Christian Teacher writes letter to school newspaper saying "Gays deserve to die"

[Zenith]

[NOTE: subject was "But still, there are a multitude of them who, I believe, don't join ISIS for the simple reason that ISIS is an Islamic organization, and not a Christian one."]

I think it depends on where you read from the Bible. Or if you take greater inspiration from books written by "saints" (not your case, you're a protestant), or on what the priest / pastor says. [1] 

Anyway, I was expecting the "they're not true Christians" answer. But for the whole world a Christian is one who considers himself Christian. If one
were to take every man who considers himself Christian and make a list of who or what makes one a "not a true Christian", and then add those lists
together, then every group of Christians would exclude all the others, so in the end all Christians would end up as "not true Christians". [2]

And if one who considers himself Christian tried to impose his religion on everyone else, then every non-Christian would consider him Christian. Same as we call Muslims both those who act nicely and those who are pieces of shit. [3]

1. It's your premise...where does the Bible give any indications that Christians should kill people they don't agree with?

Where in ANY religious holy book of ANY religion does it say "kill innocent people"? Nowhere.

The way they do it is by defining what makes one "innocent" or "wicked". Christians who, given enough incentive, would go out and kill disbelievers, would not go to kill people on the basis of "Well, I don't like them. That's all!" --- no, the disbelievers would be like DEVILS, evil, without morals, diabolical, people who would anyway be going to HELL for their wicked sins, people who continuously and obstinately fight against the Church and against anything that is holy --- the victims would be those whose sin against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. They wouldn't be calling themselves "aggressors" - they would simply be doing what is needed, DEFENDING Christianity and honest moral people against a grave pestilence!

2. It does not matter what some people think or call themselves. There is a definition of being a Christian found in the NT. If a church adds to that, then you could have a further distinction: Catholic, Baptist, Coptic...whatever. Because these additional layers are sometimes at odds with each other, then obviously some or all of the components of these additional layers are wrong. Whatever the differences, if a group strays from the basic definition in the NT, they would cease being Christians--because words have meaning. 

I posted this a couple of months ago:

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.

  List from http://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors...stian.html

Further on this topic, you have to distinguish between people who identify as cultural or nominal Christians. These are people who don't follow the NT, so don't meet the definition, but think it is necessary to distinguish themselves from other religions or from atheism without any real (or at least a superficial) epistemological commitment. 

That's EXTREMELY subjective. Go out of your community, to other people who consider themselves Christians, ask the same question, and from the NT they would give you different answers. Not to mention that sentences like "Has an undiluted devotion to Jesus." can easily be interpreted any way one desires.

3. If someone tried to impose Christianity on everyone else, that would be decidedly unchristian--so what are they really imposing?

He would be imposing Christianity. That's how most of Europe and USA became Christian. If not for that "imposing" then you wouldn't have grown in a Christian-majority country right now (as I am suspecting you do).

We identify Muslims as Muslims because the definition of a Muslim is a follower of the teachings of Mohammad (the Koran). Since the Koran can be reasonable interpreted in a conflicting ways, the definition remains pretty broad. In contrast, the NT is no ambiguous.

That's you, a disbeliever of Islam, talking about Islam. What makes you think that a disbeliever of Christianity wouldn't say the same about Christianity, and even for good reason?

[SteveII]

1. It's your premise...where does the Bible give any indications that Christians should kill people they don't agree with?

Where in ANY religious holy book of ANY religion does it say "kill innocent people"? Nowhere.

The way they do it is by defining what makes one "innocent" or "wicked". Christians who, given enough incentive, would go out and kill disbelievers, would not go to kill people on the basis of "Well, I don't like them. That's all!" --- no, the disbelievers would be like DEVILS, evil, without morals, diabolical, people who would anyway be going to HELL for their wicked sins, people who continuously and obstinately fight against the Church and against anything that is holy --- the victims would be those whose sin against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. They wouldn't be calling themselves "aggressors" - they would simply be doing what is needed, DEFENDING Christianity and honest moral people against a grave pestilence!

2. It does not matter what some people think or call themselves. There is a definition of being a Christian found in the NT. If a church adds to that, then you could have a further distinction: Catholic, Baptist, Coptic...whatever. Because these additional layers are sometimes at odds with each other, then obviously some or all of the components of these additional layers are wrong. Whatever the differences, if a group strays from the basic definition in the NT, they would cease being Christians--because words have meaning. 

I posted this a couple of months ago:

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.

  List from http://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors...stian.html

Further on this topic, you have to distinguish between people who identify as cultural or nominal Christians. These are people who don't follow the NT, so don't meet the definition, but think it is necessary to distinguish themselves from other religions or from atheism without any real (or at least a superficial) epistemological commitment. 

That's EXTREMELY subjective. Go out of your community, to other people who consider themselves Christians, ask the same question, and from the NT they would give you different answers. Not to mention that sentences like "Has an undiluted devotion to Jesus." can easily be interpreted any way one desires.

3. If someone tried to impose Christianity on everyone else, that would be decidedly unchristian--so what are they really imposing?

He would be imposing Christianity. That's how most of Europe and USA became Christian. If not for that "imposing" then you wouldn't have grown in a Christian-majority country right now (as I am suspecting you do).

We identify Muslims as Muslims because the definition of a Muslim is a follower of the teachings of Mohammad (the Koran). Since the Koran can be reasonable interpreted in a conflicting ways, the definition remains pretty broad. In contrast, the NT is no ambiguous.

That's you, a disbeliever of Islam, talking about Islam. What makes you think that a disbeliever of Christianity wouldn't say the same about Christianity, and even for good reason?

1. You are the one inserting the word "innocent". The Bible does not command Christians to kill anyone, let along those that they disagree with. Your whole comment is describing something that is clearly unchristian, so I don't know what the point is. Your complaint seems to be with people who are wrong--I don't disagree. 

2. No they are not subjective, there are dozens of passages on each topic. Those people would be wrong. You seem to think that the definition of a Christian is whatever people think it is. That's not how it works when the definition is a clearly proscribed list in the recognized source of what it means to be a Christian. Now, one can be a Christian an NOT do those things--but all that would mean is they are not a very good one. 

3. If you think Christianity can be imposed on someone, you simply do not understand the concept at all. To be a Christian, all that is needed is recognizing that Jesus is God and died for your sins, accepting the free gift of salvation, and committing to pursue a relationship with God. How can this be imposed on someone? 

You have yet to provide a passage that that instructs Christians to do anything resembling violence so my comparison to Islam will stand until you do.

[vorlon13]

Tough to reconcile your third point there (recognizing Jesus is God . . .) with the 70,000 schisms in Christianity.

[Zenith]

1. You are the one inserting the word "innocent". The Bible does not command Christians to kill anyone, let along those that they disagree with. Your whole comment is describing something that is clearly unchristian, so I don't know what the point is. Your complaint seems to be with people who are wrong--I don't disagree. 

Stevell, I'm having the impression you have diverged the discussion from my original topic (Christians who would be capable of joining an ISIS-like organization) to talking about whether Christians are being taught to "kill people they don't agree with". My explanation there was meant to show you that you don't need a verse that says "kill people you don't agree with" in order to have a religious community kill innocent people.

Also, since I see that the same term ("Christian") means different things to me and to you: Know that for me, as for many others in this forum, "Christian" means an adept of either branch of Christianity, whether he is a protestant or a catholic or an orthodox or whatever. To you "Christian" seems to mean "An adept of certain branches(s) of Christianity who believe what I deem critical and are also good people."

I invite you to choose a better term to describe "good Christian" (a person more or less like yourself) and "bad Christian" (an adept of a branch of Christianity who does not believe & live by your standards), something that, when you talk to people, you and they kinda use the same language.

2. No they are not subjective, there are dozens of passages on each topic. Those people would be wrong. You seem to think that the definition of a Christian is whatever people think it is.

I'm using a definition similar to what (I believe) you are using to describe muslims or jews or hindus: adepts of a particular religion.

3. If you think Christianity can be imposed on someone, you simply do not understand the concept at all. To be a Christian, all that is needed is recognizing that Jesus is God and died for your sins, accepting the free gift of salvation, and committing to pursue a relationship with God. How can this be imposed on someone? 

What about saying "Recognise that Jesus is God and died for your sins, accept the free gift of salvation, and commit to pursue a relationship with God, and be baptised. Otherwise we'll chop your head off." The rest goes with "Fake it till you make it!" And when these forced-converts bear children and send them to Church, then the Church and the society go and teach the kids what to believe, they will have grown in a Christian environment and will wilfully say out loud "I recognise that Jesus is God and died for my sins. I accept the free gift of salvation, and commit to pursue a relationship with God." Simple, isn't it?

You have yet to provide a passage that that instructs Christians to do anything resembling violence so my comparison to Islam will stand until you do.

If you insist...
Leviticus 20:27: "A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads."

To me this instructs Christians to do something "resembling violence".

[The Grand Nudger]

  Do these people simply lack the brain cells to be semi-decent human beings?  Or do they just lack the will not to be fucking assholes.  

It's the latter.  Completely normal assholes, not lacking in a thing.

[SteveII]

1. You are the one inserting the word "innocent". The Bible does not command Christians to kill anyone, let along those that they disagree with. Your whole comment is describing something that is clearly unchristian, so I don't know what the point is. Your complaint seems to be with people who are wrong--I don't disagree. 

Stevell, I'm having the impression you have diverged the discussion from my original topic (Christians who would be capable of joining an ISIS-like organization) to talking about whether Christians are being taught to "kill people they don't agree with". My explanation there was meant to show you that you don't need a verse that says "kill people you don't agree with" in order to have a religious community kill innocent people.

Also, since I see that the same term ("Christian") means different things to me and to you: Know that for me, as for many others in this forum, "Christian" means an adept of either branch of Christianity, whether he is a protestant or a catholic or an orthodox or whatever. To you "Christian" seems to mean "An adept of certain branches(s) of Christianity who believe what I deem critical and are also good people."

I invite you to choose a better term to describe "good Christian" (a person more or less like yourself) and "bad Christian" (an adept of a branch of Christianity who does not believe & live by your standards), something that, when you talk to people, you and they kinda use the same language.

2. No they are not subjective, there are dozens of passages on each topic. Those people would be wrong. You seem to think that the definition of a Christian is whatever people think it is.

I'm using a definition similar to what (I believe) you are using to describe muslims or jews or hindus: adepts of a particular religion.

3. If you think Christianity can be imposed on someone, you simply do not understand the concept at all. To be a Christian, all that is needed is recognizing that Jesus is God and died for your sins, accepting the free gift of salvation, and committing to pursue a relationship with God. How can this be imposed on someone? 

What about saying "Recognise that Jesus is God and died for your sins, accept the free gift of salvation, and commit to pursue a relationship with God, and be baptised. Otherwise we'll chop your head off." The rest goes with "Fake it till you make it!" And when these forced-converts bear children and send them to Church, then the Church and the society go and teach the kids what to believe, they will have grown in a Christian environment and will wilfully say out loud "I recognise that Jesus is God and died for my sins. I accept the free gift of salvation, and commit to pursue a relationship with God." Simple, isn't it?

You have yet to provide a passage that that instructs Christians to do anything resembling violence so my comparison to Islam will stand until you do.

If you insist...
Leviticus 20:27: "A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads."

To me this instructs Christians to do something "resembling violence".

1. Perhaps I was. When too much time goes by I don't remember a couple of posts back. Sorry.

When I use the term 'Christian' I don't mean a member of any branch. The definition is in the NT--predating any branch or division. If some church has added to it, then you can call them a protestant or catholic, etc. A good Christian is simply a Christian who really tries to follow the guidelines. A bad does not. They are not my standards and those provided are not ambiguous. What is not possible is to call someone a Christian who has not "recognized that Jesus is God and died for your sins, accepted the free gift of salvation, and committed to pursue a relationship with God". Is it possible that someone meets this criteria and then ignores everything else and sincerely believed some wrong (like ISIS-type activities) is actually right--yes. But part of that scenario then is that they have clearly ignored the very clear teachings of the NT and would always need that little asterisk next to their name indicating that their reasoning was of their own making. 

Leviticus was the law of Israel 1400+years before Christ (so no Christians in sight) under a theocracy let by prophets. To attempt to apply this today is to ignore any and all historical context, source of writing, intended audience, overall purpose of the writing, and any critical thinking how the OT and NT works together. This is from the Christian instruction part of the Bible:

Love in Action
Romans 12:9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10 Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11 Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12 Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13 Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.[c] Do not be conceited.

17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
    if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[e]
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, that does seem to be omitting the war to end all wars...but, no matter.  Do you think that god, in the space of time between the ot and the nt changed his mind about violence, or that the christians had changed theirs?

[Harry Nevis]

3. If you think Christianity can be imposed on someone, you simply do not understand the concept at all. To be a Christian, all that is needed is recognizing that Jesus is God and died for your sins, accepting the free gift of salvation, and committing to pursue a relationship with God. How can this be imposed on someone? 

I understand that it's imposed on children, warping their minds before they can know the difference.  I also know that the rest can mean whatever someone wants it to mean when they want something to be true.  I bet christianity would be less popular than Scientology if you took all the unquestioning, brainwashed kids out of the picture.Look at all the christians who disagree with your views of christianity, but claim the same "relationship with god.

---

1. You are the one inserting the word "innocent". The Bible does not command Christians to kill anyone, let along those that they disagree with. Your whole comment is describing something that is clearly unchristian, so I don't know what the point is. Your complaint seems to be with people who are wrong--I don't disagree. 

Stevell, I'm having the impression you have diverged the discussion from my original topic (Christians who would be capable of joining an ISIS-like organization) to talking about whether Christians are being taught to "kill people they don't agree with". My explanation there was meant to show you that you don't need a verse that says "kill people you don't agree with" in order to have a religious community kill innocent people.

Also, since I see that the same term ("Christian") means different things to me and to you: Know that for me, as for many others in this forum, "Christian" means an adept of either branch of Christianity, whether he is a protestant or a catholic or an orthodox or whatever. To you "Christian" seems to mean "An adept of certain branches(s) of Christianity who believe what I deem critical and are also good people."

I invite you to choose a better term to describe "good Christian" (a person more or less like yourself) and "bad Christian" (an adept of a branch of Christianity who does not believe & live by your standards), something that, when you talk to people, you and they kinda use the same language.

2. No they are not subjective, there are dozens of passages on each topic. Those people would be wrong. You seem to think that the definition of a Christian is whatever people think it is.

I'm using a definition similar to what (I believe) you are using to describe muslims or jews or hindus: adepts of a particular religion.

3. If you think Christianity can be imposed on someone, you simply do not understand the concept at all. To be a Christian, all that is needed is recognizing that Jesus is God and died for your sins, accepting the free gift of salvation, and committing to pursue a relationship with God. How can this be imposed on someone? 

What about saying "Recognise that Jesus is God and died for your sins, accept the free gift of salvation, and commit to pursue a relationship with God, and be baptised. Otherwise we'll chop your head off." The rest goes with "Fake it till you make it!" And when these forced-converts bear children and send them to Church, then the Church and the society go and teach the kids what to believe, they will have grown in a Christian environment and will wilfully say out loud "I recognise that Jesus is God and died for my sins. I accept the free gift of salvation, and commit to pursue a relationship with God." Simple, isn't it?

You have yet to provide a passage that that instructs Christians to do anything resembling violence so my comparison to Islam will stand until you do.

If you insist...
Leviticus 20:27: "A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads."

To me this instructs Christians to do something "resembling violence".

But Stevie, when he says "bible", he only means the NT.  A bit disingenuous, but par for the christian apologist course.

[Zenith]

But Stevie, when he says "bible", he only means the NT.  A bit disingenuous, but par for the christian apologist course.

The OT may be appalling, but it's not like NT is all butterflies and bunnies.

Really,

In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, ... deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

I wonder how people historically understood these 2 verses...

Let's put it this way: John is in a quarrel with George. John decides to destroy George's flesh.

What's the first thought that comes in your mind?

Oh, I know. It's actually obvious. Clearly everybody was thinking about this: John decided to show George the overflowing love of Jesus Christ!

[Nay_Sayer]

Right she's the "wrong type of christian" or "She is reading the bible wrong". Odd that, you'd think with a perfect being his word would be pretty clear.

The Tome of FSM is written in only pirate speak and therefore without any confusion.