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

[SteveII]

---

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.  

1. Where specifically in the OT does it indicate that Christians should kill people they don't agree with? If your claim is true, it should be trivially easy to back up.

2. I agree that it is frustrating when anyone can't keep definitions straight.

3. No, one does not follow from the other. To make your statement true, it would have to be the case that only unchristian acts resulted in the continued existence of Christianity.

Since I was talking about the definition and expected actions of a Christian, no the NT is not ambiguous to anyone who cares to actually read what it has to say on the subject.