What is a 'true Christian'?

If I honestly think I'm Napoleon Bonaparte, does that make it so?A true Christian, as Paul would have clearly been, is someone who acknowledges that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, was crucified for our sins and rose again, thereby defeating death. It's not so hard.

Simple - if Jesus is who He said He was, which is God, then He must be trusted. If He must be trusted, then the word must be trusted, because He also proclaimed Himself to be the Word.If you believe the Bible to be a myth, then you believe Jesus to be a myth.What is a "flud"?

Correct, it's not up to me. If it were, I'd let everyone in. The very simple qualification I listed was outlined by Jesus in the Bible. I don't insist upon it, Jesus does. Just think of it as abiogenesis at work in the tomb, then you can accept it easier. You can ignore everything else if you want (though I don't recommend it), but you have to hold on to Romans 10:9, otherwise you're lost. That's not me commanding it, but rather reporting it.

He actually grew to be a man, but yes a true Christian must - at the very least - believe that Christ died for their sins and rose again. Otherwise why call themselves a Christian? That makes no sense.

Which quote are you talking about? You have 3 of them up there. Where do you see Christians not being saved and non-Christians being saved? In Matthew 25:31-46, all I see are saved sheep and unsaved goats. Why would you want to though? Frankly, if you don't believe in any of that, then fine - but why continue identifying as a Christian? Did you buy a car with a fish symbol on the back and don't want to remove it because your paint has faded?

How's this analogy then: If I think I'm a Darwinian evolutionist (ToE), but believe in a young Earth and that Jesus died and rose again, does that still make it so?Can I bridge that dichotomy of worldviews, just by my saying so?

Why, because the rules for the ToE and YEC don't mix? That's my point re: someone who calls themselves a Christian, but denies the most basic and core principle of Christianity - that Jesus died for our sins and rose again. That last part is key. To deny His resurrection is to deny His whole purpose for coming to Earth in the first place.If you were honest though, I think you'd agree that Jesus' resurrection will eventually be at odds with evolution. Eventually evolution's cousin, abiogenesis, will step in and demand to be recognized as well. Then the mere notion of God will be ridiculed and Jesus' resurrection will no longer be compatible.

Sure did. You basically said a YE is antithetical to the ToE. I then said a Christian who denies Christ's resurrection is likewise antithetical to Christianity. Thus "To deny His resurrection is to deny His whole purpose for coming to Earth in the first place." That's directed at any Christian who thinks the resurrection is optional.Basically you had butted in on my post to ringo. I was giving a better analogy than my Napoleon one. The original post (message 6) was in response to Catholic Scientist, who claimed anyone can call themselves a Christian, if they honestly think they are one. I've discovered from CS that he doesn't believe the resurrection is vital to Christianity.Never mind.

There's plenty of conflict with that argument, right in the first chapter of Genesis alone. If you can't trust the first chapter, then the rest becomes suspect, from that mindset anyways.But you could still make it work like you say, as long as you held onto the deity of Jesus Christ - that He died for our sins and was raised again, conquering death (call it holy abiogenesis if you like).It's risky though, because it's like building a house on very loose sand. Not recommended.