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

[Lek]

So why would an "improper reading" matter, at all?  Even an improper reading, if it leads to jesus, is a-ok...right?  Matter of fact, without any sincerity or open mindedness whatsoever you may get an "improper reading" (because that's how that happens..right?)..or you may not be called by or have the crib notes of a ghost and get an "improper reading"........all of which leads you to jesus regardless, making it a-ok.

Riiiiiiight?

If you have Jesus then you got the message - however you got it!

[The Grand Nudger]

And if you don't have jesus, then you didn't get the memo.  Right?

You -can- just leave it at that, you know, you don't have to imagine shitty things about people to justify your beliefs.  If a person doesn't hear from god (or any of the other "well I didn;t mean that-that" phrases you guys like to toss around), they're probably not going to believe in god.  If god wants them to believe, he'll talk to them, as he talks to you - and obviously the book you all fap over is completely irrelevant to any of it, as are it;s contents..in fact as is everything..because "so long as you've got jesus" covers -anything-, and as man has no culpability or purchase -in- any of it.

Better to leave divine business...to the divine.

[Bunburryist]

I don't think it's not completely unreasonable for a person who believes in some form of Christianity (for all kinds of reasons - social, personal, emotional, etc.) to believe that the Bible is not necessarily 100% accurate.  After all, we have history books all over the place that document actual historical events but are mistaken in small, and sometimes even in large part.  A person can acknowledge mistakes in the Bible and still believe in Christianity just as a person can acknowledge mistakes in a Civil War history book and still believe there was a Civil War.  I'm not saying it's logical to believe in the first place (and I don't think it has anything to do with logic), but merely that the belief in a religion doesn't necessarily require one to accept everything in that religion's texts as flawless descriptions of reality.

But if one does acknowledge that there might be flaws in a text, then that text as a whole cannot reasonably be put forth as a proof that the belief is a descriptions of reality.    Similarly, if a person does present the text as accurate - if they make the claim that it is the "Word of God - then they put themselves in the position of having to demonstrate that it is accurate.

[Lek]

I don't think it's not completely unreasonable for a person who believes in some form of Christianity (for all kinds of reasons - social, personal, emotional, etc.) to believe that the Bible is not necessarily 100% accurate.  After all, we have history books all over the place that document actual historical events but are mistaken in small, and sometimes even in large part.  A person can acknowledge mistakes in the Bible and still believe in Christianity just as a person can acknowledge mistakes in a Civil War history book and still believe there was a Civil War.  I'm not saying it's logical to believe in the first place (and I don't think it has anything to do with logic), but merely that the belief in a religion doesn't necessarily require one to accept everything in that religion's texts as flawless descriptions of reality.

But if one does acknowledge that there might be flaws in a text, then that text as a whole cannot reasonably be put forth as a proof that the belief is a descriptions of reality.    Similarly, if a person does present the text as accurate - if they make the claim that it is the "Word of God - then they put themselves in the position of having to demonstrate that it is accurate.

I'll go along with that.

[vorlon13]

I don't think it's not completely unreasonable for a person who believes in some form of Christianity (for all kinds of reasons - social, personal, emotional, etc.) to believe that the Bible is not necessarily 100% accurate.  After all, we have history books all over the place that document actual historical events but are mistaken in small, and sometimes even in large part.  A person can acknowledge mistakes in the Bible and still believe in Christianity just as a person can acknowledge mistakes in a Civil War history book and still believe there was a Civil War.  I'm not saying it's logical to believe in the first place (and I don't think it has anything to do with logic), but merely that the belief in a religion doesn't necessarily require one to accept everything in that religion's texts as flawless descriptions of reality.

But if one does acknowledge that there might be flaws in a text, then that text as a whole cannot reasonably be put forth as a proof that the belief is a descriptions of reality.    Similarly, if a person does present the text as accurate - if they make the claim that it is the "Word of God - then they put themselves in the position of having to demonstrate that it is accurate.

How can the process of God divinely inspiring His word via the Bible go awry then ??

[vorlon13]

And who's to say it has, and specifically where ?

[Simon Moon]

How can you question "his" reading.  It's not his reading that's lacking, it's the presence of the ghost, without which a proper reading can't be had.


Perhaps you should question the ghosts absence, instead?  That's the diff between a "proper reading" and a questionable one, nothing to do with human beings in the general or any particular human being in the specific.

The "ghost" is there if we are seeking him.  Zillions of people have read the scriptures, but they are not seeking the truth.  If "he" is really reading with a true openness and a sincere seeking of the truth then I can't say.  This is my experience with myself and others and this is what the bible says.  I believe I'm right.  If I'm not, hopefully I'll become aware of that soon and will change my beliefs.

Every time someone makes an existential claim, my mind is open to the truth of that claim, including every theistic claim I have ever been presented with.

When I first read the Bible, I was still a believer. I was as sincere to know if it contained the truth as possible. Yet the god character described within, never made his existence apparent. Despite my pleading and openness. I then spent several years of study (at the university level, and self study) in hopes of finding said god. Again, this was a sincere search, not one to "disprove god". And still nothing.

So, how is it my fault? Why was Saul worthy of a Damascus road experience, but I'm not?

The problem we are having with this discussion, is that you are so deep in your bubble of belief, I think it is next to impossible for you to hypothetically put yourself in our position.

You want us to read the Bible with the goal of seeking the god, that you already believe exists. We don't believe that any god exists, so, without first being given a rational reasons to believe any god exists, we can't just skip from disbelief in the existence of any god, right to the Bible.

Can you possibly consider sincerely seeking the gods of the Hindus?

[Lek]

Every time someone makes an existential claim, my mind is open to the truth of that claim, including every theistic claim I have ever been presented with.

When I first read the Bible, I was still a believer. I was as sincere to know if it contained the truth as possible. Yet the god character described within, never made his existence apparent. Despite my pleading and openness. I then spent several years of study (at the university level, and self study) in hopes of finding said god. Again, this was a sincere search, not one to "disprove god". And still nothing.

So, how is it my fault? Why was Saul worthy of a Damascus road experience, but I'm not?

The problem we are having with this discussion, is that you are so deep in your bubble of belief, I think it is next to impossible for you to hypothetically put yourself in our position.

You want us to read the Bible with the goal of seeking the god, that you already believe exists. We don't believe that any god exists, so, without first being given a rational reasons to believe any god exists, we can't just skip from disbelief in the existence of any god, right to the Bible.

Can you possibly consider sincerely seeking the gods of the Hindus?

I can't deny your experience Simon.  I only know mine.  So obviously, you were having doubts for awhile.  Did you leave the faith because those doubts finally overcame your desire to try to overcome them?  If God spoke to you now would you believe him or are you just too far convinced that God doesn't exist to believe the experience?  In other words, are you still open?

[vorlon13]

How could Simon Moon distinguish between 'your' god speaking to him or, let's say Zeus ?

And if Simon reports it was in fact Zeus that spoke to him, would you believe it ?

[Lek]

How could Simon Moon distinguish between 'your' god speaking to him or, let's say Zeus ?

And if Simon reports it was in fact Zeus that spoke to him, would you believe it ?

Let''s see what Simon has to say.