New Levels of Low

[Esquilax]

Apparently we are supposed to debate "Christianity" but we can't inspect the behaviour of allegedly Christian people to see if that behaviour can in fact be reconciled WITH Christianity.

Not if your purpose in doing so is to define the topic in discussion as the same as the thing that would make you win.

Besides, the topic in discussion doesn't have anything to do with whether or not X group is obeying the gospels right or not, but whether the existence of your religion is a net positive or negative. To excuse bad actions done in the name of your religion because "they're doing it wrong," doesn't make any sense, if the actions wouldn't have been committed without the motivating factor for it, namely, the religion itself.

Especially given how many other good christians out there would disagree with you on whether they're doing it wrong at all. What you seem to want to debate is the notion that your particular fantasyland variant of christianity, this cartoon where only people who do good are christians and everyone else is an atheist faker or something, is a net good. Well, that's probably true, but the thing is, what you believe doesn't exclusively comport to reality, in that it requires you to shut down people you don't even know because they don't fit into your boxes. But we don't live in Lionworld, we live in the real one, which isn't required to conform to your views of it; you don't get to label everyone inconvenient to your case as not a proper christian.

Can you not see how utterly unfair it is, to phrase the debate as you have, and then to go about defining christianity as "only those with good fruits?" You are adding your own case to the definition of the thing being debated. You might as well just say that the motion is "is christianity good or bad?" and then say that christianity is, for the purposes of this debate, "good things."

I mean, seriously? I liked your Nicene definition, because that was a smart move that allowed both sides to build up their case based on a solid structure, but you can't then go classifying actions that do have biblical bases, based around nothing but your own selective reading of the text. Frankly, the idea that the text is apparently so fraught with generalities that it can be misinterpreted so harmfully, so often and in so many ways, should be a part of Luckie's case!

But it can't be, if you're pre-emptively slamming shut avenues of discussion except the ones which lead to the point you're trying to make!