#Foundations for Moral Relativism

[askgildaseniors]

Dakota Meyer underscores the value of consistency and devotion to norms in all parts of life, sending a powerful message of encouragement. Dakota contends that one must always or never do good things, emphasizing the binary character of morality and ethical action. This viewpoint applies to various contexts, including the military, where upholding standards is critical, and being a law-abiding citizen, where one must follow all rules or be deemed a criminal. Dakota believes there needs to be a middle ground or selective adherence in these instances, which provides motivational assistance for individuals attempting to maintain high standards.

Dakota condemns those who seek a middle position, referring to them as "fence-sitters." According to Dakota, these people believe life is not always black and white, and moral and ethical judgments include grey zones. Dakota, on the other hand, rejects this viewpoint, claiming that life is inherently black and white. This sharp perspective indicates a clear distinction between right and evil, good and bad, with no space for ambiguity or exceptions. It is an inspiring call to action for individuals unsure of their views.

Dakota believes in a rigorous commitment to moral and ethical principles, arguing for a transparent approach to decision-making and conduct. The condemnation of "fence-sitters" and the insistence on life being black and white demonstrate a commitment to absolute ideals and a rejection of relativism. This viewpoint advocates for unshakable dedication to doing good and obeying the law, rejecting any selective adherence or moral ambiguity, and offering a motivating foundation for leading a principled life. Dakota's comments inspire and motivate those who want to live honestly and consistently.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Metaethics

Metaethics is a branch of philosophy that investigates the foundations, nature, and meaning of ethical concepts, judgments, and language. Unlike normative ethics, which focuses on what is morally right or wrong, and applied ethics, which applies ethical theories to specific situations, metaethics asks deeper, more abstract questions about the nature of morality itself. It explores the origins and meaning of ethical principles, the nature of moral facts, and the relationship between ethical language and the world.

Core Questions in Metaethics

What is the Nature of Moral Judgments?

Metaethics seeks to understand whether moral judgments are expressions of objective truths or merely subjective opinions. This question leads to the debate between moral realism, which posits that moral facts exist independently of human beliefs, and moral anti-realism, which denies the existence of objective moral facts.

Are Moral Values Objective or Subjective?

One of the central questions in metaethics is whether moral values are objective (existing independently of our thoughts and feelings) or subjective (dependent on individual or cultural perspectives). This debate touches on the nature of moral truth and whether it is universal or varies across different contexts.

What Do Ethical Terms Mean?

Metaethics explores the meaning of ethical language. Are terms like "good," "bad," "right," and "wrong" used to describe objective properties, or do they merely express emotions or commands? This question is central to the debate between cognitivism (the view that moral statements express beliefs that can be true or false) and non-cognitivism (the view that moral statements do not express truth-apt beliefs but rather emotions, prescriptions, or commands).

What is the Source of Moral Obligations?

Metaethics examines where moral obligations come from. Are they grounded in divine command, human reason, societal conventions, or individual preferences? This question relates to theories such as divine command theory, moral constructivism, and moral relativism.

How Do We Know Moral Truths?

Another key concern in metaethics is the epistemology of moral knowledge. How, if at all, can we know moral truths? Can moral knowledge be attained through reason, experience, intuition, or some other means? This question explores the connection between moral beliefs and other types of knowledge.

Key Theories in Metaethics

Moral Realism:

Moral realism asserts that there are objective moral facts that exist independently of our beliefs or perceptions. Realists argue that moral statements can be true or false based on these facts. Prominent moral realists include philosophers like G.E. Moore and David Brink.

Moral Anti-Realism:

Moral anti-realism denies the existence of objective moral facts. This category includes several different theories:

Moral Relativism: The view that moral truths are relative to cultures or individuals.

Emotivism: The theory that moral statements express emotional reactions and do not refer to objective facts.

Error Theory: The belief that while moral language attempts to describe objective facts, all such statements are false because no such facts exist.

Cognitivism vs. Non-Cognitivism:

Cognitivism holds that moral statements are capable of being true or false because they express beliefs about the world.

Non-Cognitivism asserts that moral statements do not express beliefs but rather emotional attitudes or prescriptions, thus they cannot be true or false.

Moral Constructivism:

Moral constructivism is the view that moral truths are constructed by procedures or practices, often within a rational or societal framework. It suggests that moral facts are not discovered but created through rational deliberation or social agreements.

Divine Command Theory:

This theory posits that moral obligations are derived from the commands of a divine being. It suggests that what is morally right or wrong is determined by God's will, making moral truth dependent on divine authority.

Moral Relativism:

Moral relativism holds that moral judgments and values are not absolute but vary depending on cultural, societal, or individual perspectives. It challenges the notion of universal moral truths and emphasizes the diversity of moral practices across different contexts.

Moral Subjectivism:

Moral subjectivism claims that moral judgments are based on individual feelings, preferences, or attitudes, making them inherently subjective. According to this view, there are no objective moral truths, only personal or societal opinions.

Importance of Metaethics

Metaethics plays a crucial role in shaping our understanding of morality. By examining the foundations of ethical thought, it helps clarify what we mean when we talk about right and wrong, good and bad. Metaethics also influences how we approach moral disagreements, ethical decision-making, and the justification of moral beliefs. It provides the tools to critically analyze the assumptions underlying various ethical theories and practices, leading to a deeper and more nuanced understanding of morality.

The philosophy of metaethics is essential for anyone interested in the deeper questions surrounding morality. It goes beyond asking what we should do and instead investigates what it means to say that something is right or wrong in the first place. By exploring the nature of moral judgments, the objectivity of moral values, and the meaning of ethical language, metaethics provides a foundation for all other ethical inquiry.

[scottishcommune]

In the absence of an objective grounding — notably, the very real human potentialities that have been formed by the natural, social, moral, and intellectual development of our species — notions like freedom, creativity, and rationality are reduced to “intersubjective” relations, underpinned by personal and individualistic preferences (nothing more!) that are “resolved” by another kind of tyranny — notably, the tyranny of consensus. Lacking foundations of any kind, lacking any real form and solidity, notions of “intersubjectivity” can be frighteningly homogenising because of their seemingly “democratic” logic of consensuality — a logic that precludes the dissensus and ideological dissonance so necessary for stimulating innovation...

Ideas that are objectively grounded, unlike those that are relativistically asserted, can provide us with a definable body of principles with which we can seriously grapple. The foundational coherence and, in the best of cases, the rationality of objectively grounded views at least make them explicit and tangible and free them from the vagaries of the labyrinthine personalism so very much in vogue today. Unlike a foundationless subjectivism that is often reducible, under the rubric of “autonomy,” to personal preferences, objective foundations are at least subject to challenges in a free society. Far from precluding rational critique, they invite it. Far from taking refuge in an unchallengeable nominalist elusiveness, they open themselves to the test of coherence. Paul Feyerabend’s corrosive (in my view, cynical) relativism to the contrary notwithstanding, the natural sciences in the past three centuries have been among the most emancipatory human endeavors in the history of ideas — partly because of their pursuit of unifying or foundational explanations of reality. In the end, what should always be of concern to us is the content of objective principles, be they in science, social theory, or ethics, not a flippant condemnation of their claims to coherence and objectivity per se.

Indeed, despite claims to the contrary, relativism has its own hidden “foundations” and metaphysics. As such, because its premises are masked, it may well produce an ideological tyranny far more paralysing than the “totalitarianism” that it imputes to objectivism and an expressly reasoned “foundationalism." Insofar as our concerns should center on the bases of freedom and the nature of reason, modern relativism has “decentered” these crucial issues into wispy expressions of personal faith in an atmosphere of general skepticism. We may choose to applaud the relativist who upholds his or her strictly personal faith by reiterating Luther’s defiant words at Worms, Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders (“Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise”). But to speak frankly, unless we also hear a rational argument to validate that stand, one based on more than a subjective inclination, who gives a damn about this resolve?

- Murray Bookchin, History, Civilisation, and Progress: Outline for a Criticism of Modern Relativism

[eraserisms]

Shota + Moral Relativism / Undercover Work

While Shota's mother does have strong convictions about most things, at the end of the day she is still an attorney, a defense attorney no less. She understands moral relativism in depth because she's up close and personal with it, sometimes daily.

As a younger person and aspiring hero, Shota's thoughts about morality were a lot more black and white then they are in present day. To Shota, things were either objectively right, or things were objectively wrong. Sometime after getting into the hero program, Shota had asked his mother "How can you defend Yakuza, killers, and abusers in court? How can you be so heartless about it?"

Misako comes from a line of attorneys and judges and her argument was that from a young age she learned from her father that if she talked enough, she could make anything be right or wrong.

"These people regardless of right or wrong; its their legal and ethical right to be defended. They're entitled to that much at least. If you're so against them being represented in court, maybe you should look at your own compass, little hero."

This conversation is something that would end up sticking with Shota for the rest of his life. His conversation with his mother aside, Shota ends up seeing the greyness of morality through his own eyes with the work that he has done. As I mentioned before, I am under the impression that Shota likely has done a lot of cover work and has seen and have even done some terrible and unforgivable things [1].

I haven't chosen a time in Shota's life that he goes through this specific incident, but it's something that really helped his career and helped build his foundation. And additionally, it's something that still fucks with him and eats at his soul.

The specific example that I can give of Shota having his thoughts about morality being altered, is when he was undercover as a means to uproot a drug operation. For the duration that Shota is undercover, he bides his time getting close to the leader and ends up being part of his daily life. Shota spends time with his kids, genuinely laughs at his jokes, eats at his table. The kingpin even confides in Shota at some point that he wants his children to have a better life than he did. That's why he started selling in the first place, so they never had to want like he did.

Did Shota take him down? Of course he did. But, that doesn't mean that it made it easier to be sitting across from him in an interrogation room. To tell someone he had cared for that he had never been in his corner in the first place. It helped his career, oh yes, but even his success didn't assuage or remedy the guilt he felt. Like the conversation with his mother, it would be a memory & feeling that Shota would never forget.

[thepursuitofunderstanding]

Excerpts from Carl G. Jung's Memories, Dreams, Reflections: pgs 326 - 332,

"Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol or morphine or idealism. We must beware of thinking of good and evil as absolute opposites. The criterion of ethical action can no longer consist in the simple view that good has the force of a categorical imperative, while so-called evil can resolutely be shunned. Recognition of the reality of evil necessarily relativizes the good, and the evil likewise, converting both into halves of a paradoxical whole. In practical terms, this means that good and evil are no longer so self-evident. We have to realize that each represents a judgement." pg 329

"I have pointed out many times that as in the past, so in the future the wrong we have done, thought, or intended will wreak its vengeance on our souls." pg 329

"For moral evaluation is always founded upon the apparent certitudes of moral code which pretends to know precisely what is good and evil. But once we know how uncertain the foundation is, ethical decision becomes a subjective, creative act." pg 329-330

"Nothing can spare us the torment of ethical decision. Nevertheless, harsh as it may sound, we must have the freedom in some circumstances to avoid the known moral good and do what is considered to be evil, if our ethical decision so requires. In other words again: we must not succumb to either of the opposites." pg 330

" As a rule, the individual is so unconscious that he altogether fails to see his own potentialities for decision. Instead he is constantly and anxiously looking around for external rules and regulations which can guide him in his perplexity." pg 330

"The individual who wishes to have an answer to the problem of evil, as it is posed today, has need, first and foremost, of self-knowledge, that is, the utmost possible knowledge of his own wholeness. He must know relentlessly how much good he can do, and what crimes he is capable of, and must beware of regarding the one as real and the other as illusion. Both are elements within his nature, and both are bound to come to ling in him, should he wish--as he ought--to live without self-deception or self-delusion." pg 330

"A myth is dead if it no longer lives and grows." pg 332

"Our myth has become mute and gives no answers. The fault lies not in it as it is set down in the Scriptures, but solely in us, who have not developed it further, who, rather, have suppressed any such attempts." pg 332

[isfjmel-phleg]

All of these ideas are explored in one of [Mark] Waid's most well-regarded storylines, "The Return of Barry Allen." In The Flash #74-79 (March-August 1993), the second Flash returns from the grave and takes up his mantle again. But Barry, in a desire to be the only Flash, grows increasingly jealous of Wally and lashes out at his former sidekick, shattering Wally's confidence. Becoming unhinged, Barry declares that Keystone City has forgotten about him and therefore deserves to be destroyed. Jay Garrick, Johnny Quick, and Max Mercury team up to stop him, but they are not powerful enough. By now, Wally has realized the truth and confronts Barry in the Flash Museum, revealing that this returned Barry is actually Professor Zoom (Eobard Thawne), the Reverse Flash from the twenty-fifth century. In a twisted desire to protect the legacy of Barry Allen, Zoom would destroy all others who call themselves the Flash. Wally is now able to overcome his doubts, become the fastest man alive, and return the Reverse Flash to his proper time. For Zoom, the twentieth century was a paradise of heroes compared to his twenty-fifth century, but this type of romanticized nostalgia, that everything was better in the past, proves toxic. Zoom's later decision to destroy everything that came before his arrival reflects the Dark Age's rejection of what came before to search for a completely new identity, which proved untenable. Wally modeled a better path, learning from the past heroes to create an ethical foundation and modifying valid virtues to suit contemporary circumstances. The mixture of timeless and timely avoids the inadequacies of moral relativism while still allowing compromise for a changing world.

John Darowski, "Flash Back to the Future: Mark Waid's Counter-Narrative to the Superhero Dark Age," from The Ages of the Flash: Essays on the Fastest Man Alive, edited by Joseph J. Darowski

[realtybanker]

Ethics vs. Morality: A Christian Perspective

Introduction

The concept of ethics and morality has been a topic of discussion for centuries, and its importance has only grown in today's ever-changing world. As Christians, it is crucial for us to understand the relationship between ethics and morality from a biblical perspective. In this article, we will explore the foundations of Christian morality and its application in contemporary ethical dilemmas. The fluid nature of ethics often clashes with the unchanging nature of Christian morality, leading to confusion and conflicts in our society. Through this article, we aim to provide a Christian perspective on this complex topic and highlight the relevance of Christian morality in a changing world. Join us as we dive into the discussion on Ethics vs. Morality: A Christian Perspective, and gain a deeper understanding of the importance of following God's standards in all areas of our lives.

Defining Ethics and Morality

Ethics and morality are often used interchangeably, but they have distinct meanings. Ethics refers to a set of principles or values that guide a person's behavior, while morality is the standard of right and wrong based on cultural norms or personal beliefs. In today's changing world, ethics can be subjective and fluid, while Christian morality remains unchanging and rooted in biblical principles. As Christians, we are called to follow God's moral standards and align our actions with His unchanging truth. Understanding Ethics in a Changing World: The fluid nature of ethics can be seen in the ever-changing societal norms and values. As Christians, we must understand the difference between ethical relativism, which believes morality is subjective, and biblical absolutes, which are based on God's unchanging truth. Contrasting Ethics with Christian Morality: While ethics may change with time, Christian morality remains consistent and unchanging. We must look to the Bible for guidance and follow God's moral principles, rather than being swayed by societal norms. As Romans 12:2 KJV says, "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind."

The Foundation of Christian Morality

The foundation of Christian morality is firmly rooted in the Bible, God's word. It provides us with a clear understanding of what is right and wrong, and guides us in making ethical decisions. As Christians, we are called to follow God's unchanging standards, as stated in Psalm 18:30 KJV, "As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him." Through the Bible, we can find guidance and wisdom for navigating through the complexities of modern ethical dilemmas. It serves as a moral compass, guiding us towards God's will and purpose for our lives. As 1 Peter 1:24-25 KJV reminds us, "For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: but the word of the Lord endureth forever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." As Christians, we are called to follow God's moral principles, not only in our actions but also in our thoughts and attitudes. This foundation of Christian morality helps us to live a life that is pleasing to God and to make ethical decisions that align with His will. It is a solid rock upon which we can stand, even in a world that is constantly changing.

The Clash between Ethical Relativism and Biblical Absolutes

Ethical relativism is the idea that moral principles are subjective and vary depending on individual beliefs and cultural norms. This stands in direct contrast to the biblical absolutes outlined in the Bible. As Christians, we are called to follow God's unchanging standards, rather than conform to the ever-changing norms of society. This clash between ethical relativism and biblical absolutes has far-reaching consequences. It can lead to a lack of accountability and a disregard for the value of human life. As Isaiah 5:20 KJV warns, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil." In 2 Timothy 4:3-4 KJV, it also warns of a time when people will reject the truth and follow their own desires. As believers, it is important to stand firm on God's moral principles, even in the midst of a changing world.

The Role of Christian Morality in Ethical Decision Making

The foundation of Christian morality is rooted in the unchanging standards and principles outlined in the Bible. As Christians, we are called to align our actions and decisions with God's moral code, rather than the constantly changing standards of the world. When faced with ethical dilemmas, we can turn to God's word for guidance and direction. Christian morality provides a solid foundation for making difficult decisions and helps us navigate through the complexities of the world. By following God's moral principles, we can avoid the pitfalls of moral relativism and make choices that are pleasing to Him. As we strive to live a life that is in line with God's standards, we can have confidence and peace in our decisions, knowing that we are following His will. Ultimately, the role of Christian morality in ethical decision making is to lead us in the path of righteousness and to honor God in all that we do.

Misconceptions about Christian Morality

There are some misconceptions surrounding Christian morality that need to be addressed. Firstly, it is important to understand that following God's moral principles is not the same as legalism. Legalism is the belief that strict adherence to a set of rules is the only way to salvation. In contrast, Christian morality is about aligning our actions with God's standards out of love and obedience, not as a means to earn salvation. Additionally, the Christian perspective also emphasizes the importance of grace and forgiveness, acknowledging that we all fall short of God's standards and it is only through His grace that we can be redeemed. This is in contrast to the belief that Christians are self-righteous and judgmental. Understanding these distinctions is crucial in properly understanding Christian morality.

The Relevance of Christian Morality in a Changing World

In a constantly evolving world, it can be challenging to keep up with changing ethical standards. However, as Christians, we have a solid foundation in God's unchanging moral principles. Christian morality remains relevant in a changing world because it offers a timeless and unwavering standard for making ethical decisions. As we navigate through the complexities of modern society, it is crucial to stay grounded in God's word and seek His guidance in all aspects of our lives. This includes our ethical choices. Christian morality provides a solid framework for navigating through moral dilemmas and making decisions that align with God's standards. Furthermore, as we live out our faith in a world that may reject or question God's moral principles, it is essential to stand firm in our beliefs and be a shining light for others to follow. Our commitment to Christian morality can make a positive impact on those around us and in society as a whole. Let us remember to turn to God's word for guidance and stay rooted in Christian morality, even in a changing world.

Conclusion

In a world where ethics are constantly changing, it is crucial for Christians to have a solid understanding of the relationship between ethics and morality. As discussed in this article, while ethics may be fluid, Christian morality remains unchanging, rooted in God's unchanging standards. By establishing this biblical foundation, we are equipped to navigate through contemporary ethical dilemmas with discernment and wisdom. It is important for us to remember the clash between ethical relativism and biblical absolutes, and the danger of moral relativism in society. As Christians, we are called to follow God's moral principles rather than conforming to the ever-changing opinions of the world. Let us also not fall into the misconception of legalism, but instead embrace the grace and forgiveness that is essential in the Christian perspective of morality. By staying grounded in God's unchanging standards and seeking His guidance, we can apply Christian morality in our daily lives and make ethical decisions that honor Him. In conclusion, let us continue to seek understanding and wisdom from God's word in order to navigate through the complexities of ethics and morality in a changing world. For as Malachi 3:6 KJV reminds us, "For I am the Lord, I change not." Join the Realty Banker Network and stay ahead of the competition. Connect with us on Youtube, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. We hope to see you there.

Read the full article

[neutralgray]

A Synthesized History: An Amateur Comparison of the Perspectives between the "Patriot's," the "People's," & The "True" History of the United States - Series Guide

For my own sake, I recently took an interest in more often reading to learn. Currently my topic of interest is American history. I am by no means a historical scholar or even a "history buff" so I am admittedly very ignorant to most historical topics. That's kind of the point of this deep dive, though-- to educate myself out of ignorance.

Now for anyone actually curious enough to read through this series of text walls, I am a heavily left leaning person so my perspective on these topics is inherently biased in that direction. That being said, I will try to keep an open mind on the different voices and nuances of each take.

For this series of long winded virtual hot air, I will be examining three books with similar titles which purport to do the same thing: tell the history of the United States, albeit with wildly different voices.

We have: A Patriot's History - by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen A People's History - by Howard Zinn A True History - by Daniel A. Sjursen

I will be going through all of these books and taking amateur notes on the events presented and how they are presented to the reader by each book. The aim is to compare and contrast, and to hopefully walk away with a much more in depth understanding of the complexities of American history.

This post will be updated and serve as a masterguide of sorts, in case anyone one day wants to take the journey of exploring these works comparatively with me.

Guide for Section by Section Comparisons:

Part 1: Foundation of the American Colonies (Patriot - Chapter 1 | People - Chapter 1 - | True - Chapter 1-2) Part 2: Development of Conflict and Culture in the American Colonies (Patriot - Chapter 2 | People - Chapter 2-3 - | True - Chapter 3) Part 3: The Causes and Clashes of the American Revolution (Patriot - Chapter 3 | People - Chapter 4 | True - Chapter 4-5) Part 4: Post-Revolutionary America, the Articles, and the Constitution (Patriot - Chapter 4 | People - Chapter 5 | True - Chapter 6-7) Part 5: Federalists', Republicans', and Women's America (Patriot - Chapter 5 | People - Chapter 6 | True - Chapter 8-11) Part 6: The Downfall of Native Americans and the Rise of the White Class (Patriot - Chapter 6 | People - Chapter 7 | True - Chapter 12-14) Part 7: The Mexican-American War: Manifest Destiny from Coast to Coast (Patriot - Chapter 7 | People - Chapter 8 | True - Chapter 15) Part 8: The American Civil War (Patriot - Chapter 8-9 | People - Chapter 9 | True - Chapter 16-17) Part 9: Rent, Reconstruction, and Revisionism (Patriot - Chapter 10-11 | People - Chapter 10-11 | True - Chapter 18-19) Part 10: American Government and Business at Home and Abroad (Patriot - Chapter 12 | People - Chapter 12 | True - Chapter 20) Part 11: Turn of the Century in the United States (Patriot - Chapter 13 | People - Chapter 13 | True - Chapter 21) Part 12: The United States & The Great War in Europe (Patriot - Chapter 14 | People - Chapter 14 | True - Chapter 22) Part 13: The 1920's and 30's: A Tale of Two Decades (Patriot - Chapter 15-16 | People - Chapter 15 | True - Chapter 23-24) Part 14: World War II and Shifting World Powers (Patriot - Chapter 17 | People - Chapter 16 | True - Chapter 25-26) Part 15: Cold New World, Same ol' Problems Part 16: (Patriot - Chapter 18 | People - Chapter 17 | True - Chapter 27-28) "Good Morning, Vietnam! Hey, this is not a test; this is Rock n' Roll!" (Patriot - Chapter 19 | People - Chapter 18-19 | True - Chapter 29-31) Part 17: The Conservative Renaissance (Patriot - Chapter 20 | People - Chapter 20-22 | True - Chapter 32-34) Part 18: The "New Democrat" and American Moral Relativism (Patriot - Chapter 21 | People - Chapter 23-24 | True - Chapter 35) Part 19: The American Empire in the 21st Century (Patriot - Chapter 22 & Conclusion | People - Chapter 25 & Afterword | True - Chapter 36-37 & Epilogue) Part 20: Synthesized Synthesis: A Final Analysis and Discussion

[blissfulalchemist]

rouge, coral, hickory, fog + carly xx

Thank you Stella! Can always rely on you for bringing them the spotlight. I just went with it and so top answers are main verse Carly and bottom ones are ffxiv her.

ask my oc a question!

Rouge- Do you have an unpopular opinion?

“Like in terms of morals ??? Or just in regards to media and things of that nature? I mean I have them on both. In terms of morals I do truly believe that there is a certain nature to humans that relates to survival at all costs, where at the end of the day you have to become the hunter or else you’re prey and being that sucks when its you, but not in a dude bro kind of way. Because see listen those guys love to claim themselves “hunters” but really are the easiest of prey. Have you not seen how easily they let a woman into their lives is she’s meek and makes them feel big? Truly a marvel I will never get over seeing time and time again. That being said women are the biggest hunters and the best kind and truly I should just start a foundation where I can get women off of any charge if they don’t want to go to jail. Wait did I answer it? If you want a shallower opinion then Concerts are over rated and the peak of television is anything I had a hand in producing over the years.”

“Honestly, Fandaniel had a point and we should have just let the man kill us all in the end.” crosses arms grumbling, “And the Warrior of Light isn’t that fuckable actually. Ya’ll are just delusional.”

Coral - Do you have a strong moral code? What are some moral things that you feel strongly about?

“I mean if doing what you want when you want can be a moral code then sure I have a pretty strong one. Really it comes down to what is the smarter thing to do.”

“I mean not to steal from a certain father figure but with moral relativism in mind I would think so. I mean I kill sure, who doesn’t or wouldn’t, but I wouldn’t just kill a child outright with my bare hands, I cannot be held liable for war. I don’t fuck to get what I want....well okay in a way that’s degrading and like its money. There are lines and limits, some very much unknown to me still, but if it benefits me in keeping me alive then it’s fair game I will do it. There’s a little openness to this as well I have yet to come up against things that will test my moral code.”

Hickory - How smart are you? Would you consider yourself more book smart or street smart?

“I would put myself more as someone that is more observational rather than smart. When you observe you learn and when you learn you can apply. Truth be told I never really finished school. I think the city of New York took pity and just gave me something. Pretty hard to learn or do any schooling when you kept moving just to find work and scraps to eat.”

“Clever would probably be better to use. I never had any formal training in the art of war and yet I was able to achieve all that was ever asked of me. Even if I never had the title in a formal sense I still was known by a high rank from those around me. If I have to pick from the two concepts presented then you could put me more in the street smart category.”

Fog - Was there ever a period in your life when you were confused and lost? how did you get out of it? 

“In the days before the war. I was weak, relied heavily on others, and didn’t know how to get out from under my mother’s control. Perspective is gained once one has distance and I was able to see the way forward. Two years later I would find myself with absolute clarity and nothing has been a fog since.”

“I wouldn’t have ever said I was lost or confused, but I was more aimless. When you’ve lived under the thumb of a monster that controlled everything, having the whole world at your disposal is a little overwhelming. It didn’t last long as I took on jobs here and there where I could be classified as a ‘contract killer’ until I came across a dead man walking who then taught me the ways of the sword so I no longer needed to use the blades of a weak willed child. Very brief time but I learned all I needed to and I never felt the need to be lost or confused. Everything has had a goal since.”

[unfoldingmoments]

Is there an Absolute truth?

1. “There is no absolute truth” Argument:

• Relativism: This idea comes from the philosophical position known as relativism, which claims that what is true for one person may not be true for another, and there is no single, objective truth that applies to everyone.

• Contradiction: The statement itself can be seen as self-contradictory because to assert that “there is no absolute truth” is, in fact, making an absolute claim. If the statement is true, then it would have to be an absolute truth, which contradicts itself.

2. Does this also mean there are no absolute results?

• If there is no absolute truth, then results might also be seen as subjective: In this worldview, even the consequences or outcomes of actions could be viewed as relative. However, in reality, results (like cause and effect) often exist independently of personal beliefs. For example, if you touch fire, you’ll get burned, regardless of personal belief. Some outcomes are concrete and factual.

• Absolute vs. Relative Outcomes: There are areas where results are measurable and consistent (such as scientific laws), which suggests that some truths and outcomes are absolute, even if people perceive them differently.

3. Jesus as the Absolute Truth:

• Christian Perspective on Absolute Truth: In Christianity, Jesus Christ (JC) is described as the embodiment of absolute truth. In John 14:6, Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” This statement asserts that Jesus is not only a way to truth, but He is truth itself—absolute and unchanging.

• The Bible as God’s Word: Christians believe that the Bible is the revealed Word of God and therefore represents absolute truth. It is not considered subjective or relative to personal feelings or cultural contexts, but as the definitive guide to life and morality.

4. Salvation and Knowing Jesus:

• Christianity Teaches Personal Knowledge of Jesus: Jesus also says in Matthew 7:21-23 that “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven… I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you.’” This indicates that knowing Jesus personally and living according to His teachings is crucial for salvation, rather than merely identifying as a Christian or doing good works.

• True Faith vs. Mere Labels: In the Christian faith, just calling yourself a Christian or doing outwardly religious things is not enough. True faith involves a relationship with Jesus and recognition of Him as Lord, based on His claim that He is the only way to the Father (God). Those who don’t know or acknowledge Jesus in this way will not be recognized by Him, according to Christian teachings.

5. Reconciling Relativism with Christianity:

• Relativism Denies Absolute Truth: If someone believes there is no absolute truth, they would naturally reject the idea that Jesus is the exclusive way to salvation, since this claim implies an absolute truth that applies to all people.

• Christianity Affirms Absolute Truth in Jesus: From a Christian perspective, relativism is incompatible with faith in Christ. Christianity asserts that there is one absolute truth, which is found in Jesus and revealed in the Bible. The concept of truth is not flexible or relative in this worldview.

Conclusion:

To sum up, the claim “there is no absolute truth” is a relativistic idea that can lead to subjective interpretations of both truth and outcomes. However, in Christianity, Jesus is viewed as the ultimate and absolute truth—unchanging, exclusive, and foundational for salvation. This perspective rejects relativism, affirming that there are absolute truths and absolute results, especially concerning one’s relationship with Jesus and eternal destiny.

Moreover, here is an important distinction between **absolute truths in faith and morality** versus **relative or evolving truths in fields like science, medicine, technology, and innovation**. Let’s break this down:

### 1. **No Absolute Truth in Science, Medicine, Technology, and Innovation:**

- **Evolving Knowledge:** In areas like science, medicine, and technology, our understanding is constantly growing and changing. What may seem true today can be disproven or modified as new evidence and discoveries emerge.

- **Progress through Imperfection:** These fields are based on experimentation, observation, and ongoing refinement. For example:

- **Science:** Theories are proposed, tested, and refined. Newton's laws of motion, for example, were considered absolute until Einstein's theory of relativity expanded our understanding of physics.

- **Medicine:** Treatments that once were standard can be replaced as new research uncovers better approaches (e.g., advancements in vaccines, surgical techniques, or understanding of diseases).

- **Technology:** Innovation continuously pushes boundaries, making older technologies obsolete as new solutions are developed. A smartphone today is much more advanced than one a decade ago.

- **Relative Truths:** In this sense, truth in these areas is relative to the best available knowledge at the time, always open to revision or improvement as understanding deepens.

### 2. **No Absolute Results:**

- **Continuous Improvement:** In these fields, results are not always absolute or final because:

- **Science and Medicine:** New discoveries often replace or refine previous conclusions. For example, the understanding of how diseases work (like COVID-19) changed significantly during the pandemic as new data became available.

- **Technology and Innovation:** There is always room for better, faster, or more efficient solutions. Devices, algorithms, and systems are frequently updated to improve performance or address flaws.

- **Progress is Non-linear:** Often, progress involves trial and error, failures, and iterations. Even successful results may only be temporary or need adaptation over time.

### 3. **Contrast with Faith:**

- **Faith's Absolute Truth:** In contrast to science, medicine, and technology, **Christianity claims to have absolute truth** in matters of faith, salvation, and morality. Jesus’ declaration that He is "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6) is presented as an unchanging, universal truth that applies for all time, regardless of new developments or shifts in human knowledge.

- **Immutable Results in Faith:** The Christian belief in eternal life, salvation, or judgment is seen as unchanging and absolute. Unlike the evolving nature of science and technology, spiritual truth as revealed in the Bible remains constant.

### Conclusion:

In **science, medicine, and technology**, truth and results are **not absolute**, because they are based on evolving understanding, continual refinement, and improvement. These fields thrive on being open to new discoveries, which may challenge what was previously accepted. In contrast, **faith**—particularly within Christianity—claims an absolute truth in Jesus Christ and His teachings, which are viewed as eternal and unchanging. This is the key difference between the **relative truths** of the material world and the **absolute truths** claimed in spiritual belief systems.

[oediex]

some people at the philosophical café were also espousing some serious moral relativism, which I have a lot of thoughts about and I don't know if I'll be able to put them all into words, so please take all of this with a grain of salt. I'm just thinking here.

Basically, the question was about whether everyone has equal dignity, and that word (dignity) in Dutch ("waardigheid") also has the word for "value" in it ("waarde"). This caused a lot of confusion, with some people claiming that there was no such thing as "absolute value" because not everyone has the same principles (one definition of "value" and not an incorrect statement, but not the question at hand); while others had the opinion that not everyone had equal value, because some people in society are treated worse than others (another understanding of value, but again not, I think, what the question is about); and then there were a few people, including me, saying that yes, everyone has equal value in the way the question was phrased, namely that everyone has equal dignity as a human being, that's what human rights are all about. Yes, that equal dignity is obviously not recognised in society in the way that we treat others, but that doesn't mean that we don't have it. It's always there. Like, you're born and you have it. Even when you are mistreated, you have it and that is one of the reasons why that mistreatment is exactly that: mistreatment. It's why someone killing you is murder, and not just destruction. And everyone's value, in that sense of the word, everyone's dignity is equal. No one is more important than anyone else, morally, even if factually and practically quite the opposite is the case, and even when we have to make difficult choices (like who gets treated medically for example, if there are limited resources). It's what makes difficult and impossible choices so difficult and impossible! If some people had more value/dignity than others, then having to choose who dies and who lives wouldn't be so hard!

The concept of human dignity is centuries-old and can be found in many religions and philosophies, and is a central notion in the declaration of human rights. It is a contentious notion, primarily in that it is extremely difficult to define (it is not defined in the declaration of human rights!!!!) and very difficult to ground. Yet it is a vital human right, declared as such, and the one on which all the other ones are built. Equal moral dignity is at the core of so many social and political struggles. It is at the foundation of all fights for social justice and against oppression. It's what makes injustice injustice.

The question whether everyone had equal moral dignity was a weird one to me for a philosophical discussion in this place and time. Like, the answer seemed obviously yes to me. When it was chosen, from other (much more interesting in my view) questions that had been proposed, I figured - oh well, I guess we can discuss the definition of moral dignity, or what it ought to be grounded on, because as I said, these matters are far from decided.

But instead, there was an intense focus on the fact that in other times in history, and in other places in the world right now, people thought differently about certain issues like women's rights. In other cultures, they would say, women don't have as many rights as they do here. And I don't disagree. There are different values across different cultures and over history. But in my understanding of human dignity/value, even if certain people were not, by their group, valued for what they were (human), they still, in my eyes, had that moral dignity and value. I consider every human being, whether they are treated well or not, as an embodiment of moral dignity.

So when they came with some example or other that portrayed the subjugation of women at some point in history or in other places, I would ask, "Yes, but do you think that they have human dignity even if it wasn't recognised at the time/by that group." And the reply would be, "Well, what gives me the right to decide that?"

Because you are a rational and feeling being with the capacity to make moral judgements! Obviously you don't get to "decide" it but you can have an opinion on it? I tried using a tactic that I have seen a philosophy professor teaching ethics use. I proposed actions that seem obviously morally reprehensible, like raping a child, and ask, "don't you think we can call that morally bad no matter who does it or when?" And they would stand by their notion that no, they couldn't.

This is (extreme) moral relativism. The belief that there are no moral judgements we can make, absolutely, which is usually argued from the idea, as was the case in this discussion, that it's all culturally decided. That if there is a culture in which it is accepted to rape children, that we cannot look at that and say, "hey, that's not okay".

Now, I have to be clear here that cultural relativism is, in my eyes, an extremely important concept and tool. I think it is especially an important heuristic device to critically appraise one's own culture which is often experienced as absolute from within. I also want to say that as I am, obviously, not a moral relativist, that doesn't mean I believe to know exactly what are and are not absolute moral values. I do believe that human rights are extremely important and are an expression of the dignity that we all embody, but that doesn't mean that the ones we currently have "declared" are correct and all-encompassing. That is, in my eyes, precisely what philosophy, social justice, and critical theory is for. And we will probably never know, we just need to continue to critically think about it. We need to always accept that we might be wrong about them.

But that acceptance of our own possible critical failure is very different from the kind of moral relativism that people at this meeting were expressing. And I couldn't help but wonder - where is this coming from? They had just been talking about the importance of the feminist movement, and where did that movement come from if not from the believe that women had as much dignity as men?

And I don't know if I can answer that question, but I wonder if it's coming from some kind of extreme central liberalism and/or also a fear that not recognising such moral relativism would out them as thinking of their own cultures as morally superior and more progressive than others.

Let me explain.

I think the first one is the easiest to understand. The person in the centre positions themselves between those at the extreme ends and says, "both of you have a point" and refuses to express their own opinion, saying it all depends. They may move more one way than another depending on what would give them more power or is more beneficial to themselves, but generally they feign neutrality. I think a perfect example of this is centrist political parties. They think they are at the centre and that their hands are clean, but what they are actually doing is validating the extreme party on the end of the political spectrum that is causing great harm to many people in society. Applied to moral relativism - while the moral relativist is saying that it is all relative and they cannot make a moral judgement, a child is being raped, so to speak. Harm is being done, but the moral relativist can pretend they have no part in it, because it is not up to them to judge. They feign a position of neutrality while people are being oppressed, harmed, abused, etc. This kind of centrist position, whether politically or ethically, is, I think, the status quo in the western world. And it is causing great harm.

Now, the other explanation I think also has validity, but I don't know if I'll be able to explain it well. Basically, since this is a discussion that was being held by primarily white people in a western country, in Western Europe, I wonder if some of them were not comfortable claiming there are absolute moral values because they would interpret that as them somehow claiming that the values that are held in the western world are better than those elsewhere in the world. And this is a big no no, obviously. It's not very "in" among "enlightened" people such as would show up to a philosophical discussion. The reason I think this is, because when some people in the group would entertain the idea that there are certain absolute moral values, they would immediately mention notions such as "moral progress" and "us in the western world" being "further along" said progress, etc. Which is extremely problematic and uncritical to the point of dangerous and I don't think I have to explain that any further. Like I said earlier, my stance against moral relativism does not mean that I claim to know what such absolute moral values are or to be correct in the ones that I think are some of them or that I am uncritical, in the conversation surrounding human rights, of the ones that we seem to think they are. And it's why I am confident in my stance against moral relativism, because it doesn't fill me with some kind of confidence that I know what's what. It's what allows me to think critically of the way we go about things, including in our own, western, society. (And importantly, the way we go about things as a western society in relation to the rest of the world.) And so I wonder if the people espousing moral relativism were doing so in a way to protect themselves from that belief that "the western world is further along moral progress" than other places in the world. They say they are moral relativists so they can believe that that is not something that they believe.

Because I think a lot of people in the western world think that, including these people who pronounced themselves to be moral relativists (though they obviously didn't use that term*) but they try to hide that away. Like, I think people are aware that it's not "okay" to say that the way we do things here is "better" than how it is done outside of the western world, but I think they do believe that, but they feel they can't express that so they hide behind moral relativism.

(* I am using these terms because I think they apply generally to the kind of things they were saying. Mostly there was a lot of misunderstanding and misinterpretation. Like, I would say that not all ethical opinions were equal, and they would say, "well everyone has a right to their own opinion". Well, yeah, obviously, but that doesn't mean that all opinions are equal, or that some aren't more correct/ethically right than others. I had to ask very specific question to ascertain their stance on morality and ethical values and I explained above how I came to the conclusion that they were defending moral relativism.)

I don't know. Maybe I am wrong about all of this. Maybe I've said some things that are hugely wrong and problematic. I just feel like moral relativism is a kind of mask that people use to hide their belief that their own way is the correct way, but they're somehow aware that that's not okay because cultural relativism. (Obviously there are also many people who have no problem pronouncing western moral superiority.) But I just think that these people have taken the wrong lesson from cultural relativism. Cultural relativism does not necessarily lead to moral relativism. Cultural relativism is crucial in order to turn a sharp eye to one's own culture and its values, as it puts these in question, but it makes no claims in terms of the existence or non-existence of absolute moral values. It does not exclude the possibility that there are, indeed, absolute moral values.

I think moral dignity (which as a vegan I do not limit to only human beings btw! but that was definitely not a popular opinion lol) is one of these absolute moral values (and as I've said, I am open to the idea that I am very wrong about what I believe), and it is infinitely (philosophically) interesting to me because, as I said, it is difficult to define and ground. But that was in no way what the discussion at the philosophical café was about.

[jackaldandy]

Why are you hellbent on wanting to "reclaim" a word invented by nazis? You are old enough to understand that when you call yourself any of those words you are signaling to the wrong crowd, no matter if you do it in a "queer way" parroting nazi terminology just makes you look like a stupid idiot at beat and just a nazi at worst

The word "degenerate" was not invented by Nazis, but by theorists who founded the foundations of eugenics some years ago, and who offered a scientific and moral substrate to the program of Nazism. Under no point of view is this detail a relativization, but it seems important to me to take into account this historical origin of the term when it comes to having more tools to understand from an anti-fascist and anti-racist counterpower how it has been gaining strength and what other brutal meanings it has been feeding along the way. In fact, the theories of degeneration were not applied in the first instance in Germany, but in the United States at the beginning of the 20th century when a racist boom began to be generated regarding genetic races, family genealogical trees and the eugenic programs that sought promote population control, the "social and biological reproduction" of pure families. The abominable history of eugenics has an earlier and much broader origin than Nazism, which in fact meant that it could have a strong influence in many territories throughout the world, articulating itself with some faces of scientific positivism (this was the case in Argentina for example).

On the other hand, going to the term itself... the first thing I think of when I think of degenerate is not the Nazis, but the fear and repulsion that certain manifestations and ways of life produced in the Nazis. That end of purity, civilization, the national and racial banner, which for them were forms of social corrosion, internationalism, migration. I think of Otto Dix, I think of the cabaret, I think of a lot of artistic manifestations that were abhorred through this label. Critical thinking, the Jewish Marxist intellectuality, was considered an axis of degeneration for the Nazis because it served as a factor of social and aesthetic corrosion that desacralized national values ​​and mocked the sublime status to which art should aspire. My position goes through my immense sympathy towards everything that the Nazis hate and the understanding that everything that they label as degenerate, queer sex, gender transgressions, prostitution, artistic modernism, Marxism and anti-normative experimentation, is something that I deeply embrace from this other place in history.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Invariance

The philosophy of invariance examines the concept of constancy or unchanging nature within various contexts, including science, mathematics, ethics, and metaphysics. This philosophical exploration seeks to understand what remains constant amidst change and why such constancies are significant for our comprehension of reality, knowledge, and truth.

Key Concepts in the Philosophy of Invariance

Definition of Invariance:

Concept: Invariance refers to properties or principles that remain unchanged under specific transformations or conditions.

Argument: Identifying invariances helps in understanding the fundamental nature of systems and theories, providing a stable foundation for analysis and interpretation.

Invariance in Science and Mathematics:

Physical Laws: Many physical laws, such as the laws of motion and conservation laws, are considered invariant under transformations like time shifts or spatial rotations.

Symmetry: Invariance is closely related to symmetry in physics and mathematics. For example, the invariance of physical laws under certain symmetries leads to conservation laws according to Noether's theorem.

Mathematical Constants: Constants like π (pi) and e (Euler's number) are examples of invariance in mathematics, holding the same value across various contexts.

Invariance in Metaphysics:

Universal Principles: In metaphysics, invariance pertains to principles or truths that remain constant across possible worlds or different contexts.

Identity and Change: Philosophers explore how identity can persist over time despite changes, focusing on the invariant core that defines an entity.

Ethical Invariance:

Moral Principles: The idea that certain ethical principles are invariant, holding true regardless of cultural or situational differences.

Universal Ethics: This approach argues for the existence of universal moral truths that apply to all rational beings.

Theoretical Debates and Implications

Role of Invariance in Scientific Theories:

Concept: Invariance as a criterion for the validity and robustness of scientific theories.

Argument: Scientific theories that exhibit invariance under transformation are often considered more fundamental and reliable.

Philosophical Implications of Mathematical Invariance:

Concept: The philosophical significance of invariant mathematical properties and structures.

Argument: The constancy of mathematical truths supports the notion of an objective mathematical reality, independent of human perception.

Ethical Relativism vs. Invariant Ethics:

Concept: The debate between ethical relativism, which denies invariant moral principles, and invariant ethics, which upholds them.

Argument: While ethical relativism emphasizes cultural and contextual differences, invariant ethics seeks universal moral truths applicable to all.

Metaphysical Invariance and Identity:

Concept: The persistence of identity amidst change and the metaphysical basis for invariance.

Argument: Philosophers debate whether there are essential properties that remain invariant to preserve identity through change.

The philosophy of invariance explores the concept of constancy across different domains, from science and mathematics to ethics and metaphysics. By understanding what remains unchanged amidst transformations, this philosophical inquiry provides insights into the fundamental nature of reality, the stability of scientific theories, and the universality of ethical principles.

[tomthomasblog]

Discovering the Spiritual Depth of Colossians 2:9-10

Colossians 2:9-10: Unveiling the Fullness of Christ

Colossians 2:9-10 is a powerful Bible verse that underscores the profound truth of God's fullness residing in Christ and the ultimate authority and spiritual reality found in Him. This verse serves as a cornerstone of faith and a guiding light for Christians seeking spiritual fulfillment and alignment with God's divine order. Understanding the significance of Colossians 2:9-10 can profoundly impact our perspective on faith, identity, and purpose, unlocking a deeper connection with the divine.

The verses emphasize the unparalleled supremacy of Christ, proclaiming that all of the fullness of the Godhead dwells within Him. This profound truth serves as a firm foundation for the Christian faith, instilling a sense of awe and reverence for the all-encompassing nature of Christ's divinity. In a world marked by uncertainty and shifting ideologies, the steadfast truth of Christ's sovereignty offers believers a secure anchor for their faith.

Furthermore, Colossians 2:9-10 highlights the spiritual completeness that believers find in Christ. It transcends fleeting worldly endeavors, offering a profound sense of fulfillment rooted in a divine and eternal source. This notion challenges the prevailing societal narrative that equates fulfillment with material wealth, status, and transient pleasures. By embracing the truth of being complete in Christ, individuals can find liberation from the relentless pursuit of temporal satisfaction, seeking instead a deeper, enduring fulfillment in their faith.

Moreover, the verse reaffirms Christ's headship over all rule and authority, guiding believers to live in alignment with God's divine order. In a world fraught with moral relativism and conflicting value systems, acknowledging Christ's supreme authority serves as a compass for navigating life's complexities. It urges believers to align their thoughts, actions, and aspirations with the divine principles exemplified by Christ, fostering a life of purpose, integrity, and spiritual abundance.

In conclusion, Colossians 2:9-10 stands as a testament to the immeasurable depth and richness of the Christian faith, inviting believers to embrace the fullness of Christ and find profound spiritual fulfillment in His divine sovereignty. As we meditate on these verses and internalize their profound implications, let us be inspired to anchor our faith in the unwavering truth they convey. May we discover a renewed sense of purpose, identity, and fulfillment as we align our lives with Christ's headship and embrace the transformative power of His fullness.

The three musical styles used to perform today's song all have their roots in the text of Colossians 2:9-10.

Christian Rock: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNwltZXeg1s Metal Rock: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI2KPs9Vq2s Techno: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fksf1qB4Lks

[agape-philo-sophia]

➝ Order Followers – The Servants of Evil❗.

Those of us who have less conditioning — who don’t obey the chain of authority; who have less attachment to falsity — recognize that the so-called “authorities” in our way of life are stupid and idiotic in their actions. We have truer, higher and realer conscious awareness and self-development making us more authentic and capable of recognizing the authority of truth — of what is right, good, true and moral. The “authorities” and their supporters are falser, lower, and unrealer selves; unaware and unconsciously living, doing wrongs as though they were right; or transforming what’s right into a wrong.

ORDER-FOLLOWING IS NOT A VIRTUE!

Conscience is the internal guiding system humanity is blessed with having. It is literally your compass to living in the Right. Police and Military side swipe their consciences by following orders from their masters. Police make all kinds of justifications and excuses as to why they follow through with immoral orders but there is no legitimate excuse. Justifications for burying the conscience are null and void. As it is the conscience itself that will direct us toward what is moral, right, justified, and true. The Ancient Mystery traditions considered the conscience the home dwelling of the Higher self. To sell your soul means to disobey your conscience.

The immorality of government is obvious once we start being honest with ourselves. It’s very clear to see that not only politcians are not to be trusted but also the foundation of government itsself even if the politicians were to be trusted is wrong. The foundation namely consists of violence, incarceration and theft. Theft is theft, also when government does it. When someone or some entity claims you MUST pay them money or you will be incarceted and means you are a slave. Back in the days they took 100% of slaves labour now it’s about 30%. Even if it’s used for collective purposes doesn’t make it any less of an act of theft.

The Dark Occultists aren't the ones creating the chaos and suffering, they're just giving the orders, manipulating minds. Every evil perpetrated in the world is done by those who are obeying the orders. And it all comes down to Moral Relativism. When you believe that morality is just a mental construct and that we get to make up what is or isn't moral based on personal beliefs, whims, preferences, likes and dislikes, then you have no Conscience. A lack of conscience also comes with a lack of self-respect. If a police officer or solider has no conscience or self-respect, they will have no problem doing as they're told and engaging in the daily imposition upon the Rights of others.

Conscience is the definitive knowledge of the difference between Morally Right Behavior and Morally Wrong Behavior. The exercise of Conscience is choosing to do what is Right regardless of what someone tells you to do, regardless of consequence. When you are following someone else's dictates, regardless of what is Right, you CANNOT exercise Conscience. It's impossible. When you have no Conscience, your actions are inevitably going to cause harm to others. Therefore, ALL order-followers are bad people. All police are bad people, all military are bad people. I'm not saying that some of them don't mean well or don't have good intentions, but intentions mean nothing if your world view is damaged, you conscience is broken, and your actions are wrong.

The only good cops and soldiers are the ones who have truly begun to respect themselves and brought their conscience online, who refuse to obey the commands that they know are wrong and refuse to enforce "laws" that infringe upon the Rights of others. In other words, they've become moral beings, they've quit their cult, and begun speaking out in courage, unapologetically.

"It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or of any number of men... to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights. If men, through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up an essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right of freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." – Samuel Adams, 'Chief Conspirator' of the American Revolution

It doesn't matter how good you think you are, how nice you are to others, or what seemingly noble cause you believe you are serving. Good intentions are meaningless if your actions are not in line with Morality. If you're obeying someone else's order – even if that order is to feed the homeless – you are not exercising conscience. If you're not exercising conscience then you ARE a bad person. Period. I'm not saying you have to be perfect, because no one can be perfect, but you have to get out of the "me me me, I only care about me and mine, and I won't do anything that brings consequences down on me no matter how Right it is" mentality. That's Satanism.

Stop being an order-follower and stop supporting their behavior. Stop glorifying them as heroes. Instead, start understanding Objective Morality and Natural Law, and teach it to the order-followers you know and meet. Their ignorance IS your responsibility. Their ignorance, their wrong behavior in the world, and our support of it is what keeps all of us enslaved.

Government has a monopoly on violence. If you would act like the government you would be arrested. What grands government the right to be above the people and to rule other people. It’s an illusion of self proclaimed control. Just a group of thugs with their minions in blue who are the modern day houseslaves that rather inslave their own brothers and sisters for a paycheck than actually become conscious and start thinking for themselves. It’s really pathetic and pittyfull. The level of unconsciousness is so severe that they think what they actually are doing is a virtue and they see themselves as brave people. Nothing could be further from the Truth. Following orders is not a virtue at all. It means you’re deeply asleep to a world of immorality and chaos.

Man-made "laws" will always be disobeyed by criminals, and good people will always do what is Right regardless of what a "law" says, because they understand that there is no such thing as "authority." Therefore, the entire point of "laws" is not to maintain peace and order but to control those who do believe in it. In other words, "laws" are for obedient slaves, for order-followers. For someone to want a "law" made about something, that means there's no real knowledge present within them. They have confusion regarding right and wrong, and want to make it up and have it imposed on society.

You could say that most man-made "laws" are just a form of sorcery. They may call it "legislation" and "law books," but without euphemising, it's really sorcery and spell grimoires. It's Lesser Magick, or Black Magick, because it's using words, intent and energy to create change in conformity with the selfish will of the ruling class and its lawmakers. Teaching Natural Law, on the other hand, would be a form of High Magick, because it's using words, intent and energy to create change in conformity with the Will of Creation.

Apart from the immoral actions they commit everyday by stealing from their brothers and sisters for their big boss government and incarcerating their own brothers and sisters for victimless crimes because some words of a piece of paper says so that has been written by their slavemasters they are actually very much being mocked by the people behind the government who have set up this system of control. Many of the pole ice off eye seers are being covered in dark occult symbols.

Terrorists dressed in fancy clothes with pseudo weaponry forcing the man made law down people’s throats and stealing and harming people with unrightful violence all over the world where in many countries. oke its understandable that they try to calm the peace of rioteers but you dont do that with violence. Police shouldnt be with protests because they make rioteers out of peaceful protestors when they start to taunt them and intimidate them with their costumes and often very authoritarian behaviour, wich they get training in and theyre expected of to behave in this way.

Ofcourse also them can be themselves but they have to abide by the man made law wich is immoral and relative in many ways and is different everywhere on the earth and everywhere there comes more violence from the police and also the people rioting in many countries is often because of government interference or against the government. Government does nothing but trying to control violence for the betterment of their agenda’s of control and control because thats where they are steering towards for totalitarian control and that is definitely not something you want i can assure you because I am out of the mind control programs (or at least many of them but still having to deal with the programs themselves all around you and yes it’s designed that way.

The police has also a big say on the centralisation of protection because in the end that’s what a non psychopathic cop wants to do for joining the cops but that’s also a powerful reason why people still believe in the pole ice. Because they might think that’s all the police does. This concerns naive and ignorant people that ignore all the negativ and unrightful and immoral actions the order followers pursue. They have to because those are the pillars of the entity that is controlling them and telling them what to do with the hyrarchical pyramid shaped organisation and protocols and information accessability. They’re out of alignment with Natural Law and/or the Universal one’s whatever you would like to call it everyone who is inner knowing and understands the logics of the universe and what it’s made of and what life itsself’s building blocks are of reason. Because then you get the understanding that the universe and this planet’s purpose is to live free truthful and with Love as foundation. They know not what inheritent rights are. Your natural right is basically everthing as long it doesnt bring harm to other sovereign beings.

That’s it you know and if you are breaking those you’re fooling yourself and become addicted eventually to the Ego that consists of the wanting for suffering so people can have attention from others and self pitty. They have given up on their true dreams and Passions and talents and basically are too passive or too active in things that dont really matter and are distracted by mindless sports games and videogames and going out and get wasted kind of dissuations of Truth by the Ego of pleasure. Not many truly want to understand the matter of the fact, the objectivity of Truth that this universe and planet and dimensions consist of because not everything is relative and unknowable and that’s beauty of it you have to find these powers in yourself and connect with the higher mind wich is the Neo-Cortex and have the left and right brain hemispheres in balance. Intellectually merged with creativity is true intelligence but many do not know this and tend to be in unbalance by one of the halves of the brains and this also shapes their worldview and way of being in a deep way.

Statism is a religion. The believe in a corporate organisation that has taken over the control of the people to do what they plan. And believe me they got plans. If you can connect the dots of what is going on in the long run in the past and in the future its all very obvious and people still making fun of people talking and discussing and recognizing the Truth in these games they play and how they manipulate the minds of the masses into ways of thinking and choose between options they both have given you as if you may not think outside of the box unless its for financial ways and they can make money off of your taxmoney then suddenly you can work with them.

Theyre taking so much of our money. With that money still intact in our wallets we can do alot of things we would normally give the government for doing what we dont know they pay and you just get thrown in the collecetive money box and they decide where they use it for it doesnt really have a worth. Everyone should make up for themselves wich organisations they support with their money or they start their own business without government interference but in the times we live in that is still a hard thing to do because we’re still under all these legislations and rules and buracrocy it’s unbelievable how deep they have spun their webs to back their fundamentals of control over the people

Every single one. Taking care of their family doesn't mean they're a good person. At what cost to the Rights and lives of others are they taking care of them? The Nazi soldiers took care of their families all while following orders to terrorize and murder innocent people. Finding and caging "criminals" because that's your job doesn't make you a good person because that's just order-following. Just because you yourself may not directly harm other people or steal from them doesn't make you a good person, either. You can be kind, loving, thoughtful, and considerate all day, but if you don't exercise conscience (and put conscience above man's "laws") then you're only continuing to support the control system. By doing that you are ensuring that other people's lives remain in duress.

No spiritually awake and moral person can be an order-follower. No spiritually awake and moral person believes in the legitimacy of "authority" or continues to support and condone its "laws" and violence. A truly awake and moral person understands their sovereignty under Natural Law and lives by principle, truth and right action.

We need to stop instilling into our children this mentality of order-following, teaching them that it's a virtue. What you're teaching them is that being a SLAVE is virtuous. How many times have you or someone you know told a child "do as you're told?" Is that teaching them to critically think and make moral choices? Or is it teaching them to obey unquestioningly?

Children are not our property. We do not own them. We are their stewards. Our job is to RAISE their consciousness to be Sovereign, Moral Beings. Instead, we instill in them our own broken worldview which perpetuates the conditions we're in. Then many of them grow up to be like those thugs in the image above, violently harassing and infringing on the Rights of others because someone they perceive as "authority" told them to, never exercising Conscience.

Again, this is what brings tyranny and evil into our world far more than the one's giving the orders. No one can legitimately abdicate their responsibility for their actions. Every single one of these psychological children have the most moral culpability because they are the one's doing the wrong behavior, violently enforcing arbitrary and immoral "laws" and assaulting and killing innocent people. Stop supporting dominator culture. Inform order-followers and get them to engage their conscience. We need the numbers to overcome these conditions. Freedom can only manifest when aggregate society aligns itself with Natural Law.

[anasraza25]

Surah Al-Mulk: Contemporary Relevance and Timeless Lessons

Surah Al-Mulk, the 67th chapter of the Quran, holds timeless wisdom and guidance that resonates deeply with Muslims worldwide. Its verses address fundamental aspects of faith, accountability, and the profound nature of the universe. While rooted in the context of revelation more than fourteen centuries ago, Surah Al-Mulk remains profoundly relevant in today's world, offering insights and teachings that continue to impact believers' lives. Let us explore how this chapter speaks to contemporary issues and what lessons we can draw from it.

Monotheism and Tawhid

At its core, Surah Al-Mulk emphasizes the concept of Tawhid, the absolute Oneness of Allah. In an era where ideologies and material pursuits often compete for supremacy, this chapter reaffirms the monotheistic belief in one God, who holds absolute sovereignty over all creation. This message serves as a profound reminder amidst the complexities of modern life, urging believers to anchor their faith in the unshakeable foundation of Tawhid.

Environmental Stewardship

One of the remarkable themes in Surah Al-Mulk is its reflection on the natural world and the signs of Allah's creation. The Quran describes how the heavens, the earth, and all that lies between them function in perfect harmony as a testament to Allah's power and wisdom. In today's age of environmental crisis, these verses underscore the importance of environmental stewardship and the ethical responsibility to preserve and protect the Earth—a message that resonates strongly with contemporary concerns about climate change and sustainable living.

Accountability and Ethics

Surah Al-Mulk vividly portrays the scenes of the Day of Judgment, where every soul will be held accountable for its deeds. This concept of accountability transcends time and culture, offering profound insights into ethical conduct and personal responsibility. In an age marked by moral relativism and ethical dilemmas, these teachings provide a moral compass, guiding believers towards actions that uphold justice, compassion, and righteousness.

Reflection on Materialism and Ephemeral Pursuits

In today's consumer-driven society, Surah Al-Mulk challenges the prevailing notion that material wealth and worldly possessions equate to success and happiness. The Quranic verses caution against the transient nature of worldly gains and remind believers of the impermanence of earthly life. This reflection encourages a shift towards spiritual enrichment and meaningful pursuits that align with eternal values, fostering a balanced approach to wealth and material possessions.

Hope and Resilience

Surah Al-Mulk concludes with a message of hope and divine mercy, reassuring believers of Allah's compassion and forgiveness. In times of adversity, uncertainty, and despair, these verses offer solace and encouragement, emphasizing the transformative power of faith and perseverance. This message resonates deeply with individuals facing personal challenges or navigating societal upheavals, instilling a sense of resilience rooted in trust in Allah's divine plan.

Practical Application in Daily Life

Beyond its theological significance, Surah Al-Mulk provides practical guidance for daily living. Its emphasis on reflection, prayer, and gratitude encourages believers to cultivate mindfulness and spiritual awareness in their routines. Moreover, the chapter's emphasis on seeking knowledge, fostering community ties, and practicing humility underscores the holistic approach to faith that encompasses both individual piety and communal well-being.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Surah Al-Mulk stands as a testament to the Quran's enduring relevance and timeless wisdom. Its teachings transcend temporal and cultural boundaries, offering profound insights and guidance that resonate deeply with contemporary challenges and aspirations. As Muslims engage with the teachings of Surah Al-Mulk in their daily lives, they are reminded of their responsibilities as stewards of the Earth, their obligations towards ethical conduct and accountability, and their reliance on Allah's mercy and guidance. By embodying these teachings, believers can navigate the complexities of modernity with faith, resilience, and a steadfast commitment to embodying Quranic principles in their lives.

Through its profound teachings and timeless relevance, Surah Al-Mulk continues to inspire and guide believers towards a life of purpose, meaning, and spiritual fulfillment.