Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Gender of God -- More or less than a person?
Message-ID: <996@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 17-Aug-84 19:19:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.996
Posted: Fri Aug 17 19:19:28 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 20-Aug-84 02:08:38 EDT
References: <499@bunker.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 26

> Rich Rosen remarks:
> 	I thought god was "depersonalized".
> 
> AHA!  If I thought that, I wouldn't be interested in God, either.
> The term "depersonalized" suggests something less than a person.
> Perhaps a better term would be "superpersonalized." [GARY SAMUELSON]

Or "non-personalized".  But whether or not you'd be interested in a deity
doesn't change what its actual character is, does it?  

> If you think that humanity is the best (or most intelligent, or
> most powerful, or most whatever) that there is, then it follows
> that anything (God included) would be less than human.
> But if you think that humanity is imperfect, and that there is
> therefore the possibility that something better exists, then
> something (such as God) could be more than human.

Our being imperfect doesn't imply that there *is* something more perfect.
That's nothing (nothing) but wishful thinking.

> God has feelings, too.

Isn't that just as anthropocentric as given god (virtual) genitals?
(... and a beard)
-- 
If it doesn't change your life, it's not worth doing.     Rich Rosen  pyuxn!rlr