I going to jump in real fast. I see the no true scotsman thrown out little bit to liberally with out actual understanding what it really means. When you break it down, if a person does not have the genetics of a scotsman then we can say that person is not a scotsman regardless if they act like it.
Now, how this pertains to christians killing babies or children. Well considering reading the NT it seem pretty clear that child mutilation and slaughter IS NOT a tenant of the christian faith. Unlike muslims which have Hadiths, the tenants according to Jesus are pretty straight forward. So, yea i would not call those people real christians, considering they are ignoring fundamentals of their religion. Perhaps a crazy offshoot but not really. Because, at that rate a anyone can call themselves anything and "they would be that" but the way i am seeing the no true scotsman fallacy being thrown around.
Now, how this pertains to christians killing babies or children. Well considering reading the NT it seem pretty clear that child mutilation and slaughter IS NOT a tenant of the christian faith. Unlike muslims which have Hadiths, the tenants according to Jesus are pretty straight forward. So, yea i would not call those people real christians, considering they are ignoring fundamentals of their religion. Perhaps a crazy offshoot but not really. Because, at that rate a anyone can call themselves anything and "they would be that" but the way i am seeing the no true scotsman fallacy being thrown around.
![[Image: grumpy-cat-and-jesus-meme-died-for-sins.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-_GaCN-f8ZFo%2FUNfmimTyf4I%2FAAAAAAAANmk%2FoakT_wL319U%2Fs1600%2Fgrumpy-cat-and-jesus-meme-died-for-sins.jpg)
I would be a televangelist....but I have too much of a soul.
