Path: ultra.sonic.net!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!vncnews!newsfeed2.vnc.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!199.0.154.56!ais.net!news.voicenet.com!newshost.cyberramp.net!not-for-mail

From: pistol@cyberramp.net (Pistol)

Newsgroups: alt.books.cs-lewis

Subject: Re: The Failure of Moral Law

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 22:43:24 GMT

Organization: posted via: CyberRamp.net, Dallas, TX (214) 343-3333/(817) 461-8484 for info

Lines: 18

Message-ID: <343aba97.12705139@newshost.cyberramp.net>

References: <343032cc.4054569@newshost.cyberramp.net> <19970930132501.JAA10185@ladder01.news.aol.com> <3432c7d9.157846@newshost.cyberramp.net> <60ujcn$7gs$1@netnews.upenn.edu> <pxrhPDAbZ+M0EwPe@aslan.demon.co.uk>

NNTP-Posting-Host: dal-tsa11-22.cyberramp.net

X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235

Xref: ultra.sonic.net alt.books.cs-lewis:9251



On Thu, 2 Oct 1997 19:22:19 +0100, Andrew Rilstone

<andrew@aslan.demon.co.uk> wrote:



>In article <60ujcn$7gs$1@netnews.upenn.edu>, Danny Pitt Stoller

><dap@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> writes



>In fairness, its probably legitimate to say "In my opinion, the

>arguments in "Mere Christianity" don't work. I understand that he put

>forward better arguments elsewhere. But for the moment, I am interesting

>in finding out if anyone is prepared to defend the arguments in "Mere

>Christianity."



Thank you.  That is exactly what I am trying to get to.  As I said to

another poster, if he'll simply admit that MC is ill-reasoned, then

I'll go read "Abolition of Man" and we can discuss it.  It is the

easiest evasion to respond to a criticism of on ework by saying "well,

if you'll read this other one, you'll understand".  MC was a huge

bestseller.  One would think it could stand on its own.