But two religions cannot be simultaneously true, unless one modifies its precepts. And, therefore, yes, of course, there is an absolute truth -
Those things don't follow, though. Whilst the two hypothetical religions cannot be simultaneously true, they most certainly can be both false. Indeed, take 2 religions at random, and chances are you and I would agree that they are false (in so far as not being completely accurate and true).
do the principles of the universe change, are there not constants that dictate the weather, the seasons, all creature's gestation period, where food comes from, a herbivore or omnivore's diet, man's disposition towards one another?
Does the sentiment of greed ever change as we knew it several millennia ago, compared to what it is today? The same with love and hate, charity and abuse. Is racism a new concept, did torture or war ever cease to exist?
I think what you're suggesting is that human nature has common elements to it through time. As a student of history, I'd concur. And the world is largely the world. On that, I'd suggest it's only true because of the small window through which we view such things. Greed, charity, abuse, love and hate...there are obviously more commonalities on these things than differences. At the same time, I don't think it's fair or accurate to paint them as eternally consistent and immutable.
Why that demands a single and deliberate Creator, I'm unsure, and how it speaks to the nature and form of that Creator, I am even less sure.
There are objective truths, and I don't mean that altruism or selfishness will always exist, but that the source behind them is precise and predictable. I say this due to the fact that wickedness is senseless, hypocritical and self-destructive - it defies our intellect and sense of pragmatism. Why then is it so prevalent, and again, anticipated. There is a catalyst behind these acts that does not follow the laws of nature, life or humanitarianism by necessity i.e. good and evil.
That takes Christian principles and applies them, though, then coming to the conclusion that a Christian worldview is correct. It is quite self-fulfilling, and binary.
There are a whole litany of religiously honest but destructive actions, ranging from the comical (Pope Gregory's ban denouncement of black cats that quite possibly helped the spread of the Bubonic Plague...) to the horrifyingly tragic (The proclamation of the Fourth Crusade by Pope Innocent III and the support gathered for this by Fulk of Neuilly) which served to weaken Christianity, but required very little in the way of hypocrisy, or self-destruction. I think you see straight lines where they don't exist, and I think that is an inherent outcome of believing in a dichotomous religion. If God exists, and is interested in the affairs of men, even then, the vast majority of destruction is caused by no particular evil, but simply the fact that we're flawed but powerful (in an earthly sense).
Something is very real, very consistent, very predictable. I know for sure, that come tomorrow, someone will fall in love with another, someone will abuse another, someone will have a nightmare, get drunk, obtain a degree, regret their actions, win a trophy. Life has rules, restrictions, limitations, savagery, and compassion. Is there anyone wise enough to establish absolutes based on all the information that we have before us?
You describe humanity and it's variation, then attribute it to a designer because you know somewhere each of these things is true. Life varies. Freedom, security, the very rules, restrictions and limitations you speak of, are not universal. And it can be pretty starkly demonstrated at times.
As for the establishment of absolutes in that...it doesn't take wisdom, but power to establish absolutes. If your God exists, He certainly has that.
I conclude that a divine Being exists, and that man is in need of a saviour. And that saviour is Jesus Christ.
Fair enough. I'd defend your right to do so.
What we believe, reflects on how we regard God. Our beliefs, therefore, can be either indicting or exonerating in the eyes of God. His discretion in revealing Himself in an axiomatic fashion, is due to the fact that He desires man to strive to know Him, as this is the only way to expose the true sentiments of man's heart.
That is quite a Christian view of the world, though. I wonder at the many non-Christian religions...or the many Christian ones not conforming to whatever form of Christianity you have determined true...and how those people are to be judged. But, perhaps you are merely suggesting to judge people by their fruit.
If a man has concluded that Hinduism is the true religion, or Buddhism or Sikhism or Islam, God will decide if the intent within their heart was misguided or not. I will put forth that the majority of all fallacious claims are derived from a deviant and vain, desire and outlook in one's mind.
Assuming your particular form of Christianity is true, I would instead suggest that the majority of all fallacious claims are derived from cultural norms and exposure.
One should concern themselves with their conscience. Yes, there is a practical aspect of abiding by certain rules, but one can also receive consequence for doing a good act, or do the wrong thing but for the right reason. Sacrificing oneself for another, is considered a virtue whether one be religious, or not.
I live in accordance with my moral values, and do so pretty strictly. I don't look at my past with regret due to any particular moral failings. You may or may not agree with my morality, but I suspect few of my actions would cause you pause, apart from my atheism.
You are indifferent towards them?
No. I am not responsible for them, and cannot be reponsible for them. I am responsible for me and mine. Whatever I might think about somebody doing drugs (a far more muddy topic than most suppose), their sexual choices, their religious beliefs...my rights and responsibilities reside around how I behave. I would not (as a simple example) denounce cigarette smoking as a moral failing, even whilst not doing it, teaching my kids not to do it, and seeing it as a less than ideal behaviour.
If asked, I would present my views on such things, and where these behaviours directly impact on others, I have a vested interest in ensuring a societally beneficial outcome as I see it. Perhaps that is what you meant.
No one either desires one to feign their beliefs, or finds it necessary. There is enough constants in life to make a sound and accurate determination of what type of realms exist in the universe - physical and spiritual. There is a religious edifice on every single street corner in the world, since history began. Man is clearly a spiritual creature, always attempting to attain to, or communicate with, the transcendent.
And yet...ask those men on those street corners about the nature of the transcendent, and be prepared for a wide range of answers, many given with certainty and based on personal experience. Ever has it been so. We look at that, and find it informative in completely different ways, I think.
There is no reason for one to sit on the fence, or claim 'subjectivity' in discerning fundamental facts about our universe, and life as we know it.
I don't sit on a fence. And don't claim 'subjectivity' in any disingenuous manner. Rather, I see no objective and absolute truth. I do see common threads which some would define as 'objective', but I don't see them as eternal and timeless. Nor...to be clear...do I use the term 'subjective' to mean 'free for all' or 'without meaning'. Murdering an innocent person is wrong. But to go beyond that...to see how wrong...there is a need to understand context. Hence it is subjective to my mind, as there is no objective measure.
