Reply #77: What reasoning?

[darkstar3]

You can't simply say "nuh-hu!" and call it reasoning.

The No True Scotsman fallacy describes what you've done here to a tee. You stated that anyone who does something you consider evil while using the Bible to justify their actions is not a Christian. Ergo, you have implied strongly that you know both the true definition of evil and the true definition of Christian.

I suggest you read up on the fallacy. Your failure to understand it does not change the fact that you are employing it here in this thread.

A few other notes:
1. You've shown quite a bit of condescension and dickitude toward trotsky and others in this thread. Jesus must be proud of you...
2. Anti-abortion sentiment is one of the few remaining bastions of socially acceptable subjugation of women. That you support it through and because of your church's doctrine is nothing to be proud of, and in fact makes you one of those people who does something evil and uses the Bible to support it.
3. Several Catholics on this very board would probably disagree with you about interpretation. After all, every time I introduce these supposed Catholics to their Catechism, they try to tell me how wrong it is. Are you right, or are they?
4. Finally, on your soap story: Soap does work, but it can also be used for nefarious purposes, such as washing mouths out, or inflicting bruises on people after being stuffed into a sock and swung. If the injurious uses of soap were more numerous than the helpful uses, or if the injurious uses were far more frequently implemented, soap would most likely be banned from civilized society. We ban all kinds of things that have positive effects if their negative effects are weightier. (see cocaine) See where I'm going with this?