Your question would be more relevant on another thread but anyway:
A philosophical question for you then - IF faith in Jesus is the only way to restored relationship with the Father, does it show more love to take a firm (but polite) stance on that truth or to compromise and dilute it in favour of “getting along” with people?
In the ethical sense of the consideration of one's values versus the well-being of a varied community? in a very lot of kinds of situations it's more than inappropriate and often dangerous.
The tone and message of your question however is rather doctrinal, seeing how you do not have things set in place in your faith to determine what is crossing the line. Your faith is not one that takes into consideration related faiths, rather rejecting them not on the basis of their commonalities but rather than their differences. This is a major difference between Christianity and Islam, (as per relevance). We accept you as fellow believers (Ahl al-Kitab) and do not have any necessity to convert you at all (
even in spite that many of us and people in general see you as strident idol worshipers), we understand the limits of proselytizing which we can determine from the religion itself. As I said, your faith does not have this kind of built in protection, which is one of many massive theological flaws because it makes your (interpretation of,
through whatever denomination you follow or are inspired by) God very small and makes you too readily hostile and lacking in understanding of things that are not yourself. And alongside this, unlike you, intellectual discussion about such theological areas is highly stressed over the kind of emotional tantrums that Christianity is well known and easily demonstrative of. The sad part is that Jesus himself was not anything like most of you Christians.
Aside from all of that, your post itself is taking various assumptions (all of which depend on the idea that you actually are correct about the things you claim to believe) which are fine and dandy by themselves until it gets to the very point of which I alluded to in my first sentence, which is in regards to 'getting along'. If you're not able to 'get along' in spite of even diametrically opposed belief systems (which is not actually the case here, moreso one exclusivist faith against a faith that is far more wise towards these issues), there should always be some part of somebody that is still willing to make things right and learn from mistakes, and even sometimes gain admiration, even if one doesn't choose a new path as a result.
And I pointed out why said perception of hypocrisy was incorrect.
Not really, I know that there is a very wide range of doctrines and interpretations of Christianity, the list is far too extensive. However the extensiveness of that list does bring into question the validity of Protestantism's sects. When it comes to 'false prophets', 'disingenuously, 'corruptions and distortions' and 'whether or not what is being taught is biblical', the issue around each of these points is almost as extensive as the aforementioned.
My post which you quoted, if you didn't notice, referred also to the intersection between religious dialogue and the errors, which Dalit unintentionally demonstrated very well, being when a reflex such as 'they are not real [group]' is only applied to the group speaking but at the same time having the group deny that excuse on the part of other groups that they hold in contempt. It's very much a lesson in the fact that the world is bigger than you. Along with this there is this very plain and open misrepresentation of other group's beliefs in this place and I do find that the above point is infact one of these methods Christians use to sow discord, yet refuse to accept the same thing can in fact be applied to them.
Also, on the very last point of your post (about what is and isn't 'biblical'), it is very much a topic up for debate. Many of you are sola scriptura but you clearly don't follow all of your Bible in the first place, nor regard all of it's messages as primary. I already understand the apologetic reasons for this and I'm not here to judge you but the gradient between what is and isn't Biblical, as well as the question of whether *you* follow what is Biblical, or are merely inspired by aspects of it, is something very ambiguous.