"Good" & "Bad" Christians?

[Anomalocaris]

Your apoplectic reaction to the suggestion that Christianity's own camouflage be ignored when reviewing Christianity

I have never been apoplectic on this forum. 

I do not think we should ignore Christianity's "own camouflage." Though I do think  that what constitutes "camouflage" and what constitutes "Real Christianity" may not be as clear as some people make out. For example, what's real to one denomination may not be in another. 

If you, like Mr. Ego, can tell me the timeless and essential definition of Real Christianity, as opposed to the camouflage parts that lots of people nonetheless believe, I'd be happy to read it. 

 introduced a sort of grittiness that completely negates what you conceived to be your studied lubricity.

Here again, I am curious about your English. Are you a native speaker? Are you using some kind of translation software? 

I don't conceive of anything being my "studied lubricity." (Though it's true I'm a deft hand with the Astroglide.) You'll have to speak more clearly if you intend this to come across to others.

Whether your reaction was apoplectic is not for you to judge.

The timeless essence of Christianity is the determination to diminish and rule men by convincing him that his deserts are small, he is indebted by being born, his judgement are untrustworthy, and his fate dependent upon the currying of favor as a child without concept of dignity would from a vainglorious god to whose caprices he ultimately has no recourse.   In other words, misanthropy.

As to English, yes, I am a native speaker.  But either your dexterity with the language is also far less than what you conceived it to be, or your general power of comprehension is far less than what you might have imagined it to be.