There's a difference between mortality and justice. Justice is when everyone gets what they deserve, mortality is the human perspective of how we "should" live. It's hard to bring out justice without perspective because of human emotion and intelligence but both of them are different things. 1 is how we should live, and the seconf is what we deserve. People usually connect them. So how do we know what we deserve? We don't, it's all perspective and your objecting to it. Your metaphor backfired
wait a minute..so just becuase i believe hitler was wrong in causing the holcaust doesnt mean it was wrong?just becuase he thought it was right?woooooow u are such a great teacher man!!!(sarcasm) for those who think it is like music or personal opinion
wait a minute..so just becuase i believe hitler was wrong in causing the holcaust doesnt mean it was wrong?just becuase he thought it was right?woooooow u are such a great teacher man!!!(sarcasm)
Moral relativism implies that morality exists in relationships between people. You describe it as a kind of moral solipsism and then go on to advocate people behaving like units in a math problem.
Human life IS music. Hopefully one day you'll hear it.
Okay, now why don't you try this video once more where you present an argument other than ad hominem, appeal to tradition and/or authority, and bad analogy?
Or do you consider these all valid forms of argument?
hm just found these videos fairly interesting. I just do what best benefits my life at the given moment. I don't see things in right or wrong or good and evil. I have things I wouldn't do, but I wouldn't say they are evil they just aren't things that I choose to do. Then on the other hand I have things I wouldn't normally do but given the right line I would do them if my life depended on it.
Like so many apologists, this jagoff is confusing "no absolute morality" with "no objective morality" and "no morality at all."
You can say that there is no absolute morality and still think something is wrong - someone may reasonable ask by what standard you consider it wrong, and they may choose to reject that standard, but it is in no way hypocritical to deny absolute morality yet still make moral judgments.
If morality is subjective it's all about whether I can reconcile an action with my inner disposition. However, since I will always reconcile my actions with my inner disposition subjective morality only describes the same type of reasoning that a moral nihilist would do.
Therefore the concepts of subjective morality and moral nihilism basically lead to the same result: The lack of belief in any external component in my decision making.
You've accurately described how everyone from moral nihilists to moral absolutists makes decisions. That is precisely what makes morality subjective. Nothing is intrinsically "good" or "bad", but rather it is simply a matter of what each individual opts to label it based on their inner disposition. Whether or not one believes in an "external component" in their decision making is inconsequential.
> That is precisely what makes morality subjective.
I think it is a lot more clear to say that morality in the normative sense does not exist. Instead only morality in the descriptive sense exists.
That is also what most Christians complain about: That moral relativism means that morality exists only in the descriptive sense but not in the normative sense which means it is only as binding as it can be enforced or communicated. It is not unconditionally binding like Christian morality.
Sorry, can you point out someone who does argue that murder is sometimes fine? I simply never hear that, unless you're talking about capital punishment, or war. But those things are not usually defined as 'murder.' WTF is this guy on about? Is he saying, "Morals are universal in human beings, and therefore created by God?" If that's what he means, why doesn't he come out and say it?
All universal moral codes can be derived from the Golden Rule: Do not kill Do not steal Do not lie Do not rape Do not kidnap Do not harm Do not mutilate baby boys' genitalia Do not flood the entire planet Do not kill every first born in Egypt Do not sacrifice humans to gods (Jephthah's Daughter) We should not do any of these things, because we would not wish that others would do them to us.
Indeed. Once again, Darwin pretty much had it right. Human morals are built on human sympathy, which evolved. Alan Walker wrote about a Homo erectus woman who died of severe Vitamin A poisoning; but she had new bone growth in her damaged joints. This probably means that she was cared for, on the savannah, by members of her family. For months, someone looked after her, at great personal risk to themself. Altruism in a non-human hominid. cont:
The universality of morals tends to support evolution and common descent. The fact that we all have it in common, and that there is evidence of altruism in the fossil hominid record, and that we can observe altruism in nature is evidence in FAVOUR of evolution.
Once again, Darwin's reasoning on this was remarkably correct: it has been born out by paleoanthropology, cognitive neuroscience, and many other fields.
I don't understand what this post is trying to say but from what I gather. Evolution supports loveing your eneimies, forgiving others, and looking out for the weak.
The lions killing cubs out in africa seem to disagree. Evolution is about doing what ever you can to survive, survivle of the fittest. Why then do we spend millions of dollars looking after the hindcap? Becuase human morality is more than about merely surviveing. Its origens are divine.
Randall defines the nature of morality well, but fails to delivers the punch - We are all created in the image of God, whether we accept it or not; We're all ingrained with the knowledge of the Creator and His morality. Only a fool would deny this truth.
There is no need to imagine a magic man in the sky to have universal morals. Randal rightly recognizes that morality can be derived from logic, like math. From universal selfishness, required for fitness in evolution, we can derive a simple natural law: Treat others with the consideration with which you wish to be treated.
I realize that Buddha, Krishna, and (much later) Jesus, said this also. But we don't need to subscribe to bronze-age superstition to see that it just makes good sense.
Yet you go off and mock Christians with that juvenile "man in the sky" and "bronze-age superstition" crap - Not only a nice show of your Godless morality, but of your obvious ignorance. Hubris hypocrite.
No other religion holds up as tight as Christianity - nor grows tighter everyday for that matter. Morality is our ingrained likeness to our Creator -God. As I said, only fool would deny this truth.
Jehovah, like all gods is supposed to cause miracles to occur, defying the laws of nature (this is the very definition of magic). The psalmist said he looks to the heavens (sky) for his comfort. Jehovah is always referred to as he (a male). Ergo, magic man in the sky.
The roots of Christianity are the Torah, which was put together from bronze-age texts.
None of this is mockery of the religion, it is a simple observation of the facts.
So lost in your stupidity you mock without even realizing it. Look the mirror little one; Read Romans I - You'll find it describes your mentality in uncanny detail.
You're discerning pseudo facts out of ignorance, forming conclusions based on false premises, that's called being delusional and/or stupid.
You have a long way to go before being taken seriously. And that's not meant to be crass, just the REAL facts, hubris little boy.
Observe the typical creationist response: substituting ad hominem attacks (stupid x2, little boy, delusional, etc.) for any kind of actual argument.
Do you have a point or any logical points to make at all, or have you simply realized that you don't have a leg to stand on, and so resorted to spouting unsupported assertions and insults?
Further calling of names doesn't show your position to be correct. Actually addressing the arguments I stated would, provided there indeed happen to be any valid counterarguments, that is.
MY initial statement to you laid it all out, you started projecting with the "name calling" and juvenile mockery.
I never call people names nor engage in "ad hominem" attacks, I merely discern the facts and lay them out - if you can't handle the truth, that's your problem little boy.
God curses the world by giving them the Antichrist, the one who leads them in the way they want to go, because they are haters and rejecter's of His holy way (which is the only way). I know that's an absolutist notion, and that I will be mocked and cursed for saying it by the majority of people hearing me, but I will stand by it anyway; because it's the truth!
The judgment of God against this wicked and sinful world, is giving them the Antichrist to lead them in their sin, right into hellfire.
The notion of a "supernatural" "Antichrist" is not Biblical nor doctrinal..
I concur with your premise of unyielding judgment, yet in this world there are many antichrists to lead us from God. To focus on one man is a deception of evil. This was the whole point John makes, being the only author to use the term antichrist(s). This leader, just another "beast", is merely a man fulfilling prophecy, nothing more. We should be more concerned with spreading true Gospel than distortions of the flesh.
You are correct when you say their are many people in the world today, as there were many in the days of John, who are antichrist. However this one man of sin, who's head of a major religion, is worse than them all.
Every Pope of the Roman Catholic Church has been antichrist, but only one is the Antichrist, and it's around him that the world rallies to establish that false peace (salaam, shalom) in the Middle East. Which thing is an abomination in the eyes of Yahweh; unto their destruction.
Antichrist is never used as a proper noun in Scripture to describe the "leader/beast" Biblical prophecy(s) refers to. To say he's antichrist is fair, to say he's "THE Antichrist" is profoundly incorrect.
Also, to call all the every Pope antichrist is to be judging another - that is antichrist in and of its self.
And sorry brother, I don't get where you got this notion a Pope will be this fictional Antichrist.
Did you see the word fear anywhere in my message to you? No, because, it wasn't there. The only one I believe that we should fear is God Himself. The Antichrist is not someone to be feared, but he is someone to be understood and avoided, because he leads the masses into destruction.
Revelation 14:8-11 clearly shows that.
Walking in the way of the Antichrist leads someone to be a partaker of the wrath of God; so, that right there is enough of a reason to know who this man is and avoid him.
Brother, you keep missing or avoiding my point - and you're Biblical understanding is lacking comprehensive density.
You keep referring to this end-time leader as "The Antichrist" - No author of Scripture ever used the name Antichrist as a proper noun to describe any end-time leader - it is NOT Biblical. Its use is not Biblical and is adding to Scripture.
This argument, I think, will be the logical framework behind the judgment against the defiant. So in the end, the morality validity too will be there, but all that ever was needed is the fact that God gave the rules.
its reletevistic in the sence of what's reletive to each individual that will accomplish the largest utilitarian goal. Its not reletive as to how those utilitarian rules apply to every person equally
nah man, haven't you heard? truth isn't absolute anymore.
2 + 2 = 5 now.
yeah lol, it's totally hypocritical...
like Neitzsche, Marilyn manson etc...
they talk about the "will to power" just "claim it"
then when someone wrongs them, there is an outcry.
they are self-refuting!
but people still buy into it! because of justification and rationalization just like you said...everyone still knows the truth though. just gathering around themselves teachers cause of itching ears.
There's a difference between mortality and justice. Justice is when everyone gets what they deserve, mortality is the human perspective of how we "should" live. It's hard to bring out justice without perspective because of human emotion and intelligence but both of them are different things. 1 is how we should live, and the seconf is what we deserve. People usually connect them. So how do we know what we deserve? We don't, it's all perspective and your objecting to it. Your metaphor backfired
Ferbguy101 4 months ago
wait a minute..so just becuase i believe hitler was wrong in causing the holcaust doesnt mean it was wrong?just becuase he thought it was right?woooooow u are such a great teacher man!!!(sarcasm) for those who think it is like music or personal opinion
jonathan8156 5 months ago
wait a minute..so just becuase i believe hitler was wrong in causing the holcaust doesnt mean it was wrong?just becuase he thought it was right?woooooow u are such a great teacher man!!!(sarcasm)
jonathan8156 5 months ago
What a mess.
Moral relativism implies that morality exists in relationships between people. You describe it as a kind of moral solipsism and then go on to advocate people behaving like units in a math problem.
Human life IS music. Hopefully one day you'll hear it.
Hufflewaffle 6 months ago
Okay, now why don't you try this video once more where you present an argument other than ad hominem, appeal to tradition and/or authority, and bad analogy?
Or do you consider these all valid forms of argument?
dramajoe 6 months ago
hm just found these videos fairly interesting. I just do what best benefits my life at the given moment. I don't see things in right or wrong or good and evil. I have things I wouldn't do, but I wouldn't say they are evil they just aren't things that I choose to do. Then on the other hand I have things I wouldn't normally do but given the right line I would do them if my life depended on it.
EvilGothGuy 2 years ago
And so what is this evidence that there is objectie morality?
ManicEightBall 2 years ago
Like so many apologists, this jagoff is confusing "no absolute morality" with "no objective morality" and "no morality at all."
You can say that there is no absolute morality and still think something is wrong - someone may reasonable ask by what standard you consider it wrong, and they may choose to reject that standard, but it is in no way hypocritical to deny absolute morality yet still make moral judgments.
army103 2 years ago
If morality is subjective it's all about whether I can reconcile an action with my inner disposition. However, since I will always reconcile my actions with my inner disposition subjective morality only describes the same type of reasoning that a moral nihilist would do.
Therefore the concepts of subjective morality and moral nihilism basically lead to the same result: The lack of belief in any external component in my decision making.
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
You've accurately described how everyone from moral nihilists to moral absolutists makes decisions. That is precisely what makes morality subjective. Nothing is intrinsically "good" or "bad", but rather it is simply a matter of what each individual opts to label it based on their inner disposition. Whether or not one believes in an "external component" in their decision making is inconsequential.
army103 2 years ago
> That is precisely what makes morality subjective.
I think it is a lot more clear to say that morality in the normative sense does not exist. Instead only morality in the descriptive sense exists.
That is also what most Christians complain about: That moral relativism means that morality exists only in the descriptive sense but not in the normative sense which means it is only as binding as it can be enforced or communicated. It is not unconditionally binding like Christian morality.
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
Fair enough...I can't say I find any point of disagreement with that.
army103 2 years ago
Sorry, can you point out someone who does argue that murder is sometimes fine? I simply never hear that, unless you're talking about capital punishment, or war. But those things are not usually defined as 'murder.' WTF is this guy on about? Is he saying, "Morals are universal in human beings, and therefore created by God?" If that's what he means, why doesn't he come out and say it?
pang00lin 2 years ago
fraterla93y 2 years ago
Indeed. Once again, Darwin pretty much had it right. Human morals are built on human sympathy, which evolved. Alan Walker wrote about a Homo erectus woman who died of severe Vitamin A poisoning; but she had new bone growth in her damaged joints. This probably means that she was cared for, on the savannah, by members of her family. For months, someone looked after her, at great personal risk to themself. Altruism in a non-human hominid. cont:
pang00lin 2 years ago
The universality of morals tends to support evolution and common descent. The fact that we all have it in common, and that there is evidence of altruism in the fossil hominid record, and that we can observe altruism in nature is evidence in FAVOUR of evolution.
Once again, Darwin's reasoning on this was remarkably correct: it has been born out by paleoanthropology, cognitive neuroscience, and many other fields.
pang00lin 2 years ago
@pang00lin
english please (<_<)
I don't understand what this post is trying to say but from what I gather. Evolution supports loveing your eneimies, forgiving others, and looking out for the weak.
The lions killing cubs out in africa seem to disagree. Evolution is about doing what ever you can to survive, survivle of the fittest. Why then do we spend millions of dollars looking after the hindcap? Becuase human morality is more than about merely surviveing. Its origens are divine.
zlkimagenX 1 year ago
Randall defines the nature of morality well, but fails to delivers the punch - We are all created in the image of God, whether we accept it or not; We're all ingrained with the knowledge of the Creator and His morality. Only a fool would deny this truth.
HumanitysAdvocate 3 years ago
explain.
fede2 3 years ago
There is no need to imagine a magic man in the sky to have universal morals. Randal rightly recognizes that morality can be derived from logic, like math. From universal selfishness, required for fitness in evolution, we can derive a simple natural law: Treat others with the consideration with which you wish to be treated.
I realize that Buddha, Krishna, and (much later) Jesus, said this also. But we don't need to subscribe to bronze-age superstition to see that it just makes good sense.
fraterla93y 2 years ago
You want "good sense"?
You say, treat others with equal consideration;
Yet you go off and mock Christians with that juvenile "man in the sky" and "bronze-age superstition" crap - Not only a nice show of your Godless morality, but of your obvious ignorance. Hubris hypocrite.
No other religion holds up as tight as Christianity - nor grows tighter everyday for that matter. Morality is our ingrained likeness to our Creator -God. As I said, only fool would deny this truth.
HumanitysAdvocate 2 years ago
Jehovah, like all gods is supposed to cause miracles to occur, defying the laws of nature (this is the very definition of magic). The psalmist said he looks to the heavens (sky) for his comfort. Jehovah is always referred to as he (a male). Ergo, magic man in the sky.
The roots of Christianity are the Torah, which was put together from bronze-age texts.
None of this is mockery of the religion, it is a simple observation of the facts.
fraterla93y 2 years ago
So lost in your stupidity you mock without even realizing it. Look the mirror little one; Read Romans I - You'll find it describes your mentality in uncanny detail.
You're discerning pseudo facts out of ignorance, forming conclusions based on false premises, that's called being delusional and/or stupid.
You have a long way to go before being taken seriously. And that's not meant to be crass, just the REAL facts, hubris little boy.
Think, Reason, Repent.
HumanitysAdvocate 2 years ago
Observe the typical creationist response: substituting ad hominem attacks (stupid x2, little boy, delusional, etc.) for any kind of actual argument.
Do you have a point or any logical points to make at all, or have you simply realized that you don't have a leg to stand on, and so resorted to spouting unsupported assertions and insults?
fraterla93y 2 years ago
Naturally you wouldn't see my point, being you're such a stupid little hubris juvenile.
HumanitysAdvocate 2 years ago
Further calling of names doesn't show your position to be correct. Actually addressing the arguments I stated would, provided there indeed happen to be any valid counterarguments, that is.
fraterla93y 2 years ago
Name calling? LOL! Hardly,
MY initial statement to you laid it all out, you started projecting with the "name calling" and juvenile mockery.
I never call people names nor engage in "ad hominem" attacks, I merely discern the facts and lay them out - if you can't handle the truth, that's your problem little boy.
theaggravator 2 years ago
Another sweet video. This is really good. I like your rhetoric style a lot.
numberonesurvivor75 3 years ago
good video . . .
hsleepy97 3 years ago
God curses the world by giving them the Antichrist, the one who leads them in the way they want to go, because they are haters and rejecter's of His holy way (which is the only way). I know that's an absolutist notion, and that I will be mocked and cursed for saying it by the majority of people hearing me, but I will stand by it anyway; because it's the truth!
The judgment of God against this wicked and sinful world, is giving them the Antichrist to lead them in their sin, right into hellfire.
teddyhcraig 3 years ago
The notion of a "supernatural" "Antichrist" is not Biblical nor doctrinal..
I concur with your premise of unyielding judgment, yet in this world there are many antichrists to lead us from God. To focus on one man is a deception of evil. This was the whole point John makes, being the only author to use the term antichrist(s). This leader, just another "beast", is merely a man fulfilling prophecy, nothing more. We should be more concerned with spreading true Gospel than distortions of the flesh.
HumanitysAdvocate 3 years ago
You are correct when you say their are many people in the world today, as there were many in the days of John, who are antichrist. However this one man of sin, who's head of a major religion, is worse than them all.
Every Pope of the Roman Catholic Church has been antichrist, but only one is the Antichrist, and it's around him that the world rallies to establish that false peace (salaam, shalom) in the Middle East. Which thing is an abomination in the eyes of Yahweh; unto their destruction.
teddyhcraig 3 years ago
"Only one is the Antichrist"?
"A man of sin"?
'Worse than them all"?
"Head of a major religion""?
Brother, you need a bit more Biblical study, your understanding is confused and not based on solid Biblical doctrine or facts.
Simply consider - Is not every sin of humanity seen as the same in Gods eyes? How can one man, and his sin, be any worse than another?
Why should we even fear this "antichrist" man?
HumanitysAdvocate 3 years ago
Antichrist is never used as a proper noun in Scripture to describe the "leader/beast" Biblical prophecy(s) refers to. To say he's antichrist is fair, to say he's "THE Antichrist" is profoundly incorrect.
Also, to call all the every Pope antichrist is to be judging another - that is antichrist in and of its self.
And sorry brother, I don't get where you got this notion a Pope will be this fictional Antichrist.
HumanitysAdvocate 3 years ago
Did you see the word fear anywhere in my message to you? No, because, it wasn't there. The only one I believe that we should fear is God Himself. The Antichrist is not someone to be feared, but he is someone to be understood and avoided, because he leads the masses into destruction.
Revelation 14:8-11 clearly shows that.
Walking in the way of the Antichrist leads someone to be a partaker of the wrath of God; so, that right there is enough of a reason to know who this man is and avoid him.
teddyhcraig 3 years ago
Brother, you keep missing or avoiding my point - and you're Biblical understanding is lacking comprehensive density.
You keep referring to this end-time leader as "The Antichrist" - No author of Scripture ever used the name Antichrist as a proper noun to describe any end-time leader - it is NOT Biblical. Its use is not Biblical and is adding to Scripture.
HumanitysAdvocate 3 years ago
I suppose "Antichrist" was the nickname people have given to the Pale Horseman?
Conner999 3 years ago
Not even close. Sounds like a lack of understanding of Revelation 6.
HumanitysAdvocate 3 years ago
This argument, I think, will be the logical framework behind the judgment against the defiant. So in the end, the morality validity too will be there, but all that ever was needed is the fact that God gave the rules.
Great video, brother.
shiningcross 3 years ago 3
great stuff. very true.
jbbremerton 3 years ago
its reletevistic in the sence of what's reletive to each individual that will accomplish the largest utilitarian goal. Its not reletive as to how those utilitarian rules apply to every person equally
velocityeleven 3 years ago
nah man, haven't you heard? truth isn't absolute anymore.
2 + 2 = 5 now.
yeah lol, it's totally hypocritical...
like Neitzsche, Marilyn manson etc...
they talk about the "will to power" just "claim it"
then when someone wrongs them, there is an outcry.
they are self-refuting!
but people still buy into it! because of justification and rationalization just like you said...everyone still knows the truth though. just gathering around themselves teachers cause of itching ears.
Leiflton 3 years ago 3