I think the setting was at first a Last Supper tableau with
six apostles on each side of "Christ" as had DaVinci,
but that it transposed into the Dionysus tableau.

dermdoc said:

---

The problem with moral relativism is that any absolute truth will sound condescending because moral relativism has no absolute truth.

John 14:6
I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus is either right, and stating absolute truth, or He is crazy or a con man.

I believe He is right so therefore sadly those souls are lost. But I also believe they get a chance to repent.

Peace to you my friend.

---

Its just as easy / possible to be condescending toward someone who follows a different moral absolute standard. Its not an issue of moral relativism. Its an issue of looking down and referring to others as sad lost souls.

Actually Jesus's statement makes moral relativism impossible. And that makes people uncomfortable. As Jesus said it would.

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

The problem with moral relativism is that any absolute truth will sound condescending because moral relativism has no absolute truth.

John 14:6
I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus is either right, and stating absolute truth, or He is crazy or a con man.

I believe He is right so therefore sadly those souls are lost. But I also believe they get a chance to repent.

Peace to you my friend.

---

Its just as easy / possible to be condescending toward someone who follows a different moral absolute standard. Its not an issue of moral relativism. Its an issue of looking down and referring to others as sad lost souls.

---

As a Christian, I believe they are lost. That is our theology.

And we believe as Jesus said, He is the truth. There are no others.

Look at Jesus's statement. He said it, not just me.

Either he is the truth or he is crazy or a conman.

---

Or he believed it (or "John" believed he said it) and was just wrong.

tk111 said:

---

You're still stuck on the exact same track - speaking truth is inherently insulting. If you are worried about how someone might sound condescending because they voice their sadness for lost souls, we're not going to find common ground because you've let relativism poison your worldview to the point that anything anyone might find disagreeable is synonymous with insult and disrespect.

---

No, what is frustrating is when someone claims their unverifiable belief as unquestionable truth and uses that to diminish other worldviews. This is the arrogance of religion that I constantly object to. Truth is not insulting to me. Neither is your belief that your truth is better than mine. But when you tell me that you KNOW your truth is better than mine, I'm going to call you arrogant and call BS. You are not God. You do not speak for God. You do not know the mind of God. Pretending you do, does not make it so.

Surely you all understand, that when you refer to other worldviews as poison, that you have no right to expect those with that worldview to view you any differently. Christians here have got their panties in a twist because their worldview has been criticized and mocked. And yet, they offer zero apology for being critical of and mocking other worldviews. It is a hypocrisy, plain and simple. Either stop attacking other worldviews or at least have the decency to stop complaining when yours are attacked. . . imho.

This discussion is a microcosm of the larger culture war we have in this country. Christians get upset when secular society looks down on them and in the very next breath tells secular society they are poisoned, degenerate, lost, perverted, and wrong. My criticism of American Christianity is that you all act as though your views should be held above everyone else's - not only because they are better views, but because Christians are better people. You all are doing a really good job of earning all of that hate coming your way.

tk111 said:

---

. . . we're not going to find common ground because you've let relativism poison your worldview to the point that anything anyone might find disagreeable is synonymous with insult and disrespect.

---

and no. . . . We won't find common ground because you have a worldview that does not allow you to consider the possibility that you could be wrong. The irony is that atheists are the ones that are always accused of wanting to be their own God.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

tk111 said:

---

You're still stuck on the exact same track - speaking truth is inherently insulting. If you are worried about how someone might sound condescending because they voice their sadness for lost souls, we're not going to find common ground because you've let relativism poison your worldview to the point that anything anyone might find disagreeable is synonymous with insult and disrespect.

---

No, what is frustrating is when someone claims their unverifiable belief as unquestionable truth and uses that to diminish other worldviews. This is the arrogance of religion that I constantly object to. Truth is not insulting to me. Neither is your belief that your truth is better than mine. But when you tell me that you KNOW your truth is better than mine, I'm going to call you arrogant and call BS. You are not God. You do not speak for God. You do not know the mind of God. Pretending you do, does not make it so.

Surely you all understand, that when you refer to other worldviews as poison, that you have no right to expect those with that worldview to view you any differently. Christians here have got their panties in a twist because their worldview has been criticized and mocked. And yet, they offer zero apology for being critical of and mocking other worldviews. It is a hypocrisy, plain and simple. Either stop attacking other worldviews or at least have the decency to stop complaining when yours are attacked. . . imho.

This discussion is a microcosm of the larger culture war we have in this country. Christians get upset when secular society looks down on them and in the very next breath tells secular society they are poisoned, degenerate, lost, perverted, and wrong. My criticism of American Christianity is that you all act as though your views should be held above everyone else's - not only because they are better views, but because Christians are better people. You all are doing a really good job of earning all of that hate coming your way.

---

How can you refute the claim without being a hypocrite? Your underlying assumption is that your worldview is true, ergo this person's can't be.

AGC said:

---

Your underlying assumption is that your worldview is true . . .

---

nope

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

Your underlying assumption is that your worldview is true . . .

---

nope

---

Sorry to hop in here: isn't your worldview that we can't know what is true, at least on monumental issues like God and morality? I don't want to speak for you, but that's how it comes across.

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

Your underlying assumption is that your worldview is true . . .

---

nope

---

At some point, if you're honest with yourself and us, there's a presupposition present for you to be able to definitively state what's bolded. We can play these semantic games all day long but calling someone arrogant and saying they can't know something rests on a belief that you hold as objectively true and opens you up to the same charge of hypocrisy.

If you don't assume your worldview is true, why do you hold it? And on what grounds are you confident that something is unknowable? How can you accuse others of pretending to know something they don't, if you don't actually know what's true?

---

I personally doubt that there is an afterlife, but I never try to tell anyone what to believe about that because they may know something I don't know.

The Banned said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

Your underlying assumption is that your worldview is true . . .

---

nope

---

Sorry to hop in here: isn't your worldview that we can't know what is true, at least on monumental issues like God and morality? I don't want to speak for you, but that's how it comes across.

---

If there is a God, then I don't think I'm in a position to say what can and cannot be. Or what we can or cannot know. In the past, I've outlined ways in which God could interact with humanity that would convince me of God's existence or God's purpose.

I think what you said above is correct for me. I might tweak it to say that I am unconvinced that we can know what is true regarding these monumental questions.

There are a lot of conflicting claims about the nature of truth, God, or the existential. Without any sort of reliable methodology for evaluating those claims, they would appear to me to simply be personal truths that people hold.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The Banned said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

Your underlying assumption is that your worldview is true . . .

---

nope

---

Sorry to hop in here: isn't your worldview that we can't know what is true, at least on monumental issues like God and morality? I don't want to speak for you, but that's how it comes across.

---

If there is a God, then I don't think I'm in a position to say what can and cannot be. Or what we can or cannot know. In the past, I've outlined ways in which God could interact with humanity that would convince me of God's existence or God's purpose.

I think what you said above is correct for me. I might tweak it to say that I am unconvinced that we can know what is true regarding these monumental questions.

There are a lot of conflicting claims about the nature of truth, God, or the existential. Without any sort of reliable methodology for evaluating those claims, they would appear to me to simply be personal truths that people hold.

---

I suppose we could call this a 'worldview', no? One which you hold as objectively true?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

tk111 said:

---

You're still stuck on the exact same track - speaking truth is inherently insulting. If you are worried about how someone might sound condescending because they voice their sadness for lost souls, we're not going to find common ground because you've let relativism poison your worldview to the point that anything anyone might find disagreeable is synonymous with insult and disrespect.

---

No, what is frustrating is when someone claims their unverifiable belief as unquestionable truth and uses that to diminish other worldviews. This is the arrogance of religion that I constantly object to. Truth is not insulting to me. Neither is your belief that your truth is better than mine. But when you tell me that you KNOW your truth is better than mine, I'm going to call you arrogant and call BS. You are not God. You do not speak for God. You do not know the mind of God. Pretending you do, does not make it so.

Surely you all understand, that when you refer to other worldviews as poison, that you have no right to expect those with that worldview to view you any differently. Christians here have got their panties in a twist because their worldview has been criticized and mocked. And yet, they offer zero apology for being critical of and mocking other worldviews. It is a hypocrisy, plain and simple. Either stop attacking other worldviews or at least have the decency to stop complaining when yours are attacked. . . imho.

This discussion is a microcosm of the larger culture war we have in this country. Christians get upset when secular society looks down on them and in the very next breath tells secular society they are poisoned, degenerate, lost, perverted, and wrong. My criticism of American Christianity is that you all act as though your views should be held above everyone else's - not only because they are better views, but because Christians are better people. You all are doing a really good job of earning all of that hate coming your way.

---

Where on earth did all that come from...?

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

Your underlying assumption is that your worldview is true . . .

---

nope

---

At some point, if you're honest with yourself and us, there's a presupposition present for you to be able to definitively state what's bolded. We can play these semantic games all day long but calling someone arrogant and saying they can't know something rests on a belief that you hold as objectively true and opens you up to the same charge of hypocrisy.

If you don't assume your worldview is true, why do you hold it? And on what grounds are you confident that something is unknowable? How can you accuse others of pretending to know something they don't, if you don't actually know what's true?

---

I do hold presuppositions. Among those presuppositions is a belief in my own fallibility.

The bolded items from the previous post are written as definitive claims and so I think some of your criticism is fair. I should have stated that I am unconvinced that anyone here is God, and unconvinced that anyone here knows the mind of God, or speaks for God. Maybe you are God. But, I am not convinced you are.

As best as I am able to discern, I think my worldview is within a range of 'reasonable' given the inputs. Those inputs include available scientific information, philosophical information, my limited understanding of both previous points, my own personal experience, accounts of your experience, accounts of experiences from billions of different people with different experiences / beliefs / values, limitations of my own intelligence, limitations of my abilities of perceptions, and probably a host of other factors. I hold the worldview that I do because I've thought about it sincerely and this is the best I can come up with. I expect that there are places where I am wrong. The possibility that the nature of existence or reality is different from what I can deduce or comprehend almost feels like a certainty.

Do you expect that your worldview is perfect? Do you think that you fully and perfectly understand the nature of reality and existence? Or do you expect that your worldview is likely incomplete or incorrect in at least some regard?

I don't think the way I look at reality is that radically different from how you see God. I think that most Christians view God as something that cannot be fully understood (at least in this lifetime). There is no shortage of questions about God to which the Christians on this board respond with 'I don't know'. It seems to me that Christians hold views about God, but that there is an expectation that their understanding is, at a minimum, incomplete in some regard. I think this is a good analogy for how I feel - though, I think I go quite a bit further in terms of the scope to which I am open to being wrong.

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

If there is a God, then I don't think I'm in a position to say what can and cannot be. Or what we can or cannot know. In the past, I've outlined ways in which God could interact with humanity that would convince me of God's existence or God's purpose.

I think what you said above is correct for me. I might tweak it to say that I am unconvinced that we can know what is true regarding these monumental questions.

There are a lot of conflicting claims about the nature of truth, God, or the existential. Without any sort of reliable methodology for evaluating those claims, they would appear to me to simply be personal truths that people hold.

---

I suppose we could call this a 'worldview', no? One which you hold as objectively true?

---

Sure, I think its part of my worldview. Pragmatically, its necessary to behave as though some things are true or false, but philosophically, I definitely do not hold this to be objectively true. True to the best of my cognitive abilities maybe. Or maybe a personal truth. But, I am unconvinced that my personal truths have any bearing on objective truth.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

If there is a God, then I don't think I'm in a position to say what can and cannot be. Or what we can or cannot know. In the past, I've outlined ways in which God could interact with humanity that would convince me of God's existence or God's purpose.

I think what you said above is correct for me. I might tweak it to say that I am unconvinced that we can know what is true regarding these monumental questions.

There are a lot of conflicting claims about the nature of truth, God, or the existential. Without any sort of reliable methodology for evaluating those claims, they would appear to me to simply be personal truths that people hold.

---

I suppose we could call this a 'worldview', no? One which you hold as objectively true?

---

Sure, I think its part of my worldview. Pragmatically, its necessary to behave as though some things are true or false, but philosophically, I definitely do not hold this to be objectively true. True to the best of my cognitive abilities maybe. Or maybe a personal truth. But, I am unconvinced that my personal truths have any bearing on objective truth.

---

I'll respond to the other post later, this one takes less time. Objective truth exists, no matter what one thinks, I agree. And you operate on an objective truth which, if I'm being truthful, seems to deny its own existence.

If you're pragmatically operating in a contradictory manner to your philosophical beliefs, shouldn't that indicate error in your philosophy? Enough things about this world must be certain if they cannot be dealt with other than pragmatically, no? You can't self actualize if you can't action something into being. If you're unconvinced that your personal truth has bearing on objective truth, why hold these truths? (and yes, I agree with the statement)

AGC said:

---

And on what grounds are you confident that something is unknowable?

---

I think I breezed by this one too quickly. . . .

There are people that have dedicated their lives to questions of science, biology, evolution, philosophy, religion, history, morality, and every other field of study that might be directly or tangentially related to these existential questions or of what is knowable to begin with. Its not as though the world's smartest people converge to one answer.

I think I am smart. But, I know there are people far smarter than I am. If the best and brightest and smartest theologians and philosophers that our species has to offer cannot come to a conclusion, I'm inclined to think we are working with a pretty damn hard question. Or, at least, 'hard' relative to human cognitive ability. I think it would be foolish me to simply assert that I know better than the world's most brilliant.

We live on a planet with about 8 billion people with 8 billion unique sets of experiences. Those experiences do not converge to one truth. Those experiences include countless conflicting personal and religious truths as well as countless conflicting revelations and supernatural experience.

For me to say that my worldview is objectively true is to say that I KNOW that all experiences in conflict with mine are wrong. To KNOW that I am correct would be to simply disregard the experiences of billions of people as wrong or false or misguided.

I don't know if these 'big' questions are unknowable. But, I subscribe heavily to a quote from Mark Twain that I'm sure we've all read before: "The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.".

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

The problem with moral relativism is that any absolute truth will sound condescending because moral relativism has no absolute truth.

John 14:6
I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus is either right, and stating absolute truth, or He is crazy or a con man.

I believe He is right so therefore sadly those souls are lost. But I also believe they get a chance to repent.

Peace to you my friend.

---

Its just as easy / possible to be condescending toward someone who follows a different moral absolute standard. Its not an issue of moral relativism. Its an issue of looking down and referring to others as sad lost souls.

---

As a Christian, I believe they are lost. That is our theology.

And we believe as Jesus said, He is the truth. There are no others.

Look at Jesus's statement. He said it, not just me.

Either he is the truth or he is crazy or a conman.

---

Or he believed it (or "John" believed he said it) and was just wrong.

---

If He believed and was just wrong that is delusional thinking. Means He was crazy.

---

Come on, Doc, you know as well as I do that "crazy" is a pretty unhelpful and inexact term. You can believe something that is wrong. It doesn't mean you're "delusional," and it absolutely doesn't make someone "crazy." It just makes them wrong.

AGC said:

---

I'll respond to the other post later, this one takes less time. Objective truth exists, no matter what one thinks, I agree. And you operate on an objective truth which, if I'm being truthful, seems to deny its own existence.

If you're pragmatically operating in a contradictory manner to your philosophical beliefs, shouldn't that indicate error in your philosophy? Enough things about this world must be certain if they cannot be dealt with other than pragmatically, no? You can't self actualize if you can't action something into being. If you're unconvinced that your personal truth has bearing on objective truth, why hold these truths? (and yes, I agree with the statement)

---

I agree that objective truth exists. Or at least I think it probably exists.

I think you've labeled something a 'contradiction' that is active in everyone's life constantly. Philosophically, we all recognize and accept uncertainty. And yet, we are all capable of action in light of that uncertainty. We do it in business, in friendships, in love, and even in the mundane of driving to work. There is uncertainty involved in my driving to work - I could get killed by a drunk driver, for example. But, to withhold action in the absence of absolute knowledge or knowledge of truth would be paralyzing.

I don't think there is a conflict between the pragmatic approach to life and my philosophy. I think my philosophy allows for action without perfect knowledge with the understanding that I may not have the ability to objectively justify every action on some impossible cosmic absolute objective level. Like you said, many things in life are reasonably certain, and that allows us to live pragmatically.

Quote:

---

What an amazingly fast crawfish, with literally no acknowledgment or justification for earlier comments. Pivoting from "he never said it was about the last supper" to "so we can't make fun of paintings now" without a moment's hesitation.

---

The director literally said it wasn't, but I was responding to a different argument. I didn't realize I wasn't anllowed to address different angles of the discussion.

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

The problem with moral relativism is that any absolute truth will sound condescending because moral relativism has no absolute truth.

John 14:6
I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus is either right, and stating absolute truth, or He is crazy or a con man.

I believe He is right so therefore sadly those souls are lost. But I also believe they get a chance to repent.

Peace to you my friend.

---

Its just as easy / possible to be condescending toward someone who follows a different moral absolute standard. Its not an issue of moral relativism. Its an issue of looking down and referring to others as sad lost souls.

---

As a Christian, I believe they are lost. That is our theology.

And we believe as Jesus said, He is the truth. There are no others.

Look at Jesus's statement. He said it, not just me.

Either he is the truth or he is crazy or a conman.

---

Or he believed it (or "John" believed he said it) and was just wrong.

---

If He believed and was just wrong that is delusional thinking. Means He was crazy.

---

Come on, Doc, you know as well as I do that "crazy" is a pretty unhelpful and inexact term. You can believe something that is wrong. It doesn't mean you're "delusional," and it absolutely doesn't make someone "crazy." It just makes them wrong.

---

So if I go around saying I am the Son of God and that I am the way, truth, and life and nobody comes to God except through me, would you think I was sane if that was not true?

I mean, Jesus's own family thought he had gone insane.

Delusion is a psychiatric disease just like psychosis. I consider both to be demonstrations of "craziness"or mental illness.

---

You're assuming people writing decades after the fact got the words 100% right, and that John alone knew about an explosive claim like that. But there were plenty of claimants to the messiah in first century Judea, and they weren't all demonstrating mental illness. People can earnestly believe something that just isn't true. That doesn't mean there's an underlying pathology. We all have a different experience of our reality shaped by what's around us. Messianism was rife in the region in that time as well as different Jewish groups looking for different things in a possible messiah.

jrico2727 said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

So if I go around saying I am the Son of God and that I am the way, truth, and life and nobody comes to God except through me, would you think I was sane if that was not true?

I mean, Jesus's own family thought he had gone insane.

Delusion is a psychiatric disease just like psychosis. I consider both to be demonstrations of "craziness"or mental illness.

---

I think we are ignoring the option where Jesus was not the son of God and also was not crazy. But at some point, after his life, his story was embellished upon and mythologized.

---

For this theory to be correct the 11 living Apostles would have all while in hiding, immediately after the crucifixion, which is a historical fact, all decided to come out commit the same act which caused their leaders death. After doing so boldly in their homeland receiving differing levels of persecutions they moved to different lands all independent of one another, spread the exact same message, didn't become rich, instead received brutal and grotesque death. This then inspired their followers to spread the same lie with similar consequences for about 300 years before they could peacefully express this lie in public. However in this same amount of time the people in this country have become so complacent that less than 50% vote.

---

Yeah, that happens. What happened to early Mormons? Or early Muslims?

Sapper Redux said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

So if I go around saying I am the Son of God and that I am the way, truth, and life and nobody comes to God except through me, would you think I was sane if that was not true?

I mean, Jesus's own family thought he had gone insane.

Delusion is a psychiatric disease just like psychosis. I consider both to be demonstrations of "craziness"or mental illness.

---

I think we are ignoring the option where Jesus was not the son of God and also was not crazy. But at some point, after his life, his story was embellished upon and mythologized.

---

For this theory to be correct the 11 living Apostles would have all while in hiding, immediately after the crucifixion, which is a historical fact, all decided to come out commit the same act which caused their leaders death. After doing so boldly in their homeland receiving differing levels of persecutions they moved to different lands all independent of one another, spread the exact same message, didn't become rich, instead received brutal and grotesque death. This then inspired their followers to spread the same lie with similar consequences for about 300 years before they could peacefully express this lie in public. However in this same amount of time the people in this country have become so complacent that less than 50% vote.

---

Yeah, that happens. What happened to early Mormons? Or early Muslims?

---

Early Mormons were definitely gaining from their faith. Lots of wives and control over them seems like quite the reason to believe. And they ran away to Utah rather than sticking it out.

Muslims, similarly, had much to gain. They set out to conquer and accumulate wealth. Neither are a good comparison.