What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[LadyForCamus]

So then tell us, Steve:  How should one navigate through a discussion (with any intellectual honesty, that is) regarding the most accurate definition, and truest description of the nature of such a hypothetical attribute, when the only hypothetical being it has ever been ascribed to can't be demonstrated to exist in the first place?

Maybe afterwords we can have a hearty debate over the exact mechanisms behind Earth's yellow sun making Superman more powerful than a locomotive, eh?  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ah, the favorite fallback position when an atheist can't field a rebuttal: "but...but...you can't prove that what we have been talking about for 518 posts really exists...so...so...I win...so there!

And you've clearly missed my point, which is, there isn't anything to rebut. This is the second legitimate question I've asked you that you've answered with a non-answer. But I'll try again just for the hell of it: how do you debate the truest definition of an attribute or quality when you cannot demonstrate it is a real thing in the first place? In other words, how are you measuring accuracy in such an instance?

[SteveII]

Ah, the favorite fallback position when an atheist can't field a rebuttal: "but...but...you can't prove that what we have been talking about for 518 posts really exists...so...so...I win...so there!

And you've clearly missed my point, which is, there isn't anything to rebut.  This is the second legitimate question I've asked you that you've answered with a non-answer.  But I'll try again just for the hell of it:  how do you debate the truest definition of an attribute or quality when you cannot demonstrate it is a real thing in the first place?  In other words, how are you measuring accuracy in such an instance?

Just like in science, in metaphysics and philosophy (of religion in this case) you build a theory that addresses all the issues and test them out against other known variable and theories believed to be true. If you are asking do I know my understanding of omnipresence is correct, then no, I don't. But I want the best theory possible that addresses the issue as completely as possible. Another way to put it is internally consistent systematic theology.

[Brian37]

"What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian"

They spatter well when pushed into a spinning propeller.

Come on man, that is just wrong!

I don't want any Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or Jew to "spatter". I simply think theists got it wrong. I wont claim theists claims dont piss me off. But unless a theist is directly threatening me or directly calling for physical violence, my blasphemy is strictly intended to say to all, "PROVE IT OR SHUT THE FUCK UP"

[Amarok]

This implies we need to field a rebuttal and yes we do win

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

SteveII, regarding the op, and based on my experience at Abilene Christian University, I'm aware that NT Christians feel a special oneness and connection with their god, which feels absolutely true and objective to them; it is a part of who they are (IMO, like a nerve), as knowing that they are a part of a broader reality of love keeps them connected with their god for eternity.

 Now, with all due respect, are NT Christians willing to share the world with people who think differently (different sense-making processes), and are they open/willing to see their particular beliefs as a viewpoint among many viewpoints that does not have the same meaning/validity for out-groups as it does for them? Hence, when putting your deity's love into practice, is there room for accepting peoples' differences and acknowledging the validity of other starting points?  Thanks for your patience and understanding throughout this thread, SteveII.

[GrandizerII]

Reasons:
1. The universe is expanding. If God was everywhere, is God expanding? Or perhaps becoming diluted? 
2. The universe if finite. Does that mean that God is finite?
3. More silly conclusion can be drawn from a too-simplistic view: for example, is a portion of God in my coffee cup and the rest of him outside of it? 
4. The Bible talks regularly about times when God is present and times when he is not. How is that possible if he is always present in the way we normally define it? 
5. Is God present in Hell?

1. You're doing it again. The universe you're referring to is not all there is.
2. See my point 1.
3. I don't know. That's up to what you believe. Pantheists would say "yes".
4. I don't know, blame the human Bible authors for the confusion, lol.
5. Why couldn't he be?

[emjay]

That is the SECOND TIME you posted that meme, and I posted SEVERAL links to articles of OTHER religions pointing to science too. 

EVERYONE of ALL religions when they cant peddle their writings flat out, either try to debunk science, and when they cant do that try to claim science points to their club. EVERYONE does it!

There is no Catholic theory of gravity.
There is no Jewish theory of evolution.
There is no Hindu entropy.
There is no Buddhist law of thermodynamics.

Humans make discoveries? NO SHIT, now would you like me to post video of primates using tools?

You continue to misrepresent me and I can't tell if it's deliberate and thus disingenuous or just the result of massive amounts of confirmation bias. Either way, it sucks.

Unless you've been talking to actual Buddhists, then you're just using me - a non-Buddhist - as 'evidence' that Buddhists point to science.

If you are as neutral and objective as you say you are, then if you're going to make a claim about what Buddhists do, then you should only accept that evidence from an actual Buddhist! Ie don't use me to bolster your case because that's dishonest, biased, or both.

There is a HUGE difference between what you are claiming theists do (and what you are implicitly claiming I did, notwithstanding the falsely attributed claim that Buddhist's do it - if based only on the strength of what a non-Buddhist, ie me, said) and what I actually did:

Case 1. When theists are theists FIRST and THEN cherry pick, from INSIDE, the parts of their religion that agree with science, that is rationalisation after the fact because it did not play a part in the formation of their belief system.
Case 2. I am an atheist and skeptic FIRST and THEN cherry pick, from OUTSIDE, parts of a religion/philosophy (in this case Buddhism) that make logical, rational, and scientific sense.

The difference is the motivation: case 1 uses science to rationalise preexisting irrational beliefs and case 2 uses rational thought/skepticism and science first to test the validity of something before accepting it. Big difference.

As I've said before, I do not give a flying fuck where Meditation and Mindfulness come from. Mindfulness happens to come from Buddhism. Meditation comes from Buddhism and probably many other Eastern traditions... it doesn't matter where they come from because they have been cherry picked from the outside for their psychological usefulness; they are beneficial in the context of certain psychological therapies and science agrees that they are. That's all I've ever said. But you continue to imply that regarding me, it is a case 1 situation when it is clearly case 2, and further, you imply that I am claiming the 'patent' for those discoveries should go to Buddhism, when I have repeatedly said, including in this paragraph, that I don't give a fuck where it comes from, only whether it's good. On that point I agree fully with you: no one owns the patent to knowledge.

So can we drop this now, please? If you want to make claims about what Buddhists say, please wait until you speak to one and don't drag me into it. That's all I'm asking.

[Amarok]

Reasons:
1. The universe is expanding. If God was everywhere, is God expanding? Or perhaps becoming diluted? 
2. The universe if finite. Does that mean that God is finite?
3. More silly conclusion can be drawn from a too-simplistic view: for example, is a portion of God in my coffee cup and the rest of him outside of it? 
4. The Bible talks regularly about times when God is present and times when he is not. How is that possible if he is always present in the way we normally define it? 
5. Is God present in Hell?

1. You're doing it again. The universe you're referring to is not all there is.
2. See my point 1.
3. I don't know. That's up to what you believe. Pantheists would say "yes".
4. I don't know, blame the human Bible authors for the confusion, lol.
5. Why couldn't he be?

1.Agreed were discussing a cosmos not just the expanded region of space
2.Again were discussing a cosmos not just the observed universe
3.Why not ?
4. It's not our fault your religions founders are baffled Steve
5. Indeed why can't god go to hell of be in hell ?

I love of all the weird shit Steve will believe God being in hell and god being in a coffee cup is just to silly

[Pat Mustard]

We can prove the age of the universe and you still have no evidence for your invisible friend.

This is Wooters all over, insult, denigrate and run crying to mammy when the other kids refuse to toe his line. And not a valid argument in sight for his unevidenced assertions.

How do I know all this? He has me on ignore simply because I kept pointing out that he couldn't refute my arguments, the big wuss.

[LadyForCamus]

This is Wooters all over, insult, denigrate and run crying to mammy when the other kids refuse to toe his line. And not a valid argument in sight for his unevidenced assertions.

How do I know all this? He has me on ignore simply because I kept pointing out that he couldn't refute my arguments, the big wuss.

Hey! He's got me on ignore for essentially the same reason! *high five* We should start a club. [emoji16]

---

Reasons:
1. The universe is expanding. If God was everywhere, is God expanding? Or perhaps becoming diluted? 
2. The universe if finite. Does that mean that God is finite?
3. More silly conclusion can be drawn from a too-simplistic view: for example, is a portion of God in my coffee cup and the rest of him outside of it? 
4. The Bible talks regularly about times when God is present and times when he is not. How is that possible if he is always present in the way we normally define it? 
5. Is God present in Hell?

1. You're doing it again. The universe you're referring to is not all there is.
2. See my point 1.
3. I don't know. That's up to what you believe. Pantheists would say "yes".
4. I don't know, blame the human Bible authors for the confusion, lol.
5. Why couldn't he be?

Now, now, Grandizer.  Don't be asking Steve to clarify his position, lest you be accused of 'failure to rebut.'