That does not indicate at all that I said or implied that is all the Bible consists of.
At any rate, the actual answer to the question the way you posed it is: some Christians believe they are actual events that really happened and other Christians do not believe that those are actual events that really happened.
And it’s not for Robert163 to decide if someone who calls himself or herself Christian is really a Christian or not.
Something doesn’t have to actually have happened and actually be recorded by an actual observer/historian to be meaningful. Yoda does not actually exist on a small moon in the Dagobah system, for he is the creation of George Lucas’ mind. But it doesn’t matter, since he is now part of the collective consciousness of the millions of people who are Star War fans (maybe even billions). We can guess what his advice might be in any given situation.
And so it is with the bible. You’ll get different messages from different parts of it, but whether JC really existed or not, “love your enemies” is a pretty profound piece of advice and hardly what you’d call “common sense.”
Okay, I’ll ask you my question. Given that Christians range from believing everything in the Bible is true except those things specifically labeled as parables to practically nothing in the Bible is true including the resurrection, but all symbolic, how do you decide which parts to accept? Any important direction can be directly inspired and must be followed exactly, is a suggestion which needs to be interpreted according to current moral principles and the larger context, or something snuck in by some guy when God wasn’t looking?
No body is doubting the influence of the Bible and religion. But if some Congresscritter introduced a law to test all five year olds for possession of the Force, you’d think him rather wacky. Yet equally inane laws have been proposed - and passed - based on the truth of the Bible, which isn’t even as logically consistent as Star Wars.
I don’t understand the question: it implies that parables (for example) can’t be vehicles of truth. I “accept” all parts of the Bible; I just don’t interpret them all in the same way.
If you’re asking how a Christian knows which parts to take literally, well, depending on what part you’re talking about, sometimes that’s an easy question, and sometimes it’s not so easy, and requires some thoughtful consideration and/or expert advice. But I’m a Christian, not a Bibleian: what matters ultimately is not my relationship with the Bible but my relationship with Christ. Which is not to say the Bible isn’t important; but someone who makes an honest mistake in their interpretation of it is not, IMHO, therefore “not a real Christian.”
sigh - accept as actually occurring, of course. We all read plenty of fiction which instills moral values which we may accept while still understanding the story is made up.
I don’t care anything at all who a real Christian was. I asked Guin about if she thought the resurrection was an allegory to see how far she went in the allegory game. I know I’m not one, and I’d wonder about someone with exactly my beliefs, but self-identification doesn’t hurt anybody. It is not like you get a Christianity bonus - well, often you do, especially in politics, but not around here.
You define yourself by your relationship with Christ. I can see that. But how do you make this two way? Do you get what Christ said and wants from the Bible? From later writing? From folklore. From inspiration and meditation?
Which laws would those be?
Are you asking me personally, how I see it, or most of Christianity? Myself, I see it as allegory.
Or, you have stories that were passed down over time, and grew as they were told over and over and over again. As I stated before, most likely Jesus was based on an actual individual, and a lot of the super natural stuff was simply attributed to him over time. Like King Arthur may have been based on a real person, for example.
Part of my problem is that Robert163 keeps insisting that everything must be taken literally, that obviously that’s what the writers of the Bible meant. Despite the fact that that’s only a very recent tradition. As for which ones, and what their meanings are – well, Biblical scholars have been arguing over that for 2,000 years. 
I do in fact know what they mean and I think you have deliberately missed my point
because the claims they make are scientifically impossible.
So its your assertion that Christians in AD 841 or AD 1296 knew that the story of Noah’s Ark was false?
Some may have believed in it, some may not. Remember, we’re talking about a completely different time and place. Also, over time, views on the Bible change and evolve. It’s not like, “This is what it means, and that’s that.” Or, “That’s what’s true, end of story.” Beliefs adapt with time and knowledge.
Perhaps someone who’s more familiar with this history of Biblical studies can give you a better answer. I can tell you that people have been arguing over these things as long as Christianity has existed. Your attitude is certainly nothing new.
I seriously doubt that Illiterate people who had virtually no scientific knowledge at all would have any reason to doubt the existence of Noah and the Ark. But if you want to continue to assert that they did, go ahead.
‘Christians’ aren’t a monolithic group. There was a substantial chunk of Christians in the 13th century (some of whom were probably around in 1296) who rejected the Old Testament entirely, so I would assume they also rejected the tale of Noah’s ark. I’m sure Christians as a whole had a variety of views on Noah’s Ark then, as they do now. Fundamentally, Christianity isn’t about Noah, it’s about Jesus.
I didn’t say they had the knowledge. Don’t put words in my mouth. I said perhaps they did, or perhaps they didn’t. Whatever their reasons, who knows? BTW, it doesn’t mean the church fathers were lying. Just because what they were preaching was wrong doesn’t mean they were deliberately lying. Are you lying if you’re merely mistaken?
Also, remember – believe the Bible is true and taking it literally are not the same thing.
I am aware that there were allways fringe groups and mystics and gnostics and whatnot. I’m not sure how that is relevant to anything really.
I’ll quit putting words in your mouth when you start making definitive statements and quit riding the fence.
Give some examples
I’m not riding any damned fence. I’m saying, I don’t HAVE definite answers. At least not the ones you’re looking for. You want a statement saying “this part here is allegory, this is not”. I seriously CANNOT give you that. Good god, do you how long people have been debating these things? I can only give you what I, personally, believe.
Hell, the fucking college of cardinals probably couldn’t give you a “definitive statement”, as in, a “yes or no” answer. I don’t know why you expect me to.
The Garden of Eden could be an allegory, I don’t think it was intended to be, but it could because it talks about events where the author was not present and has a certain tone, but Jonah living in the belly of a whale and Daniel surviving a burning furnace were stated as first hand accounts and strait out facts.