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