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

[Harry Nevis]

This is a clear sign that the only thing keeping christianity from being just as bad as islam is secular laws holding them back. There is a lot of hate between christians and muslims, despite that there is little to nothing that muslims have done to people that christians haven't also done to people in the past.

That's two ridiculous unwarranted conclusions in only two sentences. Congrats on being efficient.

Sounds more like observations.  Far from ridiculous or unwarranted.

---

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? 

how about the entire OT?

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. 

Yes, words DO have meanings!  Which is why it pisses me off every time a believer twists definitions of words to suit their tastes.

If your basic definition of a christian is true, there are precious few christians in existance.  Of course, the myriad of christians who disagree with you, and know their beliefs to be true through their relationship with god, who does one believe?

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. 

3. If someone tried to impose Christianity on everyone else, that would be decidedly unchristian--so what are they really imposing? The fact that an observer believes it to be Christian does nothing to change that fact that it is not. 

So, the existance of modern christian has unchristian acts to credit for it's existance?

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.

Not ambiguous to you.