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