I don't reject it entirely. But can you really entirely trust a book that in some places says "The all-merciful Lord said 'I don't like gays, I think I'll subject them to eternal torture'"?

So, which parts to you consider true, and which do you consider false? Do you reject the 10 Commandments? The Immaculate Conception? The Sermon on the Mount?

Well, I reject the parts that are in conflict with other parts, like God loving everyone and hating gays.

You didn't answer my question. We'll just start with one of them. Do you reject the 10 Commandments?

No, I don't reject the Ten Commandments. They're a good set of laws.



Also, one part I consider false is the Garden of Eden. Modern discoveries such as the Theory of Evoloution make more sense. But, I have nothing against the story. It was made in a time when there was no concept of evoloution.

Do. You. Believe. In. The. Ten. Commandments.

Refresh. Page. Look. Up.

Don't get snippy because you decided to edit in your comment after I posted.

What is the Second Commandment?

"Do not have any other gods before me"

OR

"Do not make a carving-a graven image of anything that is in heaven"

Exactly. In other words, don't make your own god of your choosing. And by cherry picking what tenets of Christianity you follow, you are doing just that; making a god in you own image. What you have then is your own brand of spirituality, which is just fine. However, you can't call it Christianity no more than you could call it Shintoism because you reject it's teachings.

One can doubt the bibles accuracy but still be a Christian. All one has to do is look for the meaning behind the words rather than take the words as unadorned historical fact which is what I believe was the intention of the writers.

There are actually three. Josephus and Tacitus both interviewed Christians to find out what the fuss was about, and recorded what they were told. That's it. Two second-hand sources and the Bible, which doesn't give a single account claiming to be eye-witness, except for Paul's account of his conversion.

So your statement of "a genuive historical figure who was born in Bethlehem, spread his message of love and forgiveness, and was crucified by the Romans" has not one single actual historical record. No Hebrew or Roman records of his birth, no external records of "spreading his message", no Roman records of the crucifixion. Nothing.

I'm not saying it isn't true. I don't claim to know. But historical records? Not a single one.

But isn't that also what the Catholic Church is doing? They've constructed the image of a God who critically punishes Homosexuality, and wants to stop abortions and voluntary euthanasia. The last 2 are terrible, terrible things, but in some cases are the best thing to do.

Also, the Catholic church was the only church that existed in Europe until Luther, so all Christian denominations stem from that.

And I don't see how I'm straying from either of those 2nd commandments. I'm only worshipping the God that is referred to in Christian texts, and I'm not carving images of him.

Steve, you have a unique talent. You can be absolutely polite to someone while destroying their argument. No wonder you were made a moderator!

Because they all follow the same basic tenets, which you reject.

You are worshiping a god that does not hold to the tenets of Christianity. As such, you are worshiping what may be a beautiful deity, but it isn't a Christian one. That violates the Second Commandment. Idols are not always physical.