What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[Brian37]

SteveII, you have identified a helpful list of orthopraxy, but remain silent about orthodoxy. Is it not also true that these "fruits" are expected to follow from knowledge God's Grace, Christ's work on the Cross, and true repentance?

Nevertheless, it is true that many atheist biblical skeptics have an extremely rigid and myopic way of looking at the Word. They get very upset with and dismissive towards Christians who take a more nuanced approach. For example, I am reading a book about debt in the ancient world. It really illuminates many parts of scripture - from the Law of Jubilee to the 1st century perspective on God's role as redeemer. Meanwhile skeptics are fixated on rabbits chewing cud. They cannot fathom our unity on the plain, clear, and central  teachings of the Word, like the historical truth of a physical Resurrection, while still retaining our ability to have civil ecumenical discussions about minor doctrines, like total depravity, annihilation, infant baptism, etc. For them it is "all or nothing."

On AF at least, I hear a lot of contempt towards less intellectual believers who, in the opinion of AF members, have not sufficiently examined their beliefs. That contempt so common among AF members rests on the irrational and unreasonable notion that any and all beliefs must be justified by classical foundationalism. My parents and many other very good people have never even heard of Hume or Locke, yet still manage to live the Gospel everyday of their lives with a degree of piety I wish I could share. Not everyone justifies their faith intellectually; but rather, by daily experience. And that seems to be your point, that a fair evaluation of Christianity must consider the behavior and actions of those who live most fervently apply the Gospel to their lives rather than build-up edifices of intellectual arguments.

Wow, on top of being condescending to atheists, you are condescending to even theists. 

You "I hear a lot of contempt towards less intellectual believers".

The correct word would be "less informed/educated". The less educated or less informed have an excuse. Just like a first grader has an excuse for not being able to handle PHD physics. I actually find the slick apologists who invent elaborate garbage to prey on those who don't know better far worse than those who have an excuse.

Let me clear this up for you. Our "contempt" is not about human rights. Our contempt is for bad claims and willful ignorance. .. Now since you have put down your fellow theists, bet you don't care to tell us which specific theist you think is "less intellectual". 

All the theists who hang out here just like atheists, have a range of education. 

Humans fall for all sorts of creative elaborate tripe. That does not make them lack intellect on all claims all the time. It merely means they fell for it. Someone got to you to sell you their elaborate tripe and you fell for it. Bet if you had had the same information we did before hand my bet is that you would not have fallen for it.

[Mister Agenda]

I don't have a problem with people sincerely living their faith without stepping on other people's equal rights. It's the ones who spend their time trying to convince people that their faith is justified by evidence and reason who get irritating. If it were justified by evidence and reason, it wouldn't take faith to believe it, it would be like accepting that the earth is roughly an oblate spheroid or that many diseases are caused by single-celled pathogenic organisms. Clearly, that's not what it's like at all. It's a deeply personal conviction that can't be shaken by mere arguments, because when it is, it stops being faith. Many believers own that and take pride in it. Some apparently feel a need to get people skeptical that the object of their faith is really real to acknowledge that the thing they believe in is true for non-faith based reasons.

Nothing corroded my remaining faith like apologetics. It's great for reassuring the faithful that they're smart to believe, but for a doubter who is paying enough attention to actually scrutinize the arguments, it starts to become clear that they are uniformly weak. I must have examined hundreds of arguments without finding a single good one. My faith was never based on arguments in the first place, and I doubt that anyone's is. To an apologist, argumentation is tactical, they aren't trying to arrive at the truth, they are propping up their faith, and many of them are happy to use arguments with flaws they have been made aware of on a new audience if they think they might fall for it.

[Faith No More]

9. Appreciates that suffering is part of faithfulness to Jesus.

This another one that bugs, because it's really just a way for Christians to cope with a mindless universe that has no concern for their well-being. I mean, we're talking about the supposed creator of everything, right? He could have designed the universe so that making toast got you closer to Jesus, but instead, he supposedly made suffering a holy thing.

Christian: I just lost my five year-old to cancer, and I'm struggling to get on with my life.

Jesus: Good...Good...

[SteveII]

It makes me think that the Christians here that talk about Christians being thankful and not hating are not paying attention to a huge chunk of very vocal Christians in this country.  All you have to do is watch some of the religious channels or make a quick search on YouTube to see that many, many Christians use their religion as an excuse to spew vitriol and hatred.  When I see these "This is what Christians do" statements that involve forgiveness and tolerance, it just proves how big the blinders are that many Christians wear.

I know, I know, they're not True Christians.  The funny thing is, they'd say the same thing about you.

I see your point. However, I can use the NT to show a vitriol-spewing and hate-filled nominal Christian where they are wrong--something they can not do in return. So it is not a matter of subjective opinion about who is right.

[Crossless2.0]

9. Appreciates that suffering is part of faithfulness to Jesus.

This another one that bugs, because it's really just a way for Christians to cope with a mindless universe that has no concern for their well-being.  I mean, we're talking about the supposed creator of everything, right?  He could have designed the universe so that making toast got you closer to Jesus, but instead, he supposedly made suffering a holy thing.

Christian:  I just lost my five year-old to cancer, and I'm struggling to get on with my life.

Jesus:  Good...Good...

I'm less put off by Christians coping with an indifferent universe through their beliefs than I am by those Christians who go looking for reasons to feel persecuted and "suffer" for Jesus because of those beliefs.

Of course, there was -- and still is -- real persecution and martyrdom for Christians in many parts of the world. As a liberal atheist in good standing, I oppose that in all cases. But these thin-skinned, whiny American Christians who mistake ridicule, indifference, or a simple adherence to the 1st Amendment for persecution are beneath contempt. If they are so into spiritual theater, there are plenty of places they can go to experience the real thing. Or they can stick around, enjoy the fruits of secular government, practice their faith, and otherwise leave us the fuck alone.

[Brian37]

9. Appreciates that suffering is part of faithfulness to Jesus.

This another one that bugs, because it's really just a way for Christians to cope with a mindless universe that has no concern for their well-being.  I mean, we're talking about the supposed creator of everything, right?  He could have designed the universe so that making toast got you closer to Jesus, but instead, he supposedly made suffering a holy thing.

Christian:  I just lost my five year-old to cancer, and I'm struggling to get on with my life.

Jesus:  Good...Good...

Polytheistic superstitions also have their versions of valuing suffering. While Buddhism likes to widely claim it is a "philosophy" it is a spin off of Hinduism and depending on sect or individual or individual family, their populations are very superstitious and also have their versions of valuing suffering and denial of self as good and moral. 

Humans all have their superstitious ways of explaining why bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. I hate what religion does to human thought. Buddhist monks, just like Christians think self denial is a form of discipline, that denial of the senses is altruistic and that giving to others to the point of pain and suffering is a virtue.

It is all superstitious nonsense. The real reason say a human will eat less food to give to their kids is EMPATHY. The real reason say a cop or fire fighter will risk their lives is EMPATHY. Superstitious self denial as religion sells is more about the narcissism of the individual or a billboard to the club. 

The Jesus character is a vile concept to me as a story, and it is just that. The death story teaches the reader to value DEATH. On the surface it sounds nice, they try to make it sound like a real sacrifice, say like pushing a kid out of the way of a speeding car and getting hit yourself. No, it is blood worship. It teaches the reader to value violence without realizing it.

On top of that, the Jesus character as the story claims, he does not stay dead, it is a pin prick. He doesn't sacrifice anything forever. The story is written to glorify the hero. In real life, doing the right thing is doing it even when nobody is looking, even if you never get patted on the back.

The other vile aspect of the Jesus story is it takes away your own thought autonomy. A third party forgives the perp who did something to you, even if you don't agree to forgive them. It takes away your own ability to decide for yourself. I am not a vengeful person one bit. But nobody but me decides who to forgive or not to forgive. That is my choice and mine alone.

The Jesus story does not teach empathy for others any further than a sales pitch to gain club members. The end of the book threatening you to hell even for the mere crime of not believing negates any temporary lack of retribution. The Jesus character as written does not have a so called "thankless job", the entire point of the book is to thank him. That is not selflessness, but selfish self glorifying advertising.

[SteveII]

What's the difference between an NT Christian and a non-NT Christian?

A social Christian, nominal Christian, someone who self-identifies as a Christian but does not understand what the NT instructs as far as doctrine, attitudes, and living. I was attempting to be clear on the measuring stick I was using.

[Faith No More]

I see your point. However, I can use the NT to show a vitriol-spewing and hate-filled nominal Christian where they are wrong--something they can not do in return. So it is not a matter of subjective opinion about who is right.

Actually, the bible is very vague in its intent all throughout, not to mention that we have many different translations that often change the meaning of a verse. Just look all the denominations and their disagreements how to interpret what the bible says. In fact, Jesus often talks in allegory, leaving the reader to interpret the symbolism behind it, which becomes especially difficult when you're reading a translated text.

In the end, all you can offer is your own interpretation of what the bible intends to mean, which is highly subjective.

[Brian37]

What's the difference between an NT Christian and a non-NT Christian?

A social Christian, nominal Christian, someone who self-identifies as a Christian but does not understand what the NT instructs as far as doctrine, attitudes, and living. I was attempting to be clear on the measuring stick I was using.

What the hell does "social Christian" mean. Liberal Christians and conservative Christians both socialize. Humans worldwide socialize. Our species socializes because we evolved to be social animals. "social Christian" is a nonsense term.

Sorry, but both left and right, church goer and non church goer all argue as to how the OT and NT relate. None of the sub sects of Christianity agree, liberal or conservative as to who got the correct interpretation. Just like Sunnis and Shiites cant agree on the Koran.

[Faith No More]

A social Christian, nominal Christian, someone who self-identifies as a Christian but does not understand what the NT instructs as far as doctrine, attitudes, and living. I was attempting to be clear on the measuring stick I was using.

Fair enough, except that "understanding what the NT instructs" is up to your interpretation. Again, those other Christians would say you're doing it wrong.