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

[Simon Moon]

I am still open, but my openness is now tempered with a lot more knowledge.

For example, I understand how easy the human mind can be fooled. Even the most sane people are susceptible to: hallucination, confirmation bias, misinterpretations of sensory input, misinterpretation of nonstandard natural brain states, etc.

So, if a god does exist, and it wants to convince me of its existence, it would know exactly how to do so, without resembling any of the above possible natural explanations. If, on the other hand, said god communicates with me without me being able to differentiate it from a natural explanation, then how is it my fault for not being convinced?

I hear and understand what you are saying.   If God was to speak to you now, you would then believe in him and follow him.  Since you are still open, I assume you feel it would actually be God speaking to you and not one of those things you mentioned above, to which you are susceptible as a human being.  This would be because God has the power to make himself clear when he speaks to you despite these other human tendencies.  And I'm not putting blame on you, rather I'm just relating the way I understand it to be.

If a god were to speak to me, it would have to do it in such a way as to not be able to be explained by something natural. And any god worth that definition would, would know how to do that.

Believing a god exists, and following said god are 2 different things. If the god was the one depicted in the Bible, and the Bible is an accurate description of his behavior and actions, I would hope that my morality would be strong enough not to follow him.

[The Grand Nudger]

The usual mistake apologists make, is thinking that proving their god was somehow real...if they ever managed to do it, would make everyone who heard their story a follower.

I'd have an even -shittier- opinion of a real god, that really did all that shit. That really does set the game up so that the terminus is vicarious redemption. I pay my speeding tickets, instead of having some poor fucker tied to a post and beaten on account of them. I guess I -could- let somebody else take the punishment I deserve...but I don;t do it in life when I have the opportunity to do so. Why would that change, if there were a real christian god?

[vorlon13]

And to clarify further, I'm specifically referring to denominations that reject Christ's teaching forbidding remarriage following divorce, and Christ teaching that practice is actually adultery and clearly, is forbidden in the 10 Commandments, and that they allow such remarriages in their facilities, and provide approved pastors to consecrate such marriages.  And such couples are then allowed to worship in regular services at those churches without repudiating their continuing adulterous relationship.

You're right on this one.  That's a problem with religions.  A human institution takes the place of following Christ.

To clarify, would a religion consecrating such marriages then be considered a false religion ?

Could someone who attends such a denomination, but is still on their original spouse, but yet donates money to such an organization still be assured of Salvation ?


To what extent could we say that individual is sincerely imbued with the entirety of Jesus sacrifice ??

[Lek]

You're right on this one.  That's a problem with religions.  A human institution takes the place of following Christ.

To clarify, would a religion consecrating such marriages then be considered a false religion ?

Could someone who attends such a denomination, but is still on their original spouse, but yet donates money to such an organization still be assured of Salvation ?


To what extent could we say that individual is sincerely imbued with the entirety of Jesus sacrifice ??

I just know that if a religion takes a stance against Christ's teachings they are wrong. Someone's salvation is not based on where they donate their money to. You're really lost as to what the bible says in regard to salvation.

[Lek]

If a god were to speak to me, it would have to do it in such a way as to not be able to be explained by something natural. And any god worth that definition would, would know how to do that.  

Believing a god exists, and following said god are 2 different things. If the god was the one depicted in the Bible, and the Bible is an accurate description of his behavior and actions, I would hope that my morality would be strong enough not to follow him.

Okay. I was trying to determine whether or not you are still open to God. It seems you are no longer open to him because you've placed conditions on his revelation to you. Again I'm not trying to make a judgement about whether you're right or wrong, but rather to determine whether or not you're truly open to God's revelation.

[vorlon13]

That's why I added the last line.

How thoroughly are they accepting Jesus by worshipping in a false church, and a church that is deliberately falsely witnessing the Word, and consecrating adultery in His name ?


I'd say there is a responsibility, no wait, here's a better way of saying it: there would be an urge, or an undeniable compulsion to witness the Truth, particularly since the Truth was sincerely believed. And in the example (as in real life so often) we are definitely not seeing that.

[Lek]

That's why I added the last line.

How thoroughly are they accepting Jesus by worshipping in a false church, and a church that is deliberately falsely witnessing the Word, and consecrating adultery in His name ?


I'd say there is a responsibility, no wait, here's a better way of saying it: there would be an urge, or an undeniable compulsion to witness the Truth, particularly since the Truth was sincerely believed.  And in the example (as in real life so often) we are definitely not seeing that.

Maybe they are not true followers of Christ, or maybe they are just mistaken.

[vorlon13]

I think we have concordance.

[The Grand Nudger]

I just know that if a religion takes a stance against Christ's teachings they are wrong.  Someone's salvation is not based on where they donate their money to.  You're really lost as to what the bible says in regard to salvation.

What are christs teachings, is the bible suddenly informative?  What if "christs teachings" mean different things to different christians, because jesus told them all different things?  Is "wrong because it goes against what I believe jesus said " actually a metric for whether or not something is -wrong-?  Why would it matter if it were wrong or did go against christs teachings, whatever those are.....so long as it all leads the jesus, anyway?

[vorlon13]

I just know that if a religion takes a stance against Christ's teachings they are wrong.  Someone's salvation is not based on where they donate their money to.  You're really lost as to what the bible says in regard to salvation.

What are christs teachings, is the bible suddenly informative?  What if "christs teachings" mean different things to different christians, because jesus told them all different things?  Is "wrong because it goes against what I believe jesus said " actually a metric for whether or not something is -wrong-?  Why would it matter if it were wrong or did go against christs teachings, whatever those are.....so long as it all leads the jesus, anyway?

Christ's teachings meaning different things to various individual Christians and/or groups of Christians isn't a problem for atheists.



It's irrefutable evidence that Christianity is not the "One True Faith",  it has been successfully refuted by it's own adherents over 70,000 times.