The No True Christian Fallacy

[Drich]

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.

I guess that is why we are to mind our P & Q's.

[Whateverist]

---

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.

---

Too many syllogisms. In my experience, the "no true Christian" remark comes up most often when one self-proclaimed Christian takes umbrage at another self-proclaimed Christian's interpretation of doctrine.

For example, would you allow that a person that reads the bible allegorically and attaches rich meaning to every passage but does not believe in a literal god, judgement or after-life may fairly call himself a Christian?

[orangebox21]

@Tonus, Rhythm, Baqal, Thumpalumpacus, Ryantology
So who is a Christian and what is a valid expression of Christianity?

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.

Very, very close. The Bible is the objective description of what a valid expression of Christianity is and who a Christian is. So what does the Bible say about mere profession? Matthew 7:21-23 and James 2:19. There are some people right now, praying to God, doing works in His name, believing they are Christians, and believing in the one true God, that are not Christians.

And valid expression? This question leads to the fundamental objection brought up by Baqal and Esquilax:

I doubt subjective descriptions of what a "valid expression" of Christianity is will ever lead us to proper conclusions.

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."

I agree that when a person reads the Bible he/she interprets it, no argument here. The deeper question you've alluded to is: Is there an objective interpretation of scripture usable as a standard, or are all interpretations of scripture subjective and thus relative. If, as Baqal and Esquilax have postulated, it is up to an individual's (namely my) subjective interpretation then I agree there is nothing compelling at all. If on the other hand there is an objective interpretation of scripture then we have an objective standard, one that transcends personal interpretation. If the Bible is the word of God then He assigns the meaning. In other words, when God says something He means what He says regardless of what I think He means by what He says. So what your really asking is: Is what God means by what He says knowable?

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

Does the name 'federal reserve' necessitate the institute is federal?

Who's the mathematician with the sword?

I guess that is why we are to mind our P & Q's.

LOL. Well done, truly, well done.

[Baqal]

@orangebox21
Very, very close. The Bible is the objective description of what a valid expression of Christianity is and who a Christian is. So what does the Bible say about mere profession? Matthew 7:21-23 and James 2:19. There are some people right now, praying to God, doing works in His name, believing they are Christians, and believing in the one true God, that are not Christians.
You have to observe carefully when I say "God" and "god". "God" with a capital "g" is the divinity of Christianity. When I say "god" I am referring to a divinity that is present in any theistic religion you can name. Yehowah is a god, Allah is a god, Toth is a god, God is a god, and so on. Understood? Great, let us continue:

The Bible can be subjectively interpreted and thus leads us to many different Christian denominations. But there is one thing in common that all of these denominations have: they believe in God. And that is a objective description of what it takes to MINIMALLY be a Christian.
Maybe you heard this before, but the position of Christianity isn't necessarily a position of actions, it is a position of belief. Actions do not present us a "true" Christian. The belief does.

[jesus_wept]

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

Then they're not a true Christian.

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

Does the name 'federal reserve' necessitate the institute is federal?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hWcv6fGe9w

[The Grand Nudger]

I thought I answered that pretty conclusively from my POV orange, anyone who self identifies as such. A "valid expression" is a can of worms I'd hardly touch, there are some 41k recognized "valid expressions", one could reasonably assume that there are a great many more that simply fly under the radar. I'd ber willing to wager that there are as many "valid" expressions of christianity as there are believers. A 1 for 1 ratio of personal jesuses(jesusi, jesusees, jesu?) to believers.

Are you a christian, and is your expression of christianity "valid"? Would it surprise you if I could find some other christian who claimed that you were, in fact -not christian- (a claim that you, clearly, feel comfortable making about others of your ilk)....and that your expression of such was, in fact, -not valid-? All you're really hinting at here, and all that you -could be- hinting at here, is that some christians bullshit isn't like your christian bullshit, well.......no shit.

[Whateverist]

The Bible can be subjectively interpreted and thus leads us to many different Christian denominations. But there is one thing in common that all of these denominations have: they believe in God. And that is a objective description of what it takes to MINIMALLY be a Christian.
Maybe you heard this before, but the position of Christianity isn't necessarily a position of actions, it is a position of belief. Actions do not present us a "true" Christian. The belief does.

But what does it mean to believe in God? Does embracing an allegorical conception of God make one a Christian? Would a person who conceptualizes gods as a potential of the psyche generally and who recognizes the Christian God as alive and well in his own psyche count as a true Christian? What counts as belief probably has to get parsed as well.

[The Grand Nudger]

Those are questions which only the person holding the belief could answer Whateverist. By self identifying, they've answered them - that's the conclusion they've reached leveraging their framework. These faith positions mean absolutely nothing divorced from the individual believer that espouses them.

[Whateverist]

Yes but it seems to be over such considerations that one Christian will declare that another isn't the real McCoy.

[The Grand Nudger]

Because they're assholes who wouldn't grant a courtesy to others that they would demand for themselves?