what being apart from the law means.

[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!