People's perception has varying degrees of importance to me. And I'd though I would ask a question.

Whether you knew me from before or not:

Would you say that you know more about what I stand for or what I stand against? Could you cite some examples or approximately qualify that?

I'm looking generally for "I can list tons more things that you're against than you are for" or "I have no idea what you're for but in our dozen of conversations I know what we disagree on", etc. Or you can list specifics on what your perceptions of what you believe I stand for or against. Maybe this is a little like a public online image perception /roast me or something, idk. Feel free to chime in.

I know that you're a Christian who does a better job of representing Christianity as its followers would like it to be perceived as than some of the other theists around here do for their respective religions. It's a nice change of pace.

While I appreciate this, it's not a fishing expedition. I'm formulating a discussion for my class that has to do with Bike week. It's titled, what are you known for.
It has to do with being "known by your fruits" and relates to the question Do people know what you stand for? or do people know you for what you stand against? It has to do with the emotionalism that can drive Christian outreach and best practices. I was just wondering how my time spent here is perceived; whether I focus more of my time speaking for something or against it.

If you want a brutal answer....lol, I'd say that you spend more time speaking for the things you stand for.  Trouble being that you're probably not all that clear on exactly what it is and that emotionalism...since you mentioned it, causes you to drive all over it when someone else points it out.  

It's a tight knot, how can you engage in "christian outreach" without finding some way to rationalize the rejection of accurate criticism regarding your "perfect" god?

yes, the more brutal, the more honest usually, so it's absolutely fine. To answer your question, my concept of God definitely isn't perfect, but I usually have no problem directly answering criticism of the omni-God. I guess the problem lies in definitions "accurate criticism" or general emotionalism? This isn't the thread for that, I appreciate your response.

Was speaking more to the concept of god -as- perfect, not your concept being perfect.  FWIW, I don't think that it's a personal inadequacy.  Christian belief sets it's followers up to fail when they attempt to intellectualize it as a routine outcome of conditioning.  

I strongly doubt that it's  possible to simultaneously overcome that conditioning -and- satisfy the purpose of christian outreach.

(March 18, 2019 at 12:04 pm)tackattack Wrote: yes, the more brutal, the more honest usually, so it's absolutely fine. To answer your question, my concept of God definitely isn't perfect, but I usually have no problem directly answering criticism of the omni-God. I guess the problem lies in definitions "accurate criticism" or general emotionalism? This isn't the thread for that, I appreciate your response.

You want brutal, is it. Fine. Like other god-botherers, there is no end to the tortured, pretzel logic with which you will engage in order to shoehorn your deity of choice into everything.

The main difference between you and other god-botherers is that you conceal it better and are less offensive about it. But the simple fact is that you are no different than the spittle flecked loons we endure. 

You asked.

Posts asking me what I think of them give me a lip twitch.

What I think of your claims are what matters to me, not you personally. People on line are not people I know in person in my face to face life.

I don't know you personally. I did know my late mother personally. I love her and she was my biggest supporter. She was a Catholic, I am a former Catholic. While she was a great mother, if anyone wants to ask me if I think they need a god, the answer is no, I don't think you do.

I hate questions like this because far too often it ends up the person asking questions like this end up feeling hurt, when you are not making it about them personally but the claim itself.

If you claim to be a theist, and believe in a god, any god, I take the position that it is all in your head. I love my mother too, but as much as I love her, I still say she didn't need to believe to be the good person she was.

@Abaddon_ire and @Brian37 I promise to not take person offense. It isn't about me personally or the validity of my beliefs either. It's about your perception of how I communicate what I believe. Also, neither of you really answered the question. I'll take you opinions because I didn't make this a serious thread for a reason. Let me rephrase:

If you had to list things you think you know about me that I've expressed here, would there be more things I am for or more things I am against? It's a simple binary answer, but you can expound if you would like.

(March 18, 2019 at 11:46 am)tackattack Wrote: While I appreciate this, it's not a fishing expedition. I'm formulating a discussion for my class that has to do with Bike week. It's titled, what are you known for.
It has to do with  being "known by your fruits" and relates to the question Do people know what you stand for? or do people know you for what you stand against? It has to do with the emotionalism that can drive Christian outreach and best practices. I was just wondering how my time spent here is perceived; whether I focus more of my time speaking for something or against it.

This is something I've never really understood, "christian" outreach. Are you talking about active efforts to convert others? Or is it humanitarian efforts with an added dollop of christianity?

And what is/are "christian" best practices? Do they differ from any other human best practice or is this again referring to the best practices in the attempt at conversion?

People can be known by their actions with no religious incentive. 

I googled "christian outreach". Most (if not all sites) contained a smell of conversion.