Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rdin.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!rdin!perl
From: perl@rdin.UUCP (Robert Perlberg)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.women
Subject: Re: the gender of God
Message-ID: <465@rdin.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-Aug-84 17:48:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: rdin.465
Posted: Mon Aug 20 17:48:20 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 22-Aug-84 03:14:38 EDT
Organization: Resource Dynamics Inc., New York
Lines: 30

<>

>                                                         Rich obviously is
>trying to imply that God is not personal.  Yet he says God is supposed to be
>beyond our comprehension.  But if God is not personal, then He (pronoun of
>convenience) would be less than personal; for the lack of personality means
>lack of things such as rational intelligence, love, and and a conscious will,
>attributes which God most certainly has.
>-- Jeff Sargent

Your logic is wrong.

Jeff's logic:

If God is personal, he has love, etc.
God is not personal
therefore, God does not have love.

Comparable example:

All women breath.
Ronald Reagan is not a woman.
therefore, Ronald Reagan does not breath.

Would you buy computer programs from this man?

Robert Perlberg
Resource Dynamics Inc.
New York
philabs!rdin!perl