(December 22, 2013 at 4:14 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: If someone called you a "non christian" on a christian site It WOULD be amiss... because its none of their business how you choose to define yourself.
..
As I said you are welcome to your view. I merely dispute your qualifications to tell me what I ought to call myself. I'm almost flattered that you take my self labeling so seriously!

I take your delusions no more seriously than I take Snowtrack's or Godschild's.

I just kind of take it as a hobby to try to get a straight answer out of "self proclaimed" christians, And getting a straight, well reasoned answer from you is just as difficult as it is to get one out of them.

You have not given a list of reasons why you self label as a christian despite your claims of not following the main christian tenets.

You evidently are afraid to self examine this portion of your on-line persona.

Fair enough, Your omission is as telling as any of your propositions. I won't drag this out any longer as it's proven to be quite the dry hole.

That might because because you never ASKED for a list of reasons why I self label as a Christian! Can I humbly suggest that you might be struggling for straight answers because you are failing to ask straight questions?

Is that all you wanted Btw?

(By the by, you never answered my question regarding what you think I should call myself.)

---

Ok. Reasons I define myself as a Christian.

1. I still enjoy Christian traditions and sometimes Christian worship.
2. I believe in some form of "higher power". Since I was raised in, and had a conversion experience within, the context of Christianity my concept of that is more Christian shaped than anything else.

3. I believe in and follow some of the bible.

4. I derive personal satisfaction and inner peace from some aspects of the Christian tradition.

5. I try to follow the bits of the bible cherry picked as being right.


Is that sufficient? It's a tricky one because "christian" means something different to different people. You seem to think that to define oneself as a Christian one must believe in supernatural healing. I don't. I don't know if that is one of the "main Christian tenants or not.

But in all seriousness, what else would be more appropriate. Deist is way too vague. Atheist is incorrect. Agnostic seems too far the other end of the Dawkins scale. I think Christian is the least inaccurate tag.

(December 23, 2013 at 4:24 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: 5. I try to follow the bits of the bible cherry picked as being right.

About that, what sounds a little weird to me is that earlier you told me that you would be quite comfortable even if the whole bible is nothing but a parable, and that you are indifferent to the factual accuracy of the Bible ... so then the question is ... why do you still bother to cherry pick to find out which bits of the book are (supposedly) right and which ones are wrong? Or what exactly compels you to accept certain verses as true and reject the others?

Or maybe I should ask you, do you cherry pick the bible more for the purpose of being right/consistent/accurate or just for your own personal satisfaction?

Jacob, you remind me of catfish...
The cherry-picker Christian who had to spend his entire lifetime on this forum explaining how he was a Christian! :p

I'm guessing he was before my time!

Thing is, that's just how I define myself! I'm really not fussed if anyone else has any different view!

---

(December 23, 2013 at 6:14 am)Rayaan Wrote:

(December 23, 2013 at 4:24 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: 5. I try to follow the bits of the bible cherry picked as being right.

About that, what sounds a little weird to me is that earlier you told me that you would be quite comfortable even if the whole bible is nothing but a parable, and that you are indifferent to the factual accuracy of the Bible ... so then the question is ... why do you still bother to cherry pick to find out which bits of the book are (supposedly) right and which ones are wrong? Or what exactly compels you to accept certain verses as true and reject the others?

Or maybe I should ask you, do you cherry pick the bible more for the purpose of being right/consistent/accurate or just for your own personal satisfaction?

Definitely the second thing. Although because obviously what satisfy s me is bound to be on a theme it will be more consistent as a byproduct.

Satisfy is the wrong word. Perhaps, edify?

(December 23, 2013 at 6:55 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Definitely the second thing. Although because obviously what satisfy s me is bound to be on a theme it will be more consistent as a byproduct.

Satisfy is the wrong word. Perhaps, edify?

So ... if you were a Bible author who lived at that time, would you purposely 'edify' the word of God to make it fit with your own confirmation bias?

(December 23, 2013 at 6:14 am)Rayaan Wrote:

(December 23, 2013 at 4:24 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: 5. I try to follow the bits of the bible cherry picked as being right.

About that, what sounds a little weird to me is that earlier you told me that you would be quite comfortable even if the whole bible is nothing but a parable, and that you are indifferent to the factual accuracy of the Bible ... so then the question is ... why do you still bother to cherry pick to find out which bits of the book are (supposedly) right and which ones are wrong? Or what exactly compels you to accept certain verses as true and reject the others?

Or maybe I should ask you, do you cherry pick the bible more for the purpose of being right/consistent/accurate or just for your own personal satisfaction?

Alhamdulellah, As-salamu alaykum, walaikum salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh, bisminlah al rahman al rahim, may Allah's peace and blessing be onto you.

In my understanding, yes he does cherry pick the Bible but that's mentioned in his religious orientation which says: Red Letter Christian. In some Bibles, the words of Jesus are marked in red so I assume that red letter christian means, someone who only follows what Jesus said in the Bible and nothing else.

Muslims cherry pick the Bible as well in fact. According to Muslims, some fragments of the Bible contains the word of God, but the Bible also contains absurdities, obscenities, pornography, so Muslims don't agree the Bible to be the word of God, as a whole, so they cherry pick inside it too! How can you not cherry pick things from such a Kamasutra pornography manual teaching people how to fist their wives and so on? Such a garbage book is bound to be cherry picked.

So basically, cherry picking the words of Jesus is not really cherry picking because Muslims agree to it, that it's correct. It's when you cherry pick among the red letters themselves that it becomes prohibited. You can't select phrases like "I and my father are one" and then reject phrases like "I by my own self can do nothing". So cherry picking among the words of Jesus is incorrect but the rest is acceptable because of the fabricated nature of the Bible.

(December 23, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(December 23, 2013 at 6:55 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Definitely the second thing. Although because obviously what satisfy s me is bound to be on a theme it will be more consistent as a byproduct.

Satisfy is the wrong word. Perhaps, edify?

So ... if you were a Bible author who lived at that time, would you purposely 'edify' the word of God to make it fit with your own confirmation bias?

Edify is what the bits of the bible choose to follow do for me, to instruct and guide me. Edification (or or not) is what a text does for a person not what a person does to a text. As such I don't understand your question.

I'm interested by Ksa 's question though.

(December 23, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(December 23, 2013 at 6:55 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Definitely the second thing. Although because obviously what satisfy s me is bound to be on a theme it will be more consistent as a byproduct.

Satisfy is the wrong word. Perhaps, edify?

So ... if you were a Bible author who lived at that time, would you purposely 'edify' the word of God to make it fit with your own confirmation bias?

Which is, of course, exactly what they did...except there was no god so it was just their own b.s. masquerading as such, Rayaan.

---

Meanwhile....looks like prayer failed again.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me...z2oRUsYfsu

Quote:An independent neurologist appointed by an Alameda County judge has affirmed that a 13-year-old Oakland girl is brain-dead after a tonsillectomy on Dec. 9, paving the way for her to be removed from life support.

The opinion by Paul Graham Fisher, a pediatric neuro-oncologist at Stanford School of Medicine, backs the assessments of two doctors at Children’s Hospital & Research Center Oakland after Jahi McMath had her tonsils removed, went into cardiac arrest and the flow of oxygen to her brain was cut off.

She was declared brain-dead after three tests showed there was no "cerebral activity," according to court records.

From what I've seen the last sentence qualifies her to be a baptist.

(December 24, 2013 at 8:36 pm)Minimalist Wrote: From what I've seen the last sentence qualifies her to be a baptist.

A southern baptist's requisites are both brain-dead and full of hate.

Just brain dead only classifies her as a theist.