I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at this list of fallacies. And incidentally, you're talking to a historian, pal. Don't even try to condescend to me about "a proper study" of Christianity when the best you can do is say "what about the good stuff?"

First of all, you absolutely are using the No True Scotman fallacy! Its very definition is "an appeal to purity," which you've proven here with your counter-arguments. Even worse, you claimed you're not making that fallacy because "it's a fact"? Yet another logical fallacy, the "appeal to self-evident truth." You've got faulty logic defending faulty logic! How very fundamentalist of you.

Also, the conclusion is based on a wholistic appraisal of history, not your entirely glib list of charitable acts. You neglect to mention how schools, hospitals, and infrastructure projects overseen by the Church were part of the Mission, which went hand-in-hand with European conquest and genocide into the non-western world (aka. the "sword and the cross.")

These schools were designed to administer impoverished, enslaved, and displaced people - the victims of colonial policy - for the sake of converting the "savages" to Christianity. To characterize this incredibly racist and forced-paternalism as a good thing is deplorable. It's tantamount to saying "the Church cares for its victims."

Still, thank you for pointing out that the Church is still strong in the impoverished and underdeveloped parts of the world. What better proof is there that Christianity can't succeed without ignorance, poverty, and a lack of better options. And how hypocritical is it of the Church to hold up its non-western followers (those who inherited the legacy of their abuse and forced conversions) as a shield to their credibility?

And yes, the foundations are faulty, because there is NO EVIDENCE that any of the foundational claims of history are real. Yes, there are snippets of real history being described (in passing), but these take a backseat.

For example, there is no evidence of Exodus, no evidence of Noah's Ark, no evidence of the Virgin Birth, no evidence of Jesus was born in Bethelehem, no evidence of his miracles or ressurrection, no evidence of the Slaughter of the Innocents, the Three Wise Men, the list goes on.

Not a single historian worth their salt has or would claim otherwise. These are myths, and in the case of Jesus, ones that were invented after the fact by people looking to foster the idea that he was the Messiah. Jesus was a Nazarene, Herod was dead by the time he was born, and the idea that belief in him ensured salvation was nothing more than a political tool adopted as the Nicean Creed.

Christianity teaches that by embracing Jesus, you won't go to hell. Historically, Christianity has been a state tool for enforcing obedience, wiping out entire cultures, and inflicting every form of abuse imaginable in the name of "salvation."

Your attempts to say "that's not the truth faith," or "what about the good stuff?" That's no different than what apologists for Residential Schools are doing in response to the revelations of widespread

physical and sexual abuse, mass graves, and institutionalized racism they inflicted on First Nations.

But to quote a former principle at a Residential School: "It was not a good system with a few bad apples, it was a bad system with a few good apples."

That summarizes Christianity, friend. It's a bad system with a faulty foundation and a history steeped in blood and inhumanity. It's also decreasing in relevance and is holding on only where people are desperate and poor, mainly as a result of the church's past crimes.

You can't defend the indefensible with such feeble deflections and denials.