For good people to do bad things...

[Edwardo Piet]

You don't get to define Christianity differently to Christians Evie. You admin yourself you have absolutely no understanding of it. If you did, you would understand how it isn't cherry picking at all but consistent interpretation. You would understand how it can't be an NTS fallacy when my definitions are consistent.

You Christians don't get to decide on the definition of Christianity either - there's already one - the fundamentals remain the same despite the different forms of Christianity : Belief in God of the bible, belief in Jesus, etc - you get to decide a definition, what is important to you, but when you say that I don't know what Christianity 'is', then you're replacing the definition of Christianity - the fundamentals - with your own personal definition: A definition of Christianity, implying that I don't understand Christianity because it's not the way you see it, which is the NTS fallacy.

To understand what Christianity is I just have to understand the basic definition: Christianity being belief in God and Christ. Unless you are suggesting that I don't understand this obvious definition, then you are committing the NTS fallacy, right?.

Ev, I've no idea who your remark was aimed at!

I responded to you in 1 line and then I said "fr0d0,[...]" And responded to fr0d0 in a paragraph or so. Since I quoted you both I thought the process of elimination would have made that clear, sorry if it wasn't.

EvF

---

The No-True-Scotsman fallacy was not committed, sorry, since Frodo said nothing about whether they are 'true Christians' or not. While their appalling acts may be consistent with some beliefs of theirs (I agree with you here), the question is whether or not those beliefs stem from or are consistent with Christianity (I agree with Frodo here).

He didn't say it explicitly, no. But the implication seemed to be there to me, he said I don't know what Christianity is. But other than the basic definition, what he believes it to be is irrelevant to that, because if he believes what he beliefs is relevant to the basic definition, and that I'm wrong for not understanding it - then he's committing the NTS fallacy because he's holding his own definition as the definition of Christianity and therefore implying others' as not the true definition.

Essential to the No-True-Scotsman fallacy is the ad hoc shifting of the goal posts in response to some criticism, in order to tautologically exclude some specific case. But neither myself nor Frodo are ad hoc shifting the goal posts. Rather, we are asserting that you have missed goal posts that never moved.

So would you say that if, hypothetically speaking you were to define someone who followed the Christian fundamentals - and by normal definition was a 'Christian' - as 'not a true Christian', because you disagreed with them - or they didn't act like 'true Christians' according to you - then that is still not the NTS fallacy if there's not necessarily a shifting of goalposts?

EvF