[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Source Code for OS?
In article <3A7C3DE3.C2ED2553@inetnebr.com>,
Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote:
> olcott wrote:
>
>> There is only one frame of reference that
>> utltimately counts, and that is the creators...
>
> A tautology. The problem is, I believe that my conceptual frame is as
> close to the Creator's as I can currently get it, given my limited
> abilities and the effects of sin in my being.
Perhaps we could define "sin" as "the difference in the conceptual
frame of you and of your Creator" ???
> However, I'm smart enough to know that others, with whom I may
> have profound differences, have the same belief.
Perhaps that's because their "sin's" are different from yours?
> 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.
> How to demonstrate to others that their conceptional framework is not
> true to the world as it is, is the problem.
An equally important problem is how for you to demonstrate to yourself
that your conceptional framework is not true to the world as it is.
I mean, if other humans can be wrong, why can't you be wrong?
> 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?
The Islamic world of today is pretty similar to the Christian
world in medieveal times: back then the Church was in power,
fundamentalism was the rule rather than the exception, and it
was your duty as a citizen to be a Christian who visited the
church every sunday - and you were punished if you didn't
fullfill these duties.
> 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!
I think you'll agree that it is VERY UNFAIR to compare non-corrupt
Christians with corrupt Moslems or corrupt Marxists. Why not turn
the tables and compare non-corrupt Moslems or non-corrupt Marxists
with copprupt Christians? Try THAT for a change -- you'll quickly
see how unfair that it. Then open your eyes and see that your way
is just as unfair.
BTW did you ever read George Orwell's "Animal Farm" ?
> And I've never found an arrogant attitude to be helpful in that
> endeavor.
Indeed true -- and that's valid for Christians as well as for
Muslims and Marxists: by force you can only scare people, not
convince them. And the brutality by the Christians in earlier
time now strikes back at Christianity, by making a large part of
the formerly Christian world a secularised world.
And it took the Catholic Chuch (which BTW is the largest Christian
Church) some 450 years before they finally oficially admitted how
wrong they acted towards Galileo Galilei !
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
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