Tenchusatsu,
This is a textbook example of assertion without argument.
You don’t get to define Christianity by fiat, nor do you get to excommunicate people by declaring yourself the arbiter of moral purity. Christianity is not a vibes-based belief system; it is a historical religion with a real canon, a real institutional history, and real consequences, good and bad, played out over two millennia.
No serious historian, theologian, or Christian denomination denies that atrocities were committed in the name of Christianity. Acknowledging that fact is not an endorsement of those acts; it is intellectual honesty. Pretending those horrors were “not really Christian” is a modern rhetorical dodge designed to launder history, not to understand it.
As for your purity tests:
- Christianity has never had a single, uncontested definition of “evil.” Moral philosophy within Christianity spans Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and beyond, often in direct disagreement.
- The Old Testament has been interpreted, disputed, allegorized, and contested since the earliest Church councils. That debate predates you by about 1,700 years.
- The claim that “the Jews killed Jesus” is a theological and historical mischaracterization rejected by most modern churches, but again, its existence in Christian history is a fact, not a personal invention of mine.
History does not disappear because it makes you uncomfortable. Institutions are judged by their actions over time, not by retroactive disclaimers written centuries later.
Calling someone a “liar” is not an argument. Telling others to “put you on Ignore” is not refutation. It’s a concession that you don’t want scrutiny, only assent.
If you want a discussion about Christianity, history, or theology, make an argument.
If you want a catechism where inconvenient facts are waved away, say that instead. |
