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

[FallentoReason]

Their value comes from agreement.  A societal contract.

Sounds like you're having your cake and eating it.

If judges have value, then why don't you value them?

[Lek]

No, once again, Occam's Razor. The other explanation (that it's all true) simply doesn't stack up. Some more food for thought, a challenge unanswered by anyone here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-30849.html

Here's my reply to your unanswered thread. Scripture doesn't get it's authority from the person penning it but, rather from God working by the Holy Spirit in his church. I agree that the authors of the four gospels were anonymous. By the time they were written the church had already expanded across the Roman empire. The faith had been carried on orally beginning with the words of the apostles. The writers of the new testament books had no idea that they were writing scripture. They were taking what had been spread by mouth and writing it down. Because the authors may not have been eyewitnesses doesn't mean that the events were not from eyewitnesses. We don't know whether or not Paul's teaching included any stories from the gospel events or not by reading his letters in the new testament, which were probably less that 1% if his total teaching throughout his christian life. His letters do not conflict with gospels either. This doesn't at all mean that Paul never referred to gospel events in his teaching. The new testament writings were eventually accepted as scripture by the church after intense scrutiny to determine if they reflected the teachings of the church that came down from the apostles. When it comes down to it, the gospels and the rest of the new testament receive their authority from the power of the Holy Spirit working through God's people.

In regards to the 100% surety question, I side with the opinion that if we wait for complete surety to accomplish anything we'll live a worthless life. I've read the bible, listened to countless hours of teaching and have participated in hours of discussions and debates. Most importantly, I've taken it to God with a mind and spirit that is open to what he wants to relate to me. I have the Spirit in me that turns me back to him every time I'm ready to abandon him. That's the way it works for me. We're human beings and I think if we're honest with ourselves we really don't believe anything without a doubt. That's part of our human nature.

I see you identify as an agnostic and maybe will be until you die. In the meantime you go on reading books that continue to lead you into new areas of doubt about some previous beliefs you may have held. Why not just let it go and become an atheist? That way, at least you can use all that time to do something constructive for the world. I'm sure you'll tell me if you think I'm wrong, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but my image of an agnostic is a person who is afraid to commit. You can contemplate forever, but there comes a time when you need to make a decision or else it's all worthless. You can sit on that pot forever or you can commit and move on.

[Jesster]

I see you identify as an agnostic and maybe will be until you die.  In the meantime you go on reading books that continue to lead you into new areas of doubt about some previous beliefs you may have held.  Why not just let it go and become an atheist?  That way, at least you can use all that time to do something constructive for the world.  I'm sure you'll tell me if you think I'm wrong, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but my image of an agnostic is a person who is afraid to commit.  You can contemplate forever, but there comes a time when you need to make a decision or else it's all worthless.  You can sit on that pot forever or you can commit and move on.

This is deserving of some applause. Defining oneself simply as "agnostic" is abhorrent.

[The Grand Nudger]

Their value comes from agreement.  A societal contract.

Sounds like you're having your cake and eating it.

If judges have value, then why don't you value them?

Still positioning, still failing.  Is my participation required?

I don;t value your divine judge. I made that clear by specifically referencing the differences between a self appointed celestial busybody with no purchase on any human being..and a judge in a court of law. This is, as it was when you began, a waste of our time in any case, since law =/= morality. If you're incapable of or unwilling to provide the only thing required of you in this conversation - a justification for divine moral authority..then save us both the time and just say so.

Babbling endlessly about our legal system won't and can't approach that subject, since they're not the same subject. It's just irritatingly dishonest.

[FallentoReason]

No, once again, Occam's Razor. The other explanation (that it's all true) simply doesn't stack up. Some more food for thought, a challenge unanswered by anyone here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-30849.html

Here's my reply to your unanswered thread.  Scripture doesn't get it's authority from the person penning it but, rather from God working by the Holy Spirit in his church.  I agree that the authors of the four gospels were anonymous.  By the time they were written the church had already expanded across the Roman empire.  The faith had been carried on orally beginning with the words of the apostles.  The writers of the new testament books had no idea that they were writing scripture.  They were taking what had been spread by mouth and writing it down.  Because the authors may not have been eyewitnesses doesn't mean that the events were not from eyewitnesses.  We don't know whether or not Paul's teaching included any stories from the gospel events or not by reading his letters in the new testament, which were probably less that 1% if his total teaching throughout his christian life.  His letters do not conflict with gospels either.  This doesn't at all mean that Paul never referred to gospel events in his teaching.  The new testament writings were eventually accepted as scripture by the church after intense scrutiny to determine if they reflected the teachings of the church that came down from the apostles.  When it comes down to it, the gospels and the rest of the new testament receive their authority from the power of the Holy Spirit working through God's people.

Paul never seems to have any connection with the Gospels. When mentioning Jesus' birth, he doesn't say it was a virgin birth and that it's the fulfillment of prophecy. Hell, he doesn't even know the name of Mary. To him, it's just "a woman". He may as well be talking allegorically. He's also quick to say that his teachings came from no man, but from Christ Jesus. But isn't Jesus a man? It is clear as day that he's not aware of what Jesus is doing in the neighbourhood.

In regards to the 100% surety question, I side with the opinion that if we wait for complete surety to accomplish anything we'll live a worthless life.  I've read the bible, listened to countless hours of teaching and have participated in hours of discussions and debates.  Most importantly, I've taken it to God with a mind and spirit that is open to what he  wants to relate to me.  I have the Spirit in me that turns me back to him every time I'm ready to abandon him.  That's the way it works for me.  We're human beings and I think if we're honest with ourselves we really don't believe anything without a doubt.  That's part of our human nature.  

I have to say I wholly agree.

I see you identify as an agnostic and maybe will be until you die.  In the meantime you go on reading books that continue to lead you into new areas of doubt about some previous beliefs you may have held.  Why not just let it go and become an atheist?  That way, at least you can use all that time to do something constructive for the world.  I'm sure you'll tell me if you think I'm wrong, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but my image of an agnostic is a person who is afraid to commit.  You can contemplate forever, but there comes a time when you need to make a decision or else it's all worthless.  You can sit on that pot forever or you can commit and move on.

Yes, I will have to disagree. Technically speaking, I'm an agnostic atheist. The root word "gnostic" is a claim to knowledge, where gnostics claim to know something and of course a-gnostic is the denial of such knowledge. You can have agnostic Christians (which I believe to be the more honest position) who say they believe in God, but can't know for sure he exists. In my case, I personally believe it's also honest to be an agnostic when being an atheist, because to be a gnostic atheist somehow means you know for sure God doesn't exist. But the only way to justify that is to literally *be* God - be all-knowing such that you've effectively looked under every stone in the universe and beyond, and know for sure God isn't anywhere. 

I would like to think I'm doing something constructive. Being agnostic, I find it easy to value the contemplation of ideas that don't line up with my beliefs (read my signature below). In the past on this forum, I've challenged atheists on here with ideas that aren't usually the first pick for atheists. I try to push people to find some sort of integrity between their responses and their alleged beliefs.

[FallentoReason]

Sounds like you're having your cake and eating it.

If judges have value, then why don't you value them?

Still positioning, still failing.  Is my participation required?

I don;t value your divine judge.  I made that clear by specifically referencing the differences between a self appointed celestial busybody with no purchase on any human being..and a judge in a court of law.  This is, as it was when you began, a waste of our time in any case, since law =/= morality.  If you're incapable of or unwilling to provide the only thing required of you in this conversation - a justification for divine moral authority..then save us both the time and just say so.  

Babbling endlessly about our legal system won't and can't approach that subject, since they're not the same subject.  It's just irritatingly dishonest.

Law comes from morality, at least philosophically speaking. When push comes to shove, I actually identify as a contractualist (as opposed to Kantian ethics). In a nutshell, something is a moral rule only if no one has a legitimate objection to it, with objections needing to address why/why not someone's wellbeing is being violated. This mode of thinking captures the essence of debate, in which a conclusion is assumed once no one has a reasonable objection left to say. And if there's no objections, then to my mind it seems like that particular rule makes for a good law - something to be upheld globally.

[Lek]

Paul never seems to have any connection with the Gospels. When mentioning Jesus' birth, he doesn't say it was a virgin birth and that it's the fulfillment of prophecy. Hell, he doesn't even know the name of Mary. To him, it's just "a woman". He may as well be talking allegorically. He's also quick to say that his teachings came from no man, but from Christ Jesus. But isn't Jesus a man? It is clear as day that he's not aware of what Jesus is doing in the neighbourhood.

They all knew Jesus was a man. Paul was embracing the fact that he was also God.

Yes, I will have to disagree. Technically speaking, I'm an agnostic atheist. The root word "gnostic" is a claim to knowledge, where gnostics claim to know something and of course a-gnostic is the denial of such knowledge. You can have agnostic Christians (which I believe to be the more honest position) who say they believe in God, but can't know for sure he exists. In my case, I personally believe it's also honest to be an agnostic when being an atheist, because to be a gnostic atheist somehow means you know for sure God doesn't exist. But the only way to justify that is to literally *be* God - be all-knowing such that you've effectively looked under every stone in the universe and beyond, and know for sure God isn't anywhere. 

I would like to think I'm doing something constructive. Being agnostic, I find it easy to value the contemplation of ideas that don't line up with my beliefs (read my signature below). In the past on this forum, I've challenged atheists on here with ideas that aren't usually the first pick for atheists. I try to push people to find some sort of integrity between their responses and their alleged beliefs.

Ok. I'll buy that.

[FallentoReason]

If the only justification for the Bible you have is simply that of "tradition", then maybe that works for you. But I don't think it's grounded enough to grant the NT as being true.

[Fake Messiah]

Law comes from morality, at least philosophically speaking. When push comes to shove, I actually identify as a contractualist (as opposed to Kantian ethics). In a nutshell, something is a moral rule only if no one has a legitimate objection to it, with objections needing to address why/why not someone's wellbeing is being violated. This mode of thinking captures the essence of debate, in which a conclusion is assumed once no one has a reasonable objection left to say. And if there's no objections, then to my mind it seems like that particular rule makes for a good law - something to be upheld globally.

What moral doesn't come from the Bible? Awww.

[Lek]

If the only justification for the Bible you have is simply that of "tradition", then maybe that works for you. But I don't think it's grounded enough to grant the NT as being true.

To satisfy my curiosity, if the NT could be proven historically accurate would you then choose to follow christianity?