Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ccieng2.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccieng5!ccieng2!kfk From: kfk@ccieng2.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: critiquing the (yawn) followups Message-ID: <113@ccieng2.UUCP> Date: Fri, 10-Feb-84 17:22:46 EST Article-I.D.: ccieng2.113 Posted: Fri Feb 10 17:22:46 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 15-Feb-84 04:55:41 EST Organization: Computer Consoles Inc., Rochester, NY Lines: 23 ---------- From unc!bch Thu Feb 9 01:08:08 1984 Subject: Re: critiquing the (yawn) followups Karl Kleinpastes counterargument seems to me to be peculiar in that it excludes the possibility that the deity in question may appear to be both a deity and human. Substitute the word Jesus for Adolph Hitler and the disctinction will become clear. ---------- Well, I thought about that one for a couple of minutes, and I tried it out. I even edited the original version of my article, substituting the names as sug- gested. I don't accept the argument as stated (or as it appears to be stated; I have long since given up the belief that I fully understand anyone in this newsgroup, including myself at times), because the major point about Jesus versus Adolph Hitler is that Jesus was (in much more important ways) NOT like any other man. He had the form of a man, yes; but he did not behave as a man would on very many occasions. I do not reject the idea of man and deity being one entirely; I just think that there has been only one extremely special case. As I look around me, I see no one who appears to me to be sufficient to be viewed as a God. Jesus, on the other hand, does appear to do that. -- Karl Kleinpaste ...![ [seismo, allegra]!rochester!ritcv, rlgvax]!ccieng5!ccieng2!kfk