Being gay and raised Christian sucks.

[Kulindahr]

While we all may have encountered individuals who were "ruined" by their religious upbringing, there are just as many who are, if nothing else, kept alive and with hope through their religions. A friend of mine converted from Catholicism to non-denominational Christianity and it was the sole thing that kept her motivated as she struggled to teach inner city children whom the world had given up on.

That's a good point.

Over and over, on Indian reservations, in inner cities, in foreign countries, people who go there to work for crappy pay, few benefits, and not much in the way of chances at career advancement are motivated by religious reasons. Long before Doctors Without Borders and other secular medical assistance organizations, there were Christian medical missionaries.

 

[TX-Beau]

That's a good point.

Over and over, on Indian reservations, in inner cities, in foreign countries, people who go there to work for crappy pay, few benefits, and not much in the way of chances at career advancement are motivated by religious reasons. Long before Doctors Without Borders and other secular medical assistance organizations, there were Christian medical missionaries.

And proselytizing is an aggressive act. How many of those Native Americans were forcibly converted in this country's history?

People are people, some are good and some are not. This makes religion neither a good thing nor a bad. It's quite possible those who go into public service would simply do so for another reason should religions cease to exist, just like the assholes would be assholes without the excuse of God.

Including the fact that for many, the first step toward enlightenment through literacy began through their exposure to religious scripture. "Religion" and unformalized mystic traditions were for centuries (and even now) the fundamental humanistic building blocks for thought and story, communication and connection.

What the hell is “enlightenment through literacy?” A lot of verbiage, no discernable point.

And even perceiving this (ridiculous) notion that religion is evil, remember that without an "other" there can be no "self." Without limits, there is no sense of identity. You "are" and you "are not." You "believe" and you "do not believe."

This is bunk. Throughout the course of history there are probably hundreds of religions you never heard of, does that mean you don’t know who you are?

Would you know who you are and are not without extremist Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Nazism, Taoism or any other school of thought, good or bad to agree and disagree with?

Yes

While we all may have encountered individuals who were "ruined" by their religious upbringing, there are just as many who are, if nothing else, kept alive and with hope through their religions. A friend of mine converted from Catholicism to non-denominational Christianity and it was the sole thing that kept her motivated as she struggled to teach inner city children whom the world had given up on. A couple I know and their entire congregation rejected the Catholic arch diocese statement that queer members of the church not be allowed to engage in marriage ceremonies because they knew that the true essence of their faith was to be loving and inclusive, including to their queer members (many of which were pall bearers in the church). Another friend's branch of Hinduism endowed her with the ease of mind and lightness of heart to always be thankful for what she has and to never fear an obstacle in her path.

So what, the cumulative effect of a religion is always and always has been the cumulative effect of the decisions real people in these groups make. This seems remarkably obvious.

All things in mankind, all happenstance, is duplicitous. Science has brought us enlightenment and a better quality of life, but it also brought ethical dilemmas we would have never had to consider, like the Tuskeegee Experiments, the crucial advancements to medical and aeronautical science through Nazi experimentation on concentration camp victims, or biological/chemical warfare.

Science does not have a brain, it is a tool, and investigative method, the people who use that tool are the ones at fault for misuse – and not a few of them are acting out of tortured religion, philosophy, or bigotry, science has no mind, no conscience, no ability to act independently of people. Religion and science are apples and oranges.

Before we condemn an abstract concept for its damages, we should consider its contributions and think about the same harms and benefits of those abstract human concepts we accept so readily as "good" things. Let's never throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It’s patently foolish to condemn any philosophy, or credit it, people deserve the credit or condemnation for what they do. If they want to call their choices God, so be it, that doesn’t make it so.

 

[luminum]

What the hell is “enlightenment through literacy?” A lot of verbiage, no discernable point.

My point is that religious beliefs can serve as portals to higher education (and often have in the past). A considerable amount of scholarship and education (i.e. enlightenment) has found its beginnings through mandatory study or entry into religious annals. That doesn't mean that religion is necessary to attain those, but it's fairly convenient and inaccurate to state that religions have served no purpose and have always acted in opposition to education and enlightenment.

This is bunk. Throughout the course of history there are probably hundreds of religions you never heard of, does that mean you don’t know who you are?

Again, an abstract argument, and one that I'm afraid you missed. I discussed schools of thought (of which religions make up a fair amount). Whether or not an individual is ever exposed to specific schools of thought is irrelevant. The argument here comes from this concept of "annex all religions" which is just stupid. There seems to be this belief that people will be perfectly content and well defined if they never have to encounter any kind of vexation or philosophical challenge. The argument here is that as much as people may hate "religion" (hating a specific religion is another thing), they certainly know more about themselves for having been exposed to the bevy of philosophies labeled as religions and those labeled as other things. What is a religion? is Scientology a religion? Is Jedism (yes, about the Jedi of Star Wars) a religion? Is quantum physics a religion? If individuals purport that "religion" is an evil that must be crushed under foot and erased, then where is that line drawn? Are fables too "religious?" Is theoretical mathematics or again, quantum physics too dependent on abstract theoretical reasoning of the unobservable to be considered "scientific?" Is the belief in electrons and electron clouds equivalent to belief in deities, where something we cannot see and cannot observe are "there" but can only be estimated?

Yes

So you know for sure that you disagree with the concept of fatalism and existentialism? And while we're at that, you'd know for certain that you liked or disliked sweets if you had no sense of taste? I'm not saying that personality is wholly dependent of contradiction, but it certainly makes up a good deal of who we are and who we aren't, and abstractly, that is presented to us as philosophy, politics, and religion (and what would contemporary politics be without religion thrown in there?) I merely question people's readiness to abandon the things that help define who they are and aren't. It's reminiscent of the old idea of "happiness without suffering being nothing at all."

So what, the cumulative effect of a religion is always and always has been the cumulative effect of the decisions real people in these groups make. This seems remarkably obvious.

And within those ill-defined "groups" are smaller groups and beyond them, larger groups. Is one church deciding not to descriminate against queer populations a "group?" Are the Log Cabin Republicans a "group" making decisions that can be generalized to other queer populations? Is the HRC a big enough "group" that can define what we are and what we believe as queer citizens?

If not, that how can a legitimate argument be made that "religious" groups are the problem for making these decisions as a whole? What whole? When you use Christianity as an example, who is making the group decision? The Vatican has no power over non-Catholics, so when non-denominational Christians fully accept queer members and preach acceptance and love, where does the "group decision making" argument end up? If the problem is people in groups making decisions, you have define where groups begin and where they end. You're buying into some illusion of solidarity that doesn't exist. All groups, be they religious, scientific, or philosophical are only composed of looser, smaller groups and so on and so forth down to individuals.

So the argument that religion is illegitimate because individuals suffer from it is rather pointless. Individuals suffer and gain (and always uniquely from everyone else) from everything--philosophy, politics, sociology, economics, gender, geography. That's pretty much a null argument.

Science does not have a brain, it is a tool, and investigative method, the people who use that tool are the ones at fault for misuse – and not a few of them are acting out of tortured religion, philosophy, or bigotry, science has no mind, no conscience, no ability to act independently of people. Religion and science are apples and oranges.

As any academic will tell you, science indeed has a brain and very rigorous set of beliefs, axioms, and systems. It may be composed largely as an investigative model, but the basis of scientific schools has its own series of beliefs. Medical science believes in chemical/biological solutions to health. Quantum physics exists solely on the basic unproven belief of only five dimensions of space. Many of the large debates in scientific academia are based on refuting long-standing and traditional scientific beliefs (some of which deserve to remain and some of which are fundamentally detrimental to moral, ethical, and academic progress). "Science" isn't as black and white and people like to believe. Spending a decent amount of time with it makes that pretty clear.

It’s patently foolish to condemn any philosophy, or credit it, people deserve the credit or condemnation for what they do. If they want to call their choices God, so be it, that doesn’t make it so.

Thanks for agreeing with me. So why, then, are people advocating religion as being to blame for social ills instead of individuals? What will annexing religion do other than allow people to funnel their ill-gotten beliefs and actions into a secularist political philosophy? Nazis and Italian fascists were anti-organized religion and people managed to be just as bigoted and do as much damage there.

Again, I just find it funny that people are treating a symptom like it's a cause. Religion is only a lens, individual philosophy is the lightbulb.

 

[TX-Beau]

My point is that religious beliefs can serve as portals to higher education (and often have in the past). A considerable amount of scholarship and education (i.e. enlightenment) has found its beginnings through mandatory study or entry into religious annals. That doesn't mean that religion is necessary to attain those, but it's fairly convenient and inaccurate to state that religions have served no purpose and have always acted in opposition to education and enlightenment.

Pell grants can serve as portals to higher education and often have in the past. So what? Education and enlightenment don’t mean the same thing. There are more examples of religions – at least in the western tradition acting against education than there are examples of it promoting education.

Again, an abstract argument, and one that I'm afraid you missed. I discussed schools of thought (of which religions make up a fair amount). Whether or not an individual is ever exposed to specific schools of thought is irrelevant. The argument here comes from this concept of "annex all religions" which is just stupid. There seems to be this belief that people will be perfectly content and well defined if they never have to encounter any kind of vexation or philosophical challenge. The argument here is that as much as people may hate "religion" (hating a specific religion is another thing), they certainly know more about themselves for having been exposed to the bevy of philosophies labeled as religions and those labeled as other things. What is a religion? is Scientology a religion? Is Jedism (yes, about the Jedi of Star Wars) a religion? Is quantum physics a religion? If individuals purport that "religion" is an evil that must be crushed under foot and erased, then where is that line drawn? Are fables too "religious?" Is theoretical mathematics or again, quantum physics too dependent on abstract theoretical reasoning of the unobservable to be considered "scientific?" Is the belief in electrons and electron clouds equivalent to belief in deities, where something we cannot see and cannot observe are "there" but can only be estimated?

This is just so much wandering sophistry that means nothing really, and goes nowhere.

So you know for sure that you disagree with the concept of fatalism and existentialism? And while we're at that, you'd know for certain that you liked or disliked sweets if you had no sense of taste? I'm not saying that personality is wholly dependent of contradiction, but it certainly makes up a good deal of who we are and who we aren't, and abstractly, that is presented to us as philosophy, politics, and religion (and what would contemporary politics be without religion thrown in there?) I merely question people's readiness to abandon the things that help define who they are and aren't. It's reminiscent of the old idea of "happiness without suffering being nothing at all."

I know for sure that throwing words at me doesn’t make an argument, or even a coherent point.

And within those ill-defined "groups" are smaller groups and beyond them, larger groups. Is one church deciding not to descriminate against queer populations a "group?" Are the Log Cabin Republicans a "group" making decisions that can be generalized to other queer populations? Is the HRC a big enough "group" that can define what we are and what we believe as queer citizens?

If not, that how can a legitimate argument be made that "religious" groups are the problem for making these decisions as a whole? What whole? When you use Christianity as an example, who is making the group decision? The Vatican has no power over non-Catholics, so when non-denominational Christians fully accept queer members and preach acceptance and love, where does the "group decision making" argument end up? If the problem is people in groups making decisions, you have define where groups begin and where they end. You're buying into some illusion of solidarity that doesn't exist. All groups, be they religious, scientific, or philosophical are only composed of looser, smaller groups and so on and so forth down to individuals.

So the argument that religion is illegitimate because individuals suffer from it is rather pointless. Individuals suffer and gain (and always uniquely from everyone else) from everything--philosophy, politics, sociology, economics, gender, geography. That's pretty much a null argument.

Posing endless questions at someone is just tedious. Get to the point. You’re going round and round and round with this pointless verbiage that a. doesn’t logically follow, and b. is so vague and imprecise that you could bury anything at all in there and pretend you have a point, and c. has no bearing on the conclusion you’re trying to draw.

As any academic will tell you, science indeed has a brain and very rigorous set of beliefs, axioms, and systems. It may be composed largely as an investigative model, but the basis of scientific schools has its own series of beliefs. Medical science believes in chemical/biological solutions to health. Quantum physics exists solely on the basic unproven belief of only five dimensions of space. Many of the large debates in scientific academia are based on refuting long-standing and traditional scientific beliefs (some of which deserve to remain and some of which are fundamentally detrimental to moral, ethical, and academic progress). "Science" isn't as black and white and people like to believe. Spending a decent amount of time with it makes that pretty clear.

This is just completely mistaken. “Science,” is a general term for many disciplines that share a core investigative tool. As any academic will tell you.

There is no reliance on belief; reliance on belief isn’t science, that’s religion. Science requires observable data, falsifiability, repeatability, and peer review. This is about as far from belief as you can get. The fact that all those old theories are re-evaluated tells you explicitly that nothing is taken on belief. Nothing. The rest of that is more of your mental drifting, no point, no context, no reason to exist.

Thanks for agreeing with me. So why, then, are people advocating religion as being to blame for social ills instead of individuals? What will annexing religion do other than allow people to funnel their ill-gotten beliefs and actions into a secularist political philosophy? Nazis and Italian fascists were anti-organized religion and people managed to be just as bigoted and do as much damage there.

Again, I just find it funny that people are treating a symptom like it's a cause. Religion is only a lens, individual philosophy is the lightbulb.

Finally. Because religion is the proximate cause for a lot of bigotry and hatred, it’s the reason given the overwhelming majority of the time. Ignore that all you want, but it’s still true. Gay people did not bring this argument to them, the religious brought it to us, and if you want to excuse their religion for the part it played in forming their personal hatreds that’s on you. The rest of us aren’t buying.

 

[Kulindahr]

Education and enlightenment don’t mean the same thing. There are more examples of religions – at least in the western tradition acting against education than there are examples of it promoting education.

That's a rather bizarre claim, considering just how many of the West's great universities were founded by devout believers.

 

[AsianDream]

Enough said. All it does is fill you with guilt. Sorry, I've just been struggling with this.

I can't help agreeing that Being gay and raised Christian sucks. But probably being raised in any religion sucks - Christian or otherwise The ideas of religion are just as deluded and evil - no matter what brand or version it is.

 

[Kulindahr]

I can't help agreeing that Being gay and raised Christian sucks. But probably being raised in any religion sucks - Christian or otherwise The ideas of religion are just as deluded and evil - no matter what brand or version it is.

Why does this foolishness keep appearing?

You just said that the values helping for the poor, hospitality, generosity, concern for justice, sheltering the homeless, acting with mercy, sacrificing for others, aiding those in distress, caring for the sick, and more are "deluded and evil".

 

[Kulindahr]

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:

I love that song!

BTW, "kyrie eleison" is Greek, imported into the Latin Mass from the earliest liturgies of the Church.

 

[Kulindahr]

I doubt that those were the ideas he was referring to.

Maybe he meant ideas like sin, divine punishment, eternal damnation, the need for salvation, and all the rest of the humanity-hating condemnatory stuff.

Then, of course, there's the whole anti-sexuality thing. I'm quite sure you will claim the latter is not biblical, but lines such as Leviticus 20:13 must have been included in the (supposed) 'Word of God' for a reason, however much gay Christians try to explain them away nowadays.

We're all familiar with sin -- the phrase "I fucked up !" comes to mind....

There's no need to "explain away" Leviticus 20:13, since the Bible itself says that stuff no longer applies.

 

[hotatlboi]

Theology is a science!

uhh... no.

 

[hotatlboi]

There's no need to "explain away" Leviticus 20:13, since the Bible itself says that stuff no longer applies.

What about Romans 1:27?

 

[Spensed]

^ What about it? Like much else in the Bible, it's a much translated and interpreted ancient text that people use to bolster their own prejudices and preconceptions.

Compare and contrast:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc4.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc5.htm

 

[hotatlboi]

answer is too simple, explain why you think that it isn't a science.

Science deals with observable, physical phenomena. It is a process (the scientific method) by which knowledge is acquired through experiment and that knowledge is capable of making a testable prediction about the physical world.

Speculations about the supernatural are not in the domain of science and can never be. The supernatural is not an observable or testable physical manifestation.

Theology would be more closely related to something like philosophy or history (in the sense of studies of ancient writings).

 

[hotatlboi]

Theology also deals with the unobservable spiritual realm

True, and that is just a place that science cannot go.

 

[Kulindahr]

I suspect a confusion in definitions of the word "science".

 

[hotatlboi]

....and yet, through scientific observation, the Soul is detected leaving a body at the very moment of death, and yes, it has been documented.

Sorry, no it isn't. Don't believe everything you see on tv.

 

[Kulindahr]

Sorry, no it isn't. Don't believe everything you see on tv.

Speaking of what you see on TV, I saw one -- on the History Channel, IIRC -- where they tried every last thing they could think of and found nothing to suggest the departure of a soul -- no change in mass, no unaccounted change in temperature, no unexpected change in electrical activity, no emissions in any known form of radiation....

 

[SouthwestNewb]

In the end, it was my dad's Christian beliefs that got him through loving me no matter what. I could see things being both better and worse with a-religous parents.

It does suck though. You're right.

 

[71390S]

I think it can totally be difficult to reconcile spirituality and sexuality. Being raised Mormon/Christian was hard at times, not because I thought I was wrong for being gay. But because it sucks to feel like you're the only one who doesn't think it's wrong. It made me so frustrated, and not the kind of frustrated where you throw up your hands and walk away - but the eye watering I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall kind of way.

Even though my parents are weirded out I'm gay, they are still supportive and don't think being gay is wrong. Probably helped my psyche a lot.

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

 

[71390S]

You and I are basically in the same boat, except that I am a Roman Catholic.

=). Being religious was a good experience for me, but I am an atheist now. I think my parents are more freaked out by that instead of my gayness