Praying To Saint Feezl, My Dead Cat

A few years ago, an adopted cat that was supposed to be fixed had five kittens. We found them under the front deck, and my mom dismantled the deck and held the boards up for me, while I collected them in a box with a towel.
"There's like, five!" I exclaimed.
"Shut up!" my mom said.
"They just keep coming," I said, very happily, placing each of them carefully in their new bed.
"Shut up!"
But that didn't change anything; there were still five.

My dad wanted to call them Hitcher, Pointer, Flipper, Ringer, and Pinky. He counted off his fingers as he explained the names to me, and the names matched his fingers perfectly. I thought that that was very clever.
One of the kittens died a few days after being born. We now had only four. Eventually, my mom suggested that each of us (my parents, my funny little brother Cody, and I) name one cat. I named mine Elmo (who had huge ears, so I started calling her Earmo); Cody's cat was Smoky; my mother's was Dewey (whom I lately call Slappy Cat, because if I pet him and try to walk away, he runs after me and slaps me).

And my father was determined to name one Flipper, after the rude finger:

My mom thought that Flipper was not a nice name for a sweet little kitten, so she started calling her Izzy (not that it really bothered my dad). One day my dad looked over and saw her on my lap. "Fuzzy's being your friend," he remarked.
So because of his mistake, she became Fuzzy. I liked to call her sister and her Smellmo and Fleazy. "Fuzzy" and "Fleazy" eventually evolved into Feezy, then Feezl (pronounced Fee-zul, emphasis on the first syllable), and sometimes Nozzle or Furzal.
Her brother Smoky became a pain in the butt, so we started calling him Stinky. So the pair of them became Feezl and Stinkl.

I bonded with Feezl more than with the other cats. She seemed more intuitive than them, for some reason, and she was a caring kitty.
When I served her tuna, I told her, "Feezl, eat your fishl!" I also told her to eat her meatzl, her cheezl, and her fowlzl. When I wanted to get her off my lap, I told her, "Pleazl, Feezl, I have to peezl!" When I told my mom that she had peezled in our garden, Mom asked, "Are you sure she didn't poozl?"
When she stole my peacock feathers, she was a thiefzl. When she bit the heads off of them, she was a little white rat. She once came in the window and released a live mouse in my room at two in the morning, trying to teach the kitten (Simon) and me how to hunt--that's how amazing she was.
When she slipped through the fence, I said that she squeezl. When she leaped, I told my mom that she could flyzl. I named my Deviantart page (FeezlFuzzl, where I write homoerotic, Christian comic strip fan fiction) after one of her names.

I often sang an old hymn to her, "There's flies on you, and there's flies on me, but there ain't no flies on Feezus!"
"Oh, Feezus," I would say, cuddling with her, "I just love you so much. This is why you are so amazing."
I got to calling her Feezus on a regular basis, and one night, my mom and I were watching tv while I was playing with her, when Feezus made one of the biggest leaps/backflips that I had ever seen.
"Whoa!" my mom cried.
"Feezus Mice!" I shouted.
My mom started laughing, delighted at my new name for our kitty.
After that, I also added, "Hail, Feezer!" to my greetings for her, too.
She once played with a dried onion that had dropped to the floor, and had really bad breath when she cuddled with me afterwards.
"You know I love you," my mom told her once, when she lay on her chest, "but you are the love of AJ's life." My mom says that Feezl simply looked at her and slow-blinked, as if she was saying, "I know."

She comforted me when her sister Elmo fell off the roof and died in my arms. She comforted me when her "little brother," a younger cat that we had raised as a kitten, ran away and was never seen again.

Simon, kitten.

Simon, adult.

She was especially "needy" also, when my rabbits died.

Wally

Wilbur

Wilbur's brother, Clarence

She knew what I needed, and she was there for me, always.


And then she ran away herself. I thought that surely she must be dead, because she would have come home, if she could have. She always was adventurous, as well.
 A few months later, another cat, Sebastian, disappeared. He was barely more than a kitten himself, only a few months old. I had known that I would lose some of my nine new kittens eventually, but I didn't think it would be this soon--just like I hadn't thought it would be this soon, with Feezl.
Sebastian had been gone for six days when I went to copy something for school one night, and accidentally came across a picture of Feezl. "Oh, Feezl," I prayed quietly (though I can't bring myself to pray to God, most of the time, because he seems too far away), "Please come home if you can. I need you. Please, just come home."
My mom then wanted to watch "our show," which at the time was Parks and Recreation. In the particular episode we watched that night, the main character, Leslie Knope, saw an "impersonator" of Li'l Sebastian, the miniature horse that she had been obsessed with (and who had died in an earlier episode), and took it as a sign that she should marry her boyfriend, after all.
The next morning, my mom woke me up, carrying...our Little Sebastian. He was back!
"Is that him?" I asked, in the limited light from the hallway, hoping against hope that it wasn't his twin brother Sasha, who was also yellow but who wasn't missing.
It wasn't Sasha. "Dad found him, just sitting on the deck. He was hungry," she said.
I took it that Feezl had perhaps heard my prayer, and had been unable to return herself, because she wasn't in this plane anymore (physical plane, not airplane). So she had sent Sebastian home, instead. She had even known that we would watch that very episode.
So now I have a sort of personal patron saint, in the form of my late cat Feezl. She does what she can for me, in her own limited power, and even after her likely death, she apparently still watches out for me and takes care of me. I still sometimes hope that she is alive and will return, as I hope for her "little brother," Simon, but I don't think it's likely for either of them. (We later found another orange cat, but it wasn't Simon, because that would mean that his balls grew back.)
But at least I feel more connected to her, since Sebastian has returned.
I guess this makes me a sort of Catholic, except I pronounce it as "Cat-holic" (which, on two levels, would explain my many furry children).
I hope there's an afterlife, and that I'll get to see her again, someday. Not seeing loved ones has to be the saddest thing about death.

For more stories about amazing kitties and other great creatures, see: 

"The Kitten, Or Why I Don't Believe In Animal Euthanasia," 

 "The Kitten, Part Two: He Wanted To Live," 

And my "Animals & Euthanasia" page here or at the top of this site.


What do you think of this? Leave a comment below, or send me an email at: atheistjourneysblog@gmail.com
Follow or tweet me here: https://twitter.com/atheistjourneys
I also have a Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Atheist-Journeys/1543588489197291?

Your (And My) Good Intentions Are Not Magic

 Almost all anti-gay Christians will tell you that they don't "hate" LGBTQ people (as if that makes any difference at all, when you are trying to keep people from having equal rights or forcing them to lie about who they are). They believe that if they feel love for people, that it doesn't matter how much pain they are causing; that if they don't "hate" a group of people, that it is literally impossible to unintentionally or carelessly hurt them.
Most atheists and LGBTQ people and allies (including progressive Christians) know that that is bullshit, that what matters is how people actually are treated. And yet I see both atheists and Christians buying into the same false beliefs when it comes to other groups of people, namely women (or other women) and racial minorities. 


The Role Of The Subconscious 


 I once saw an atheist tell me that most men could not be sexist, because sexism was "the belief that women are inferior." I was very alarmed that he actually thought that sexism was a conscious "belief"!
Most people do not dispute the role of the subconscious in how we treat or see ourselves. Most people would agree that an abused spouse, for example, sometimes stays with their abuser because they believe themselves unworthy of anything better.  
Many atheists (and others) affirm that their childhood religion taught them to hate themselves, or to see themselves as unworthy worms, and that though they know better now, it is still a challenge to convince their subconscious mind otherwise. Many atheists still struggle with the fear of going to hell, even though they no longer believe in it--at least with their rational mind. 
Even those who aren't atheists often have to work through childhood issues about themselves or how their parents see or saw them. So people generally understand the role of the subconscious mind in how we perceive or treat ourselves. 
Then why is it any different, in how we perceive or treat others? We have all had the experience of our parents unintentionally reacting to us as though we are still little kids, even well into adulthood. We understand our parents' imperfect treatment of us, even if they love us and have the very best of intentions. So why do we think that we are perfect? 


Racists Don't Know That They're Racist

I don't usually care for people saying things such as "That statement was racist," or "That is sexist," or "You are being homophobic" because though it is almost always true, it often falls on deaf ears to those who think that intentions are magic. I like to say, instead, that something was "unintentionally racist/sexist/homophobic." 
Otherwise, people usually respond to such accusations with, "I'm not racist because I don't hate black people," (or "because I have black friends") or, like the example above, "I'm not sexist because I don't believe women to be inferior." Or like a conservative sort-of-friend of mine, "I have homosexual friends and I love them."
But, obviously, intentions are not magic. We know that when it comes to our parents, and how others treat us. Why do we not apply the same standards to ourselves? If one could make those they claim to care about feel better, with minimal or reasonable effort, why wouldn't they? If we want to make people feel respected and listened to, why not...make people feel respected and listened to? But in order to do this, we have to actually listen to people, while showing respect. 

Admitting Our Mistakes

I can understand why we would want to distance ourselves from people who actually hate those who are different from them. There are still a few intentionally hateful people left, and those are whom we think of when we are accused of not treating others fairly. 
But no one is asking anyone to feel bad about who they are, or to apologize for their privilege. Even if people are accusing you of being hateful, that is no reason to dismiss their comments out of hand, without at least thinking about their points, just because you think you have good intentions. 
I think that a lot of people defend themselves so vehemently because they associate privilege and unintentional bigotry or sexism, with shame. They believe that all bigotry is on purpose, and reflects badly upon their character (instead of merely reflecting ignorance), so that if they have racist attitudes, for example, they are "racists," and if they are "racists," then they are evil.
Having racist ideas or attitudes, though, does not necessarily make you a neo-Nazi or a member of the KKK. Having sexist or misogynist attitudes does not necessarily mean that you are trying to make women your slaves (or believe yourself to be a slave to men). And, as painful as this is to admit, having homophobic attitudes does not necessarily mean that you are a member of the Westboro Baptist Church ("God Hates Fags" people), though it is actually alarming how close some people come...
Bigotry (of all kinds) is on a scale, just like sexuality, sex drive, and gender identity. It can also be very much accidental, and you can be a good person (in that you have good intentions) while still having awful beliefs (and not knowing how awful they are). You can also still be a good person while doing awful things, and not knowing how awful they are. 
The trick to being truly kind and respectful to people is to listen and learn about others' experience (and don't ever assume that you have "arrived," because every person has different experiences), admit when you make a mistake (and then move on), and, if you claim to love and respect people, to actually try to make them feel loved and respected. There are no guarantees of perfection, of course, but if you do these things, it will go a long way towards promoting respect and tolerance.


What do you think of this? Leave a comment below, or send me an email at: atheistjourneysblog@gmail.com
Follow or tweet me here: https://twitter.com/atheistjourneys
I also have a Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Atheist-Journeys/1543588489197291?

Why Anti-Gay Teachings Are Unequal, Even When They Aren't

Let's say that two people, a straight person and a gay person, both fall in love with someone who loves them back. To an anti-gay Christian, the fact that the straight person has fallen in love, especially if both people are Christians, means that their love is blessed and from God.
So if two gay people fall in love, and they are Christians, then their love is blessed and from God too, right?
We already know the answer to that one. No matter if both of the gay couple are Christians and love the Lord, no matter how much they may love each other, it's always, always, always, from the devil or their own evil nature.
In other words, the feelings of the straight person are valid, while the feelings of the gay person are not. The feelings of the straight person are "real," and taken seriously, while the feelings of the gay person are not.
Either the straight person is more mature or intelligent than the gay person, automatically, or the straight person is treated as more valuable than the gay person--there's no getting around that. No amount of lip service about "equal worth" or "God's unconditional love" is going to change the fact that the straight person is treated as more valuable than or superior to the gay person, and when it comes to love, actions are what counts, not words. (Are you listening, complimentarians?)
And furthermore, God provided an outlet for the straight couple, marriage, which he apparently did not for the gay couple. As I've said before, God does not treat all of his children equally, if he makes some for the fulfilling sacrament of marriage, while others he forces to choose between a lifetime of loneliness and frustration, and an eternity in hell.
Some might say that God didn't "make" anyone for a lifetime of loneliness, that homosexuality is a choice...and they would be totally ignoring the millions of testimonies out there, on the internet alone, that say otherwise.
In other words, homosexuals are inferior beings, who don't even know about their own lives and sexualities. Anti-gay Christians and theists listen when straight people talk about falling in love, and automatically accept their feelings as valid--but gay people are confused, and their feelings are automatically not valid. This applies even if the straight people are atheists, Satanists, witches or drug addicts, and the gay people are devout and committed believers who have never abused any substances or have no mental health issues at all.
If you are straight, you can get to heaven by believing in Jesus, and not having sex before marriage. But if you are gay, you can get to heaven by believing in Jesus, and not having sex at all--or getting married at all--for your entire lifetime--if you're even "allowed" to be gay, know that you are, and describe yourself as such.
And while masturbation is generally frowned upon, and considered sinful, for both groups of people, the straight people can look forward to someday getting married and having sex, while the gay people can look forward to...cold showers for the rest of their long, lonely, very single lives.
Does that really sound equal to you?

Now let's also talk about the way the different groups of people are treated by the conservative churches.
A straight person is generally free from suspicion of premarital sex or adultery, if they do the "right" things and date or court the "right" way, though they may have to be "accountable" to a person or group regarding temptations, masturbation, porn or lustful thoughts.
But to almost every anti-LGBTQ Christian, the word "gay" means the same exact thing as "gay fucker."  Any talk of the "gay lifestyle" shows that bias (as if they themselves fuck everyone of the opposite sex that they possibly can, just because they're straight, even if that is against their beliefs or preferences).
Gays are guilty until proven innocent, to these people. When even a devout believer says the words "I'm gay," what they hear is "SEX-SEX-SEX-SEX-SEX-PORN!"
This isn't exactly the anti-gay teachings, but it is the fruit of such teachings, and Jesus himself said that "by their fruit you will know them." Evangelical Christians have been taught to be, and choose to be, naturally suspicious of gay and lesbian people, even their own brothers and sisters in Christ, and even those who are Side B (no gay sex at all, even in marriage).
They do this because they think that there is only one type of gay person, and that that gay person is not, and cannot be, a Christian, or get to heaven. There is no corresponding automatic judgment or stereotyping of straight people. This is a lot of things, but it is not equal.

Gay Christians know, can sense, that these teachings are inherently unequal. Christians' gay children know that they will always be looked upon with suspicion by their evangelical churches--if they are even allowed to be honest about who they are, at all. They are taught that God made these wonderful things called love and sex and marriage--and that he only made them for their straight brothers and sisters.
They hear their pastors, parents, and older Christians gush about how wonderful God is to create sex and marriage, and how beautiful and perfect these things are--and then they learn that these wonderful, perfect things are not for them. And never will be, for them.
They see that everything is much easier for their straight peers. Their straight peers don't have to beg God to change not only their lustful thoughts, but their very nature. They would give anything just to struggle with the same temptations as their straight peers, because their own struggle is seen as much more shameful, by themselves and by everyone around them.
Supposedly, their struggle is equal, but in practice, it is not treated as such. Their straight peers' sex drives are natural and god-given--and theirs are unnatural, perverted, twisted, sinful, and literally from the devil.
Their straight peers have to control themselves before marriage, and then only think of their spouses lustfully, while they have to control themselves for an entire lifetime, and never think of anyone lustfully, because they're not even allowed to have anyone to love. (Even if their church is more liberal in this area, and they are allowed to have a relationship, which I've never heard of, thus far, there will be speculating on what the couple might be doing in the bedroom, something that never would happen to a straight couple.)
Their straight peers see an end in sight, marriage, when they can finally find both love and sexual fulfillment, and possibly children.
Is there an end in sight for the gay evangelical Christian? No. There never will be, in some forms of Christianity. Gay youth know that "God" does not treat them as well as he treats others.
"God" treats them as if they are inferior, and straight evangelical Christians expect that they will not believe themselves to be inferior.
"God" hates something about the gay Christian, that they know from experience that they cannot change, and straight evangelical Christians expect them not to hate themselves.
It doesn't matter how much "love" is spoken with the message, if the message is that God hates an intrinsic and unchangeable part of who you are, and that you are not allowed to have a good, wonderful, perfect thing that he allows everyone else around you to have.
That's not love, that's hate, no matter how much they doth protest. And gay youth are getting this message of hatred loud and clear.
This is why I am sickened when I hear atheists make statements such as, "I wish they would all just move to their Christian communities and leave us all alone."
There would literally be nothing left for their LGBTQ children to do, but kill themselves. And they are already doing it. (I could put links to examples of this, but frankly, I don't want to. Google it yourself if you don't believe me.)

What do you think of this? Leave a comment below, or send me an email at: atheistjourneysblog@gmail.com
Follow or tweet me here: https://twitter.com/atheistjourneys
I also have a Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Atheist-Journeys/1543588489197291?

The Silliest Question Christians Can Ask

My mother once related having breakfast with my grandparents, when my grandfather asked her, once again, to come to church with them. She said that she was busy, to spare his feelings, though really she does not care for their church.
It was before breakfast, and rather late in the morning, so my grandfather was apparently feeling crabby. "What are you going to say to your Maker on Judgment Day?" he asked.
"The bible doesn't say that Christians have to go to church for salvation," she said. She was probably nicer than I would have been, though I love my grandparents as much as I love my animals, and that's saying something.

But then I wondered, what does one say to an omniscient god? Wouldn't literally anything one could say be redundant?
"Well, God, I was a Christian for a long time..." I would begin.
"Yes, I know." 
"And I tried really hard to get close to you and to please you..."
"I know." 
"...but it just seemed like nothing ever worked..."
"I'm aware of that. I was there and I read your mind."
"So I finally started thinking that maybe the reason I couldn't get close to you, wasn't that I couldn't figure out what my sin was, and it wasn't that I wasn't spending enough time in prayer and bible study, and wasn't that my childhood toys were an idol, but was that you weren't there at all."
"But I was there." 
"Then why didn't you say anything?!"

When theists, usually Christians (in my experience), ask what nonbelievers will say on judgement day, they don't really expect an answer. And if God really is all-knowing, any answer I can give would just be repeating something that God already knows I will say.
When theists ask this question, what they are really doing is clearly issuing a threat. What they are really saying is, "God's going to get you!" And they wouldn't be arrogant enough to issue this threat if they actually had any "fear of God," and understood that they didn't have the authority to say or predict who would go to heaven, and who would go to hell. (My standard reply when someone tries to threaten people with hell is, "God? Is that you? No one else has the authority to say that, so maybe you DO exist!" I especially get upvoted when I post it as "Atheist Journeys.")
But if they can be so assured of their own salvation, then I can be assured of mine (if there is anything to actually be saved from, that is). I see many atheists defeat the Pascal's Wager argument with simple logic ("What if another god is real, instead of the Christian god?"), but the main reason I don't go for the Wager is simpler than that: I already have been a sincere, devout Christian.
Most modern evangelical Christians would subscribe to the "once saved, always saved" doctrine, though interestingly enough, it seems to be a relatively recent fad in church history--in the 1678 Christian morality play, Pilgrim's Progress, the protagonist actually loses his salvation (symbolized by a scroll, to be presented at heaven's gates after crossing the River of Death) at one point, and has to retrace part of his faith-journey. There is also plenty of evidence from both the Old and New Testaments of the bible that Christians can lose their salvation, and it is not entirely clear on when names are written in the Book of Life found in Revelation (whether when one "gets saved," or when one dies as a Christian, or before one is born, or some other time). I'm not sure what that means for my own potential salvation, but I also don't believe that there's anything to be saved from.
I believe that most Christians subscribe to the "once saved, always saved" doctrine in order to make themselves feel better, when they hear about atheists being former Christians. They can't lose their faith and therefore their salvation, because they're true Christians, while the atheists never were true Christians, never were sincere.
Except that I know I was sincere. Many of us know that we were sincere.
When I related a short version of my story recently, to someone that I was debating online, he asked me if I was a Catholic. That's Protestant-speak for, "Did you try to earn your way to heaven with works?" (or possibly "Did you commit idolatry by praying to Mary or other saints?"). I answered that no, I had not tried to earn my way to heaven with works. (It amazes me that so many Christians I have encountered seem to think that atheists simply forgot to recite a form of the Sinner's Prayer and mean it.)

I am glad that I did not go with my mom that day, because I probably would have been somewhat crabby before breakfast too. "I'll say, 'Thank you very much,' because He will have said, 'Well done!'" I would have been tempted to say, though that might have been a little arrogant, and unintentionally deceitful, since it makes it sound as if I'm a Christian too.
If I was pressed, though, for a nicer, "real" answer, I would say that at least I know that I sought the truth, whatever it was, and (especially when it came to LGBTQ issues, which is how this silly question often comes up for me), at least I know that I loved, and that I tried to make things better for people in the one life that I knew we did have.
But then, my Maker would have already known that--and would know that now.

What do you think of this? Leave a comment below, or send me an email at: atheistjourneysblog@gmail.com
Follow or tweet me here: https://twitter.com/atheistjourneys
I also have a Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Atheist-Journeys/1543588489197291?

Harrison's Epic Facebook Knockout For Equality!

 A few days ago, a friend of mine, who reminds me of my little brother and who is much like a son to me (though he is only three years younger), put a (usually) sweet but ignorant friend in her place. I am a very proud mama, in both senses of the word, and I just had to brag on my boy. I hope he doesn't find this and get mad at me...

Note: All posts are copied-and-pasted, so that the original words have been preserved.

The day before, a mutual friend, who had been in several plays with Harrison, and who was in some classes with me, threw a kind of temper tantrum over people not accepting her non-acceptance of them:

"Just had to say something. ACCEPTANCE NEEDS TO GO BOTH WAYS!! CAN'T EVERYONE JUST GET ALONG! I'm a Christian but I also have homosexual friends and I love them! I may not think that lifestyle is right, but I'm not living it! In the same way if you don't agree with a religious view, you dont have to be that religion! I think everything can go two ways. NO PERSON should be judged slandered, or hated by another or put into a sterotype. Not all Christians feel the same, and disagreement should not be hate. I think that a Christian or any religious person has a right to not believe in something and thier reasons and faith, if followed in a respectful way, should be accepted and respected just as much as anything else would want acceptance! Faith is very important and it really bothers me how people try and quote the bible and use it against people! Respect needs to go both ways!"

I had thought that this girl was so sweet--she loved goats, after all, just like me! But this...this was not sweet--not at all. And instead of explaining why, I'll let Harrison do it, as the next day he posted this, apparently to no one in particular:
 
 "I understand there are a good many opinions running around out there since the supreme court ruling. Instead of explaining biblical history and getting into some contrived debate over whether or not I should be treated like a human because I like people with the same genitals as mine, I am going to do something hard and ask that anyone who disagrees with the way I am in any way not be a part of my life.
I would personally not like to hear from someone who I thought loved me that they disagreed with my "lifestyle".
It is no such thing.
To disagree with it, me being, to make things simple, gay, on whatever basis, is to disagree with me as a person because my sexuality is intrinsic to me as the color of ones skin or the expressed gender of ones body.
If you can not see how disagreeing with one being black or female is fundamentally messed up, on whatever basis, I ask doubly that you not be a part of my life.
I will never need, nor will I ever deserve, people who regard me in this way in my life.
As a closing, I would like to thank those who fought for me and those who stand with me, ideologically or as companions on this sometimes harsh path we walk. Your strength gives me strength.
If you have anything to say regarding this post, instead of leaving a comment, please message me privately."

"EXACTLY! <3" I replied. He liked my comment. I don't know if he received any private messages over this or not.

That night, somebody else, whom I suspect is or was Harrison's boyfriend, from what I've seen, posted this:

 "How is it that for the past 5 days or so, it's all about gay marriage. Look I'm glad that the gays can marry and everything. But posting all this bullshit drama over that gays shouldn't be married is really fuckin stupid. If somebody loves someone very dearly, then it's their business. I mean seriously no one gives a fuck about your opinions, so mind your own damn business. Sorry for the rant, I hope you all have a great Fourth of July weekend ‪#‎LoveWins‬"

 I left a comment to let him know I agreed:

 "Yeah, people keep saying, "God's going to punish us now," and I keep saying, "Is that why all the people in Canada are dead?"

"Ha ha lol," he replied.

I wanted to try to show our evangelical friend (still our friend, if Harrison's Facebook page can be believed, as of this writing) another perspective, so I posted this, again, without singling her or anybody else out, as that seemed to be the rules of this game: 

"If this doesn't apply to you, it doesn't apply to you:
If you think someone's sexuality is a choice, then you're not listening to the many thousands, if not millions, of stories out there in which it is NOT a choice. If you're not listening to others, then how can you expect people to listen to you?
If it's a choice to you, then congratulations--you're bi- or pansexual. You're more than welcome in the LGBTQ community, as far as I'm concerned, as long as you play nice. Just because it's a choice to you, doesn't mean it's a choice for others.
Because it's not a choice, it's not a "lifestyle." The word "gay" does not mean the same thing, to put it bluntly, as "gay fucker."
The bible itself unequivocally states that Jesus himself was bisexual, since he was "tempted in every way just as we are, but without sin." If you think that having gay sex is a sin, then Jesus was tempted to do it, and therefore was partially gay. So if it's a "lifestyle," then you might want to talk to your savior about his sinful "lifestyle." He did party a lot, with the sinners...
And if you think that just being attracted to someone of the same sex is a sin, then Jesus sinned.
Now let's explore the implications of the belief that all gay sex is a sin:
In this belief system (which not all Christians and theists subscribe to), God does not treat his children equally. Straight people have ALWAYS had the option of marriage, family, sex, love, companionship, etc, etc, etc, and always will. While gay people have NEVER had that option, and never will, in this paradigm.
Even if it is a "choice," how do you explain the millions of people who have tried to change, but can't? And if you really are interested in listening to others, then you will know that it is not a choice.
So if all gay sex is a sin, then gay people have to choose between a lifetime of loneliness, and an eternity in hell. How is that fair? Especially when you consider that an all-powerful god made or allowed them to be that way.
I think that if straight, anti-gay theists were forced to choose either complete celibacy and singleness (for their entire lifetime) or hell, or all their lives were told that their love was unnatural and an abomination and God hates it, not to mention were the victims of hate crimes, had to hide who they were from their families, etc, etc, etc, then they might be more inclined to show grace and understanding to the LGBTQ community, and actually want them--us--to have legal rights. They might also have more sense when it comes to love and loving behavior, especially as it pertains to how a loving god would act."

I do not know if any of the three previous people named have seen this, so far, and I have not seen any more opinions on the subject from any of them. Though my post was liked by my best friend from my conservative Christian school, ironically enough...

What do you think of this? Leave a comment below, or send me an email at: atheistjourneysblog@gmail.com
Follow or tweet me here: https://twitter.com/atheistjourneys
I also have a Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Atheist-Journeys/1543588489197291?