Nope because most people are more likely to tell others how it is than to listen to the advice of others.
No No No No.

No No No No. — James Statter

Hee-haw! Hee-haw!

No its shenoo

i think homosexuality is a sin — James Statter

Sins, like crimes, generally have a victim. Right?

Who is the victim in a gay relationship?

I also take it that you would be against gay marriages.
Why are you putting sex above love and would prevent two loving people from forming a life long loving relationship?

Who are you and your ilk to prevent loving relationships?

Regards
DL

your right.

Gnostic Christian Bishop i'm guessing you are either 30 or older and there is little to no chance you'll ever be a normal christian — James Statter

Much older, but you are correct in that I will never have the poor morals that normal Christians have.
There is no way that I would go into intellectual and moral dissonance and idol worship a genocidal son murdering prick of a god not join a homophobic and misogynous religion.

I guess i'll do a search on gnosticism and discover its like some new age religion. — James Statter

More like the new age religions have seen the wisdom in our ideology and are moving towards it.

You say new age as if that were a bad thing.
I see it as good as they do not look for a genocidal prick of a god like your god to emulate.

Regards
DL

blah blah blah

your right. — James Statter

I do not know what you are referring to.

Regards
DL

blah blah blah — James Statter

Thanks for showing you are under the age of maturity.

Regards
DL

Or perhaps you read it wrong. Show me where I’ve described belief in a ‘literal and historical Jesus’, because I don’t see it.

if you read all of 1 Timothy chapter 2 that is in regards to inside the Church and women can teach other women in the church as well as children. I don't have a problem with that verse when you read the whole book of 1st Timothy. Nice picture that you put along with that verse. (sarcasm) — James Statter

If you read all of Timothy and understand it in context, you would recognise that the letters were written not as public letters to a congregation, but as private letters from one human leader of the church to another, a younger mentee. Most of what is written in them is an expression of personal preference or personal interpretation of scripture to support the way the author thinks a church community could be organised within the particular culture and historical period. They address issues of governance and political structure, and suggest rules and regulations to solve specific problems occurring in these communities. What is interpreted today as misogyny and oppression was an attempt by its leaders to bring order and control to communities where women (particularly widows) initially had more autonomy than they would have enjoyed in either Jewish or Greek society, causing fear and complaints by others within the community who were unaccustomed to, and likely threatened by, this behaviour.

That these letters were selected in the canon reflect the fears and motivations of leaders in the early Catholic Church. Whatever ‘truth’ they reveal is more about human thought and behaviour than about ‘God’, in my opinion. They’re not a guide to behaviour, but rather show how quickly fear can distort the way we interact. There is little in these two letters that reflect the teachings of Jesus.

Or perhaps you read it wrong. Show me where I’ve described belief in a ‘literal and historical Jesus’, because I don’t see it. — Possibility

From your post above.
" I would say I believe in the literary Jesus,"

I questioned you on it but you did not reply.

Regards
DL

There is little in these two letters that reflect the teachings of Jesus. — Possibility

I agree.

Regards
DL

A problem I see throughout this discussion and in the original post is that people are going to say whatever they feel like saying about a given religion, and as a result, there are as many impressions of a given religion as there are followers of that religion. Saying that a religion isn't a religion doesn't make it so. I think that denying religiosity helps fulfill a selfish desire to conform an omnipotent being to an individual's whims. It also gives freedom for groups or individuals to cherry pick beliefs and values from antiquated texts much of the content of which is antisocial and doesn't at all conform to modern living.

From your post above.
" I would say I believe in the literary Jesus,"

I questioned you on it but you did not reply. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Are you confusing ‘literal’ with ‘literary’?

Saying that a religion isn't a religion doesn't make it so. I think that denying religiosity helps fulfill a selfish desire to conform an omnipotent being to an individual's whims. It also gives freedom for groups or individuals to cherry pick beliefs and values from antiquated texts much of the content of which is antisocial and doesn't at all conform to modern living. — whollyrolling

Your first statement still assumes that the ‘Christianity’ to which this particular pastor is referring must be a ‘religion’, and therefore fulfill all the expectations you have as to what a ‘religion’ is. He said that ‘Christianity’ was not a religion, not that ‘a religion’ was not a religion.

You then assume that an omnipotent being exists whose properties are not up for debate. You also seem to be suggesting that there is only one way to interpret any text for all time, so if one disagrees with this literal interpretation, then they must reject the text outright.

The word "Christianity" is a name for a religion--if you're too stupid to understand this, then there's no point talking to you. I made no assumption that any omnipotent being exists. I said people want one that conforms to their whims. Nothing was assumed or implied.

doesn't at all conform to modern living. — whollyrolling

Indeed. Like the religions that use inquisitions and jihads and are presently homophobic and misogynous like Christianity and Islam.

Regards
DL

Are you confusing ‘literal’ with ‘literary’? — Possibility

Is that the word you used? No. So no.

Thanks for showing your lack of couth.

Regards
DL

Not all christian denominations have used inquisitions. The new testament says that there would be "bad" people that will creep into the congregations of the church. I believe there are decent christians just as there are decent Gnostics.

Why did you group me into that comment? It has nothing to do with me.

i clicked the wrong button i'm sorry. I haven't fully figured out the way this website is set up yet.

It's alright, just people tend to highlight others' names and then misquote them badly, so I wanted to ensure I wasn't being affiliated with Gnostic here's commentary when he takes seven words out of context and attempts to apply his own context to them.

ok. Yeah thats not the first time i hit the wrong button.

I never said I believe in a ‘literal Jesus’ - I’m not even convinced he existed as an ‘historical’ character. I would say I believe in the literary Jesus... — Possibility

I only asked you to re-read what I wrote. If anyone is being uncouth...

I’m not convinced Jesus, Socrates, Buddha or Robin Hood were actual, historical people. They might have been, but I don’t think there is conclusive evidence either way. I understand Jesus to be a literary character written about in the 1st century AD - anything more than that is speculation. That doesn’t mean that what that character was reported to have said has no merit.

Perhaps you and I may have more beliefs in common than you realise, but I’m not going to continue this conversation if you insist on being rude. I do wonder, however, what the word ‘Christian’ in Gnostic Christian Bishop means to you...

I believe there are decent christians just as there are decent Gnostics. — christian2017

Decent people to not contribute or belong to a homophobic and misogynous church. The decent people will find a moral church.

What compels you to stay in an immoral religion?

Regards.
DL

I would say I believe in the literary Jesus... — Possibility

We can chat more when you recognize what you said in what I quoted, while denying that you wrote that you believe in a literal Jesus. If you do not have the couth to recant, on a spelling or grammar error, we have nothing to say to each other.

Regards
DL

"Decent people to not contribute or belong to a homophobic and misogynous church. The decent people will find a moral church.

What compels you to stay in an immoral religion?"

I don't think its immoral. There are alot of christian charities and organizations that help people. Whether Christianity is the best religion is whole other topic which i'm not going to get into right now. I don't believe i'm equiped to answer whether Christianity is the best religion because i could be wrong among other things.

I would say I believe in the literary Jesus...
— Possibility

We can chat more when you recognize what you said in what I quoted, while denying that you wrote that you believe in a literal Jesus. If you do not have the couth to recant, on a spelling or grammar error, we have nothing to say to each other. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I give up.

I don't think its immoral. There are alot of christian charities and organizations that help people. — christian2017

So you are willing to ignore all the inquisitions and ongoing discrimination caused by their misogyny and homophobias for a few self-serving charities. Ok.

Regards
DL