What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[brewer]

bold mine

Would you prefer Delusion? Hokum? Malarkey? I'm trying to be nice/tolerant. That's the most civil word I can think of to describe your belief in one word. 

I know you won't be able to do this but, imagine your self explaining your belief to a society that had never conceived of a god or had the concept of a completely different god. What do you think they would say?

I can't believe that you are not able to construct a sentence that does not have an intentional derogatory term in it. Civil discourse has as one of its principal concepts that you cast your opponent's position is the most charitable light possible--even if you do not agree with it.

Sorry, well, not really. Just calling a spade a spade. Do you need things sugar coated to feel comfortable? Should I change my manner of speech to conform to your sensibilities? I suppose I could speak to you as I would a child, is that what you want?

Away from this forum, how have you/your religion (and include the believers around you) spoken about the unbelievers of christ/god. Crused? Hell bound? Poor souls? Deluded? Sinners? Misguided? Corrupt? Infidels? Heathen? Have you used or heard these derogatory words or similar used? 

If you find my posts that personally offensive I think you know the solution(s).

[Pat Mustard]

Not debating with Steve here (as it is pointless, he has his unevidenced assertions and he's sticking to them), just simply pointing out what is wrong with his beliefs:

{A} I believe the events in the Gospel happened pretty much as described.

Which is completely wrong. For one thing, we know both from historical records and archaeology that there was no Jewish kingdom until the Hasmonean dynasty in the 2nd century BCE. Before that we either had a land sparsely populated by semi nomadic groups who none of the the regional powers were bothered with, or a land ruled directly by the regional powers. For example when Moses was supposed to have brought the jews out of Egypt and established the biblical kingdom of Israel the land was in reality ruled directly by the Egyptian pharaohate. I could also talk about things like how badly the new testament messed up Levantine geography, how badly modern theologists have to twist the timeline to get Yeshua and Pontius Pilate into the same place at the same time and so on. It should be obvious given the level of scholarship put into history of the area that the only people claiming the bible has any historical accuracy are those trying to maintain the imaginary life of Yeshua bar Yosef.

I have never heard a coherent theory that would explain the widespread belief that we have evidence for following the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Here's one: For the best part of the last thousand and a half years Europe (and the lands it later colonised) had a very powerful religious organisation in control of many aspects of society, not least education. It has spent most of this time propogandising a mostly false history of its beginnings in order to perpetuate its own power. Even after this organisation split, violently, five hundred years ago, the splinters have continued with the propoganda for the most part, the only variations making it more unreal and extreme.

Not alone is this a coherent theory, when we look at the (quite extensive) evidence we have  we can see that it is largely true. The history of the bible is largely a church construct, with many details of what was actually going on either obscured or destroyed and many of the elements created in their place have by now definitively proven to be faked.

{B} If I believe in God, why isn't the NT compelling?

The new testament is compelling to people like Steve for one simple reason; they believe. Because they fervently hope and want the stories therein to be true, they ignore the inconsistencies, the fabrications, the bad geography and history, and the outright lies. They don't see the problems with the book because to acknowledge the problems is simply to acknowledge that their religious beliefs are without basis in reality.

It makes sense, it answers many questions, it provides details on living a fulfilling life, and provides a way to have a relationship with God.

But only because people like Steve already believe. More questions are answered through an honest and sceptical questioning of what we see and hear around us. A more fulfilling life is gained from a thorough search of our own inner selves and our surroundings. And a relationship with the christian god is simply a relationship with oneself, once a dispassionate inquiry into its nature is realised.

Also do not underestimate the role of personal experience (changed lives, attitudes, etc.) of the person and of other Christians that adds to the evidence.

Anecdote is not evidence, otherwise we'd have to accept that Mohammed flew up to heaven on a winged chariot, that Zeus/Jupiter controls thunder, that the trickster god Loki is out to get us, and all those other religious beliefs that are out there.

{C} What is the difference between all the other religions and Christianity?

None, they are all fairy stories told by the credulous and ill-informed to explain a world that they don't understand and are unwilling to try.

[Brian37]

Steve is getting bent out of shape because he came here thinking we'd be easy marks. He didn't expect us to know history and science as well as we do. He didn't expect us to be long time debaters. He hates that he now is facing the fact he brought an intellectual knife to those with more knowledge collectively.

[Neo-Scholastic]

How reality works may not be (and probably isn't ) based on the current materialist paradigm. The dividing line between supernatural and natural is not fixed. It changes based on one's understanding of what is considered an allowable explanation.

Just what is that probability?  Since we have no evidence of anything supernatural, that dividing line must be a brick wall.

When first introduced Newton's law of gravity was considered supernatural because the prevailing wisdom at the time what that bodily interaction required physical things to bump against each other. Proponents of "naturalism" are really just explaining away the uncanny and inexplicable phenomena that do not fit the physical reductionist paradigm. Consider for a moment how the term materialism has changed over time in order to adapt it to new findings in physics. Anyone promoting 19th century materialism today would be laughed at. The 20th century version of materialism is becoming just as untenable and archaic. The more we learn about matter, the more it seems to dissolve into structured nothingness.

[Mister Agenda]

'Explaining away' and 'explaining' are two very different activities.

[The Grand Nudger]

When first introduced Newton's law of gravity was considered supernatural because the prevailing wisdom at the time what that bodily interaction required physical things to bump against each other.

If you wish to maintain that the supernatural is merely the portion of the natural that is unknown or mistaken, be my guest 

 Proponents of "naturalism" are really just explaining away the uncanny and inexplicable phenomena that do not fit the physical reductionist paradigm.

Such as?

Consider for a moment how the term materialism has changed over time in order to adapt it to new findings in physics. Anyone promoting 19th century materialism today would be laughed at. The 20th century version of materialism is becoming just as untenable and archaic.

So, just to get it straight, are you upset that materialism has kept itself up to date with discoveries..or that it hasn't.........

The more we learn about matter, the more it seems to dissolve into structured nothingness.

A structure is something, not nothing.  Theres no need to dispute or argue over whether or not you;re really describing the current state of our knowledge accurately here, since it wouldn't matter if you were.

[SteveII]

Not debating with Steve here (as it is pointless, he has his unevidenced assertions and he's sticking to them), just simply pointing out what is wrong with his beliefs:

{A} I believe the events in the Gospel happened pretty much as described.

Which is completely wrong. For one thing, we know both from historical records and archaeology that there was no Jewish kingdom until the Hasmonean dynasty in the 2nd century BCE. Before that we either had a land sparsely populated by semi nomadic groups who none of the the regional powers were bothered with, or a land ruled directly by the regional powers. For example when Moses was supposed to have brought the jews out of Egypt and established the biblical kingdom of Israel the land was in reality ruled directly by the Egyptian pharaohate. I could also talk about things like how badly the new testament messed up Levantine geography, how badly modern theologists have to twist the timeline to get Yeshua and Pontius Pilate into the same place at the same time and so on. It should be obvious given the level of scholarship put into history of the area that the only people claiming the bible has any historical accuracy are those trying to maintain the imaginary life of Yeshua bar Yosef.

Throwing fringe theories, innuendos, and mischaracterizations at the wall to see what sticks is not persuasive. Two-thirds of your 'objections' have to do with the OT. The discussion was on the NT. Inconsistencies (and I'm not saying yours are valid) in the Gospels are to preferred to identical accounts--historians expect variations and have good reason to be suspicious if there are not any.

I have never heard a coherent theory that would explain the widespread belief that we have evidence for following the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Here's one: For the best part of the last thousand and a half years Europe (and the lands it later colonised) had a very powerful religious organisation in control of many aspects of society, not least education. It has spent most of this time propogandising a mostly false history of its beginnings in order to perpetuate its own power. Even after this organisation split, violently, five hundred years ago, the splinters have continued with the propoganda for the most part, the only variations making it more unreal and extreme.

Not alone is this a coherent theory, when we look at the (quite extensive) evidence we have  we can see that it is largely true. The history of the bible is largely a church construct, with many details of what was actually going on either obscured or destroyed and many of the elements created in their place have by now definitively proven to be faked.

Name a serious peer-reviewed published historian that shares your opinion. 

{B} If I believe in God, why isn't the NT compelling?

The new testament is compelling to people like Steve for one simple reason; they believe. Because they fervently hope and want the stories therein to be true, they ignore the inconsistencies, the fabrications, the bad geography and history, and the outright lies. They don't see the problems with the book because to acknowledge the problems is simply to acknowledge that their religious beliefs are without basis in reality.

That is foolish talk. How could someone believe in the NT before finding it compelling. People find it compelling because of the message and the evidence of its truthfulness. Refer to my post on Christianity being based on a cumulative case.--particularly the last line. 

It makes sense, it answers many questions, it provides details on living a fulfilling life, and provides a way to have a relationship with God.

But only because people like Steve already believe. More questions are answered through an honest and sceptical questioning of what we see and hear around us. A more fulfilling life is gained from a thorough search of our own inner selves and our surroundings. And a relationship with the christian god is simply a relationship with oneself, once a dispassionate inquiry into its nature is realised.

That is only your opinion. 9 out of 10 people on the planet don't find your answers satisfying. 

Also do not underestimate the role of personal experience (changed lives, attitudes, etc.) of the person and of other Christians that adds to the evidence.

Anecdote is not evidence, otherwise we'd have to accept that Mohammed flew up to heaven on a winged chariot, that Zeus/Jupiter controls thunder, that the trickster god Loki is out to get us, and all those other religious beliefs that are out there.

Neither of the things I mentioned are anecdotes. They are however evidence--just like every other experience you have had in the world is evidence of something.

{C} What is the difference between all the other religions and Christianity?

None, they are all fairy stories told by the credulous and ill-informed to explain a world that they don't understand and are unwilling to try.

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Silly naturalists, not knowing things..when the better thing to do is bullshit people with and then about (for good measure..I guess?) preferred fairy tales.   

[brewer]

There's that insistent need for an answer, why, why, why, why! Because god said so, the end.

Sound familiar parents?

[Brian37]

Just what is that probability?  Since we have no evidence of anything supernatural, that dividing line must be a brick wall.

When first introduced Newton's law of gravity was considered supernatural because the prevailing wisdom at the time what that bodily interaction required physical things to bump against each other. Proponents of "naturalism" are really just explaining away the uncanny and inexplicable phenomena that do not fit the physical reductionist paradigm. Consider for a moment how the term materialism has changed over time in order to adapt it to new findings in physics. Anyone promoting 19th century materialism today would be laughed at. The 20th century version of materialism is becoming just as untenable and archaic. The more we learn about matter, the more it seems to dissolve into structured nothingness.

What the fuck does Newton have to do with proving your particular flavor of pet sky hero? YES He got lots of science correct, but he also postulated alchemy for a while which was garbage. If being smart constituted being right about all things all the time, then by proxy of your logic you should be a Muslim because Arabs invented algebra.

If you want a MODERN understanding of "something vs nothing" then you should consider the likes of Hawking and Lawrence Krauss. 

Every religion has members who try to reach back in time after the fact to square modern scientific knowledge to their old claims. It does not work when any religion does it.