Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "MentisWave" channel.

@justanto Also every early atheist philosopher saw nihilism/hedonism as a bad thing.
1
@justanto Yeah that proves that your life is worthless. There is no arguing with you because everything you say literally has no value, you're an idiot who isn't worth the time, you don't understand anything about rationality nor definitions, so dealing with an NPC moron like you isn't worth the time, you can't refute us, you can't stop us, and you will never convince any of us with that mindset. There is no reasonable person that does not have an issue with nihilism or hedonism, that is by definition self-destructive behavior, as does anything that permits it as a "valid" outlook, as well it is inherently self-refuting as is your position. I don't care what you think because as far as I'm concerned you don't exist then, and if you can't be convinced I don't care to try further. There is no one you will convince with what you've said, it is narcissistic, self-centered, and completely unrelatable. People do not think like that, not that it even makes any sense to convince anyone anyway because there is no point, we don't have any free will from your view anyway, this was all predetermined from the inception of reality and will degenerate into nothingness that was also predetermined, there is no consciousness to choice, just predetermined outcomes, and there is no end point to our death or continuation, just a hole in the ground we will lay that eventually ceases to also be as a result of the degeneration of the universe into a chaos that itself ceases to be. Thus this argument is itself worthless, everyone who sees this conversation wasn't convinced by it, they were predetermined to every choice they made regardless of its existence, this entire conversation itself was predetermined and was predetermined to move us further into a void of empty and void chaos.
1
@justanto Yeah that proves that your life is worthless. There is no arguing with you because everything you say literally has no value, you're an idiot who isn't worth the time, you can't refute us, you can't stop us, and you will never convince any of us with that mindset. There is no reasonable person that does not have an issue with nihilism or hedonism, that is by definition self-destructive behavior, as does anything that permits it as a "valid" outlook, as well it is inherently self-refuting as is your position. I don't care what you think because as far as I'm concerned you don't exist then. There is no one you will convince with what you've said, it is narcissistic, self-centered, and completely unrelatable. People do not think like that, there is no point, we don't have any free will from your view anyway, this was all predetermined from the inception of reality and will degenerate into nothingness that was also predetermined, there is no consciousness to choice, just predetermined outcomes, and there is no end point to our death or continuation, just a hole in the ground we will lay that eventually ceases to also be as a result of the degeneration of the universe into a chaos that itself ceases to be. Thus this argument is itself worthless.
1
Don't forget Antifa tried to burn the capital as well, nobody opposed them when this happened, the president was instead rushed into a bunker with his family for it.
1
Just gonna point out, reason I won't ever argue from a secular perspective as a Christian has to do with theological foundations, I honestly don't care about practical outcomes when the subject will still lead his way into hell, (I'll prefer a more aligned leadership that respects God even if they don't believe, but I'm not aiming to make a society that does that for it is theologically worthless to achieve) a nation which adopts the Christian model is what I'm concerned of and that's a movement given only from God who directs us to proselytize in such a way that if its meant to shall be effective to change the society. And any society that won't adopt Christ is in time to be condemned by its opposition to God, God brings them in, but it was they who rejected God.
1
I used to be an anarcho-capitalist but as a Christian I've since shifted to a free market Christian theocracy Monarchy view after reading through Scripture, I still however sympathize with the libertarian and anarcho-capitalist views and find them massively preferable to anything that the other side does, I don't even really all that much disagree with libertarians in most things, I just don't respect the concept of the NAP because the Levitical Law as moderated by the New Testament inherently can't recognize it, I'd still fight for a hyper laissez-faire economic system though, like I'm constantly arguing against trash like IP Law.
1
@Aneko_Tomo The issue is that God's Law establishes a system of a feudal monarchy that is to be a free market, God's Law needs to always supersede any other perspective, and God doesn't establish a voluntary leadership in His Law, and I don't find anarcho-capitalist perspectives were inherently built with the Christological framework in mind, you need a hierarchical monarchy that Gods gives that was established in full accordance to God's Law foremost, only then can justice and righteous flourish from the Law, and in time there will be good kings and bad kings, but those who are faithful will always be blessed and the righteous land will flourish in prosperity.
1
@Aneko_Tomo The problem is that God does not support any concept of voluntary government, in fact He constantly emphasizes that government is not voluntary and is only given from Him, and that wicked governments are given in judgement, King Saul is a perfect example of violating any anarcho-capitalist position on government, even in the New Testament he would still be righteously given by a Theonomist which is what I am pointing to, he was God's anointed, God's Law only permits resistance in purely the maximizing the preservation of human life and a fair authoritative standard of justice, the judges and kings are not decided by the people, they are raised up by God alone. Violence against the state for the sake of resistance is only done in preservation of all human life so that the wicked will be punished and the righteous will be commended, nothing more, nothing less.
1
This video is absolutely fire, hits every necessary point from black rock and vanguard to wikipedia to journos to the state and all with simply clear proof.
1
@goatskin4487 Perhaps, but that's a recent phenomenon, and in fact inverse to post-Roman (as in Christian) Western history entirely. (reason I speak of post-Roman is because pre-Rome men and women in the pagan realm were often treated as sexually unequal, women were often expected to be pristine virgins while men were not)
1
@dannysummers4591 Patriarchy is the inherent natural result of human dimorphism. Its not even unique to humans, most mammals also do it naturally, in fact the natural behavior of the male in almost every single species that is dimorphic (and even some that aren't) is sacrificial for and/or protective of the female(s). That aside its just rational and inherently low time preference to be of such a state as women are actually biologically more valuable then men.
1
@dannysummers4591 Patriarchy is the inherent natural result of human dimorphism.
1
@dannysummers4591 Its not even unique to humans, most mammals also do it naturally, in fact the natural behavior of the male in almost every single species that is dimorphic (and even some that aren't) is sacrificial for and/or protective of the female(s).
1
@dannysummers4591 That aside its just rational and inherently low time preference to be of such a state as women are actually biologically more valuable then men.
1
 @dannysummers4591 .
1
@dannysummers4591 Patriarchy of some kind is the natural result of dimorphism found through most sex divided creatures, especially pertaining to biological and psychological dimorphism.
1
@dannysummers4591 Blame nature and biology
1
@a.39886 We are entirely capable of choosing salvation in God, but we by nature can never do this for our nature is completely depraved and corrupted, its not that we can't choose God but that by nature we never will. God's knowledge also does not preclude any element of volition or free will on our part, He knowing and having a Will over our choice (not that He has tempted us to choose it but we of our free will which exists by the love of God we choose to be apart from God, and thus simultaneously God declares us apart from Him, not by our choice) does not violate our capacity to choose Him, but that our nature can never do this, only by God reigning back our nature does He bring us to Him and thus He brings us to Him. This is where irresistible grace is found. Is it to say God has decided? Well in some form yes, God has decided whose nature He will restrain and who will be elected among His grace, however those separate from His grace are condemned specifically because they would not, not that they could not by capacity, the free will they have specifically will never choose God. As for the purpose of our life? All our lives are to live for the love and praise of God, those condemned demonstrate His glory and justice, those who live with God while demonstrating and praising His glory also demonstrate His love and mercy, His grace, that there may be anyone who is saved is itself a miracle against justice. The purpose of every life is in the end to service the glory and majesty of God, and we are thus granted a love beyond all measure, for He loved us and we then are to love Him. As for what is moral, it is simply by that which is declared by He who defined good what is itself good, it is defined for our sake, but by itself it need not be resolved as simply being for our sake though it is, but that it is God who is the authority of justice and righteousness, and thus the author of morality, which had foremost defined it. God is the perfect judge and is perfectly just and so all that He decides is perfect in all ways.
1
@a.39886 "No amount of pleasure outweighs eternal suffering." This is a red herring, this is utilitarian morality which is completely irrelevant. You don't define morality so there is no reason to consider this, I don't exist to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering, both of them are completely irrelevant to morality. Christians are actually even called to willingly step into suffering just to demonstrate that point. "If you wish that your loved ones never experience eternal suffering. ( this will be in agreed and if not I guess you are fine with the idea that your children could end up experiencing eternal torture because you decided to bring them to the world)," Again, this is completely irrelevant, its just a red herring of the issue. I would desire everyone to come to God but I understand most will never do so, I was granted a grace I did not deserve, they too were allowed this but they rejected it, so they get what they deserve, they already deserved condemnation, as did I, but because they rejected God, they do not get to be with God. I do not desire anyone who would reject God to be with God, I rather see justice done if that must be the case. "if you insist that heaven is the maximum good and outweighs even a eternal torture on hell, then yoi should be happy for every children that dies as they are assure the maximum good, " Heaven is not "maximum good", God is the author of all good things, by Him all good things were made and nothing could be good. Heaven itself was given because God had made it so, as He made the Earth just the same, perfectly good, as so too was man, but man in his rebellion against God committed the Original Sin and it is by his hands that death entered the world and suffering was placed upon his back, and the Earth was thus corrupted. It is for this reason man is born condemned, because he had sinned against God, he deserved the death sentence but God's great mercy and love for us preserved us, His justice required our death, but His love and mercy did not immediately demand it, so we instead have a life that suffers and in time ends. Am I happy for the death of children? No, for God does not take pleasure in the death of a sinner and so too do I agree with God, but a sinner who dies has taken their path and God being the perfect judge and is the perfect justice will do what is right regardless. It is by this I have peace that what need be done shall be done, whatever is ultimately right shall be done by Him. What I would wish should always conform to God. "if you know your children will be rejecting the religion should you kill him as a child so he wins the maximum good on heaven?" I don't know anything about my children. If the implication you say is for God, that is not loving nor is it just, God knows what is right and He will do what is perfectly just, He gave life and so He is justified in taking it for it is borrowed from Him, no one has a right to life, and any who loves His life will lose it, but He who hates His life shall have eternal life, whoever lays down His life shall reside in eternity. I am not God, I can not make a choice based on knowledge I don't have, and I will not presume to understand the nature of God's choice of the elect. As well killing any children does not preserve them any more for righteousness because they were born in sin, they are born an enemy of God, they would not be preserved on the simple basis of being killed as such a time, they'd still be condemned.
1
@ What belief has evidence that is not inherently self-refuting without further belief? Even evidence itself requires a belief, it does not sustain its rational to itself but must be believed. And why do you presume I have no evidence? I have much evidence, but you are unwilling to see for you suppress the Truth in unrighteousness, for there is no neutral man, why then should one presume himself to be above belief?
1