New Levels of Low

[Esquilax]

Lion, here's the problem: introducing an argument about what constitutes a "true christian" is problematic on three fronts. The most obvious is that framing a debate around "christianity: harmful or beneficial?" and then hanging your case on individual christians misses the point entirely, which is whether or not the existence of the religion that motivates these people is good or bad, and shifts the entire debate into one about whether or not individual humans are following it correctly.

The second problem is that in doing so, proceeding to frame what a "true christian" is as "only those christians who do good things," is insinuating your own victory condition into the very thing you're debating; if you didn't realize that, I'm sure you now see how deeply unfair that is.

And in a broader sense, when we begin discussing individual christians, we've now set up a case where we need to settle the initial intent of the religion and its tenets, which- aside from simply being a different discussion than the one being posed- also means that now we're just debating the existence of god again. That's not a question we're going to find an answer to, and more importantly, it's not one that you're going to have a chance of winning on the strength of the votes alone. Your initial question is not only more interesting, but it also actually gives you a host of verifiable, data-based talking points to discuss, which was also in the initial conditions. Why not talk about things we can all see actually happened, rather than philosophical notions that the majority of us here believe are fictional?