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

[Whateverist]

The part about this that confuses me is how any Christian makes the jump from god is good, god is great, god hears my prayers .. to .. god is whatever this little book says AND it is his guide to what I should do at all times.

[YahwehIsTheWay]

Words written by human people who were inspired to write of their experiences of God through the medium of their own culture at the time. It still counts being from God of course but it doesn't mean you have to stone people to death for working on the Sabbath Day or whatever, even the modern Jews have stopped doing that.

Oh, I get it, you're one of those namby-pamby Christians who thinks that somehow human culture overrides The Word of God. Your kind tries to accommodate "modernity" and say things like "well, you know that Yahweh was really against slavery all along but human beings in that cultural context and time weren't ready to abolish slavery and so..." as if Yahweh were powerless to command its abolition if that were indeed his will. Same is true with homosexuality. If our Lord didn't intend for gays to be put to death, why would he say to do so in the first place? And why should his bleeding on a cross somehow get himself to change the rule he made in the first place?

I repeat, if it IS The Word of God, it is timeless and universal, not relative to fickle human whims and relative cultural context.

Much of our culture and moral values have been brought about through the Judeo-Christian tradition. Our social support systems and equality of human rights, the abolition of slavery and all that business has it's roots there.

What Bible did you read?

The Bible supports the divine right of kings (Rom 13:1-3). It admonishes slaves to obey their masters (Eph 6:5). Jesus rejected the idea that all humans are equal (see "Cannanite Dogs" story, Matt 15:22-28). Women are to submit to men and have no position of authority (talking to you Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, et al) (1Tim 2:11-12).

Going out on a limb I think there is a reasonable claim that secular democratic states and modern Western science have their foundations in this as well though you could also sort of trace this to the pagans of the Classical world and ancient Greece. Though it was all later re-discovered and implemented by the Christian West.

The flimsy limb just broke.

Christianity is only in its current unfortunate state because it had to compromise with secularism, science, democracy and modernity. These things are not the result of Christianity. They are ascendant because of the failures of Christianity, largely due to relativist, flip-flopping phony Christians like yourself.

The Golden Age of Christianity was the Dark Ages when science and secularism were kept in check.

[Sword of Christ]

Oh, I get it, you're one of those namby-pamby Christians who thinks that somehow human culture overrides The Word of God.

If we override Gods Moral Law then that's a sin or potentially outright evil. You don't need a book to tell what right and wrong is that should be internal within you. The Bible just points out to people who believe otherwise that our morality is sourced from God and isn't just an opinion of our own minds. Moral values exist regardless of our own opinion either way, there is a right and a wrong and a good and a evil.

Your kind tries to accommodate "modernity"

There's nothing particularly modern about this at all it's a fairly ancient understanding of the Bible if anything. Certainly as old as Christianity itself.

and say things like "well, you know that Yahweh was really against slavery all along but human beings in that cultural context and time weren't ready to abolish slavery and so..."

We would probably still have (legal) slavery today without our Christian values we were the ones to abolish it the rest of the world caught up somewhat later.

"From approximately 650 until around the 1960s, the Arab slave trade continued in one form or another."

as if Yahweh were powerless to command its abolition if that were indeed his will.

It did actually happen so there you go. You can't argue with the results.

is true with homosexuality.

You just have to apply the principals of human equality and rights to homosexuals as we apply them to everyone else. It's likely they put that in there because it was something the pagans around them were heavily into and there was a desire to distinguish themselves and remain culturally separate as a distinct people.

I repeat, if it IS The Word of God, it is timeless and universal, not relative to fickle human whims and relative cultural context.

The whole Word of God isn't contained in any visible book it's Christ/the Logos of God and within yourself. The Bible is directs you towards this truth you already know on some level, see it as a guidebook.

The Bible supports the divine right of kings (Rom 13:1-3). It admonishes slaves to obey their masters (Eph 6:5). Jesus rejected the idea that all humans are equal (see "Cannanite Dogs" story, Matt 15:22-28). Women are to submit to men and have no position of authority (talking to you Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, et al) (1Tim 2:11-12).

"And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him." Mark 12:17

That seems compatible enough with the secular\democratic state, you keep your religion and your government separate. In the Quran it has to be all one thing but Jesus never advocated it. You'll notice democracy and secularism didn't really take off in the Islamic countries. So you can see the influence a religion can have on the values of a culture. I'd argue Christianity has founded a pretty damn good one.

Christianity is only in its current unfortunate state because it had to compromise with secularism, science, democracy and modernity.

I'd argue that Christianity founded all of these things, or at least re-discovered and developed upon the science and government systems of the Classical world. It did take have wait until religious authoritarian Catholic state had lost much of it's power but that was something developed by the Roman Imperial state. So the society in which we now live is a more authentically Christian one.

The Golden Age of Christianity was the Dark Ages when science and secularism were kept in check.

The last 500 years has been the golden age of Christianity.

[Mister Agenda]

Evolution. Social selection favors religions that adapt to changing mores and knowledge. Over the long run fundamentalists are weeded out (and replaced by more modern fundamentalists).

[Tonus]

Hmm. God is willing to wipe out nearly the entire planet with a flood because "people were bad" but he is too much of a pussy to figure out how to convince his stone age sycophants to stop raping girls, keeping slaves, and eating shrimp? Is that how entire societies can lay claim to salvation while performing horrible acts upon neighboring people?

GOD: I will smite thee for thine immoral activities!
HUMAN: But... it's our culture!
GOD: Oh, okay. Carry on!

[Sword of Christ]

Evolution. Social selection favors religions that adapt to changing mores and knowledge.

Are you saying Hinduism adapted itself to Indian society/culture/customs? It works the other way around.

[Rampant.A.I.]

"Formed: The exact beginnings of Hinduism are impossible to determine, since they evolved as time and culture impacted the religious ideas of early India."

http://www.patheos.com/Library/Hinduism.html

"Hinduism is arguably the world's oldest organized religion. By that, I mean that it has existed for 4000 years or so with some basic institutional traits, like priests, formalized rituals, consistent stories/myths, etc. Because Hinduism is so old, it is very diverse.

What's the connection between "old" and "diverse?"

Hinduism has evolved and adapted into many different forms over the centuries, in order to speak to human needs and to remain meaningful to people's lives. All of the large world religions have changed over time - they MUST change and adapt, as people change - in order to stay relevant. Old forms of spirituality within a religion pass away - although usually not completely - and new forms come into their place.

Therefore, when looking at the history of Hinduism, we see lots of different forms, ideas, practices, etc. that may seem contradictory to each other, but all of which form part of a large, complex tapestry of Hindu belief and practice.

Given this complexity, it is sometimes hard to describe Hinduism in simple-to-understand ways. Here, I offer a description that has been really helpful to my students over the years, and it revolves around three of the major sacred texts of Hinduism:

- the Vedas

- the Upanishads

- the Bhagavad Gita (part of the larger Mahabharata)"

http://www.world-religions-professor.com/hinduism.html

"Historically, the roots of Buddhism lie in the religious thought of ancient India during the second half of the first millennium BCE.[109] That was a period of social and religious turmoil, as there was significant discontent with the sacrifices and rituals of Vedic Brahmanism.[110] It was challenged by numerous new ascetic religious and philosophical groups and teachings that broke with the Brahmanic tradition and rejected the authority of the Vedas and the Brahmans.[111][112] These groups, whose members were known as shramanas, were a continuation of a non-Vedic strand of Indian thought distinct from Indo-Aryan Brahmanism.[113][114] Scholars have reasons to believe that ideas such as samsara, karma (in the sense of the influence of morality on rebirth), and moksha originated in the shramanas, and were later adopted by Brahmin orthodoxy.[115][116][117][118][119][120]"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

[Sword of Christ]

If you take something like the caste system that is an example of a society that has molded itself around it's theological and religious concepts it's not the religion that adapted itself to the society into which established itself. Western Atheism/secularism has been formed itself under influence from Western Christian religious values and not the other way around.

[Minimalist]

Wrong. It's the rejection of your jesus shit which has freed the western mind.

The church is still whining about it. Fuck 'em.

[truthBtold]

Exactly! They believe what suits them. I don't understand how they can do that.

---

If someone can pick parts of the bible to reject then where do you stop?
To me it has to be all true or its all full of crap. You can't take a book that is the word of God and say that parts of it are not true. If a Christian can say that some of it is wrong then I can say all of it is wrong.

You're right. If you are a christian and believe that the bible is God's inspired word, you can't pick and choose. You need to know what it teaches in order to know if the person you're talking to does reject part though. As with the case of killing homosexuals in the old testament, Jesus abolished the old testament law and formed a new covenant. The old testament Jews were required to follow that law, but we're not. Homosexuality is still immoral, but it's dealt with differently by christian society. This is not changing morality, but changing rules. I find many non-christians referring to old testament requirements and asking why we don't do that today. What looks like we're not accepting something from the bible may not be that at all. Having said all that - many christians do not accept some parts of the bible - and they're wrong, but can still be christians.

U and ur fairy tale book are morally BANKRUPT!!!