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

[vulcanlogician]

[Alexmahone]

I guess it's reasonable for a Christian to admire some/most of Jesus' moral teachings. But they should be willing to criticize the rest and not believe in any of the miracles including the resurrection.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

[vorlon13]

Another good belief to hold would be the willingness to launch a schism at the first sign of heresy in your current denomination.

[stretch3172]

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.)

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, including the authority of Scripture, the depravity of man, and the death and resurrection of Christ, without which Christianity itself is meaningless (1 Cor 15:17). Lutherans, Baptists, Pentecostals, Methodists, and other such denominations will disagree quite a bit on less important issues such as the proper method of baptism, church government, music styles, etc., but they are all alike in that they hold to basic, fundamental Christian doctrines such as these. Of course, I think that "reasonable" Christians must still adhere to basic principles of deductive and inductive logic as well as science, and they should be willing to think critically and honestly about how to integrate these into their worldview.

[vulcanlogician]

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Another good belief to hold would be the willingness to launch a schism at the first sign of heresy in your current denomination.

They did that when the religion was just an hour old.

[Huggy Bear]

[vulcanlogician]

I'm finding that WOG's original claim was imprecise, perhaps. Many of the books were already marked as non-canonical by the Catholic Church centuries before. But, at least according to his sources and some others, many Protestant Bibles did undergo revision around 1881. To me, personally, it doesn't matter much, Huggy. But it does say something to the inerrantists...

I'm still looking into it. Anyone with something to add on the matter, feel free.

[The Grand Nudger]

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, including the authority of Scripture, the depravity of man, and the death and resurrection of Christ, without which Christianity itself is meaningless (1 Cor 15:17).

That's one of the more interesting things about evangelicals, in my opinion.  Broadly, accurately describing evangelicals together as a whole is elusive beyond a collective reverence for magic book, and theres a greater difference between sub-sets than their church music - let's not be curt, lol.  In any case, it would seem that if there were anyone who could draw meaning out of it...even if it weren't literally true in every jot and tittle, it would be them.   Yes, ofc, a collective belief of evangelicals regards the authority of scripture..but former evangelical atheists are no less impressed with the contents for having lost their faiths.  So, too, there are many atheists who find utility and meaning in the narrative.  It stands to reason, then, that the nature of it's authorship may be an explicit article of some faith..but the authority of the contents can be and probably is being derived from more than the mere belief in god or magic books..when it comes to magic book.  

Christ's parables are certainly not considered less accurate or meaningful for having been fanciful stories godman supposedly told crowds to teach them important theological lessons.  If the entirety of magic book was as god's parables (jesus being his platonic socrates), or if there were no god at all..and these were stories we told each other about life, love, and everything, we would still be looking at a work of great literary significance for many people.  The kind of work which informs the lives of people regardless of belief.  

The irony, for me, is in seeing people who would have to be the books biggest fans and allies treating it as though pseudonymity would be an irredeemable state of affairs.  As if LOTR wasn't written by tolkein, it would not still be LOTR.