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