Are they :

They have bad doctrine. I have never heard them preach the gospel, so probably not Christian. This is something that only happens within the individual's heart though, so some might be Christians.

Good Christians, bad people

Bad Christians, average Muslims.

>This tiny group of retards are the worst Christianity has to offer
>Essentially spout mild Islamic anti gay shit

no I think the worst christianity has to offer is the Ugandans who kill fags. although I've heard this was promoted by evangelical missionaries

You have to grade Africa on a curve. Shit's wild down there for everyone.

Good Christians. Clear to anyone who ever read the Bible.

Wrong, Leviticus is Mosaic Law, and Mosaic Law doesn't affect Gentiles.

But then again, can we compare the actions of Muslims in the parts of the world they operate in to ours considering the civilisational discrepancy?

They're following the New Testament, not Leviticus. Had they followed Leviticus and the jew mitzvot, they would be killing the fags which they clearly aren't doing.

there are NT passages against homosexuality too. in fact I think Paul is the only writer in the Bible to specifically condemn female homosexuality

You can when those places are London and Paris.

Yes, we are to not allow them to unrepentantly live as part of the church.

Maybe, yet some (not me personally) could still argue they bring their medieval bullshit with them and carry it through the enclaves they tend to live in.

They speak truth to power and in doing so are more Christ-like than most American Christians. They should be heroes to anyone who values free speech.

the main reason I dislike them is that they're total cunts. they literally cannot hold a conversation without constantly interrupting their opponent

Is that because Christianity is different from Islam or secular ideas that has been forced on religion in the west?

Is Paul saying that being a Homosexual is being a sin, or that engaging in homosexual acts is? Because the latter makes sense in a Christian context where wanton lust is sinful. Lesbians and Gay people in the Biblical era couldn't have kids, so there could be no fruitfulness in their union. That's different today.
Even if we accept their doctrine, "God hates fags" I still wouldn't call them good Christians for doing these obviously vitriolic protests. Christ welcomes sinners with open arms. Everyone sins.

And, you know, bombing abortion clinics and murdering doctors

Their demonstrations are not meant to be conversations and it is a secular lie that if we just reason/debate with each other everything will work out. Jesus Himself often shut down the Pharisees when they tried to bait him into a discussion (for example Luke 20:1-8).

They will be liable at the hand of heaven.

Has it been confirmed that actual members of the WBC did those things?

Sodomy was condemned and a Capital Crime in some Cities, but as I can figure, one rarely acted on. Monks were pretty gay, too.

Christianity is overall less inherently violent than Islam, because Jesus isn't a warmonger or a lawmaker. All Christian violence is essentially State Violence, so modern Christians can claim Christ as peaceful, despite Christians waging war in Christ's name.

Mohammad did a 180 on his peace talk, and became a violent Conqueror and dictated laws about how and when to horrible kill people, so Islam's claim of peacefulness is a bit unfounded.

What's the point in making a difference in being against outlived homosexuality and passive homosexuality? It's like someone says they agree with freedom of thought, you just have to shut up about it.

based animeposter

the differences between the founders matters little when talking about how it is practiced
>All Christian violence is essentially State Violence
user are you saying that the Taliban wasn't state violence and isn't still a quasi-state enforcing religious law over communinities they have control of? same applies to ISIS.

It's kind of unfair because none in the new testament ever was in any position of power. Muhammed too was peaceful until moved to mecca and became a leader there. Christianity did a big 180 after Constantine with their prohibition of Pagan religions and persecution of disagreeing brothers in faith.

And of course there's the old testament which is relatively violent.

Easily the worst, but they are not exactly mainstream or even submainstream, like ISIS.
They were a radical branch of Catholics

I couldn't find anything on any WBC members responsible, my point was more a dig on >picketing being the worst thing American Christians are responsible for

Islam is a retard religion.

...

What's the difference between thinking about cheating on your wife and actually doing it

The difference between the founders makes ALL the difference when those founders are claiming to be God's representative on Earth. The differences between Jesus and Mohammad say everything about the kind of deity each represent.

Jesus had ultimate power from the beginning but the fact that he restrained Himself and still overshadowed Mohammad is telling.

They aren't Christians. God is nobody's enemy, He may be a terror to the wicked, but that terror is not His intent, but rather something psychological.

They're murderers, though. Why do you support the murder of defenceless infants for the mere sake of profit by greedy, absolutely uncaring doctors?

murder doesnt justify murder. different user btw

You can argue whether or not Jesus would have turned into a Mohammad if he hadn't died, but he did so you can't assume he would.
Enforcing laws dictated by their Prophet, or words believed to be Mohammad's-potentially shaky Hadiths. When Christians waged war, they did so despite the message of Jesus. There wasn't a Gospel of Whoeverthefuck that said Jesus wanted you to conquer Jerusalem if infidels ever got it

it apparently made little difference on how the religion was practiced. anyways we aren't discussing jesus and muhammad, nor are we discussing how christianity should in theory be practiced according to you. we are discussing how people in both faiths actually act in real life.

"Thou shalt not kill" applies both ways.

This, Christians don't advocate killing abortionists.
You die for Christ, not kill for him

Thinking about cheating on your wife is something you can overcome though, homosexuality not so much.

>Christians don't advocate killing abortionists
are you implying that pro-life activists who kill abortion doctors aren't actually christian even though they are against abortion because they believe it's against the christian faith?

It makes a huge difference on how each religion is practiced. You're trying to make Constantine the representative of all Christians at all times when only Jesus has that position. The violence committed by both Christians and Muslims are examples of human beings being human but the difference is that violence is doctrinally supported by the Koran (because it is ultimately human in origin) but not by the New Testament.

I'm not justifying murder, I'm justifying action be taken against murderous quacks
Learn to read

>Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?

>Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Are you implying that you can kill a man while being Christian?

There are homosexuals who go their whole lives without engaging in overt homosexual behavior, e.g. laying with a man. There are also heterosexual men who engage in what some would call overt homosexual behavior, e.g. masturbating to certain types of porn, sleeping with transexuals, etc. Are you saying this heterosexual men should also be put to death?

I can't speak for the person earlier who mentioned Constantine, but I do not think he is representative of all christians, especially not in modern times. however, what he did was not unique for a christian ruler to do, and centuries of christian rulers and priests supported his actions and did the exact same thing.

are yoy implying a christian cannot sin?

Christian follow Christ's word and teaching. Being against abortion is perfectly reasonable for a Christian. I'm no longer a Christian, and while I still believe Abortion is morally repugnant, I don't want it outlawed or its practitioners killed. Neither do my Christian parents.
When you take it into your hands to slaughter a human being, sinner or not, you defy Christ.

Christ's perception of Capital Offense is painstakingly clear when he tells those about to execute the Adulteress, whose sin warrants her execution in Jewish Law, that he without sin should cast the first stone.

You can call yourself something all you want, but unless you actually are that thing, your declamation is false.

And those people deny their homosexuality so yes, it is anti homosexuality. And according to Leviticus god wouldn't mind it.

Is homosexuality engaging in behavior or is it an innate state of being?

Behavior. All men are born with sinful temptations, and that alone does not make them evil.
Christians against Homosexuality most likely see it as fallow, a waste of God's gift of self propagating life. In the modern age, Homosexuals can have children.

Gotcha, thanks.

What he did is not unique for any political leader to do regardless of their religion. My point is that a religion should be judged by the doctrine it teaches and when its followers deviate from this doctrine the religion cannot be held responsible for that. Human beings are prone to evil but it is ultimately religion that tell us what "evil" is so for Muslims beheading prisoners is not "evil" because Mohammad did it whereas it is "evil" for Christians because Jesus taught His followers to show mercy.

It's a state of being which leads to you wanting to do certain actions, like having hunger makes you eat and being thirsty makes you drink. Again, it's like saying a dictatorship accepts free thought and will just kill anyone who in any way shares their free thoughts.

No, I don't see it as that.