From: serb@polisci.umn.edu (Scott Erb)
Subject: Re: Yes, I'm sure.
Organization: Department of Political Science, University of Minnesota
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:59:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.174225.12220@tc.fluke.COM> emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:


(stuff deleted)

>Look at religion.  Religion continually reinforces the presence of a right
>and a wrong.  Sure there are different approaches to it.
>Where am I going with all this?  The sense of right and wrong is so 
>embedded in us that it follows us wherever we go, even when we try not
>to look at it.
>Why then would one not want to admit that an absolute truth exists?
>It would seem to me that it is because it would make us accountable
>to the source of this absolute truth, whom we know as God.  God is
>the title of the one who is absolute authority and divinity.

I think our language makes it hard to think about something like 'absolute 
truth,' though at base much of what you write makes sense to me. I dislike 
the need suddenly tacked on the end to decide to somehow tie an absolute 
authority to this.  In the past, we may have had to rely on myths and god-
stories to be able to follow our inner sense of right and wrong, must 
societies had such myths.  Besides the fact that there is no reason to 
believe a particular one over the other (when they all are somewhat similar, 
as you yourself admit), it may be that our concept of God is out of date.  
Perhaps we have to move beyond the limiting belief of a human like entity 
that dispenses justice, etc., and move beyond myths and figures and books of 
law which can be neither proven or disproven.  In other words, we have to 
take responsibility for the reality we created.  It's easy to blame a God, 
or look to some magic/holy book to give our lives meaning.  Then we can wrap 
ourselves up in a blanket of security knowing that we know the truth and 
follow the right path...when actually we're being cowards, refusing to take 
responsibility for the fact WE HUMANS created this particular social 
reality, and we are the source of spiritual and absolute truth.  I do think 
there's a god -- a connection between all of us, which unites us without 
taking away our individuality.  This connection (I'd call it love) is 
personal and has knowledge of all that that is happening at all levels of 
our existence.  Can I prove this?  Will I always believe this?  Probably 
not, and I certainly admit it's just my theory trying to make sense out of 
my experience.  But as long as we all admit we only have our own theories 
and no one really knows absolute truth -- whether it exists or not -- then 
we can be tolerant.

>But were one to consider of this, it would seem reasonable to submit
>ourselves to this absolute authority.  For instance, think for a
>moment, what do we know of absolutes.

>Think of Jesus.  He has been the only recognized spiritual leader to
>convince a great portion of the world that He is absolute truth (God).

THAT isn't true!  Christianity has never been a majority or plurality 
religion, and many religious/spiritual figures have a large following.  If 
more people at a point in time called themselves Christians, it was because 
the Europeans were spreading their economic, political, and religious 
systems across the globe in a manner most unchristian and unloving! (
Slavery, colonialism, the crusades, etc.)  In fact, very few Christians 
really adhere to the spiritual beliefs they profess -- how can a real 
Christian support war (turn the other check), capitalism (if anything Jesus 
was anti-materialist; I like his work as an anti-materialist pacifist 
philosopher), and his own claims can be read as NOT meaning he is trying to 
put himself personally as the only way to truth.  (I know there are a number 
of different quotes to prove or disprove this; as an ex-Christian, I've read 
the bible and am aware of these).
       -- scott
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,alt.religion.kibology