A Serious Question For Theists

[John V]

Fair enough I suppose,

This is more of your bullshit - say "fair enough," then make aq defense. Was it a fair charge or not?

though I do have the entirety of GC's posting history pointing to how he'll behave,

And I have my experience with you.

whereas I called GC out on his bare assertion on the motivation of other people. And I'd also like to point out that GC's response to me was... disparaging, aggressive bullshit!

It was disparaging and aggressive, but it wasn't bullshit.

Not at all; what I did was note that "Christian" is a highly subjective label, as the thousands of denominations of that religion attests. What GC was proposing was that proof be provided sufficient to satisfy his conception of what a christian is- which isn't necessarily the same thing as what the person providing the proof thinks- and he wants to do that without providing what conditions are present in his version of christianity.

No, GC did not propose that. You read that into a very brief post of his. If he had had a taker they might have had little difference in opinion regarding the actions of a Christian. We don't know. You engaged in elephant hurling - you asked for a laundry list of specific unambiguous details regarding a subject which you now admit is highly subjective.

This is, obviously, very vulnerable to the No True Scotsman fallacy,

And if he had committed that fallacy (although I think the fallacy itself is fallacious) it would have been appropriate to call him on it. He doesn't need to provide an exhaustive laundry list of details because you're afraid of what he might do.

and when asked to provide some criteria that one might measure this with, he refused.

And why not? Again, someone who claims to have been a CHristian is presumed to have a good idea of what a Christian is. If there are differences they can be discussed and supported Biblically. If GC were then to move goalposts, you could have called him on it.

More importantly, the question is ill formed! "Tell me what you did when you claim you were a christian so that we can see if you really were one," isn't an applicable test, because christianity isn't an attribute, it's a set of beliefs and actions, a title.

He was properly responding to CD's statement, "it always comes down to "you were doing it wrong". How the holy fuck would you know?"

CD made it about actions ("doing it"). CD properly noted that we wouldn't know if he were doing it wrong or not, so GC asked him what he was doing.

If a soccer player scores the lowest percentage of goals in his whole team, that doesn't make him not a soccer player, it just makes him a bad soccer player. Likewise, a christian, even if they fail all of GC's criteria, just makes them bad at being a christian, it doesn't somehow take that status away from them.

And maybe they would have come to that conclusion. you keep reading minds despite disparaging others for supposedly doing so.