For good people to do bad things...

[Ryft]

He didn't say it explicitly, no. But the implication seemed to be there, to me.

Well, if you want to charge someone with committing a fallacy it will take more than your sneaking suspicion. Fallacies are not ineffable. If he did not explicitly express the No-True-Scotsman fallacy, then you should refrain from making the allegation at all—or at least couch it in very inquisitive and provisional terms. It is your credibility that ends up taking a hit, Evie. (And ask yourself whether or not the basis of your allegation, quoted above, has more in common with the Salem witch trials.)

I know you replied with your understanding of "the basic definition" of what a Christian is. I think that was precisely the issue. You said the basic definition of Christianity is "belief in God and Christ" (and so, by extension, a Christian is someone who believes in God and Christ). If what Christianity believes and affirms has any basis in the sacred Scriptures—and it does—then this definition you shared could not get much weaker. So then it must be asked: (i) what source is that "basic definition" derived from, and (ii) is it recognized as authoritative by Christian orthodoxy? I think the moment we begin exploring that, we will discover why Frodo alleged that you don't know what a Christian is.

(Contrary to the opinions of the ignorant, there are orthodox doctrines unanimously affirmed by all of Christianity, from Catholic to Orthodox to Protestant, such as the final authority of canonical Scriptures for essentials of doctrine, the content of the first four ecumenical creeds, etc. As 16th century theologian Rupertus Meldenius expressed it, "In necessariis unitas.")

Unless you are suggesting that I don't understand this obvious definition. Then you are committing the NTS fallacy—right?

It's not about whether or not you understand that definition; it's about whether the definition or its source is recognized in Christian orthodoxy as authoritative. The sacred Scriptures are authoritative, for example, as are the apostolic creeds (e.g., 1 Cor. 8:6) and specific ecumenical creeds (e.g., the Athanasian Creed). Your say-so, or the dictionary? Not so much. You should review the second chapter of Schaff's Creeds of Christendom, which itself has been around for nearly 200 years; i.e., you missed goal posts that have actually never moved.

So would you say that if (hypothetically speaking) you were to define someone who followed the Christian fundamentals—who 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?

Neither myself nor Frodo, I believe, have said anything about whether some person is a True Christian™ or not. My argument, at least, as been about the person's specific beliefs; i.e., that "murderous violence and terrorist activity follows from their beliefs, but those beliefs are not Christian beliefs. Christianity neither commands nor condones such appalling acts; more than this, it contradicts them quite diametrically." Ergo, I said those specific beliefs are not Christian, saying nothing about whether some person is a True Christian™ or not.

Jesus says that if you believe in him you will go to heaven. ...

Against your contorted analysis here, Jesus said a good deal more than that about getting to heaven—abruptly pulling the rug out from under your "perfect Christian hypocrisy" conclusion.

Oops?