Re: Source Code for OS?

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Paul Schlyter wrote:

> 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.
>

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.

>
> > How to demonstrate to others that their conceptional framework is not
> > true to the world as it is, is the problem.
>

It is mostly human pride that gets in the way of this.

>
> 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?
>

A derived form that I  (accurately) call limited subject domain
omniscience. I can know everything that can ever possibly
be known about a very specific subject.

>
> > 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.

>
> 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!
>

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.

>
> 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.
>

Focus ONLY on righteousness, and unrighteousness
will leave (at least you) on its own.

>
> 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