What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[Pat Mustard]

What did those people believe? Not events, they took one person's word for something. What witness testimony of what event? You couldn't possibly believe the evidence for Islam is better than the NT. 

I don't think that either have the weight of evidence on their side, but as far as quality of work and pedigree the muslims had that one pegged out from the start.  They had the benefit of having witnessed the christian shitshow....and learning from christian orthodoxy's mistakes.  It;'s a mistake to ask me what those people believed, as you continuously attempt to alter your failed criteria.  They believed in the proto islamic kernel.  The same as early christians.  There was disagreement, as there was with early christians (though decidedly less so in the case of muslims, as mentioned, islamic orthodoxy was more proactive with regard to schism and heterodoxy),

Well the main reason why islamic orthodoxy was more proactive than christian orthodoxy was that the religion of islam was contained within a single controlling political body. Christianity had escaped the geograpical bounds of the Roman Empire even before Constantine decided that it would be one of the main bases of his new order, islam on the other hand was more a creation of the Arab expansion of the 7th century CE (there are documentary sources from Jerusalem and the other Roman cities captured which show the Arabs worshipping as jews and following toranic law, and the earliest qu'ran that has ever been shown to the public is from the 9th century {there are earlier ones, but very few people have been allowed read them by the islamic religious leaders, and what few glimpses we have of the earliest copies seem to indicate that the qu'ran went through as much change as the bible did since Marcion invented it and Constantine codified it}).

The fact that after the first caliphate (centered on Madinah) collapsed, islam managed to spiral off schisms at a rate almost quicker than early christianity is testament to this reality.

---

YES He got lots of science correct, but he also postulated alchemy for a while which was garbage.

It would be better to say that he got some science approximately correct. For example his inverse square equation for gravity has been much improved upon by Einstein's equations, but is still correct enough that it can be used for most calcuations involving gravitic effects. And much of the reasoning behind his scientific discoveries has since been proven to be wrong (as in all probability, if we last long enough, will most of Einstein's): His concept of the universe being fixed and eternal has been shown to be 100% wrong.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

So, since I have no problem believing in the supernatural, have evidence that the events of the NT happened, and have no compelling counter-evidence or feasible scenario to explain the evidence we do have, I am rationally justified in believing that Christianity and its claims are true.

 
With all due respect, is your belief rationally justified, or have you justified it through rationalizations? How do you differentiate between the two?
 

Christians can't understand the world and are unwilling to try? That is a stupid statement with no basis in reality. It is you that has to answer "I don't know" to any number of questions that are important to the vast majority of people on the planet. And since these are metaphysical questions, your naturalistic, worldview will never provide and answer.

What is wrong with saying I don’t know? If one genuinely does not believe in god and chooses to only accept the truth of those things that can be rationally proven, then is it intellectually honest of that individual to say “I don’t know” or “currently, I don’t understand it”?

Also, I do agree that a humanistic, naturalistic worldview can be quite limiting, especially since their could possibly be innumerable universes out there with different forms of life, different laws, different properties/structures, etc., so assuming that the universe conforms to a humanistic, materialistic/naturalist mindset could be somewhat shortsighted on humanity's part: it could inhibit the kind of imaginative lateral thinking that is needed to make breakthroughs in thought and advancements in humanity's understanding of reality. 
 

Why is it not pure faith? Well there are good rational reasons to believe. As we have been discussing, the NT events certainly compelled the witnesses of those events to believe (miracles and such) and continue to be compelling to those that accept the evidence for them as true. Another category of rational reasons are the Natural Theology Arguments.
 
a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

 
I appreciate your thoughts on this.  However, IMO, the quote above applies to people who think through a theistic lens.  To theists, I’m sure that these reasons (natural theology arguments) along with the NT, personal experience, and the testimonies of others is convincing and rational, but, to people who choose to take a secular, rational, and/or scientific approach toward understanding the reality around them, then the quote above does not have much meaning to them.    
 
Also, with all due respect, regarding the natural theology arguments, is your god capable of breaking down each argument and providing the specifics, so that proofs, which are unambiguous and whose language is not open to subjective interpretation, can be written such that the truth of the claims can be established via a logical flow of reasoning, evidence, facts, etc., that are independent of the actual claims themselves?  IMO, until this happens, then I’m afraid that these arguments will not be as persuasive to the secular community as you’d like them to be. 

Thank you for your time, patience, attention, and thoughtful answers, SteveII.

[SteveII]

So, since I have no problem believing in the supernatural, have evidence that the events of the NT happened, and have no compelling counter-evidence or feasible scenario to explain the evidence we do have, I am rationally justified in believing that Christianity and its claims are true.

 
With all due respect, is your belief rationally justified, or have you justified it through rationalizations? How do you differentiate between the two? [1]
 

Christians can't understand the world and are unwilling to try? That is a stupid statement with no basis in reality. It is you that has to answer "I don't know" to any number of questions that are important to the vast majority of people on the planet. And since these are metaphysical questions, your naturalistic, worldview will never provide and answer.

What is wrong with saying I don’t know? If one genuinely does not believe in god and chooses to only accept the truth of those things that can be rationally proven, then is it intellectually honest of that individual to say “I don’t know” or “currently, I don’t understand it”? [2]

Also, I do agree that a humanistic, naturalistic worldview can be quite limiting, especially since their could possibly be innumerable universes out there with different forms of life, different laws, different properties/structures, etc., so assuming that the universe conforms to a humanistic, materialistic/naturalist mindset could be somewhat shortsighted on humanity's part: it could inhibit the kind of imaginative lateral thinking that is needed to make breakthroughs in thought and advancements in humanity's understanding of reality. 
 

Why is it not pure faith? Well there are good rational reasons to believe. As we have been discussing, the NT events certainly compelled the witnesses of those events to believe (miracles and such) and continue to be compelling to those that accept the evidence for them as true. Another category of rational reasons are the Natural Theology Arguments.
 
a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

 
I appreciate your thoughts on this.  However, IMO, the quote above applies to people who think through a theistic lens.  To theists, I’m sure that these reasons (natural theology arguments) along with the NT, personal experience, and the testimonies of others is convincing and rational, but, to people who choose to take a secular, rational, and/or scientific approach toward understanding the reality around them, then the quote above does not have much meaning to them.    [3]
 
Also, with all due respect, regarding the natural theology arguments, is your god capable of breaking down each argument and providing the specifics, so that proofs, which are unambiguous and whose language is not open to subjective interpretation, can be written such that the truth of the claims can be established via a logical flow of reasoning, evidence, facts, etc., that are independent of the actual claims themselves?  IMO, until this happens, then I’m afraid that these arguments will not be as persuasive to the secular community as you’d like them to be.  [4]

Thank you for your time, patience, attention, and thoughtful answers, SteveII.

1. A perceptive question. A couple of things: first, 'rationalization' is an inappropriate justification. I think there is an ample set of appropriate reasons to believe the way I do. One that I mentioned quickly is our built in sense of the God/supernatural. I think this belief can be characterized as properly basic. We can know that God exists without making an inference to God's existence from something more basic. This is not an argument from "religions experience" -- that would still be an argument. God is not an idea adopted in the mind but an experienced reality. 

2. The point is you are not saying "I don't know". These are metaphysical question that cannot be answered by science so what you are really saying is that "I will never know". That is simply not sufficient to the vast majority of people in the world. 

3. As I said in [2], naturalist don't understand the reality around them. Reality is much more than what science can describe. 

4. I don't think they are persuasive on their own. As I said before, they are part of a cumulative case for God.

[Harry Nevis]

Just what is that probability?  Since we have no evidence of anything supernatural, that dividing line must be a brick wall.

When first introduced Newton's law of gravity was considered supernatural because the prevailing wisdom at the time what that bodily interaction required physical things to bump against each other. Proponents of "naturalism" are really just explaining away the uncanny and inexplicable phenomena that do not fit the physical reductionist paradigm. Consider for a moment how the term materialism has changed over time in order to adapt it to new findings in physics. Anyone promoting 19th century materialism today would be laughed at. The 20th century version of materialism is becoming just as untenable and archaic. The more we learn about matter, the more it seems to dissolve into structured nothingness.

So you're saying there is no supernatural, right?

---

That is foolish talk. How could someone believe in the NT before finding it compelling. People find it compelling because of the message and the evidence of its truthfulness. Refer to my post on Christianity being based on a cumulative case.--particularly the last line. 

He's talking about believing in god first, numbnuts.  There is no "evidence of truthfulness" if you don't believe it first.

---

christians can't understand the world and are unwilling to try? That is a stupid statement with no basis in reality. It is you that has to answer "I don't know" to any number of questions that are important to the vast majority of people on the planet. And since these are metaphysical questions, your naturalistic, worldview will never provide and answer.

So, getting ANY answer that make you feel good is better than admitting you don"t know?  This shows again how christianity is an emotional choice, not a rational one.

---

The point is you are not saying "I don't know". These are metaphysical question that cannot be answered by science so what you are really saying is that "I will never know". That is simply not sufficient to the vast majority of people in the world. 

Who cares what's "sufficient"?  Sufficient for what?

[Neo-Scholastic]

So you're saying there is no supernatural, right?

Not at all. I'm saying that the strident skeptic, the one that wants to exclude the possibility of miracles, always does so by appealing to the "laws of nature". The pretense of the skeptic is that his current understanding of those laws exhausts all possibilities. The history of human inquiry has shown otherwise. In fact we have no reason to suppose that scientific inquiry can ever, even in theory, fully explicate the world. The stance that miracles didn't happen because miracles cannot happen, is not even reasonable. As Shakespeare said, "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy." Indeed.

[Brian37]

When first introduced Newton's law of gravity was considered supernatural because the prevailing wisdom at the time what that bodily interaction required physical things to bump against each other. Proponents of "naturalism" are really just explaining away the uncanny and inexplicable phenomena that do not fit the physical reductionist paradigm. Consider for a moment how the term materialism has changed over time in order to adapt it to new findings in physics. Anyone promoting 19th century materialism today would be laughed at. The 20th century version of materialism is becoming just as untenable and archaic. The more we learn about matter, the more it seems to dissolve into structured nothingness.

So you're saying there is no supernatural, right?

---

That is foolish talk. How could someone believe in the NT before finding it compelling. People find it compelling because of the message and the evidence of its truthfulness. Refer to my post on Christianity being based on a cumulative case.--particularly the last line. 

He's talking about believing in god first, numbnuts.  There is no "evidence of truthfulness" if you don't believe it first.

---

christians can't understand the world and are unwilling to try? That is a stupid statement with no basis in reality. It is you that has to answer "I don't know" to any number of questions that are important to the vast majority of people on the planet. And since these are metaphysical questions, your naturalistic, worldview will never provide and answer.

So, getting ANY answer that make you feel good is better than admitting you don"t know?  This shows again how christianity is an emotional choice, not a rational one.

---

The point is you are not saying "I don't know". These are metaphysical question that cannot be answered by science so what you are really saying is that "I will never know". That is simply not sufficient to the vast majority of people in the world. 

Who cares what's "sufficient"?  Sufficient for what?

Steve can't flat out quote the book, so then tries to use "fine tuning" as an end around claiming "I'm not arguing the bible right now".....Now trying to hide behind the word "Metaphysical". And still unwilling to use a larger sample control group by plugging other god claims in and other holy writings in to "fine tuning" or "metaphysical". 

He has nothing. If he had something that same formula would work for everybody including people with other clubs.

[Harry Nevis]

So you're saying there is no supernatural, right?

Not at all. I'm saying that the strident skeptic, the one that wants to exclude the possibility of miracles, always does so by appealing to the "laws of nature". The pretense of the skeptic is that his current understanding of those laws exhausts all possibilities. The history of human inquiry has shown otherwise. In fact we have no reason to suppose that scientific inquiry can ever, even in theory, fully explicate the world. The stance that miracles didn't happen because miracles cannot happen, is not even reasonable. As Shakespeare said, "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy." Indeed.

You don't know what a skeptic is.  Or, since you can't produce any objective, testable evidence for your beliefs, you twist the definition to make you seem open minded. Since a miracle has never been proven to occur)or even passed the first phase of inquiry), and many so-called miracles have been shown to be false/faked, there is no reason to believe they happen anywhere but in the mind.  If one can be proven, then I'll change my mind.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Not at all. I'm saying that the strident skeptic, the one that wants to exclude the possibility of miracles, always does so by appealing to the "laws of nature". The pretense of the skeptic is that his current understanding of those laws exhausts all possibilities. The history of human inquiry has shown otherwise. In fact we have no reason to suppose that scientific inquiry can ever, even in theory, fully explicate the world. The stance that miracles didn't happen because miracles cannot happen, is not even reasonable. As Shakespeare said, "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy." Indeed.

You don't know what a skeptic is.  Or, since you can't produce any objective, testable evidence for your beliefs, you twist the definition to make you seem open minded. Since a miracle has never been proven to occur)or even passed the first phase of inquiry), and many so-called miracles have been shown to be false/faked, there is no reason to believe they happen anywhere but in the mind.  If one can be proven, then I'll change my mind.

Historical events cannot be replicated and therefore cannot be made testable. It is true that no miracle has been proven to the satisfaction of all people. That is to be expected. I cannot think of any idea so crazy that no one believes it nor any idea so incontrovertible that someone somewhere won't doubt it. The various items presented by Christians as evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ may not be sufficient for you to move from skepticism to belief. I accept your incredulity without attributing your skepticism to stubbornness or willful ignorance.

Faith is not something people reason to; but rather, something they reason from. That does not make faith unreasonable. Often upon being presented with the Gospel message and various testimonies from contemporaries and historical sources, the Holy Spirit prompts some people to faith that its message is true and relevant to their lives. If is does, their faith is justifiable. If after coming to faith, they weigh the various objections, are of sound mind, and have made a reasonable effort to determine the truth, yet still find the possible defeaters unconvincing, then their faith is warranted. That is where I stand. I heard the Gospel. The Holy Spirit moved me to assurance. I considered the objections. No compelling defeaters have come to my attention. And what I have since learned seems to reinforce the truth of the Gospel.

YMMV.

[Brian37]

You don't know what a skeptic is.  Or, since you can't produce any objective, testable evidence for your beliefs, you twist the definition to make you seem open minded. Since a miracle has never been proven to occur)or even passed the first phase of inquiry), and many so-called miracles have been shown to be false/faked, there is no reason to believe they happen anywhere but in the mind.  If one can be proven, then I'll change my mind.

Historical events cannot be replicated and therefore cannot be made testable. It is true that no miracle has been proven to the satisfaction of all people. That is to be expected. I cannot think of any idea so crazy that no one believes it nor any idea so incontrovertible that someone somewhere won't doubt it. The various  items presented by Christians as evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ may not be sufficient for you to move from skepticism to belief. I accept your incredulity without attributing your skepticism to stubbornness or willful ignorance.

Faith is not something people reason to; but rather, something they reason from. That does not make faith unreasonable. Often upon being presented with the Gospel message and various testimonies from contemporaries and historical sources, the Holy Spirit prompts some people to faith that its message is true and relevant to their lives. If is does, their faith is justifiable. If after coming to faith, they weigh the various objections, are of sound mind, and have made a reasonable effort to determine the truth, yet still find the possible defeaters unconvincing, then their faith is warranted. That is where I stand. I heard the Gospel. The Holy Spirit moved me to assurance. I considered the objections. No compelling defeaters have come to my attention. And what I have since learned seems to reinforce the truth of the Gospel.

YMMV.

Still not understanding there is a huge difference between making claims, passing those claims down through generations, and the claims themselves being factual, either historically accurate or scientifically accurate.

The ancient Egyptians are a provable society that existed, the pharaohs existed, we can prove they existed. So by your logic you should believe in all their gods and fantastic claims.

They Mayans also had a provable history, we know they existed, and again, by your logic you should believe all their fantastic claims and you should believe in all their gods.

Other religions including Buddhists and Hindus and Jews all have histories too. That does not make any club true, or any god real, it merely means those societies passed down to the next generation the claims of their parents.

There is no such thing as a magic baby being born with super powers without a second set of DNA just like you accept that the Egyptian god Horus was not a man with a falcon head. Now if you stupidly believe the ancient Egyptians back then didn't literally believe in a man/god with a falcon head, you are a fool. They believed in those gods as literally as you believe in yours, and they depict unscientific fantastic claims just like the Jesus myth makes claims of being born of a virgin, poofing water into wine. FYI the Jesus curing blindness story is not the first cure of blindness story. The Egyptian healing god Thot spit in the eye of Horus to cure his blindness. Next time you pass an "Rx" pharmacy symbol remember that because it stems from the ancient story of the Egyptians.

If you want a baby, you need two sets of DNA. If you want wine, you need grapes and it is a long process not something anyone can "poof" out of nothing. If you want fix your eyes you go to an eye doctor with a MEDICAL DEGREE.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

 
With all due respect, is your belief rationally justified, or have you justified it through rationalizations? How do you differentiate between the two? [1]
 

What is wrong with saying I don’t know? If one genuinely does not believe in god and chooses to only accept the truth of those things that can be rationally proven, then is it intellectually honest of that individual to say “I don’t know” or “currently, I don’t understand it”? [2]

Also, I do agree that a humanistic, naturalistic worldview can be quite limiting, especially since their could possibly be innumerable universes out there with different forms of life, different laws, different properties/structures, etc., so assuming that the universe conforms to a humanistic, materialistic/naturalist mindset could be somewhat shortsighted on humanity's part: it could inhibit the kind of imaginative lateral thinking that is needed to make breakthroughs in thought and advancements in humanity's understanding of reality. 
 
 
I appreciate your thoughts on this.  However, IMO, the quote above applies to people who think through a theistic lens.  To theists, I’m sure that these reasons (natural theology arguments) along with the NT, personal experience, and the testimonies of others is convincing and rational, but, to people who choose to take a secular, rational, and/or scientific approach toward understanding the reality around them, then the quote above does not have much meaning to them.    [3]
 
Also, with all due respect, regarding the natural theology arguments, is your god capable of breaking down each argument and providing the specifics, so that proofs, which are unambiguous and whose language is not open to subjective interpretation, can be written such that the truth of the claims can be established via a logical flow of reasoning, evidence, facts, etc., that are independent of the actual claims themselves?  IMO, until this happens, then I’m afraid that these arguments will not be as persuasive to the secular community as you’d like them to be.  [4]

Thank you for your time, patience, attention, and thoughtful answers, SteveII.

1. A perceptive question. A couple of things: first, 'rationalization' is an inappropriate justification. I think there is an ample set of appropriate reasons to believe the way I do. One that I mentioned quickly is our built in sense of the God/supernatural. I think this belief can be characterized as properly basic. We can know that God exists without making an inference to God's existence from something more basic. This is not an argument from "religions experience" -- that would still be an argument. God is not an idea adopted in the mind but an experienced reality. 

2. The point is you are not saying "I don't know". These are metaphysical question that cannot be answered by science so what you are really saying is that "I will never know". That is simply not sufficient to the vast majority of people in the world. 

3. As I said in [2], naturalist don't understand the reality around them. Reality is much more than what science can describe. 

4. I don't think they are persuasive on their own. As I said before, they are part of a cumulative case for God.

Thank you for your response, SteveII. 

Out of curiosity, regarding 1, in particular, the statement "our built in sense of God/supernatural", could you please provide a source for this?   Is it more accurate to say that the human mind has a built in sense of causal agency?  Is it possible that some people may be using causal agency interchangeably with supernatural/god? 

Regarding 2, IMO, while metaphysical questions about reality are very interesting and intellectually stimulating, is it possible that they could be irrelevant to the actual operation of reality? In other words, do the answers to humanity's metaphysical questions have any meaning outside of the human mindset?

Regarding 3, IMO, I will agree that currently science cannot fully explain reality.  As a result, regarding naturalism, is it more accurate to say that a naturalist (who is educated) lacks a complete understanding of the reality around him or her?

In regards to 4, I'd like to share some ideas that I learned from my studies at a Christian university. I will also acknowledge that my understanding may be very poor by your standards (I'd appreciate any insights that you can offer that would clarify or enhance my understanding of the ideas that I have posted below), but I'd like you to know that I'm trying to understand your way of thinking, sir. 

With that said, I recall the concept of kenosis, which to my knowledge, is all about universal love: the emptying of oneself into a broader reality of love.  Specifically, god created humanity in its image and wanted them to put god's universal love into practice. Now, naturally, god is the only being capable of perfect kenosis, but nevertheless, even though perfect godly kenosis is beyond the imperfect practitioners of Christianity, it is still their duty to put god's kenosis into practice to the best of their ability (Doncel, 2004).

Now, IMO, relating Buber's concepts of I-Thou and I-It to kenosis is interesting. In particular, I-Thou relationships describe a relationship where people treat each other and their surroundings as ends in themselves: naturally, they must also see their god in this way in order to have a meaningful connection with god.  In particular, when people practice I-Thou relationships with each other, they are treating each other as people.  However, when people engage in I-It relationships, people treat each other and their surroundings as objects to be used as a means for their own ends; they may also view their god in a similar way (Buber, 1996). Hence, IMO, I-Thou relationships among humans would seem to be a very good way to practice kenosis and have meaningful relationships with each other and with god.  

Now, I have shared these ideas because, via my observations, there are plenty of practitioners of Christianity who engage in many I-It relationships, and consequently, they are falling short of practicing kenosis to the best of their ability.  Now, I will acknowledge that you, along with Neo-Scholastic and Catholic Lady (my apologies if I left anyone out), seem to be the exception: based on your collective posts, you all seem dedicated to your belief system/your relationship with god and are treating posters here in a humane and amiable manner.  However, in your opinion, how can you get more practitioners of your faith to act in this way? IMO, if more practitioners of Christianity acted in a more I-Thou way, then perhaps the secular camp would be more willing to listen, learn, and understand (but not necessarily agree), as they would see more consistency between the espoused and enacted values of Christianity.  What do you think?

Thank you for your time and attention.  


References

Buber, Martin. (1996). I and Thou. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Doncel, M.G. (2004). The kenosis of the creator and of the created co-creator.  Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, 39(4), 791-800.