Rando Simps for Christianity; In Attempt To Delegitimatize And Distract From Valid Pushback

[Link to discussion] 

[James said]
"Christianity is built and spread on the premise that we do all have to care (about what they say).".

[Michael replied]
"I have met a lot of people claiming to be Christian, "

[To that, James now offers]

"claiming to be"
is the *same thing as*:
"is";
- Unless you want to invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy.

More importantly,
the context in which I made that statement
was to:

 clue you in
to the conversation you jumped into.

Ron merely asked why anyone "should" care.

You responded by saying nobody "has to".

But you were missing the point. And I've come to realize you missed the point on purpose. 

The OP (which pushed Christianity) rests on the premise that we should care.

I also pointed out the larger religion goes even further;
to say we must care.

That same religion then adds an "or else" (threat) to that claim.

In fact, there's an "or else" printed in the OP.

Join their religion
OR ELSE you won't become such a better person (as described).

Now, you could argue that it reads as "a way" and not "the only way". 
But if you argued that, it would either mean:

a.)  You have no idea what Christianity teaches. 
or 
b.)  You DO know they all teach we need Jesus for that.

They teach:
nothing and nobody else can do the same thing to the same degree. 

Although, a more dire "or else" is baked into all literal versions of Christianity.

"Or else" be thrown away like trash forever.
"Or else" (also) be dumped into a literal hell.

The only version of Christianity which doesn't go that far is:
the Universal Salvation version.
 
But that is a rare version.

And even that version still says we all "must" eventually convert to Christianity.

They just think their God will find a way to eventually make sure everyone becomes a:
*good enough person*
that we'll end up Christian.

[Michael said]
"and no,"


[James replies]
There's more of that attitude. 

[Michael]
"SOME Christians behave that way but not all "

[James replies]
I didn't make any statement about all Christians.

I merely pointed out:
how that religious movement/ideology/PSYOP/grift was built and (has since) spread.

Meanwhile, if you know some Christians who are against behaving in those ways, then:

They are against how their own religion was built and spread.

And that's fine.
But it's like someone being a non-racist KKK member.

I believe you.
In fact, I've seen that myself.
But the mere existence of people who bathe so deeply in such a contradiction ... isn't really an argument.

[Michael said]
"and I'm not sure it would even be a majority. "
---
It's 100% of the people who post crap like the OP.

It's also the vast majority of churches.
Seriously. Pick one at random.
Walk into a Sunday meeting.
See for yourself.

For the most part, the Christians who aren't like that ... don't go to church.

Of the few who do, they either disagree with that church (about how to behave) or they go to a very liberal and non-evangelizing church.
And they certainty wouldn't post crap like what we see in the OP.

However,
the assertions you're making
are arguing against positions I never took. 
 It's like how you argued against positions Ron never took.

[Michael said]
"Trying to force your perspective as the only perspective is again weak."

[James replies]
You're still gaslighting.