Change My Mind

Agreed. All these new genders are just a big game of pretend for millennials.

False argument. No one says that they identify as Christian.

They do usually it's more of a social or familial affiliation rather than a deeply held belief.
For instance, a true believer will say "I am a Christian" because there is no doubt in their mind.
I, personally "identify as a Christian" because that's how I was raised, but I don't firmly hold that belief.
So under this arguement "I identify as" as opposed to "I am" is a qualifier that indicates that it is not entirely true.

If you were raised Christian but not hold those religious beliefs, the term is "non-practicing Christian". Other terms are "non-observant", "secular" and so on, but "I identify as" has never been a term that was used until recently, and now that it is used, it is only with a connotation of 'nothing or little else suggests that I am something, but I'm telling you that I am so you better accept it.'

I am a Christian, therefore, I identify as a Christian. Well now you know one.

Purposely using bad grammar doesn't prove anything.

Evidence for a negative?

When one becomes a christian, the Holy Spirit actually takes up residence inside of them and they become a new creation. Yes, they identify as a christian because that is what they are.

You will know them by their fruits. I am sorry if any christians have mistreated you.

Responding to your comment below: no the Bible doesn't say Christians are the only ones that have those qualities.

Nobody is claiming they are unique to Christians.

Well those qualities are evidence that they are saved but not a guarantee. Take for example someone wearing expensive clothing, it's evidence that they own a lot of money but doesn't guarantee it.

"The fact that it says these are the fruits of the Holy Spirit, yet they aren't unique to Christians, which makes them useless as unique identifiers."

Are you under the impression that, to be a Christian, you must be able to identify other Christians?

I ask because of your other statement:

"Imagine if someone said "I'll give you ten million dollars, just hop on the freeway and follow the guy in the car and he'll lead you to where the money is." Well that's completely useless, because most people on the freeway will be in a car. You would need something a lot more specific than that."

"I would say to some extent, yes. If being a Christian carries with it certain identifiable qualities (such as the fruit of the spirit), then Christians (if not everybody) should be able to recognize who is truly a Christian and who isn't."

Where do you get the impression that being a Christian requires being able to definitely identify other Christians?

I could speculate but I don't know God's reasoning behind providing evidence but not definitive proof. What does this matter to either the message of salvation or the debate about someone being a Christian?

Ok, I'm not being a smart ass when I'm asking this, I'm truly asking so I understand better. What specific part of that passage is causing the issue?

People don't identify as Christian, they say that they are Christian. It isn't an identification, it is a definition. The term "I identify as" (vs "I am") is a deceptive term, which, as the meme suggests, is used to indicate what one is pretending to be.

If you think I'm wrong, don't forget that I identify as right, and if you believe your own philosophy, you should not be questioning that. ; )

I don’t ever see anyone actually say they “identify” as anything. They say “I am male” or “I am female” it seems to be someone ELSE saying that about them. “Steven identifies as a female” etc.

So when someone says they ARE Christian, someone ELSE can just as easily say that person “identifies as a Christian.”

Saying "I am" and saying "I identify as" are two separate things.

Essentially
Basically
It's not the same if you have to use qualifiers

For all practical purposes? It doesn't even matter. Women can do anything men can do, and vice versa. I could go my whole life not knowing the gender (actual or identity) of those around me and it would not matter. The only time it matters is when you go to the doctor (in which case biological matters) or in romantic relationships (in which case it's complicated and depends on the tastes and preferences of those involved).

Seems legit. Most would say "I am".

That would be true of most Christians, however, the point being made is simply that one's choice to identify as something is a psychological concept, which has no bearing on their physical traits. If we claim to be something empirically opposed to what we are, then we're pretending.

i identify as male

If you are a biological male then you don't identify as male, you are a male. If you are a biological female, then you are pretending.

are you pretending if you genuinely believe that you are female?

If your not a biological female than yes, because you are not female no matter how much you believe it to be so.

so you're pretending to be female if you have an extra bit of flesh attached to you? tell me, are you one of those black-white thinkers who believe that the words "basic" and "biology" belong together?

You are pretending to be female if all your cells have XY chromosomes.

what about in that one hentai where the dude gets mind-swapped into his step-sister's body. technically she had the mind of a man, but was female (the stepsister's mind doesnt go into his body by he way, in case you were wondering).

Hentai? Really dude.

problem? ive defeated you with my flawless logic

Yeah, ok. You keep telling yourself that. Hentai is logical, right.

bruh

Actually, he says he is a stable genius not that he identifies as one. Still doesn't make it true. What makes it true is the results he has achieved, and even then I don't know about the genius part.