From: emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery)
Subject: Re: Yes, I'm sure.
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:23:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.012353.3818@unislc.uucp> erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp) writes:
>John Emery (emery@tc.fluke.COM) wrote:
>
>: If you're not absolutely sure that there is an absolute truth, then
>: you must admit that there is a possibility that there is an absolute 
>: truth.
>
>That logic doesn't follow.  If you'd said:
>
>: If you're not absolutely sure that there isn't an absolute truth, then
>: you must admit that there is a possibility that there is an absolute 
>: truth.

Sorry.  You're right.  That's exactly what I meant to say.

>: Quick, let's jump off now before this ride gets going too fast :-).
>
>Naaah, I have a feeling that this is going to be a fun ride, John! :)

But I don't like roller coasters :-).

>I didn't understand where you made this leap of faith from absolute truth
>to believing in "God".  Who says that there *has* to be a source for
>what you call "absolute truth"?  Perhaps it's just "what is".

It would seem more probable from observing human behavior that absolute
truth does have a source, external from ourselves.  We have this knowledge
within us that love is good.  And we try to achieve lives where we 
continually love.  Yet we run into a problem.  We never quite get there.
Just when I think I got it down, I wake up the next morning in a bad
mood and get irritated at the driver who cuts in front of me on the way
to work :-).

To the Christian, we call this misbehavior sin.  But even in the Newage,
the belief in reincarnation reaffirms this fact.  Why else would a
person need many lives to get things right?  So we are stuck with this
dilemma.  Inside we know what is right and what we ought to be like,
yet none of us reaches perfection.  And if no one reaches perfection,
where does perfection come from?  Perhaps now you can see why I find the
truth that God is the source of absolute truth to be more probable
(this argument is apart from my own personal encounter with God who has
overwhelmingly convinced me that He is real).

>: But were one to consider of this, it would seem reasonable to submit
>: ourselves to this absolute authority.  For instance, think for a
>
>Why?  Why would that be reasonable?

Because if God is what we know of as good (loving, kind, compassionate,
merciful, caring, fair, just, forgiving, etc.), it would seem reasonable
to seek this God out so that He might be loving, kind, compassionate,
merciful, caring, fair, just, and forgiving to us.

>That reminds me of the old story about Buddha.  He said that under
>certain circumstances, murder could be considered to bestow upon one "good
>karma".  Case in point: suppose you were a revolutionary, and had scads of
>automatic weapons around, and you got pissed off one night, grabbed your
>AK-47 and a couple of mags, and said that you were going to go down to the
>local Denny's and blow everyone away in the restaurant.  Suppose circumstances
>were such that I believed you, and had absolutely no doubt that you would do
>what you said you were going to do.  The Denny's is a block down the street,
>and I stuff my Ruger P85 in my waistband and go with you.  You walk in the
>Denny's, slap a mag into your AK, chamber a round, set the fire selector
>to full automatic, and raise your weapon.  I see the restaurant is full of
>people grabbing something to eat after the latest showing of a very popular
>movie - in other words, Denny's is *packed*.  At this point I pull out my P85,
>jack one in, and put a round just behind your left ear, killing you instantly.
>
>Suppose I take all your guns and hide them over at my house.  I have stolen
>your property, have I not?
>
>Now, is murder always wrong?  Is theft always wrong?

This is my point exactly, Ed.  Why would a person seek to limit this
revolutionary heading for Denny's in the first place?  Because what
he is doing violates the absolute.  It is what we call *wrong*.  In
such a case would it not be imperative to limit this person's behavior?
In this light, would it seem unreasonable for God to put limits on behavior
and hold us accountable?  Your analogy shows that certain types of
actions and behaviors are good and bad.  You analogy shows that there
are certain "Thou shalt not"'s and "Thou shall"'s.

>: Would it not make sense, that the author of this absolute truth
>: (God) be like this absolute truth?  God is loving, kind, compassionate,
>: merciful, caring, fair, and judges and limits bad behavior.  And
>: what is not good is what God is not like.  And if God is good, then
>: it would be quite beneficial to submit ourselves to this goodness.
>
>God is not above murder - read the OT.  God is not above retribution.

Exactly.  But according to your analogy, God would be likened to the
one who goes to stop the revolutionary heading for Denny's with a loaded
round.  In this light, it is easily seen that it is reasonable for God
to deal with wrong, just as you propose, Ed.

>God is not fair (read Job).

I have.  Why is God not fair?

>of the soul and reincarnation.  There is ample proof in the Bible of the
>preexistence of the soul, BTW...

This is off the subject, but if you wish to share this proof (I think you
mean evidence), I would be interested.

The One who loves us and gave Himself for us be glory!

God bless you all,
-- 
John Emery		"You say we've risen to a new age of light.
emery@tc.fluke.COM       You're telling me what used to be wrong
			 is now right."
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:5369 alt.alien.visitors:8449 sci.skeptic:19890