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

[Lek]

So, by your definition, in order to be a christian one must believe that everything in the bible is true in a wooden literal sense?

How do you go about telling the difference between the stuff that should be take literally, and the stuff that should not?

For every thing in the Bible that you think should not be taken as literal truth, there are individual Christians and entire sects of Christians that believe it should be taken as literal. And you have nothing more to support your opinion than they have. You are both pointing at the same texts. How things god meant to be taken literally, as something else (metaphor, parable, etc)? And vis versa?

The bible was written to lead us to Christ. The theme of the old testament is about people, who had lost their perfect relationship with God, and their role in bringing forth the messiah. The new testament is about the life, death and resurrection of that messiah - the culmination of the events in the old testament. We are to believe in and follow that messiah who is Jesus Christ. I don't assume that historical and scientific statements in the bible are exact, nor do I think they were meant to be. The truth of scripture isn't in fact-checking every detail for scientific and historical accuracy, but rather in receiving the truth that the writings are meant to convey. I don't believe in Jesus and possess him because I read the bible and verified it as 100% factual in every way. I believe because I was led to seek him and in doing so I found him. The bible was highly instrumental in this process, as it was intended to be.

I serve Jesus Christ, as is God's intention as laid out in scripture, and I receive my morality from him. This is the message of the bible. God's Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, lives in me and that is where I receive my guidance from. When I read scripture, the Spirit is there with me assuring that I receive from it what I should. If someone else has different views of the interpretation of scripture and still follow Jesus Christ, then I that's okay. They have still received the message of the bible.

Galatians 5:16-18New Living Translation (NLT)

Living by the Spirit’s Power
16 So I say, let the Holy Spirit guide your lives. Then you won’t be doing what your sinful nature craves. 17 The sinful nature wants to do evil, which is just the opposite of what the Spirit wants. And the Spirit gives us desires that are the opposite of what the sinful nature desires. These two forces are constantly fighting each other, so you are not free to carry out your good intentions. 18 But when you are directed by the Spirit, you are not under obligation to the law of Moses.

[The Grand Nudger]

-There we have it.  The bible isn't authoritative in and of itself.  For authority, you need ghosts. It doesn;t matter what's -in- the bible, or how many different things the ghost says to different people, so long as they all agree that the ghosts name is jesus.

Answers the OP Q rather nicely, I think.

[Arkilogue]

-There we have it.  The bible isn't authoritative in and of itself.  For authority, you need ghosts.  It doesn;t matter what's -in- the bible, or how many different things the ghost says to different people, so long as they all agree that the ghosts name is jesus.  

Answers the OP Q rather nicely, I think.

But it wasn't, the letter "J" wasn't invented until 1600.

[The Grand Nudger]

Prince didn't go by his real name either. 

For all we know, gods name is Herschel and he's just embarrassed by that fact.

[Simon Moon]

How do you go about telling the difference between the stuff that should be take literally, and the stuff that should not?

For every thing in the Bible that you think should not be taken as literal truth, there are individual Christians and entire sects of Christians that believe it should be taken as literal. And you have nothing more to support your opinion than they have. You are both pointing at the same texts. How things god meant to be taken literally, as something else (metaphor, parable, etc)? And vis versa?

The bible was written to lead us to Christ.  The theme of the old testament is about people, who had lost their perfect relationship with God, and their role in bringing forth the messiah.  The new testament is about the life, death and resurrection of that messiah - the culmination of the events in the old testament.  We are to believe in and follow that messiah who is Jesus Christ.  I don't assume that historical and scientific statements in the bible are exact, nor do I think they were meant to be.  The truth of scripture isn't in fact-checking every detail for scientific and historical accuracy, but rather in receiving the truth that the writings are meant to convey.  I don't believe in Jesus and possess him because I read the bible and verified it as 100% factual in every way.  I believe because I was led to seek him and in doing so I found him.  The bible was highly instrumental in this process, as it was intended to be.

I serve Jesus Christ, as is God's intention as laid out in scripture, and I receive my morality from him.  This is the message of the bible.  God's Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, lives in me and that is where I receive my guidance from.  When I read scripture, the Spirit is there with me assuring that I receive from it what I should.  If someone else has different views of the interpretation of scripture and still follow Jesus Christ, then I that's okay.  They have still received the message of the bible.

Galatians 5:16-18New Living Translation (NLT)

Living by the Spirit’s Power
16 So I say, let the Holy Spirit guide your lives. Then you won’t be doing what your sinful nature craves. 17 The sinful nature wants to do evil, which is just the opposite of what the Spirit wants. And the Spirit gives us desires that are the opposite of what the sinful nature desires. These two forces are constantly fighting each other, so you are not free to carry out your good intentions. 18 But when you are directed by the Spirit, you are not under obligation to the law of Moses.

But all that is yet another failure of your god.

Remember, I am completely outside your belief structure. I am unable to believe any of what you believe without being convinced. And all I am able to evaluate to convince me, is the Bible.

And when I look at the Bible, all I am able to see is a group of texts, filled with: historical and scientific inaccuracies and absurdities, immoral actions attributed to the god character, internal contradictions, meanings that even believers can't decide on, etc, etc.

To me, these texts look no different than the texts of other religions, and no different than myth.

And it would seem to me, that any god worthy of that title, would have been able to predict that some of his creations would have the same problems, and he would have taken some precautions to assure that would not happen. 36,000 Christian sects, many with major doctrinal disagreements, all of them pointing to the same texts, does not say a lot for a god who wants his creation to be convinced of the truth of the Bible.

So, beside being gullible, how am I supposed to get around all the problems I have with accepting the Bible as authoritative?

[Arkilogue]

Prince didn't go by his real name either. 

For all we know, gods name is Herschel and he's just embarrassed by that fact.

It's easy enough to find the name the people of the time called him and exactly what that name meant.

[The Grand Nudger]

My wife calls me all sorts of things, not all of them meant for polite company, but...relevance?

[Arkilogue]

My wife calls me all sorts of things, not all of them meant for polite company, but...relevance?

"In Jesus name" seems to be pretty important for Christians, I wonder if it makes any difference to them that no one called him Jesus while he was alive?

[Whateverist]

For me it isn't the parts they reject so much as the fact they imbue the bible with so much significance that makes me wonder. A lottery approach to finding meaning in life, pick a book and hunker down.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, we've seen in this thread that at least one christian doesn't (in truth a huge branch of christanity, catholicism) -actually- grant the book any specific significance.  If that's not the clearest answer to how a person can reject part of the bible and still be a christian I don't know what is.  

The bible is an afterthought that they hold up as a shield, only when they talk to people who disagree with their interpretations of what they think is in there.  They don't live their life by it.  They don;t even know what's in there.  Few ever read it....preferring, instead, to have it's contents and their "true meaning" or -any- specific significance to any specific verse, relayed to them by holy men..or, in some and this fantastic instance, a ghost.

Sure, they say it's really important, but they say alot of shit, don't they...and we don't believe all of the shit they say?