Re: Source Code for OS?

[pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <3A7D69C9.6E9475F3@qwest.net>, olcott  <olcott@qwest.net> wrote:
 
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
> 
>>> Given that A can't be Non A, we both can't be right.
>>
>> According to human logic, yes, however humans are fallible and the
>> world is more complex than we can imagine.  Therefore you shouldn't
>> rule out the possibility that A actually can be Non A, even though
>> human minds would certainly have a hard time to grasp that.
>>
> 
> Sorry that's not the way that it works. I know this from a form
> of infallible reasoning that I created that derives an exhaustively
> complete categorical enumeration of every possibility. "A" can
> NEVER be Not "A", at the same time that it is "A". Every
> possible attempt to show otherwise results only from a
> lack of precision in the linguistic representation of the
> potential counterexample.
 
One thing for you to contemplate: is light particles or waves?  They
can't be both, can they?
 
 
>>> Using the sword, as Islam has done, or torture and brainwashing as
>>> Marxism has done, isn't an option for a Christian,
>>
>> Utter nonsense!  Christians too have used both the sword (in e.g.
>> their crusades) and torture and brainwashing (in e.g. the
>> inquisition), and they may very well have inspired Muslims and
>> Marxists to later do the same!  The name of the game is the same in
>> all three cases: to gain, and maintain, political power.  It's
>> well-known that power corrupts, and you're making a mistake in
>> believing Christians are immune to such corruption: they too are
>> sinful humans, just like anyone else - right?
> 
> 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
agrees with me are real Christians; the others are corrupt" a
satisfactory answer....
 
 
>>> not to say that some calling themselves Christians haven't tried it.
>>
>> Aaah, I see -- Christians who use the sword or torture aren't "real
>> Christians".  Well, we can use the same terminology on Muslims and
>> Marxists: if they use sword and/ord torture they're not "real
>> Muslims" or "real Marxists" but merely corrupted power-hungry
>> people, using Marxism, Islam or Christianity as a disguise, depending
>> on what's most fashionable in their time and their part of the world!
> 
> His assessment can be known to be true, analytically.
> It is analytically true that an expression of violence
> is the antithesis of an expression of love, and Christ
> said to "Love your enemies", thus utterly disproving
> that those using violence in their Christianity were
> Christian in the use of this violence. Note that what
> I say here is no mere fallible human opinion, but
> can be derived purely analytically, thus not subject
> to human error.
 
Then what about these passages from the Holy Bible. Matthew 10:
 
33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my
   Father who is in heaven.
34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I
   have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
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.
 
 
Doesn't sound very peaceful to me....  and those crusaders who
travelled out to use their sword on "pagan" people could point to
Matthew 10:34 and say God wanted then to do so.....
 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
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