What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[Minimalist]

Hey, it's your invention.  You could make him dance the tarantella naked while eating a BLT if you wanted.  That's the great thing about imaginary friends.  They always see things your way!

My imaginary friend gave me Angelina Jolie,  now while you can't see her he did give me my right hand and boy is it fun pretending we are making love. WHAT'S THAT MINN? You don't believe me? You are such a stick in the mud.

Hell, I assume your right hand is real.  Beats yhwh all to hell.

[dyresand]

Hateful
Vengeful
Jealous
Angry
Careless

NT god in a nutshell.

[GrandizerII]

The PoE argument is trying to prove that evil and God logically cannot exist. The burden of proof is on the atheist (the proponent of the argument). It is not successful (there are a variety of defenses) and most philosophers have moved on and it only continues to get discussed by the internet atheist.

Stop shifting goalposts please. It was clear what I was saying and what I was responding to. Go back and read my previous post with your quotes in it. Nothing you say here has anything to do with what I argued.

Now please demonstrate how it is impossible for people to freely choose good all the time. You made a claim without warrant, so you need to back it up when asked.

If you want to attack free will, you have a long uphill climb. The only defense you have is the assumption of naturalism.

Uphill climb my ass, lol. The logical incoherency is often clear in the definition itself for the type of "free will" defended specifically by theists who believe in libertarian free will. Note, by the way, my specific usages of the word "libertarian" in both this post and my previous response to you. I'm personally a compatibilist, but compatibilist free will is obviously pointless to argue for in the context of this discussion.

All kinds of things cause harm to people. Falling off a ladder for one. Nothing evil going on there.

And? What point of mine is this a response to exactly?

You want God to save people from natural disasters? Isn't that a wholesale violation of free will? You wanting near constant miraculous intervention does not make the argument. God has sufficient reasons for not acting--one of them being preserving free will.

But the free will you speak of is not logically possible. So if we are to go with logic, then your free will argument is a terribly poor defense of the theist's problem of evil and suffering.

I will grant that there is no logical contradiction between the existence of God (even a loving God) and evil. For me, this whole problem of evil and suffering is more about plausibility rather than about possibility. But libertarian free will, nevertheless, logically fails.

But let's suppose we somehow have free will. God still intervenes in our affairs anyway at times, right? So what makes you think that one of God's reasons for not acting is to preserve free will? Maybe he doesn't give two shits about your free will? It's certainly logically possible that he doesn't.

3. Of course we choose sin. No, we often don't create a temptation. But that is irrelevant.

No, given God and sin, we don't always choose to sin.

Hell, even Christians will agree with me on this. When I was a Christian, the belief was that we are all sinners not because we choose to sin but because we are sinful by nature, and that we are slaves to sin in need of divine release from our bondage. I would think that being a slave to sin means you're not free to not sin, and therefore it is not right to say one chooses to sin.

But of course, that depends on what brand of Christianity you adhere to.

[Amarok]

The PoE argument is trying to prove that evil and God logically cannot exist. The burden of proof is on the atheist (the proponent of the argument). It is not successful (there are a variety of defenses) and most philosophers have moved on and it only continues to get discussed by the internet atheist.

Stop shifting goalposts please. It was clear what I was saying and what I was responding to. Go back and read my previous post with your quotes in it. Nothing you say here has anything to do with what I argued.

Now please demonstrate how it is impossible for people to freely choose good all the time. You made a claim without warrant, so you need to back it up when asked.

If you want to attack free will, you have a long uphill climb. The only defense you have is the assumption of naturalism.

Uphill climb my ass, lol. The logical incoherency is often clear in the definition itself for the type of "free will" defended specifically by theists who believe in libertarian free will. Note, by the way, my specific usages of the word "libertarian" in both this post and my previous response to you. I'm personally a compatibilist, but compatibilist free will is obviously pointless to argue for in the context of this discussion.

All kinds of things cause harm to people. Falling off a ladder for one. Nothing evil going on there.

And? What point of mine is this a response to exactly?

You want God to save people from natural disasters? Isn't that a wholesale violation of free will? You wanting near constant miraculous intervention does not make the argument. God has sufficient reasons for not acting--one of them being preserving free will.

But the free will you speak of is not logically possible. So if we are to go with logic, then your free will argument is a terribly poor defense of the theist's problem of evil and suffering.

I will grant that there is no logical contradiction between the existence of God (even a loving God) and evil. For me, this whole problem of evil and suffering is more about plausibility rather than about possibility. But libertarian free will, nevertheless, logically fails.

But let's suppose we somehow have free will. God still intervenes in our affairs anyway at times, right? So what makes you think that one of God's reasons for not acting is to preserve free will? Maybe he doesn't give two shits about your free will? It's certainly logically possible that he doesn't.

3. Of course we choose sin. No, we often don't create a temptation. But that is irrelevant.

No, given God and sin, we don't always choose to sin.

Hell, even Christians will agree with me on this. When I was a Christian, the belief was that we are all sinners not because we choose to sin but because we are sinful by nature, and that we are slaves to sin in need of divine release from our bondage. I would think that being a slave to sin means you're not free to not sin, and therefore it is not right to say one chooses to sin.

But of course, that depends on what brand of Christianity you adhere to.

Nice take down 

[GrandizerII]

I don't know that there is a God and that he grieves and suffers with us in our darkest hours. If there is a God who loves us, then I would expect him to demonstrate this love in a manner that is consistent with how we normally view love. I cannot reasonably consider it divine love when God allows all sorts of evils and sufferings to occur in this world. I can understand minor sufferings being consistent with a loving God, but not major evils and sufferings.

Sounds reasonable in the abstract. All I'm asking is for you to look at it from within the scope of your everyday experience. For whatever reason, there is pain and suffering in my life. I don't know why and I'm not sure it matters. What I do know is that I don't trust me to lift myself out of my own troubles all by myself. I've tried willpower and it didn't work. YMMV but sometimes it's more effective to surrender and call on someone strong enough to deliver me. Maybe it's not clear how His love works for the entire world. I only know how His love works for me.

That's fine, and if you needed to say that to let it all out, that's fine as well. But after what I've come to learn in life, going through certain experiences that shed quite some light on a lot of things I wasn't aware of before, I just can't ever think the way you do now. It would be nice to have someone powerful to be on my side, but I also care about love and compassion for other people, especially those less fortunate than me. Dictators have a lot of power in the countries they rule, but they are the last people I would expect to really love their people. A constantly neglectful father has a lot of power as a paternal parent, but I would not expect him to all of a sudden pick his child up and give him love. We live in a world where good things don't always occur to good people, and where abuses are rampant and often go unpunished, and where even good people can sometimes end up hurting other good people. It's a complicated (and sometimes cruel) world we're in, and I have come to accept it as it is, rather than pretend there is something really, really great out there beyond our imaginations who will help us when the day comes or something like that (especially when we don't even see indicators of such a great thing, and when we are suffering anyway and nothing is being done to relieve us from our current suffering on the part of the supposedly divine).

[Redbeard The Pink]

I see time after time objections lodged against Christians where it is clear that the writer does not know what they are talking about. Many of you argue about a caricature of Christianity to strengthen your arguments or justification in your mind that you are right.  Other times, you fail to distinguish the actions of a person from what a Christian is.  I think some clarification and discussion is in order.

What Christians are called to be (all based in the NT):

1. Has an undiluted devotion to Jesus.
2. Pursues a biblically informed view of the world.
3. Is intentional and disciplined in seeking God's direction.
4. Worships, and with a spirit of continuous repentance.
5. Builds healthy human relationships.
6. Knows how to engage the larger world.
7. Senses a personal "call" and unique competencies.
8. Is merciful and generous to those who are weaker.
9. Appreciates that suffering is part of faithfulness to Jesus.
10. Is eager and ready to express the content of his faith.
11. Overflows with thankfulness.
12. Has a passion for reconciliation. 

     Above list from http://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors...stian.html

What Christians are not required to have:

1. A specific view on Genesis 1
2. Anti-science opinions and/or philosophy
3. Belief that evolution is false
4. Misogynistic views
5. A worldview with gaps of logic or reasoning
6. Hatred for any group of people

Any additions to the list? 

Other thoughts?

Good to see there's still a True Scotsman on this forum.

[Brian37]

I see time after time objections lodged against Christians where it is clear that the writer does not know what they are talking about. Many of you argue about a caricature of Christianity to strengthen your arguments or justification in your mind that you are right.  Other times, you fail to distinguish the actions of a person from what a Christian is.  I think some clarification and discussion is in order.

What Christians are called to be (all based in the NT):

1. Has an undiluted devotion to Jesus.
2. Pursues a biblically informed view of the world.
3. Is intentional and disciplined in seeking God's direction.
4. Worships, and with a spirit of continuous repentance.
5. Builds healthy human relationships.
6. Knows how to engage the larger world.
7. Senses a personal "call" and unique competencies.
8. Is merciful and generous to those who are weaker.
9. Appreciates that suffering is part of faithfulness to Jesus.
10. Is eager and ready to express the content of his faith.
11. Overflows with thankfulness.
12. Has a passion for reconciliation. 

     Above list from http://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors...stian.html

What Christians are not required to have:

1. A specific view on Genesis 1
2. Anti-science opinions and/or philosophy
3. Belief that evolution is false
4. Misogynistic views
5. A worldview with gaps of logic or reasoning
6. Hatred for any group of people

Any additions to the list? 

Other thoughts?

Good to see there's still a True Scotsman on this forum.

This is the narcissism all fans of all religions seem to suffer from. Right off the bat it is is always about their religion as if nobody questions or criticizes the religions of others.

Steve "I see time after time objections lodged against Christians."

Steve is right, we do object to the claims of Christians, but also Jews and Hindus and Muslims and Buddhists. 

Carly Simon has a song about vanity. 

7 billion humans and Steve stupidly thinks his religion is the only one persecuted. And anyone questioning it or blaspheming it is persecuting them.

Too stupid to see that there ARE persecuted Christians, like Egyptian or Kurdish Christians. But also persecuted Jews and persecuted minority Muslims because of Sunni vs Shiite depending on geography. But an "objection" or mere "blasphemy" isn't persecution. It merely means we think you are full of shit Steve.

OF COURSE we have objections to your claims Steve, because that book is OLD and makes scientifically absurd claims and has the morality of rival tribalism of the times they lived in when they were written. We don't want you dead Steve, we wont rape your women or barbecue your kittens, we simply think you are full of shit.

[Pat Mustard]

God was complete dick in the book of job.

Job. Other than a shit-ton of babies, no one had it worse in the Bible than Job, who was a righteous, good-hearted man who believed in God with every fiber in his being — which is when God decides to see how miserable he can make this dude before he gets upset. Note: This is a result of a bet between God and Satan. Also note: The bet is God's idea. He's literally just hanging out with Satan — which is kinda weird when you think about it — when he starting bragging about how awesome Job is. Satan points out that Job's pretty blessed — he's rich, he's got a lot of kids, etc., and he probably wouldn't be quite so thrilled with God if he didn't have that stuff. God downs his bourbon, presumably, and tells Satan he can fuck with Job all he wants. Satan does. He kills all of Job's children and animals, burns down his house, destroys his wealth, and then covers him in boils. Job doesn't not curse God, but he does wish he'd never been born (literally) and begs God to kill him, but no dice. This lasts a long time until finally Job wonders why a just God would be so shitty. This is when God pops up and basically tells him."Shut up, I don't have to explain anything to you." Job, having finally done something wrong, pleads for mercy, and God eventually gives him back animals and children — new ones, because the old ones are still dead. Because of a bet. That God made with Satan. For kicks. (Job 1)

http://io9.gizmodo.com/gods-12-biggest-d...1522970429

It's even worse than that. Yhwh pretty much flat out orders satan to persecute Job, a job which satan loyally and dutifully (but not very enthusiastically) does.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

1. To explain why humans seem to be predisposed to believe in the supernatural, the naturalist's answer is that humans have evolved to look for causation.

However, that answer is too simplistic and seems contrived. What you are you are describing is just a product of conciousness; for without it, there is a whole host of mental processes that are not possible--including those to reason an unseen cause. So aren't you really attempting to answer the question with "conciousness?"

That opens a whole can of worms for you. There is no scientific explanation for human consciousness. You have a non-physical force acting on a physical world--so a completely deterministic world (naturalism) is out the window. Additionally, how did it evolve? What evolutionary advantage did it serve that got selected (and does that theory have a sufficient selection coefficient)?  

Instead, what most people experience is an awareness of the existence of something more than material (supernatural). They do not reason to the existence of something more than material. This is an important disctinction. It is also the distinction that makes belief in the supernatural a properly basic belief (needs no further justification) and therefore a reasonable belief to have

2. Since metaphysical questions deal with the fundamental nature of reality (a layer science itself relies on), I would say that they are important questions. Questions of philosophy, logic, morality, aesthetics, origins, purpose, and value shape our lives from moment to moment far more than a scientific question/answer. IMO, the fact that we can ask/consider/seek answers to metaphysical questions has no bearing on the answers, so they are not dependent on humans to ponder them. 

3. Strict naturalism is called scientism. Scientism holds that only science can determine truth. That is an untenable position and is to ignore large parts of the reality we find ourselves in.

4. You make good points. There are many people who are nominally Christian and do not live according to its precepts. Self-centeredness is the antithesis of Christianity. As you correctly pointed out, it is a struggle. What college did you attend?

Hello, SteveII.  I appreciate the time and thought that you put into your response.  Also, my apologies for my delayed response.   

Regarding 1, In Mere Christianity, I recall C.S. Lewis's observation that there is a universal "ought" feeling interconnecting us all, and based on my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong), Lewis reasoned that this feeling interconnected humanity to god. Now, to illustrate an example, if we view the entirety of consciousness as a grand framework of cybernetic mechanisms, then human consciousness is simply a particular instrument functioning within a grand framework of functioning instruments, and naturally, via a theistic lens, it can be concluded that god would be the grand mechanism that allows everything to function.  Hence, human consciousness is interconnected with god's consciousness; thus, providing a theistic insight into where our consciousness comes from.

Now, IMO, I have some questions about a theistic explanation of consciousness.  First, if religious belief ultimately occurs via our sense-making processes, perceptions, feelings, etc., then how do humanity's religious practitioners know that they are accurately experiencing and interpreting objective reality/god as it is?  Second, how do they know that their subjective sense-making processes aren't ultimately distorting objective reality (mistakenly but honestly interpreting a god when there actually may not be one)?

Regarding 2, my point was to illustrate that, IMO, metaphysical questions are a product of human curiosity and that the quest to find meaning in our reality and to discover that meaning may not have any relevance to the way reality actually operates.  Hence, do the answers to the metaphysical questions that humanity ponders actually have substance in our reality?  Is it arrogant of humanity to assume that their metaphysical questions are in any way connected to the manner in which reality actually operates?

I agree with you about 3. As I mentioned earlier, to assume that reality conforms to a humanistic rational mindset could be somewhat presumptuous and could inadvertently close humanity off to other ways of thinking that could help them unlock the mysteries of our reality.  IMO, for the sake of thought and imagination, there could be so many other forms of life (beyond humanity's understanding) out there who have a much simpler and better understanding (or some other equivalent or more advanced function) of reality than we do.

Regarding 4, I attended Abilene Christian University.  Specifically, I completed their online master's program in conflict resolution and reconciliation.  In addition, I attended two residency sessions: the first session trained students in the art of mediation; the second session was a practical skills course that focused a lot on conflict theory and how to be fluent in multiple conflict resolution techniques, as successfully resolving conflict often requires the harmonization/synthesis of multiple approaches/techniques.

[SteveII]

The PoE argument is trying to prove that evil and God logically cannot exist. The burden of proof is on the atheist (the proponent of the argument). It is not successful (there are a variety of defenses) and most philosophers have moved on and it only continues to get discussed by the internet atheist.

Stop shifting goalposts please. It was clear what I was saying and what I was responding to. Go back and read my previous post with your quotes in it. Nothing you say here has anything to do with what I argued.

Now please demonstrate how it is impossible for people to freely choose good all the time. You made a claim without warrant, so you need to back it up when asked.

If you want to attack free will, you have a long uphill climb. The only defense you have is the assumption of naturalism.

Uphill climb my ass, lol. The logical incoherency is often clear in the definition itself for the type of "free will" defended specifically by theists who believe in libertarian free will. Note, by the way, my specific usages of the word "libertarian" in both this post and my previous response to you. I'm personally a compatibilist, but compatibilist free will is obviously pointless to argue for in the context of this discussion.

I was not shifting the goal post. I thought your response about burden of proof was directed at the PoE.

Regarding whether it is impossible for people to always choose good, you have to distinguish between broadly logical possible and actually possible (logical modality). A world where everyone chooses good is broadly logically possible--logic alone cannot rule it out. But clearly, additional criteria/information is needed to determine if it is actually possible. I think it is entirely more likely than the negation that trillions of sequential, interacting, human choices cannot all be good. 

What is your basis for believing determinism/compatiblism to be true? Isn't just the prior assumption of Naturalism--which is clearly question begging? 

Libertarian free will is not incoherent. It is the best description of what we experience and the only reasoning to deny it is to salvage scientism. Those that espouse scientism do not want any part of allowing for emergent properties that themselves have causal power--it turns their deterministic worldview on its ear.