What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[Catholic_Lady]

When I look at the long-time theists on AF, I see only very well-educated, intelligent, and overall thoughtful contributors who are remarkably patient despite all the insults they endure. I also think in the US there are regional differences that get confused with religious ones. For example the South truly gets a bad rap. Not for a second do I think people below the Mason-Dixon line are anything like their detractors say. They just do things a little differently.

Well-educated, intelligent, and overall thoughtful contributors like Little Rik, Drich, and MysticKnight; for instance.

Lil Rik is loony, yes. I don't think many people can deny that.

Drich is super conservative and takes a different approach to the bible than I do (obviously, me being Catholic). And I agree that he can be very insensitive and has terrible people skills. But I don't see him as the monster that many of you do. As different as he and I are, I do think he has has been thoughtful about his faith, and is educated.

MK is a sweet heart. I don't think he has a mean bone in his body. I must admit I can't understand most of his posts, but as Chad said, I think it's more of a cultural thing. He "writes with an accent", if you will. I don't see a reason to find him uneducated, stupid, or thoughtless.

But there are plenty of theists here that are intelligent, well educated, and thoughtful: Chad, Steve, Road Runner, Ignorant, Ryyan, KingPin (when he was active)...

[Brian37]

Response to Brian:

I agree empathy doesn't come from being religious.

But as far as my morals and values - many of them I would have otherwise, but many do come from my Catholic faith. It has definitely been a huge influence in my life and in forming who I am.

You are sooooooo close. I agree, it does not come from being religious. So why do you feel the need to buy one word of that old book? I'd say it is merely the mundane fact you like it and saw other people liking it too. 

Just like if a Hindu convinces someone else they got it right, that new Hindu doesn't have to do club rituals but will still buy the claims someone sold them. Many Jews believe in Yahweh but also don't attend religious rituals. Same with many Buddhists.

[Harry Nevis]

Well-educated, intelligent, and overall thoughtful contributors like Little Rik, Drich, and MysticKnight; for instance. [?]
Well, I don't know that much about Little Rik. He or she seems like a New Age type. I consider Drich to be all that - just more conservative than me. His line-by-line responses become difficult to follow though. As for MysticKnight, there is a huge cultural gulf. I think far too many people respond without actually try to understand where he is coming from. For me, it takes a lot of work to translate his wording into familiar Western nomenclature. Consequently, I don't spend much time on his threads. Maybe I should. And maybe if I did I would agree with you. Nevertheless my general impression of MK is positive.

And unless it's believed by a vast majority, you can pretend it inconsequential and we're being irrational for not ignoring it [Chick] , eh? Like the vast majority of white people aren't members of the KKK, so it's unreasonable to spend time criticizing the KKK. I mean, why bring them up when most white people aren't like that?

Right or wrong, I do ignore street preachers and they were those from whom I collected the Chick tracts. To me they are obnoxious, not evil, and certainly not worth my time trying to have a detailed theological debate with. On the other hand if I discovered an earnest friend or associate passing them out, I would certainly try to have a heartfelt discussion with them. Secondly, I think your last sentence undercuts the previous objections. You seem to be saying that it would be inappropriate to judge all white people by the KKK. So why do you feel it is acceptable to judge all Christians by people like the Westboro Baptists?

Because being white isn't a chosen belief?

---

Yep.
For my own part, I had never seen nor heard of those Chick tract things until an Atheist brought them up on this thread. To say they are an accurate representation of Christians, is just silly. It is true that I have heard from multiple protestants that Catholics are not real Christians and aren't "saved", but no protestant has ever treated me badly in any way because of it. 
As for the Westboro Baptists, they are a group of like, 30 people, who exist no where else in the world. To judge all the billions of Christians world wide by them makes absolutely no sense. I sure hope no one here is doing that...

Since nobody can agree on what is an accurate representation of christians (esp. christians themselves), who are we to say that anyone claiming to be one is wrong?

[Brian37]

Well-educated, intelligent, and overall thoughtful contributors like Little Rik, Drich, and MysticKnight; for instance.

Lil Rik is loony, yes. I don't think many people can deny that.

Drich is super conservative and takes a different approach to the bible than I do (obviously, me being Catholic). And I agree that he can be very insensitive and has terrible people skills. But I don't see him as the monster that many of you do. As different as he and I are, I do think he has has been thoughtful about his faith, and is educated.

MK is a sweet heart. I don't think he has a mean bone in his body. I must admit I can't understand most of his posts, but as Chad said, I think it's more of a cultural thing. He "writes with an accent", if you will. I don't see a reason to find him uneducated, stupid, or thoughtless.

But there are plenty of theists here that are intelligent, well educated, and thoughtful: Chad, Steve, Road Runner, Ignorant, Ryyan, KingPin (when he was active)...

And this says it all right here. Two different people whom share the same position that the Christian god is real. Yep you both think you got it right so? How is that any different an argument than when Sunnis and Shiites argue over how to interpret the Koran?

Because we live in the west as a bigger majority than Muslims? Is that it? Nope, the further back in time you go in Christian history the more literally Christians took it and the more barbaric they acted. Christians used the bible to justify slavery, denial of women's right to vote, genocide of Natives, colonial conquest of places in Africa and India with very brutal fashion. 

But again, why is one party right and the other party wrong. I'd say it is hardly efficient to claim God is perfect and has this perfect manual. If it s a perfect manual then why are you not both on the same page? I would say there is no god and that is why you have an imperfect book that was written over 1,000 years with books left out and the first completed version had to be voted on. Really? A claimed being "poofed" the universe and our sun and planet into existence but took all that time to create a manual you still argue over?

It makes no sense to me to claim "all powerful" and defy that logic by acting as his marketing department and body guard. I'd say if he is all powerful and really did exist, he'd do it far sooner than a mere 10,000 years ago when science knows our species is 150,000 years old.

[Catholic_Lady]

Because being white isn't a chosen belief?

To clarify, are you saying then that it is acceptable to judge all Christians based on the Westboro Baptists?

[Harry Nevis]

Yes, a position of rational skepticism is more credible, in any investigation or research. It means you have a standard of evidence that must be satisfied before you'll accept something as true.

Suppose instead the ancient text in question is not part of the NT; but rather, the Epic of Gilgamesh. The primary goal of scholarship is to consider what the epic meant to the Sumerians and the role of epic poetry in the cultural context of ancient Mesopotamia. The veracity of what the epic only comes afterwards and involves attempting to uncover the circumstances that may have have prompted the creation of that flood story by looking at parallel accounts, prior source material, contemporary historical events, etc. Perhaps it came from a world-wide flood (which I doubt) or perhaps ancestral memory of vast post-Ice Age flooding of the South Pacific (my favorite) or just a symbolic extrapolation from local tragedies (not likely).  

A skeptical approach is valid for the later, but would contaminate the first. Unless you have a pretty good idea of the social and historical context of Gilgamesh speculation about what it actually describes is pointless. As it applies to NT scholarship, the first questions revolve around what the text meant to those who wrote the Gospels and Epistles. It is clear that the writers of the canonical scripture, as opposed to the Gnostic myth-makers, were trying to describe real events. Whether or not what they describe truly happened is a question that can only come after establishing the motivations of the authors and the 1st century context. Erhmann puts the cart before the horse. His skepticism taints his analysis.

The motivations of the authors (who we don't know) is superfluous to the fact that there is no evidence for anything supernatural. It's the believer's motivations that taint biblical analysis.

---

Because being white isn't a chosen belief?

To clarify, are you saying then that it is acceptable to judge all Christians based on the Westboro Baptists?

No, i'm saying it was a bad analogy.

[Catholic_Lady]

No, i'm saying it was a bad analogy.

Ok. Well I'm glad you agree that it isn't acceptable.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Since nobody can agree on what is an accurate representation of christians (esp. christians themselves), who are we to say that anyone claiming to be one is wrong?

That's just an excuse for not using discernment. It's the same flawed thinking as postmodern cultural equivalency.

[Harry Nevis]

To me it depends on the reasoning.  If you're a believer, you're emotionally involved and invested.

It seems to me a number of atheist get quite emotional and seem fairly invested (despite claims of only skepticism).  Can I just dismiss everything they say as biased?
I can understand this position perhaps on an individual basis (if given reason to do so), but it doesn't seem right to assume it; on a general level.

Invested in investigating the objective veracity of something is in no way the same emotions generated by deciding to believe in god and the bible.  The believers are defending their faith with the consequences being eternal punishment.  And, if they've believed all their life, no one finds fault in those beliefs easily.

But, dismiss whoever you choose to.

[Catholic_Lady]

There are some fundamental beliefs in Christianity. If someone isn't following any of them, then I'd say that person is not living the Christian life style.