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 .

[Drich]

I'm sympathetic to your inclination to reject the authority of churchly officialdom.  Viva la protestant revolution.  

actually I had no knowledge of martian Luther (outside of MLK) My 'rebellion was to question the protestant church, and all of the creeds and conventions. Threw most of that away.

So why can't others 'see him?"

Well, what is there to "see" after all?

 Honestly. I know most of you want to call me a liar for this but may God take me Home from you all So as not to pollute or damage any of you, If I did not witness these things as I described them to you all originally. 1) I looked Christ in the eyes at my judgement felt the warmth and experienced boundless love, and for a moment understood it all, including my sin, then was taken from that and cast into Hell. had a direct back and fourth discussion with an 'angel' Who told me things I never thought could come true and here I sit 20 years later with nearly everything he told came true. Not to mention daily interaction with the Holy Spirit offering direction strength and knowledge when I need it.

This is the God of the bible. This is the God I went in search for this is the God I question why the church can not communicate with. This is the God I found independently of what i thought a God should be.

Most believers I know hold that God is undetectable by our senses, leastwise without a generous amount of inference.

 That is heart breaking. I am truly sadden of the thought of one living in that much darkness./serving a God they never known.

Isn't it really a matter of introspection and deduction?

 I'm the idiot of the board remember.. I simply asked questions and sought the truth and followed where ever it lead me.

Why would we expect to find agreement based on that?  You look inside and find something different than the usual.  I look inside and wonder why we should call that God.  Fine with me if you do, but that's not what I see.

That is because you are the decider you are at the center of the equation. You are trying to make fit an idea of God that plays or fits into your own world narrative. So of course God does not fit.

Imagine taking the position of a blank slate and ask God to imprint or draw a pic of Himself on your slate. Now vet that drawing with the bible and if that pic is Good you know it do not come from you, as it probably is polar opposite of what you think God is. Meaning introspection will only take you away from God.

We must approach Him as the children approached Jesus. They wanted Him/to be told taught.. not to take or fit him into a role.

 

What are they looking for? What if what they are looking for is not the picture of God found in the bible would they recognize Him? The obvious answer is no. Otherwise most of you would acknowledged God. Which is what I think you've backed yourself into by saying you should follow what the bible says or what we can accurately translate from it.

Not sure if I follow.  

I'm saying NO one has a 100% accurate pic of God. Now let's say if your pic of God is derogated more than 50% there is no hope with what you pic provides for you to identify God in any way shape or form. So if you look at the world or the things Christians tell you to do or look at and compare it to your bad pic, you will not be able to see the same things they do hence "Why call that god?"

Are you saying atheists here insist that God must be understood as the biblically branded version?  Some might but I leave the door wide open.  For my money it is a complete mystery what has held so many people enthralled all this time.  

What I am saying is most atheist have a pic of God and believe all versions must comply with what they understand. That is why so many argue with me about the nature of God. They believe that God is AC3 when in fact God is ABC. Now because they grew up with AC3 ad they tested AC3 and because AC3 let them down so many times they believe all versions of God must meet this AC3 criteria that they have. AC3 could be vengeful God of the Old testament or AC3 cold be a wish grantor God, granting wishes for Good deeds. The point is that that version of God has been tested and found wanting. Now just because that version can be identified as a dead or false God it does not mean all understanding of God are bad.

I go on to point out that it is a very small mind who tests one variable and declares the whole control group nonviable.

But I'm a naturalist.  I assume that whatever a god may be will have a natural explanation since I define "natural" as everything that actually exists.  Either gods exist and arise in our consciousness for natural reasons, or they don't exist at all.  Pretty sure we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

I have said that fro the beginning when people try and define God as supernatural only.

I ask why would the natural God who made nature and everythig in it create such a place where He can only accomplish His work/will supernaturally???

How stupid would God be if he created a place that He would have to break the rules He set into place each and everytime He wanted to make something happen.

In a more syfi angle I point out that by definition God in a transdimensional being, and He and the rest of the heavenly body are indeed alien...

The version of God I created in childhood was completely uninformed by any bible learning.  While I think that version had some good selling points, I stopped buying.  I have no interest in finding any God and I think a reasonable believer has to accept that.

What if God were to 'find' you? would you be open to that?

---

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 you choose not to.

I choose not to know anything about bonno
I choose not to know anything about Rachel 'mad cow' on CSNBC

Yet like you and God I am aware of them.

[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.

[mlmooney89]

Gunna jump in on page 13 without reading any of the other 12 pages so excuse me if I say something already discussed. (Also I'm not reading page 13 cause that is waaaayyyy tooo much in each of those posts to start paying attention now lol)

As for reasonable Christian, I think my husband is one. He is catholic but he is a really bad one. He agrees with evolution because he thinks the bible isn't the word directly from god. He says it is man made and therefore the stories aren't real. I think he uses religion as a coping mechanism because of his job. He is a paramedic and he sees some awful shit so I think he needs to tell himself all those innocent people went to a better place after what they went through. He doesn't preach, he prays silently to himself, he hides his saint pendant in his shirt, and he happily mocks his own religion because he knows most of it is crazy talk.

[Amarok]

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.

Actually they are very strong . It's the historical case for Jesus that is weak . 

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. 

Their is no reason to believe their are exception nor any being can suspend them . And the problem of induction is all often trotted out to excuse miracles.

 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.

Then your morality is worthless unjust and vile.

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

No but it renders him redundant

---

unless you choose not to.

Nope id god existed and were really god . Then no one could deny it.

I choose not to know anything about bonno

Bonno is not god 

I choose not to know anything about Rachel 'mad cow' on CSNBC

Rational intelligent journalist Rachel is not god .

Yet like you and God I am aware of them.

No because none of them are god or anything like a god .

[Godscreated]

After reading this thread it is most obvious that the atheist here have no idea what Christianity means. It's surprising how little the ones who claim they were Christians and then left the faith actually know or remember. This is why I've always challenged them to prove their claim and I will always maintain that challenge. You all do not have nor get the right to rewrite the Christian faith and whether you want to believe it or not God will never allow such a rewriting of His loving plan for mankind. It really is to bad you have glued those blinders over your eyes, it will be truly sad if you miss out on Paradise.

GC

Christians believe what  they want to believe generally.
But in the US for some reason, christianity has become a mixture of hateful bigoted ideologies that seek to oppress and impose. They seem to be getting more extreme and anti-intellectual by the day.
Rather strange, as the typical british Christians are rather nicer.

 Sorry for the delay in answering I've been busy the last few days. You only look at the Christian groups you want to believe are the mainstream Christians and they are not. The Christian faith in this country is finding a renewing among the younger generation. You might find a survey that says different but then most of those are planned to question the people they want to make the survey say what they want. I see what's taking place with the younger generation and I have great hopes for it as a Christian generation that's going to do allow God to great things through them. Will the numbers of Christians grow because of this new generation of Christians, probably not, however they will be stronger and more dedicated to their beliefs, they will make a difference and it will be in a peaceful manner. You can ignore them and just accept what you want to see, but that will not change the fact God is using a new generation to bring the message of Christ to the nation and world.

GC

---

After reading this thread it is most obvious that the atheist here have no idea what Christianity means. It's surprising how little the ones who claim they were Christians and then left the faith actually know or remember. This is why I've always challenged them to prove their claim and I will always maintain that challenge. You all do not have nor get the right to rewrite the Christian faith and whether you want to believe it or not God will never allow such a rewriting of His loving plan for mankind. It really is to bad you have glued those blinders over your eyes, it will be truly sad if you miss out on Paradise.

GC

Guilty.  I don't understand what makes aomwone a christian, or for that matter what a JW, a Unitarian, a mormon, Pentecostal, a Quaker, a Catholic and a baptist have in common.  Some relation to the bible seems involved though some place even more emphasis on other books and there is little agreement on how to read it.  For that matter I remain confused regarding what a "god" even means, but I'm pretty sure it means different things to different denominations, and even different things to people within the same denomination.  

I really think it is you who have the blinders on GC, otherwise you'd see that the bowl of cherries you've put together and call your Christianity is pretty different from what others have gathered.  If were less myopic you'd realize it really is you who have the blinders on.

Read what I said to downbeatplumb, it's true and since you have no idea what Christianity or the denominations within the church are then you should have no opinion on this matter, that is an informed opinion. Those that are uninformed mean nothing and are guess work at best. Hint, almost all denominations believe nearly the same things, what we differ in has little to nothing to do with salvation, there are a few outliers that believe some strange things and those few border on being cults. By the way the first three denominations you mentioned are cults and are not of the Christian faith, that should tell you something about yourself.

GC

[robvalue]

You seem to know a lot about God's actions and motivations.

Maybe you could have a word with him to request he stop screwing around, and talk to us properly, if he actually wants to communicate. Even people in one particular religion can't agree on what the message is supposed to be.

What is the message anyway? Worship Jesus or you'll be burned forever?

[Godscreated]

After reading this thread it is most obvious that the atheist here have no idea what Christianity means. It's surprising how little the ones who claim they were Christians and then left the faith actually know or remember. This is why I've always challenged them to prove their claim and I will always maintain that challenge. You all do not have nor get the right to rewrite the Christian faith and whether you want to believe it or not God will never allow such a rewriting of His loving plan for mankind. It really is to bad you have glued those blinders over your eyes, it will be truly sad if you miss out on Paradise.

GC

I was raised Southern Baptist.  Then Pentecostal.  For over 40 years I have played the organ for nearly every major Protestant denomination - variations of Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Evangelical, Quaker, 1st Bible, Holiness, Quaker . . . also Unitarian, Anglican, Episcopal, and I'm currently playing for Catholic Mass.  It's really too bad that all of these folks are reading from the same book, but most will accuse the others of "doing it wrong" or "false interpretation of the scriptures" etc., etc.   

When you talk about what God wants to someone who doesn't believe such a creature exists, the burden is upon you to prove it's existence.  It should be quite obvious that statements like "God will never allow such a rewriting of His loving plan" is beyond absurd . . . yeah, Superman was really ticked off when they changed his costume and then reported that he had died!  But then the holy comics posted that he was resurrected, hallelujah!  I'm going to go pray to him that you accept the truth so you won't miss out on Paradise!

There is no afterlife.  There is no god, no angels, no demons, no Satan, no ghosts, no zombies, no sparkly vampires, and no Santa Claus.

Being raised in any denomination and/or being associated with them doesn't mean you know what Christianity is, if you did as an atheist you wouldn't be playing in any church. Your the one doing it wrong and falsely accusing all those churches of condemning the others of false whatever. You being bigoted toward Christianity means what you have to say about it is worthless.
I do not have the burden of proof on me because God has never told anyone to prove His existence, that He says is His work. Your comic illustration is nothing more than comical, even on the childish side.  Then why do you play an organ in the church seems you are the hypocrite of hypocrites.

GC

[Silver]

I do not have the burden of proof on me because God has never told anyone to prove His existence, that He says is His work.

A convenient, rubbish, apologetic that frees the believer from any intellectual responsibility. The same untruthful line could be used to personally validate belief in anything, and has been used to such an extent even especially by mentally ill people who prefer delusion over reality.

[drfuzzy]

---

I was raised Southern Baptist.  Then Pentecostal.  For over 40 years I have played the organ for nearly every major Protestant denomination - variations of Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Evangelical, Quaker, 1st Bible, Holiness, Quaker . . . also Unitarian, Anglican, Episcopal, and I'm currently playing for Catholic Mass.  It's really too bad that all of these folks are reading from the same book, but most will accuse the others of "doing it wrong" or "false interpretation of the scriptures" etc., etc.   

When you talk about what God wants to someone who doesn't believe such a creature exists, the burden is upon you to prove it's existence.  It should be quite obvious that statements like "God will never allow such a rewriting of His loving plan" is beyond absurd . . . yeah, Superman was really ticked off when they changed his costume and then reported that he had died!  But then the holy comics posted that he was resurrected, hallelujah!  I'm going to go pray to him that you accept the truth so you won't miss out on Paradise!

There is no afterlife.  There is no god, no angels, no demons, no Satan, no ghosts, no zombies, no sparkly vampires, and no Santa Claus.

---

Being raised in any denomination and/or being associated with them doesn't mean you know what Christianity is, if you did as an atheist you wouldn't be playing in any church. Your the one doing it wrong and falsely accusing all those churches of condemning the others of false whatever. You being bigoted toward Christianity means what you have to say about it is worthless.
I do not have the burden of proof on me because God has never told anyone to prove His existence, that He says is His work. Your comic illustration is nothing more than comical, even on the childish side.  Then why do you play an organ in the church seems you are the hypocrite of hypocrites.

GC

In 1979, in music college, a professor told us "Never, under any circumstances, take a church job.  BUT! We're musicians, and we have to eat.  So most of you will."  (-- I should have changed majors right there. ) There are atheist church musician support groups - I'm a member of one.  It's impossible to guess how many of us there are, obviously, since in order to keep our weekend jobs we can't be "out".  (There are a lot of gay church musicians too.)  In the Bible Belt, the best guess is 20% of church musicians.  Some of my friends in Boston and LA are sure that the number of atheist church musicians is more than 50%.

Anyone who claims to have a personal relationship with an entity that cannot be seen, heard, or felt, and needs a human being to tell other human beings what its wants and needs are . . . oh yeah, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.  And, of course, that's a basic tenet of logic and debate.  You have been told this dozens of times on this forum, but you stubbornly dispute it, because you cannot prove your pet deity exists.