Proper application of "no true scotsman"

[achilles12604]

Ok, I asked for this one. "No true scotsman"?

Ok and this is going straight onto the "Good responses to constantly asked Atheist questions" page.

No true scotsman vs Hitler.

If you had even bothered to look up the fallacy you would have run across this . . .

This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/notruescotsman.html

Ok lets apply this to Hitler shall we.

Existing belief. Those who follow Jesus teachings will not commit mass murder. So let's examine the teachings of Jesus.

Any teachings which promote murder? No.

Ok then, lets examine the definition of "follow".

2. to go or come after; move behind in the same direction: Drive ahead, and I'll follow you.
3. to accept as a guide or leader; accept the authority of or give allegiance to: Many Germans followed Hitler.
4. to conform to, comply with, or act in accordance with; obey: to follow orders; to follow advice.
5. to imitate or copy; use as an exemplar: They follow the latest fads.

Ok based on this a follower of Jesus would imitate and obey his teachings. Since he teachings were not to murder this means that followers of Jesus would honor this teaching.

So now apply to Hitler. Did he murder? Yes? So if he murdered then he was not following the teachings of Jesus. If he is not following the teachings, then HOW ON GOD"S GREEN EARTH CAN ATHEISTS CONTINUE TO SAY THAT HE WAS A FOLLOWER?????????????

If he didn't FOLLOW, then how can he be a follower?


COMMON GUYS!!

This is not this hard. Anyone who cites no true scotsman regarding teachings directly against those of Jesus is obviously incorrectly applying the fallacy.

Now, HERE is a good way to apply the fallacy regarding religion.

An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith believe but subsequently lose it, are written off using the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy: they didn’t really have faith, they weren’t true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it.

Notice that the FIRST idea needs to be correct for the fallacy to work.

Well for you to apply the fallacy to Hitler, you must show that the first idea (Jesus taught to kill and murder) is found directly or indirectly in scripture.

CAN YOU? Go ahead . . . I am waiting . . .

Or did you apply the fallacy incorrectly just like the many non-theists and atheists here have been doing since I joined (and before)?

I do not believe that Confused applied the fallacy correctly. I have stated my reason as to why. The No True Scotsman fallacy depends on an original premise or idea. When correctly applied, like in the example I provided, the no true scotsman fallacy depends upon one first idea which is put forth first and then the evidence (in this case scripture) is bent around that idea to "prove" it, thus leaving anyone outside that idea as a "false scotsman".

However, I do not think this works with Hitler.

The original idea is that Jesus would be against murder and therefore those who do murder are not a follower of Jesus or his teachings.

Now I bet anyone here can cite some kind of verse which proves that Jesus was in fact against murder. If 100% of the evidence (scriptures) support the idea that Jesus was against murder, then there is no "twisting" of the evidence to fit this idea. Rather the idea comes from the evidence directly. So the fallacy doesn't fit.




Another mental excercise around this same subject would be what I spelled out above.

I suggest the following is true. Those who follow Jesus and his teachings would not willfully commit mass murder.

To support this statement I examine all of Jesus teachings and find that he condemns hatred, let alone murder. Then I examine the definition of Follow and learn it means to obey, imitate, adhere to, etc. So a follower would ahere to these teachings. Someone who was NOT a follower might not adhere to them.

So which catagory does Hitler fall into? Did he FOLLOW these teachings, or was he NOT FOLLOWING them? Obviously he was not following them. Therefore he was not, by the very definition of the word a follower of Jesus.

Hence Confused incorrectly applied the fallacy.





Anyone argue with my logic here?

[olavisjo]

Ok, I asked for this one. "No true scotsman"?

I can't find the beginning of this post, but the Bible is very clear about who is and who is not a Scotsman.

20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

But we are still left doubting about who's name specifically is written in that book, since we do not at the moment have access to it. And the bible does make reference to false disciples who would act like the true ones, only their name would therefore not appear in the book.

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Seems that this might be a good litmus test for believers, just ask yourself if you do the will of the Father?

[McCulloch]

Seems that this might be a good litmus test for believers, just ask yourself if you do the will of the Father?

And what is the will of the Father?

[olavisjo]

And what is the will of the Father?

1Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

6Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

9Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

10Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

11If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

12Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

[Confused]

Ok, I asked for this one. "No true scotsman"?

Ok and this is going straight onto the "Good responses to constantly asked Atheist questions" page.

No true scotsman vs Hitler.

If you had even bothered to look up the fallacy you would have run across this . . .

This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/notruescotsman.html

Ok lets apply this to Hitler shall we.

Existing belief. Those who follow Jesus teachings will not commit mass murder. So let's examine the teachings of Jesus.

Any teachings which promote murder? No.

Ok then, lets examine the definition of "follow".

2. to go or come after; move behind in the same direction: Drive ahead, and I'll follow you.
3. to accept as a guide or leader; accept the authority of or give allegiance to: Many Germans followed Hitler.
4. to conform to, comply with, or act in accordance with; obey: to follow orders; to follow advice.
5. to imitate or copy; use as an exemplar: They follow the latest fads.

Ok based on this a follower of Jesus would imitate and obey his teachings. Since he teachings were not to murder this means that followers of Jesus would honor this teaching.

So now apply to Hitler. Did he murder? Yes? So if he murdered then he was not following the teachings of Jesus. If he is not following the teachings, then HOW ON GOD"S GREEN EARTH CAN ATHEISTS CONTINUE TO SAY THAT HE WAS A FOLLOWER?????????????

If he didn't FOLLOW, then how can he be a follower?


COMMON GUYS!!

This is not this hard. Anyone who cites no true scotsman regarding teachings directly against those of Jesus is obviously incorrectly applying the fallacy.

Now, HERE is a good way to apply the fallacy regarding religion.

An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith believe but subsequently lose it, are written off using the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy: they didn’t really have faith, they weren’t true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it.

Notice that the FIRST idea needs to be correct for the fallacy to work.

Well for you to apply the fallacy to Hitler, you must show that the first idea (Jesus taught to kill and murder) is found directly or indirectly in scripture.

CAN YOU? Go ahead . . . I am waiting . . .

Or did you apply the fallacy incorrectly just like the many non-theists and atheists here have been doing since I joined (and before)?

I do not believe that Confused applied the fallacy correctly. I have stated my reason as to why. The No True Scotsman fallacy depends on an original premise or idea. When correctly applied, like in the example I provided, the no true scotsman fallacy depends upon one first idea which is put forth first and then the evidence (in this case scripture) is bent around that idea to "prove" it, thus leaving anyone outside that idea as a "false scotsman".

However, I do not think this works with Hitler.

The original idea is that Jesus would be against murder and therefore those who do murder are not a follower of Jesus or his teachings.

Now I bet anyone here can cite some kind of verse which proves that Jesus was in fact against murder. If 100% of the evidence (scriptures) support the idea that Jesus was against murder, then there is no "twisting" of the evidence to fit this idea. Rather the idea comes from the evidence directly. So the fallacy doesn't fit.




Another mental excercise around this same subject would be what I spelled out above.

I suggest the following is true. Those who follow Jesus and his teachings would not willfully commit mass murder.

To support this statement I examine all of Jesus teachings and find that he condemns hatred, let alone murder. Then I examine the definition of Follow and learn it means to obey, imitate, adhere to, etc. So a follower would ahere to these teachings. Someone who was NOT a follower might not adhere to them.

So which catagory does Hitler fall into? Did he FOLLOW these teachings, or was he NOT FOLLOWING them? Obviously he was not following them. Therefore he was not, by the very definition of the word a follower of Jesus.

Hence Confused incorrectly applied the fallacy.





Anyone argue with my logic here?

For your benefit, let me present the actual discussion instead of whatever it is you have quoted here because you lost me.

[Confused]

To start with, I will provide the link in which this all started:


ref:Re: Foundations, hopes, and contributions

Now, on to the actual discussion:

Hmm, Christianity has how many thousands of years to do something good. And the best you can refer to ever is the local charities. Tell me, where were these charities when millions were persecuted during WWII when I will remind you that the Catholic church supported Hitler.

Ok. Prove it. Prove to me that the Catholic Church as a whole, supported Hitler. And then prove to me that the Catholic Church was following its own teachings.

If you can do these two things, then I will become an atheist.


Remember . . . just because someone holds up a particular flag doesn't mean that they stand for what that flag represents. If someone cites Martin Luther King Jr, as a racist in a KKK rally, are they really representing MLK or have they twisted and distorted his message so much that it would make MLK vomit in disgust?

Ok, I asked for this one. "No true scotsman"?

Now, on to the meaning of the fallacy itself:

http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfall ... otsman.htm

Category:
Fallacy of Ambiguity, Fallacy of Presumption



Explanation
This is actually a combination of several fallacies, but since it rests ultimately on shifting the meaning of terms — a form of equivocation — and begging the question, it receives special attention.

The name “No True Scotsman” comes from an odd example involving Scotsmen:

1. Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge. I then say “Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
Obviously the original assertion about Scotsmen has been challenged quite well, but in attempting to shore it up the speaker uses an ad hoc change combined with a shifted meaning of the words from the original.

I say the Catholic Church supported Hitler during his WWII atrocities (note, I believe the support was given before the world knew of his genocide but to date, I am not sure they have ever denounced their position, though it is possible they did it long after the genocide became known).

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/ ... _23_4.html
The following quote is only a small portion of this, please read it in its entirety to understand how it supported Hitler.

Catholicism and the Nazi Takeover
Ironically—but, as we shall see, for obvious reasons—Chancellor Hitler had greater initial success reaching accommodation with Roman Catholic leaders than with the Protestants. The irony lay in the fact that the Catholic Zentrum (Center) Party had been principally responsible for denying majorities to the Nazis in early elections. Although Teutonic in outlook, German Catholics had close emotional ties to Rome. As a group they were somewhat less nationalistic than most Protestants. Catholics were correspondingly more likely than Protestants to view Hitler (incorrectly) as godless, or as a neo-heathen anti-Christian. Catholic clergy consistently denounced Nazism, though they often undercut themselves by preaching traditional anti-Semitism at the same time.

Even so, and despite Catholicism’s minority status, it would be German Catholics and the Roman Catholic Church that whose actions would at last put total power within the Nazis’ reach.

Now, I can only provide historical evidence of the support of the Catholic church. In Achilles argument, his demand for evidence is:
1) The Catholic Church as a whole supported Hitler
2) Demand that I prove the Catholic church was following their own teachings.

He then goes on to present the dilemma of MLK. Just because someone says they are rallying for the beliefs of MLK doesn't mean that their beliefs are really those of MLK, but could be their own twisted interpretation of the beliefs of MLK.

I am going to address each of these claims independently to show how each applied to this fallacy CORRECTLY: I will use the following structure from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus, who is a Scotsman, likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Aye, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

to show my application of each.

1) Fallacy with the Catholic Church and Hitler
1) Catholic church supporting Hitler. Did the whole church support Hitler and did this support correlate with their doctrine?

-No Catholic ( Christian) would support the atrocities that Hitler was
doing during WWII.
-The Catholic Papacy reached a concordance with Hitlers Germany that did
support the anti-semitic undertones that would later give credence to Hitlers
genocide.
-True, but no "True Catholic" would support him.

The fact is, they did. We can reorganize this same argument to say:

-The Catholic Church wouldn't support Hitlers regime
-The Concordance signed in agreement with the papacy and Hitler did support
his regime.
-No Catholic organization that followed the "True Catholic" doctrine would have
supported his regime.


Regardless of how you want to argue this, Achilles is essentially saying that because we cannot know what every single Catholic thought, we cannot say the Catholic church truly supported the genocide Hitler perpetrated. But in this case, we need only look at what the church authorities agreed to. Catholics hierarchy allows for the papacy to essentially dictate the creeds in which their religion as a whole supports. Any dissent defies their hierarchy yielding a heretic and would bring up yet another dilemma of the "True Christian" or "True Catholic" in which one who does something that wouldn't be in 100% agreement of anothers interpretation of dogmatic belief isn't really a true believer.

2) Fallacy with MLK and the "distorted message:

-No follower of MLK would support violence to end racism
-John Doe used his interpretations of the teachings of MLK to justify homicide
with a "Black Rage" defense.
-John doe isn't a "true" follower of MLK.

The problem addressed in both of these issues is that:

Achilles is suggesting that just because the Catholic Church supported Hitler doesn't mean all of the Catholic Church did or that it is representative of the Catholic Churches true teachings. Here, we can only look at what history provides evidence of. I can't go back in history to see if they were "really" supporting Hitler or if the reasons they supported Hitler were congruent with "doctrine" or not.

Achilles is suggesting that just because someone claims to be a follower of MLK, that doesn't mean they are a "true follower" or that their interpretations of the teachings of MLK are the "true" interpretations of MLK.

I am usually horrible at trying to get my point across, so I am hoping I have here. If not, this could get very long. I think Achilles and I were actually agreeing on most of what we were saying in the original thread, we were just misunderstanding each other. We will see I guesss.

[McCulloch]

Anyone argue with my logic here?

That which proves too much proves nothing.

You say that no one who deliberately murders can be a Christian because Jesus clearly and unequivocally teaches against murder. Presumably at the time that they commit the murder, for even murder could be repented of.

Jesus unequivocally teaches against the accumulation of wealth. Therefore, no one who has significantly accumulated more wealth than is necessary for life can be a Christian.

Christians have for centuries determined various justifications for homicide; self-defense, criminal punishment, war, heresy. So another uses the Christian myth to justify killing lots of Jews. How is that different?

[achilles12604]

Anyone argue with my logic here?

That which proves too much proves nothing.

You say that no one who deliberately murders can be a Christian because Jesus clearly and unequivocally teaches against murder. Presumably at the time that they commit the murder, for even murder could be repented of.

Jesus unequivocally teaches against the accumulation of wealth. Therefore, no one who has significantly accumulated more wealth than is necessary for life can be a Christian.

Christians have for centuries determined various justifications for homicide; self-defense, criminal punishment, war, heresy. So another uses the Christian myth to justify killing lots of Jews. How is that different?

I would say that regarding murder, there is a difference, even within scriptures between sinning once and repenting, and sinning repeatedly. You could be right that a Christian may murder out of whatever reason. Passion, anger, whatever. But that person would later recognize the errors of the way and repent and accept the world's judgement. Hitler on the other hand was anything but repentent.

I think you would have a very difficult time showing that continued sinning without repentance describes a Christian.

Jesus unequivocally teaches against the accumulation of wealth. Therefore, no one who has significantly accumulated more wealth than is necessary for life can be a Christian.

I have no problem with this. I happen to agree with it. And those who are fortunate enough to have gained continual wealth should know that they should provide for those who are not so lucky.

Was this supposed to trip my argument up or support it?

Christians have for centuries determined various justifications for homicide; self-defense, criminal punishment, war, heresy. So another uses the Christian myth to justify killing lots of Jews. How is that different?

You have changed terms McCulloch. Shame on you.

Murder and homicide are not the same thing. Homicide CAN be justified through circumstances such as self defense. I don't think Jesus even had a problem with this.

So citing this is really irrelavent because the same scripture which outlaws murder, and provides very strict examples, does allow for exceptions. I think you may be treading on a logical Fallacy yourself here McCulloch.

Just because the bible declares homicide in self defense to be ok, does not mean that murder or even mass murder must also be ok.

[achilles12604]

To start with, I will provide the link in which this all started:


ref:Re: Foundations, hopes, and contributions

Now, on to the actual discussion:

Hmm, Christianity has how many thousands of years to do something good. And the best you can refer to ever is the local charities. Tell me, where were these charities when millions were persecuted during WWII when I will remind you that the Catholic church supported Hitler.

Ok. Prove it. Prove to me that the Catholic Church as a whole, supported Hitler. And then prove to me that the Catholic Church was following its own teachings.

If you can do these two things, then I will become an atheist.


Remember . . . just because someone holds up a particular flag doesn't mean that they stand for what that flag represents. If someone cites Martin Luther King Jr, as a racist in a KKK rally, are they really representing MLK or have they twisted and distorted his message so much that it would make MLK vomit in disgust?

Ok, I asked for this one. "No true scotsman"?

Now, on to the meaning of the fallacy itself:

http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfall ... otsman.htm

Category:
Fallacy of Ambiguity, Fallacy of Presumption



Explanation
This is actually a combination of several fallacies, but since it rests ultimately on shifting the meaning of terms — a form of equivocation — and begging the question, it receives special attention.

The name “No True Scotsman” comes from an odd example involving Scotsmen:

1. Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge. I then say “Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
Obviously the original assertion about Scotsmen has been challenged quite well, but in attempting to shore it up the speaker uses an ad hoc change combined with a shifted meaning of the words from the original.

I say the Catholic Church supported Hitler during his WWII atrocities (note, I believe the support was given before the world knew of his genocide but to date, I am not sure they have ever denounced their position, though it is possible they did it long after the genocide became known).

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/ ... _23_4.html
The following quote is only a small portion of this, please read it in its entirety to understand how it supported Hitler.

Catholicism and the Nazi Takeover
Ironically—but, as we shall see, for obvious reasons—Chancellor Hitler had greater initial success reaching accommodation with Roman Catholic leaders than with the Protestants. The irony lay in the fact that the Catholic Zentrum (Center) Party had been principally responsible for denying majorities to the Nazis in early elections. Although Teutonic in outlook, German Catholics had close emotional ties to Rome. As a group they were somewhat less nationalistic than most Protestants. Catholics were correspondingly more likely than Protestants to view Hitler (incorrectly) as godless, or as a neo-heathen anti-Christian. Catholic clergy consistently denounced Nazism, though they often undercut themselves by preaching traditional anti-Semitism at the same time.

Even so, and despite Catholicism’s minority status, it would be German Catholics and the Roman Catholic Church that whose actions would at last put total power within the Nazis’ reach.

Now, I can only provide historical evidence of the support of the Catholic church. In Achilles argument, his demand for evidence is:
1) The Catholic Church as a whole supported Hitler
2) Demand that I prove the Catholic church was following their own teachings.

He then goes on to present the dilemma of MLK. Just because someone says they are rallying for the beliefs of MLK doesn't mean that their beliefs are really those of MLK, but could be their own twisted interpretation of the beliefs of MLK.

I am going to address each of these claims independently to show how each applied to this fallacy CORRECTLY: I will use the following structure from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus, who is a Scotsman, likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Aye, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

to show my application of each.

1) Fallacy with the Catholic Church and Hitler
1) Catholic church supporting Hitler. Did the whole church support Hitler and did this support correlate with their doctrine?

-No Catholic ( Christian) would support the atrocities that Hitler was
doing during WWII.
-The Catholic Papacy reached a concordance with Hitlers Germany that did
support the anti-semitic undertones that would later give credence to Hitlers
genocide.
-True, but no "True Catholic" would support him.

The fact is, they did. We can reorganize this same argument to say:

-The Catholic Church wouldn't support Hitlers regime
-The Concordance signed in agreement with the papacy and Hitler did support
his regime.
-No Catholic organization that followed the "True Catholic" doctrine would have
supported his regime.


Regardless of how you want to argue this, Achilles is essentially saying that because we cannot know what every single Catholic thought, we cannot say the Catholic church truly supported the genocide Hitler perpetrated. But in this case, we need only look at what the church authorities agreed to. Catholics hierarchy allows for the papacy to essentially dictate the creeds in which their religion as a whole supports. Any dissent defies their hierarchy yielding a heretic and would bring up yet another dilemma of the "True Christian" or "True Catholic" in which one who does something that wouldn't be in 100% agreement of anothers interpretation of dogmatic belief isn't really a true believer.

2) Fallacy with MLK and the "distorted message:

-No follower of MLK would support violence to end racism
-John Doe used his interpretations of the teachings of MLK to justify homicide
with a "Black Rage" defense.
-John doe isn't a "true" follower of MLK.

The problem addressed in both of these issues is that:

Achilles is suggesting that just because the Catholic Church supported Hitler doesn't mean all of the Catholic Church did or that it is representative of the Catholic Churches true teachings. Here, we can only look at what history provides evidence of. I can't go back in history to see if they were "really" supporting Hitler or if the reasons they supported Hitler were congruent with "doctrine" or not.

Achilles is suggesting that just because someone claims to be a follower of MLK, that doesn't mean they are a "true follower" or that their interpretations of the teachings of MLK are the "true" interpretations of MLK.

I am usually horrible at trying to get my point across, so I am hoping I have here. If not, this could get very long. I think Achilles and I were actually agreeing on most of what we were saying in the original thread, we were just misunderstanding each other. We will see I guesss.

I think you have misrepresented my argument a little bit. Probably due to misunderstanding it. I didn't really explain it in the other thread.

Please read through my full explaination as I addressed the points you make in it. Post number one.

The problem with you application is my second point, that the catholic church itself was not adhering to their own teachings and therefore they really weren't acting in accordance with Christianity.

If someone is not following their own teachings, they cease deserving the title they take and instead are known as hypocritical. Now, in my opinion the Catholic Church is so hypocritical that I regard the leadership as anti-Christian. The followers can deserve some leniency because they are ignorant due to the actions of the leadership.

You want to declare that the whole church organization wasn't "true Christians" than you will receive little argument me. But your tying it to Christianity is where you start to stretch the scotsman fallacy because it doesn't apply.

Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus, who is a Scotsman, likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Aye, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

Using your example, Uncle Angus may claim to be a Scotsman but he speaks French, lives in Paris, was Born in Paris and has never left the country.

Obviously your application would not be effective in this case and THIS is why it is not applicable in mine.

[McCulloch]

You have changed terms McCulloch. Shame on you.

I have deliberately used a different term. Killing of a human, homicide, is sometimes murder (the illegal and unjustified killing of a human) and other forms of homicide.

I have simply asked why the mass killings committed by Hitler must be called murder from a Christian perspective. Hitler provided justification which to his mind made the killings simply justified homicide not murder. Nevermind that his justification has absolutely no merit, to some Christians the justifications of self-defense, war, capital punishment and heresy also have no merit.