I asked a member of clergy and he seemed to have no problem with the idea, I've become incredibly sceptical over the last two years, is that part of becoming 21?
So do you have to believe in God/supernature to be a follower of Jesus?
Heres another way of thinking about it, What if there was a person who lived as though god existed and did not believe in him and another who believed in god and lived a "godless" life...Who is being more moral? (by human standards and not some divine ultra strict unfair godly gold standard!)
Aren't actions more important than what we believe? This is why I like the shorter gospel of Mark, because its about Jesus' actions, in my mind it paints a more human picture than the other gospels especially John's(too much embellishment?)
S0 let us reason.
As to your first question (why not?), the answer would be the same reason that you can't mix oil and water. Or, if you prefer, why not put a lamb in a lion's den? Keep the lions hungry a few days, just for emphasis. It's obvious that Christianity is the lion in this instance, I hope.
Second question (So do you have to believe in God/supernature to be a follower of Jesus?)
Since Jesus is part of the Trinity, God in the flesh, being God in entirety, yes. To be a follower of God, you have to believe in God. Jesus is God, so believing in Him is pretty important if you're going to follow Him.
Third question (who is being more moral, by human standards and not some "divine ultra strict unfair godly gold standard"?)
Um...if you're going to judge morals by human standards, you're defeating the purpose. Human standards state that sex before and outside of marriage isn't so bad, that abortion isn't so bad, that sometimes drugs that are illegal for obvious reasons should be allowed, that success is defined as having stacks of money, houses, women, and whatever other vices you can think of, and above all, that God is just some long-bearded old man in a white robe sitting in heaven, not expecting anything of any of the human beings he's placed on earth. So, by human standards, nothing's wrong with being completely contradictory with your entire lifestyle and the purpose of said life-- or anything else, for that matter.
If you're willing to accept that since God is the Creator of the universe and ruler of all things in it and, therefore, His standards are what we should be thinking about, then
being a Christian (Literally = Follower of Christ, living like Christ, which entails believing in Him and trusting Him with your eternity) and being an atheist (someone who does not believe in a God or gods) is nonsense. Even if you took God out of that equation, logically, by definition, that's nonsense.
Fourth question (i love your questions, by the way) (Aren't our actions more important than what we believe?)
Your actions should show what you believe, or rather, what you believe should define what you do. If someone held a loaded gun to your head and told you that they were going to shoot you, your heart would start beating, you would be sweating, your throat would start to dry up, and other physical reactions that show that you truly believe in the power of that gun to impact your life.
And as a side note: All the gospels are about Jesus' actions, because they're all about His life on earth. It'd be hard to write books about a person's life that doesn't include their actions, now wouldn't it?
Being a Christian is not about having morality, morality just comes with it. If you're a Christian, you're a saved follower of Christ (by definition), and therefore doing what God tells you through the Bible (container of the only real morals you can depend on).
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
C. S. Lewis