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

[Whateverist]

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?  

Yep.  But I can't fault them one bit for not reading that dull-as-shit book.  Their attention span is trying to tell them something but they ignore it.

[Crossless2.0]

Yep.  But I can't fault them one bit for not reading that dull-as-shit book.  Their attention span is trying to tell them something but they ignore it.

This is completely unfair. Take the first several chapters of 1 Chronicles, for example. This side of a material safety data sheet or the warranty information on a household appliance, I can't think of more gripping reading.

To suggest that this is somehow not divinely inspired is to unnecessarily limit in your mind what God is truly capable of. Yes, he can be dull, mightily -- almightily -- so!

[Lek]

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?

I never said the bible is not authoritative.  It is authoritative.  I did say say that I don't trust the bible to be historically or scientifically correct in exact detail.  It's purpose is to convict the reader of God's existence, his relationship to mankind and his kingdom under Jesus Christ.  Do you believe that for any book to speak with authority it must be factually correct in every way?  One of the ways we interpret the message of any book is to first look at the author's purpose in writing the book and then determine whether or not they achieved that purpose.  Additionally, if the book is leading us to Jesus as our lord and savior then we followers are also obliged to follow his morality.  I'll admit that christians throughout the centuries have made some pretty wild claims about the bible being inerrant, but nobody, including me, knows it all.

I believe that the bible does a good job of leading people who have the desire to know God.  For those with no desire, it won't happen, even if God himself comes and has a conversation with them.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, it definitely convicts it's readers, so, purpose satisfied. 

What's all this shit about being authoratative, except not...and the authors intent, though? I thought you had a ghosts help, that it was the ghost that guided you to the passage, and helped you receive the proper reading -of- the passage?

If god came down and had a convo with me I doubt that we'd have anything to discuss -but- the bible. I know you had to work in some shifty infidel bashing, though..so I forgive you.

You do realize, though, that what you are saying here can and will be boiled down to the notion that anything that makes a person believe in jesus is okay? Even if it's an outright lie (such as the crazy shit christians have -said- about the bible, and the crazy shit contained -within- the bible). Tell us again about gods morality, that you follow? Does it preclude lying for christ? Does it include pious fiction? Is it an ends-justifying-means morality?

[Gemini]

I never said the bible is not authoritative.  It is authoritative.  I did say say that I don't trust the bible to be historically or scientifically correct in exact detail.  It's purpose is to convict the reader of God's existence, his relationship to mankind and his kingdom under Jesus Christ.  Do you believe that for any book to speak with authority it must be factually correct in every way? 

To convict me of God's existence the bible must not be a miserable debacle of incoherent, obviously false claims, and to that end, it is a miserable failure.

[Rhondazvous]

They don't see it as rejecting parts of the bible. They see it as reading James in light of Paul. Masters of obfuscation are they.

[Simon Moon]

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?

I never sai the bible is not authoritative.  It is authoritative.

I did not say that you said it wasn't authoritative. I understand that you do believe that.

Having a bit if a reading comprehension problem, eh?

 I did say say that I don't trust the bible to be historically or scientifically correct in exact detail.  It's purpose is to convict the reader of God's existence, his relationship to mankind and his kingdom under Jesus Christ.  Do you believe that for any book to speak with authority it must be factually correct in every way?  One of the ways we interpret the message of any book is to first look at the author's purpose in writing the book and then determine whether or not they achieved that purpose.  Additionally, if the book is leading us to Jesus as our lord and savior then we followers are also obliged to follow his morality.  I'll admit that christians throughout the centuries have made some pretty wild claims about the bible being inerrant, but nobody, including me, knows it all.

But see, that's where we differ. Since I see a book full of historical and scientific errors, contradictions, multiple interpretations, etc, etc. And I ask myself, does this really look like the best method that an omnipotent, omniscient deity would communicate with his creation? Especially when the message is supposed to be so important?

How am I supposed to accept a book as authoritative, when it gets so much wrong that a god would know better?

I believe that the bible does a good job of leading people who have the desire to know God.  For those with no desire, it won't happen, even if God himself comes and has a conversation with them.

You are talking in circles.

You do understand that what you are saying is, you have to believe the god of the Bible exists, in order for the Bible to do a good job at leading people that have the desire to know god of the Bible.

If I don't believe that this god exists, how can have a desire to know him?

Here are the hurdles that have to be overcome.

1. Convince me that a god exists.
2. Convince me that this god interacts with the natural universe. Instead of a deist type god.
3. Convince me that it is the god you believe exists. And not one of the 1000's of others in human history.
4. Convince me that the Bible is an accurate portrayal of said god.

You can't just skip to the Bible as evidence of his existence.

[Lek]

You do understand that what you are saying is, you have to believe the god of the Bible exists, in order for the Bible to do a good job at leading people that have the desire to know god of the Bible.

If I don't believe that this god exists, how can have a desire to know him?

I believe that those who do read and believe the bible message are prompted by God to do so.  The first action worked in a person who is open to God's message is a supernatural work of God in him which could lead to reading the bible.  That person doesn't necessarily believe in God at the time, but has a desire for the truth.  Not only that, but he also has a desire to serve the truth.

[Crossless2.0]

You do understand that what you are saying is, you have to believe the god of the Bible exists, in order for the Bible to do a good job at leading people that have the desire to know god of the Bible.

If I don't believe that this god exists, how can have a desire to know him?

I believe that those who do read and believe the bible message are prompted by God to do so.  The first action worked in a person who is open to God's message is a supernatural work of God in him which could lead to reading the bible.  That person doesn't necessarily believe in God at the time, but has a desire for the truth.  Not only that, but he also has a desire to serve the truth.

Wait, so I may have to be 'prompted' by your god to (a) read the Bible and (b) believe its claims about this god?!?

Well, "a" is simply false. I have read it in its entirety and I've read several of its books several times. As for "b", how am I culpable for not believing these claims ("the truth" as you would have it) in the absence of such prompting? As Simon pointed out, in so many words, this hash of historical falsehoods and scientific knee-slappers doesn't immediately leap off the page and strike certain readers as "the truth". It didn't, in my case. But that's my fault somehow?

[Lek]

Wait, so I may have to be 'prompted' by your god to (a) read the Bible and (b) believe its claims about this god?!?

Well, "a" is simply false. I have read it in its entirety and I've read several of its books several times. As for "b", how am I culpable for not believing these claims ("the truth" as you would have it) in the absence of such prompting? As Simon pointed out, in so many words, this hash of historical falsehoods and scientific knee-slappers doesn't immediately leap off the page and strike certain readers as "the truth". It didn't, in my case. But that's my fault somehow?

I'm telling what I think about the nature and message of the bible. I can't say much further about your situation. I don't know what is in your mind and your heart. You've read the bible and you're going with what you've concluded from that reading.