What is the essential element of your creation that cannot ever vary that leads to paradoxical conclusions?

No logical puzzle arises from positing an entity to exempts itself from the rules it creates for others. The assumption seems to be that moral rules must apply without exception. The further assumption is that the creator of moral rules is like us in so far as it is free to obey or disobey the rules. But if what is essential about this entity is that its actions must be invariant then it makes no sense to ask whether it is bound by the moral rules it created.

Whether the creator of morality is bound by morality is a philosophical question for example. — Hanover

It is a question that philosophical analysis shows to be ill conceived and question begging.

I had at times thought you had more nous — Banno

With enough nous you can hang yourself.

The various anthropocentric views expressed here (including those that want to exempt themselves) are in one sense correct in so far as they share Protagoras' insight that man is the measure of all things. But in another sense they are wrong to the extent that they take statements determined by our human limits to be statements about what is or must or might or cannot be beyond those limits.

Although we cannot say what is beyond our limits it is hubris to think that there is nothing beyond those limits. I think Zhuangzi got it exactly right with his sage stories of the relativism of species perspectivism.

I wonder if communication via social media will come to be face-to-face communication through Zoom or holographs or images in virtual reality or some other device. — Ciceronianus

I think there will always be a need for carefully crafted, well thought out arguments. It may be, however, that there will come a time when thinking through writing will become a rarity or lost art.

The other side of the coin is that although the written word has certain advantages, it also has disadvantages. The same is likely to be true of whatever modes of communication develop. Real time face to face encounters may become one mode of virtual face to face encounters. Another mode might be face to face encounters with response times that are much longer and are then edited or ones that return to comments and tie things together in ways that are not possible in the moment.

"Thinking with a pen" never worked well for me, but "thinking with a word processor" certainly has. Asynchronous virtual face to face discussion which allows the participants to edit before posting, to think out loud and revise statements might work well, at least for some.

The inhibitions imposed by face-to-face contact are absent. — Ciceronianus

I am in general agreement regarding social media, but in the universe of discourse, most of our intellectual history has not been face-to-face, but rather through books, letters, essays. Time is certainly a factor. A response that takes days of weeks or more to arrive tends to favor considered, more substantive responses. Another important factor is that in an open forum not only can anyone, usually anonymously, make accusations, but others can pile on, creating an ideational infection that can grow rapidly.

teach students how to identify and refute logical fallacies i — Elric

Critical thinking addresses this, but identifying and refuting logical fallacies is only a part of it. A weak argument is not limited to one that contains a logical fallacy. The goal is not simply to identify weak arguments but to develop the skills to think clearly and rationally, to evaluate problems and develop strategies to solve them.

In my opinion this is best addressed in an integrated way rather than through stand alone courses. The problem with the latter is that it can be treated by both teachers and students as an exercise abstracted from the everyday concerns of life. Learning a taxonomy of fallacies is very different than learning to evaluate arguments.

It should begin when students first enter school.

If philosophy is the love of wisdom then it is necessary to address claims of wisdom. Theological beliefs and claims are part of our intellectual and spiritual history. They are not simply relics of the past, they inform our understanding of ourselves and the world.

To address them is not to accept them. As philosophers have always known, if for no other reason, we must understand them in order to combat them.

As a theist, though, I do think their goodness does in fact come from a higher source, even if they deny it. Their beliefs (like mine) don't create reality. One of us is wrong regarding this whole theism thing, but I don't contend that theists are better people because they are theists. — Hanover

So, in other words, belief in a higher power makes no difference to whether one is moral or not.

in Matthew 28:19, it is written “Go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”. — tryhard

One can read this in light of the later doctrine of the Trinity or in the plain sense of this, that, and the other, that is, three separate but related things. For example, "In the name of God, Country, and our Community.

However, this relationship is incredibly difficult for me to make sense of, especially since it feels logically contradictory. — tryhard

One can take the position of Credo quia absurdum

The doctrine of the Trinity does not make sense because it is an attempt to combine the monotheistic God of Judaism with the pagan belief in a man who is a god.

A more pious view might regard it as pointing to the limits of human understanding which cannot comprehend the divine. Or as something to be contemplated rather than something to be rationally understood.

1. 1000 years ago, it was true that you will eat sushi tomorrow. — SwampMan

If it is true that its sushi tomorrow then it can never be true that it is sushi today, or something like that, as the Queen tells Alice.

I think Apollodorus suffers from the delusion of what Hegel called the Universal night where all cows are black. Under the guise of shedding light he casts shadows. He lumps together the Egyptians, the Greeks, and Jesus, as if they are all members of a continuous secret society. A society that excludes Judaism, but allows for:

the more open-minded among Hellenistic Jews — Apollodorus

That is Jews who look and act and think like neoPlatonist Romans. What he calls:

a universal religion for the whole of humanity. — Apollodorus

but is nothing more that a pretense to exclude everyone who does not accept his version of what he calls:

Ultimate Reality face to face in a life-transforming and ignorance-dispelling experience of eternal truth from which there is no return to untruth. — Apollodorus

What he hides behind is the fact that he knows nothing about "ultimate reality". It is nothing more than something he has read about and imagines to be. What is missing is the experience itself, without which it is all just empty words.

A & E now had knowledge of ethics (good & evil). — Agent Smith

I take it to mean that they had the knowledge to do or make or produce or procreate (Adam knew Eve), the results of which are both good and bad.

I agree but I guess Hanover might ask you on what basis ought one to care for these values? The adoption of 'wellbeing' as a criterion of value is adopting a presupposition, is it not? — Tom Storm

If he asked why one ought to care about human life I would take the question as argumentative since it seems he does care. If he meant why those who don't care should there is no argument that would persuade them. That others do care may be a presupposition, but to care is not. That we ought to maximize well being may be a presupposition, but one's own well being is not. Well being is not a criterion of value but rather stems from the value of human life.

[Added: By maximizing well being I do not mean that everything we do ought to be done to maximize well being or that in every situation the goal is to maximize well being, but that if we care then we want what is best for those whom we care for.]

The universe is not merely matter; matter means nothing, can be nothing, unless it takes form. Meaning is inherent within form. How could there be form without meaning? — Janus

How can there be matter without form? There is no meaning without beings for whom things have meaning. Meaning is not inherent in form. Things can mean different things to different people. It is a matter of what we ascribe meaning to.

If rape is wrong because we have agreed it is wrong, it is good when we change our mind. — Hanover

In order to change our mind there must be good reason to do so. Moral deliberation is not capricious. Rape is not an isolated moral issue, it is part of the larger consideration of the value of human life, which includes minimizing harm and suffering and maximizing well being.

Consider "one ought not steal" versus "one ought eat one's vegetables." — Hanover

More relevantly, "one ought to eat a plant based diet". There are some good reasons for this, including the environmental impact of factory farming. Moral considerations have led a significant number of people to consider the value of animal life and thus limit or eliminate eating animals and/or animal products. It is not unreasonable to think that in future generations killing and eating animals will be considered immoral by the majority of people.

Unfortunately, people tend to be averse to anything that contradicts their preferred perception of reality. — Apollodorus

Which is abundantly clear from your posts.

For example, some believe that a great Hebrew king named “David” existed — Apollodorus

You have argued that Jesus is the messiah based in part on the alleged lineage from David to Jesus. There are two problems with this that you have refused to acknowledge. First, if David did not exist then there can be no lineage from David to Jesus. Second, if David did exist, there is no evidence of the geneology from David to Jesus.

We know that the OT authors suppressed information about the Omride dynasty. — Apollodorus

Once again you are confused about the difference between history and mythology. They did not "suppress information". They are telling a story not giving an historical account.

In any case, Jeroboam, Saul’s successor as King of Israel after David and Solomon — Apollodorus

You mean after the king you claim did not exist?

Yet, unlike in Israel, this tension did not lead to open conflict. — Apollodorus

Do you mean the conflict that you claim never actually happened? You go back and forth between the archeological theories of Finkelstein and Silberman and the stories in the Hebrew Bible, picking and choosing which way to go in order to put forth your own skewed account.

As the OT itself admits, the true religion originated in Egypt where it was revealed to Moses who had been brought up in the Egyptian tradition. — Apollodorus

"Admits"?! An odd choice of words.

According to Genesis Abraham was the progenitor of the Jews, not Moses. Moses's parents were descended from Abraham through Levi, a son of Jacob, who was Abraham's grandson. Once again you toggle back and forth, on the one hand denying Moses existed and on the other claiming "the true religion" originated in Egypt because Moses was raised by Egyptians.

You get the Biblical account wrong on another key point as well. Moses' upbringing has nothing to do with the Law given to him by the God who brought the people out of Egypt. The God who brought plagues upon the Egyptians and killed their first born sons.

To be clear, this is not an historical claim, it is theological. It marks a disjunction between Judaism and Egyptian beliefs and practices.

Moreover, if God is Truth, then the authentic revelation of Truth is nothing but a manifestation, embodiment, or creation of Truth. — Apollodorus

That is your conjecture. In the Hebrew Bible "authentic revelation" is from God through his prophets. An act of God is not an act of "Truth".

Jesus is a teacher in the authentic spiritual tradition initiated by Egypt’s divine kings — Apollodorus

Still trying your best to distance Jesus from Judaism. Why?

... gave the timeless wisdom of Egypt to the world ... — Apollodorus

And what is that timeless wisdom? What evidence do you have of it? Where in this timeless wisdom do we find the Law and prophets that Jesus admonished his follows to adhere to? Where does the ancient wisdom refer to the Sabbath or the laws of kosher (which are quite specific)? Where does it refer to the prophets?

a universal religion for the whole of humanity. — Apollodorus

As I have pointed out more than once, the Sermon on the Mount rejects the idea of a universal religion. Is your point that Jesus was a "Jewish fundamentalists"?

the Ineffable One (to Hen), the Sun of the noetic realm — Apollodorus

Where does Jesus say anything about "the noetic realm"? When Proverbs says that wisdom is fear of the Lord, this means obedience to the Law of God, not an ascent to an imagined noetic realm.

You begin by talking about facts but end with wild and careless conjecture that can only appear plausible when one ignores the facts. The facts in question are not those of archeology from centuries earlier but of theological claims, beliefs, and practices at the time of Jesus.

What’s next? — NOS4A2

I don't know. Maybe for once [you] actually reading what you link to?

Wittgenstein did not put an end to metaphysics, so much as showed that it is better done in action than in philosophical speculation. — Banno

I would add the importance of experience. In the Tractatus, rewards and punishment, and the happy man. In the Lecture on Ethics, certain feelings.

Nice summary!

If I didn't know better I would think that this is a parody. And since you don't know better you are unaware of how ridiculous this is.

If the stories of Solomon and David are fictional then it makes no sense to identify them as Egyptian or to claim that the stories are true but the names have been changed.

there is also the glaring anomaly of David and Solomon as “sons of God”. — Apollodorus

If the stories of Solomon and David are fictional then it makes no sense to say that it is an anomaly that they were were referred to as 'son of God'. They are in fact called son of God in the Hebrew Bible.

Further, if they did exist that does not mean that their stories are historical with a few changes to disguise the fact that they were Egyptian. You arbitrary choose what to take as historical and what to alter in order to make them Egyptians.

We might ask why you do this. The answer can be found here:

Moreover, while divine kings were unknown to the Ancient Hebrews, divine kingship was a centuries-old institution in Egypt. — Apollodorus

This is all a long runaround to avoid facing the fact that the Jewish Jesus was not a man-god.

But you equivocate. If 'son of God' is, as you say, someone who has a physical father as well as a spiritual one, then when Jesus is called a 'son of God' it does not mean what it does for pagan Christians. It does not mean, as you previously claimed, that he is one and the same as God or that God was his actual father.

It has taken you almost a year to get to this point. It is nice to see that you are still learning. There is hope for you yet.

If Brown started identifying as a male, wouldn't we have to refer to her as "Mr. Brown"? — RogueAI

Justice Jackson or Your Honor.

I only care about the ridiculous claim that there is a reasonable claim of being more than two sexes when there aren’t. — I like sushi

You have acknowledged the difference between sex and gender. The issue at hand has to do with Blackburn's challenge to define the word 'woman'. Any such definition must take into account not just sex but gender.

While Ambiguous Genitalia is rare it is not non-existent. Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Children's Minnesota, and others in the US treat these conditions.

It is a not a matter of there being more than two sexes but of ambiguity as to whether the child is male or female. In any case, and despite the only thing you care about, Blackburn's question had nothing to do with how many sexes there are.

The term 'cultural relativism' is bound to get you entangled in arguments that go beyond what you may have intended. As it is usually understood it means that the norms and values of a culture should not be evaluated in terms of the norms and values of another.

A more reasonable form of relativism is opposed to moral absolutes and/or moral objectivism. One problem is that those who posit an objective morality cannot explain how their version of objective moral evaluation can be established and known. Or, in other words, why we should regard their norms and values as transcending time and place.

Some will admit that they too are culturally bound but that they are moving toward an absolute. The same problem arises. While, to their credit, they acknowledge change, the claim that it is toward an absolute is without basis.

Why do you think Spinoza used the term 'God'? It is for theologico-political and ethical reasons? One might think his signet "caute" would warn against it, but it is more than likely that he acted with due care. The term 'infinite' might have avoided the connection with the assumptions and associations connected to 'God' and 'nature', but it is perhaps for this very reason that he deliberately chose them.

So why not admit you’re being dishonest? Did you think the sex of fish were under scrutiny here just because there was talk about a trans swimmer. — I like sushi

See my earlier response:

She is well aware of the trap that was laid. It has to do with the Republicans obsession with transgender people.

The biology of gender is not a simple matter of male vs female. — Fooloso4

And read my last response to you,note this part:

Third, the issue that was raised during the hearings was not about how many sexes there are but about gender identity. — Fooloso4

Sure, but that isn't my scope of interest anyway. — baker

What is your scope of interest? Denying those who do not hold to an absolute moral authority a decision making voice? How so we determine what is the authentic voice of authority? What authority do those who are to decide have?

Our role and responsibility is not enhanced but is instead diminished by claims of cosmic significance.
— Fooloso4

How so? — Wayfarer

Because you are in danger of losing the human scale of things.

You write this as if there is a real universe without sentient beings in it to realise what it is. — Wayfarer

I think it very likely that there are sentient beings elsewhere, but they are too far away for anything we do here to make any difference to what happens there.

What if part of the significance of sentient beings is to help bring reality into existence? 1 — Wayfarer

What holds for photons does not tell us what happens at other scales of magnitude. Theoretical possibilities may be interesting to think about, but there is not enough attention to what is happening here and now.

Differences do not track along the divide between those who posit a moral authority and those who reject such an authority.

It's not clear what you mean here. — baker

If you have 100 people, 50 think that there is an absolute moral authority and 50 do not. If you poll them on their views of moral issues you will not be able to identify who was in one group rather than they other.

No, but one needs to posit an absolute moral authority in order to regard one's moral judgments as relevant. — baker

Is your claim that only people who posit an absolute moral authority have any say on issues of morality? Those who do posit an absolute moral authority do not always hold the same opinion as to whether a particular act is moral. Differences do not track along the divide between those who posit a moral authority and those who reject such an authority.

Not always … be honest and give hard data. It is a minuscule number. — I like sushi

First of all, biology is not limited to human biology. There are animals that are hermaphrodites and that change sex. Non-binary Second, there is no agreed upon definition of interesex Here and Here. Third, the issue that was raised during the hearings was not about how many sexes there are but about gender identity.

However in my view it offers a coherent undestanding of 'mind and cosmos' as it provides for a vision within which h. sapiens has a role, rather than being the 'accidental byproduct' as it is depicted by scientific materialism. And if indeed it can be discerned across so many cultures and periods of history in the forms of literature of those traditions, then that literature should be regarded as evidence and not simply dismissed as myth. — Wayfarer

Mythologies that places man in the center is evidence of nothing more than the fact that there are mythologies that put man in the center.

Man, this "accidental byproduct", is capable of shaping and destroying our world. Our role and responsibility is not enhanced but is instead diminished by claims of cosmic significance. The focus is shifted from here and now to some imagined cosmic stage where we play a starring role. It all too easily becomes escapist self-glorification.

What goes on here has no describable significance for the universe. What we do here, however, can and does make a difference for our small, insignificant planet and its inhabitants.

Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed the entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved the entire world. — Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 4:1 (22a) Attributed to Hillel

If there is no God, there is no teleos and there is no good. "Good for what? " is a meaningless question if there is no what, no aim, no objective. — Hanover

"Good for what"? God? What is the end or purpose? God?

Good is not merely an instrumental term. What is good is not necessarily good for something.

Why does life need to have an end or purpose beyond life? How is that purpose known? How do you know it is a purpose that is discovered or given to us rather that one we make?

... cognitive dissonance ...just a subjective preference just means we've arrived at an interesting coping mechanism in order to navigate this godless world. — Hanover

First, silence does not occlude the cognitive dissonance between an appeal to a transcendent authority and disregard for the word of your chosen transcendent authority on the subject of rape when it goes against your own socially established moral norms.

Second, your own subjective preference for holding to a god in a godless world just means you've arrived at a not so interesting coping mechanism.

[Added]: If not a god then what is the source of transcendent morality? And how do we know what that morality is?

It's not from reason and not from the heavens, so I'm running out of options. — Hanover

It comes from moral deliberation, from what we as reasonable social animals regard as acceptable and unacceptable behavior. We begin from where we are, with law and custom, but sometimes what was acceptable can no longer be accepted. We come to regard things differently, to value things differently.

Although morality does not stand on absolute grounds that does not mean that we do not stand absolutely for or against certain actions.

A few of the many accounts that can be found.

Romans killed Jesus as a political threat, as they had killed many other prophets, brigands, rebels during the first century. Josephus the Jewish historian recounts many examples in his Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities.

Some (note “some’) Jewish leaders (Sadducees and Pharisees) owed their positions to their patron/client relation to the Roman authorities. The emperor appointed the procurator of Judea who appointed the High Priest. Other Jewish parties, including teachers and prophets in rural Galilee and the Dead Sea Scrolls community of Qumran, either rejected or rebelled against the Jerusalem leaders’ tainted relationship with Rome.

Mark, the earliest Gospel we have, was written ca. 60-70 CE. He shows Jesus’ death as a collusion between the compromised leaders and Pilate, kind of 50/50, but Mark 15:15 makes it clear that it was Pilate who had him crucified.

Matthew and Luke were written much later, ca. 80-95, and reflect different interests and viewpoints. Matthew portrays Jesus as a Super Teacher or Rabbi on the model of Moses. Being a Jewish follower of Jesus (the word “Christian” first occurs in Antioch), Matthew also reflects a period after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE when conflicts broke out between rabbinic Yavneh Jews and the Jewish followers of Jesus. Surviving rabbis at the Council Yavhneh (ca. 90) tried to exclude “Nazoreans” (followers of the man from Nazareth) from partaking in the synagogue. The rabbis may not have been too successful. Recent archeological research indicates that later Jewish Christians partook in the synagogue until the 7th century! (I always point out to my students that a Christian can go to any Jewish Sabbath service and say all the prayers with full religious sincerity.) Matthew goes to some length to remove blame from the Roman authorities. He has Pilate’s wife interceding for Jesus (many emperor’s wives interceded for Christians in Rome) and Pilate washing his hands as a sign of innocence. Probably because of intra-Jewish rivalry, puts the ultimate blame squarely on the shoulders of the Jewish authorities by adding the verse “His blood be upon us and our children” (Matthew 24:25).

In Luke, the “whitewash” of the Romans becomes nearly complete. The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts should be read as one work. Luke/Acts is unfolds in ascending dyptychs and was written for a Roman audience, probably a noble audience. We can now use the word “Christian” which occurs at Acts 11:26 for the first time, but the term was almost certainly a pejorative epithet in origin. Luke/Acts unfolds according to the following pattern: from John Baptist to Jesus, from Galilee to Jerusalem, from Peter to Paul, and from Jerusalem to Rome. Luke is trying to justify Christianity in the face of criticism by the Romans who accused it of being “superstition.” Luke goes beyond Matthew to establish Roman innocence. The crowning with thorns and mocking of Jesus passages are removed. Then three times Pilate declares Jesus’ innocence to the crowd. Luke finesses Pilate’s responsibility: “But Jesus he [Pilate] delivered up to their [the crowd’s] will” (Luke 23:26). Perhaps I should say “Romanwash” instead of “whitewash.” Other souces tell us that Pontius Pilate was a particularly cruel govenor who brooked no opposition.

The Gospel of John, as most scholars maintain, stands by itself but one of the signs of its lateness in its present form (ca. 100-110 CE) is that John does not lay Jesus’ death so much on Pilate, or Pilate Jewish authorities, or even the Jewish authorities alone, but “Jews” as a whole (John 19:12). The break with Judaism is nigh complete. The stereotype is set for the later, fateful charge that “the Jews killed Jesus” although John does not say this. — Romans are to Blame

Jews, on the other hand, lacked a motive for killing Jesus. The different factions of the Jewish community at the time — Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and others — had many disagreements with one another, but that did not lead any of the groups to arrange the execution of the other allegedly heretical groups’ leaders. It is therefore unlikely they would have targeted Jesus. — Who Killed Jesus?

Jesus was crucified as a Jewish victim of Roman violence. On this, all written authorities agree. A Gentile Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, condemned him to death and had him tortured and executed by Gentile Roman soldiers. Jesus was indeed one of thousands of Jews crucified by the Romans.

The New Testament testifies to this basic fact but also allows for Jewish involvement in two ways. First, a few high-ranking Jewish authorities who owed their position and power to the Romans conspired with the Gentile leaders to have Jesus put to death; they are said to have been jealous of Jesus and to have viewed him as a threat to the status quo. Second, an unruly mob of people in Jerusalem called out for Jesus to be crucified—the number of persons in this crowd is not given, nor is any motive supplied for their action (except to say that they had been “stirred up,” Mark 15:11).

Whatever the historical circumstances might have been, early Christian tradition clearly and increasingly placed blame for the death of Jesus on the Jews, decreasing the Romans’ culpability. — Crucifiction of Jesus and the Jews

I'd submit it demands a morality that transcends time and place. — Hanover

Does this include what we find in Deuteronomy?

When you go forth to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God has delivered them into your hands, and you have taken them captive,
And you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her, and take her for a wife -
Then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and do her nails,
And she shall remove the garment of her captivity from her, and remain in your house and weep for her father and mother a for month, and after that you may approach her and have intercourse with her, and she shall be your wife.
And if you do not want her, you shall send her out on her own; you shall not sell her at all for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, because you "violated" her. — Deuteronomy 21:10-14

There is no historical evidence for a Hebrew king of the name “David”. — Apollodorus

David and Solomon are legendary. — Apollodorus

The irony of your attempt to discredit Judaism is that you inadvertently discredit a central theme of Christianity. If Jesus is descended from David and David is a legendary rather than real historical person then the claim that he could trace his messianic role to David must be rejected.

Your selective quotes from Finkelstein and Silberman is evidence that either you do not read and understand the material you quote from or that is it a deliberate misrepresentation. They say that David’s dynasty:

was known throughout the region; this clearly validates the biblical description of Judahite kings in Jerusalem.

You go on and on with your "search and plaster", but to what end? The fact that Jesus was an historical figure tells us nothing about the historical accuracy of the gospels.

If kingdoms ruled by people named “David” and “Solomon” did not exist in Israel at the suggested time, what of the “religion of Israel”? — Apollodorus

We have no evidence that Mary was a virgin. If she was not a virgin what of the "religion of pagan Christians"? We have no evidence that Jesus was the messiah, and good evidence against it. If he was not the messiah, what of the religion of Christians? We have no evidence of Jesus' resurrection. If he was not resurrected, what of the religion of Christians?

I could go on. The gospels accounts are in many ways contradictory and historically suspect. The Jesus they depict is a legend, which is quite different than claiming he did not exist.

In any case, given that like other religions, much of Judaism was transmitted orally, there is no logical reason why Jesus couldn’t have followed an oral tradition within Hellenistic Judaism that contained both Greek and Egyptian elements. — Apollodorus

And exactly what does that oral tradition say? There is no logical connection between the oral tradition and your conclusion that it contained both Greek and Egyptian elements or specifically what those elements were. Your assertion offers no support for the claim that the pagan ideas in the gospels can be found in the Judaism of Jesus' time.

the notion that Jesus MUST have been “an ignorant peasant” who didn’t know what he was talking about — Apollodorus

You have completely misunderstood what is at issue. What is at issue is whether Jesus was educated. There is no evidence that he was. But this is not the same as your hyperbolic attack on what no one here has said. One can be uneducated and know what they are talking about. According to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas the knowledge of the uneducated Jesus far exceeded that of what the rabbis could tell him.

who should have kept his mouth shut, and who deserved to be executed for speaking the truth, is an anti-Christian stance that is totally untenable and unacceptable IMO. — Apollodorus

Again, no one here has said any such thing. No one has defended the actions of the Jewish authorities who called for him to be put to death. You are simply perpetuating the ugly accusation that "the Jews" killed Jesus.

You elide from society to idiosyncrasy as if it is all the same.

You are looking for an absolute where one cannot be found. The truth is that every absolute moral claim rests on shifting ground.

Do you think that rape is wrong because this is what you have been told by a higher authority? If you had never been told this would you still think it wrong if someone raped you?

Alright, so for all here who have settled upon relativistic morality, explain the basis of your moral outrage against the rapist and why I should find your reasons compelling. — Hanover

In order to address this it is necessary to identify what it is that you think a relativistic morality entails. One need not posit an absolute moral authority in order to regard rape as wrong.