As a deist, I have great sympathy for allegorical interpretations of the Bible. But even still, you'd have to reject biblical inerrancy (and therefore, divine revelation) as a meaningless and inaccurate concept. You can't be a freethinker and an orthodox Christian at the same time, at least that's my view.
As a deist, I have great sympathy for allegorical interpretations of the Bible. But even still, you'd have to reject biblical inerrancy (and therefore, divine revelation) as a meaningless and inaccurate concept. You can't be a freethinker and an orthodox Christian at the same time, at least that's my view.
For sure, I understand your perspective. Your version of Christianity would be very agreeable to me. But I'm making a counter-argument that your beliefs aren't really "true" Christianity if you reject the following: the divinity of Jesus, miracles, the resurrection, the Virgin Birth, Original Sin, biblical inerrancy, etc. If you reject those dogmas, your position might be better described as "deism" and not "Christianity." Especially if you don't go to church, then it can't be called Christianity.
As a deist, I have great sympathy for allegorical interpretations of the Bible. But even still, you'd have to reject biblical inerrancy (and therefore, divine revelation) as a meaningless and inaccurate concept. You can't be a freethinker and an orthodox Christian at the same time, at least that's my view.
I am not an orthodox Christian.
For sure, I understand your perspective. Your version of Christianity would be very agreeable to me. But I'm making a counter-argument that your beliefs aren't really "true" Christianity if you reject the following: the divinity of Jesus, miracles, the resurrection, the Virgin Birth, Original Sin, biblical inerrancy, etc. If you reject those dogmas, your position might be better described as "deism" and not "Christianity." Especially if you don't go to church, then it can't be called Christianity.
There is no “true Christianity.”