Bishop Mark Hanson says it's ok to be gay

• Ailyene wrote on 2010-11-03 18:11

  Quote from Whyrainfalls;202853:

  Even atheists are religious.

  
  
  ??? I don't see how not agreeing with other religions means I'm (an atheist) religious. I don't follow a set of rules or believe in anything that's already laid out for me. Unless you're talking about those extreme atheists maybe...?
  
  Also, the Bible is full of contradictions so people can argue all day but in the end, no one will know if "God" condemns homosexuals or not because 1) don't even know if he exists and if he does, he hasn't shown us himself yet...wait why is God a guy... 2) there are ten gajillion variations of the Bible and it's hard to say which one is right or wrong.
• Ruquion wrote on 2010-11-03 18:20

  Quote from Omegatronic;203039:

  Except, he didn't just do that, nor did he use those words. And it wasn't until after he intervened, that there were no accusers.

  That was the result, but that was not his purpose.
  
  

  Quote from Zid;203048:

  That quote from Matthew can be taken in the light of the Golden Rule. Which is to treat others the way you want to be treated. Here, is it not feasible in judging homosexuals the same way this bishop did? He is, as much as anybody under that quote from Matthew, allowed to say his standards. It seems odd to use the standard to judge him the same way he judged others
  
  Second, judging and actually acting on that judgment are two entirely different things. No doubt it's impossible to not judge, but it's possible to not act on that judgment. For example, the quote imply Christians will judge homosexuals. "For you will be treated as you treat others" mean that how they act on their judgment will reflect back on them. Standard is the belief behind that judgment. Nowhere does it say you have to treat others in a certain way because of your judging from your standards. The quote doesn't allow Christians to unquestionably act on their judgment of other people
  

  Yes, he is allowed to state his standards.
  Yes, people shouldn't be acting on what the Bible says and killing homosexuals.
  However, as a spiritual head of the Christian church, he should not be condoning things which go against his God's teachings.
• Phunkie wrote on 2010-11-04 01:09

  Quote from Ruquion;203077:

  That was the result, but that was not his purpose.
  
  Yes, he is allowed to state his standards.
  Yes, people shouldn't be acting on what the Bible says and killing homosexuals.
  However, as a spiritual head of the Christian church, he should not be condoning things which go against his God's teachings.

  
  
  Then God shouldn't create individuals who can't change a fundamental part of themselves even they wanted to.
  
  Or we can just throw the Bible out of the window and realize that it's just a book and that people are bound to have different interpretations of it, just like people have different beliefs about God and we can't force our own beliefs on everyone.
  
  I'm pretty sure that God is, by far, the most logical being in the Universe (if he is real). Why the heck does he care about who you sleep with?
  
  He doesn't.
• Moppy wrote on 2010-11-04 01:12
  I'm sorry to say Mr. Bishop Man but... No ****.
  
  The church teaches people to treat a group of God's people differently. That's why I hate religion (no offense, kids). They teach merits of equality, charity and love yet they tell people to stop people from being who they really are.
  
  :\
• Omegatronic wrote on 2010-11-04 02:36

  Quote from Ailyene;203065:

  ??? I don't see how not agreeing with other religions means I'm (an atheist) religious. I don't follow a set of rules or believe in anything that's already laid out for me. Unless you're talking about those extreme atheists maybe...?

  
  
  I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'm pretty sure I understand where the idea comes from. It's all about word confusion.
  
  If we break down the word atheism we find:
  
  a- means not (or without)
  Theos means God.
  Ism mean a belief in.
  
  There are two ways to interpret the construction of the word, a- theosism and atheos- ism. One means "not belief in God", the other means "belief in not god". You will find both definitions in an english dictionary.
  
  The first, "not belief in God", is what is known as weak atheism, a statement of disbelief in God.
  
  The second, "Belief in not god", is what is known as strong atheism, a positive statement of a belief that God does not exist.
  
  Atheists look at the evidence for God's existence and find it unable to support a belief that God exists. (weak atheism)
  
  However there are some who take this lack of evidence and state "God does not exist." But, they are committing a logical fallacy because an absence of evidence does not show evidence of absence (second form of an argument from ignorance). Thus to get from "unable to support a belief that god exists" to "God does not exist" requires a suspension of logic. AKA faith. You often find these faith based atheists trying to convert the ignorant masses of theists, forming strong atheist organizations, and generally acting like a religion.
  
  
  

  Quote from Ailyene;203065:

  wait why is God a guy...

  
  
  In ancient days of Yore, he was used as a gender neutral pronoun when referring to a person whose gender was unknown. (It's a case of gender bias really, as it was intended not to offend the person to whom it referred.)
• Zid wrote on 2010-11-04 02:48

  Quote from Ruquion;203077:

  Yes, he is allowed to state his standards.
  Yes, people shouldn't be acting on what the Bible says and killing homosexuals.
  However, as a spiritual head of the Christian church, he should not be condoning things which go against his God's teachings.

  
  
  What's to say that he's actually going with what he believes in the teachings? You said it yourself, he is allowed to state his standards. While it adheres to a structure, it's still personal and it doesn't necessarily have to follow everything.
  
  His views are different. Else, he wouldn't have made this video. I wouldn't think he believes he's condoning a teaching that he was following if he wasn't following it to begin with.
• Ailyene wrote on 2010-11-04 05:48

  Quote from Omegatronic;203516:

  I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'm pretty sure I understand where the idea comes from. It's all about word confusion.
  
  If we break down the word atheism we find:
  
  a- means not (or without)
  Theos means God.
  Ism mean a belief in.
  
  There are two ways to interpret the construction of the word, a- theosism and atheos- ism. One means "not belief in God", the other means "belief in not god". You will find both definitions in an english dictionary.
  
  The first, "not belief in God", is what is known as weak atheism, a statement of disbelief in God.
  
  The second, "Belief in not god", is what is known as strong atheism, a positive statement of a belief that God does not exist.
  
  Atheists look at the evidence for God's existence and find it unable to support a belief that God exists. (weak atheism)
  
  However there are some who take this lack of evidence and state "God does not exist." But, they are committing a logical fallacy because an absence of evidence does not show evidence of absence (second form of an argument from ignorance). Thus to get from "unable to support a belief that god exists" to "God does not exist" requires a suspension of logic. AKA faith. You often find these faith based atheists trying to convert the ignorant masses of theists, forming strong atheist organizations, and generally acting like a religion.
  
  
  
  
  In ancient days of Yore, he was used as a gender neutral pronoun when referring to a person whose gender was unknown. (It's a case of gender bias really, as it was intended not to offend the person to whom it referred.)

  
  
  Oh, I see. Hm, well I think I'm one of those "weak atheists", so yeah, still not religious. But thanks for clearing it all up.
• Juno wrote on 2010-11-08 01:24

  Quote from Moppy;203401:

  I'm sorry to say Mr. Bishop Man but... No ****.
  
  The church teaches people to treat a group of God's people differently. That's why I hate religion (no offense, kids). They teach merits of equality, charity and love yet they tell people to stop people from being who they really are.
  
  :\

  
  
  The church, unfortunately, is not synonymous with religion. We're not supposed to treat people any differently. Everyone is a sinner, what form that sin takes is unimportant. The whole point is that we have the opportunity to be forgiven of that sin should we be willing to give it up (repenting), hence the whole salvation business.
  
  

  Quote from Omegatronic;202846:

  Sometimes we have to ask ourselves, what would Jesus do? (Cliche I know, but true none the less.)
  In John 8:1-11 we have Jesus faced with a similar dilemma-- he is presented with a woman who had committed an offense punishable by death. Yet, the woman from the encounter survives. How could this happen?

  
  
  The new testament brought the new covenant. In this regime, if you will, we can obtain forgiveness. Contrast this to the old testament where things were much more harsh. Unfortunately, people seem to prefer ignore the whole new covenant deal and complain about the old testament...
  
  
  The first mention of the new covenant is as follows:
  

  Quote from Jeremiah 31:31-34 (NIV):

  31 “The days are coming,” declares the LORD,
  “when I will make a new covenant
  with the people of Israel
  and with the people of Judah.
  32 It will not be like the covenant
  I made with their ancestors
  when I took them by the hand
  to lead them out of Egypt,
  because they broke my covenant,
  though I was a husband to[a] them,”
  declares the LORD.
  33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
  after that time,” declares the LORD.
  “I will put my law in their minds
  and write it on their hearts.
  I will be their God,
  and they will be my people.
  34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
  or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,’
  because they will all know me,
  from the least of them to the greatest,”
  declares the LORD.
  “For I will forgive their wickedness
  and will remember their sins no more.”

  
  
  For quick reference, here's a list of some of the changes:
  

  Quote from Wikipedia ftw:

  * The New Covenant is established by God himself.
  * The New Covenant is made with the "house of Israel" and the "house of Judah".
  * The New Covenant is not like the broken covenant made with Moses at Mount Sinai.
  o Unlike the broken covenant (Jer 11), the New Covenant is kept by its members.
  * Characteristics of the members of the New Covenant:
  o The law of God is written in their thinking and their affections.
  o The LORD, i.e. YHVH, will be their God, and they will be his people.
  o Every single member of the New Covenant "knows the LORD" in an intimate way.
  o [B]The sins of the members of the New Covenant are forgiven by God, and will never be recalled.
  

  
  
  The bolded is the main and most applicable difference from the old testament.