Well, PZ's got a post up that ended up getting a comment from some guy named harv who managed to make a point I somehow never thought of. I suppose given that Christianity is so messed up, I can't be expected to tally up every way in which it's fractally wrong. It's kind of a big argument against the purpose of evangelism.
For those who didn't click over to read, here's the gist of it: If people who've never heard of Christianity are given a free pass (not applicable to all fundies, obviously, since there are plenty just happy to condemn those people to purposeless eternal torture), wouldn't that be a good reason to not evangelize? If that's the case, wouldn't God set up the whole crazy blood sacrifice thing to occur in obscurity?
If you're going to argue that Christianity contributes positively by making more people pass the alleged moral bar who wouldn't normally do so, well, you've got a lot of work ahead of you, since I don't see it. Every alleged good thing about Christianity is easily done without supernatural hullabaloo. Quite frankly, I tend to see the modern not-psychotic Christians as a result of "corruption" by secular values. Without the secularism of the enlightenment, I would think Christendumb would remain nasty with inquisitions and war on a routine basis. I've been reading something of an abridged Bible, and there is a LOT of bloodshed that strikes me as completely pointless. And yet, it's written as if I should be cheering on the winner.
Anyway, I'm kind of drifting off the point there: If ignorance of Christianity lets people get into heaven on morality alone, I think that'd make for a good reason to refrain from evangelism. I suppose that'd be a good way to rub it in the stone idol's face by getting people in despite putting in the arbitrary, amoral second hoop.