought up but this too is also a wrong reference.

 

[Kulindahr]

N.T. scholar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAoL9w07aV0

The first time any author from Christian antiquity lists our twenty-seven books and indicates that they are the only twenty-seven books of the canon comes in the year 367 CE. However, this list of Athanasius's did not end all discussion of the matter. No worldwide church council ever ratified Athanasius's list for over a millenium, although popular usage provided a kind of de facto ratification. The Synod of Hippo is often brought up but this too is also a wrong reference.

I was thinking of Hippo -- people have been making so many claims about what Nicea did that it was on my brain.

Hippo did acknowledge the list Athanasius had sent out in his (Easter, I think) letter, and that's what I was thinking of: they didn't decide, they acknowledged.

 

[hvk1989]

Yes, yes. . . always bad to wear a badge of ignorance when speaking of what others within your religion don't know. I always forget Augustine of Hippo. Nicea (the 325 one) provided what eventually became the Nicene Creed and the Synod of Hippo in 393 accepted Athanasius' list of 367 regarding the current NT books. While the Synod of Hippo had to confirm the canon with "the church across the sea," debate surrounding the NT canon for North Africa, at least, apparently ended in 393. Not that such things should really matter, I just find it funny that we still have people within my church that literally think God handed the 27 books to the local scribe the day Jesus ascended.

Oh, and being gay and raised Christian still sucks

 

[kallipolis]

Yes, yes. . . always bad to wear a badge of ignorance when speaking of what others within your religion don't know. I always forget Augustine of Hippo. Nicea (the 325 one) provided what eventually became the Nicene Creed and the Synod of Hippo in 393 accepted Athanasius' list of 367 regarding the current NT books. While the Synod of Hippo had to confirm the canon with "the church across the sea," debate surrounding the NT canon for North Africa, at least, apparently ended in 393. Not that such things should really matter, I just find it funny that we still have people within my church that literally think God handed the 27 books to the local scribe the day Jesus ascended.

Oh, and being gay and raised Christian still sucks

Really? Who are these strange people? For such bizarre thoughts are contrary to established fact.

 

[hvk1989]

Who are these strange people? For such bizarre thoughts are contrary to established fact.

Serious or sarcastic? Methinks sarcastic. . . however. . . Unfortunately, early church history is not something that is taught in my church. It's more of the here it is, go forth and read. I keep wanting some series on the books that didn't make it into the canon, why they didn't make it, and how those that made it in, made it in. I can only guess it's too uncomfortable for some people to think about and discuss.

 

[kallipolis]

Serious or sarcastic? Methinks sarcastic. . . however. . . Unfortunately, early church history is not something that is taught in my church. It's more of the here it is, go forth and read. I keep wanting some series on the books that didn't make it into the canon, why they didn't make it, and how those that made it in, made it in. I can only guess it's too uncomfortable for some people to think about and discuss.

So you are not prepared to address my question?

Who are these people who hold such bizarre views?

Need I repeat your statement?

 

[hvk1989]

So you are not prepared to address my question?

Sorry, I thought I did answer your question. Surely you're not asking for specific names within my church---or are you asking, in general, the denomination (or, more specifically, the non-denomination that, IMO is actually a denomination-Church of Christ, btw) that I attend that hasn't done a very good job IMO of teaching church history (and historically a poor job of other things as well, but that's a different story). Generally speaking, most of the crowd that were teenagers in the 40s/early 50s hold some of the most closed-minded beliefs of anyone within my church--but that's because that's what they were taught. And yes, if you tried to have a discussion with them concerning the processes by which we have today's canon, they wouldn't believe you. Now, they wouldn't be able to tell you how we came to include just the books that are in the NT, but they certainly wouldn't believe it took many hundred years to settle down on the ones we have today. They would talk about all scripture being God-breathed and it just was---because I've been told that in the past and just politely nodded my head.

It's not really a salvation issue anyway. . . I think it's much more important that we have faith that the books that made it in are the books that were intended to make it in. The process shouldn't be a formation on which a religion or a faith is based. I think it would be nice, however, if my church taught the process that did occur.