Re: Source Code for OS?

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Roy and/or Janet Miller wrote:

> olcott wrote:
>
> > Roy and/or Janet Miller wrote:
> >
> > > > There is NO EXCUSE for one whose "profession"
> > > > is speaking for God to ever be rude.
> > >
> > > What authority says so? It is obvious that you know nothing about this matter. Jesus called
> > > Herod a fox, John the Baptist called the Pharisees and priest, a brood of vipers, Jesus also
> > > called the Pharisees whitewashed tombs full of decaying bones. Of course, you will claim that
> >
> > All of examples go directly against "Love your enemies"
>
> Now, this whole thing started with you condemning people to hell - how is that loving your enemies?
> Seems that you have just nailed yourself. Aside from the fact that you have torn the phrase out of
> it's context, and made it meaningless, so that you can pour YOUR meaning into the phrase.
>

I merely take this statement of Christ unequivocally.
I did not threaten a hateful person with Hell, but
merely pointed out that this possibility  is a price
too high to pay for the right to be mean and spiteful.

>
> >
> > None of these examples is any form of an expression of Love.
>
> You have no idea what love means. Question, which of four Greek words is used in the phrase "Love your
> enemies, and what does it mean, not merely from Liddell & Scott, after all this is Attic Greek, but
> Koine, so check out instead Ardnt & Ginrich. Then consider, what would be the loving thing for God to
> do to those who hate Him? Further, your use of the phrase, typically of your ilk, ignores the need for
> justice. How does one reconcile justice and love? To not have justice, is to not be loving, but to
> have justice, is to not be loving. Answer that.
>

How about the actual event in my life of expressing
kindness and generosity to one whom has twice
stabbed me in the face with a knife...

>
> >
> > Christ killed a fig tree in anger because it was merely not
> > in season for figs. This killing of the fig tree is by no means
> > an expression of righteousness, and I would even go so far as
> > to say it was an expression of the opposite of righteousness.
>
> Only because you don't know what righteousness is. You have your own preconceived erroneous ideas that
> you project onto the text, so that you accept or reject what matches, or doesn't match your
> definitions. That is the sin of idolatry.
>
> >
> > Christ had a human nature too, and all human natures are
> > inherently fallible.
>
> Wrong. 1. Christ had a human nature. 2. All humans that you have met are inherently fallible 3. Christ
> was fallible. That is your syllogism. Your second premise however, has an assumption derived from an
> inductive methodology (remember, you are the one who complained that induction is not perfect). That

You get my reasoning incorrectly.
(1) Christ had a human nature...
(2) Human nature is inherently fallible, by tautological definition...
(3) Thus Christ was fallible.

>
> assumption, however, is denied by the Scriptures. Adam, and Eve, were not inherently fallible,
> however, they were capable of choosing to become so. Christ, as the Second Adam, born of a virgin, did
> not participate in their fallen state, and so His human nature was like ours in every way except
> without sin (need I give you the references?) Even if you wish to deny the claims of Scripture, and
> the conclusions of catholic Christianity (Eastern Orthodox churches, Roman Catholic church, official
> creedal statements of both liberal and conservative Protestant churches), you still have failed to
> prove what you have assumed: that it is impossible that a human could be infallible.
>
> > Would you propose that the killing of
> > an innocent fig tree is a Good thing?
>
> I propose to say that killing of trees is often a good thing, as I sit in a wooden chair, in a wooden
> house, at a wooden desk. I also find interesting your use of the word "innocent" for a non sapient
> life form.
>

The killing of this tree in anger, for the reason
that it had no figs, and the reason that it had
no figs, is merely that it was not their season
is NOT a good thing. This is by-no-means
any possible expression of Love your enemies...

>
> >
> >
> > Learning a thing by rote, makes one a non-living machine.
>
> Really? I'm glad that I learned my multiplication tables by rote. One difference between myself and
> others of my generation, and far too many of today's school kids, is that I know what 9x6 is without
> having to use my fingers or a machine. Indeed, rote knowledge is the basis of reasoning. If you don't
> know by rote, you are in capable of reasoning.
>

I accept nothing that is not proven beyond all possible doubt
as true, merely possibly true. I have found that both belief
and disbelief form erros of reasoning that shut off the path
to truth... They are both mind-closing things.

>
> >
> > Learning a thing by the comprehension of all the reasoning
> > behind it is the only correct way.
>
> But one cannot know the reasoning if one keeps imposing their own reasoning on anther's statements. In
> that case, as with you, one has not learned anything, one has merely used another's words to express
> one's own prejudices.
>
> By way of analogy, what on earth do you know of an program's , or even a subroutine's purpose,  if all
> you have is one line of assembly code? Are you going to impose on the structure and function of the
> program your own ideas, based on reading a single line? Only a fool would do that. The tough part, of
> course, is even if you read a program all the way through, if it hasn't been commented on it's really
> tough to try to figure out what is going on. (Case in point - Barnaby was doing a conversion project,
> completed 90% in three weeks, walked off the job, and it took the companies entire development staff a
> month to finish the final 10% - you can impress me to no end by identifying Barnaby, the program, the
> company, and the project)
>
> You have not studied the literature, the language, the culture, and therefore you do not know the
> reasoning of the author, and so your statement is nonsense.  In fact, you are so profoundly ignorant,
> that you don't know how ignorant you are.

>
> Roy