You are making an absurd and pointless argument. I care about Christians hurting me, and I guarantee you that is an absolutely real thing. What do you want me to call them? Hinkleypuffs? Skitaggrtoos? Mowbldypops? Let's turn the question the other way around. What about certain Christians who have been persecuted? Do we have to examine each and every Christian Nero fed to the lions and determine if they meet your definition of Christian before we call them Christians? Christians of that era held radically different beliefs from most Christians today and probably radically different beliefs from your own. So how do we talk about that? Again, if we don't call them Christians, what do we call them? How can we even communicate? How can language function?

Bottom line: how you personally choose to define a Christian is not important to anyone but you.

In point of fact, the United States is filled with people who call themselves Christians and who do things in the name of Christianity. They don't care if you think they're Christians, and I don't care if you think they're Christians.

The point is that they have a name for themselves and they do things in that name, often very terrible things, we get to talk about that and act on that without respect to whatever peculiar, private word definitions you use.

Baptist are Christians. That is an indisputable linguistic reality. If you can't admit that, then there's almost literally no point communicating with you, because in refusing to use language the way almost everyone else in the world uses it, you make communication difficult or impossible, by speaking a private language that only has meaning for you.