No, I'm just paying attention to what you say and analyzing the motivation behind why you say it. When people do this properly is can sometimes sound like mind reading, bit it is not. Here is an example:
I said: Show me where I said Christians don't need to obey Jesus?
You said: You did not use those exact words, but you did say:...
The key is that I did not use those exact words as you admitted. Then you put words into my mouth. Here is what you quoted me saying:
This is just your interpretation of what a christian is. Every christian has their own definition of what constitutes a Christian based on the bible.
and
Do you think you have to follow all Jesus teachings to be a Christian?
Then you say:
The obvious implication of the second comment is that one does not need to obey Jesus to be a Christian. The implication of the first comment is that the individual can make up whatever criteria they want regarding what it means to be a Christian. Putting those two thoughts together presents a picture that you can be a Christian simply by claiming to be Christian without any need to do what Jesus said it means to be a Christian. Interestingly enough, although you are Atheist, this is essentially the same argument that most of the church world uses, too and is consistent with the factual evidence of Jesus, even in his own day, complaining that people claimed to be his follower but would not obey him.
No mind reading necessary.
This is exactly what you did though. It is no wonder that you are a believer because you read into the text what is not there. No where in those two comments did I say you don't have to follow the teachings of Jesus to be a christian. One is a question to you and not a statement. My point which I said at this time was to point out that I tried to follow the teachings but I was not perfect.
This is more evidence that you did not think it was important to obey Jesus even way back when you claimed to be Christian. The reasoning is that if you can't be 100% obedient then there's no point in even trying to be %30 or %70 obedient. You would not apply this logic in other areas of life like the rules on this forum, where you say that there's not even any point in trying to obey the rules here if you can't obey them perfectly, or in society where you say there's no point in expecting anyone to obey any of the laws of the land since they won't obey them perfectly.
No mind reading necessary.
I asked you a question and you dishonestly claim I don't think it is important to follow the teachings of Jesus. I never said this and don't believe it. I want to know what you think about obedience yet you refuse to answer that question.
Must you be 100% obedient or what?
Christianity is already defined by Jesus. If you're not interested in his definition then you can make up whatever you want which is consistent with your argument that the failure of Christianity in your life is what convinced you that there is no God, but if you did not apply the standards Jesus told his followers to apply, you cannot say that Christianity failed you.
Again, instead of answering the question you go to unfounded accusations. I never said it was the failure of Christianity that lead me to a disbelief in a god. That is you again reading into my statements and that is not what happened but how would you know, you never asked me.
What you can say is that you're not interested in what Christianity has to offer. That would be the more honest approach. No mind reading necessary to see that.
Yet this was not my thoughts when I was a Christian.
You're misrepresenting the scenario. I did not say people will not fail along the way. If fact, I already addressed this by saying, "or at least try to obey". You even commented on it by retorting, "Now you say "try to". What does that mean?"
Yes and you still have not answered that question either.
Remember that? Obviously, if a mechanic fails to fix the problem, he's still a mechanic for at least trying. My point was that you are suggesting one does not even need to try to repair cars and could still claim to be a mechanic. No mind reading is necessary to see that your willingness to deliberately misrepresent this point indicates you're not being honest with me or yourself about this.
I was never dishonest in my answer. I responded to your analogy and instead of you responding to that you accuse me of being dishonest. You don't seem to have the ability to have a real conversation without accusing others of dishonesty. My response was honest.
If you want the analogies to be comparable in this context you'd need to say there is a chief mechanic who's defined what the standards are for what it means to be a mechanic. In that context, you could point to all those professing mechanics who either do not even try to fix cars, or try to fix cars in a way contrary to what the chief said and rightly say they are not real mechanics.
The fact that there are so many people making various claims is precisely why it is so important to look carefully at what the boss said and yet when I ask you to do that, you suggest such a thing isn't important because doing so is just my opinion. That is irrational and strongly indicates your argument is based more on an emotional reaction rather than a genuine willingness to look at the facts.
That is hard to do when the boss mechanic says contradictory and vague things that other mechanics interpret differently and the boss mechanic never corrects.
What's bad about it? Do you feel this way about other books which have recorded history in them? Do you just not like reading or do you think reading in general is a bad way to communicate information? Do you make this argument about children in schools reading books? Nah, I don't think so, because that would be a foolish argument to make, and yet, for some reason you've singled the Bible out as having some kind of special problem in this area. Why?
No other history books are claiming supernatural things. That is why.
No, I did not misunderstand you. I understand exactly what you're saying. All you want is evidence; you just don't want historical documentation because you think such evidence is bad for some reason.
And this is your major flaw. "for some reason" instead of asking me my reasons you say I just don't want historical documentation completely disregarding any reasonable objections that I may have.
So, what other evidence are you expecting? The collection of testimonies and historical documents we commonly refer to as the Bible isn't good enough, the teachings of Jesus are just an opinion which you seem to think is optional for Christians, and you're not expecting some kind of mind-blowing experience like a miracle, so what evidence would be enough for you?
You are again misrepresenting my words. I never said Jesus words were optional, you said I said that. I said they can and have been interpreted differently.
I don't know what evidence would convince me. No one knows what evidence would convince them of anything. How could they? What evidence would convince you that Zeus exists? Your god should know what would convince me right?
I think the truth is that you really were referring to some kind of spectacle, much like the people in Jesus' day demanding "signs" to prove himself to them. But, Jesus knew better. The people who experienced his miracles one day were the same people calling for him to be crucified the next day.
Again instead of asking me you go to "I think" then go on to say something I never said or believe.
If you're not prepared to act on Jesus' teachings, to apply the standards of his kingdom to your life (or at least actively try to) then believing in his existence would be pointless and since you've already essentially said you're not interested in practicing his teachings,
I never said I was not interested in practicing his teachings. I did for 18 years the best I could. Now you can either believe me or not but stop telling me what I think. That is your MO and it is dishonest.
all this hoopla from you is just so much game-playing, probably because you're still carrying around some resentment from your churchy days.
To boil down my experience and unbelief to a resentment from my past is dishonest, arrogant and idiotic. You have never really asked me why I became unconvinced, you have told me why I was never a Christian though based on assumed motives and illogic.
You have repeatedly misrepresented my beliefs, not cared to get clarification from me and assumed my motives without evidence. That is why you believe in a god that has not been demonstrated to exist, you have no idea how to evaluate evidence without reading into it your beliefs.
