Comment: I understand completely.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: still don't get it (see in situ)

I understand completely.

Re: "I wasn't giving the "scope" of Christianity."

How can you offer your definition of "christian" and adamantly affirm that what ever falls into that definition is Christian(even if it is nazi-ism), and then say that you aren't defining the scope of what is considered Christian? That is complete nonsense, and is totally contradictory and self refuting. Your definition entails that a range of different philosophies would fall under that blanket definition. That is a scope. Just admit where you are wrong instead of bending over backwards to insult Christianity.

Re: "It seem we are too far apart on language."

It might help if you didn't just make up inadequate definitions and impose them beyond reason, in conflict with the traditional definitions.

Re: You have shown, more than anyone so far in my life, how far a person can take the "not real Christian" fallacy.

Another inadequate definition of yours. Rather than inventing a term like "the Mohusk fallacy", it makes more sense to use established terms when pointing out where your reasoning fails. There is nothing fallacious about observing what distinguishes categories rather than just conflating them with something like the fallacy of equivocation. I don't violate the law of identity when I distinguish things that have different attributes, but rather I honor the law of identity by pointing out the differences; differences which you seem to dismiss because you have an axe to grind. Your "not real christian" fallacy seems to boil down to the idea that if anyone doesn't submit to your personal unsupported view of what a Christian is, then they must be wrong. You haven't backed up your definition with anything, and haven't addressed the criticisms of it either.

Proverbs 26:16 "The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason."