[bishop]

the diverse perspectives amongst self-proclaimed christians has been on my mind lately. i've wondered what, exactly, determines if someone's a christian or not. especially in light of those who seem to be holier than thou.



myself, i believe that christ died for our sins and that adherence to his core lessons holds the key to our own salvation. forgiveness, honesty, compassion, fairness, nonviolence, etc...

that said, there is a lot in the dogma that i completely reject. first, i do not believe in the book of genesis - i firmly believe in evolution. i do, however, believe that god did create the universe.

second, i do not believe in the holy trinity - i firmly believe that jesus was conceived naturally by sperm and egg. moreover, jesus had brothers and sisters borne by sperm and egg, and this water's down the holy trinity argument. i believe that christ was a man called upon by god, not the human embodiment or son (in the literal sense) of god. he was a very special man unlike all but a few (buddha, st. peter, etc...), and a man that represented the best in humanity.

i also don't believe that moses parted any seas, or jesus walked on water.. likewise, i don't think buddha disappeared/vanished into nirvana or other supernatural tales told in any other religion. those ring of ridiculous superstitious fairy tales to my ears, and don't add any spiritual value. also, biblical stories rooted in historical norms don't provide any value either - such as stoning women, damning gays to hell, etc..

because of these justified criticisms with the bible, i don't believe that the entire bible is truly the word of god, as many "true believers" allege. the bible was not made to confirm man-made concepts/dogmas/norms.. or, at least the new testament wasn't - or should not have been.

the authors and their various tales cause me to question the bible in its entirety... not to mention that nobody knows who wrote the first 5 books, and a handful of people wrote the vast majority of the new testament. some of the known authors seem to have spent their careers writing several various books. it isn't possible that they could have interjected a couple words here and there solely to justify their own, personal, views?

then there's the revelation to john... the most controversial book in all christiandom.. some, namely the evangelicals, are infatuated by this book as they almost eagerly await the second coming/rapture/apocalypse.. other evangelicals promote christian fundamentalism, perhaps in hopes that it will prevent the apocalypse. the orthodox church doesn't include this book in their readings and the catholic church once didn't want to include it - for fear of abusing/misinterpreting it. in fact, earlier christians DID abuse the book, became infatuated with its story/prophecy and lost sight of jesus's message. i can only wonder about the number of times that christians rallied around the revelation to john as they awaited the end of the world - only to be disappointed when nothing happened. if there is an end to the world, it will come about by man's own doing, not god's.



and so, while i believe in jesus, his message and his sacrifice, there is A LOT that i don't believe and can't accept. and, i also look at other major religious figures and believe that their teachings have real worth, even though they weren't christian. yet, i do consider myself to be a christian.

the point of this spiel is this - are there any faith-related requirements are there in order to be accepted as a christian? and if so, what are they?