Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-h
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:aeq
From: aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: the gender of God
Message-ID: <1067@pucc-h>
Date: Thu, 30-Aug-84 14:47:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: pucc-h.1067
Posted: Thu Aug 30 14:47:36 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Sep-84 11:22:20 EDT
References: <465@rdin.UUCP>
Organization: Tucumcari Divinity School
Lines: 29

Belated reply to Robert Perlberg (I'm still playing catch-up):

>> = Sargent
>  = Perlberg

>> 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.

> 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.

Actually, the logic I see is more like:

If God is not personal, then He lacks these neat attributes.
But He has these neat attributes.
Therefore, God is personal.


-- 
-- Jeff Sargent
{decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
"I may be rancid butter, but I'm on your side of the bread."