Indeed. In fact, you seem to mistake it for argument.
You did go and mix your apples and oranges linguistically speaking,
You made an oblique reference that you could disown referred to me, I did the same--I refered to "some people" not to you, I can't imagine why you would think so. Whether that's an analogy or not is irrelevant.
but I have to put some limits on your course of study unless you pony up some tuition. You strike me as the sort of fellow who responds to, "Have a nice day." with "Don't you dare tell me what to do!" So, have a nice day.
And you strike me as the kind of fellow who tries to win fights by primping and displaying, instead of fighting. You make a big deal out of your 400 history books and try to ride that pony with a bunch of vague, unsourced nonsense that contradicts commonly known history in defense of a church that acknowledges its own guilt, followed by reams of patronizing, irrelevant drool.
Indeed, you brought it up. Something about needing to read a book, being ignorant, etc. But then I don't have your high school history book, so you have me at a disadvantage.
I never "disowned" that my analogy referred to you, oblique or otherwise (I thought it was rather direct). It referred to you in the sense that it analogized the fruitlessness of having a discussion with you. The problem is that you took it to be a direct comparison of physical attribute, something that I most certainly did not intend.
For the record, I do not believe that you are now, or ever have been, a pig.
Which brings us to a sense of humor. A sense of humor and perspective is quite handy in rhetorical argument. It often prevents things from coming to blows. It also aids a person in keeping an open mind, vice simply waiting for the other person to stop talking, so that the next attack can be commenced.
I believe that good, but misguided men, and bad yet deceptive men, have acted in the name of the Church to visit much harm on people. However, taken in whole, the Church has had a civilizing effect on the world. I do not find the failure of the church to make men Godly, as the failure of the institution that you do. To me, you are doing the equivalent of blaming the Founding Fathers because FDR put Japanese-Americans in concentration camps. I see the Church as the Constitution in this sense. An ideal, which is sometimes failed by men. I don't think the answer to FDR's questionable action is to disavow the Constitution, which is what I perceive your approach to the Church is.
I would caution you that "historical facts" are nefarious for their frailty. High school history is packed with accepted facts, which didn't really occur, but have been retold through so many generations that they have simply taken on a life of their own. Winston Churchill referred to this humorously in his, "History of the English Speaking Peoples v.I." In reference to King Arthur's existence he summed with, "Its true, its all true, or it aught to be! And more and better besides." His point (in context) was that the acceptance of King Arthur as real during the Middle Ages tremendously affected that period's history, regardless of its eventual truth.
As there is no doubt of brutalities committed by Catholics, Protestants, etc. There is equally no doubt of the gross exaggerations which followed. Fledgling history students regularly fall into the trap of taking contemporary records as "the facts". The falsity of this is exhibited in "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" and the "Carolingian Chronicles". By the Frankish count, they killed ten times as many Saxons as there were in existence.
The depth, or lack of, Christianity is also missed. Conversion was not overnight. Yet school books will refer to Christian Europe during periods when Christians were definitely the minority, and segments of Christian kingdoms were still pagan. Yet all actions are portrayed as those of Christians.
This thread is on ID versus Darwin's theory of evolution. I'm not too versed on ID, but I do think Darwin's theory has been debunked as a complete answer, and likewise validated as occurring. The fossil record shows spurts of tremendous creation unsupported by slow evolution or observable patterns of mutation. I haven't heard a good explanation for this, and I'm unsure of what "threat" exists from ID. It was my point that scientists are too quick to reject ideas. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems that you wouldn't have to believe in God or ID to listen to a theory that some process has rapidly created new life at various times outside the explanation provided by Darwin or mutation. It doesn't seem that hard to accept dark matter based solely on observation of its effects.