Is it possible...?

[JoeBobSmith]

[elliebean]

I would say yes, and would add that this is the biggest failure I've noticed in a lot of atheists' arguments against Christianity or the Christian god: not taking into account that not all Christians accept all of the Bible as fact. Using the Bible to debunk Christianity as a whole, or even the existence of their god, is an exercise in futility IMO.

[Asmodean]

Following the teachings of whoever wrote Jesus Christ's lines is all that is required to be a Christian (JUST Christian, no denomination added) in my opinion. However, being a Catholic or a Protestant, however, along with most other cults and sects and divisions, implies more than that.

So is it possible to be a Christian while not being a Bible-junkie? Yes.

[Being_Brave]

Before the book was put together, everything was oral Tradition. If someone follows those oral Traditions they are still following the teaching of Christ (so, yes, technically they can be followers of Christ without the Bible). However, I don't know of a denomination that calls itself Christian that only follows the teachings from Tradition (I think all of them use some form of the Bible).

What EllieBean said, about some not taking it literal is right on. I think there's a difference between believing it's fact, and believing that it's literal. I.e. I believe it's fact that God created the Earth, but I don't believe it literally took 6 days.  Catholics had to go by oral Tradition alone until those Traditions were written down and finally compiled, so at one time the majority of the Bible was just Tradition (and the parts that were written weren't called the Bible). Since those oral Traditions were transferred to written form the Catholics/Anglicans/Orthodox refer to both as the teachings of Christ, but are more likely to say that while it's fact that the Bible was inspired by God, you don't have to read it literally to be Christian. Fundamentalists/Protestants need the Bible to be literal because they are sola scriptura, and without it they have nothing (so they'd say yes, you must believe the Bible is literal to be Christian).

[Tank]

Is it possible to be a Christian and not take the bible as fact, or word of god?

Apparently yes. We have an orthodox Christian member here who says just that as far as I know. Now whether Christians who believe the Bible would consider the orthodox Christian a Christian is another issue entirely.

[JoeBobSmith]

[lundberg500]

To be a Christian, you must believe that Jesus died, resurrected, and then floated up to heaven. I will never understand why anyone would believe this without evidence. The bible is definitely NOT evidence but it is the ONLY place you will find this event. Without the bible, there is no death of Jesus. There is no resurrection. There is no ascension. This is just a case of people wanting to claim themselves as Christian but also know full well that the bible has been proven over and over again to be fallible and full of untruths. It's just picking what sounds good about Christianity and sticking with that. This makes no sense to me at all.  

[AnimatedDirt]

Following the teachings of whoever wrote Jesus Christ's lines is all that is required to be a Christian (JUST Christian, no denomination added) in my opinion. However, being a Catholic or a Protestant, however, along with most other cults and sects and divisions, implies more than that.

So is it possible to be a Christian while not being a Bible-junkie? Yes.

As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."  For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,  for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?  And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

Of course it is possible.  One need only to trust in Him.  You don't need the Bible for that.  You only need someone to share the Good News with you.

[terranus]

You only need someone to share the Good News with you.

You know, i always wondered why Christians call it "The Good News".

1. Something that allegedly happened thousands of years ago isn't really "news"
2. Definitely wouldn't classify zombification as "good".

[AnimatedDirt]

You only need someone to share the Good News with you.

You know, i always wondered why Christians call it "The Good News".

1. Something that allegedly happened thousands of years ago isn't really "news"
2. Definitely wouldn't classify zombification as "good".

Anything that happened in the past and is being reported, is news.
The Good News simply means it is news of greatest importance, beyond earthly happiness.

[terranus]

You only need someone to share the Good News with you.

You know, i always wondered why Christians call it "The Good News".

1. Something that allegedly happened thousands of years ago isn't really "news"
2. Definitely wouldn't classify zombification as "good".

Anything that happened in the past and is being reported, is news.
The Good News simply means it is news of greatest importance, beyond earthly happiness.

Hmm...The first statement is logically sound, so I guess I can see your point on that. Not too sure about the second one though. I mean, if it is of the "greatest importance", then why is it simply the "good" news? Why not the "great" news? Or the "awesome" news? Or the "best freakin news ever"? I feel like something is being lost in translation. Also, I'm not entirely certain that "earthly happiness" even exists, so "beyond earthly happiness" is definitely something I have trouble comprehending. Could you give me another example of something that goes beyond earthly happiness? Being completely serious here if you're wondering...I'm just trying to see it from a religious person's point-of-view, since my own point-of-view seems to be lacking.

[JoeBobSmith]

[AnimatedDirt]

Not too sure about the second one though. I mean, if it is of the "greatest importance", then why is it simply the "good" news? Why not the "great" news? Or the "awesome" news? Or the "best freakin news ever"? I feel like something is being lost in translation.

In context of God and following the flow of the books of the Bible, specifically the Genesis acct. of creation where at the end of each "day", God said it was good. If God made it and it was good, then we can presume it was perfect as intended. Likewise in Mark 10:17,18 and Luke 18:18,19 we have Jesus being called "Good teacher" and His reply of, "No one is good--except God alone." So we can see that the term, Good, resonates the perfection of God. The Good News is the only news of real worth.  How much "good" news do we hear from our local news broadcasts?  I hear mostly bad news, some funny news, but mostly bad news.  Death, taxes, war(s), famine, accidents, murder...

Also, I'm not entirely certain that "earthly happiness" even exists, so "beyond earthly happiness" is definitely something I have trouble comprehending. Could you give me another example of something that goes beyond earthly happiness? Being completely serious here if you're wondering...I'm just trying to see it from a religious person's point-of-view, since my own point-of-view seems to be lacking.

One word.  HOPE.

[hackenslash]

I would say yes, and would add that this is the biggest failure I've noticed in a lot of atheists' arguments against Christianity or the Christian god: not taking into account that not all Christians accept all of the Bible as fact. Using the Bible to debunk Christianity as a whole, or even the existence of their god, is an exercise in futility IMO.

I'd go further, and say that most christians haven't even read it. I certainly haven't come across many who know it in any depth. Almost all, though, will cite the little bits they know of it in their arguments. I only know one believing christian for whom this isn't true, and he's a really special case. He's also the most lucid believer I've ever come across, and makes no pretense at any of it being remotely logical. Tank knows who I mean, I'm sure.

For myself, the only time I ever use the bible to disprove the existence of that particular made-up entity is when the made-up entity in question is actually described as 'the biblical god'. That's fair game, AFAIC. Among most of the christians I've come across, this is as close as they are willing to get to define their deity.

What I will say is that, whether you are a christian who takes the bible as gospel or not (pun intended), the precepts are still rooted in something that didn't happen, namely the original sin from which we all allegedly require salvation, otherwise the crucifixion and the immoral doctrine of scapegoating are pretty much a non-sequitur. In that sense, it is not remotely possible to be christian without at least reference to the wibble in Genesis. There is no context in which any of what follows makes sense otherwise, and I haven't come across any robust allegorical treatment of it that wouldn't wither under the gaze of a five year-old.

[terranus]

Thanks for the input, Dirt.