"No True Scotsman"

When confronted with examples of Christian behavior that are found lacking in moral value, such as the Spanish Inquisition, many Christians will attempt to distance themselves from any association with such behavior by claiming that the Christians who did or do "bad" things aren't "true" Christians.
Also, when a Christian runs across other Christian sects that don't agree with his/her personal theological doctrine, he/she can simply claim that the other groups aren't "true" Christians.
And since Christians don't display the complete unity that Jesus prayed his believers would exhibit(John 17:20-23), a way around this problem of a failed prayer has to be devised by Christians.

This rationalization comes in very handy to tidy up history and absolve Christianity of having any responsibility for unsavory or distasteful actions by people who proclaim that they are Christians.
For example, the Spanish Inquisition was performed in the name of Jesus by devout, God-fearing, self proclaimed Christians who were doing God's will.
But, according to Christians who find the activities of the Inquisition distasteful, those Christian Inquisitors weren't really "true" Christians.
This ploy is sometimes known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

An example follows:
Christian rationalization:
"The people who did those bad things weren't really true Christians and many people call themselves Christians who have no idea what it means. "

The defect with the rationalization in a statement like this can be understood in the following way, and as mentioned earlier, is often called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

This is an argument that takes the following form:

Claim:
"No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge".

This is countered with:
"My friend Angus is a Scotsman and likes sugar with his porridge".

The following rejoinder to this exception is:
"Ah yes, but no TRUE Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge".

Applying this to a standard Christian claim:

Claim:
"No Christian ever stops being a Christian".

Which is countered with:
"Elmer was a Christian for 20 years, but discovered that it didn't hold up to scrutiny, so he stopped."

The following rejoinder to this exception is:
"Ah yes, but no TRUE Christian ever stops being a Christian."

Yet another application of this would be:
Claim:
"No Christian would torture others into believing what they say is true".

Exception to this being:
"The Spanish Inquisition, which tortured people, was conducted by Christians in the name of Jesus".

The rejoinder is:
"Ah, but no TRUE Christian would do such a thing."

Since this rationalization is completely subjective, it renders the definition of a "true" Christian virtually meaningless.
A "true" Christian is based on personal preference and nothing more.
This isn't surprising since the Bible itself means whatever Christians want it to mean.

-- BACK --