Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site wivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!wivax!dyer
From: dyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Just replying to an idle offensive comment
Message-ID: <19473@wivax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 2-May-84 17:07:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: wivax.19473
Posted: Wed May  2 17:07:09 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 4-May-84 02:22:15 EDT
References: <694@bbncca.ARPA>, <1786@sdccsu3.UUCP>
Organization: Wang Institute, Tyngsboro, Ma.  01879
Lines: 26

>>From: ..bbncca!sdyer (Steve Dyer)
>>
>> ... those who do not recognize the teaching authority of the Church.
>>
>How about those who are strong enough to form their own system of values, 
>rather than accepting on blind faith a popular attitude?
>
>Seriously though, we can't argue with those we cannot communicate.  People
>run around blindly following the teachings of the bible, and every arguement 
>against it is invalid "because it is so."  I am not so much against religion 
>... blather blather ...

This kind of mindless knee-jerk response (one is tempted to classify it as
"spinal" rather than "cortical") is typical of what I have seen from
Kenn in his earlier responses on this newsgroup.  Please read my article again--
it was making one point and one point only--that those who don't accept on
faith what the Church teaches aren't going to be convinced by arguments
based on said faith.  My quote above is completely declarative.

Instead, this guy is all ready to make an attack on organized religion and
those who choose to follow it.  Well, that's great, but keep it in net.religion,
and keep me out of it--I'm not interested.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
decvax!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca