My elliptical construction is simple: it means that I'd be discussing to bring the historical truth about all the things that the Church is accused without fault. Maybe not you, but the majority would call me the guy "defending the Church, so he might be a fool or evil".
Well, in fairness, you might be a fool or evil. Or I might be. We neither of us knows each other all that well, right? Don't worry about what the "majority" thinks. The majority are too busy keeping up with the Kardashians to care much about early Church history, anyways.
But if it helps, I still regard Christianity as "the majority," even if that's not the case in a smaller cultural subset, like on VGChartz. You'll know that Christianity is no longer "the majority" in any meaningful sense when it is no longer a virtual requirement to be Christian to be elected President. (And when an avowed atheist is elected in some far-off future, well then, all bets will truly be off.)
Anyway, as I say, if you come from the perspective of not defending the Church but defending the truth, then nothing else really matters. If you're right with respect to the truth, then you have God on your side (perhaps literally, in this case). If you're wrong, then you stand to gain by learning. That's what is important -- not what internet randos (myself emphatically included) you'll never meet in real life think about you or your avatar.
Having said that, that'd bring me the task to be positive about the Church and nobody survives on a debate on the internet when one brings positive historical things about the Church.
Is it really impossible to say positive historical things about the Church on the internet and "survive"? I think you could manage it. In fact, let me start: Christianity helped to elevate the social status of many people who were considered lower status in Roman society, including slaves. Though I would argue that Christianity had a hand in bringing about the Dark Ages, it cannot be denied that the Church helped "keep the flame alive" until the Renaissance through its monasteries; and the Church played a vital early role in the development of the university. Christianity has inspired countless works of art, and heroic deeds, and charitable acts, and individual Christians (and sometimes institutions) have often contributed to science and any number of other disciplines.
The Church is neither all good nor all bad. As I've said before, that shouldn't pose much of a problem to an atheist such as myself (except that in 2019 we live in a culture of extremes: and you're either with us or against us, Team X or Team Y). I think it poses a much larger problem to the Christian theist. But that is perhaps a separate discussion.
I've been there before. On the internet, forums, social media, whatever, in my position, I'd be called fanatic, churchgoer nutter, I'd be ganged up by the majority that is not only atheist but anti-Church and anti-Religion, laughed at, I'd have to reply to so many quotes from everyone, and all alone. Bringing anything positive about the Church makes me a God believer idiot from the start. There's no fair ground for a debate like this on the internet.
You're describing "martyrdom," but I thought that was supposed to be a good thing? ;)
Yes, I've been in the position you describe, many times in my life. Sometimes amongst Christians. But I'm willing to extend you the benefit of the doubt that you're not an idiot and give you as fair a ground as I can manage. As for the others, there's no requirement I'm aware of that you respond to everything and everyone. You sometimes have to choose your battles.
That's why I'll not debate it, even with the risk of being accused know-nothing guy that can't defend his position with sources.
That's your prerogative, though I'm sorry to hear it (and I thought you'd explicitly invited just such a discussion). I won't accuse you of being a "know-nothing guy that can't defend his position with sources" -- I'm sure you know a great many things -- though I do believe that you cannot defend your particular position about Christianity ending Roman slavery with any reputable source, because I don't believe that it's true (even if I'm yet willing to entertain argument to the contrary).
Part of me fears that your unwillingness to discuss (or "debate") the issue might come from a recognition on your part that I'm correct about that point, and you don't want to have to admit it. But maybe that's not true, and I hope that it is not true.
Anyways, if you're asking that I drop the subject, I will. Maybe we'll have better occasion to revisit it another time.