What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?

[Amarok]

My answer to dirch is the same answer i gave banning . If god existed you would know who is he is . There is no way you could not .

Unless god turned out to be something entirely natural as something ones consciousness can produce.  Then one might feel they are receiving signs and 'proofs', but they would probably assume that 'God' was whatever the local legends say about it.  If God's existence turned out to be just one more thing your brain/mind produced right along side ones sense of identity, then there could be a great deal of uncertainty about the nature of God.

I disagree . I argue that if a god existed his existence would be self evident and definable from any other state . And his nature would be similar .

---

And if presented with evidence?

Then i would have to acknowledge that christianity is true. Just like anything else is a similar state .Why should you find that surprising ?

---

Translation:
"because if the world was spherical we'd all fall off of it!!!"

Actually a stories of a flat earth are a historical exaggeration. Most had little trouble accepting a round earth . Flat earthism was not overly prominent. In fact more people believed in a flat earth in 18th to 19th  century than any previous time. And this was luddite reaction to the scientific progress of that period . 

James Hannam wrote:

The myth that people in the Middle Ages thought the Earth is flat appears to date from the 17th century as part of the campaign by Protestants against Catholic teaching. But it gained currency in the 19th century, thanks to inaccurate histories such as John William Draper's History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). Atheists and agnostics championed the conflict thesis for their own purposes, but historical research gradually demonstrated that Draper and White had propagated more fantasy than fact in their efforts to prove that science and religion are locked in eternal conflict

Truthfully, do dismiss 'evidence' because it does not fit your narrative or your elitism's definition on what evidence should be is the ultimate absurdity, as witnessed by those who thought they knew the world was flat! 

This has nothing to do with narratives it's about evidence 

Remember sport the TOP scientific minds of that day made a mockery of those who did not think as the population did concerning the world's shape.

 See above . And why did the scientists change their minds ? EVIDENCE !!!

This is the KEY: The question why??? Why were people mocked and disparaged for not believing as the rest did? the answer is pride. The Pride in the idea that their world view was complete and they themselves knew the world to be flat so NO EVIDENCE WAS EVER GOOD ENOUGH.

Because they made claim but did not back them . Now your just making accusations 

Sound familiar?

You are not even willing to question your foundational principles Why not? are they so fragile? Or is it against the intellectual's rule book? Must intelectual questions and change only come from the top? are you not able to question or think for yourself?

I see no reason to change my principals. Because there is nothing wrong with them . Accept your lack of understanding .