Death of a Scotsman (Re: the "no true Scotsman" fallacy)

...WHO CARES?

Not to be crass, but the whole discussion is ridiculous.1) People are not required to have reasonable, consistent, or logical religious beliefs.2) Nobody has any right to dictate who "gets" to be part of what religion or belief. If a person calls themselves a Christian, they are. Others are free to disagree with that assessment, but not to intefere with that person's right to identify with whatever religion - or none - that they choose.Religion is a deeply personal and individual choice. The idea that one would have to justify their choice of religion to some kind of outside body or community is abhorrent.I guess it's secularism's revenge - secularism is the only way that these differing religous views can coexist in one society. If religionists weren't so busy attacking the idea of a secular society, they wouldn't have opened themselves to having their religious beliefs dictated to them.

Depends what you mean by "octopus", now doesn't it? If I call myself a "donkey", that might be either a patently false statement, or a contextually true one. You might be sure of the answer but maybe you should take a look at my voter registration, first.You're also free to act like there's some kind of objective definition of Christian but I see a thread where, in 78 posts, that assertion has never been substantiated.

Sure I do. I merely ask you. If you say that you are then I know that you are, until you choose to tell me different.It's actually very simple. I don't recall doing that. Tell you what. I'll agree not to hold Christianity responsible for everything bad that you do so long as you don't try to credit Christianity with everything you do that's good.

Germany's.

No, it just means that you can't change definitions to suit your argument, like Christians usually do.