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

[stretch3172]

I guess I'll throw in my two cents. According to the evangelical view, there are certain core beliefs on which Christianity simply must stand,

What exactly is the evangelical view regarding the Catholic Church's insistence that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ?

(1 Cor 15:17)

Aren’t you shooting yourself in the foot?

1 Corinthians 15:17 New International Version (NIV)

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins

This to me is one of the most confusing utterances Paul ever spake and is diametrically opposite to the words of the gospels. You can't have it both ways. If Paul's words are true then the words of the gospels are wrong. So which is it?

...The authority of Scripture...

What is this authority of scripture of which you speak?
On who's authority am I condemned to suffer everlasting indescribable agony for having a quick one of the wrist after listening to me sister and her boyfriend upstairs giving it plenty. Song of Songs?

The death and resurrection of Christ...

Dude, the universe operates according to a set of rules. You can't turn fish into bread, or whatever it was,  and if you're dead for three days you're staying dead. There’s no way around this.

Without which Christianity itself is meaningless.

We are stardust. Every atom in your body was once part of a star that exploded. There is no greater wonder than this.

...Christians must still adhere to basic principles of deductive and inductive logic as well as science...

Tell me again how this god of yours didn't give clear instructions as to how to spell 'yours' or is it 'your's'.  

An enquiring mind needs to know.

What exactly is the evangelical view regarding the Catholic Church's insistence that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ?

You're referring to transubstantiation, which is based on flawed hermeneutics and false. It is based on the assumption that Jesus was speaking literally when He called bread "my body" and wine "my blood" (Mat 26:26-28) as well as certain early Christian quotes. It is evident from the context that this is metaphorical language; Jesus did not mean that the objects were His literal body any more than John meant that Jesus was a literal lamb by calling Him the "Lamb of God" (Jn 1:29). 

Aren’t you shooting yourself in the foot?

Assuming that Jesus did not rise, yes. Assuming He did (the evangelical view), no. We would need to look at the historical evidence and argue from there, but the objections to a literal resurrection (grave robbing, hallucinations, etc.) are pretty weak.

 This to me is one of the most confusing utterances Paul ever spake and is diametrically opposite to the words of the gospels. You can't have it both ways. If Paul's words are true then the words of the gospels are wrong. So which is it?

How so? Which passage(s) in the gospels are mutually exclusive to this one and why? Jesus' death was not the only theologically necessary element of Christianity. His resurrection is also essential for the Christian's "new birth," "living hope" (1 Pet 1:3), and justification from sin (Col 3:1; Rom 4:25). 

What is this authority of scripture of which you speak? On who's authority am I condemned to suffer everlasting indescribable agony for having a quick one of the wrist after listening to me sister and her boyfriend upstairs giving it plenty. Song of Songs?

For one, we are all naturally guilty sinners regardless of the types or quantity of sins we commit. We are condemned first and foremost because of our sinful nature itself. God is the authority who recognizes and legislates objective moral standards, of which lust is a violation. Scripture, as inspired by God, serves as the most important standard of divine authority according to which we make epistemological and moral judgments.

 Dude, the universe operates according to a set of rules.

All we know about these "rules" from a natural perspective comes from empirical observation. On the most basic level, they are not absolutely necessary. For instance, all I know is that every time I've dropped a pen, I've seen it fall. From this observation, I can say that something (the law of gravity) causes it to fall. This doesn't logically imply that the pen must fall in every case; it simply observes what we have seen. This is Hume's "Problem of Induction." Christian theology holds that all such natural laws or "rules" are the secondary means by which God allows the universe to operate, and miracles such as those in the Bible are rare cases in which He temporarily suspends these secondary laws to act in a way that we cannot fully understand or explain. 

We are stardust. Every atom in your body was once part of a star that exploded. There is no greater wonder than this. 

Even if that's entirely true, it doesn't contradict the assertion that God created the cosmos. 

Tell me again how this god of yours didn't give clear instructions as to how to spell 'yours' or is it 'your's'.  An enquiring mind needs to know.

English grammar is of the devil.