What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[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.