> yet instead you have people fighting over the stupidest things in the bible just to be “right”, creating tons of denominations that make no sense at all.

Isn't that what we want? People laying our their reasoning and their ideology on paper, and leaving a parent group whose actions they can't condone? This is the calling them out. Compare and contrast to ideologies and areas where people who published these opinions would be killed for their heresy.

No doubt many/most of the sects are stupider than what they broke away from, but sometimes, critically, they are vastly superior. I'm not religious but for example I can recognize the value of Martin Luther's reformation.

I see where you are coming from. I think the distinction is either whether to look at it from an ideological or core tennet perspective or a more political/ organizational perspective.

So arguing from the second perspective the problem with the breakaway reformations we have seen is that they often tend to deal with the “true scotsman” fallacy, where they double down on rules and regulations in the bible just to be worthy and a “true” Christian, sometimes coupled with a “holier than thou” attitude. (Obviously generalizing centuries of history here)

Instead of the movement to a more universal “love thy neighbor” seems a more fitting approach, if it’s truly universal as Christianity claims.

> the problem with the breakaway reformations we have seen is that they often tend to deal with the “true scotsman” fallacy, where they double down on rules and regulations in the bible just to be worthy and a “true” Christian ... Instead of the movement to a more universal “love thy neighbor” seems a more fitting approach

It feels that's exactly what you did though. Pick a favored feature and declare that people not doing it predominantly that way are wrong.

> if it’s truly universal as Christianity claims.

Even if they believe that you should love the sinner I don't see where their traditions say they should lay down and let themselves be victimized because they can't regulate people they "love".

> “true” Christian, sometimes coupled with a “holier than thou” attitude. (Obviously generalizing centuries of history here)

Those centuries of history led to here, where in a country founded largely by Christians on Christian principles, you're allowed to say you don't think any of them are doing right. And you and I - total heathens, receive no threats, no hate.

I like to focus on your first remark, in order not to digress too much, I was raised in a Christian environment and even got some affirmations in them, and I had a few teachers who studied theology. Only later I left that environment as I became an adult.

“Love thy neighbor” is not just a favored feature, it’s the pivotal commandment that Jesus himself stressed after being asked “ One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

As how we should execute that command is a different discussion I feel, and what kind of societal impact it would have. So my core argument is that this commandment hasn’t always received the proper adherence (imo)