What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[Brian37]

Apparently you consider anyone who dares to call you out on your inconsistency is "unfriendly".  You might as well add anti-intellectual to the list or your short-comings.

No. I'm just tired of you always talking down to others and straw-manning them all the time as your two options of debate. Welcome to my ignore list. At least CL seems interested in having a real conversation, so I'll just talk to her instead.

As much as I like CL it is still the same with me, as it was with my mother, and it is with any other theist I may like, when you peddle old myths, even if I like you that was then this is now your logic makes as much sense to me as trying to claim Kansas is real so Dorothy and the Wizard are real because Kansas is real.

---

How many times is he gonna throw out "postmodern critical analysis"? I know I'M impressed...

I write at the level to which I am accustomed when having serious intellectual discussions. If that sounds condescending to you and Jesster, you may want to consider that I'm not patronizing you.

Using Oxford University level words to write an apology about how a giant invisible pink unicorn farted us into existence would still get an F in English if you tried to pass it off as real. 

Elaborate tripe is still tripe. Please stop falsely blaming  us for the elaborate con someone sold you. How about you stop faking honesty because you are fooling yourself, nothing more. Shakespeare's Macbeth, the Oedipus Trilogies and Homer and the Iliad are also complex. Calling something a religion does not make the magic in the book true, nor does it make a god real.

[Catholic_Lady]

Again, I'm not saying who is/isn't a true Christian. 

I'm pointing out who is/isn't living by the teachings of Jesus Himself as stated in the Bible. Jesus specifically said that one of the greatest commandants is to "love your neighbor as yourself." He specifically said we should love everyone, even our enemies. If someone is doing/promoting the exact opposite of those things, there is nothing out of line about me pointing out that they are going against the direct teachings of Christ.

Okay, that's fine. That still changes nothing from a perspective outside of Christianity, though. Telling an atheist how you think a Christian should act doesn't change how other Christians act. All I end up seeing is a wide umbrella of Christianity that involves both good and terrible people. This is partially why religion is meaningless to me. I prefer to judge individuals for their own actions.

That is fair enough.

[Brian37]

Okay, that's fine. That still changes nothing from a perspective outside of Christianity, though. Telling an atheist how you think a Christian should act doesn't change how other Christians act. All I end up seeing is a wide umbrella of Christianity that involves both good and terrible people. This is partially why religion is meaningless to me. I prefer to judge individuals for their own actions.

That is fair enough.

To be fair to you CL I don't even like some pockets of current attempts of atheists creating "atheist churches". "Off is not a religion, it merely means off. Like any for profit or not profit org, most set up a list of goals and a "model" to follow. 

Atheists also do stupid shit to avoid calling themselves atheists. We try to avoid the word by calling ourselves a variety of things, from humanists, to freethinkers to "brites". All nonsense to me even with atheists. I stand by the statement that evolution is in our genes, our cruelty and compassion is in our genes, and that also applies to atheists. 

While I do see religion as a horrible way of conducting political diplomacy, I could also not see a conflict free world if all 7 billion of us were atheists either. We would still seek resources, still have different views and still compete politically to control those resources.

I still don't think anyone needs a religion, but I also don't think it would be a utopia if everyone were atheists too.

[Mister Agenda]

Yes, a position of rational skepticism is more credible, in any investigation or research. It means you have a standard of evidence that must be satisfied before you'll accept something as true.

Suppose instead the ancient text in question is not part of the NT; but rather, the Epic of Gilgamesh. The primary goal of scholarship is to consider what the epic meant to the Sumerians and the role of epic poetry in the cultural context of ancient Mesopotamia. The veracity of what the epic only comes afterwards and involves attempting to uncover the circumstances that may have have prompted the creation of that flood story by looking at parallel accounts, prior source material, contemporary historical events, etc. Perhaps it came from a world-wide flood (which I doubt) or perhaps ancestral memory of vast post-Ice Age flooding of the South Pacific (my favorite) or just a symbolic extrapolation from local tragedies (not likely).  

A skeptical approach is valid for the later, but would contaminate the first. Unless you have a pretty good idea of the social and historical context of Gilgamesh speculation about what it actually describes is pointless. As it applies to NT scholarship, the first questions revolve around what the text meant to those who wrote the Gospels and Epistles. It is clear that the writers of the canonical scripture, as opposed to the Gnostic myth-makers, were trying to describe real events. Whether or not what they describe truly happened is a question that can only come after establishing the motivations of the authors and the 1st century context. Erhmann puts the cart before the horse. His skepticism taints his analysis.

Way to misrepresent reasonable skepticism.

---

Well-educated, intelligent, and overall thoughtful contributors like Little Rik, Drich, and MysticKnight; for instance.

Lil Rik is loony, yes. I don't think many people can deny that.

Drich is super conservative and takes a different approach to the bible than I do (obviously, me being Catholic). And I agree that he can be very insensitive and has terrible people skills. But I don't see him as the monster that many of you do. As different as he and I are, I do think he has has been thoughtful about his faith, and is educated.

MK is a sweet heart. I don't think he has a mean bone in his body. I must admit I can't understand most of his posts, but as Chad said, I think it's more of a cultural thing. He "writes with an accent", if you will. I don't see a reason to find him uneducated, stupid, or thoughtless.

But there are plenty of theists here that are intelligent, well educated, and thoughtful: Chad, Steve, Road Runner, Ignorant, Ryyan, KingPin (when he was active)...

I appreciate your thoughtful response. I didn't claim any were monsters, or even unkind. I didn't say that we don't have theistic contributors for whom 'well-educated, intelligent, and overall thoughtful contributors' is a good description. I claim that 'well-educated, intelligent, and overall thoughtful contributors' isn't the description that springs to my mind when I think of those three (the list could have been longer, but most of the worst ones are gone), and that it seems a little disingenuous of Neo-Scholastic to overlook them given the prodigiousness of their participation here.

---

Because being white isn't a chosen belief?

To clarify, are you saying then that it is acceptable to judge all Christians based on the Westboro Baptists?

That's what Neo-Scholastic said we think. He's wrong. Of course he's wrong.

---

I'd have to have some sort of benchmark to decern who was a true christian and who wasn't.

I'd say believing that Jesus is who He says He is, and striving to live by the teachings of Christ as depicted in the bible. 

And there goes most of the Christian population again. 'Striving to live by the teachings of Christ' would be a gross exaggeration of the effort most American Christians put into actually trying to live by the teachings of Jesus as depicted in the Bible.

I think you could start by knocking off all the ones who aren't welcoming to foreigners, are pro-war, or unsympathetic to poor people or convicts. The ones who haven't taken the time to actually read an entire Bible. Most of the ones who show up to church once a month or less.

It's a pretty long list, and that's only for 'striving', not succeeding. Most of those folks aren't even trying. They're putting in the least effort they think they can get away with to avoid hell and the anger of their neighbors, and keeping the opinions that suit them personally whenever possible, which seems to be almost always.

---

I also find a number of atheist, who seem to not be able to contemplate a Christianity that is different than what is in their mind.  This may be from experience, or perhaps there are other motivations to why they argue what they do.  It is quite annoying however being expected to defend something that you don't believe, and where not saying.   It seems like often I spend more time trying to get people to let go of there assumptions.

Maybe you need to work on your approach. There are plenty of theist contributors who don't spend nearly the amount of time you do complaining about how we don't understand you. Maybe it's you. At any rate, it seems far more reasonable to adjust how you interact with us than to try to get everyone else to interact with you the way you want.

Maybe you could start by not whinging so much about the people who's community you've chosen to involve yourself with and treat us as individuals instead of this vague 'a number of atheists' thing you do. I could go on all day long about what 'a number of Christians' do, clearly referring to members of this forum but avoiding specifics, but I don't think that would be a good use of anyone's time.

It's almost never very becoming to portray yourself as put-upon for having to deal with the people in a place you choose to be in.

---

That's about as vapid as saying that all opinions are equally valid. It's surprising how many atheists appeal to classical foundationalism when asking "evidence" then appeal to the principles of postmodern critical theory when doing comparative analysis.

No matter how idiotic or even evil an atheist is, if they don't believe any God or gods is/are real, they're an atheist, whether we like it or not.

But someone who believes Jesus is the son or incarnation of the creator and sustainer of the universe who rose from the dead to redeem humanity from the wages of sin and professes to be a follower of Christ isn't a Christian if they make Christians look bad.

[Amarok]

Indeed Neo's straw men grow old fast and the idea he thinks that dressing up his straw man in fancy wording makes them any less straw man is sad .As for our lack of response why say anymore then needs to be said. And no Neo has shown no inconsistencies.

Oh and Jess is ten times the intellect Neo will ever be and can do so without acting like a pretentious douche

[Brian37]

This is a famous comedy skit, but it does demonstrate how Christians twist what is a horrific act into some Disney movie. 

[SteveII]

I'd say believing that Jesus is who He says He is, and striving to live by the teachings of Christ as depicted in the bible. 

I think that's as basic and fundamental as you can get. If someone says they are a Christian but then they say they don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God, I'd say that person's beliefs are not in line with Christian beliefs. If someone says they are Christian but they live a life of greed and hatred, I'd say that person is not living the Christian lifestyle.

But there are people who call themselves christian, but would disagree.  Newton called himself christian, but didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus.  The Prosperity Gospel folks seem pretty greedy to me.

---

That would be the NT. Your inability or unwillingness to refer to it has no bearing.

And christian's inability to agree on their own word of god has the greatest bearing.

It does not matter what anyone believes it takes to be a Christian. It is defined in the NT and no where else. You cannot take part and leave other parts and still be a Christian. If you do and still call yourself one, you are simply wrong. There can be no redefining for any reason because of the nature of who defined it. This is not a difficult concept. 

Take the verses from Romans that are often called "The Roman's Road":

All Have Sinned. Romans 3:10 states, “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.” And again in Romans 3:23 we are told, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” Romans 5:12 tells us, “Wherefore, as by one man [Adam] sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” When Adam sinned, he brought the curse of sin upon all mankind. This is why everyone is born with a nature to sin, it has been passed down since Adam. 
 
There is a Penalty for Sin. Romans 6:23 says, “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Death is the penalty for sin, Physical Death and a Second Death. Most people confuse spiritual death with the Second Death. We are born spiritually-dead. Adam and Eve died spiritually the moment they sinned, and all of their descendants since have been born spiritually-dead. This is why a person must be born-again spiritually. God's Holy Spirit is that spiritual life. The Bible also speaks of a Second Death, which means being cast into the Lake of Fire forever as punishment for our sins. Just as a person is paid wages for work performed on the job, so does God payback sinners in the Lake of Fire. 
 
Jesus Died, Was Buried, And Rose Three Days Later. Christ died for our sins! Romans 5:8, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” What a precious Scripture! God in His love decided to give mankind a chance to escape the wrath of God's judgment. Jesus came and laid down His life for us, knowing just how sinful the human race is. God expressed His love for humanity, paying men's sin debt, knowing that we are so undeserving. 
 
Call Upon the Lord Jesus to Be Saved. Romans 10:13 promises, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” The word “call” means “to appeal unto.” Lost sinners who come to Jesus for forgiveness of sins, believing that He is the Christ, the Son of God, will be saved. How much faith do you need to be saved? Just enough faith to obey Romans 10:13 and trust upon the Lord Jesus for salvation. Romans 10:9-10, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” Copied from here

[Amarok]

Suppose instead the ancient text in question is not part of the NT; but rather, the Epic of Gilgamesh. The primary goal of scholarship is to consider what the epic meant to the Sumerians and the role of epic poetry in the cultural context of ancient Mesopotamia. The veracity of what the epic only comes afterwards and involves attempting to uncover the circumstances that may have have prompted the creation of that flood story by looking at parallel accounts, prior source material, contemporary historical events, etc. Perhaps it came from a world-wide flood (which I doubt) or perhaps ancestral memory of vast post-Ice Age flooding of the South Pacific (my favorite) or just a symbolic extrapolation from local tragedies (not likely).  

A skeptical approach is valid for the later, but would contaminate the first. Unless you have a pretty good idea of the social and historical context of Gilgamesh speculation about what it actually describes is pointless. As it applies to NT scholarship, the first questions revolve around what the text meant to those who wrote the Gospels and Epistles. It is clear that the writers of the canonical scripture, as opposed to the Gnostic myth-makers, were trying to describe real events. Whether or not what they describe truly happened is a question that can only come after establishing the motivations of the authors and the 1st century context. Erhmann puts the cart before the horse. His skepticism taints his analysis.

Wow both a straw man and  repeating crap Barts already dealt with what was that about intellectual laziness. And if anyone's opinion is tainted it's yours not Barts

[GrandizerII]

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

1. Doesn't sound psychologically healthy but whatever.
2. No, that would lead to all sorts of false conclusions.
3. I don't know if any Christian actually knows what God's direction is.
4. I don't see anything psychologically healthy about that.
5. That's nice, as long as we really mean healthy human relationships.
6. Um, ok.
7. Um, ok, again.
8. Lovely words, but the actions are what count, not words.
9. What folly!
10. As long as the other person is receptive to what you have to say. Otherwise, don't be a nuisance. A lot of us consider the content of your faith to be bullshit and so not worth listening to.
11. I wouldn't recommend you overflow with thankfulness. Be appreciative of what other people do for you, but don't push it too far to the point that it gets annoying to many people.
12. Only with people I want to reconcile with, and only if they are open to the idea!!! Consideration of other people's rights to privacy and autonomy (and security) is important!

[Amarok]

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

1.That's just straight up disturbing
2.That's like sticking you dick in lawn mower to try and solve quantum mechanics
3.Yup all kinds of direction all over the place
4.Scary
5. Considering the conditions thus far this far from healthy
6. Sure
7. Uh Huh
8. History says otherwise
9. sickening
10. Absurd
11. Nonsensical
12. Weakness

So a lot vague words that could be interpreted a billion ways from Sunday and fail to answer anything important got you