What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[Catholic_Lady]

I guess the problem is that a lot of the members here seem to know pretty much only the types of Christian people who are extremely ignorant, deny science, and hate gays (or perhaps those are simply the only ones who stick out in their mind?). I'm not going to deny anyone here that this has been their personal experience with Christian folks, but personally for me, I truly don't see that. For example, only once in my life did I ever talked to a person who said they don't believe in evolution. I have literally only heard that once from one person, lol. I mean, sure, you see and hear about crazy people on TV or whatever, but that's why they are on TV... because they are crazy and not your average person.

My experience has been that most of us are just completely normal people, who aren't complete morons and who don't hate others for their sexual preference. Especially having been living the military lifestyle for the past 4 years, and being surrounded by a TON of Christians who are totally friendly, intelligent, educated,and normal. So it's hard for me to understand all this talk on the forums about Christians being this and being that. Perhaps a lot of you guys are from the deep south? I've lived in Brazil, Ohio, Florida, and Texas, so I don't know what the culture is like in that part of the country. Maybe therein lies the difference... I dunno.

[Brian37]

A quarter of the US population is Evangelical Protestant, and that Catholics (and Orthodox) aren't actually Christians is a common belief among those 80 or so million people. It was certainly what I was raised to believe. Distinguishing mainline Protestants as believing Catholics (and Orthodox) are Christians is basically saying Protestants believe Catholics (and Orthodox) are Christians except for the tens of millions who don't.

I agree, many protestants do not think that Catholics are Christians.  I also think that tens of millions of people who claim to be protestant Christians are not either. But I think it comes back to my distinction earlier between nominal Christians and practicing NT Christians.

Knock it off. Now pay attention and watch, here is something I can do that you refuse to do.

Me, "I am a liberal Obama voting atheist"

Other atheists, " I love Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged"

Both of us are still sharing the "off " positions on god claims regardless.

You are now merely playing word games with words like "nominal" and "practicing".

Christians regardless of political or economic views still have the same core position that the characters of the God of the bible and he/himself/Jesus, how the fuck does that work anyway, but every sect of Christianity shares that same core position. 

When anyone of any religion, WORLDWIDE starts using the word "practice" what they are really arguing is "if you would just buy first and not question you would find the root of empathy in my sect".

There is no "practice" in any religion. You practice playing music. You practice law. You practice a sport. You follow a religion, you hold a position. 

I have no problem saying an Ayn Rand atheist is an atheist just like me. I have no problem saying a Che supporting atheist is an atheist just like me. "Atheist" merely means off. Outside that we don't "practice" holding that position, we hold that position. And even with my fellow atheists, again, we DONT always agree on all things all the time.

[SteveII]

LOL, of course you are a Bible scholar--you went to Catholic school--until you were 19! I don't feel like debating someone of your stature so I am going to give you a link that explains my position good enough. http://www.ukapologetics.net/Jesusandthelaw.html

Nice appeal to authority but it won't work. For your information, there is much disagreement from actual biblical scholars so once again all your left with is your own cherry picked interpretation of which scholar you choose to believe. 

Bart Ehrman is a well respected biblical scholar and thinks much of the new testament was forged. Since he is a biblical scholar, I'm sure you'll agree with him right? Right?
http://www.bartdehrman.com/forged-writin...me-of-god/


So, the truth remains the same: The mental redaction you engage in does not mean that we can all safely ignore the murderous parts and murderous past of Christianity.

You don't know what appeal to authority is. 

Regarding what you think is a good argument, answer these 5 questions and then we can discuss:

1. What is Matthew chapter 5 (the whole chapter) known as and what is it's significance to the listener raised in Judaism? 
2. What is the meaning of "fulfill" in verses 17 and 18? Please use the Greek and be specific.
3. What does the word "commandments" mean in verse 19? Again, use the Greek and be specific.
4. What is the context of the attack in verse 20--immediately following these verses?
5. What in up with the list of expanded "laws" that culminate in verse 48? What is the significance of this new teaching? 

BTW, your site, where you cut and pasted from in your other post is not going to answer these questions. 

Bart Ehrman is a NT skeptic with an important-to-note bias--he does not believe in God.  Am is supposed to type out a list of scholars who disagree with him? That would be an appeal to authority. 

You have shown no truth to remain--just tired out arguments that you don't know even know much about--despite your Catholic school education--until you were 19!

---

Regarding your last sentence, do you have any examples of that?

Acceptance of divorce has done a 180 among the majority of American Christians in my lifetime.

Do you think that has changed anything about what it means to be a Christian for the past 2000 years?

[Brian37]

Nice appeal to authority but it won't work. For your information, there is much disagreement from actual biblical scholars so once again all your left with is your own cherry picked interpretation of which scholar you choose to believe. 

Bart Ehrman is a well respected biblical scholar and thinks much of the new testament was forged. Since he is a biblical scholar, I'm sure you'll agree with him right? Right?
http://www.bartdehrman.com/forged-writin...me-of-god/


So, the truth remains the same: The mental redaction you engage in does not mean that we can all safely ignore the murderous parts and murderous past of Christianity.

You don't know what appeal to authority is. 

Regarding what you think is a good argument, answer these 5 questions and then we can discuss:

1. What is Matthew chapter 5 (the whole chapter) known as and what is it's significance to the listener raised in Judaism? 
2. What is the meaning of "fulfill" in verses 17 and 18? Please use the Greek and be specific.
3. What does the word "commandments" mean in verse 19? Again, use the Greek and be specific.
4. What is the context of the attack in verse 20--immediately following these verses?
5. What in up with the list of expanded "laws" that culminate in verse 48? What is the significance of this new teaching? 

BTW, your site, where you cut and pasted from in your other post is not going to answer these questions. 

Bart Ehrman is a NT skeptic with an important-to-note bias--he does not believe in God.  Am is supposed to type out a list of scholars who disagree with him? That would be an appeal to authority. 

You have shown no truth to remain--just tired out arguments that you don't know even know much about--despite your Catholic school education--until you were 19!

No, actually you don't know what appeal to authority is because you fail to see the age of of your book and the time it was written in. It was written under kings whom falsely attributed their rule as being an authority handed down to them from above. 

You are falling for appeal to authority, not us. Your God character is the cosmic king. The language of the bible uses words like "kingdom" and "lord" and "master". The subjects under royal rule even in polytheism would argue that the success of that local city state was the result of a "divine right" handed to that royalty.

That book was written by the populations of that time for the societies of that time.

---

Nice appeal to authority but it won't work. For your information, there is much disagreement from actual biblical scholars so once again all your left with is your own cherry picked interpretation of which scholar you choose to believe. 

Bart Ehrman is a well respected biblical scholar and thinks much of the new testament was forged. Since he is a biblical scholar, I'm sure you'll agree with him right? Right?
http://www.bartdehrman.com/forged-writin...me-of-god/


So, the truth remains the same: The mental redaction you engage in does not mean that we can all safely ignore the murderous parts and murderous past of Christianity.

You don't know what appeal to authority is. 

Regarding what you think is a good argument, answer these 5 questions and then we can discuss:

1. What is Matthew chapter 5 (the whole chapter) known as and what is it's significance to the listener raised in Judaism? 
2. What is the meaning of "fulfill" in verses 17 and 18? Please use the Greek and be specific.
3. What does the word "commandments" mean in verse 19? Again, use the Greek and be specific.
4. What is the context of the attack in verse 20--immediately following these verses?
5. What in up with the list of expanded "laws" that culminate in verse 48? What is the significance of this new teaching? 

BTW, your site, where you cut and pasted from in your other post is not going to answer these questions. 

Bart Ehrman is a NT skeptic with an important-to-note bias--he does not believe in God.  Am is supposed to type out a list of scholars who disagree with him? That would be an appeal to authority. 

You have shown no truth to remain--just tired out arguments that you don't know even know much about--despite your Catholic school education--until you were 19!

---

Acceptance of divorce has done a 180 among the majority of American Christians in my lifetime.

Do you think that has changed anything about what it means to be a Christian for the past 2000 years?

All it takes to buy the position of "Christian" is "I buy the position that the God of the Bible is real and Jesus is his son". 

What has changed, and actually it was NOT 2000 years since the first bible was officially voted on FYI. What has changed is that over time Christians got tired of the barbarity and REAL human empathy lead them to cherry pick and look for excuses not to do those barbaric things. But even in modern times we have still seen those same Christians whom supported Hitler and Stalin justify their rule. In America we saw Christians use the bible to justify slavery, denial of women's right to vote, genocide of Native Americans. Even today we still have both America's right wing Christians on the same page as Russian Christians whom are the majority in that country condemning  LGBT.

Of course things have changed, but not because of Christianity, but because of our species REAL evolutionary empathy.

And again, here is what I can do that you refuse to do.

I will never claim that the root of human morality is in the label "atheist". I don't agree with every atheist, I don't like all the atheists I meet, but I wont say they are not atheists because they do and or say things I don't like. 

Our species morality is outside labels and in our genes.

[Regina]

The only qualifier for being a Christian is having some kind of observance for the Christian faith. That's it. Beyond that there's no "We're the true Christians and they are not".

I don't think that many people are seriously saying that ALL Christians believe in X, Y, and Z. As one of the first responses in this thread pointed out, a lot of us were raised as Christians. I was a Catholic once and I was actually really into it as a teenager, but I also never had a problem reconciling my sexuality with it, that's not why I left. There's Christians (and people of other faiths) who do practice their religion in a way that might not make sense to you, to me or to anyone. But they are still the religion they label themselves as, because they do follow the belief to an extent even if it's on their own terms.

However (and this is a big however), this is not because Christianity is inherently a liberal religion which leaves people that choice. We've made it that way through 500 years of secular enlightenment and development of liberal values. That you can sit there and classify yourself as a "NT Christian" who completely disregards the Old Testament is a mark of the time you live in. You won't be burned at the stake for that in contemporary times. I'm happy for you that you've come to that interpretation.

The problem atheists have is that there are still other Christians, some quite powerful and influential, who believe in things like Creationist and abstinence-only education for schools, as well as other types of science denial, and that is very harmful and we have a right to criticise that. Even if there was only one Christian in the world who believed Adam and Eve were real, that's still a silly opinion and it deserves criticism and ridicule.

[Neo-Scholastic]

A quarter of the US population is Evangelical Protestant, and that Catholics (and Orthodox) aren't actually Christians is a common belief among those 80 or so million people. It was certainly what I was raised to believe.

I agree, many protestants do not think that Catholics are Christians.

YMMV. In my personal experience, I have never met a Protestant who said Roman Catholics were not Christian, no matter how strongly they disagreed theologically.

[Catholic_Lady]

I agree, many protestants do not think that Catholics are Christians.

YMMV. In my personal experience, I have never met a Protestant who said Roman Catholics were not Christian, no matter how strongly they disagreed theologically.

That, i have met.

[Amarok]

Then Neo have ever read a chick tract because they villainize Catholics all the time 

[Neo-Scholastic]

I guess the problem is that a lot of the members here seem to know pretty much only the types of Christian people who are extremely ignorant, deny science, and hate gays (or perhaps those are simply the only ones who stick out in their mind?).

When I look at the long-time theists on AF, I see only very well-educated, intelligent, and overall thoughtful contributors who are remarkably patient despite all the insults they endure. I also think in the US there are regional differences that get confused with religious ones. For example the South truly gets a bad rap. Not for a second do I think people below the Mason-Dixon line are anything like their detractors say. They just do things a little differently.

---

Then you have neither CL or Neo have ever read a chick tract because they villainize Catholics all the time 

For a long time I collected Chick comics just because they were so appalling. I don't believe they are representative of what the vast majority of Christians believe.

[vorlon13]

I guess the problem is that a lot of the members here seem to know pretty much only the types of Christian people who are extremely ignorant, deny science, and hate gays (or perhaps those are simply the only ones who stick out in their mind?).

When I look at the long-time theists on AF, I see only very well-educated, intelligent, and overall thoughtful contributors who are remarkably patient despite all the insults they endure. I also think in the US there are regional differences that get confused with religious ones. For example the South truly gets a bad rap. Not for a second do I think people below the Mason-Dixon line are anything like their detractors say. They just do things a little differently.

---

Then you have neither CL or Neo have ever read a chick tract because they villainize Catholics all the time 

For a long time I collected Chick comics just because they were so appalling. I don't believe they are representative of what the vast majority of Christians believe.

um . .

Christians or True Christians®