Value

Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]The Psalms were written by David (if memory serves), who was a 'man after god's own heart', according to scripture.

Lets face it, there are no unbelievers in hell. If people don’t believe in God here on Earth, they do in hell. Perhaps David learned the hard way.

Do you believe that he was temporarily sent to hell?

Possibly ...[text shortened]... . I could quote numerous passages that talk about God’s great love for us and everlasting mercy.[/b]

Lets face it, there are no unbelievers in hell. If people don’t believe in God here on Earth, they do in hell. Perhaps David learned the hard way.

Surely you're not suggesting that he went to hell before he wrote that verse...

What does this mean to you? “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell…”

Simple. The bible speaks of two groups of people at judgement day: those taken to heaven, and those sent, or left, in hell.

Yes, I believe that hell is avoidable. I could quote numerous passages that talk about God’s great love for us and everlasting mercy.

'Everlasting mercy' would include checking hell every ~100 years to see if anyone wanted out.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]The bible claims that those who don't go through jesus (i.e., people of other faiths) can't enter heaven...

This is based on interpretation.[/b]

How would you interpet the verse, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the father, except through me." spoken by jesus? Seems like the meaning is rather clear.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
[b]Lets face it, there are no unbelievers in hell. If people don’t believe in God here on Earth, they do in hell. Perhaps David learned the hard way.

Surely you're not suggesting that he went to hell before he wrote that verse...

What does this mean to you? “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell…”

Simple. The bible speaks ...[text shortened]...
'Everlasting mercy' would include checking hell every ~100 years to see if anyone wanted out.[/b]

Surely you're not suggesting that he went to hell before he wrote that verse...

Yep, that’s what I suggested.

Read Psalm 18:4-6 “The sorrows of death encompassed me, and the floods of ungodly men made me afraid. The sorrows of hell encompassed me about: the snares of death prevented me. In my distress I called upon the Lord, and cried unto my God: he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came before him, even into his ears.”

There are places all through out the Bible that say hell is not eternal, new testament included. Orthodox Christians try to cover this up at all costs. This is because back when the Church was in power they needed to use fear to stay in power. What better fear motivation than eternal hell? Now, after all this time the church doesn't want to admit that they changed a few things. Try reading the Bible and drawing your own conclusions.

Simple. The bible speaks of two groups of people at judgement day: those taken to heaven, and those sent, or left, in hell.

David speaks of God not leaving his soul in hell. This implies that David was in hell. Why? For being good?

'Everlasting mercy' would include checking hell every ~100 years to see if anyone wanted out.

Psalm 106:1 "PRAISE YE the Lord. O give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good: for his mercy endureth forever."

Every hundred years? Why? That's a long time. Reap what you sow.

Peace.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
How would you interpet the verse, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the father, except through me." spoken by jesus? Seems like the meaning is rather clear.

This takes a lot of explaining and it's getting late. Maybe I'll make a thread on this.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]Surely you're not suggesting that he went to hell before he wrote that verse...

Yep, that’s what I suggested.

Read Psalm 18:4-6 “The sorrows of death encompassed me, and the floods of ungodly men made me afraid. The sorrows of hell encompassed me about: the snares of death prevented me. In my distress I called upon the Lord, a ...[text shortened]... dureth forever."

Every hundred years? Why? That's a long time. Reap what you sow.

Peace.[/b]

How do you reconcile your 'kinder, gentler hell' theory with verses like the following:

Matt. 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Note the word 'destroy'. There's no going back.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
How do you reconcile your 'kinder, gentler hell' theory with verses like the following:

Matt. 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Note the word 'destroy'. There's no going back.

I don’t believe that there is anything kind or gentle about hell. It’s probably worse than described. I just don’t think that it’s eternal. This is based on my study of scripture as well as common sense.

As you pointed out, a fair and just God, who is loving and merciful for that matter (eternally), would not sentence somebody to an eternity in hell based on the few short years that we are here on earth.

There are many places in the new testament where Jesus describes hell as eternal fire, or death, destruction, torment, etc. I’ve come to believe that these passages refer to an eternal hell, not that people go there forever. If you take a fire that is being fed by people, but the people are leaving as more are coming in, the fire may be eternal, but the people don’t stay there forever.

In Psalms, David describes experiencing death when he was in hell. Death also means destruction. There are places in the Bible (not tonight) that say that sin is the death/destruction. In hell, people burn off there sin.

Look at Matt 18:23-35. In a parable Jesus describes a soul that goes to hell. I won’t copy it all down, but pay close attention to verse 34 “And the Lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormenters, till he should pay all that was due unto him.”

“Till” is the key word. Here, Jesus acknowledges that hell just burns off our debt. When this has happened, we are free of sin. Jesus also says something like “Whatever ye measure, so shall be measured unto you.” (paraphrased). This is basically the same as reap what you sow.

Ok, this was my last post for tonight.

Originally posted by bbarr
You're the one expressing skepticism here, you define your terms! I'm not the one claiming that theists are committed to a worldview wherein the value of human life is inexplicable. If you or the god-mongers among us want us atheists to take your concerns seriously, then please give us an argument; a reason for thinking that atheism can't make sense of th ...[text shortened]... til you do that, I'll just spit your axioms back at you, with a suitable atheistic translation.

Okay. It's easier to start with three situations where the term 'value' can be used:

- the value of the speed of light in vacuum
- the value of a watch at Harrods
- the value (to me) of my dead mother's necklace

The first of these is a value that is independent of human consideration, action or measurement. It is objective.

The third of these depends entirely on my own sentimental consideration. I may be unwilling to part with my mother's jewellery for any level of monetary compensation. It is subjective.

But what about the second? On the one hand, it seems objective because it is not determined by the subjective considerations of one human being. However, it still has subjective foundations - it is a point of agreement between the subjective valuations of the seller and the buyer. The same watch may have a value of £50 with one buyer-seller pair and £40 with another. The value of the watch cannot be considered independent of the subjective valuations of the people involved.

In an earlier post you argued that if human life has value because God values it, then it is still subjective. That may be so - but if the speed of light has a value it is because God determined it. So, to a theist, the value of a human life is no less objective than the speed of light.

I didn't say atheism cannot make sense of the value of human life. DavidC did provide an objective value - in terms of survival. But that's precisely Craig's argument.

How else would atheism provide an objective (i.e. as objective as the speed of light) value for human life?

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
For those who believe in the christian god, the value for many human lives runs out on judgment day, when the majority of them are deemed worthless and subjected to eternal torment. I don't hear any empathy for them. Especially considering that eternity is like, a waaaaay longer period for suffering than anything here on earth.

Do you "empathise" with serial killers on death row?

Originally posted by David C
Yeah, I'm afraid so. You're just so....abusable, LH.

As an agnostic, I believe the question of a higher power is both unknowable and/or irrelevant. I am, as you MUST know by now, inclined toward strong atheism on the topic of the christian notion of god. Especially that poorly transmuted Sun worship that you call Jesus and the New Testament.

You're just so....abusable, LH.

That's like saying that a person who is murdered is so kill-able.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]If the acceptance and happiness of a creature (heaven) lay in self-surrender, then no one can make that surrender except himself.

What is meant here by "self-surrender"? Are you referring to the total surrender of rational thought and warranted belief-building processes? Who would want to make such concessions, and what kind of mad hatter Go ...[text shortened]... hat case, please point me in direction of Hell because it sounds absolutely divine. Is it BYOB?[/b]

Before I propound on your scatalogical analysis of my post, did I ever say that non-Christians are automatically relocated to the ghettos of hell? You assumed that my depiction of the inhabitants of hell as anybody who doesn't willingly believe in Christ. What do you think is the meaning of Justice? Reread my post within the context of my free-will argument.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Of course I wasn't expecting facts on hell, but I was hoping to see more than just speculation.

You're a christian, so I assumed that you follow the bible, which is where most christians get the tenants of their faith. The bible claims that those who don't go through jesus (i.e., people of other faiths) can't enter heaven, so it's entir ...[text shortened]... me to assume that you believe that as well. You could have easily cleared this up in your reply.

Do you think that the thief on the cross was a Christian?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
That's like saying that a person who is murdered is so kill-able.[/b]

I meant it in an endearing manner, Hammy. Quit playing the maudlin martyr.

Originally posted by Halitose
Before I propound on your scatalogical analysis of my post, did I ever say that non-Christians are automatically relocated to the ghettos of hell? You assumed that my depiction of the inhabitants of hell as anybody who doesn't willingly believe in Christ. What do you think is the meaning of Justice? Reread my post within the context of my free-will argument.

Let me a pose a very simple (yes, no) question to you:

Is the acceptance of Jesus as my personal savior a necessary condition for my salvation?

Reread my post within the context of my free-will argument.

Better yet, why don't you just regroup and come back another time when you have a conception of Hell that possesses at least some semblance of coherency? Also, you still have not fully addressed all my concerns with respect to your free will arguments. As such, you have not yet convinced me that such a "context" merits any attention.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Let me a pose a very simple (yes, no) question to you:

Is the acceptance of Jesus as my personal savior a necessary condition for my salvation?

[b]Reread my post within the context of my free-will argument.

Better yet, why don't you just regroup and come back another time when you have a conception of Hell that possesses at least some ...[text shortened]... arguments. As such, you have not yet convinced me that such a "context" merits any attention.[/b]

No.

I posted my 2 cent on the fall of man in the free will thread... no bites, so I could only conclude that everybody including you had lost interest, I admit it was getting a little drawn out, even for me.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Okay. It's easier to start with three situations where the term 'value' can be used:
[1.] the value of the speed of light in vacuum
[2.] the value of a watch at Harrods
[3.] the value (to me) of my dead mother's necklace
The first of these is a value that is independent of human consideration, action or measurement. It is objective.
The third ...[text shortened]... uld atheism provide an objective (i.e. as objective as the speed of light) value for human life?

Your [1.] is not independent of measurement. The "value of the speed of light in a vacuum" is, more completely, "the numeric value of the speed of light in a vacuum." Which comes to, "Given the human-constructed number system and method of measuring, what number should we assign to the speed of light?" (Which could also be asked, "What is the speed of light, expressed in miles per hour?" (or any other unit of speed))
However, if we use the same measuring stick as in [3.], "What is the sentimental value of the speed of light in a vacuum," I doubt you'll find anyone who has assigned much if any sentiment to the speed of light. It could be argued here that you weren't refering strickly to sentiment, however, but possibly to the second definition of value: "importance." In that case, "What is the value of the speed of light?" is a much more meaningful question, but is entirely different that the answer received in consideration of [1.]. In this case, the answer will be that "Because the speed of light is the fastest speed of which we are aware, it provides the maximum boundary when considering possible travel distances. By utilizing the speed of light, we can determine which planets we have hopes of ever reaching. Further, knowing the speed of light aids us greatly in advancing technology, such as fiber optics."
In [2.] you bring a third meaning of the word value into play: monetary worth or "market price." Asked this way, the speed of light has no value, and that piece of jewelry has some value, but probably not that much. Market values can be calculated, but with every sale a new market value exists, since the market value is what is generally considered to be a fair price for something, and you can tell what is considered a fair price based upon what people are willing to pay for it (as opposed to what they cost, which is the amount needed to produce it).
What this comes down to is that most people when refering to "the value of a life" are using "a measure of those qualities that determine merit, desirability, usefulness, or importance" as their definition of value...and via this meaning, nothing can ever be objective. Not everything is useful to everyone. Not everythign is desirable to everyone. The speed of light has no intrinsic value, nor does anything else, via this definition. It is the possessor who applies the value, not the item which is possessed.