The context within which you are raised matters so much more than what's written in your chosen scripture. That and self interest. Between those two, pretty much anyone can wrangle themselves into believing anything they want. The history of how we got here from there is similarly irrelevant.
There's quite a bit of contrast between Christianity and Islam in terms of how scripture is presented, as Islam teaches that the Qur'an is literally the words of God. As for Judaism, it's unfulfilled, and if the New Testament about Jesus is actually true to what happened, then the Jewish prophecies clearly point to Him. Other than that it's a very elaborate scam made by well educated people which doesn't really give them any benefit.
My parents weren't executed horribly, what are you talking about about?
I'm still talking about contemporary Christian belief. Thesis: You can consider yourself Christian without belief in Jesus as a historical figure. Many Christians are happy to understand Jesus as metaphors and an ideal. Like if you took the actually good Superman stories and removed all the context, you could idealize the individual to the point of worship without believing he's real.
The whole point of Christianity isn't just to "do good". The foundation is that we aren't good enough by nature and are flawed by our own fault, but by trusting in and following God, we can be forgiven. Because Jesus literally existed and was executed for our sins.
That feels a lot like your personal interpretation. You do not get to decide how people who call themselves Christian define themselves.
Fables are worth listening to for the morals they include. Why wouldn't an ancient holy book be a moralistic guide to show the way to heaven, whatever that is which is not defined in scripture
You go ahead and do that. Worth noting that Islam doesn't have a protestant reformation thats come in to say "f this the rules are whatever I want them to be personally," so it's basically still in its Catholic hegemony phase.
The protestant reformation didn't do that. In fact, it was the opposite. It was based on the Bible over everything and shedding the idea of a pope who can claim "the rules are whatever I want them to be personally"
But that's literally the second thing to happen in the protestant reformation. King Henry saw that Martin Luther guy and said "shit if he doesn't have to listen to the Pope, I don't either. Let's strait up rewrite the Bible motherfucker!" So that the parts he didn't like didn't apply. Are you gonna say anglicans aren't Christian?