Bad Christian or not a Christian?

[boatsnguitars]

Can you still be a Christian, even if you purposely defy Jesus's commands?

So everyone is clear, Jesus commanded of his followers:

Love God and Love Your Neighbor:
Matthew 22:37-39 (NIV): "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

The Great Commission:
Matthew 28:19-20 (NIV): "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."

Repentance and Forgiveness:
Luke 24:46-47 (NIV): "Repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations."

The Golden Rule:
Matthew 7:12 (NIV): "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

Humility and Servanthood:
Matthew 20:26-28 (NIV): "Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave."

Seek God's Kingdom First:
Matthew 6:33 (NIV): "But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well."

The New Commandment:
John 13:34-35 (NIV): "Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

Perseverance and Endurance:
Matthew 24:13 (NIV): "But the one who stands firm to the end will be saved."

Faith and Trust:
John 14:1 (NIV): "Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me."

Generosity and Selflessness:
Luke 6:30 (NIV): "Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back."

Giving to Those in Need:
Matthew 5:42 (NIV): "Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

At what point does a person go from being a bad Christian to no Christian at all?

[TRANSPONDER]

I have a strong suspicion that followers of Jesus do not follow the Jesus of Bible nor the Jesus of the Church, but the Jesus in their own head, and if the Church doesn't teach that one, find one that does, and if the Bible doesn't appear to say what fits that, then keep another Bible in mind that does say what it Really means.

[boatsnguitars]

The responses here clearly bear that out.

I'm amazed at how many seemingly decent people will simple ignore their moral compass and ignore Jesuscommands to be better people in the eyes of the God they insist they believe in.

[TRANSPONDER]

Or to be charitable (sp long as it doesn't involve money) they may as well follow a fair moral code as not and much like anyone else but they convince themselves they are following Jesus instead of crediting it to the human morals, which it probably is.

[1213]

...
Are you the kind of Christian that will "travel light, give away their possessions, (Luke 10:4, Luke 12:33-34) and trust Him to provide for their every need (Luke 12:22-29, Philippians 4:19)?"

If I testify concerning myself, my testimony is not true
John 5:31

But, I think it is true that God provides everything that is needed. And I think it is nice that you say it, because it shows also that following Jesus doesn't necessary mean that people don't have anything.

I already hear someone saying, "But, how can you do that in todays economy!"

Yeah, the ruling class is making people so poor that they don't really have to worry about owning anything.

The followers of Christ actually followed him.

That is true. Now Jesus is not on earth, so those who want to be his disciples can't actually do the same. But, they still can remain in his word.

[TRANSPONDER]

But that to me is just taking the best moral principles (whether or not one carries them out or not) and claiming them for Jesus. But the moral principles of Jesus are either not practical or not moral - like abandoning family and friends for the religious group. No, following Jesus is not about morals, but about belonging to the right religious club, and don' tell yourself that it is really about anything else.

[boatsnguitars]

What about all those Christians living in poverty, begging for God to help them as they suffer their entire lives?

I wonder what the rich Christians say about them? That they lack faith? That God will have zn extra case of beer for them in Heaven?

Or do the rich Christians just worry about themselves? They've saved their own skin and can't be bothered with a bunch of lazy Christians trying to eat?

Either way, it's very clear who follows Jesus and it's not one Christian living today.

[1213]

But that to me is just taking the best moral principles (whether or not one carries them out or not) and claiming them for Jesus. But the moral principles of Jesus are either not practical or not moral - like abandoning family and friends for the religious group. No, following Jesus is not about morals,...

I think following Jesus means on keeps the best moral principles and therefore it is about morals.

Abandoning family and friends for betterment of whole humankind is not in my opinion bad. Not doing what is good, because of family, would be bad.

[1213]

What about all those Christians living in poverty, begging for God to help them as they suffer their entire lives?

Please tell where can I find them?

I wonder what the rich Christians say about them? That they lack faith? That God will have zn extra case of beer for them in Heaven?

I don't think I am rich, but I would say to them:

He said to his disciples, "Therefore I tell you, don't be anxious for your life, what you will eat, nor yet for your body, what you will wear. Life is more than food, and the body is more than clothing. Consider the ravens: they don't sow, they don't reap, they have no warehouse or barn, and God feeds them. How much more valuable are you than birds! Which of you by being anxious can add a cubit to his height? If then you aren't able to do even the least things, why are you anxious about the rest? Consider the lilies, how they grow. They don't toil, neither do they spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if this is how God clothes the grass in the field, which today exists, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith? Don't seek what you will eat or what you will drink; nei-ther be anxious. For the nations of the world seek after all of these things, but your Father knows that you need these things. But seek God's Kingdom, and all these things will be added to you.
Luke 12:22-31

[boatsnguitars]

Please tell where can I find them?

Are you joking? At the expense of those people suffering? You can't be serious. How can you not be aware of Christians in need? Honestly. How do you not know of the people in your own Church, Town, County, State, Country, World?

Maybe this is you?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act ... of-effort/

Which is generally more often to blame if a person is poor: lack of effort on their own part, or difficult circumstances beyond their control?

The Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation asked 1,686 American adults to answer that question — and found that religion is a significant predictor of how Americans perceive poverty.

Christians, especially white evangelical Christians, are much more likely than non-Christians to view poverty as the result of individual failings.

“There’s a strong Christian impulse to understand poverty as deeply rooted in morality — often, as the Bible makes clear, in unwillingness to work, in bad financial decisions or in broken family structures,” said Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. “The Christian worldview is saying that all poverty is due to sin, though that doesn’t necessarily mean the sin of the person in poverty. In the Garden of Eden, there would have been no poverty. In a fallen world, there is poverty.”

In the poll, which was conducted from April 13 to May 1 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points, 46 percent of all Christians said that a lack of effort is generally to blame for a person’s poverty, compared with 29 percent of all non-Christians. The gulf widens further among specific Christian groups: 53 percent of white evangelical Protestants blamed lack of effort while 41 percent blamed circumstances, and 50 percent of Catholics blamed lack of effort while 45 percent blamed circumstances. In contrast, by more than 2 to 1, Americans who are atheist, agnostic or have no particular affiliation said difficult circumstances are more to blame when a person is poor than lack of effort (65 percent to 31 percent).

[TRANSPONDER]

But that to me is just taking the best moral principles (whether or not one carries them out or not) and claiming them for Jesus. But the moral principles of Jesus are either not practical or not moral - like abandoning family and friends for the religious group. No, following Jesus is not about morals,...

I think following Jesus means on keeps the best moral principles and therefore it is about morals.

Abandoning family and friends for betterment of whole humankind is not in my opinion bad. Not doing what is good, because of family, would be bad.

But the same can be said of any religion, and not least Christianity. Also, that is hobbled by not being able to question it as good or bad. Human morality is by its' nature open to question, change and improvement. As is religion, though the improvement (slavery, women's rights) has been slow because of this 'hobble'.

If there is a sticking point for us here, it is not just science and logic denial and even denial of what the Bible actually says, but your insistence that 'following Jesus' (whether or not in the way you interpret it) is going to make people better than humanism will.

You may even have a valid argument as i have a feeling that Christians may behave well because they feel God's eye on them, whereas unbelievers don't and there is no punishment - if they don't get caught. But in fact, the religious may manipulate such beliefs to suit themselves, knowingly or unknowingly. Which is why I still say the Christian amelioration of human morals (supposed or claimed) is not worth following a myth and delusion, as on evidence and logical reasoning, it is.

You will reject all of this, but I'm just giving my response to this "We need it, true or not" apologetic, as my response is an equally old one: "The truth is important."