You conclude that Arians weren't Christians because they didn't believe in the Catholic version of Christ . . .
This is probably the most flagrant straw man i've seen you attempt to prop up. In fact, it was precisely my point that the Arians were
Christians who didn't believe in the divinity of the boy Jesus. Once again, in this case, in rejecting the Catholic Encyclopedia, you are relying upon ipse dixit
. I see no reason to accept your version of in what consisted Arianism over anyone else's. I cannot rattle off the sources off the top of my head, because i did most of my reading in early Christianity 40 years ago now, but there are far more sources for that description of Arianism than just the Catholic Encyclopedia. I'll offer that as my modest ipse dixit
to your huge, inflated examples relating to your unsubstantiated claim that a Christian must, perforce, believe in the divinity of the putative Christ, and that Catholics are an unreliable source for the nature of Arianism.
Here, you made an error in one of your sentences . . . an oversight, i'm sure . . . so i've corrected it for you:
Someone who merely follows the precepts of Jesus, without accepting his divinity, is probably on the fringes of what I would consider to be the definition of "Christian."
You're playing fast and loose once again. This:
If "Christian" is to be a meaningful category, it must mean more than just thinking that Christ was a smart cookie.
. . . is not a description of what i offered as a reasonable definition of a Christian. I could no care less what your view of definitions and dictionaries is, nor your theological position. Attempting to refute what i've written by simply trivializing my position ought to be beneath your dignity . . . guess i was wrong about that, at least.