Posted by Mark Parnell on 12/20/93 11:49

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, dorayme
<doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> declared in alt.html:

> You concede too much really. You were right first time.

Absolutely. I still stand by my statement, but as I said it's not very
useful in practise - it's all very well to say the only way to know
whether something is perfect is to check it against a perfect standard,
but then how do you check that the standard is perfect?

> Perfection in most things is exactly a measuring up to some
> ideal.

Yes, but not everyone will have the same ideal. So for it to be perfect,
there must be a perfect ideal in the first place. And we end up with the
same circular argument.

> Not at all true.

Not in the way Toby meant it. :-)

But it is true in that perfection is self-evident. If something is
perfect, then anyone who encounters it will recognise that fact, even if
previously they wouldn't have agreed that the particular properties of
that thing were perfect. If you don't believe it is perfect, then it is
because you haven't perceived (to use Toby's word) it, not because the
thing is not perfect.

When you meet God face to face, you *will* recognise He is perfect (and
just *how* imperfect you are). Until that point you are free to choose
to believe whatever you want. But when you do face Him, you'll have to
face the consequences of that decision.

> half the American people thought that Bush was
> the best thing since sliced white bread and were dead wrong.

It was slightly less than half of the approximately half of the American
people who actually bothered to vote - not exactly a unanimous decision.
:-)

--
Mark Parnell
My Usenet is improved; yours could be too:
http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

[Back to original message]