I don’t know if I get your actual meaning, though I think I understand your sentiment.
When you separate literal truth from spiritual truth, what do you mean?
For instance, when Jesus says “destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” is he speaking of a literal, physical resurrection of his body, or a spiritual one, or something else?
When the prophet says “a virgin shall conceive” does he mean a woman that is pure in mind, or somehow spiritually pure, or does he mean a woman who has never had sex with a man?
When Jesus speaks of resurrected bodies for believers, is this a physical resurrection, and will we have glorified bodies, or we will we simply be somehow existing as disembodied entities in some state of eternal spiritual bliss?
If the “high profile” targets of the Old Testament cannot be believed (creation and the flood), how can the more palatable (He loves us, and He wants a relationship with us) spiritual truths be accepted so readily.
How can I trust a God who would lie to me about how He made me (humanity) and destroyed the world, save eight people, when He tells me He loves me and sent His Son to save me?
Restated, how do I know which statements of God from the Bible to believe, and which not to believe?
How, specifically, do you choose which statements, or “spiritual” truths, from the Bible to believe...and which “literal” truths (or statements) to reject?
What criteria do you use so as not to “end up making up (y)our own facts?”
Well, a LITERAL reading would be the physical temple in Jerusalem! Jesus was speaking metaphorically, which is what I believe most of the stories in the Old Testament (especially Genesis, as it happened well before the earliest written records) to be. Metaphors, examples, parables. Not a hard, literal reading.
Now, about his actual resurrection, I believe it was a transcended resurrection - spiritual and physical (as needed). Just like the duality of Jesus: fully God AND fully man. It's pretty clear that His body wasn't always "normal" when He returned; Mary Magdalene didn't realize it was Him until he spoke! And yet He still bore the wounds, so that Thomas could be challenged.
I believe His resurrected body took whatever form was needed to deliver the message and encouragement as needed. Much like the Bible; the actual physical placement of the words or order of the books is irrelevant because it is the message within that matters.
When Jesus speaks of resurrected bodies for believers, is this a physical resurrection, and will we have glorified bodies, or we will we simply be somehow existing as disembodied entities in some state of eternal spiritual bliss?
Does it matter? Does it matter if you have a physical or spiritual body when you are in the presence of God? Do we become enamored with the idea of maintaining physical bodies when we are resurrected because it's what we're comfortable/expect/can relate to?
If the “high profile” targets of the Old Testament cannot be believed (creation and the flood), how can the more palatable (He loves us, and He wants a relationship with us) spiritual truths be accepted so readily.
Because the high profile targets simply add support to the spiritual/philosophical message of the Bible! The fact that God created us, that He would keep good men (Noah) from harm, that He would protect His people. Did Samson actually use just the jawbone of an ass to kill 10,000? Hey, is it any less impressive if he used a club and killed 100? Either way it could only happen because God gave him the strength.
How can I trust a God who would lie to me about how He made me (humanity) and destroyed the world, save eight people, when He tells me He loves me and sent His Son to save me?
Is God lying? God is only lying if you accept the words as you receive as literal, inerrant. I do not believe that was ever the intended role of the Bible! It was never meant to be a 100% word-for-word dictate from God, like muslims believe of the Koran from Allah.
In fact, if you DO hold that position, then can you tell me which Bible is correct? Is it the Protestant Bible? Or perhaps the Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox canon that is correct? Because they all have different books in them, and if the exact words are important, then we have some SERIOUS problems.
Furthermore, if you can answer that, then which translation is correct? Look at my earlier example with the word "gay". How are you 100% sure that back when Moses and others started writing things down that the word 'day' simply meant a 24 hour period? Perhaps day meant that BUT was also used as "length of a task", with rise and fall of the sun meaning starting and ending of a task?
And we are left with VERY difficuly questions, such as who was Cain's wife? The Bible is VERY explicit about who was made by God (Adam and Eve), and that they bore two children: Cain and Abel. And then Cain killed Abel, was banished, and then married - who? It's not recorded, so does that mean it did not happen, that he married no one?
How is that different than assuming things like the process of evolution - it's not recorded so it didn't happen? Or is the actual process of creation irrelevant, because what matters is that God created?
Restated, how do I know which statements of God from the Bible to believe, and which not to believe?
Any statement about spirituality, philosophy, morality are to be believed. Does it change the teachings of Christ if he only fed 4,500 with 5 loaves of bread and two fish, versus 5,000 men? Does it make the miracle of Daniel any less important if he was in a den with just one lion versus many?
Those details are NOT the point of the Bible! They are merely means of conveying that which is important - that Jesus' words and actions can feed everyone, and that God will protect His chosen people.
How, specifically, do you choose which statements, or “spiritual” truths, from the Bible to believe...and which “literal” truths (or statements) to reject?
All spiritual truths are to be believed; when you do that, do the literal "truths" matter? My faith does not need physical concrete proof to exist, for the word faith itself implies believing something that cannot be proven!
Once you accept the spiritual truths revealed in the Bible, the issues of physical reality become essentially irrelevant. And we - as Christians - can focus on the preaching of the early church and Paul and Peter; providing encouragement and support and instruction to new believers, not debating "was it 6 literal days" or "was it 7 shouts at Jericho".
In fact, I believe it debases Christianity and a person's faith therein to try to find physical, concrete "proof" of what happened. It says a lot about the strength of that faith...
I'm comfortable saying that God created everything, and that He did it in the way that worked according to His will. Was that evolution or direct creation? Doesn't matter. It may have been the former, it may have been the latter. My faith does not hinge on that!
In fact, if you want to talk about "lies", then why would God set up a universe with specific, hard physical laws and then immediately set about violating them when He created all? To mislead unbelievers? To confuse His people?
What criteria do you use so as not to “end up making up (y)our own facts?”
I don't make up my facts...;) I don't try to figure out and explain where Cain's wife came from, for example! Rather, the exact "facts" - especially about Genesis - are irrelevant! What do they matter? Is the story of Genesis made worthless if the flood of Noah wasn't the ENTIRE world we know of today, but only the "world" that Noah knew of - perhaps 100-200 miles in radius? And does either change the truth that God saved the righteous man?
Effectively, my approach is to look at the lesson/story/spiritual truth that God is trying to reveal in all the stories in the Bible. And then learn from those. The details of the physical actions as recorded are not important in this light.