The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular Liberty.com

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Computing Analogy

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: If he can't do wrong, how (see in situ)

Computing Analogy

It's interesting that you bring up computer problems. I've been a computer technician for decades, and something in particular has stuck with me.

I apologize if this veers off of the original topic. I'm also going to generalize some terms, so don't chew me out please. (-:

When sin was introduced into mankind by the angel whose job it was to protect them, it was introduced into our very source code. Generation after generation, the corruption is still in us. We can try to avoid the destructive results of the corrupt code, but we end up endlessly chasing down bugs. They crop up faster than we can address them, so it's impossible for us to fix them all...besides the fact that we can't truly see ourselves from the inside.

Interestingly, the angel who introduced sin did so for the purpose of pointing out faults in God's creation. Indeed, that's why his name is "ha-satan" which means "the accuser". His purpose is vindication. As a self-centered and pious angel, he would rather find faults in God's creations than to find any in himself.

The same psychology seems to be pervasive in the Windows world. Windows has been a virus-riddled mess for a long, long time. They've said that it's because people don't have proper anti-virus, don't use their computers responsibly, don't reinstall Windows on a frequent enough basis, and even don't buy the "professional" version. Microsoft has used many excuses to cover up their shoddy programming.

And it's not even just as simple as shoddy programming. They have a closed-source model, because they're greedy. They don't let anyone know how the software on their computers operates. They take people to court and successfully sue them all the time, just for trying to find out what Windows is doing behind the scenes.

Enter Linux (and BSD, of course), a free and open-source operating system. You can use Linux in any way you want, and you can copy and build upon the source code as much as you want. For all intents and purposes, Linux doesn't get viruses, and it never will have the vulnerabilities of Windows.

When we decide to switch from a corrupt operating system to a free, open-source, and secure one, we can't just apply a patch. We have to re-load the entire operating system. As human beings, physical beings in bio-mechanical bodies, we can't do that.

God couldn't ignore the corruption that was introduced, because we would ultimately destroy ourselves entirely. The more powerful we've become, the more self-destructive we've become. He offered a way for us to not be extinguished. He made another human from himself and sent him to earth to have a body and then to die and come back. What does this mean for us? For those of us who accept the offer, our essence is saved after our bodies are broken.

Here's where being a computer technician really drove this home for me. I have a secure Linux server. When a customer brings in a corrupt computer, I make a backup of all of the data onto that server. Then I wipe the server, install the operating system fresh, scan the backup, and restore only the documents, favorites, settings, pictures, etc. The essence of the computer is saved, but the computer is clean.

When the earth dies, our essence will be saved, and the earth will be repopulated. We'll be given new bodies on a new earth, and our essence will be put back. We will be have the backup/wipe/reinstall process done to our bio-mechanical bodies.

Now, this might not sound right, because we hear about people dying, turning into angels, and going to heaven for eternity. That's all wrong. We're being given a new world with new bodies, free from the corrupt code that causes us to be self-destructive.

Also I would like to point out that being a computer technician has led me to believe in God in much the way that Einstein did. God externally created the universe, the laws of physics, energy, and certain elegant patterns and algorithms. These patterns have continued such that we humans have brains and can make decisions. The question of "pre-destiny" versus "free will" doesn't bother me, because as I see it, we are pre-destined BY our free will. We make each decision once, as each circumstance presents itself, and we will never re-visit that circumstance. Time isn't a line. It doesn't even exist for all I care. Now is here, but the past and future don't exist.

As kind and loving parents tell their children how to live but then allow them to make their own mistakes in order to learn, so does a dictatorship not allow its people to make decisions for themselves. God gave us the ultimate guidebook and the ultimate amount of freedom. He even gave us the ability to live our entire lives hating him, working as hard as we can against him, and turning others away from him.

Kinda makes you feel special.

These aren't things for everyone to see, and hardly any two people will agree on much of it. I think that there is one truth, and it's too much for any of us to take in, so we each get a view of it from our own perspective. Some of it we filter through our own lives and experiences. I see the behavior of computers as being a lot like the behavior of us, which makes sense to me, since we make computers in our image in a manner of speaking.

There was a questionnaire I filled out long ago, called the Heirophant's Proselytizer. It was full of very good questions, and the great thing about it was that it gave me the opportunity to answer them for myself. Of course there's no way to answer the authors of the questionnaire, because no answer is good enough for them. (For example, some questions include the requirement that certain answers are excluded.) But I like these tough questions, particularly when given the opportunity to answer them and when the other person is given the opportunity to rebut. All of those silly TV talk shows present us the worst possible debate platform, because logical thought requires the lifting of arbitrary constraints (such as time limits or a host shouting insults at you).

Michael Nystrom's fists can punch through FUD.