And you are a .... Christian?
Most of your comments are so generalized and spoken from such and encapsulated perspective (i.e., bias) that you ridicule your own argument. Philosophy and the study of history is supposed to be a bit more scientific (i.e., objective and pre-prejudice) than what you’ve offered.
To paint several millennia of history and faith and billions of people with the broad-brush condemnation of basing their beliefs on half-truths, is the commentary of a simpleton, not an educated, objective, reason-based thinker.
Your attempt to insult “all Christians” by assuming that my comment was part of Christian theology is further proof of the correctness of my insult to you, which was a riposte to your general insults.
I said, “have a nice life” to indicate that I really don’t care to have a dialog with you. To reason with bigotry is pointless until the bigot overcomes himself. Again, this is not written as a Christian to a... (what, non-Christian? Anti-Christian? Agnostic? Atheist? it doesn’t matter, really, for all bigotry has either insecurity, fear, or hatred at its core, all of which are blinding intellectually), but as a student of formal logic and philosophy whose original comment was on the nefarious nature of conspiracy theorists who try to deceive people using half-truths, as opposed to outright falsehoods, which are far easier to classify. To equate that with inaccuracies that may be found in some religions and then to disparage all religion and those who believe, is the worst type of equivocation, not to mention, fallacious. As I said, the motive is the key, and whether an error is intentional or accidental.