What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[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.