The dialog often goes as follows:
O.P. Christian p did q.
O.P. q is horrible.
O.P. Therefore Christian p and/or Christianity is horrible.
Response: No Christian would do q.
O.P. That's the no true Christian Fallacy.

To begin the discussion, start here. (at least read the initial post)

To add to the above post:

First, the burden of proof is with the OP to prove p is a Christian. This qualifier of p has been assumed in the premise but not argued for. How do we know p is a Christian? If p is in fact not a Christian, then there is no fallacy in the response.

Secondly, we must further differentiate a given Christian action from an action that is a valid expression of Christianity. For the sake of argument let's assume the following premises are true, and arrive at our conclusion:
1. Person p did q
2. Person p is a Christian
3. q is horrible
.:/ Christianity is horrible
Is this argument valid? Is it sound? No to both. Why not?

What about:
1. Person p did q
2. Person p is a Christian
3. q is horrible
.:/ Christians are horrible
Is this argument valid? Is it sound? No to both again. Why not?

And:
1. Person p did q
2. Person p is a Christian
3. q is horrible
.:/ p is horrible
Is this argument valid? Is it sound?

We must differentiate between a Christian's individual action and an individual action as a valid expression of Christianity to draw proper conclusions.

Lastly, I agree that too often the 'knee jerk' reaction to anything that shows a Christian in a bad light is to assert the person involved isn't a Christian. There are certainly times this assertion is a fallacy.

It is my hope in the future we can all do a better job pulling our argumentative weight. For the OP, defending the assertion that a person is a Christian and that a given action is a valid expression of the Christian faith. For the responder, not hiding behind a fallacy when a Christian does err, but rather admitting a wrongdoing. After all, if we claim to have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us, but if we confess our sins, God who is faithful and just will cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

What if they do the wrong doing in the name of Christianity?

(August 8, 2014 at 1:57 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: What if they do the wrong doing in the name of Christianity?

A not uncommon event in history.....

What if they're Roman Catholics and can be forgiven if they do some penitence?

---

There a lot of practical problems with this. What if a Christian incurs a small sin to prevent a larger one? What about protecting his family or other innocents?

(August 8, 2014 at 1:57 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: What if they do the wrong doing in the name of Christianity?

Then they're not a true Christian.

(August 8, 2014 at 1:51 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: We must differentiate between a Christian's individual action and an individual action as a valid expression of Christianity to draw proper conclusions.

Here's the problem. I actually agree with you about the point you're making, but that doesn't mean that no fallacious reasoning is being employed when a christian makes a "no true christian would do X" statement, and I think the perfect example of that is encapsulated in the above quote.

What's a "valid expression of christianity"? So often it seems like christians using this argument are happy to merely define valid expressions of their religion as being solely positive things, looking through their rose colored glasses to do so, and hence simply remove any contention by fiat assertion, without doing any work. When negative things in the bible are brought up in response, the christian then defaults to some apologetic or another as to why that verse in the bible doesn't count, but this one that makes their point easier to defend is. Which means we're just supposed to use that specific christian's interpretation of their religion as the yardstick.

Which means the statement you made, properly formulated, is "We must differentiate between a christian's individual action and an individual action as a valid expression of the things I approve of to draw valid conclusions."

That's not very compelling. Sans the presupposition that your specific interpretation is the only valid one, which as an atheist I obviously am sans that, there's no specific reason encapsulated in that statement that would make me care about what you think about your religion. Your thoughts are, surprisingly, not the same thing as your religion, and without a non-question begging argument as to why I should take your opinion on what counts as a valid expression of christianity seriously, I have no reason to ascribe any power to your attempt to dull the misbehavior of christians.

Even if I did, we're still left with a situation where the supposed source of all morality, that's intended to make people godly and well behaved and so on, has no power to actually do so. "No true christian would do X!" you say, to which I would simply reply that apparently christian morality does not prevent even the people who believe it from doing X, so what's the point of it?

Its not a No True Scotsman Fallacy with you Christians.

Its one big ugly appeal to authority:

Quote:Matthew 7:22-3
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

No wonder you're all so disorganized, your own faith system is so circular and convoluted that most of you humble yourselves to the point where you don't think you're worthy to be Christians.

And they say the kingdom of heaven will never fall. Yeah, I suppose it is fairly impossible for a house to collapse, if its not build. Inhabitants to perish, if they're not there.

(August 8, 2014 at 1:51 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: First, the burden of proof is with the OP to prove p is a Christian.

Not to derail the discussion, but just how does one prove that a person is a Christian? Even Christians don't seem able to come up with a description that is agreeable to all self-professed Christians. And the people who seem to use the "No True Christian" accusation the most, IMO, are... other Christians!

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that only they worship god and Christ in the proper manner, and that therefore they are the only true followers of Christ (which is kind of funny, considering that they're one of the few faiths that shunt him off into a secondary spot on the roster). And they're not alone in accusing other faiths of Not Doing It The Right Way. Should it really be this difficult to figure out how to determine if a person is a True Christian?

Any self identified christian is a "true christian" - end of. If they say they believe there we go. So you don't believe what they believe and also call yourself a christian? Tough titties, take a number.

I doubt subjective descriptions of what a "valid expression" of Christianity is will ever lead us to proper conclusions.
A Christian is someone who believes in God. In most cases, the god that is described in the Bible. Anyone who doesn't fit in this objective description is not considered a Christian. End of story.