One really needs to carefully dissect what a bad Christian is because there is a tremendous difference between one claiming to be a Christian and somebody actually practicing Christianity. Jesus Himself declared, “you honor Me with your lips, but your heart is far from Me”, so talking the talk is quite different from walking the walk.
Nobody is guaranteed to be good simply because one attends church or carries a Bible. Being exposed to Biblical teachings from a sermon or Sunday School does not qualify a person as righteous.. It is easy to superficially declare sweeping assumptions based on poor examples of a few. There are going to be bad examples of people in every category. Too many allow their prejudices do their talking.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil
There are more people claiming Christianity and belief in God in the United States according to various surveys taken, so it would be fair to say that most Americans have religious values. What critics focus on are those “Christians” that fail to live up to the standards of what Christ established. However these same critics do not want to focus on those non-believers or pagans that have moral failings. No philosophy guarantees pristine living with everybody.
The double standard is employed…..Christians that fail are portrayed as though that is the reason for their moral failure, however when an atheist shoots three Muslims and kills them, the belief system is not responsible for the failure. While Roman Catholic priests have their belief system suggested as the reason for sexual deviancy, secular teachers guilty of sexual misconduct do not have humanist beliefs questioned.http://te-deum.blogspot.com/2010/04/media-bias-against-pope-clerical-sex.html
Whether police, firefighters, city council members, college professors, psychologists, it does not matter; there are bad examples of human behavior is demonstrated across a spectrum of belief systems or professions.http://www.newsmax.com/BillDonohue/Sex-Abuse-Public-Schools/2013/10/31/id/534065/
The morality of anti-abortionists that may kill an abortion doctor is highlighted greatly by secular media, however the slaughtering millions of unborn children never is debated by the secular media regarding whether it is moral to do so. Human rights issues, yes….moral issues, no. The morality issue is avoided when politically expedient.
However the morality of killing animals, birds, insects, baby seals, or wild life is brought up by humanists and environmentalists. There is something inherently wrong when the same moral equivalence is failed to be brought up regarding abortion, ending one’s life, or suicide.
Sadly even sexual preferences are assigned a higher urgency. When Russia was going to discriminate against gay athletes in the Summer Olympics, there was concern leveled from America regarding Russia’s policy and concern was voiced from the White House. In the midst of Christian persecution which included torture, kidnapping, and murder, there was hardly more concern displayed from the same secular outlets.
The inconsistency is so blatant that criticism has been leveled against Christian interests even when there was nothing being done to warrant criticism.. Meanwhile other belief systems as atheist Kim Jung Un of North Korea and his record of brutality flies under the radar of humanist scrutiny. Saudi Arabia has the responsibility of more home grown terrorism than Iran, but who is constantly being criticized? Israel is named in more condemnations than any other country….why is that?
President Assad of Syria is known for his brand of brutality which has been the catalyst for over 200,000 Syrian deaths in the four years of civil war. Has one condemnation been voted in the United Nations?
There are many examples of inconsistency and brutality being ignored by some countries (Sudan), and it depends on who is being oppressed and their philosophical position before there is any criticism. Christians are clearly the whipping post in Nigeria, Egypt, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, however when was the last time any international outcry took place against those countries that were guilty of religious persecution?
Reclassifying the definition of Judeo-Christian standards is well under way globally. It is not “immoral” to destroy as long as the definitions of Marxist socialist standards are used. One as free to do as one pleases as long as it adheres to socialist definitions. At the end of the process only actions that meet the definition of the new world order will be acceptable.
Religion is thought to be inherently evil along with other Judeo-Christian values, thus you have social mores being radically changed according to the new vision of society and those reconstructing its values. Definitions mean what one is told they mean.
Yes, there are good and bad examples of everything, but the ultimate call regarding what is good or bad and acceptable and not acceptable is being made by those expecting everyone to view things based on a narrow definition of one’s world view.
It is either a good or bad example only if you are told it is.