I would rather consider him as a man and point out those things which make him great to me--things which I cannot read without wet eyes--but you will not consider him as man, so let him be a God, and let us see what we see.

It is customary to speak of his "sacrifice." What was it?
Our catechism says, "Christ's humiliation consisted in his being born, and that in a low condition, made under the law, undergoing the miseries of this life, the wrath of God and the cursed death of the cross; in being buried and continuing under the power of death for a time." As I write the words I wonder that the thing should ever have seemed to any one to be more than a wretched piece of God-jugglery, devoid of integrity.

Are we to conceive God then as a being of carnal appetites, humiliated by being born into the family of an honest carpenter, instead of into the family of a King?
This is the somewhat snobbish imputation.
Let us be done with gods playing at being human, or at being half god and half human.

The time has come when, to prolong its usefulness, the Church must concede--nay, proclaim--the manhood of Jesus; must separate him from that atrocious scheme of human sacrifice, the logical extension of a primitive Hebrew mythology--and take him in the only way that he commands attention: As a man, one of the world's great spiritual teachers.
Insisting upon his godship can only make him preposterous to the modern mind.

Jesus, born to a carpenter's wife of Nazareth, declares himself, one day about his thirtieth year, to be the Christ, the second person in the universe, who will come in a cloud of glory to judge the world.