Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!bch
From: bch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes )
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: critiquing the (yawn) followups
Message-ID: <6721@unc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-Feb-84 01:08:08 EST
Article-I.D.: unc.6721
Posted: Thu Feb  9 01:08:08 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 10-Feb-84 03:27:01 EST
References: <108@ccieng2.UUCP>
Organization: University of North Carolina Comp. Center
Lines: 24

I think this discussion has wavered from the point Tim was trying to make.
As I read what Tim has to say, it seems the process of selecting a reli-
gion/faith/god necessarily involves some evaluation of that religion/faith/
god.  If not, then what is to prevent one from following Satan, Ubizmo,
or Adolph Hitler.  The process of judgement, or evaluation of you find that
word too loaded, exists irrespective of the outcome.  

Larry Bickford's argument that to judge G-d asserts that one is above G-d
is flawed in that, by this line of reasoning, Larry has judged G-d just
as surely as has Tim.  The difference is that the outcome of Larry's 
judgement was acceptance; the outcome of Tim's judgement was rejection.
In both cases, however, the attributes, works and actions of the Deity
in question were initially weighed with some probability of acceptance and
some probability of rejection.  There is, of course, a middle ground.

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.
-- 

					Byron Howes
					UNC - Chapel Hill
					(decvax!mcnc!unc!bch)