Re: Source Code for OS?

[pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <3A822F22.214626BE@qwest.net>, olcott  <olcott@qwest.net> wrote:
 
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
> 
>> In article <3A7F15C0.23E66945@qwest.net>, olcott  <olcott@qwest.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <3A7D69C9.6E9475F3@qwest.net>, olcott  <olcott@qwest.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> These are examples of corrupt people that merely called
>>>>> themselves Christian.
>>>>
>>>> But who is the arbitrer to decide who is a "real Christian" and who
>>>> is a "corrupt Christian"?  I don't consider "I and everyone who
>>>
>>> Know the Christian (or prophet) by his fruits good or bad.
>>> Those promoting Love, and Peace, as opposed to those
>>> promoting anger and hatred. Thus the "Christ" that said
>>> I come not to bring Peace but a Sword is not "Christ"
>>> according to Christ's statements (know the prophet by his fruits).
>>
>> Interesting -- thus according to Christ, Christ wasn't Christ ?????
>>
>> But still the question remains: who is the arbitrer?  As you may
>> know, "love", "peace", "anger", "hatred" are value judgements,
>> and different people will have different opinions here.  So who
>> is to be the arbitrer?
> 
> Truth itself is the final abiter...
 
Of course ... and that's why the scientific method has been so very
successful: it queries Nature itself about facts, trying to rely as
little as possible on human interpretation.  And in trials, technical
evidence is considered more reliable than the storys told by
witnesses.
 
However, concepts like "love", "peace", "anger", "hatred" are human
value judgements, and different humans interpret these differently.
What one person perceives as "agressivity" (e.g. "how can you shoot
that poor innocent deer, you brute?") another person can perceive as
love (e.g. "that man loves his family because he brings them food").
And Roy gave an example of killing a creature being a good thing
because then you can use its remnants to build stuff.
 
So how are we going to translate "anger", "love", etc into
measureable quantities so we can bypass human subjectivity and obtain
objective measures, to get at "the truth" directly.  Should we
consider e.g.  adrenaline levels above a specific threshold value in
our bodies as "evil"?  If so, should it then too be punishable, e.g.
like if we were caught with illegal drugs in our blood?
 
So the question remains: who, or what, should be the arbitrer?
"Truth itself" is useless here because "truth itself" cannot be
queried.
 
>>>> 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter
>>>>    against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
>>>>
>>>> and Luke 14:
>>>>
>>>> 26 "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother
>>>>    and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his
>>>>    own life, he cannot be my disciple.
>>>
>>> The wrong guy slipped his own evil view into the bible,
>>> falsely claiming to be Christ.
>>
>> But the bible says eveyr word there is the word of god....  now
>> if that's not true, how do we decide which parts of the bible are
>> written by god and which parts are written by belsebub?
> 
> It never actually says this.
 
It does -- I can dig up the relevant verse if you insist (it's so
easy nowadays: just load the text of the entire bible into your
favourite text editor -- it's only some 5 Megs -- and then search for
phrases...)
 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at saaf dot se   or    paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW:     http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch    http://welcome.to/pausch