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

[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.