Recently it was asserted in this forum that, "the finite nature of life makes it more precious".
I would ask, as a topic of discussion and as a means of exploring the fundamental question of the origin of the concept relative to the idea of the "attribution of value" to the "nature of life" as "precious", upon what basis or premise is that assertion made?
Considering that all living organisms have their origins in matter(dust), what gives humans the right to assign value to life?
Upon what premise does man make value judgements about the "nature of life" considering that man is made only of the dust of the earth?
@secondson saidCan you explain why you equate 'matter' with 'dust'?
Recently it was asserted in this forum that, "the finite nature of life makes it more precious".
I would ask, as a topic of discussion and as a means of exploring the fundamental question of the origin of the concept relative to the idea of the "attribution of value" to the "nature of life" as "precious", upon what basis or premise is that assertion made?
Considering ...[text shortened]... ue judgements about the "nature of life" considering that man is made only of the dust of the earth?
Is it to demean our human constitution? (In the same way that kelly likes to say non-believers think we originated from pond scum).
I note too how you write 'matter' and then 'dust' in brackets, but then in the next sentences drop 'matter' altogether and use 'dust' as though the two were interchangeable.
Seeing as you are referencing a post made by a non-Christian, why use terminology only applicable to Christians?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI think you're being evasive. I inferred nothing demeaning about the "human constitution".
Can you explain why you equate 'matter' with 'dust'?
Is it to demean our human constitution? (In the same way that kelly likes to say non-believers think we originated from pond scum).
I note too how you write 'matter' and then 'dust' in brackets, but then in the next sentences drop 'matter' altogether and use 'dust' as though the two were interchangeable.
Se ...[text shortened]... u are referencing a post made by a non-Christian, why use terminology only applicable to Christians?
As an evolutionist what do you think happens to the material frame of humans after death?
The question of the OP was asked for the purpose of determining the fundamental premise upon which a human being bases the attribution of value to life, whether or not it was created.
The OP is quite simple really. No need to allow preconceived notions of biases interfere with an honest discussion.
@secondson saidSorry, but there 'is' an inconsistency here. First, you say, 'considering that all living organisms have their origins in matter(dust) ' and now are talking about what happens to humans after their demise.
As an evolutionist what do you think happens to the material frame of humans after death?
So which is it, origin or death?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThere was a starting place we may disagree about on how, but most believe we came from the earth, with or without God, and we return to dust with or without God. So with God we are a divine work, without God we start and end with dust making no progress.
Can you explain why you equate 'matter' with 'dust'?
Is it to demean our human constitution? (In the same way that kelly likes to say non-believers think we originated from pond scum).
I note too how you write 'matter' and then 'dust' in brackets, but then in the next sentences drop 'matter' altogether and use 'dust' as though the two were interchangeable.
Se ...[text shortened]... u are referencing a post made by a non-Christian, why use terminology only applicable to Christians?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYou're not paying attention to what I said.
Sorry, but there 'is' an inconsistency here. First, you say, 'considering that all living organisms have their origins in matter(dust) ' and now are talking about what happens to humans after their demise.
So which is it, origin or death?
I didn't ask, 'what happens to humans after their demise'.
Reread what I actually said, otherwise I'll have to assume you're willingly trying to mischaracterize the meaning of my words.
@secondson saidRight back at you.
You're not paying attention to what I said.
I didn't ask, 'what happens to humans after their demise'.
Reread what I actually said, otherwise I'll have to assume you're willingly trying to mischaracterize the meaning of my words.
You said, 'As an evolutionist what do you think happens to the material frame of humans after death?'
How is that not asking 'what happens to humans after their demise'?
-Removed-I couldn't care less what you think about any part of the OP unless you have something to contribute in answer to the question.
One can say life is precious, but that assumes everything is going well with them. Many others would not share that same attribution of value because their life circumstances would be anything but precious.
All life. The earth is full of life. There are millions of living things on earth. Upon what premise do humans base the attribution of value on life?
Apparently the question stumps at least two people.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThose are two separate questions. The first asks about the physical body. The second infers there's more to humans than just the physical body.
Right back at you.
You said, 'As an evolutionist what do you think happens to the material frame of humans after death?'
How is that not asking 'what happens to humans after their demise'?
In either case the answer is essentially the same. At least to the atheist I would think.
Humans are physically made of the same "stuff" as everything else in existence. We come from dust, and that's what we go back to when the body dies.
And so I ask, upon what premise do humans base an attribution of value on life, since we are merely here today and gone tomorrow?
@secondson said"I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well." -- Psalm 139:14, KJV
Recently it was asserted in this forum that, "the finite nature of life makes it more precious".
I would ask, as a topic of discussion and as a means of exploring the fundamental question of the origin of the concept relative to the idea of the "attribution of value" to the "nature of life" as "precious", upon what basis or premise is that assertion made?
Considering ...[text shortened]... ue judgements about the "nature of life" considering that man is made only of the dust of the earth?
In many cultures, the heart is seen as the center of the emotions. The human heart is fearfully and wonderfully made, enabling us to love and experience God intimately. The heart reveals our personality—thoughts, memories, emotions, desires, will (Luke 6:45). Our hearts not only think, feel, and remember, but also choose every course of action. Our decisions should reflect integrity of heart, with a heart that is discerning. When we live an upright and honorable life, God fills our hearts with joy (Psalm 97:11).
God places a high value on our bodies as well as our hearts. We are an intricate and fleshly fine-tuning of divine wisdom, a creation “a little lower than heavenly beings” but capable of being the crown of honor and glory (Psalm 8:5). God created us to be in relationship with Him, not as slaves to our sin, but with redeemed bodies. Others have experienced, and we must expect the failing of our physical bodies. Life after death is dependent on the gracious will and act of God through Jesus Christ, who sacrificed His life for us (Romans 6:23). Christ gave His own “body,” His total person, for us, so that we can be eternally reconciled to God. So the next time you look in the mirror, see yourself as God does, “fearfully and wonderfully made”—designed to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37).
https://www.allaboutgod.com/fearfully-and-wonderfully-made.htm
@secondson saidI'm not sure what you mean by "the right"? Or what you mean by "what gives humans the right"?
Considering that all living organisms have their origins in matter(dust), what gives humans the right to assign value to life?
Humans assign "value to life" - to themselves and to the lives of others - using their faculties of consciousness - like intellect, emotion religious beliefs, moral sensibilities, survival instinct etc. - because they have the capacity to do so and because it is an integral part of their social nature.
They do it because they are ABLE to do so, and it has BENEFIT for them, not because it it is somehow a RIGHT.
Assigning value to life is a defining and differentiating characteristic of human beings rather than something resulting from the granting of permission or conferring of a right.
Having said that, when they organize themselves and create governance for their communal life, humans enact laws and establish and observe "rights" in order to protect the value we assign to each other.
1 edit
@secondson saidThe premise is rooted in their consciousness and capacities on one hand, and rooted in their needs as social creatures on the other.
Upon what premise does man make value judgements about the "nature of life" considering that man is made only of the dust of the earth?
@secondson saidIts termination is, I believe, the end of consciousness and personhood, which resided in the brain, and the body itself decomposes [or gets cremated] and, for all intents and purposes, disappears.
As an evolutionist what do you think happens to the material frame of humans after death?