What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[SteveII]

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. [1] 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.[2] 

Either you're right or your holy book, the whole foundation of your religion, is right. There is no middle ground. [3] 

1. How in the world do you jump to a Christian does not need to have "a specific view on Genesis 1" to "safely disregarded"? 
2. Where? Also, in the context of any verse you might dig up, what constituted "the Bible"? 
3. You don't understand what you are talking about. You imagine some sort of dilemma that you can speak of in some sort of broad strokes. What does the doctrine of inerrancy actually mean (and where does it come from)? Are there different view/levels? Applied to which of the 66 books? Which translation(s) in which language? Is it the same as biblical literalism? Is it necessary to believe the doctrine to be a Christian?

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

Agreed. It is a vague term of art and not a particularly useful one at that. No one is disregarding Genesis. That is a silly accusation. Most of us just don't consider it a scientific sequential account of how the world came to be. It isn't even really one book; but rather, like the bible itself, a literary compilation based on a prior oral tradition. You don't need to look any further than a comparison of Gen 1 and Gen 2 to figure that one out.

[Minimalist]

Why the fuck would you think any of us care?  I have one simple rule:  Any jackass who thinks a dead jew came back to life to atone for his sins is a xtian.  Its a dishonorable title and you are welcome to it.  But the rest of it is just shit.

[Harry Nevis]

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

NT christians are more annoying because they still cite the OT in their rantings.

---

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.

And they can do the same with you.  It's all in the interpretation, IOW, what I want it to say.

---

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?

That's because wood and atomic particles have been shown to EXIST.

[SteveII]

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

NT christians are more annoying because they still cite the OT in their rantings.

---

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.

And they can do the same with you.  It's all in the interpretation, IOW, what I want it to say.

I don't think you know what you are talking about. Give chapter and verse in the NT where a person can justify vitriol and hate.

[Crunchy]

I see time after time objections lodged against Christians where it is clear that the writer does not know what they are talking about. Many of you argue about a caricature of Christianity to strengthen your arguments or justification in your mind that you are right.  Other times, you fail to distinguish the actions of a person from what a Christian is.  I think some clarification and discussion is in order.

What Christians are called to be (all based in the NT):

1. Has an undiluted devotion to Jesus.
2. Pursues a biblically informed view of the world.
3. Is intentional and disciplined in seeking God's direction.
4. Worships, and with a spirit of continuous repentance.
5. Builds healthy human relationships.
6. Knows how to engage the larger world.
7. Senses a personal "call" and unique competencies.
8. Is merciful and generous to those who are weaker.
9. Appreciates that suffering is part of faithfulness to Jesus.
10. Is eager and ready to express the content of his faith.
11. Overflows with thankfulness.
12. Has a passion for reconciliation. 

     Above list from http://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors...stian.html

What Christians are not required to have:

1. A specific view on Genesis 1
2. Anti-science opinions and/or philosophy
3. Belief that evolution is false
4. Misogynistic views
5. A worldview with gaps of logic or reasoning
6. Hatred for any group of people

Any additions to the list? 

Other thoughts?

This is just cherry picking. 

No Bible, no Christianity. Christianity is the Bible.  All of it including the bad parts. Just because you have personally chosen to redact the bad parts from your mind does not mean that we can all safely ignore the murderous parts and murderous past of Christianity.

[Harry Nevis]

NT christians are more annoying because they still cite the OT in their rantings.

---

And they can do the same with you.  It's all in the interpretation, IOW, what I want it to say.

I don't think you know what you are talking about. Give chapter and verse in the NT where a person can justify vitriol and hate.

I'm not one who does this.  But, in their "relationship" with god, I've heard many justify it. Neither side makes sense to me. But it is convenient, I guess, to focus only on the NT.

[Drich]

I see time after time objections lodged against Christians where it is clear that the writer does not know what they are talking about. Many of you argue about a caricature of Christianity to strengthen your arguments or justification in your mind that you are right.  Other times, you fail to distinguish the actions of a person from what a Christian is.  I think some clarification and discussion is in order.

What Christians are called to be (all based in the NT):

1. Has an undiluted devotion to Jesus.
2. Pursues a biblically informed view of the world.
3. Is intentional and disciplined in seeking God's direction.
4. Worships, and with a spirit of continuous repentance.
5. Builds healthy human relationships.
6. Knows how to engage the larger world.
7. Senses a personal "call" and unique competencies.
8. Is merciful and generous to those who are weaker.
9. Appreciates that suffering is part of faithfulness to Jesus.
10. Is eager and ready to express the content of his faith.
11. Overflows with thankfulness.
12. Has a passion for reconciliation. 

     Above list from http://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors...stian.html

What Christians are not required to have:

1. A specific view on Genesis 1
2. Anti-science opinions and/or philosophy
3. Belief that evolution is false
4. Misogynistic views
5. A worldview with gaps of logic or reasoning
6. Hatred for any group of people

Any additions to the list? 

Other thoughts?

Respectfully I would say that picture of a 'Christian' actually describes one or two members of the body (as in Paul's description of the Church in 1 cor 12.) in that your description describes one specific type of Christian. But again, where would the sense of hearing be if all were and eye? Or how can we hold and comfort if all were elbows...

In reality we have been given just 2 commands Love out lord God with all of our being, and love each other as we love ourselves. This may manifest in a 1,000,000 different ways Not mention what is on your list. It all depends on who we are and our gifts abd want to use them.

[SteveII]

I see time after time objections lodged against Christians where it is clear that the writer does not know what they are talking about. Many of you argue about a caricature of Christianity to strengthen your arguments or justification in your mind that you are right.  Other times, you fail to distinguish the actions of a person from what a Christian is.  I think some clarification and discussion is in order.

What Christians are called to be (all based in the NT):

1. Has an undiluted devotion to Jesus.
2. Pursues a biblically informed view of the world.
3. Is intentional and disciplined in seeking God's direction.
4. Worships, and with a spirit of continuous repentance.
5. Builds healthy human relationships.
6. Knows how to engage the larger world.
7. Senses a personal "call" and unique competencies.
8. Is merciful and generous to those who are weaker.
9. Appreciates that suffering is part of faithfulness to Jesus.
10. Is eager and ready to express the content of his faith.
11. Overflows with thankfulness.
12. Has a passion for reconciliation. 

     Above list from http://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors...stian.html

What Christians are not required to have:

1. A specific view on Genesis 1
2. Anti-science opinions and/or philosophy
3. Belief that evolution is false
4. Misogynistic views
5. A worldview with gaps of logic or reasoning
6. Hatred for any group of people

Any additions to the list? 

Other thoughts?

This is just cherry picking. 

No Bible, no Christianity. Christianity is the Bible.  All of it including the bad parts. Just because you have personally chosen to redact the bad parts from your mind does not mean that we can all safely ignore the murderous parts and murderous past of Christianity.

No, it's really not cherry picking. The NT was all God's revelation up to the time of Christ--culminating with the birth, life, teaching, death and resurrection of God incarnate. It then provided a new framework (unlike the OT framework) whereby we could have a relationship with God and provides detailed instructions on living. 

What point/justification/meaning do you think you have by going back a 1300 years before Christ to pull in some stories that were written down 600-700 years after the events and this somehow changes Christ's message on how to relate to God and live your life? It seems you are spouting atheist bullet points but don't quite know when to use them.

[Brian37]

This is just cherry picking. 

No Bible, no Christianity. Christianity is the Bible.  All of it including the bad parts. Just because you have personally chosen to redact the bad parts from your mind does not mean that we can all safely ignore the murderous parts and murderous past of Christianity.

No, it's really not cherry picking. The NT was all God's revelation up to the time of Christ--culminating with the birth, life, teaching, death and resurrection of God incarnate. It then provided a new framework (unlike the OT framework) whereby we could have a relationship with God and provides detailed instructions on living. 

What point/justification/meaning do you think you have by going back a 1300 years before Christ to pull in some stories that were written down 600-700 years after the events and this somehow changes Christ's message on how to relate to God and live your life? It seems you are spouting atheist bullet points but don't quite know when to use them.

Yes it is, and again, this happens in every religion. Ask one person of one sect and it will very to the next person and or another sect. If you were the sole arbiter of the "correct interpretation, there would be no different holy people and no multiple sects under the same umbrella label. Everyone thinks they have the "correct" interpretation.