What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?
January 30, 2018 at 2:53 am
(This post was last modified: January 30, 2018 at 3:22 am by Whateverist.)
For me the beliefs I would look at are those involving the status of the bible, origins, the soul & afterlife, and the nature of God. Here is what that would look like for me.
Regarding the bible, a reasonable Christian would have to accept the best scholarship regarding the origins of the text without regard to the denomination or belief status of the scholar. It would also mean accepting that the proper way to read the bible is a reasonable topic for discussion, with all points of view accepted and without doctrinal dedication to a particular interpretation. Those who believe the bible tells a Christian how to lead his life would be welcome to defend that position. Likewise for those who think its chief use is allegorical or for those who think parts of it were literally inspired by God. Every stance must be tolerated and defended, and none would enjoy authoritative standing.
Regarding origins, given what was already said about the bible, the beliefs a Christian could reasonably hold about creation would have to accord with the science surrounding the development and age of the earth as well as with our own evolution. They could hold that God was behind it in some unspecified way but that can't lead to conflicts with the science if their beliefs are to be deemed reasonable.
Oddly I think there is more room for Christians to hold what would strike us as lavishly speculative theories of what happens to a person's essence after death, since these wouldn't contradict anything essential about life as we know it. But again to be reasonable, they would at least have to allow that another Christian is free to hold that talk of heaven, hell and souls is all figurative. Talk of "true Christians" would have to be acknowledged to be unreasonable.
As for God, we should expect some Christians to see God as something inside, others as something out there and still others as something purely symbolic. As with souls and an afterlife, any beliefs regarding the nature of God which doesn't contradict life as we know it, would be reasonable and insistence that any particular point of view should be accepted by all would be unreasonable - or else justified in a manner which doesn't claim an unearned authority.
It remains to be seen if that leaves enough for anyone to still find meaning and value in their Christian affiliation. Naturally being considered to hold reasonable beliefs by the standards of non-Christians is probably of no concern to any Christians we know but hell - this exercise isn't for them anyhow. (But theists should feel free to kibitz too.)
Regarding the bible, a reasonable Christian would have to accept the best scholarship regarding the origins of the text without regard to the denomination or belief status of the scholar. It would also mean accepting that the proper way to read the bible is a reasonable topic for discussion, with all points of view accepted and without doctrinal dedication to a particular interpretation. Those who believe the bible tells a Christian how to lead his life would be welcome to defend that position. Likewise for those who think its chief use is allegorical or for those who think parts of it were literally inspired by God. Every stance must be tolerated and defended, and none would enjoy authoritative standing.
Regarding origins, given what was already said about the bible, the beliefs a Christian could reasonably hold about creation would have to accord with the science surrounding the development and age of the earth as well as with our own evolution. They could hold that God was behind it in some unspecified way but that can't lead to conflicts with the science if their beliefs are to be deemed reasonable.
Oddly I think there is more room for Christians to hold what would strike us as lavishly speculative theories of what happens to a person's essence after death, since these wouldn't contradict anything essential about life as we know it. But again to be reasonable, they would at least have to allow that another Christian is free to hold that talk of heaven, hell and souls is all figurative. Talk of "true Christians" would have to be acknowledged to be unreasonable.
As for God, we should expect some Christians to see God as something inside, others as something out there and still others as something purely symbolic. As with souls and an afterlife, any beliefs regarding the nature of God which doesn't contradict life as we know it, would be reasonable and insistence that any particular point of view should be accepted by all would be unreasonable - or else justified in a manner which doesn't claim an unearned authority.
It remains to be seen if that leaves enough for anyone to still find meaning and value in their Christian affiliation. Naturally being considered to hold reasonable beliefs by the standards of non-Christians is probably of no concern to any Christians we know but hell - this exercise isn't for them anyhow. (But theists should feel free to kibitz too.)
