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

[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.