Regarding the nerd vs. jock thing at the bottom of the last post...
"The strong (Nazis) sinned. We, in our heart of hearts, know we are no better. If we are strong, we too will sin. The only way to prevent ourselves from sinning is to become weak, to become physically unable to sin. Thus, we will lionize the weak. (Meek?) We will lionize the victim."
Nobody can escape philosophy. Your actions flow from your beliefs, it is the nature of beliefs to do so. (Aliefs, strictly.)
We have already seen that this error brings tremendous calamity. If it is truly a heresy of Christianity, and not the original article, then it is only a slight heresy. I strongly doubt any true faith would be found in such close proximity to such a terrible error.
First of all, a just judge calibrates the guilt to the ability of the sinner. It doesn't matter how much you can sin in total, it matters mainly how much the potential was realized. The cripple sinning from the bottom of their heart must be worse than a saint who slips and causes great damage.
But mainly, it doesn't work. Only the virtuous are going to uphold the putative weakness virtue. The wicked will only celebrate. This philosophy brings calamity because it gives the wicked unopposed reign.
"But ideologues! Certainty!" The theocrat will never doubt himself. That option is not on the table. Which is better: only the theocrat is confident, or both the theocrat and his opponent is certain? It is not meet that only good men doubt themselves.
Given that it is so easy to show that this error empowers evil, one must suspect it is easy to discover it. It is hard to doubt it was spread on purpose.
And Christianity did not oppose it.