What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[Harry Nevis]

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.

Why is the bible composed of both NT and OT?  Apparantly the compilers thought it important.

[Whateverist]

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

I'd like to challenge you to complete this list yourself. I'll do the first one which corresponds to #1 on your list as an example which you can redo as you see fit .. if you'd care to take it on.

But what Christians really are amounts to:

1. Christians are devoted to very many different things some of which, to their consternation, too frequently surpass their devotion to Jesus.
2. 
3. 
4.
5. 
.
.
.
12.

[SteveII]

deleted

---

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.

Why is the bible composed of both NT and OT?  Apparantly the compilers thought it important.

Sure, but as instruction in Christian Living (which would be the only way a charge of "cherry picking" would apply to the OP)?

[Brian37]

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

I'd like to challenge you to complete this list yourself.  I'll do the first one which corresponds to #1 on your list as an example which you can redo as you see fit .. if you'd care to take it on.

But what Christians really are amounts to:

1. Christians are devoted to very many different things some of which, to their consternation, too frequently surpass their devotion to Jesus.
2. 
3. 
4.
5. 
.
.
.
12.

And just like any other follower of any other religion, nobody wants to test their claims with an expanded control group by taking their club/deity out and pluck in another claim into their own arguments to compare to see if their own arguments still work with another club/deity plugged into it.

1. Buddhists are devoted to very many different things some of which, to their consternation, too frequently surpass their devotion to Buddha.

1. Muslims are devoted to very many different things some of which, to their consternation, too frequently surpass their devotion to Allah/Mo.


1. Jews are devoted to very many different things some of which, to their consternation, too frequently surpass their devotion to Yahweh.

1. Hindus are devoted to very many different things some of which, to their consternation, too frequently surpass their devotion to Brahama.


Every religion has competing sub sects and competing individuals who will not only point to those outside their umbrella label and say "You got the wrong religion", but even under the same label, the competing sub sects will say "you got the wrong sect/interpretation".

Bottom line it all still amounts to "I got it right and everyone else got it wrong".

There has never been, and is not now, ever been such a thing as a perfectly unifying religion of any label. Christians think they got it right, Muslims think they got it right, Buddhists think they got it right, Jews think they got it right, Hindus think they got it right. But so what, even under the same labels the sub sects of each still don't agree.

[Neo-Scholastic]

[RoadRunner79]

I'd like to challenge you to complete this list yourself.  I'll do the first one which corresponds to #1 on your list as an example which you can redo as you see fit .. if you'd care to take it on.

But what Christians really are amounts to:

1. Christians are devoted to very many different things some of which, to their consternation, too frequently surpass their devotion to Jesus.
2. 
3. 
4.
5. 
.
.
.
12.

And just like any other follower of any other religion, nobody wants to test their claims with an expanded control group by taking their club/deity out and pluck in another claim into their own arguments to compare to see if their own arguments still work with another club/deity plugged into it.

1. Buddhists are devoted to very many different things some of which, to their consternation, too frequently surpass their devotion to Buddha.

1. Muslims are devoted to very many different things some of which, to their consternation, too frequently surpass their devotion to Allah/Mo.


1. Jews are devoted to very many different things some of which, to their consternation, too frequently surpass their devotion to Yahweh.

1. Hindus are devoted to very many different things some of which, to their consternation, too frequently surpass their devotion to Brahama.


Every religion has competing sub sects and competing individuals who will not only point to those outside their umbrella label and say "You got the wrong religion", but even under the same label, the competing sub sects will say "you got the wrong sect/interpretation".

Bottom line it all still amounts to "I got it right and everyone else got it wrong".

There has never been, and is not now, ever been such a thing as a perfectly unifying religion of any label. Christians think they got it right, Muslims think they got it right, Buddhists think they got it right, Jews think they got it right, Hindus think they got it right. But so what, even under the same labels the sub sects of each still don't agree.

You might want to re-check there snappy.   This argument was from an atheist.  

[Pat Mustard]

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.

Well considering that calling a book inerrant is the exact same as saying every detail in it is correct (inerrant=no errors, after all), I cannot see how you can take the bible to be inerrant and not be a literalist.

---

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?

1 To not have a specific view on something means you've disregarded it. Or is your grasp of the English language as bad as your grasp of science?
2 Matthew 5:18

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

If that is not a christian statement that the old testament is inerrant and to be considered true in full, then I don't know what is.
3 There are three rules a) Never start a land war in Asia, b) never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line, c) never debate the bible with a Brothers taught atheist. I'm rule c) and you know fuck all about the book you profess to be the centre of your religion.

---

Oh dear, the idiot who previously accused others of trolling them is now attempting to troll himself. Very mature, Wooters.

A word of advice you'll never hear (because you put me on ignore, running scared of the fact that you had no counter to my arguments) learn to think, learn to dispute, learn to debate. It'll get you a lot farther than mindlessly trying to shout everybody else down.

[SteveII]

In fairness to Steve, inerrancy =/= literalism.

Well considering that calling a book inerrant is the exact same as saying every detail in it is correct (inerrant=no errors, after all), I cannot see how you can take the bible to be inerrant and not be a literalist.

That just shows that you don't even understand what it is you argue about. 

---

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?

1 To not have a specific view on something means you've disregarded it. Or is your grasp of the English language as bad as your grasp of science?
2 Matthew 5:18

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

If that is not a christian statement that the old testament is inerrant and to be considered true in full, then I don't know what is.
3 There are three rules a) Never start a land war in Asia, b) never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line, c) never debate the bible with a Brothers taught atheist. I'm rule c) and you know fuck all about the book you profess to be the centre of your religion.

1. I don't even know how to respond to that, so I won't.
2. The OT =/= "the Law". Learn the argument better before you try to use it.
3. You are showing us all your deep biblical wisdom--keep it up.

[Brian37]

I am a broken record, but yet you and Muslims and Jews and Buddhists and Hindus have been playing the same record for 10,000 years. Ok fine, I am a broken record. You stiil wont argue with others. Just like they wont argue with you. Funny how everyone wants to convince atheists but nobody wants a big control group where all parties are involved and peer review is something out of your control.

BWAAAAT POLLY WANNA CRACKER? 

You, "I got it right"

You really hate it when we say "So what, get in line, take a number" Yea yea yea yea, Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists have the exact same response. I am a broken record.

You have the "evidence" yep, Ok, and like a "broken record" I say, TO NOT JUST YOU but anyone and all of any religion worldwide. GET IN LINE, TAKE A NUMBER.

If ifs and butts were candy and nuts we'd all have a party.

Me, "Anjolina Jolie is giving me a blowjob right now".

You and rightfully so "Bullshit" 

Me, "Bu bu but men worldwide like blowjobs and I can prove women are real"

Somehow you rightfully would and should reject my example.

You like what you believe. You are the only broken record here. I mean you are NOT the only broken record here. Theism has been broken long before skeptics questioned en mass.

[Crunchy]

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. 

Yes, it really is cherry picking as you leave out the parts you don't like but that Jesus himself did like. See below.

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.

I attended private Catholic school until I was 19 years old and some of my instructors were priests. I know the bible and below you will find the justification as stated by Jesus.

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)

You, like every other apologist, are redacting the bible in your mind and expecting that to "prove" your version is the correct version. As I told you already, this mental redaction you engage in does not mean that we can all safely ignore the murderous parts and murderous past of Christianity.