"You are allowed to be gay, you're just not allowed to love anyone." What does that even mean?


Basically they are asking them to be celibate forever.


Are you really gay or straight if you avoid all romantic human engagements?


Yes, it's an orientation. Someone can be celibate and gay or straight. Whether they want a relationship is up to them. It's not common though. Usually the people who stay celibate do so due to religious indoctrination. I find it hypocritical for these Christians to go about their merry way having a love live while telling others they can't have the same.


But isn't 'acting on it' even having romantic feelings like 'adultery in your heart' is still adultery to Christians? That's my issue.


Ahhh, I see what you mean. From a thought crime pov, I think you are right. But Christians have never followed their own rules. It's adultery if they even look at a woman and they are supposed to gouge their eyes. Yet, their eyes are intact.


It means whoever said that is fucked up.


The Pope literally said “who I am to judge a gay person // second part wasn’t advertised well // if they are a good Christian?” So pretty simple, you may be gay but don’t fuck anyone who’s the same sex as yours


Street preachers usually aren't Catholic.


I actually had a similar situation. I was walking back to my dorm from classes and I got stopped by a Christian wanting to know my beliefs, it was clear he was trying to convert people. I told him that I was an atheist and don't believe in an afterlife. When we die, we die. That's the end. Life is objectively meaningless. The absolute horror on his face was so worth it.


If you really want to fuck them up, remind them that as an atheist you realize that in the grand scheme of things the death of a man is of no more significance than the death of a chicken. In the end, it's the same. Life ends. Bones go to dust.


Objectively fascinating and filled with potential. Precious in the uniqueness each person and experience brings. We have the ability to make it useful, valuable, and simply meaningful.


"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Matthew 5:27, KJV --- That Christian failed to remember his own deity's words. If you want appease gay people, just outright accept them for who they are (and cherry pick the Bible as they already do to ignore the condemnation of homosexuality). Don't create false equivalencies that fall apart as soon as you start reading Jesus' words. What a fool.


"Excuse me do you have a moment to talk about the sin of homosexuality?" "Go fuck yourselves then you can have an opinion on homosexuality ".


My response would have been “I’m not interested in your make believe fairytale delusions”


The appropriate response is "fuck off".


Never accept criticism from someone you would not go to for advice.


Street preaching is a sin too.


If you ever get the chance again when someone asks, you can slap them incredibly hard with some good information. Or with your fists, I'm fine with both but I think the law disagrees with me. So the big verse used to have this line of thinking is Leviticus 20:13, you know the one it's the "a man shall not lie with a man...." blah blah blah bullshit. But here's the fun part you can hit them with: it's basically a mistranslation. Anyone who preaches off this verse is basically using a tainted bible. In the origional ~~Greek~~ Hebrew of the bible very specifically uses the words "ish" and "zachar", two different words. Just a quick find and replace and you get "you shall not lie with an ish as you would with a zachar..." That's a bit different. Ish is the ~~Greek~~ Hebrew word for male, you have ish and ishah, male and female. So in thr context of the verse in question, it means anyone who is not female. Though it does raise the question of gender identity (but since this discussion is not really about that I'll set it aside) Interestingly, the duality of man/woman doesn't show up until eve. So Ish is often used more like the idea of a married man, or a man who has reached the age of adulthood. Zachar is a bit more complicated since it is both a way to say "male" and a way to say "remember", it's a bit odd. But when looking at the part that matters it means male as in having a penis. But more importantly in ~~Greek~~ Hebrew law the word Zachar is used to mean someone who were too young to be a man. So if we do a little find and replace, the verse actually reads: "an adult male shall not lie with a male too young to be a man..." Which is an obvious and very different translation to what we are typically told. It's a verse against pedophiles. If you get the chance, and someone asks you if you've read the Bible, tell them "yeah I read the original Hebrew and it doesn't mention gay" and then tell them how their bigotry is built on a lie. [Edit] this verse can also been translated to mean a man shall not rape another man, or to do something sexually degrading to another man. The only thing it can not be said to be about is the concept of two loving men having sex. Honestly this is even worse of a translation, not for it's accuracy, but for how it paints the male-female dynamic. Basically making not so much about being gay, but being horrifically misogynistic. Either way, the verse and the book it comes from is atrocious.


I get where you are going with this but the mistranslation thing is not right. Giving people more ways to twist the words of it to make it fit their world is not going to help them drop the whole book off a cliff. Leviticus 20:13 (NIV): If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads If this is a mistranslation and it's about pedos then why are BOTH put to death and the blame put on BOTH of them? I am a lesbian myself and this mistranslation narrative is so much about privilege, it makes me feel bad.


>Giving people more ways to twist the words of it to make it fit their world is not going to help them drop the whole book off a cliff. This is unfortunately very true! But you can at least educate people who don't know why they are wrong about why they are wrong. And in the process show them that they might not have as firm a grip on what the bible actually says, which is kind of the foundation that their argument comes from. "I know what the bible says" is often where this kind of thing starts (as shown in the story where they ask if OP has read the bible) so showing then that their foundation is broken can actually be pretty important. I left Christianity because my foundation of belief in it was shattered. >If this is a mistranslation and it's about pedos then why are BOTH put to death and the blame put on BOTH of them? Because the bible is a sack of shit. If you're looking for rules that make sense and are fair in the bible, you will have an extremely difficult time. >I am a lesbian myself and this mistranslation narrative is so much about privilege, it makes me feel bad. The entire Bible is about privilege, that's one of its biggest problems. It's incredibly, extremely, misogynistic. It's woefully male centered. It's shit. But showing people that the verse they hold so dear for their misogyny is actually about pedophilia is very important. It gives them less reason to be bigots, gives them less of a leg to stand on for their bullshit beliefs, and puts the focus even more on the horrors of the church that happen all the time that go unaddressed. Every little part that shows the people they are wrong helps, especially when it's based on the facts of the way the Bible was written. [Edit] I also forgot to mention that the verse can also be translated to mean a man raping another man, or doing something sequel to degrade him. Which honestly does not make it any better, it's still incredibly misogynistic (actually probably more so with this reading) the point being it seems this verse can mean a lot of things, and none of them cast a positive light on Christianity. The bible is still very much a terrible document, still has homophobia and pedophilia and all kinds of other problems with it. But in the case of leviticus they can't use it for what they are using it for unless they want to deny facts. And if they wanted to deny facts anyway then you know they aren't worth talking to. Or punching. Either one.


I hope it has the effect you think it will. Thankfully, I am not around Christians much. This still leaves a bad taste in my mouth though. It feel wrong to me but I do understand what you are trying to do.


Honestly I hope it does, but I also hope your views are brought up too and used effectively. I was reading through some of your other comments on this post and I can certainly see why you would have a different perspective on the matter. To be clear I don't think your perspective or comments are wrong, I just think they are ones I haven't considered. I'll have to add them to my thought process on the matter. I hope you can find additional arguments and perspectives to bring to the table! (as you have already done)


Thanks for listening. It has been something bothering me recently which is why I made some posts and comments about it. It's just I have so many other grivences about the Bible on its slavery and mysogynistic aspects that the mistranslation argument feels very othering. Like all these people care about is to be able to be gay and Christian at the same time and all is solved. It's not so for me as a lesbian, as a woman, as a person of colour. But I will also take your point in consideration. Maybe a middle ground is indeed the best strategy to reach people.


I'm a gay man and I feel it's the exact opposite. Most Christians aren't going to drop the book either way. We've been shouting at them to do so for centuries and yet there's still a billion or so followers. If we show them that it is in fact a mistranslation then at least they won't be holding us back as much.


The problem is that people have been claiming for my entire life that various clobber verses have been mistranslated, and they've been saying it for decades before that. It doesn't change anything. The reason we see some more LGBT+ welcoming congregations is a function of more of us being out, not a result of christianity becoming more accepting. They want our money, and more of us are unwilling to hide, everywhere, all the time, so... the folks who were quietly "tolerant" in decades past are a little more vocal about it. And, sure, that's even arguably a good thing for gay christians looking for a church that they can feel comfortable in. But that's all it *ever* does. It doesn't move the needle for christianity itself, and never has. We're seeing *more* christian fascism, not less. I was a teenager in the 80's, at the start of the HIV epidemic. In the last four decades, within my living memory, literally everything they're saying *now* they were saying then... and in many cases they're worse now. When I was 12 and 13, their big idea was to shunt us all off on an island somewhere, and they'd leave us to die. Now, we have hate preachers openly calling for us to be killed. And there are *more of them.* There were christians who justified slavery with the bible, and abolitionist christians who justified abolition with the bible, too. All this really says is that cherry picking has *always* been a thing, when it comes to which parts of the bible a given believer will choose to ignore. There were people who told me the same thing - the clobber verses do not "really" say what they say - as a teenager, when I first started coming out. What actual difference has any of it made? Have any of the christians who want to use the bible as an excuse for their homophobia - or anything else - changed their minds? Nope. Are they ever going to? I'm not holding my breath. Yes, a small minority of christians are more progressive, and there are a number of LGBT+ welcoming christian congregations of varying degrees of acceptability, which range from, "We don't think your relationships are a sin" to "We think they're totally sinful, but we're going to more-or-less ignore it when we think you're in earshot." Those more progressive christians never really do a thing about their brethren. They aren't going to. We still have all the same problems with homophobic christians that we've *ever* had, despite *decades* of this "mistranslation" narrative supposedly being a thing. It isn't working.


See, that's a valid view but only people who are already accepting of LGBTQ people agree on this mistranslation narrative. You won't convince any of those who think the Bible is the word of God that it's a mistranslation. They will feel you are attacking their good book. Me, I feel like this narrative only stops progressive Christians from dropping the book. Anyway, it's my view of it. For me, I personally don't agree with it. It's not something I can back. It comes from too much privilege to do so. As a person of colour, I can't go shouting that the slavery bits are mistranslations so to see people trying to twist the Bible into a good book, 'oh it's not homophobic!' just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.


Your perspective is also valid. All religions, especially abrahamic ones, are absolute garbage.


They are. That's why I don't really care of dressing the garbage as not garbage. It's just a disguise, another untruth albeit more palatable but overall, it slows down the progress we could be making.


The original is Hebrew, not Greek. In Hebrew (ancient and modern), “ish” means man, “isha” means woman, and “zachar” means male (the word for “female“ is “nekavah”). These are not Greek words. And the sentence reads “A man (“ish”) who lays a male (“zachar”) in the manner in which a woman (“isha”) is laid, they have both done an abomination (“toavah”), both shall die, their blood is upon them.” But I do find it interesting that “zachar” and the verb “lizkor” (to remember) are so similar. I’ve never noticed that. I’ll have to think about that one.


Dang it! You're right, I definitely meant Hebrew and wrote Greek 😆 I'll fix that. Yeah I've read a bit on it and it looks like the Big word of contention is "zachar". The rest seems pretty straight forward. From what I have found (or refreshed my memory on) it has a few different connotations based on how you are looking at it. Apparently it's not directly translated as something like "boy", but it is the term used in many other places to effectively mean "boy". Hence the idea that it might be referring to pedophilia. But also the direct translation of it is more like an action, not so much a noun, so its more directly translated to closer to "don't treat another man like a woman". Not really a better look on the religion. From what I could find the action of penetration (derived from the meaning of, or a secondary meaning of, zachar) is a degrading or shameful act to the person its being done on. Hence the idea that it might be referring to rape. This is all based on what I can find myself, so I'm no expert. If there is other information that says otherwise, eh probably believe that before me lol. Funnily enough, nowhere in the bible does it mention anything about lesbian actions. And if homosexuality were the actual topic that God didn't want then you would think he would describe all types of non-hetero actions, not just male to male. Considering the two possible uses from above and the distinct lack of uses here, I can't find any way to reach the conclusion of "god hates gays".


Yeah the omission of any comment on lesbianism is so strange. It’s as if they didn’t even know it existed, which I can believe, considering how little thought the culture gave to the lives of women. And this makes it hard for today’s Orthodox Jews, who have to tie themselves in knots to explain why it’s not OK, when everyone knows it’s not even hinted at in the Torah.


Ooh a lot of priests are going to be upset when they read this. Yeah okay that was dark, fuck religion it’s absolutely stupid.


>Ooh a lot of priests are going to be upset when they read this. Good 😁 Let them be upset.


Sin is fake, it’s all fake. Fake fake fake


I always say, “you can have that conversation, but you will be having it without me.” And keep walking.


So being gay is ok, as long as you’re not gay. Got it. More Christian nonsense.


No no they mean if you repress it, marry someone of the opposite gender lie to them and everyone else ensuring you have a meaningless joyless life full of secrets then Senior Goddington aka sky daddy is cool with you.


That is a perfect moment to tell them: *You just said that those two are the same. Why do you think that? Because it is inherently true, or because someone said so?* *Because to me, there is a clear difference: One hurts another person. The other does not. Nobody had to tell me that* *Which one of us has a better basis for their morality? Clear cause and effect or taking someone's word for it?* They don't know that they are merely being controlled by another person. There aren't many opportunities to make it clear in such simple terms


You weren't stopped. Someone shouted at you and YOU decided to stop and argue with them. That's the problem. Most Atheists think that if they don't engage and argue with these morons, they will somehow grow in power and take over. This is false. 👏EXTREMISM 👏SPREADS 👏VIA 👏ENGAGEMENT The more you engage with religious extremists, the more the fence sitters around you start to believe that their ideas are worthy of debate. By arguing with them, you put their batshit crazy ideas on a shelf next to yours in the shop window. Stop talking to religious people. Stop talking to bigoted conservatives. A fanatical idiot with an audience is a holocaust waiting to happen. A fanatical idiot on a streetcorner being ignored by everyone is just an idiot.


Absolutely. Life is too short.


Well Elder McKinley, I think it's okay That you're having gay thoughts Just so long as you never act upon them


> Being gay or having gay sex is not morally wrong or a “sin”. Indeed. In order for there to be ‘Divine Law’, they would need to first prove the divine. Which they seem to be completely incapable of doing to any degree. This is not our fault, this is the fault of theists who have such shitty evidence for their gods. As for the morality of it, being gay isn’t even remotely a moral issue. Alex O’Connor explains it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgHl2KcadEU


The logic: The book is right because it's written in the book. If you're looking for consistency, religion isn't the place for you.


F'n tag teamers. Why is it always two of them? It's an attack. They don't want to know about you. They want to preach at you. Their whole approach is sinful.


Always 2 there are.


What did Jesus say about corner preaching?


Whatever you want to imagine him saying it turns out!


"Whether I'm in a gay relationship or an adulterous one isn't any of your business." It doesn't matter - in the *slightest -* what christians consider a sin. We are not (yet) a theocracy, despite their best efforts at turning my country into one.


“Remember how god commanded all the cananites to be killed? That was justified killing. Similarly, your god commanded me to be gay and to act on it, so my homosexuality and my acting on it is endorsed by god. Are you saying that you know better than your god? Are you judging what your god has determined is right?” Or a simple response could be, “You heard me say I’m an atheist, right? Are you aware that means I don’t care what your god or your book have to say about anything being moral or immoral?”


"Your dad did both when I fucked him last night"


Long, long time ago I had a similar conversation with an evangelical. Told him they're his rules, not mine. He has to live with them, not me. Recently came across the brilliant "Not my circus, not my monkeys." Been dying to use that one ever since.


I'm so sick of people saying a non monogomos relationship is a sin. Ffs.


If I were asked, I think now-a-days I'd fire back with something like: "Me? What's my spiritual belief? I believe that Christianity is a hoax perpetuated by the Morningstar, the fallen angel who pretended to be Gabriel when he knocked Mary up. "Jesus managed to get you all to simply ignore all the biblical law in the old testament. And he got you to break the first commandment without even realizing it. Jesus put himself first, and fooled you all into accepting this trinity nonsense by commanding you to come to him first as the only way to get to god. Can't you see the contradiction? "You've read your holy book yes? All the stories about god make him look like murderous narcissistic idiot. He couldn't even create Adam and Eve right, or he planned for them to fail and blamed them for it instead of himself. Then he had to murder all of us with a flood, but spared a ship builder who cursed his grandchildren into slavery to his other grandchildren over a bit of gossip about him being drunk, passed out and naked. "It would take the prince of lies himself to craft a deception so compelling that despite all that, you still believe god is all-loving, moral and merciful. He created eternal punishment for a finite lifetime of sin! Is that merciful? The stories about 'god' make him look awful because Satan helped the authors write them, obviously, in his attempt to win souls for the final battle. And he's hooked yours completely."


Ask them if God is asking them to judge others. Has God abdicated his role?


Just stop and think for a moment, the universe doesn't give a shit if you (or anyone else) is hetero or homo, cheats on your lover, is irresponsible, a lyer, a cheat, an honest - upright citizen, or any other morals we humans have or don't have. Its all on each of us to choose our morals and act on them. The universe doesn't care. It just is.


Religious people are some of the absolute worst people.


>Was stopped on campus and told that “acting on being gay is a sin in the same way adultery is” Which is to say "it's NOT"...with the added note that nobody cares, nor should they.


It's really because their leaders decided to be homophobic and used a few lines from their old book to justify it while ignoring a bunch of other lines. It's all about politics and control. There's probably also a bit of self-hate involved, as many church leaders struggle with gay feelings


Well, seeing as adultery is sex for any purpose besides procreation - yeah, actually. It's the same sin. Homosexuality is just adultery. No like or as about it.


The reason for including adultery in the big ten no-nos has more to do with property inheritance than morality.


I think there's far too much over thinking this subject and nothing will be gained arguing scripture with the self righteous christian. Keep any reply short and simple like say.. FUCK OFF AND MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS then watch their heads explode. It'll make your day.


You are a friendlier person than I. These days, if I'm asked what my religious beliefs are, I respond with "That's none of your concern ", or some variation of that...


>he believes acting on being gay is a sin the same way adultery is. The bible has only one verse in which god condemns homosexuality, but around 40 in which its god condemns divorce and the adultery which follows because it preaches that the divorced must remain celibate and single. I wonder how many of his family and friends have divorced and are in a new sexual relationship? Is he campaigning to make such relationships illegal?


"Live and let live." Unless I don't agree with your lifestyle. Then I pass judgement on you and nothing will change my mind. FML...


I’m shocked that the one guy said he didn’t have any problem with gay people despite believing that being gay is a sin. That’s surprisingly Christ-like of him. From my experience, people actively trying to convert people feel that it’s their duty to judge you based on your sins in order to save you from your sins, which is pretty much the least Christ-like thing to do. I guess what I’m trying to say is I wouldn’t have a problem with Christians if they actually tried to emulate the behavior of the man they claim as their savior. Feed the hungry, heal the sick, love the sinner but hate the sin, judge not lest ye be judged? I can get behind that. I could be cool with that kind of Christian. Too bad none of them actually follow any of those teachings.


Before I left christianity I once had a thought or fleeting belief, that being gay was gods way of telling you to be a monk and taking a vow of celibacy. ​ The things the faithful will tell themselves to rationalize shit.


Even if they were trying to convert you, you know they wouldn't have.


You weren't stopped. You decided to stop. Don't get it twisted. Ignoring idiots is always an option 100% of the time.