R.C. Sproul

He says life is meaningless, and yet he's given all kinds of ethical imperatives to his readers.

We ought to live according to a master morality rather than a slave morality.

We ought to build our houses on the slopes of Vesuvius.

We ought to send our ships into uncharted seas.

We ought to seek to become the ubermensch.

He's constantly giving those kinds of ethical injunctions to other people.

But he has no basis whatsoever to say I ought to do anything.

If there are no absolutes, the word ought must lose its meaning and it loses its force.

There can be no such thing as a categorical imperative or a particular imperative.

The imperative must be removed from the language and it must be removed from life.

Because I have no right to say to any other person that they ought to do anything if there are no moral apps.

Understand that.

This is the problem, the dilemma of the humanist who wants his cake and eat it too.

The humanist and the relativist lives on borrowed capital.

They live on borrowed capital.

Humanism is so attractive to the Christian, why?

because it extols many of the same and similar virtues that Christianity extols.

They're concerned for justice.

They're concerned for peace.

They're concerned for the dignity of man.