Rather, No True Scotsman requires that someone change their definition to exclude counterexamples while maintaining that they're keeping an untainted definition.
It's entirely legitimate to say "There are people who call themselves Christians but do not act in accordance with X, Y, and Z teachings of Christ. Therefore, I don't accept their claim." That's definition, not redefinition.
As in "yeah, those people only _claim_ to be christian, they're not _actual_ christians". It's a textbook example of No True Scotsman.
The idea that there is only one kind of christian died the moment that Mr Iscariot did his friend a bad one. Ever since then, there's been schism after schism after schism. Even Peter and Paul saw and did things differently. In the modern day, we're talking about rivalries so deep that even moving a ladder[1] is proven impossible, so how "they're only _claiming_ to be christians, and aren't _actually_ christians" passes muster, I don't know. These are the heads of christian sects going back more than a millenium, who disagree on what it means to be christian. Folks who are in charge of multiple large houses of worship, with large congregations that see them as their christian guides... but somehow "oh, I don't think they see it right, therefore 'not christian'"?
"No True Scotsman" is perfectly appropriate.
Seemingly contradict. Have you reviewed what the other side has to say[1] on this matter? Ever had something that didn't seem to make sense until you saw a different perspective on it?
> You could even make arguments that some of the books are false or that some of the apocryphal books are real.
Physical presence of a book doesn't make it scripture. And that's exactly what Christians believe the Bible is: scripture. And it is held to a very different set of standards than what is not scripture.
> Because there is no factual bedrock underlying religion there is no truth to be found and anyone can just claim anything and ascribe it to whatever religion they want for the most part.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by "no factual bedrock". You and I exist. We have these things called "logic", "reason", and "truth" which cannot be explained in a solely materialistic fashion. There are things such as "ethics" and "morality" which not only exist but a surprising amount of people adhere to. Christians make the claim that the only reason any of this makes sense is because we are created by God and that it is His design and decree which allow us to understand the world around us. No secular/nontheistic worldview can truly offer a response to this that doesn't look to itself.
[1]: http://defendinginerrancy.com/contradictions-inerrancy/
Not all christians agree on what is and isn't in the bible. There is no single Christian bible. I have no doubt there are some sects out there that don't have a bible, for a couple of hundred years no christians did.
And then we could probably have a reasonable conversation about it.
Because nothing is supported by provable factual truth anyone can claim anything.
Unlike math/science where you can actually provide evidence and proofs, religion is more about who has the loudest voice to spread their dogma.
I'm not sure a ministry is the most impartial source in the first place, in the part I've watched he even lists secular biblical scholars as an attack on christianity.
I found this to be a very interesting link, but probably for a different reason than you did. It's an interesting very wide circular argument. It describes a group of people studying a book in so much detail they decide to agree that the book must be true in every aspect. It goes to the level of "the book describes how the book should be read, therefore we must interpret it in that way". (paraphrasing "appeal to extra-biblical genre is contrary to inerrancy")
The weird thing about that whole idea is that you could find a group of people to say that about any book. Make them known for studying that book and they immediately gain the book-interpreting credentials. Whether the bible or any other book is completely true or not, this way of arguing any case about anything seems bonkers to me. Why not just say "ICBI believes that..." rather than "The contention of some contemporary NT scholars that there are contradictions in Scripture is both illogical and unbiblical."
There are some contradictions but claiming that it's all over the place is a blanket statement. And do not forget that while the Bible contains the ancient scriptures, they should be seen in the light of the Gospel (i.e. what Jesus supposedly said about them) rather than on their own, in Christianism.
I'm not even sure what an "actual christian" would be because the books that make up the christian faith contradict themselves all over the place. You could even make arguments that some of the books are false or that some of the apocryphal books are real.
Because there is no factual bedrock underlying religion there is no truth to be found and anyone can just claim anything and ascribe it to whatever religion they want for the most part.