Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!stuart From: stuart@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Stuart Kurtz) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: the gender of God Message-ID: <181@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> Date: Tue, 14-Aug-84 15:11:54 EDT Article-I.D.: gargoyle.181 Posted: Tue Aug 14 15:11:54 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 15-Aug-84 01:24:52 EDT References: <633@ihnp4.UUCP> Organization: U. Chicago - Computer Science Lines: 42 > What could be of more importance than, "For God so loved the world > that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him > should not parish, but have everlasting life." And the christian > response to that should be to, "Therefore go and make disciples of > all nations..." I think that should be "should not perish", after all, "should not parish" would seem directly opposed to the point the author was trying to make. A Freudian slip, perhaps?? In any event, I contest the notion that the current discussion is unreasonable, and I especially contest the notion that we should only devote our theological efforts to "a discussion of the real meaning of religion, especially the christian religion." If you want to discuss only the christian religion, perhaps we should form net.religion.christian. (net.religion.christian.intolerant) I am a christian, but my interest in religion goes beyond christianity. Net.religion is the idea venue for discussions about the nature of religion in general, the interaction between religions and society, etc. These are important issues. Even the "deific gender" question is completely appropriate. First, there is considerable convergence of opinion on the question (most of the difficulties seem to be grammarical, not theological); second, the effect of culture on religion is particularly clear in this case; and third, people with widely ranging religious philosophies have been able to discuss this issue with little of the name-calling that characterizes most "christian" debates in this forum. > This may be offensive to some, but is of more importance than any > unresolvable question about God, or life. What offends me about you note is only your "provincial christian" attitude. Question: Besides Rich Rosen, what other famous atheist (and alleged AI program) has the infamous RR initials? [Hint: if you vote for him in November, your complementary lobotomy is redundant.] Stuart Kurtz | Send mail, I'm going on vacation. ihnp4!gargoyle!stuart