What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[SteveII]

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.

I'm not sure it is a subjective as you think in the larger points of Christian attitudes and living. Do you have an example or two where different Christians would interpret something important (something that would impact how you live you life) different ways?

[Brian37]

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.

Ask a Sunni they will say the Shiite is getting it wrong. Ask a Shiite and they will claims the Sunni is getting it wrong. Ask a Tibet Buddhist and they will say a Chinese Buddhist is getting it wrong. Ask a liberal Obama voting Baptist and they will say the Trump voting Baptist is getting it wrong. Baptists don't consider Catholics "true Christians" but both Baptists and Catholics don't consider Mormons Christians, depending on individual or individual sect.

Religion DOES NOT foster 100% perfect consensus ever. It does foster groups, but not much more than that.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

I do not know of any discipline from particle physics to wood-working where everyone agrees 100% on everything. Are physicists with differing views on high-temperature superconductivity not TRUE physicists? I doubt very much that you will only vote from politicians with whom you agree 100%. Is a pro-choice, pro-union, climate change activist Democrat not a TRUE Democrat just because he or she is NRA supporter?

Occasionally I listen to religious radio, from Alistair Begg to Chuck Swindoll. Both are extremely conservative IMHO and yet I'm not hearing any vitriol or hatred in their preaching. Have you ever listened to Unbelievable? That show is very popular in the UK and by podcast. Even when the topics are extremely controversial the conversations are civil and well within the mainstream. For example, Robert Gagnon is probably one of the most vocal defenders of the traditional bible-based view on homosexuality but nothing he says or writes is in anyway hateful, unless of course, you consider any opposition to homosexual practices to be hateful by definition. I can't help you with that. Anyways, the main point is that you can find all kinds of rabid, wild-eyed people on the internet on just about any topic imaginable and its not reasonable to judge 2.2 billion believers based on YouTube rants.

[GUBU]

What Christians are not required to have:

1. A specific view on Genesis 1

So what you're saying here is that christians do not have to take the bible as the word of god? Nice to know that you think that a la carteism is perfectly acceptable to believers of a religion for which their holy book is doctrinally inerrant (yes it is, according to pretty much all septs of the christian cult).

[Crossless2.0]

Fair enough, except that "understanding what the NT instructs" is up to your interpretation.  

It's actually worse than just sects and individuals arguing over NT interpretation. The NT itself is the result of previous disputes within the Christian world about what it meant to be a Christian, with the Pauline faction winning out and receiving official sanction. (I can't help but wonder what Jesus would have made of Paul's teachings.) Believers just take it for granted that they were basically on the same page, but they only think that because of the shape the NT eventually took. They'll argue that it turned out the way it did because of some divine plan and the inspirational workings of the Holy Spirit, etc. But that is just another claim without sufficient evidence. The 'losing' factions within that intra-religious dispute probably didn't see it that way.

[GUBU]

That rules out almost every American who calls themselves a Christian. So you're calling us ignorant because we deal with the majority of people who call themselves Christians (team Jesus people), not the true Christians ™ as you define them. Sounds like the problem is really on your end, not ours.

The christian definition of "true christian": point to whatever doctrine I'm not currently arguing with a non-christian over, and say it's a core doctrine. Whenever I start to argue with a non-christian over it, it ceases to be a core doctrine. When not arguing with christians, adopt the doctrines* that I am more comfortable with.

*These can include doctrines which I have personally made up in the last ten minutes (like prosperity gospel) and are unrecognised by any scripture or authority.

[SteveII]

What Christians are not required to have:

1. A specific view on Genesis 1

So what you're saying here is that christians do not have to take the bible as the word of god? Nice to know that you think that a la carteism is perfectly acceptable to believers of a religion for which their holy book is doctrinally inerrant (yes it is, according to pretty much all septs of the christian cult).

No, that is not what I said, implied, or meant. 

What I said (and meant) was exactly what I wrote.

[GUBU]

No, that is not what I said, implied, or meant. 

What I said (and meant) was exactly what I wrote.

You said that a whole chapter of the first book of the bible can be safely disregarded. This is despite the fact that at many places in both the ot and nt it is stated that the bible has to be taken as inerrant in full.

Either you're right or your holy book, the whole foundation of your religion, is right. There is no middle ground.

[Crossless2.0]

No, that is not what I said, implied, or meant. 

What I said (and meant) was exactly what I wrote.

You said that a whole chapter of the first book of the bible can be safely disregarded. This is despite the fact that at many places in both the ot and nt it is stated that the bible has to be taken as inerrant in full.

Either you're right or your holy book, the whole foundation of your religion, is right. There is no middle ground.

In fairness to Steve, inerrancy =/= literalism.

[brewer]

OP: add to the list

An ability to pick and choose from the bible (you picked NT), then deny, ignore or down play the rest when it does not fit the agenda.
An ability to justify cognitive dissonance.
An ability to rationalize fantasy and magic.