Homosexuals in heaven?

Originally posted by RJHinds
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 ...[text shortened]... hings" we are worth more than the entire universe to God. Sounds very arrogant, doesn't it?

So, to answer your earlier question:

Why should ones artistic work be worth more than the others?

It shouldn't necessarily.

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.

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

This is a number written in binary. The meaning it has to the computer program using it is the information value bestowed upon it by the programmer, usually agreed upon in some manner by the user.

It could stand for an amount of money.
It could stand for the state of Georgia.
It could stand for whether a prisoner is to be executed or not.

It could stand for an address in the physical box of the computer itself.
It could stand for anything which a human being might determine it stands for.
The value is assigned by an intelligent mind.
The value is used by another intelligent mind.

If the cross reference used to equate that binary number to the intended meaning the programmer ascrobed to it, and it is translated as something else, confusion COULD be the result. But not necessarily so.

If the number stands for how often someone went to AMC last year, but someone reads it to mean what color the person's hair is, confusion will be the result. Misinfomration will be the result.

Getting some basics out of the way then, both Apple or Microsoft may utilize that specific number. It has value to each.

I suppose your question is like this "If it means the kind of dog you have, to Microsoft, but the amount of life savings you have in the bank to Apple, which is more important ?"

That depends on the user of the information. Somehow I guess I am suppose to slide easily from that to a concept that everything has value only relative to some user.

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.

I'll come back to this probably.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
So, to answer your earlier question:

Why should ones artistic work be worth more than the others?

It shouldn't necessarily.

However, it is worth more if one with authority gives it worth.

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “ All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth."

(Matthew 28:18 NASB)

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[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 under ve of the valuer, unless you take away all cognitive thought then all things have no value.[/b]

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.

I have read your clarifications and I honestly don't think I have any misunderstanding of your philosophy.

Tell me which of these two statments in the US Declaration of Independence would be to more honest statment. I am quoting how Thomas Jefferson opened the Declaration of Independence and how he well COULD have opened it.

Please tell me which you think is the truer of the two versions according to your world view:

1.) " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Govenrments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ... etc."


2.) " We hold these opinions as our own, and are important to us as far as we are concerned. All Men are created equal and though there is no Creator bestowing this equality on men, nevertheless these relatively important preferences should not be alieanated away. That's not fair in our opinion. We respect our opinion as at least being relevant to [b] our values if not yours, Your Majesty. Among these relatively valuable preferences and tastes to us are Life, Liberty, and the persuit of Happiness. That to secure these tastes and opinions, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their own opinions, tastes, and preferences from the consent of the governed ... etc. " [/b]

Would you advize Mr. Jefferson - "Well, we know that there are REALLY no unalienable rights bestowed by some imaginary grand Creator. Consistent with the real ultimate nature of reality we should just state what has relative value to us. That's has more force. That should really touch his conscience and strengthen our cause."

I don't think men actually live and react with the view you have. Our reactions at our rights being violated are fortified with a conviction of the universality of the violated values. Men go to their deaths in resistance to tyranny with conviction that what is being done to them is REALLY wrong, not just relatively so.

that does not mean they were bad to hitler, he has his own perspective.

The Nuremberg trials must show the world and Adolf Hitler's men that what they did was really wrong and universally bad in ultimate terms. "Never Again!".

I hear you saying "Yes, yes. But these are only the values we give to things. Truely and actually in the ultimate sense of reality, they are of no value." I think your relativism does no favors for social justice. Sturdy protest at injustice can become a jellyfish with no backbone because conviction is weakened by your big picture.

For the cause of social justice your philosophy should be hidden rather than espoused.

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote]

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 e cause of social justice your philosophy should be hidden rather than espoused.

[b["I have read your clarifications and I honestly don't think I have any misunderstanding of your philosophy. "[/b]

i disagree, either you dont understand or you are misrepresenting what im saying on purpose. many of the examples you use to display my philosophy do not follow the logic i am using. ill use the end of your post as an example.

I hear you saying "Yes, yes. But these are only the values we give to things. Truely and actually in the ultimate sense of reality, they are of no value."

as i have said, its all about perspective, all things can be valuable all things can have no value depending on who or what is making the observations. their is no 'ultimate sense of reality'. their is just one reality (that we are aware of) all things have attribute value differently within this reality. things only have no value when their is nothing with the ability to apply value or has not been designated a value.
my opinion that outside of conscious thought nothing has value does not trump the value humans apply to things.

injustice is a human concept (possibly shared by some animals, im not sure). it is not weekend by any other value system. unless we take into consideration a different value system. an example would be us taking into account animal behavior and making allowance for it. nothing is weakened.

what makes you think it is weakened?


For the cause of social justice your philosophy should be hidden rather than espoused.

why so?


its funny, ive become you defending my philosophy while you have become me trying to poke holes in it (only not as successful as me!!😉)

Originally posted by RJHinds
However, it is worth more if one with authority gives it worth.

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “ All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth."

(Matthew 28:18 NASB)

"Too heavenly minded to be any earthly good."

Originally posted by jaywill

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

This is a number written in binary. The meaning it has to the computer program using it is the information value bestowed upon it by the programmer, usually agreed upon in some manner by the user.

It could stand for ...[text shortened]... rative sense, in the memories of others. [/quote]

I'll come back to this probably.

It has no value. It's just some random string I made up. But it is made of exactly the same 2 component parts as any computer program. And yet the computer program has more value despite the fact that it has no 'hidden' or 'extra' components vs. the random string.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
It has no value. It's just some random string I made up. But it is made of exactly the same 2 component parts as any computer program. And yet the computer program has more value despite the fact that it has no 'hidden' or 'extra' components vs. the random string.

Meanwhile, back in heaven....No hint of mint?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Meanwhile, back in heaven....No hint of mint?

zwah?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
zwah?

It looks like to me, under those rules, hell would be a lot more sociable🙂

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[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 under ...[text shortened]... ve of the valuer, unless you take away all cognitive thought then all things have no value.[/b]

So your perspective is that if Hitler had won the big war then it would still be good because Hitler thought it was good. Right?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
It has no value. It's just some random string I made up. But it is made of exactly the same 2 component parts as any computer program. And yet the computer program has more value despite the fact that it has no 'hidden' or 'extra' components vs. the random string.

You have revealed that you believe your random sting of numbers that you just made up has no value compared to Microsoft word. Why do you think this?

Originally posted by RJHinds
You have revealed that you believe your random sting of numbers that you just made up has no value compared to Microsoft word. Why do you think this?

For an ex big shot analyst you are showing your basal intelligence. He is saying there is no difference in random # and the binary behind Word except for what a computer does with that information. He is saying both sets of bits would weigh exactly the same, contain almost exactly the same energy, etc., only the machine sees the difference.

I guess we can write off your not understanding to your un-nerdness, us nerds knew what he meant pretty well.

Originally posted by sonhouse
For an ex big shot analyst you are showing your basal intelligence. He is saying there is no difference in random # and the binary behind Word except for what a computer does with that information. He is saying both sets of bits would weigh exactly the same, contain almost exactly the same energy, etc., only the machine sees the difference.

I guess we can write off your not understanding to your un-nerdness, us nerds knew what he meant pretty well.

So are you agreeing with stellspalfie's statement that things don't really have any value?

Originally posted by RJHinds
So are you agreeing with stellspalfie's statement that things don't really have any value?

Value is what is perceived. What is the value of a planet with no life on it at all, like we think Venus is like (there is some people who suggest life may exist way up in the atmosphere, but the surface, no way, something about a 1000 degree surface temperature, an atmosphere the pressure of a commercial nitrogen bottle but mainly sulfuric acid compounds, no carbon based life could start, that high a temperature tears apart just about every carbon based molecule)

So what is the value of Venus?

I rather suspect it depends on whether there are intelligent beings around who can at least see it in a telescope if not visit directly.

Or Mars. How many dinosaurs gave a crap about Mars?

How many mastodons valued a coal seam?