What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[Brian37]

Yep.
For my own part, I had never seen nor heard of those Chick tract things until an Atheist brought them up on this thread. To say they are an accurate representation of Christians, is just silly. It is true that I have heard from multiple protestants that Catholics are not real Christians and aren't "saved", but no protestant has ever treated me badly in any way because of it. 
As for the Westboro Baptists, they are a group of like, 30 people, who exist no where else in the world. To judge all the billions of Christians world wide by them makes absolutely no sense. I sure hope no one here is doing that...

Nobody here is lumping all Christians in together beyond saying you all got it wrong, but again, we have ditched every religion, not just yours.

Of course Christians are diverse, of course you have kind Christians as you can have kind Muslims and kind Jews and kind Hindus and kind Buddhists, then you have the fearful and deluded bigots on the far right, and?

Again, you fall for the same mental trap most humans do, confuse your club/holy writing for being the magical source as to why you are good. Our species ability to show empathy is in evolution, not old myths. We can see that in other species too. If you raise a cat and dog up from a puppy and kitten, they are more likely to get along. We know elephants mourn their dead too.

Yes the Westboro Bapfucks are nutcase bigots, but that doesn't make empathetic liberal theists claims true by proxy. 

The logic is still not there, even if I like you, even when we agree on thing like economics and equality for minorities. Neither the left or the right OF ANY RELIGION has any evidence that they are right. I will say however, the ones who read their holy books more literally are on the right and the ones who end up being bigots or more violent.

Your empathy is why you don't do what the bible says, not the bible itself. Our species behaviors, good and bad are in our evolution, not myths.

[RoadRunner79]

Why is that (not believing gives him more credibility)?  Is this a principle, that can be applied elsewhere?

For me, it depends on the reasons, not the position.  I may even agree with someones conclusions, but not with their reasons or method, I don't think that makes them more credible.

To me it depends on the reasoning.  If you're a believer, you're emotionally involved and invested.

It seems to me a number of atheist get quite emotional and seem fairly invested (despite claims of only skepticism).  Can I just dismiss everything they say as biased?
I can understand this position perhaps on an individual basis (if given reason to do so), but it doesn't seem right to assume it; on a general level.

Perhaps this is your bias showing?

Regarding Bart Ehrman, his work differs quite a bit, between his popular writings and talks, to his more scholarly work. For example here is what Ehrman say's in an interview found in the appendix of some versions of "Misquoting Jesus" (my understanding is that this is removed from later additions).

Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

Frankly, I find most of the people that you here speak on a given topic be it religion, atheist, evolution, or Dr. Ehrman, are fairly involved and invested.

[Brian37]

To me it depends on the reasoning.  If you're a believer, you're emotionally involved and invested.

It seems to me a number of atheist get quite emotional and seem fairly invested (despite claims of only skepticism).  Can I just dismiss everything they say as biased?
I can understand this position perhaps on an individual basis (if given reason to do so), but it doesn't seem right to assume it; on a general level.

Perhaps this is your bias showing?

Regarding Bart Ehrman, his work differs quite a bit, between his popular writings and talks, to his more scholarly work.  For example here is what Ehrman say's in an interview found in the appendix of some versions of  "Misquoting Jesus" (my understanding is that this is removed from later additions).

Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands.  The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

Frankly, I find most of the people that you here speak on a given topic be it religion, atheist,  evolution, or Dr. Ehrman, are fairly involved and invested.

Here we go again. Your childish kneejerk reaction to bluntness  "Emotional".

I love my mom, she remained a Catholic her entire life, but even she knew I thought the idea of eating a magic cracker was bullshit. Just like you don't buy claims of Apollo or Thor.

So if you had a personal friend who went around every single day constantly repeating "The New England Patriots beat the Chicago Cubs in the Stanley Cup", don't hand me any bullshit that that would not bother you to the point of wanting to correct them.

Yes naked assertions bother us. Yes we call bad claims out. Some of us are more blunt about it than others. Nobody wants you dead, nobody is going to have you arrested, we are not going to rape your women or eat your babies. We simply think you are full of shit.

Bad logic bothers us, yes and so what. Maybe you need to grow up.

[SteveII]

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.

Type out a list of theologians (not historians, as those arguing for the historical validity of the bible are sadly lacking in both historical knowledge and expertise) who disagree with him through a good grounding of the facts. I'll guarantee your list will be very short.

Short? How about we start with people much closer to the source than Ehrman (who is 20 centuries after the fact):

Didache
Barnabas
Clement of Rome
The Shepherd of Hermas
Ignatius of Antioch
Polycarp
Quadratus of Athens
Fragments of Papias
Quadratus of Athens
Aristides
Justin Martyr
Claudius Apollinaris
Minucius Felix
Melito of Sardis
Hegesippus
Dionysius of Corinth
Athenagoras of Athens
Irenaeus of Lyons
Rhodon
Theophilus of Caesarea
Theophilus of Antioch
Maximus of Jerusalem
Polycrates of Ephesus
Pantaenus
Clement of Alexandria
Tertullian
Serapion of Antioch
Apollonius
Caius
Hippolytus of Rome
Origen

This is just the list from the the first two centuries (of 20)!

[Brian37]

Type out a list of theologians (not historians, as those arguing for the historical validity of the bible are sadly lacking in both historical knowledge and expertise) who disagree with him through a good grounding of the facts. I'll guarantee your list will be very short.

Short? How about we start with people much closer to the source than Ehrman - 20 centuries after the fact:

Didache
Barnabas
Clement of Rome
The Shepherd of Hermas
Ignatius of Antioch
Polycarp
Quadratus of Athens
Fragments of Papias
Quadratus of Athens
Aristides
Justin Martyr
Claudius Apollinaris
Minucius Felix
Melito of Sardis
Hegesippus
Dionysius of Corinth
Athenagoras of Athens
Irenaeus of Lyons
Rhodon
Theophilus of Caesarea
Theophilus of Antioch
Maximus of Jerusalem
Polycrates of Ephesus
Pantaenus
Clement of Alexandria
Tertullian
Serapion of Antioch
Apollonius
Caius
Hippolytus of Rome
Origen

This is just the list from the the first two centuries (of 20)!

Thats an impressive list, so do tell, when is God going to go on Maury Povich and prove he is the father of the baby?

[Catholic_Lady]

Yep.
For my own part, I had never seen nor heard of those Chick tract things until an Atheist brought them up on this thread. To say they are an accurate representation of Christians, is just silly. It is true that I have heard from multiple protestants that Catholics are not real Christians and aren't "saved", but no protestant has ever treated me badly in any way because of it. 
As for the Westboro Baptists, they are a group of like, 30 people, who exist no where else in the world. To judge all the billions of Christians world wide by them makes absolutely no sense. I sure hope no one here is doing that...

Nobody here is lumping all Christians in together beyond saying you all got it wrong, but again, we have ditched every religion, not just yours.

Of course Christians are diverse, of course you have kind Christians as you can have kind Muslims and kind Jews and kind Hindus and kind Buddhists, then you have the fearful and deluded bigots on the far right, and?

Again, you fall for the same mental trap most humans do, confuse your club/holy writing for being the magical source as to why you are good. Our species ability to show empathy is in evolution, not old myths. We can see that in other species too. If you raise a cat and dog up from a puppy and kitten, they are more likely to get along. We know elephants mourn their dead too.

Yes the Westboro Bapfucks are nutcase bigots, but that doesn't make empathetic liberal theists claims true by proxy. 

The logic is still not there, even if I like you, even when we agree on thing like economics and equality for minorities. Neither the left or the right OF ANY RELIGION has any evidence that they are right. I will say however, the ones who read their holy books more literally are on the right and the ones who end up being bigots or more violent.

Your empathy is why you don't do what the bible says, not the bible itself. Our species behaviors, good and bad are in our evolution, not myths.

I agree with you, of course, that there all types of people in all big groups. The good, the bad, the ugly. You are very correct on that. 

As for your last sentence about doing what the bible says, I strive to do what it says as it is interpreted through the Church and laid out in the Catechism.  There are a lot of valid points made in the bible, especially the teachings of Christ. Which as I said in another thread, is the most important aspect to us Christians, as followers of Christ.

[Brian37]

Nobody here is lumping all Christians in together beyond saying you all got it wrong, but again, we have ditched every religion, not just yours.

Of course Christians are diverse, of course you have kind Christians as you can have kind Muslims and kind Jews and kind Hindus and kind Buddhists, then you have the fearful and deluded bigots on the far right, and?

Again, you fall for the same mental trap most humans do, confuse your club/holy writing for being the magical source as to why you are good. Our species ability to show empathy is in evolution, not old myths. We can see that in other species too. If you raise a cat and dog up from a puppy and kitten, they are more likely to get along. We know elephants mourn their dead too.

Yes the Westboro Bapfucks are nutcase bigots, but that doesn't make empathetic liberal theists claims true by proxy. 

The logic is still not there, even if I like you, even when we agree on thing like economics and equality for minorities. Neither the left or the right OF ANY RELIGION has any evidence that they are right. I will say however, the ones who read their holy books more literally are on the right and the ones who end up being bigots or more violent.

Your empathy is why you don't do what the bible says, not the bible itself. Our species behaviors, good and bad are in our evolution, not myths.

I agree with you, of course, that there all types of people in all big groups. The good, the bad, the ugly. You are very correct on that. 

As for your last sentence about doing what the bible says, I strive to do what it says as it is interpreted through the Church and laid out in the Catechism.  There are a lot of valid points made in the bible, especially the teachings of Christ. Which as I said in another thread, is the most important aspect to us Christians, as followers of Christ.

I hope you don't do that. I know you don't do that in reality. I've heard lots of good things from other atheists here about you. 

Now take me very seriously and try this. Take your bible, read it from front to back, beginning to end, every verse. And where your God calls for violence, and please don't dare claim he does not, read those verses and ask yourself if you could in reality follow those commands. 

I am telling you it is YOU, not that book that makes you empathetic. I know you like the idea of it being the source of human morality, but that simply is not the case. 

YES, the NT Jesus DOES depict acts of kindness and charity, and? That still does not negate the OT violence or the revenge of the end of the world God who will torture you forever even for the mere act of thinking for yourself and not believing in him. 

You spend the time to compare stories of kindness and charity you will find them in every single religion bar none. That does not prove any god real or any club the root of human morality. That says to me humans simply falsely attributed their morality to their clubs. Again, as I said in my prior posts, we see acts of empathy and compassion and cooperation in other species too.

I am dead serious, read your bible and every time you hit a depiction of violence, either allowed by God or sanction by God ask yourself if you would do that yourself. If the answer is no, then you have better morality than the God you claim is real. I am not saying that to be mean one bit. I am seriously suggesting you take your blinders off and consider your perception of reality is flawed.

[RoadRunner79]

It seems to me a number of atheist get quite emotional and seem fairly invested (despite claims of only skepticism).  Can I just dismiss everything they say as biased?
I can understand this position perhaps on an individual basis (if given reason to do so), but it doesn't seem right to assume it; on a general level.

Perhaps this is your bias showing?

Regarding Bart Ehrman, his work differs quite a bit, between his popular writings and talks, to his more scholarly work.  For example here is what Ehrman say's in an interview found in the appendix of some versions of  "Misquoting Jesus" (my understanding is that this is removed from later additions).


Frankly, I find most of the people that you here speak on a given topic be it religion, atheist,  evolution, or Dr. Ehrman, are fairly involved and invested.

Here we go again. Your childish kneejerk reaction to bluntness  "Emotional".

I love my mom, she remained a Catholic her entire life, but even she knew I thought the idea of eating a magic cracker was bullshit. Just like you don't buy claims of Apollo or Thor.

So if you had a personal friend who went around every single day constantly repeating "The New England Patriots beat the Chicago Cubs in the Stanley Cup", don't hand me any bullshit that that would not bother you to the point of wanting to correct them.

Yes naked assertions bother us. Yes we call bad claims out. Some of us are more blunt about it than others. Nobody wants you dead, nobody is going to have you arrested, we are not going to rape your women or eat your babies. We simply think you are full of shit.

Bad logic bothers us, yes and so what. Maybe you need to grow up.

I don't have a problem with "bluntness", I am probably a little overly straight forward in my approach than perhaps is required.  

So how does this post tie into anything about what I said?   Or are you just making "naked assertions" looking to attack the person, rather than the argument.
Bad Logic bothers me as well, and if you think I am thinking incorrectly, I'm going to ask you why specifically.   From what I have seen, you don't normally support your self, and most of what you post (at least as of late), doesn't pertain to what was stated.   Let's focus on the reasons, and the logic, rather the people.

[Catholic_Lady]

Response to Brian:

I agree empathy doesn't come from being religious.

But as far as my morals and values - many of them I would have otherwise, but many do come from my Catholic faith. It has definitely been a huge influence in my life and in forming who I am.

[Brian37]

Here we go again. Your childish kneejerk reaction to bluntness  "Emotional".

I love my mom, she remained a Catholic her entire life, but even she knew I thought the idea of eating a magic cracker was bullshit. Just like you don't buy claims of Apollo or Thor.

So if you had a personal friend who went around every single day constantly repeating "The New England Patriots beat the Chicago Cubs in the Stanley Cup", don't hand me any bullshit that that would not bother you to the point of wanting to correct them.

Yes naked assertions bother us. Yes we call bad claims out. Some of us are more blunt about it than others. Nobody wants you dead, nobody is going to have you arrested, we are not going to rape your women or eat your babies. We simply think you are full of shit.

Bad logic bothers us, yes and so what. Maybe you need to grow up.

I don't have a problem with "bluntness", I am probably a little overly straight forward in my approach than perhaps is required.  

So how does this post tie into anything about what I said?   Or are you just making "naked assertions" looking to attack the person, rather than the argument.
Bad Logic bothers me as well, and if you think I am thinking incorrectly, I'm going to ask you why specifically.   From what I have seen, you don't normally support your self, and most of what you post (at least as of late), doesn't pertain to what was stated.   Let's focus on the reasons, and the logic, rather the people.

You are the one who buys into a book that has fantastic claims that are scientifically absurd including the two most important stories, the birth and death myths.

Now, you can believe that crap all you want, but sorry, that was then this is now. I see that as no different than trying to peddle vampires or big foot.