Show Me Why You Are Right and Everyone Else is Wrong

[12 Monkeys]

ToT are you starting to confuse what you actually believe? or are you just playing around?  You seriously are pointing out what is wrong in your religion,all the while trying to explain to us that it is true.

[Alzael]

Quotation of, and insisting that one must not misquote scripture does not require interpretation!

 This is not what you have done, however. You have said repeatedly that others are using wrong interpretations. This is what you are being questioned on. Just as you were before in the talk we had about hell, just like when we talked about Jesus and you made your claims. You are being questioned on your interpretations, and you repeatedly fail to even have the decency to answer when asked. Instead you simply re-ask questions already dealt with and dodge and evade and top if off with Strawmens like what this implies.

It's getting very sad.

I stand accused and find myself having to plead guilty. I have often looked at the beliefs and religious practices out there and asserted that many if not most have no biblical foundation to stand on. When I am asked what SHOULD be practiced, all I am able to do is give my OPINION based on my understanding.
As far as what religious practices should be employed, there exists no clear or definitive instruction on the matter. As far as hell and the trinity concepts are concerned, all that can be done is an analysis of the 'evidence' provided to help determine if the conclusion drawn makes sense.

Now here is what I would like you to do. Take a moment and really think about everything we had to go through to get to this point. Why did we have to go through all of this before you would admit something  so obvious?

[kcrady]

Again I ask you; Why is it that you assert, by what you have written, that all of the texts require interpretation? One reads a passage that says:
"Jesus went into the city of Jerusalem on the day before the feast of unleavened bread and there he began proclaiming the nearness of the Kingdom of God."
How does such a passage require interpretation?
Is it not rather plain in the message that it is communicating?
Would not a person be able to call BS on a person that says they believe the Bible, but teaches that Jesus never went to Jerusalem to proclaim the nearness of the kingdom?

For the sake of discussion, I will take on the role of a neo-Gnostic Christian with beliefs similar to Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy.  Here goes:

There is considerable evidence that the earliest Christians believed that Christ was a purely celestial Being/Principle whose salvific acts took place in a higher spiritual realm intermediate between the material world the perfect Heavenly realm.  This is most obvious in Paul's epistles, where he speaks of a divine Christ revealed in highly allegorical interpretations of Hebrew Scriptures and mystical experiences rather than appealing to alleged historical facts about a recent man who lived in Judea. 

The Gospels were originally written as allegories which couched spiritual ideas and channeled teachings of Jesus (which were originally promulgated among Christians apart from any narrative context, as in the Gospel of Thomas) in memorable narrative form.  Though "orthodox" Christianity (that which emerged from the councils of the proto-Catholic Church held under the auspices of late Roman Emperors hammering out a new State religion) teaches that the central premise of "Christianity" is to believe without question certain doctrines promulgated by the Church or face temporal and eternal punishments (e.g. burning at the stake, followed by Hell), the Gospel writers demonstrate a radically different attitude in their handling of "facts."  While the later Synoptic Gospels borrowed heavily from Mark, their authors thought nothing of changing details, moving pericopes around to serve their own literary ends, inserting the same sayings of Jesus into different narrative contexts, adding or removing accounts, and so on.  Later copyists also did not hesitate to add new material, such as the "long ending" of Mark, or the story of the woman caught in adultery, which was added to gJohn in later manuscripts.  This extremely loose attitude toward the material of their narratives is incompatible with the notion that eternal salvation depends heavily on "getting the facts right."

In addition, many of the narrative accounts are clearly pastiches of stories from the Hebrew Scriptures.  For example, Herod's "massacre of the innocents" is a re-creation of the Pharaoh's attempt to kill the promised deliverer Moses in the Book of Exodus, making Jesus the New Moses, mediator of a New Covenant.  He is then taken into Egypt by a Joseph (as the Hebrews were in the Book of Genesis), and his return to Judea is directly linked to the Exodus.  gMatthew cites a passage from Hosea ("Out of Egypt I have called my son") as applicable to Jesus, when its original context is a reference to the Jewish people as a whole.  In this way, Jesus is identified with the Jewish people.  The crucifixion narratives are likewise crafted to fit with Psalm 22, which Jesus quotes from the Cross ("My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

Thus, the Gospels are not historical/biographical accounts or even fake historical/biographical accounts.  The passage you cited above is not a simple, self-evident statement about a man entering a city at a particular point in human history.  It may be quite plausibly interpreted in the same way as a statement like "Darth Vader was Luke Skywalker's father" or "Aslan was slain by the White Witch on the Stone Table"--a narrative "fact," but not a statement of ordinary fact.

[Truth OT]

ToT are you starting to confuse what you actually believe? or are you just playing around?  You seriously are pointing out what is wrong in your religion,all the while trying to explain to us that it is true.

I wouldn't say I am confusing what I believe although I will say I have changed a big part of what it is I still do believe. Me pointing out what I see as wrong with religion is not a new thing by any means, I've been doing that for years. What has changed is my acceptance that the books of the Bible are in fact indisputably inspired words from God. I have accepted the idea that what was written is very likely NOT inerrant, that is the biggest metamorphasis I have made.

[jetson]

ToT - if you have not done so already, please, please pick up one of Bart Ehrmans books!  It is an angle on scripture rarely heard among believers.

[Truth OT]

There is considerable evidence that the earliest Christians believed that Christ was a purely celestial Being/Principle whose salvific acts took place in a higher spiritual realm intermediate between the material world the perfect Heavenly realm.  This is most obvious in Paul's epistles, where he speaks of a divine Christ revealed in highly allegorical interpretations of Hebrew Scriptures and mystical experiences rather than appealing to alleged historical facts about a recent man who lived in Judea. 

Is that above allegation about the views of early christians like Paul's, a mid 1st century Jew alledged to have written much of the New Testament merited based on what is contained in those writings? Let's look to what Paul wrote to see how much support this claim actually has.

Romans 1
 Paul, a slave of Jesus the Anointed One, who is called an Apostle, and who was set aside for the good news of God, which He promised through His Prophets in the Holy Scriptures that tell about His Son, who came in the flesh from the seed of David, and who proved to be God's Son in a powerful way, when he (by the Holy Breath [of God]) was resurrected from the dead. Yes, Jesus the Anointed One, our Lord,
Romans 5:6
For a fact; The Anointed One came right on time and died for ungodly men back when we were still weak!
1 Cor 2:1-2
1 So, when I came to you brothers, I didn't bring you the mysteries of God with high-sounding words of wisdom. 2 For, I decided not to teach you about anything other than Jesus the Anointed, and about how he was hung on a pole.
1 Cor 11
23 I received this from the Lord and I've also shared it with you… that the Lord Jesus (on the very night that he was going to be handed over) took a loaf, 24 and after giving thanks, broke it and said, 'This is my body [which is given] for you. Keep on doing this in memory of me.' 25 And after supper, he did the same thing with the cup, saying, 'This cup is the new Sacred Agreement of my blood. Keep on doing this… and as often as you drink it, think of me.'
Philipians 2:
5 Keep this attitude in you that the Anointed Jesus had. 6 For, although he once existed in the same form as God, he didn’t consider trying to make himself equal to God. 7 Rather, he emptied himself into the shape of a slave and became a man. 8 And when he found himself shaped as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death… yes, death on a pole. 9 This is why God promoted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above all others; 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee in heaven, on earth, and under the ground should bend, 11 and every tongue should confess that Jesus the Anointed One is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
In addition, here are words written by Luke, a companion of Paul, from Acts 3 about what the earliest followers of Jesus taught and believed:
12 So when Peter saw this, he said, 'Men of IsraEl; Why are you surprised at this, and why are you staring at us as though we made him walk by our own power or devotion? 13 Why, the God of AbraHam, IsaAc, and Jacob – the God of our ancestors – has glorified His servant Jesus, whom you betrayed and disowned before the face of Pilate, after he had decided to release him. 14 Yes, you disowned that holy and righteous man, and you asked him to release a man who was a murderer! 15 Yes, you killed the Prince of Life! However, God thereafter raised him from the dead, which we all witnessed!

Do these writings really illustrate a belief that the "earliest Christians believed that Christ was a purely celestial Being/Principle whose salvific acts took place in a higher spiritual realm intermediate between the material world the perfect Heavenly realm?" You be the judge.

............the notion that eternal salvation depends heavily on "getting the facts right."

That notion does in fact seem to be backed most strongly by institutional (church) propaganda. No argument there.

In addition, many of the narrative accounts are clearly pastiches of stories from the Hebrew Scriptures.  For example, Herod's "massacre of the innocents" is a re-creation of the Pharaoh's attempt to kill the promised deliverer Moses in the Book of Exodus, making Jesus the New Moses, mediator of a New Covenant.  He is then taken into Egypt by a Joseph (as the Hebrews were in the Book of Genesis), and his return to Judea is directly linked to the Exodus.  gMatthew cites a passage from Hosea ("Out of Egypt I have called my son") as applicable to Jesus, when its original context is a reference to the Jewish people as a whole.  In this way, Jesus is identified with the Jewish people.  The crucifixion narratives are likewise crafted to fit with Psalm 22, which Jesus quotes from the Cross ("My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

Thus, the Gospels are not historical/biographical accounts or even fake historical/biographical accounts.  The passage you cited above is not a simple, self-evident statement about a man entering a city at a particular point in human history.  It may be quite plausibly interpreted in the same way as a statement like "Darth Vader was Luke Skywalker's father" or "Aslan was slain by the White Witch on the Stone Table"--a narrative "fact," but not a statement of ordinary fact.

Such conclusions are not out of the realm of possibility, but have very little textual support. Those who promote such idea must go through great lengths to connect dots that may in fact be totally unrelated to each other. If the Glenn Becks of the world can connect everything to George Soros I guess these guys can make their connections as well .

[bertatberts]

Much is literal, what of those parts?

Can you explain, where any parts of the bible are literal please, thank you.

Why would something literal need to be explaned?

Because you're declaring it as fact, You're say it isn't exaggerated; You're saying it is actual/factual/true. It is your burden to prove that.

[Alzael]

I'm still awaiting your response, ToT.

[Anfauglir]

As far as what religious practices should be employed, there exists no clear or definitive instruction on the matter. As far as hell and the trinity concepts are concerned, all that can be done is an analysis of the 'evidence' provided to help determine if the conclusion drawn makes sense.

Except....doesn't the difference between eternal paradise and salvation, and eternal damnation and torture, rely on getting things exactly right?

And yet we have a god - that some would allege loves us and wants the best for us and wants a relationship with us - that has provided unclear and wolly instructions as to what we need to do to be saved. 

So what can we conclude?  Possibly, that there IS no god at all.  But certainly, that any beliver who asserts the loving, caring, relationship-and-salvation-desiring god, is sadly mistaken: the alleged god is in no way borne out by the facts.  A god who mandates eternal destiny on specific requirement, but then ensures the requirements are confused and unclear is - at best - a disinterested trickster.  At worse, it is a heartless monster, giggling as the ants he created scurry hither and yon, scrabbling for clues in the dust, and most likely getting things wrong.  At which point god shrugs, chuckles, and drops them into hell for eternal torture and suffering.  (And don't get me started on a loving god that would allow the flourishing of so many other religions, never mind different denominations and interpretations of its own).

Sorry Truth - but any god that confuses the issues when the stakes are so high is no god I will even consider.  I refuse to play his little games, as I would refuse to play any game so deliberately stacked against me.  It is simply not a being I have any respect for, and I reject it.  And I find it odd, and saddening, that so many people are so desperate for its approval - though I suspect that their concern is more for saving their own eternal skins rather than any real love for such a "god"

[Hatter23]

When you say "There is no objective meaning in a literary text, it simply does not exist," are you saying no specific information is actually being given, that no underlying message is necessarily being present, or that we should not read anything into (give greater meaning to) the info in the narrative in order to glean a "deeper meaning?"?

Bold mine.

That's the SUBJECTIVE part. Someone has to GIVE. Were it objective, one wouldn't have to GIVE anything.

I would agree with you 100% here. The point of contention I believe many have though is related to whether or not the entirety of the texts requires that meaning be given to it. Obviously many parts do, however that does not appear to be the case for many other parts. In other words it is my argument that much of the Bible does NOT require the use of a magic "decoder ring", while other seem to imply that all of the writings require one and since there's no way to objectively prove which decoder is best, then there's no way any of it  can be properly understood.

change of bold mine.

Properly??? Still subjective.

What is or isn't subjective isn't even the main problem here, although it is a valid point.  Let me re-quote part of this conversation...

In other words it is my argument that much of the Bible does NOT require the use of a magic "decoder ring", while other seem to imply that all of the writings require one and since there's no way to objectively prove which decoder is best, then there's no way any of it can be properly understood.

The bold words there.  Read them again.  If it can't be understood, then why put a major world religion on the book?  In essence, you have just made Christianity less plausible than Scientology.  And, if the Bible needs no magic decoder ring, as you say, then it should be clear and easy to understand, which, according to the bold words, is not true.  You have made a fool of your religion and your deity.  May your moronic and all-hating God have mercy on your soul.

Actually I do think it is the main pint and that portion of the argument. He's stating there are parts of the Bible which don't require interpretation...that there is no "magic decoder ring" needed.  Then he says there is only one way there are to be understood "properly" Which leads back to his hidden special pleading fallacy....his "only way" is no different by any objective standard than any different "only way"

[screwtape]

I stand accused and find myself having to plead guilty. I have often looked at the beliefs and religious practices out there and asserted that many if not most have no biblical foundation to stand on. When I am asked what SHOULD be practiced, all I am able to do is give my OPINION based on my understanding.

I am curious to know, in plain, straight forward language what you meant here^.  There seems to be a lot said between the lines.  I just want to make sure I am not seeing things that are not there.

[Truth OT]

I stand accused and find myself having to plead guilty. I have often looked at the beliefs and religious practices out there and asserted that many if not most have no biblical foundation to stand on. When I am asked what SHOULD be practiced, all I am able to do is give my OPINION based on my understanding.

I am curious to know, in plain, straight forward language what you meant here^.  There seems to be a lot said between the lines.  I just want to make sure I am not seeing things that are not there.

The basic idea is that we are given no clearity from the scriptures as it relates to what, IF ANY religious practices are mandated. Any, including me, who claim to know all of what we must do from a religious perspective, make such a claim without the scripture's confirmation of such ideas.
It is easier to point out what the scriptures do not say or mandate than it is to say what, IF ANYTHING they mandate, especially for us, a secondary audience at best to whom none of the scriptural writings were initially directed.

[Truth OT]

Much is literal, what of those parts?

Can you explain, where any parts of the bible are literal please, thank you.

Why would something literal need to be explaned?

Because you're declaring it as fact, You're say it isn't exaggerated; You're saying it is actual/factual/true. It is your burden to prove that.

U a HATTER bertatberts! How you go change my karma cuz you got impatient and felt like your post was worthy of not only a response, but a rapid one. How rude, how vain.........but anyhow, to address you ranting:

I'm confused here. Are you insinuating that I am equating something being written literally with that subject matter also being factual? I am not trying to do such a thing, all I am doing is saying that much of the writings are written in a literal manner as oppossed to all of the writings being written figuratively.

[Omen]

lit·er·al
? ?[lit-er-uhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.
2.
following the words of the original very closely and exactly: a literal translation of Goethe.
3.true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual: a literal description of conditions.
4.
being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy: the literal extermination of a city.
5.
(of persons) tending to construe words in the strict sense or in an unimaginative way; matter-of-fact; prosaic.

It becomes confusing as soon as you need to obfuscate.

You can even follow your line of obfuscation from question to question, never answering anything and never explaining yourself.  What about your religious beliefs motivates you to be such dishonesty?

[Brakeman]

Why don't you just pray to god to give you the magic decoder ring? Why would he refuse?
If he doesn't exist, then you'll get no answer. If he does then you'll be able to come back here and answer all of our questions perfectly.

[fungusdrool]

Why don't you just pray to god to give you the magic decoder ring? Why would he refuse?
If he doesn't exist, then you'll get no answer. If he does then you'll be able to come back here and answer all of our questions perfectly.

Your plea is based on logic, which was never the religiosity's agenda.
Do you really expect the unlike to respond in kind?

To reach the lost you must be more than generous.
Not less than gracious.

Let's build a bridge to help those less fortunate than ourselves. 
Let's help them to find what they lack--so that they might find what they need for themselves.

[velkyn]

The problem is, TOT, is that you have said that the bible can be "properly" understood.  Can it or can't it?

Such a claim must be retracted as making that claim is saying way more than can be backed up objectively. The writings can only be understood to a point and beyond that point, one is then forced to hypothesize, make educated guesses, and fill in holes. See, I can admit when I was wrong.

It seemst that "point" is whatever you want to claim it is, after reading the rest of this thread.   You pointing out what is "wrong' with religion is pretty amusing and pretty much the same "I have the proper understanding" as we started out with.

and: 

Such conclusions are not out of the realm of possibility, but have very little textual support. Those who promote such idea must go through great lengths to connect dots that may in fact be totally unrelated to each other. If the Glenn Becks of the world can connect everything to George Soros I guess these guys can make their connections as well

I see a claim of "very little textual support" but I don't see how you know this or can support it, it seems to be one more vague claim.  I do see kcrady showing the parallells clearly.   

[Benny]

...Let me re-quote part of this conversation...

In other words it is my argument that much of the Bible does NOT require the use of a magic "decoder ring", while other seem to imply that all of the writings require one and since there's no way to objectively prove which decoder is best, then there's no way any of it can be properly understood.

The bold words there.  Read them again.  If it can't be understood, then why put a major world religion on the book?  In essence, you have just made Christianity less plausible than Scientology.  And, if the Bible needs no magic decoder ring, as you say, then it should be clear and easy to understand, which, according to the bold words, is not true.  You have made a fool of your religion and your deity.  May your moronic and all-hating God have mercy on your soul.

Please respond to this.  I'm still waiting.

[Truth OT]

Young Benny, let me fill you in on what I believe and I think you will better understand why it is that I didn't respond to what you posted about a major world religion being on the book. In a nutshell, I agree that organizing a structured and hierarchial corporate religion based on things written to people that have been dead for at least 1900 plus years is foolish and disingenous. So you see Benny, I am and have been for some time, an anti-organized religion person.

In addition, I have voiced my opinion that the religion of various kinds of Christianity exists nowhere within the pages of the NT and are all manmade religions loosely based (some more loosely than others) on the NT writings.

[Benny]

Young Benny,

  When did I ask to be addressed as "Young?"  I believe this is supposed to be some kind of a comment on my apparently low maturity, but I'll let it slide for now.

let me fill you in on what I believe and I think you will better understand why it is that I didn't respond to what you posted about a major world religion being on the book.

You could have explained this when I posted that, but you obviously get around to answering things whenever the hell you feel like it.  I say it again: Very rude, but I'll let it slide.

In a nutshell, I agree that organizing a structured and hierarchial corporate religion based on things written to people that have been dead for at least 1900 plus years is foolish and disingenous. So you see Benny, I am and have been for some time, an anti-organized religion person.

In addition, I have voiced my opinion that the religion of various kinds of Christianity exists nowhere within the pages of the NT and are all manmade religions loosely based (some more loosely than others) on the NT writings.

So explain to me, TOT, are you a Christian?  If so, you are a very hypocritical one at that, not following your own holy book.  If not, then what the hell ARE you?  Please, explain clearly and thoroughly what you believe.  That's a quick way to get on the good side of the atheists here... explain yourself.

[Truth OT]

Young Benny,

  When did I ask to be addressed as "Young?"  I believe this is supposed to be some kind of a comment on my apparently low maturity, but I'll let it slide for now.

Young is a wonderful trait to have on your side and is not necessarily an indication of one's maturity, so please don't take my calling you Young Benny as a personal attack. If it bothered you, I apologize.

let me fill you in on what I believe and I think you will better understand why it is that I didn't respond to what you posted about a major world religion being on the book.

You could have explained this when I posted that, but you obviously get around to answering things whenever the hell you feel like it.  I say it again: Very rude, but I'll let it slide.

Well am I not entitled to decide when I respond and what merits a response from me especially considering the volume of posts I do in fact respond to? Somethings take priority over others, besides had you read other past posts of mine, I beleive you would have come to understand what you inquired about on your own. 

So explain to me, TOT, are you a Christian?  If so, you are a very hypocritical one at that, not following your own holy book.  If not, then what the hell ARE you?  Please, explain clearly and thoroughly what you believe.  That's a quick way to get on the good side of the atheists here... explain yourself.

It is something I have aspired to be for quite sometime. I do not give myself that title as I honestly am unsure what is required to merit such. I believe that those that initially wore that title were given it by those who observed them in the practice of their Christlikeness, if I may coin a word.
You call me hypocritical, why? What actions of mine are in direct contrast with things that I have said and in what ways do you feel am I not practicing what my "holy book" requires of me?

[Benny]

You call me hypocritical, why? What actions of mine are in direct contrast with things that I have said and in what ways do you feel am I not practicing what my "holy book" requires of me?

You said you don't believe in founding a religion on people who lived 1900 years ago, but alas, that is EXACTLY what Christianity is.  Either you're a liar for trusting the Bible, or you're a hypocrite for not trusting it.  If you don't take the bible literally in its entirety, then you are not a Christian, no matter what you say.

[Truth OT]

You call me hypocritical, why? What actions of mine are in direct contrast with things that I have said and in what ways do you feel am I not practicing what my "holy book" requires of me?

You said you don't believe in founding a religion on people who lived 1900 years ago, but alas, that is EXACTLY what Christianity is.  Either you're a liar for trusting the Bible, or you're a hypocrite for not trusting it.  If you don't take the bible literally in its entirety, then you are not a Christian, no matter what you say.

So you are the authority as it pertains to defining what Christianity is. One must take the Bible as being completely literal and inerrant to be a Christian according to you, nice to know. Thanks for the info.
But to be clear, my insistance is that founding an organized corporate hierarchial religion on writings aimed at others that have long since died is foolish. Churchianity is admittedly a flawed religion.

[JeffPT]

So you are the authority as it pertains to defining what Christianity is. One must take the Bible as being completely literal and inerrant to be a Christian according to you, nice to know. Thanks for the info.

I've always thought of this in very simple terms.  The bible is either true, or not true.  It's fiction or non-fiction.  It's either written by God (or through God), or not written by God.  The minute you try to claim some parts of it are fiction, it sets up a big problem, because admitting that some of it is fiction opens the door for ALL of it being fiction.  And with the lack of evidence for any of it, one instance of admitted fiction causes the bottom to fall out. 

Any person who claims to be Christian who is NOT following the bible literally is (at the very least) making up their own religion.  If I were a Christian, I would be a biblical literalist.  It's the only type of Christian I can find myself respecting for their integrity.  The literalists are nuts, and completely wrong about God, but at least they've got the guts to face the consequences of their beliefs.   

my 2 cents.

[Alzael]

I'm confused here. Are you insinuating that I am equating something being written literally with that subject matter also being factual? I am not trying to do such a thing, all I am doing is saying that much of the writings are written in a literal manner as oppossed to all of the writings being written figuratively.

You still fail to justify this. Despite the number of times that it is brought up. You still refuse to respond to this point, no matter how many times you are asked to answer to it.

HOW DO YOU KNOW?

To quote myself from back before "More to the point, you have yet to address how you determine what is meant literally and what is meant figuratively. And, more to the point, how that differentiates you from everyone else who claims different."

You still ignore the important question that is being asked and we still find ourselves coming back to it in every thread. It is not going to go away no matter how much you try to hide.

[screwtape]

If you don't take the bible literally in its entirety, then you are not a Christian, no matter what you say.

Not so, Benito. xians of the Catholic variety are not biblical literalists.  This is because the church came before the bible and created the bible as a tool for religious instruction, not the other way around.  It was not until later that people began to make the bible itself into some kind of fetish, a graven image, a god before yhwh, and claim it was the only source of knowledge regarding yhwh, jesus H and the holy goblin.

And go easy on TOT.   He may have some funny beliefs, but he is basically a nice person.

[Add Homonym]

but he is basically a nice person.

Yes.

I could do with a restatement of what his beliefs are, because I may have missed some, or lost track of them.

[bertatberts]

BM

[Hatter23]

So you are the authority as it pertains to defining what Christianity is. One must take the Bible as being completely literal and inerrant to be a Christian according to you, nice to know. Thanks for the info.

I've always thought of this in very simple terms.  The bible is either true, or not true.  It's fiction or non-fiction.  It's either written by God (or through God), or not written by God.  The minute you try to claim some parts of it are fiction, it sets up a big problem, because admitting that some of it is fiction opens the door for ALL of it being fiction.  And with the lack of evidence for any of it, one instance of admitted fiction causes the bottom to fall out. 

Any person who claims to be Christian who is NOT following the bible literally is (at the very least) making up their own religion.  If I were a Christian, I would be a biblical literalist.  It's the only type of Christian I can find myself respecting for their integrity.  The literalists are nuts, and completely wrong about God, but at least they've got the guts to face the consequences of their beliefs.   

my 2 cents.

I never cottoned to the "all or nothing" approach. There are some minor things, there and there, in The Origin of Species that are wrong. Does that invalidate the ToE? No.

I can easily understand why someone could be a Catholic. Where there is tradition and dogma that is sifting over the text and trying to create a coherent set of principles.

The Bottom drops out, at least in my opinion, when you encounter non-Christian religions. So now it isn't even the same text, the same deity. What seperate My Christianity as provable?

The answer is nothing.

That being said, I treat it for what it is: a slanted history of a particular people that has been intermingled with myth, legends, and fables. Just like every other religious text.