The most disturbing image I saw in my life

[WinterHold]

I judge their claims as being "fabrications" and "nonsense" because I know exactly that these men were gathered in the council to serve the agenda of Rome; and that any of them attempting to defy the will of the Emperor Constantine would end up crossed on the Roman cross.

We have detailed documented chronicles of how Rome was governed in the period of Constantine.

As for your side; it is demolished by the definition of the council itself:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Coun...aea#Agenda

It's important to remember that a pronouncement by a biased person serving an agenda can still be true. If - for the purpose of argument - we take it as read that Jesus of Nazareth with an historic personage, the Council was perfectly correct in saying that he was 'begotten'.

Boru

The council agreed that Jesus is "begotten out of the essence of God":

1. While Arius argued that Jesus Christ was created out of nothing or out of something else, the council affirmed that he was begotten out of the substance (essence) of the Father.

   
   
   

BTW this is the base difference and rivalry between Islam & Constantine's Christianity: 

Islam = Jesus was created from human essence just like any other human.
Constantine Christianity= Jesus is a God-like with the essence of God flowing in his veins. Jesus = God, thus Jesus = the father; thus trinity.

That council was nothing but a heathen opinion of a heathen emperor -Constantine- that protected this blasphemy with Roman Centurions.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It's important to remember that a pronouncement by a biased person serving an agenda can still be true. If - for the purpose of argument - we take it as read that Jesus of Nazareth with an historic personage, the Council was perfectly correct in saying that he was 'begotten'.

Boru

The council agreed that Jesus is "begotten out of the essence of God":

1. While Arius argued that Jesus Christ was created out of nothing or out of something else, the council affirmed that he was begotten out of the substance (essence) of the Father.

BTW this is the base difference and rivalry between Islam & Constantine's Christianity: 

Islam = Jesus was created from human essence just like any other human.
Constantine Christianity= Jesus is a God-like with the essence of God flowing in his veins. Jesus = God, thus Jesus = the father; thus trinity.

That council was nothing but a heathen opinion of a heathen emperor -Constantine- that protected this blasphemy with Roman Centurions.

Since the Council predates Islam, the blasphemy (at least as regards the begetting of Jesus) goes the other way: The Quran is nothing but the heathen opinion of a heathen warlord - Muhammad - that protected this blasphemy with soldier fanatics.

Boru

[LadyForCamus]

Could you expand on that?

Have you ever read Rand?

I’m generally familiar with her philosophy. But I fail to see how stating that life has no intrinsic value makes @Objectivist or anyone else a sociopath. Value is a judgement. It requires a valuer. There’s nothing pathological about that statement. I’m not sure what I’m missing here.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Have you ever read Rand?

I’m generally familiar with her philosophy. But I fail to see how stating that life has no intrinsic value makes @Objectivist or anyone else a sociopath. Value is a judgement. It requires a valuer. There’s nothing pathological about that statement. I’m not sure what I’m missing here.

It's sociopathic because it borderline reduces life to a commodity and all resembles the kind of blood cult logic pro-death penalty types argue for. Life cannot be seen in this way. Life may not not have intrinsic value nor is it subject to the whim of someone else and their arbitrary value system. No is it something that can be earned nor be taken away without cause. Even if things are needed to maintain life this isn't prescriptive to a commodification of life.

[Objectivist]

Have you ever read Rand?

I’m generally familiar with her philosophy. But I fail to see how stating that life has no intrinsic value makes @Objectivist or anyone else a sociopath. Value is a judgement. It requires a valuer. There’s nothing pathological about that statement. I’m not sure what I’m missing here.

Thank you LadyForCamus,

We were discussing whether or not an infant has intrinsic value or not and I don't think anything has intrinsic value because the notion of intrinsic value is philosophically incoherent.  If I buy a sandwich at Subway, it doesn't come with a little packet of value to sprinkle on.  Neither are there little globs of value in the bread or the meat.  Value is a relational concept and has no meaning outside the context of a living organism's needs and to claim that it does is to steal concepts.

Now we know the answer to the question of whether this person has read any of Rand's writings.  He's proven that he hasn't read it or he read it with some preconceived notions and biases built in.  If he had read even a little he would know that Objectivism holds that man's life is not the means to anyone else's ends.  That sacrificing others to one's self is evil.  She never once compared life to a commodity.  Objectivism holds that the life of an individual is a unique and irreplaceable value and the lives of others are not ours to do with what we please.  She was the biggest advocate in the history of philosophy of a person's right to their own life.  A commodity is replaceable and it is a means to an end, not an end in itself as I hold.  Human traffickers treat individuals as a commodity and Objectivism holds that that is unconditionally evil.  That view is the literal antithesis of Objectivism which he or she would know if he or she had done the slightest bit of homework before opening his or her piehole.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Lol, the cultist accuses me of bias and no it's not the antithesis of Objectivism it is its core even though its followers will never realize it or accept it when they do. I was an objectivist in my college years and well into my 30s. I read all of Rands's novels I was an avid defender of the very philosophy you now think to lecture me on not understanding. That was until I woke up and realized I joined a cult and wasn't willing to trade one vile anti-human religion for another one. So spare me the "you don't understand "or " It's really about this" I did that bullshit when I realized I couldn't defend Rands idea's too which is why I see right through it and won't abide it. Essentially replace this rhetoric with the excuses Christain apologists make and it's a 1 to 1.....

[GUBU]

The Sociopathy of objectivism of the Cult Of Rand on full display

Could you expand on that?

Adam Lee of Daylight Atheism did a good take down of both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead which points out the psychopathy of Randian objectivism.  Unfortunately since he moved to OnlySky from Patheos, the list posts he had for both series of reviews has disappeared, and OnlySky's search function is bad.

[Foxaèr]

The statement life has no value tends to be an issue when theists are convoluting atheism as they are quite want to do. You know, when they ask something as silly as how can you atheists go on living if life has no meaning?

[Objectivist]

The statement life has no value tends to be an issue when theists are convoluting atheism as they are quite want to do. You know, when they ask something as silly as how can you atheists go on living if life has no meaning?

The question "does life have meaning?" is a loaded question and it uses the concept 'meaning' incorrectly as I see it.  It's clear that they assume some externally applied meaning.  My life certainly has meaning (purpose) and someone else's life may have meaning to them but this is not deemed sufficient as an answer in my experience.  Clearly, the question assumes that if life has no externally given purpose, it has no purpose at all.  Biology and purpose are concurrent.  The purpose of life is to live it.  It is an end in itself.  It's the only value that is an end in itself because we don't live our lives as a means to some other value.  All other values serve the purpose of life, such as the function of the brain and nervous system provide the knowledge and control that a living organism needs in order to live if it is of a type that has those things.

Meaning is something that applies to concepts and symbols.  So either the questioner means purpose or value.  What is the purpose of life or what is the value of life?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Could you expand on that?

Adam Lee of Daylight Atheism did a good take down of both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead which points out the psychopathy of Randian objectivism.  Unfortunately since he moved to OnlySky from Patheos, the list posts he had for both series of reviews has disappeared, and OnlySky's search function is bad.

He did i interesting take for sure. Someday I might release my thesis "Why I Can't Be An Objectivist" too bad it's currently not digitized and it's all in French. It's a 773-page critique on my own journey leaving the cult and the rampant hypocrisy, Inconsisrntecy, and outright Sociopathy within her philosophy and how no human being can live as a consistent objectivist without becoming someone would chuck in jail. Like all cults, Objectivism gives quick superficial answers but once you dig through the rhetoric and the bravado of its talking heads and salesmen it quickly becomes hollow and in some cases embraces outright quackery.