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

[Zenith]

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.

That would be in such opposition to the teachings of Christianity so, that would really not be Christian:

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.

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".

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.

---

The wars were strongly influenced by the religious change of the period and the conflict and rivalry that it produced. Nevertheless, the combatants cannot be neatly categorised by religion, nor were they divided by religion alone.

Ever since the great schism, afaik the religion wars were basically political struggles. Nowadays you have "democracy" that glues nations together in alliances, and you have to choose either NATO or Russia. Back then in Europe you sided either with the Catholics or the Orthodox, and if you were unlucky, you were either a pagan or a protestant.

But hey, when was religion not involved in politics?

[Whateverist]

'deeply held religious beliefs'

hmmm, as always, I wonder could he pass a polygraph exam that explores just how sincerely held these beliefs are ?

Sounds akin to a deeply held conviction that 'all deviants must die'.

[Zenith]

'deeply held religious beliefs'

hmmm, as always, I wonder could he pass a polygraph exam that explores just how sincerely held these beliefs are ?

Sounds akin to a deeply held conviction that 'all deviants must die'.

To me "deeply held religious beliefs" sounds like "You can try whatever reasoning you want with me. It won't work. I'm immune."

[Whateverist]

Their motto is "Think again? I don't think so."

[SteveII]

That would be in such opposition to the teachings of Christianity so, that would really not be Christian:

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? 

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. 

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. 

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.

[Foxaèr]

At least he only wrote a letter.

[SteveII]

Ever since the great schism, afaik the religion wars were basically political struggles. Nowadays you have "democracy" that glues nations together in alliances, and you have to choose either NATO or Russia. Back then in Europe you sided either with the Catholics or the Orthodox, and if you were unlucky, you were either a pagan or a protestant.

But hey, when was religion not involved in politics?

Since a person's worldview is significantly informed by their religion (or lack of) and a person's worldview will inform their decisions, and decisions constitute politics, you will never be able to separate the two.

[Minimalist]

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.

You'd better learn some history, sonny.

[Zenith]

Their motto is "Think again?  I don't think so."

I don't think "religion" or "the bible" is the cause. I believe that even the most strict "bible-only" believer (or koran-only believer, for that matter) does not hold the book as the base for his belief system. What matters more is personal experience and socially accepted truth.

Personal experience: If a man lived through an experience that proved to him X, then, if he reads from his holy book that X is wrong, he would dismiss the verse. He would say to himself that the meaning of the verse is complicated, that it is beyond his understanding, etc. Basically, smth like: If the bible is true, the bible says that grass is purple, you look at grass and you see it green, then it means that you do not understand the true meaning of the verse in the bible. And you say that the grass is green, not purple.

Social truth: If the society / religious community the man lives in holds that "gay people deserve to die", then it matters little what says or what does not say in the holy book. People will find a way around it. If the religious community holds that "gay people should have the same civil rights as we do", then the holy book can even say "kill all gay people!" because people will find a logic around it. That's how you can get for example two religious communities, one that insists that faith healing is true and that God talks to them in their dreams, while other religious community states that that's bullshit. Either of the two communities will likely say about the other that "they're not true christians" because the others don't believe in the same "core" beliefs (core belief = beliefs defined by the community to be of critical importance)

I believe religions and belief in holy books are a cultural phenomenon. And the main reason people believe in a religion / god is because other people believe in that religion / god (social truth). And they believe that X is true less because it says so in the bible but because their community confirms (even imposes) that belief. Perhaps religious people have a good reason to insist that members should not keep away from the flock but always stick together, and some parents insist that their children must have friends only with children of believers: Otherwise they may fall from faith. Satan is hunting the believers who stray from the flock, doesn't he? Believers are more vulnerable away and alone than within a firm religious community.

But yes, the bible does have an effect upon the believers: It encourages them to believe that they have already found the truth, so there is no need (it's even dangerous) to investigate further - you only need to hold tight to whatever you already believe.

[The Valkyrie]

Leave the Christians alone!
They're just trying to save your souls!

My shoes are perfectly fine.