How can a Christian reject part of the Bible and still call themselves a Christian?

[Esquilax]

Listen: Are you going to provide a shred of evidence, real, empirical evidence, or at the very least some rational argument, or are you just going to keep telling us about how great Harvey is?

Listen, you fool! He's already told you! There can't be any evidence for god, and so somehow that means he's rationally justified in believing in him anyway!



Ugh, this is the horrible three card monte act that christians like Sword want to pull; they'll accept evidence as necessary for any other belief, thus allowing them to disregard any real world thing they want for (whether it's true or not) not having evidence for it, but when asked for evidence of their god, they'll just shake their heads condescendingly, for you see, science can never provide evidence for their god! And this is where they pocket the money card, because they never bother to explain quite why this is, just making handwaving reference to metaphysics or being "beyond space and time," before quickly moving on. And now that they've got two unjustified premises in the air they'll move in for the unjustified conclusion: it's all okay, because if you can't have evidence for god, then there's somehow no requirement for god to have evidence. You can justify it with rationality, literally convince yourself that he exists, and then he does.