the required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is unclear

Again, we have the problem that you have not addressed which is crucial to the argument: to which branch of Christianity are you referring? Since you have not specified, I am going to continue to assume you mean the original and uncorrupted version of Christianity. I will give a little blurb below about why these corruptions are insufficient in addressing the issue in question so that you might in your response understand the importance of specifying a particular sect of Christianity. The Criteria for SalvationThere are 3 criteria above which are repeated throughout The Bible and throughout several of the books; 1. You must believe Jesus Christ was God's son and died for our sins 2. You must verbally state your belief in Christ to another person 3. You must repent your sins. Each time you do so is essentially a blank slate, and you can't get into heaven without this blank slate. The requirement of baptism is mentioned only once, but it is definitively mentioned in Mark 16:16. “He who believes and is baptized will be save; he who believes not will be condemned” Notice here that in the first half, baptism is included, and in the second, it is not. This is one of the main reasons why the concept of ‘limbo’ arose; to correct the obvious issue that a benevolent God would allow an ‘innocent’ child to go to hell simply for not having been baptized. In 2007, a decision was rendered by the Theological Council under agreement of the pope that this concept of salvation was too restrictive and was unfair to babies. But religion is old and dogmatic, and if you want to follow it correctly, it must be understood that a modern council has no authority to override The Bible. If you don’t like the ‘word of God’, don’t follow Christianity. Misunderstanding The BibleThere are many misunderstandings when it comes to The Bible, and I will reiterate my argument that, this does not make their interpretation correct. There are facts, and then there are interpretations of those facts. Now while I would not call The Bible a book of facts, what is a fact is that something is written in The Bible. One cannot attach their own meaning to what is written in there and call it truth. The Lord’s Supper is another example of this. Nowhere in The Bible does it say this is a requirement for salvation. It frames it as a way to participate in Jesus and the memory of his sacrifice. This is different than following the aforementioned requirements for salvation. For example, one can participate in Christmas without believing in Jesus, or vice-versa, one can believe in Jesus without participating in Christmas. Belief and participation are not mutually exclusive, nor are they necessary-sufficient.Conflict Over the Bible In your argument, you mentioned conflict over the bible for centuries. While this is true, this fighting is not over the text in The Bible itself, but rather, what the beliefs associated with Christianity ought to be. These are very different things. It is important to understand that the vast majority of the Christian faculties used today are fairly new. The Pope, Theological Councils, The King James Bible, Protestantism, etc. are all corruptions of the original texts. That is not to say that the original Bible (The Vulgate Bible) is the only correct religion, but rather, that if you wish to criticize The Bible about vagueness, then you can’t do it through corruptions or misinterpretations of the text.