what being apart from the law means.

[Drich]

I think this falls within the "Total Depravity" doctrine. I think that doctrine is incorrect.

Not familiar with that one.

Throughout the Word people are called upon to repent.

without a doubt repentance is an absolute must, but again can not happen if the potential believer does not see anything wrong with how he lives his life.
Even in the bible (NT) the Call to repentance is only ever issued to one looking to be right with God. (The Pharisees on mass did not receive such a call)

Take the example of John the Baptist. He called on people first to repent and then afterwards they received the Holy Spirit. The dove landed on Jesus after he was baptized, not before.

One could argue this was well before the out pouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2.

For after this out pouring of the Holy Spirit we have examples of the Holy Spirit interacting with people before and after they were baptised. In Acts 8 starting at verse 14 you have an example where as you said people had been baptized and did not receive the Holy Spirit (until peter laid on his hands.) In Acts 10 The Holy Spirit was poured out onto a Crowd (that even included Gentiles) and were not baptized till after all of this had taken place.
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.

Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

What Christ is calling for in Luke 11 is similar to what happened in this accounting of Spiritual outpouring. For the Gentiles would have never even have been considered for salvation till the Spirit inspired them to act.

Repentance is a step everyone has to make on their own of their own freewill and accord. If the Holy Spirit makes us convert that undermines our freewill.

No one said the Spirit makes us do anything. I very clearly stated that the Spirit simply makes us aware of sin. (to the point where we can not reason it away.)
Then it is up to us to repent of said sin. If we do we will be given a larger portion of the Spirit and if we don't what we have will be taken away and given to someone else.

Now if all you are saying is that people have to recognize their sins and be prepared to receive the Holy Spirit, that's fine. But we both know that the Spirit works through the Word, so reading the Bible and learning about what sin is should be enough for people to feel convicted if they take what it says seriously.

Which falls under the "seeking" portion of what Christ told us to do.

[Ryantology]

What did you say

What I said was that there is no way to determine the relative accuracy of 40,000+ interpretations of a ridiculously ambiguous dogma.

I can say that you're all wrong, and that's almost certainly true, but that's really not related to the point I just made. Even if there was any truth to Christianity, there's no way of knowing which of you is closest to it, and all of you assume you are simultaneously.

[Drich]

What did you say

What I said was that there is no way to determine the relative accuracy of 40,000+ interpretations of a ridiculously ambiguous dogma.

I can say that you're all wrong, and that's almost certainly true, but that's really not related to the point I just made. Even if there was any truth to Christianity, there's no way of knowing which of you is closest to it, and all of you assume you are simultaneously.

..and why can we all (the majority) be right?

[Ryantology]

What I said was that there is no way to determine the relative accuracy of 40,000+ interpretations of a ridiculously ambiguous dogma.

I can say that you're all wrong, and that's almost certainly true, but that's really not related to the point I just made. Even if there was any truth to Christianity, there's no way of knowing which of you is closest to it, and all of you assume you are simultaneously.

..and why can we all (the majority) be right?

Too many conflicts.

Your interpretation of Christianity is certainly not mainstream.

[FallentoReason]

---

That is to say, technically a "No True Scotsman" is an attempt to retain a previously unreasoned assertion. If such an assertion is missing, then the fallacy cannot be committed in its most strict interpretation. This isn't to say that other fallacies aren't being committed, as for instance the statement "No true vegetarian would eat broccoli" is quite obviously invalid. Perhaps a simpler way of explaining this would be to note that the "No True Scotsman" is a type of equivocation fallacy; a fallacy where more than one definition of a word is used in order to switch definition mid-argument. Thus, when a person has started off by stating "No true X...", a "No True Scotsman" fallacy hasn't been committed, because only one definition is being used.

There are of course numerous statements which use the "No true..." prefix and are perfectly valid:

"No true vegetarian would eat meat."
"No true atheist believes in God."
"No true Christian believes that Jesus isn't the son of God."

...etc.

None of these are examples of the fallacy, nor do they become examples of the fallacy if you add in the two neccessary preceding steps. For example, the following argument is not an example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy:

A: No vegetarian would eat meat.
B: My friend is a vegetarian and eats meat regularly.
A: Well, no true vegetarian would eat meat.

In this instance, A is perfectly justified in their claim that no true vegetarians would eat meat. Why? Because the very definition of a vegetarian is someone who does not eat meat. This is an important factor to consider before charging someone with committing a "No True Scotsman"; that if the definition of the word contains some restriction on people who use it to describe themselves, anyone who has some attribute which is contrary to that restriction cannot logically justify themselves with that definition.

In other words, pertaining to my example, the true fallacy lies with the friend of B, who is claiming to be a vegetarian and yet eats meat. This is logically impossible, and so we can deduce (as A does) that B's friend is not a true vegetarian, despite claiming to be such.

---

Very amusing tactic using someone else's words. Check this out though:

I have no doubt you have very sincerly approached God doing everything a given church told you to do. No question.

Once again, you place QM's method in its own category away from yours, because "no true A/S/Ker would use a method other than..":

What I am showing you here is not a given denomination's approach to God. I am showing what Christ Himself said.

Not only are you still committing the same tired old fallacy, but this time you've brought down his entire church. The arrogance is dripping off my computer screen!

[Neo-Scholastic]

What I said was that there is no way to determine the relative accuracy of 40,000+

Nearly all denominations agree on the essentials, like Jesus is the Savior and God in the Flesh. The things we disagree about are not really all that important. For example, Baptists don't think Methodists are going to hell just because Baptists don't believe in infant baptism and Methodists do. Even Roman Catholics have an out for anyone of any faith outside the Church; it's called 'perfect contrition.' There's a few that have radically different theologies like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, but within mainline churches and even outliers like Swedenborgians, we tend to agree on the the things that really matter. So while you may be convinced that we're all contradicting each other, nothing of the sort is going on.

[Drich]

..and why can we all (the majority) be right?

Too many conflicts.

Your interpretation of Christianity is certainly not mainstream.

then why can't all interpretations be wrong?

---

Very amusing tactic using someone else's words. Check this out though:

the academic world refers to that "tactic" you identified as a quote. that is why i gave the name of the person who originally said it and posted a link to where that message could be found. this process is known as listing a reference.

Once again, you place QM's method in its own category away from yours, because "no true A/S/Ker would use a method other than..":

another red herring. we were talking about the proper usage of the no Scotsman fallacy. if you remembered ii told you not to go down this road unless you researched it.. i even let it go a few times and you like a dumbass could not leave well enough lone. now it is time for you to eat some poop before we move on. i need you tto say Drich was right and i was wrong before we can move on.

[Esquilax]

Esquilax does not like to be called names.

You fucking child...

[FallentoReason]

@Drich

You continually keep telling people they aren't searching for your imaginary god the right way, despite us saying we have given it all we had. 100% No True Scotsman fallacy because you keep saying "you're not doing it right" i.e. "you aren't part of my category of people who can A/S/K".

Quit being a child and acknowledge that what you're doing is dishonest.

[Losty]

In the last couple of threads the Fact that Christians are seperated from the Law has come up a few different times. There still seems to be some confusion as to what this means.

In order to have a better understanding we must look at some key words and understand how the bible uses them. Righteousness is the quality or state of being that being in the presents of God demands. In otherwords it is God's absolute standard.

To know what righteousness is important, because in OT times the only way to obtain it, was through strictly following the law and through the blood of animals. The blood animals offered was little more than a stop over measure pointing to the comming sacerfice Christ was to make.

In Mat 5 Christ says:

17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

To full fill means two things here, to complete the law (by extending the law to cover thought and intentions, and to be the final sin sacerfice.)

18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Which not only points to the law itself, but to the part of the law that speaks or provides for attonement.

19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

We are to follow the law, but not as a means of earning righteousness. this next passage explains why.

20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Remember the Scribes and pharisees were the spiritual elite. Following the law to the letter or making the letter of the law was their only job. To exceed the righteousness of the pharisees was to go beyond just going through the motions of following the Law to it's final letter. Because in Jesus' "completion" of the Law it was expanded to include thought. Which makes one guilt of sin even if one's thoughts are not undercontrol all of the time. Also remember we are told if we are guilty of breaking the smallest part of the Law, but keep all of the rest in God's POV we are still guilty of breaking all of it James 2:10-13. Which brings us back to a 'righteousness' the surpasses the righeousness of those who dedicated their lives to up holding the law.

To do this we have to look beyond the Law of moses to find righteousness. (This does not mean we ignore the law) It means we are not going to heaven because any of us did a good enough job keeping the law. So we must seek a path the surpasses the one the pharisees were on. This is the path of attonement/Forgiveness of sins.

Ok, I haven't read the thread yet, just the OP. I might get around to reading the thread...maybe.
So, what I have read here doesn't describe how Christians are apart from the law. Instead, it describes how righteousness is apart from following the law.
All laws of the Old Testament are still valid. All laws are expected to be followed. The only difference is that you can now be forgiven for not following these laws, and following them is no longer an acceptable path to righteousness. According to the bible and your OP the god character still expects all of the OT laws to be followed. They are still considered by Jesus to be right and Just.