Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!csc
From: csc@watmath.UUCP (Computer Sci Club)
Newsgroups: net.abortion,net.politics,net.religion,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Abortion and Capital Punishment
Message-ID: <9933@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 21-Nov-84 10:14:01 EST
Article-I.D.: watmath.9933
Posted: Wed Nov 21 10:14:01 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 22-Nov-84 05:14:55 EST
References: <1782@burdvax.UUCP> <ariel.779>, <1818@burdvax.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 37

>                                     Seriously, I believe that Scripture
>gives us a consistent world view on which we can form opinions and make
>decisions.  It is an objective standard and starting point.  The idea
>that my opinions are worthless because they are based on the Bible is
>ludicrous.  

I beg to differ with you Tom. Though I agree with you that we will get 
nowhere if we all jump up and down and scream at each other, as some of
are prone to do, I think it is important for us to realize that the
bible is NOT an OBJECTIVE piece of literature, any more than any other
work that has been transcribed by man is.  For generations it was 
passed down by word of mouth, subject to all the biases and interpretations
of those who passed it on.  Even in written form, it has been through
countless translations and rewriting.  I find it extremely difficult
to believe that its content is exactly the same as when it began.

>           I could say the same thing about your opinions; they seem
>even more absurd to me because they have no basis in reality.  You only
>believe them because they give you a warm, fuzzy feeling.

>Tom Albrecht 		Burroughs Corp.

Perhaps so.  However, I believe that you hold the beliefs that you do
regarding devinity and the origin of the universe because they give you
and countless others both today and over the course of history a `warm,
fuzzy feeling'.  We aren't going to get anywhere in any discussion of
this sort if we keep relying on emotional arguments and
rationalizations.  Even when we do appeal to such strategies, we should
at least attempt to make our arguments watertight, such that if someone
is willing to accept our premisses (on the sacredity (pardon for
creating words) of human life or whatever) then he must accept our
conclusion.  I have yet to see your response to the problem that I
raised with regard to your original posting.

	-bob atkinson
	 csc@watmath