You have to understand that Christianity isn't just an ideology and the Bible isn't an ordinary book. They both make a claim to be special in a very specific way: that they are the word of a Supreme Being with creative and destructive dominion over the entire universe. But I actually like your example, and it does work in a certain way, although not how you might expect. Let's make a clear comparison: let's say that there is a political party that has as its platform a number of perfectly okay things like long-term deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility, healthy respect for property and gun rights, and a general uneasiness with federal legislation where state legislation will work and to entangling foreign alliances and organizations. And then there's another political party that believes all those same things, but they also believe that black/white segregation should be re-instituted. The first one, more or less, is the libertarian wing of the Republican party. The second one is something else entirely, the Ku Klux Klan perhaps. Believing half of what any particular member of the Klan believes doesn't make you a Klansman. Now, the Klan may not have a book to take literally so far as I know, and neither do Republicans, and Republicans certainly don't call themselves Klanspersons even though the two groups might agree on many different things: those things are trivial similarities between the ideologies. A person is a Klansman because of his views on race and religion, not states' rights and the national debt. A person is a Nazi because of his views on "The Jewish Question" or the role of the State in individual lives, not vegetarianism, physical education or gun control.JUMBO PALACE said:
In the same way, believing only "the good parts" of Christianity doesn't make you a Christian. Let's face it: "be nice", "don't murder people", "be a generous person" aren't exactly unique to Christianity (you may fill in the rest of the list if you like.) You can believe all of that and be Buddhist, Taoist, Confucian, Atheist, Muslim, Jew, Wiccan, Orthodox Jew, Reform Jew, Liberal, Conservative, or practically anything else that isn't entirely crazy. They are very few in number who won't at least give lip service to all those ideals if not breathe life into them and make them a reality. Is it not the case that those sorts of behaviors between individuals are what sustain communities all across the world? And yet the whole world is not Christian. The Christians neither invented nor particularly perpetuated those doctrines. Those beliefs were here before and will be here long after Christianity. There is the meat of the doctrine and then there are the trivial details. In order to be Christian, one must believe what is particular to Christianity, because that is what sets one apart from other people who might believe all manner of things. To believe "the good parts" is to believe only in the trivial details. At the minimum, to be a Christian requires believing that there was someone named Jesus Christ who was the Son of God and who died for your sins. I suppose it isn't strictly necessary to believe in the truth of the Bible, but I find it hard to see the point in being a Christian without that, as that is how his teachings were supposedly transmitted.
If you think "oh, well, that Jesus character said some nice things" you aren't yet being a Christian. That falls ever so far short. And being nice, not murdering, and being generous also doesn't do the trick: I do all of that at least some of the time, and I'm certainly no Christian. And I believe all of that is moral, and I'm certainly no Christian. No, you really have to believe you know many substantial things about the life of Jesus Christ, and the only way to do that really is through the Bible (you might know many substantial things about Jesus Christ not being the Son of God or indeed living at all through more scientific methods.) But about the supremely evil doctrines one will find in the Bible: one might ask what the Old Testament has to do with all of this, since both Deuteronomy and Leviticus are but prequels to the story of the life of Jesus. And here it is:
Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. (Matthew 23:1-3 KJV)
He refers, of course, to the Rabbis, the Jewish teachers of God's Law. Even though he calls them hypocrites throughout the chapter, he still affirms their expertise in the Old Testament, and says to the multitude that they should obey those principles. You'll see that elsewhere as well. Now it strikes me that there are reasonable ways to come to the belief that one should be generous and kind and good that don't depend on belief in Jesus Christ. In fact, the story of the life of Jesus Christ has in it some very strange things that seem only to cloud the picture of what makes actions good and right. Treating some parts of the text as good examples doesn't make you a Christian. And that's fine: I have some better news than what is found in the New Testament-- it's okay not to be a Christian! You will not, in fact, be eternally punished for disbelieving, there aren't actually people perpetually suffering in flames beneath every volcano, and you can be a person of good character and reasonably expect most others to be kind, generous, moral people even without that threat hanging over their heads. Also, the world isn't going to have a judgment day. The Antichrist isn't poised to take over the Earth while True Christians leave everyone behind. That may be the best news we've heard in a long time.
Much of the Bible is about faith. You must have faith in God. You must have faith in the Bible as God's word. You must live your life according to God's Law. What must the thought process be for a Christian to reject a part of the Bible? It must involve this affirmation: "I know better." The question is how you know better. Is it through the Bible? No, obviously not. So you're a Christian, but you know better than Christianity. This is a very weak rationalization for thinking for yourself. Thinking for yourself allows you to be a good person, not a good Christian.
I have no problem with someone living a life in accordance with the non-crazy parts of Christian doctrine. That's functionally the same as living one's life with the non-crazy parts of hedonism or the ideas of Spinoza or Locke or Vonnegut. But that is insufficient to make one a Christian. And it is supremely ignorant to suggest that it is, for it implies that you think society beforehand (and also simply in the absence of Christianity) was (or is) without generally recognized principles of kindness, fairness, and generosity. And that is just fucking retarded.
I'll also repeat myself since no post after it has really engaged the point I made with it:
If you pick and choose from it, the Bible isn't performing its intended purpose of being a basis for your thought and action. Instead, it functions as a list of things that you can agree or disagree with. If it's only a list, why use it at all when you clearly have some better standard with which to make the proper judgments? Is it really believing in the Bible to say that some of it is true and other parts false?
