Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
I notice how our moral compass is out there for all to see and critique but the skeptics have not been willing to provide what they expect from others. And they want the right to critique without the risk of an equal critique


Reading and reading and reading here. As I see it. You TS, keep coming back to one's personal morals and who has a right based upon their personal morals to judge the morals of the Bible.

And then we have a group, to which I subscribe, who seem to be saying "look the OT and the NT are contradictory at their very foundation which is the law and the morality taught therein".

What I would protest and I think I am seeing in others' writings. I am not judging either the Nt or the OT by MY morals.

But judge the OT purely by the morals of the NT, and judge the NT purely by the morals of the OT. My morals are irrelevant. I am an impartial observer. To be otherwise would not be a fair judgement.

The morals of the OT come up severely short compared to the NT in matters of love, forgiveness, and inclusiveness.

The morals of the NT come up severely short compared to the OT in matters of Law.

An impartial observer could easily conclude they were authored by two entirely different entities.


I'm looking at two things:
1. If a person does not believe in any morals or have any moral code of conduct they are not qualified to judge morality because their amoral prejudice will likely pervert their moral judgment because they have already rejected the value of any moral standards and that discussion will be pointless. They will focused on seeing contradictions and will not be open to reconciliations.
2. I'm also asking for their proposed standard of moral measurement by which we will judge the Bible--whether that is personal, corporate, Hammurabi's or Buddha's. We need to fairly declare that standard before we engage in any more moral analysis.Not having that in place will again be a fruitless exercise because someone will likely invent their rules of logic and moral standards as we go.

Why am I insisting on this? We have pages which have already demonstrated that this is how it has already gone. We dealt with alleged contradictions, some of which a young teenager with a little common sense could have figured out and seen they were not contradictions at all ... and then they get repeated again. When I see this happen I can only assume someone is not looking for a profitable discourse or even answers, but is looking to obfuscate.

I am ready to take this forward into more detail if a skeptic or the group is willing to engage with all of the moral benchmark data on the table. Mine is already there and I am waiting.



Thunderstick:

Here's the six moral foundations that make up moral systems:

1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.

2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]

3) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."

4) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.

5) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

6) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor.


Here's a couple of video's discussing how liberals, conservatives, and libertarian order these differently:




You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.

You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell