You seem to be one of those christian mind readers huh.
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:
Show me where I said Christians don't need to obey Jesus?
You did not use those exact words, but you did say:
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.
Do you think you have to follow all Jesus teachings to be a Christian?
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.
Ok, How much must a person obey to be a christian? All, 70%, 30% what?
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.
Will you define what a christian is by how much they must obey Jesus teachings?
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.
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.
What if a mechanic fails to fix a car? Is he still a mechanic? The answer is yes.
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?"
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.
And then there are not tens of thousands of different mechanics saying their version of what a mechanic is is the "true" one as Christianity has.
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.
And no I was making a point about the bible as a bad communication method which you ignored,
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?
You did not try to understand what I said because that is not what I said at all. All I wanted was evidence not a mind blowing experience.
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. 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?
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.
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, all this hoopla from you is just so much game-playing, probably because you're still carrying around some resentment from your churchy days.