sonofone

This is an excellent question and one I'm sure I can't give an satisfactory answer for.I had the exact struggle you mention here,nearly word for word. How do I choose which parts are right or wrong without becoming my own God so to speak.

First off I struggled.As I said I had a true crisis of faith.I sought out books which further looked into critical study of scripture.I read Dominic Crossans book on who wrote the bible,and there was even a book I read where Dominic had a debate with a Christian Apologetic regarding his book.

Dominic had his lunch handed to him in this debate.The problem seemed to be that Dominic,a lot like myself did not want to divorce himself from being a Christian himself.So he was very careful not to say anything to controversial,or herectical if you will. He kept trying to find middle ground in order to stay in the fold.

The apologetic on the other hand and rightfully so was having no part of this meet me in the middle koom bay yah my lord mess.He was out to defend the bibles good name,and made great points.I think that if Crossan were to be intellectually honest he should have either refused the debate,because he was not interested in winning.Or she have have went all out to first successfully win the debate,then offered the olive branch of meeting on middle ground.

This debate went a long way in helping me fight to maintain my faith in a bible I no longer knew what to do with.So the approach I took was,God I love you and you love me.If I were deaf,blind and moot and not able to access the bible at all.I would rely on my individual personal relationship that has already been formed in me.

So I chose to take the road of a twisted sort of dichotomy,that somehow I could separate or compartmentalize my faith in God,while yet struggling with the bible that defines him.

This approach for quite some time proved to be very liberating.I felt as if I were operating on a higher spiritual plane.Like I had matured in faith to the point where I no longer needed a book to define it.

This of course would not prove to work for a long term solution.In order to have a faith not contrived or made up in my own head I had to rely on something greater than myself.

Since I was not interested in switching to another religion,and the thought of turning my back on God to be an atheist,or agnostic was intolerable.I went back to the bible and decided that it was better than no bible.It was and is after all very effective,that is it still tells a story and has a message that really works in the life of believers.No amount of errors take away from this.

I know this response will not cut the intellectual mustard.I probably would be ridiculed and rejected from all camps,placing me in the proverbial no mans land I spoke of.But this remains for me my best choice.Having needed or come to a place where a choice had to be made,this was and is my choice.The choice that works for me.

Chidori

I'm not going to ridicule you, but I don't understand how a Bible that endoreses slavery, subjugation of women, and eternal torture could be better than no Bible.

Why not just be a good person and have done with it? Altruism, obeying the laws, and respect for your fellow human beings works just fine - no God or Bible needed.

I respect your right to believe as you wish, but I find it odd when there are more ethical philosophies available.

sonofone

I can respect your question. I can't see throwing away what I have found to be essentially good, a bible that has some flaws that for me are minuscule.

George S

I was once considering the ministry. I had been raised Christian and thought that saving souls was a wonderful calling. I decided in my 18th year to read the Bible. At the end of that reading I discovered I was non-Christian.

From Nightfall by Asimov

"So the universe is not quite as you thought it was. You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because you certainly can't rearrange the universe."



"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." -- Isaac Asimov

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and reasoned like a child. When I became an adult, I no longer used childish ways.

Johnny Skeptic

I do not consider the contradictory claims that God is merciful, and that he will send skeptics to hell for eternity without parole to be miniscule. I also do not consider it to be miniscule that God never personally told anyone about the Gospel message, at least as far as we know. Do you consider the spread of the Gospel message to be more important than the spread of a cure for cancer? If so, why doesn't God?

rhutchin

As it should be. People who read the Bible should come out at the end as either a believer or an atheist.

Hebrews 4
12 ...the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

If the Bible is an accurate discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, then it only took you to read the Bible to throw off the things that you had been taught and do the things that you actually wanted to do. Think what might have happened if you had not read the Bible; you might still be living in denial of your true desires.

Johnny Skeptic

That is false. Deism is certainly a reasonable alternative to Christianity.

If the Bible said that God will send everyone to hell, you would reject it. That proves that your emotional perceived self-interest has caused you to accept any promises that you believe will ultimately benefit you, and reject any promises that you believe will not benefit you. You are not as interested in what the evidence IS as you are in what the evidence PROMISES. It does not really matter to you whether there are four Gospel or one Gospel, or whether hundreds of people saw Jesus after he rose from the dead, or only a few dozen people.

Johnny Skeptic

I would object to that because some skeptics might change their minds after they see what heaven and hell are like. When criminals get out of prisons, some of them have a change of heart. The more information that a man has, the more he is able to make proper decisions.

I also object to the claim that might makes right.

I also object because I would never accept a God who indiscriminately and needlessly kills people and innocent animals with hurricanes, with no apparent benefits for himself or for anyone else.

Since this thread is about inerracy, what evidence do you have that the Bible is inerrant, and that God inspired the Bible? Why would God want to inspire and preserve the Bible?

Chidori

Thank you for answeing, and I have another question or two, if you please.

What do you find miniscule about: endorsing slavery, subjugation of women, and eternal torture? Or do you not consider those flaws?

sonofone

These points are more philosophical than inerrant.I may be philosophically opposed to all of the above teachings;however I could not hold them out as flawed.

Flaws are things that make no sense or are simply impossible.Things like the sun revolving around the earth,or Moses going up to the mountain to speak with God and coming down to find the people worshiping a golden calf which his brother Aaron helped orchestrate.

Or God repenting that he made man,getting angry with humans for doing what they are designed to do,or incapable of not doing.

These are flaws to me.Things that just don't make sense.

These things as well as some others are for me minuscule including the ones you list,as they do not affect my personal relationship with God.I'll never know the answers to everything,the bible does not even attempt to do this.So I can live with these flaws for now.