Homosexuals in heaven?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
- Challenge 'we are all stardust'. [Or, if that was his idea, change it to 'we all came from stardust' at least. 😛] The elements that comprise us came from the stars a long time ago. That doesn't mean we still are.

- He shouldn't have accepted the claim that relying on the uniformity of physical laws is a 'gamble'. [He realized he screwed up a questi ...[text shortened]... d that things were heading in that direction, I'd end the debate right there.]

You should take the advice of the Holy Bible and honor your mother and father instead of debating them.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You should take the advice of the Holy Bible and honor your mother and father instead of debating them.

I do both. I honor them by conducting all debate civilly and respectfully.

It's a credit to them that they still treat me the same way even though my beliefs have changed. Not all ex-Christians are that lucky.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
- Challenge 'we are all stardust'. [Or, if that was his idea, change it to 'we all came from stardust' at least. 😛] The elements that comprise us came from the stars a long time ago. That doesn't mean we still are.

- He shouldn't have accepted the claim that relying on the uniformity of physical laws is a 'gamble'. [He realized he screwed up a questi ...[text shortened]... d that things were heading in that direction, I'd end the debate right there.]

Challenge 'we are all stardust'. [Or, if that was his idea, change it to 'we all came from stardust' at least. ] The elements that comprise us came from the stars a long time ago. That doesn't mean we still are.

I am all for keeping it civil by the way. Better late than never.

Let's say we are now some derivative of stardust. Okay, the stardust has become something else just as physical.

Now there is really not much difference in me a Christian saying that God formed man out of "the dust of the ground" (Gen. 2:7) and that atheist fellow saying we are made of stardust.

Dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7) .
Dust from the stars - modern cosmology and the atheist in the video.

Up to this point the Christian is on the same page as the atheist. We are made of dust. Either stardust or the dust of the ground is what man is.

But are we ONLY dust ? You see there are many places in my Bible which indicate to me that man is not merely and solely DUST. There is something else, something metaphysical. One place I see this is in the words of Jesus.

The example is somewhat negative. But I use it because it so clearly makes the point.

"Do not fear those who can kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna." (Matt. 10:28)

Again, I only use this sample because it is so clear. I know the atheist doesn't care what Jesus said, probably. But in the total naturalist / atheist view of man is there nothing BESIDES the stardust of our bodies that does not pass out of existence after the stardust derivative is disassembled in physical death ?

Why is the human any more valued then the ROCK or the heap of DUST around him ?

The big pile of dust that falls down the side of the mountain covers up and smothers the small pile of dust. Nobody cares much.

But if the human bully puts down the snaller victim fellow man, that may be cause for us to be upset. The latter situation implies that we recognize the worth and value in the man being oppressed.

Though I see man's body made of the dust of the ground, I believe something else, nonphysical, is of great worth and value.

In the atheist's estimation of man, what is there a corresponding component in man which should not be unfairly smothered up in oppression ? Or is it the bully / victim relationship simply one pile of dust awkwardly oppressing another pile of dust ?

I know you can say "I can be upset about that without any need for a big sky daddy." I agree that an atheist can be upset when seeing injustice. But you see, that could be because you cannot deny that deep down there you know we are more than stardust derivatives.

If you are upset at man on man oppression, it could be your philosophical talk of naturalism that we are only stardust remnants, is just your talk. The way you actually LIVE is by something else that knows when some transcendent moral principles have been offended.

So what is it in man that is more than dust which should shown justice, fairness ? Are there some more special atoms that are better than the average atoms ?

Are there some particular chemicals which are of more value than the rest of chemicals ? Why ?

Originally posted by jaywill

Challenge 'we are all stardust'. [Or, if that was his idea, change it to 'we all came from stardust' at least. ] The elements that comprise us came from the stars a long time ago. That doesn't mean we still are.

I am all for keeping it civil by the way. Better late than never.

Let's say we are now some derivative of stardust. Oka ...[text shortened]... e particular chemicals which are of more value than the rest of chemicals ? Why ?

in the grand scale of things everything has equal value. in the human mind though we have given value to objects. this does not mean objects really have value. it means what it says, we have given values, usually on how they make us feel. feelings are their to help ensure out survival. even if we attain levels of self awareness that dictates we can see we have no real value other than one we give ourselves we cannot escape the chemicals in our body and the feelings and emotions they give us.

everything is subjective, it depends on which angle you look and how you feel. the majority of humans roughly feel the same. a psychopath may look at another human and think they are no different to a rock. a shark will look at a human and think they are no different to a cod. a tree sees no difference between a human and a turd. a black hole doesnt stop because there are humans on a planet, a dog thinks we are more important than a lobster. we think we are more important than most things, a god may think we are not as important as his ideals...its all subjective.

Originally posted by jaywill

Challenge 'we are all stardust'. [Or, if that was his idea, change it to 'we all came from stardust' at least. ] The elements that comprise us came from the stars a long time ago. That doesn't mean we still are.

I am all for keeping it civil by the way. Better late than never.

Let's say we are now some derivative of stardust. Oka e particular chemicals which are of more value than the rest of chemicals ? Why ?

It may be like the feeling of worth the artists sees in his masterpiece that took him hours or even days to paint. The 2-year old sees something that he can add his on touch with his many colored Crayola crayons. Even though the 2-year old may be happy with his result, the artist only sees that his masterpiece has been ruined. Why should ones artistic work be worth more than the others?

Originally posted by jaywill

Challenge 'we are all stardust'. [Or, if that was his idea, change it to 'we all came from stardust' at least. ] The elements that comprise us came from the stars a long time ago. That doesn't mean we still are.

I am all for keeping it civil by the way. Better late than never.

Let's say we are now some derivative of stardust. Oka ...[text shortened]... e particular chemicals which are of more value than the rest of chemicals ? Why ?

Well, why is 1001011101010101000100111111 less valuable than Microsoft Word? Both are made entirely of "1" and "0".

It's the configuration of elements that is valuable, not the elements themselves. Once that configuration irreparably breaks down, we cease to exist. We live on only in a figurative sense, in the memories of others.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Well, why is 1001011101010101000100111111 less valuable than Microsoft Word? Both are made entirely of "1" and "0".

It's the configuration of elements that is valuable, not the elements themselves. Once that configuration irreparably breaks down, we cease to exist. We live on only in a figurative sense, in the memories of others.

Just like the artist's masterpiece painting, there must be someone that appreciates the value of Microsoft Word over the individual parts that it is made of. God is the one that values His human masterpiece over the others because He made us in His own image. He has gone to great length to rescue this masterpiece from destruction in a mysterious way as is mentioned in the Holy Bible. Statements like the following are made:

"God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
(1 Timothy 3:16 KJV)

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
(John 3;16 KJV)

Originally posted by stellspalfie
in the grand scale of things everything has equal value. in the human mind though we have given value to objects. this does not mean objects really have value. it means what it says, we have given values, usually on how they make us feel. feelings are their to help ensure out survival. even if we attain levels of self awareness that dictates we can see ...[text shortened]... nt than most things, a god may think we are not as important as his ideals...its all subjective.

in the grand scale of things everything has equal value.

But if "its all subjective" as you state below, then your announcement of a "grand scheme of things" is also subjective. I think your philosophy is self referentially inconsistent. Or it is self refuting.

According to your own concept there is no "grand scheme" because it is "all" subjective. This has to include your idea of a grand scheme.

If not explain why there is this exception of all things being subjective with YOUR announcement that there is a grand scheme of things.

Does "everything" include abstract objects like your own philosophy ?
Is its value no better or no worst than my Christian faith ?

in the human mind though we have given value to objects. this does not mean objects really have value.

Your philosophy is an object, an abstract object. So it too does not really have value ?

Your concept of "the grand scheme of things", which mind you, came also out of your human mind, is an exception ? Why ? Who are you ?

To accept your philosophy I must also accept that your own imagined "grand scheme of things" is a concept only you have bestowed value to.

Do you see how you shoot yourself in the foot ?

it means what it says, we have given values, usually on how they make us feel. feelings are their to help ensure out survival.

Why does the abstract object of "survival" have any real value, if no object really has any more value than another ? Why is not extinction just as good as survival ?

even if we attain levels of self awareness that dictates we can see we have no real value other than one we give ourselves we cannot escape the chemicals in our body and the feelings and emotions they give us.

I would like you to explain WHY encreased self awareness would necessitate a desire to escape the mechanical feelings produced by chemical reactions.

What is it about "self awareness" which would WANT to reach out to transcendent value ? It sounds like "self awareness" encreases delusion in your philosophy. The greater the level of self awareness the greater the delusion of some worth beyond material chemical reactions.

Is self awareness THAT much of a nuisance in giving rise to a deceptive and wrong headed perception of reality ? It seems it would be better than to be a stone. Better to quickly die and turn back into dirt of the ground.

Is this a "gospel of death" ? Is this a gospel of seek less self awareness if you want to seek the real meaning of reality ?

everything is subjective, it depends on which angle you look and how you feel. the majority of humans roughly feel the same.

So your concept of reality is just your subjective delusion ?
So your grand scheme is your subjective ultimately benigh and actually valueless delusion ?

I like this next part which I will edit a bit for clarity.

a psychopath may look at another human and think they are no different to a rock.

a shark will look at a human and think they are no different to a cod.
a tree sees no difference between a human and a turd.
a black hole doesnt stop because there are humans on a planet,
a dog thinks we are more important than a lobster.
we think we are more important than most things,
a god may think we are not as important as his ideals...its all subjective.

So the grief stricken parents of the gay man Matthew Shepherd, who was slain by two violent anti-gay thugs, really have no ground for their sorrow in the "grand scheme of things".

Matthew Shepherd was just like the eaten cod, the turd, the stuff sucked into a black hole. This murdered gay man was really not of any more value than any of these things you listed.

It seems that people's outrage at the wrongness of this murder, in your grand scheme of things, is all based on delusion of he being of intrinsic worth. In reality he was no better than a turd according to your grand scheme.

I don't believe that. I think the gay man had real and true human value. He was created in the image of God. And God is the ground of value, one for whom a more precious One cannot be imagined.

In your philosophy extinction is as good as survival.
To be a stone is better than to have self awareness.
That is self awareness produces more delusion, more deception in understanding of the way things really are.

Originally posted by jaywill

in the grand scale of things everything has equal value.

But if "its all subjective" as you state below, then your announcement of a "grand scheme of things" is also subjective. I think your philosophy is self referentially inconsistent. Or it is self refuting.

According to your own concept there is no "grand scheme" because it is elusion, more deception in understanding of the way things really are.

" But if "its all subjective" as you state below, then your announcement of a "grand scheme of things" is also subjective. I think your philosophy is self referentially inconsistent. Or it is self refuting. "

sorry bad choice of words, 'scheme' does imply intelligence, but that wasnt what i intended it to mean. i was using it as away of saying 'everything that exists'

" Does "everything" include abstract objects like your own philosophy ?
Is its value no better or no worst than my Christian faith ? "

good question jay, out side of the human mind (although this pains me to say) there is no difference in value, all things are equal in that they have no value. inside the human brain its a mater of perspective.


" Your philosophy is an object, an abstract object. So it too does not really have value ?

my 'philosophy' has a value to me, it has a value to you and anybody that shares or is aware of it. it has no value outside of thought.


"To accept your philosophy I must also accept that your own imagined "grand scheme of things" is a concept only you have bestowed value to. "

again i apologize, i dont believe there is a 'grand scheme' it was a bad choice of words.

Why does the abstract object of "survival" have any real value, if no object really has any more value than another ? Why is not extinction just as good as survival ?

i dont think 'survival' is abstract, it is a way of describing a set of actions with in the brain that ensure we continue to exist in our current state. which also means it has physical properties within our body (the chemical make up of the thought and the electrical charge). as the thoughts of survival exist with in us, it is allocated a value, different people due to their make up, give different values.
so extinction is not good, because are brains and body have developed to place value on surviving. outs side of the mind extinction/survival have equal value in that they both have no value.

"I would like you to explain WHY encreased self awareness would necessitate a desire to escape the mechanical feelings produced by chemical reactions."

i dont think increased awareness necessitates a desire to escape mechanical feelings. it gives us the ability to think beyond what we are and look at ourselves from another perspective. this does not mean we want to escape our chemical feelings. on the contrary most of us find the thought quite scary.

" What is it about "self awareness" which would WANT to reach out to transcendent value ? It sounds like "self awareness" encreases delusion in your philosophy. The greater the level of self awareness the greater the delusion of some worth beyond material chemical reactions."

no, thats not what im saying at all. values are not transcendent, as ive said they exist as part of our mind, they are physical.
in what way do you think self awareness increases delusion, ive not implied anything that would suggest that.




"Is self awareness THAT much of a nuisance in giving rise to a deceptive and wrong headed perception of reality ? It seems it would be better than to be a stone. Better to quickly die and turn back into dirt of the ground."

i do not think self awareness gives rise to a wrong headed perception of reality. im not sure why you think that.
would it be better to be a stone? it depends on your values, 99.9% of humans would rather be a human than a stone because of the values their brains have put on the qualities of being human and the qualities of being a stone. a super advanced alien race may turn up and we might be so alien to them that they value the qualities of a stone over the qualities of being human (all totally hypothetical of course).


" Is this a "gospel of death" ? Is this a gospel of seek less self awareness if you want to seek the real meaning of reality ? "

thats not what im saying at all, if you think this because of my 'grand scale' comment then again i apologize for confusing things. i do not think less self awareness is good. i personally think it is good. i do not think their is a meaning to reality.


So your concept of reality is just your subjective delusion ?
So your grand scheme is your subjective ultimately benigh and actually valueless delusion ?

wow, you've really focused on this 'grand scheme' i understand why, i would probably do the same.
i do not believe there is a grand scheme, their is no delusion, concepts of reality can be subjective, although the majority of us have settled on an understanding of what reality is. some are deluded, some clever quantum scientists may figure out weve had it all wrong then we have all been collectively deluded.


"So the grief stricken parents of the gay man Matthew Shepherd, who was slain by two violent anti-gay thugs, really have no ground for their sorrow in the "grand scheme of things".

ahh!!! grand scheme again!!!

out-side of thought all things are reduced to being just matter so all things have equal value. so from this point of view an human being killed by another is meaningless.
from a human perspective it is a terrible tragedy.

you may think - oh this universe is a terrible place if nothing really has a value and a human is no different to a turd. but your human mind wont let you think like that for long because something funny will happen and you get a squirt of seratonin or you smell a hot bacon sandwich, you body tells you your hungry and your back to giving things all things value. its they we are currently functioning.

" I don't believe that. I think the gay man had real and true human value. He was created in the image of God. And God is the ground of value, one for whom a more precious One cannot be imagined.

yes, he did have true human value, thats exactly what im saying. humans give values to things and to human values he had great value. but a shark would think differently wouldnt it. thats obvious.....then you bring up god.

if god is the ground value - how do we decide what value all other things have?


In your philosophy extinction is as good as survival.
To be a stone is better than to have self awareness.
That is self awareness produces more delusion, more deception in understanding of the way things really are.

in my philosophy extinction is only as good as survival depending on what perspective you look at it from. from a human perspective survival is better, although some humans think extinction is better.

Originally posted by jaywill

in the grand scale of things everything has equal value.

But if "its all subjective" as you state below, then your announcement of a "grand scheme of things" is also subjective. I think your philosophy is self referentially inconsistent. Or it is self refuting.

According to your own concept there is no "grand scheme" because it is ...[text shortened]... elusion, more deception in understanding of the way things really are.

actually ive just read through what i wrote and i actually used the words 'grand scale' not 'grand scheme'. so i here by retract my apologies sir and stand by my original statements. adieu!!

Originally posted by stellspalfie
actually ive just read through what i wrote and i actually used the words 'grand scale' not 'grand scheme'. so i here by retract my apologies sir and stand by my original statements. adieu!!

grand-scale

adjective

of large proportion, extent, magnitude, etc.: grand-scale efforts; a grand-scale approach.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/grand-scale

in the grand/great scheme of things - idiom

if you say that in the grand scheme of things something is not important, you mean that it is not important when compared to much more serious things.

EXAMPLE: In the grand scheme of things, whether another actress has her navel pierced is not really that significant.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+the+grand+scheme+of+things

The Grand Scale of Things

YouTube

Now are we clear?

Originally posted by RJHinds
It may be like the feeling of worth the artists sees in his masterpiece that took him hours or even days to paint. The 2-year old sees something that he can add his on touch with his many colored Crayola crayons. Even though the 2-year old may be happy with his result, the artist only sees that his masterpiece has been ruined. Why should ones artistic work be worth more than the others?

Since 'art' is in the eye of the beholder, there is no universal 'worth' value. The parent of that 2-year old thinks the crayon drawing is an artistic masterpiece.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
actually ive just read through what i wrote and i actually used the words 'grand scale' not 'grand scheme'. so i here by retract my apologies sir and stand by my original statements. adieu!!

I read your disclaimers about "grand scheme" that this is not an indication of your belief in an intelligent overall scheme or scale.

I don't think it makes a difference apology or no. I am not double checking what I read. But I thought it was "scheme". I don't think "scale" makes that much difference.

Basically what I read is that MAN is the measure of all things. Take away man and his interjections, there is no real value to anything.

It is even a bit questionable in your philosophy if the opinion of the cock roach is less important than that of human beings.

I think it is possible to be humble about who we are as humans without resorting to the extreme of saying the termite's values are just as valid as ours as people.

I am all for a humility in realizing we are not the only life form sharing the planet. But the extreme of putting all creatures on the same level, I think is unwarranted. And I don't think any humans actually live that way. Though they may want to talk that way sometimes for other motives.

The Nazis assigned a far inferior human value to the Jewish people. To such an extent they did, to murder six million of them.

Was that actually wrong ? Or was the just a matter of the Nazi internal value system being stronger - too bad for the Jews ?

Intelligent or not, do you really think in the final analysis the six million murdered Jews were of equal value as the six million pebbles along side the road going down into the Grand Canyon ?

I hear you saying that in the overall grand reality, So WHAT ? So what that the Holocaust was carried out by the Nazi value system.

Originally posted by GSWILL
I read your disclaimers about "grand scheme" that this is not an indication of your belief in an intelligent overall scheme or scale.

I don't think it makes a difference apology or no. I am not double checking what I read. But I thought it was "scheme". I don't think "scale" makes that much difference.

Basically what I read is that MAN is the measure ...[text shortened]... [b]So WHAT ? So what that the Holocaust was carried out by the Nazi value system.[/b]

"Basically what I read is that MAN is the measure of all things. Take away man and his interjections, there is no real value to anything. "

then you are not understanding what im saying.

It is even a bit questionable in your philosophy if the opinion of the cock roach is less important than that of human beings.

you are not understanding what im saying. you are missing the key points.


I think it is possible to be humble about who we are as humans without resorting to the extreme of saying the termite's values are just as valid as ours as people.

of coarse it is possible to be humble, ive not said anything contradictory to this. you seem to me fixated by selecting individual sentences simplifying them and using them to define the whole theory.

I am all for a humility in realizing we are not the only life form sharing the planet. But the extreme of putting all creatures on the same level, I think is unwarranted. And I don't think any humans actually live that way. Though they may want to talk that way sometimes for other motives.

again, this is not exactly what im saying, maybe its im not expressing myself clearly, although it seems pretty straight forward.

the main point is that its about perspective.
to you and to me the holocaust is terrible, nazi's were terrible, bad things are bad, to us. they are bad because that is the value the majority of humans have given them. that does not mean they were bad to hitler, he has his own perspective. they are not bad to an otter he has his own perspective.........so if we can imagine we are something outside of being human the value we give things is not the value other things would give them.

im not putting things on the same level, all things have different values depending on the perspective of the valuer, unless you take away all cognitive thought then all things have no value.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Since 'art' is in the eye of the beholder, there is no universal 'worth' value. The parent of that 2-year old thinks the crayon drawing is an artistic masterpiece.

That is only partially true. I was not giving a univeral example of what is considered valuable by all. I once read that the component elements in a human body was only worth a little more than one U.S. dollar. So to many of us, a human is not worth much, since it is not uncommon for some people to kill for a few dollars. But, we Christians believe that we are God's prize creation and "in the grand scheme of things" we are worth more than the entire universe to God. Sounds very arrogant, doesn't it?