[welshwelsh]

But was there ever an objective basis? No two believers could ever agree on what God wants, even back when Jesus was alive. Because God is nothing but an invention of man, what God thinks is merely a reflection of what each individual person thinks.

Even if you go off a text like the Bible, there is no objective interpretation of what it means.

>has zero pride, was so humble

Jesus literally claimed to be the son of God. That's about as arrogant as you can get.

[jimbokun]

> That's about as arrogant as you can get.

Unless he actually was.

[kirse]

But was there ever an objective basis?

People certainly behave in ways that reflects there is an objective basis to be reached - they argue about correctness of perspectives, attempt to reduce complex formulas to the simple, have entire reasoning + discovery systems (science) designed to reach the truth, etc.

I have yet to meet someone who truly dogfoods their own supposed beliefs on a "relative morality". You'll often find those people claiming all truth is relative, but are equally willing to argue ad-infinitum on whether they think you're right or wrong on a certain topic.

[calebm]

I actually believe Jesus came to show us that we are all one with God. When people said he was blaspheming, his response was not "I'm a one-of-a-kind god/man combo"... instead, he said: "“Is it not written in your Law, I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—"

For some reason, churches don't seem to talk about this.

I am, and so are you.

[jonnycomputer]

>Jesus literally claimed to be the son of God. That's about as arrogant as you can get.

If it were in fact true, then it would only be stating a fact, one that the people listening might need to know.

I'm not religious, but I think that your comment fails the test of charitability.