Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You CAN say the Catholic Church was, and is, false Christianity.
See it is precisely this sort of internecine struggle that makes it impossible for someone from your viewpoint to make an objective view. Aside from anything else, there are likely far more Catholics than whatever you purport to be 'true' Christianity based on an interpretation of the Bible that you think is superior but for which there is no actual objective justification of 'better' for. I am unsure on what basis you can shut them out so absolutely. Like I say, the ideology is in the minds of the people. They may base it on the Bible (in different ways), but what it ends up practically being depends on a complex set of cultural beliefs that go far beyond what one book says. Your ruling out of Catholicism as being Christian is basically saying that Christianity did not exist in centuries past (I assume Orthodox is no good for you either?). That's a statement which has lost all connection with reality- it is literally useless. There was a giant organisation called Christianity at the time which had a massive effect on world affairs. They are part of the dominant historical definition of Christianity. You saying 'they weren't Christians', when the entirety of Christian identity was in fact set by what they were, is tremendously irrelevant. The best you can say is "We wouldn't consider them good Christians today,"- very different.
Like I said earlier, Dawkins was primarily referring to Anglicanism- is that one good enough for you, or are they all fake as well?
In the end, if you want to distance your version of Christianity from a different version that commits evil acts- that's fine; people can objectively recognise that different Christian sects have different views. But when you claim that your version is the true and right version and cannot be contested, you cannot actually raise any evidence to support that and hence you will be disbelieved. Scripture is no good as that's a matter of interpretation. I'd have a lot more respect if you claimed your version of Christianity was the 'best' rather than 'true' version, as at least that is logically conceivable, hard as it would be to prove.
By extension, when you claim that Islamic sects that promote violence and oppression are likewise the 'True' form of Islam and not just one interpretation that has become dominant in this time, it seems spurious- more like you are just demonising that which you have no wish to understand.