âI asked chatgptâ well I asked the boundless void that is both the source and the destination, from which all rivers flow, and to which all roads lead, and it told me that love actually is everything, and everything in the universe is sacredâfrom the tiniest bacteria, to the largest supernovaâbecause the universe is one whole being; an infinite body of connection, experiencing itself over and over without end or beginning
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
When Saint Augustine said âevil and sin doesnât exist, itâs just an absence of goodâ and when Saint Julian of Norwich said âsin doesnât exist, everything is love and charity, we just struggle to perceive and embody that love and thus suffer pain and despairâ and when Jesus Christ said to be perfect as god is perfect means to love everyone and when Saint Hildegard said all are sick and feeble and rotting and inherently worthy of love and care and do you see the connections love is everything love is all there is, sin is what happens when we suffer because we do not love and do not allow ourselves to be loved and itâs fixed by restoration of the sinner to the love which never leaves them it just lingers there until they are ready to accept it. The great commandment is love. We are loved and we ought to love. Care community charity affection support interdependence THESE are holy and these are what constitute everything and our oneness in god who is love. The attributes of God arenât separate. Godâs justice is love, his holiness is love, his righteousness is love, his power is love, his knowledge is love. He loved us so much he became us so that we could become one with him in a way creation never could otherwise. Thatâs why sin entered the world. Thatâs why the cross happened. So that creator and creation could become one in love through the remedying unification of the passion, like when you have to cut a section out of a tree and cut a branch in order to graft it on so that they become one and begin producing fruit.
The body of Christ is like Van Akenâs tree, which grows forty different types of fruit after a process of careful grafting, tending and growth. Look at itâitâs beautiful. That is our relationship to God through Christ.
Some people really just do not understand what universalism is. And Iâm not even talking about like liberal bs esoteric vs purgatorial (authentic) universalism. I mean that some people really think saying âI hope hell is emptyâ makes someone a universalist â and this a âhereticâ â when it doesnât. First, universalism isnât heresy. Secondly, that person is not a universalist. Universalism cannot be reduced down to âfeelingsâ or âpersonal discomfortâ with hell or smthg. Universalism is not just the hope or even belief that everyone will be saved (that would actually make a lot more people â entire denominations! â universalist). Universalism makes incredibly sophisticated claims about that nature of God and humanity, about what God is capable of and what heâs not. A merely possible universalism is no universalism at all. Universalism at its core is about the essence of God. Itâs an ontological claim, a claim about theology proper â and anthropology. God is literally incapable of permanently damning a single member of humanity (or another god) for eternity. Humanity, as created in Godâs image for his glory, is literally incapable of being damned for eternity because it goes against their created essence. And so then an argument against universalism cannot just be an argument about the feelings and emotions (arguably that debate should actually be about the effects of 19th century Romanticism on Christianity by means of liberalism; which is an incredibly contradictory sentence and yet. here we are). Any argument against universalism is not merely soteriological or eschatological. It is theological (in the literal sense of that word) and anthropological, ontological and epistemological (How do we know anything about eschatology to begin with? And no, the Bible says so is not a proper theological answer). Do better. Christian Patristic Purgatorial Universalism is incredibly rich and even non-universalists can and should learn a lot from it
I was in an underground train, a crowded train in which all sorts of people jostled together, sitting and strap-hanging â workers of every description going home at the end of the day. Quite suddenly I saw with my mind, but as vividly as a wonderful picture, Christ in them all. But I saw more than that; not only was Christ in every one of them, living in them, dying in them, rejoicing in them, sorrowing in them â but because He was in them, and because they were here, the whole world was here too, here in this underground train; not only the world as it was at that moment, not only all the people in all the countries of the world, but all those people who had lived in the past, and all those yet to come.
I came out into the street and walked for a long time in the crowds. It was the same here, on every side, in every passer-by, everywhere â Christ.
Christ is everywhere; in Him every kind of life has a meaning and has an influence on every other kind of life. It is not the foolish sinner like myself, running about the world with reprobates and feeling magnanimous, who comes closest to them and brings them healing; it is the contemplative in her cell who has never set eyes on them, but in whom Christ fasts and prays for themâ or it may be a charwoman in whom Christ makes Himself a servant again, or a king whose crown of gold hides a crown of thorns. Realization of our oneness in Christ is the only cure for human loneliness.
For me, too, it is the only ultimate meaning of life, the only thing that gives meaning and purpose to every life. â Caryll Houselander, from A Rocking-Horse Catholic (1955)
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
day ??? of looking for fellow quakers or UUs on this app đš
would love to find a community of pals
* footnote that i do not consider myself christian, but am more than open to having progressive/queer christian pals which is why i included those tags (also bc both religions did indeed offshoot from christianity haha)
How moral relativism harms the people it claims to protect.
By: Frederick Alexander
Published: Nov 23, 2025
âLetâs be honest â saying some cultures are better than others is just racism smuggled in through the back doorâ.
Youâve probably stumbled upon a comment like this before, perhaps on the BBC or in the pages of the New York Times. Itâs the kind of thinking that flows through the progressive bloodstream, bypassing the prefrontal cortex and heading straight for the emotional centre of the brain â especially the part responsible for virtue-signalling. Itâs abject nonsense, of course, but we need to deal with the problem of moral and cultural relativism â thatâs what weâre talking about here â because it pops up all the time.
Letâs begin with a simple test that takes five seconds. Would you rather raise your daughter in Norway or Afghanistan? You already know the answer â everyone does. Some cultures are simply better for human flourishing. We know instinctively that South Korea produces happier, healthier people than North Korea. We can measure it empirically, too.
Migration patterns illustrate the point beyond doubt. When people risk drowning in the Mediterranean to reach Europe, they are risking their lives on the promise of a better life in countries like Italy than in places like Somalia. Migration flows one way. Nobody at the North London dinner party is planning on moving to Mogadishu for a better life.
None of this should be controversial because all of this is observable reality. So why does saying as much seem gauche at that same dinner party? âBut colonialismâ, theyâll say. âWho are we to judge?â intones another. âThatâs bigotry!â exclaims Tarquin as he tops up his organic natural wine.
But these are not counterarguments. Theyâre evasions designed to protect progressive orthodoxy and move the conversation along without further scrutiny. But scrutinise we must.
The Malala test
In 2012, Malala Yousafzai was on her way to school when she was shot in the head by the Taliban for the crime of wanting an education. The fifteen-year-old Pakistani schoolgirl survived, and we know her story today because she went on to advocate for girlsâ schooling. Her courage earned her the Nobel Peace Prize two years later.
Her cause was simple: girls deserve to learn.
Cultural relativism has no coherent response to this because it claims that all cultures are equal. For the relativist, education means different things in different contexts; we canât judge one form by the standards of another.
Hereâs where that reasoning falls apart. Because if we canât measure a traditional Afghan society by Western values, then what exactly was wrong with what the Taliban did? Werenât they simply enforcing their cultural norms about womenâs roles? Protecting their traditions? Who are we, sitting comfortably in Oxford or Boston, to judge?
The relativist has three moves, all of which are fatal to their own position.
First move: âThatâs not real Afghan cultureâ.
But of course it is. A conservative interpretation of Islam has dominated parts of Afghanistan for centuries. To say âthatâs not real Afghan cultureâ is to suggest thereâs a better version of it. Youâve already abandoned neutrality. Youâre doing exactly what you claim is impermissible: judging between different cultural visions and declaring one superior.
Second move: âWe support Afghan womenâs own choicesâ.
Good. Malala and millions like her want education. But now youâve conceded everything because you agree that Afghan womenâs desire for education should override conservative cultural norms. You accept that individual autonomy should take precedence over traditional authority. Youâve admitted that some values â womenâs rights, education, choice, autonomy â are superior to others. Youâve abandoned relativism entirely.
Third move: âViolence is the lineâ.
On what grounds? If no external standard exists, then honour killings and religious violence must count as valid, a legitimate part of the culture. When the Taliban shot Malala, they were enforcing their cultural rules. If you condemn them, youâre appealing to some universal principle that transcends culture. Once youâve sided with Malala against the Taliban, youâve granted that some cultures are better than others.
What weâre really measuring
Letâs get the obvious out of the way. Weâre not talking about race or ethnicity. No thoughtful and intelligent person is claiming one race is better than another. Letâs leave that idea to genuine fascists. Weâre talking about observable, measurable outcomes produced by some cultures in comparison with others â womenâs rights, literacy rates, life expectancy, the rule of law, and freedom of religion.
True, history, geography and economics are important variables, but outcomes are largely shaped by how norms and institutions respond to the hand theyâre dealt. When we think of cultures as competing solutions to the universal human problems of hunger, disease, violence, and injustice, itâs clear that some cultures produce solutions that help humans flourish; others produce the Taliban.
Literacy rates in the Philippines for males and females are 98% and 97% respectively. In Afghanistan, itâs 52% and 27%. The statistics reflect how cultures think about half their population. Itâs not about ethnicity but how societies respond to the challenges they face. We donât need to compare different countries or ethnicities to see this; we can compare one people divided between two systems. North and South Korea offer a striking contrast â ethnically identical people with one half thriving and the other imprisoned by its own leaders.
Saudi Arabia denies women equal legal status with men. Women need male permission to marry, travel, or leave prison. Theyâre treated as permanent legal minors. Pakistan criminalises blasphemy; people sit in prison for years, sometimes lynched by mobs, for insulting religion. Iran hangs gay men from construction cranes. The Taliban bans women from public life altogether.
If you condemned what happened to Malala, you must condemn this too. The principle is identical: womenâs autonomy matters more than traditional male authority. The only difference is that one involved a bullet and the other involves a legal code. Both are evil.
Relativismâs intellectual bankruptcy
Letâs deal with the central claim of moral and cultural relativism: no culture can judge another. More precisely, judgments about what is right and wrong are not universal but are determined by the norms, beliefs, and practices of each culture.
Read that again. Itâs making a particular kind of claim, one that is itself universal, requiring acceptance across different cultures if itâs to make any sense. In other words, itâs self-refuting. If all moral claims are relative to culture then so is that very claim. Why should a non-relativist accept a relativistâs injunction not to judge? They wonât, because itâs nonsense. As Roger Scruton noted:
âA writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is âmerely relative,â is asking you not to believe him. So donât.â
Relativism, he argued, is a convenient way for people to avoid taking a moral stand â a kind of intellectual and moral cowardice and âthe first refuge of the scoundrel.â
Daniel Dennett made a similar point about postmodernism:
âPostmodernism, the school of âthoughtâ that proclaimed âThere are no truths, only interpretationsâ has largely played itself out in absurdity, but it has left behind a generation of academics in the humanities disabled by their distrust of the very idea of truth and their disrespect for evidence, settling for âconversationsâ in which nobody is wrong and nothing can be confirmed, only asserted with whatever style you can muster.â
âAh...â says the relativist, switching gears. âBut what about slavery and colonialism? The West did terrible thingsâ.
Yes, of course colonial powers did terrible things. We know they did because we spend a great deal of energy documenting and condemning the sins of our past. Itâs also why we introduced reforms. Britain abolished slavery in its empire in 1833 and then spent the next several decades using the Royal Navy to suppress the Atlantic slave trade â at considerable cost in lives and money. This doesnât erase Britainâs earlier participation in that trade, but it does demonstrate what holding ourselves accountable to universal standards looks like: the defence of human rights, equality and the rule of law.
When the relativist says we must judge Western societies by strict moral principles but not extend the same to other cultures out of ârespect for diversityâ, theyâre obviously invoking a double standard. Moreover, itâs not respectful, itâs deeply patronising. Why fail to apply the same standards to Pakistan as we apply to ourselves, unless you think the former is somehow incapable of meeting those standards? Female genital mutilation (FGM), honour killings, child marriage, death sentences for apostasy â if these things were prominent features of life in Toronto, weâd condemn them immediately. Why do we exempt those practices when they occur in Helmand Province?
The relativist has no answer except to switch the subject back to colonialism. But you canât have it both ways: either some practices are objectively wrong, or none are. If relativism is true, then condemning anything is impossible because thereâs no objective standard.
In any case, this simple moral logic is beside the point for relativists because they donât actually believe their own doctrine. You wore a sombrero to a Halloween party? Thatâs cultural appropriation, says Jemima, draped in a keffiyeh on her way to a hate march. A white person in dreadlocks? The Oxford Union will treat it as a hate crime, yet when girls are forced into burqas, itâs a âcultural difference deserving respectâ. The incoherence is spectacular; the bigotry of low expectations is contemptible.
Who pays the price
The tenured sociology professor will airily dismiss these arguments from the comfort of his office because relativism comes at no cost to him. But for ex-Muslims facing death threats for apostasy or women fighting for fundamental rights in patriarchal societies, the cost is life itself.
The people who pay for this cowardice are never the academics theorising about decolonisation. Theyâre the reformers trapped inside these systems.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali endured genital mutilation, forced marriage, and beatings before fleeing Somalia. She later became a Dutch MP and advocated for Muslim womenâs rights. Her collaborator Theo van Gogh was murdered in the street â his assailant pinning a letter to his chest with a knife, promising her the same fate. Western feminists should have rallied. Instead, many dismissed her as an Islamophobe.
When Mahsa Amini died in the custody of Iranâs morality police, Iranian women burned their hijabs in the streets. They were beaten, imprisoned, and some were killed. Did the Western progressives whoâd spent years defending the hijab as empowerment march in solidarity? Did they don their pussy hats and start a movement supporting the oppressed girls and women of Iran? Of course not. Many went quiet or looked the other way as Iranian clerics beat women and girls whose only âcrimeâ was to want the same freedoms their sisters enjoy in the West â and once enjoyed in Iran before the Islamic Revolution of 1979.
[ Tehran University students in 1971 ]
What moral seriousness requires
Letâs put it plainly. A culture that lets you leave your religion is better than one that kills you for it. A culture that allows women to choose their husbands is better than one that marries them off at twelve. A culture that protects gay people is better than one that hangs them from cranes. A culture that investigates its own failures â slavery, exploitation â is better than one that admits to no flaws because God said so.
None of this should be controversial to say. It merely requires making two distinctions that relativists dismiss.
First: people and practices are not the same thing. Muslims deserve equal protection under the law and freedom from bigotry. But no group gets to smuggle illiberal practices under that cover. You can wear a veil; you cannot beat your daughter for refusing. You can preach your religion; you cannot demand blasphemy laws in a secular democracy. Defending Muslims while criticising conservative Islamic practices isnât âIslamophobiaâ. Itâs a basic liberal principle.
Second: universalism is non-negotiable. Those who drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had just watched what happens when governments insist their âcultureâ permits treating humans as sub-human. States from every continent signed the declaration. So when Pakistan jails blasphemers or Saudi Arabia executes homosexuals, the correct response isnât Who are we to judge? Itâs You signed. Now keep your word.
A game of pretend
Why do intelligent people maintain this obvious fiction? Because admitting that some cultures produce higher levels of human flourishing means defending their own, and this has become strangely anathema to many in the Western cultural establishment. Saying that our culture is better than illiberal ones is seen as unsophisticated, unrefined, low status â the sort of thing a plumber might say.
Because ultimately this is really about snobbery, a display of moral and intellectual superiority that begins in the academy and percolates through our institutions until it becomes orthodoxy. The irony, of course, is that it claims the culture of progressivism is better than the liberalism it replaced.
It would all be academic except that the posturing and moral evasions have real consequences. The progressive class abandons the vulnerable, emboldens theocrats, and prevents honest discussions about integration and social cohesion. Itâs how we end up with the absurd contortions around multiculturalism. Itâs how we end up with grooming gangs.
The choice is simple
Either you believe womenâs autonomy, freedom of conscience, and protection from violence are universal goods, or you believe theyâre culturally relative. If universal, then some cultures are better than others. If relative, then you have no grounds to condemn what happened to Malala.
Thereâs no third option. The attempt to split the difference â condemning individual acts while refusing to judge the cultures that produce them â is intellectual cowardice. It lets you feel moral while abandoning the people who need moral clarity most.
Some ways of organising society create more human flourishing than others. Itâs measurable, observable, and obvious. We know it from seeing the direction people flee when they can.
Some cultures are better than others. Itâs not bigoted to say as much, and weâre allowed to notice.
==
Fuck I hate postmodernism. It's not profound, it's not insightful, it's pseudo-intellectual, pretentious nonsense. It doesn't mean anything. It lets low IQ people and dangerous fanatics pretend to be deep and thoughtful while vomiting up words that mean literally nothing.
It truly is the embodiment of the old saying:
âThe mark of a true intellect is the ability to explain complex things simply. The mark of a fool is the ability to make simple things unnecessarily complicated.â
"Who are we to judge?" We are the people who live in the places that everyone wants to come to. So, yes, we are completely qualified.
one of the funniest quirks of extremely-online politics is the dual belief that america is a uniquely evil place, but prohibiting people from moving to america is a human rights violation. if it's really that bad in here should't we be keeping people out?
â Mike Solana
This reminds me of the old argument about "God" being the source of objective morality. Except that definitionally, objective morality is just "God's" arbitrary whims.
"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" â Euthyphro's Dilemma
If "God" can change his mind, then it's not objective morality; "God" can decide that slavery is moral. You know, again. If he can't change his mind, then "God" is conforming to a standard outside himself, therefore he is not the source of objective morality. If "he wouldn't do that," well, he did before, so either he got it wrong or he had it right the first time.