Board Thread:Bible Questions/@comment-29487450-20161223021635/@comment-28478783-20161223075041

And please, do not argue the  "Then they're not real Christians" No-True-Scotsman fallacy. They  are "real" Christians because they say they are. Who are you to say that they're not - because they did something that was against what your god teaches?

Then that would mean there is no such thing as a "real" Christian - that the only "real" Christian that existed was also the one who died with nails in his hands.

Wait... So the people who boarded the plains and committed suicide by flying into the World Trade Center towers were real Muslims, who followed the same interpretation and law as those Muslims who condemned their actions? Under normal circumstances, an appeal to purity is completely flawed, but the issue here is a different definition. You clearly define any Christian as someone who calls themselves one, but even in the Bible it is clarified that people will come in "Jesus' name" (basically, calling themselves Christians) who are really out to make a killing converting people to a system that will ultimately make them (not the converts, the converters) prosper, and any believing Christian would accept this. The Biblical definition of Christianity in this case outright contradicts your definition, which if applied to the analogy of the 9/11 hijackers, seems fairly flawed.

So, would I need to change my definition, as would my Muslim friends?

Because they say they are, does that make a person a Boeing 747? Or heir to a millionaire's fortune? Of course not.

Anyways... Since this just might be another troll thread, I guess I'll have to back out while I can.