What is a 'true Christian'?

Then why all this consternation over evolution? Why all the BS about talking snakes, fluds and queers?What you said would mean that "true christians" couldn't care less if they were related to some long ago ape, or if their little girl was gay, or if an atheist was president.Yet, for some strange reason, it does seem to matter and, as we have seen all throughout this forum, those who see some of the bible as myth and allegory are branded "not true christians". By your definition, why would a "true christian" care if the flud or the entire bible was apocryphal?I think that, to most "true christians," there is a lot more to being a "true christian" than what you relay.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

So to be a "true christian" one must not only believe in the boy and his gift of salvation, but in the literal words of the bible? Which bible? Which language? Which interpretations? To be a "true christian" you must also be a biblican and worship the bible too?

You may have too many discussions going on to keep up. You missed the most important part of my inquiry.The bible, faceman ... the bible. Is belief in the literal words of the official canon a requirement for being a "true christian"?And if so, then I repeat: Which bible? Which language? Which interpretations? To be a "true christian" you must also be a biblican and worship the bible too?I got the christ part. Please address the bible part.

Faith had what I think is a good counter to this. While no canonized bible existed in the early centuties there were numerous books of scripture wandering around from church to church. The priests would read and relay to the congregants the verses. I could see where faceman and Faith could logically argue that if today's biblical literalism is a requirement for the appellation of "true christian," then pre-bible, a belief in scriptural literalism would suffice.What I have yet to get an answer on from faceman is if this literalism of bible/scripture is such a requirement. He has hinted at such but has not outright claimed this is required.Faceman seems to believe that if someone believes genesis is allegory then they can have no faith in the message of the bible by any part at all and thus no grounds to believe in the boy's gift. They cannot be "true christians."^TMIf this is in fact his view then I have another pointy stick ... er ... argument to use on him.

True, but this does not alter the question. Is a belief in the literalness of the words required?Let's narrow this a bit.Genesis was around then, pretty much as it is today. Is a belief in the literal stories of genesis a requirement to be a "true christians"^TM then as well as today? Better yet, just today. Is this a requirement by faceman's and Faith's understanding?

This is a jewish book and the jews did not take kindly to differing versions floating around. My understanding is that genesis was re-written in large part during the Babylon captivity and was finalized sometime after the return from exile with the building of the second temple. That should place the book at about 500 BCE to sometime like 200 BCE, I think.But then, I'm not sure how much stock the old ones put in the jewish books at that time. Frankly, I really don't care.Was a belief in the biblical stories (jewish bible) a requirement to be a "true christian?". I don't think anyone knows and, again I really don't care.Is it a requirement today? That is my question to faceman.Edited by AZPaul3, : correction

Shhhush. Quite. He's tap dancing. I'm trying to nail his feet to the floor. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Don't let this go to your head but those were some nicely formed and thoughtful posts.I don't agree with all of it. You're still a crazy person. But, girl, you can write.