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)