What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[SteveII]

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

What Christians are not required to have:

1. A specific view on Genesis 1
2. Anti-science opinions and/or philosophy
3. Belief that evolution is false
4. Misogynistic views
5. A worldview with gaps of logic or reasoning
6. Hatred for any group of people

Any additions to the list? 

Other thoughts?

[Jesster]

I'd remind you that many of us were Christians at some point. Our objections to Christianity are valid enough whether you identify with them or not. If I did want to argue against your specific beliefs, though, I would ask you what you believed instead. Individual Christians always interpret their religious beliefs in different ways.

[Brian37]

What are the characteristics of the End Times God?

You deserve to be tortured forever because you didn't kiss my ass.

Christians are not required to interpret the bible the same way no. That says everything about how inept, inefficient and or cruel your fictional god is. There is no way I can find such a character moral. If a parent had three kids who beat each other up or murdered each other over who daddy loves the best, that parent would be arrested.

That entire list is garbage and has absolutely NOTHING to do with morality or empathy or compassion.

This is simply the same shit I have seen the past 16 years that theists make to attempt to demonize those who don't blindly swallow their crap.

You don't get it. There are GOOD and decent humans in every religion. For you to brag as if your religion solely owns a patent on what morality/empathy compassion are is BULLSHIT and totally narcissistic.

Now don't sit there and falsely claim I am mean, or evil or secretly angry at your God. NO, I am saying your logic sucks.

Our species ability to be compassionate is in EVOLUTION. It is not handed down to us by Jesus or Yahweh or Allah or Vishnu or Buddha. Just as you already accept that our goodness was not handed to us by the Ancient Egyptian God Ra or Osiris or Horus.

I could give one shit what you claim, it most certainly from a legal standpoint is your right to claim. But don't sit here and brag about how magically your label makes humans moral. If it did majority Christian nations would not have prisons, but they do. Every nation in the world has prisons. Religion is not what makes an individual moral, our evolution does.

You are NOT better than atheists or Buddhists or Hindus or Jews or Muslims. You are NOT the center of the planet or the universe. Please take your holier than thou attitude and stick it.

[Mister Agenda]

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

What Christians are not required to have:

1. A specific view on Genesis 1
2. Anti-science opinions and/or philosophy
3. Belief that evolution is false
4. Misogynistic views
5. A worldview with gaps of logic or reasoning
6. Hatred for any group of people

Any additions to the list? 

Other thoughts?

That rules out almost every American who calls themselves a Christian. So you're calling us ignorant because we deal with the majority of people who call themselves Christians (team Jesus people), not the true Christians ™ as you define them. Sounds like the problem is really on your end, not ours.

[Neo-Scholastic]

SteveII, you have identified a helpful list of orthopraxy, but remain silent about orthodoxy. Is it not also true that these "fruits" are expected to follow from knowledge God's Grace, Christ's work on the Cross, and true repentance?

Nevertheless, it is true that many atheist biblical skeptics have an extremely rigid and myopic way of looking at the Word. They get very upset with and dismissive towards Christians who take a more nuanced approach. For example, I am reading a book about debt in the ancient world. It really illuminates many parts of scripture - from the Law of Jubilee to the 1st century perspective on God's role as redeemer. Meanwhile skeptics are fixated on rabbits chewing cud. They cannot fathom our unity on the plain, clear, and central teachings of the Word, like the historical truth of a physical Resurrection, while still retaining our ability to have civil ecumenical discussions about minor doctrines, like total depravity, annihilation, infant baptism, etc. For them it is "all or nothing."

On AF at least, I hear a lot of contempt towards less intellectual believers who, in the opinion of AF members, have not sufficiently examined their beliefs. That contempt so common among AF members rests on the irrational and unreasonable notion that any and all beliefs must be justified by classical foundationalism. My parents and many other very good people have never even heard of Hume or Locke, yet still manage to live the Gospel everyday of their lives with a degree of piety I wish I could share. Not everyone justifies their faith intellectually; but rather, by daily experience. And that seems to be your point, that a fair evaluation of Christianity must consider the behavior and actions of those who live most fervently apply the Gospel to their lives rather than build-up edifices of intellectual arguments.

[SteveII]

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

What Christians are not required to have:

1. A specific view on Genesis 1
2. Anti-science opinions and/or philosophy
3. Belief that evolution is false
4. Misogynistic views
5. A worldview with gaps of logic or reasoning
6. Hatred for any group of people

Any additions to the list? 

Other thoughts?

That rules out almost every American who calls themselves a Christian. So you're calling us ignorant because we deal with the majority of people who call themselves Christians (team Jesus people), not the true Christians ™ as you define them. Sounds like the problem is really on your end, not ours.

I don't think that is true that this list rules out almost everyone. This is not my definition. I agree it is not your problem to remind Christians of their obligations--but making the distinction changes an argument from "Christianity is wrong because of xyz" to "these Christians are not living according to their instruction manual, so are therefore wrong on xyz".

[Faith No More]

What's the difference between an NT Christian and a non-NT Christian?

[Mister Agenda]

I live in SC. 90% of the population is at least nominally Christian. I don't meet many people who strike me as overflowing with thankfulness, without hate for anyone, possessing a passion for reconciliation, building healthy human relationships, and who are also clearly devout Christians. Well, maybe among liberal Quakers.

[Crossless2.0]

SteveII, you have identified a helpful list of orthopraxy, but remain silent about orthodoxy. Is it not also true that these "fruits" are expected to follow from knowledge God's Grace, Christ's work on the Cross, and true repentance.

Nevertheless, it is true that many atheist biblical skeptics have an extremely rigid and myopic way of looking at the Word. They get very upset with and dismissive towards Christians who take a more nuanced approach. For example, I am reading a book about debt in the ancient world. It really illuminates many parts of scripture - from the Law of Jubilee to the 1st century perspective on God's role as redeemer. Meanwhile skeptics are fixated on rabbits chewing cud. They cannot fathom our unity on the plain, clear, and central  teachings of the Word, like the historical truth of a physical Resurrection, while still retaining our ability to have civil ecumenical discussions about minor doctrines, like total depravity, annihilation, infant baptism, etc. For them it is "all or nothing"

But you see, Neo, it is precisely that I do fathom your unity on (and belief in) the "plain, clear, and central teachings of the Word, like the historical truth of a physical Resurrection," that I am dismissive of Christianity and of what passes for reasonable in that world. Your views on 'minor doctrines' are intraparty disputes that don't concern me.

[Faith No More]

It makes me think that the Christians here that talk about Christians being thankful and not hating are not paying attention to a huge chunk of very vocal Christians in this country. All you have to do is watch some of the religious channels or make a quick search on YouTube to see that many, many Christians use their religion as an excuse to spew vitriol and hatred. When I see these "This is what Christians do" statements that involve forgiveness and tolerance, it just proves how big the blinders are that many Christians wear.

I know, I know, they're not True Christians. The funny thing is, they'd say the same thing about you.