Well that is the question itself, we would be looking at, so if we are “agreeing to disagree” on anything at this point, it would be that we are disagreeing that the Bible has enough consistency to support a model of a single God who is also trustworthy. We would therefore be agreeing that we don’t want to take the time to examine that question in the exhaustive detail required to answer it one way or the other.
Yes, I agree.
OK, then how about this:
2. That we agree to disagree that one can evaluate whether something that has no regard for the rights/personhood/value of oneself can be considered “trustworthy”.
I’m not so sure about that one. Put that way, it almost sounds like we are agreeing instead of disagreeing, but I still think we are disagreeing. I guess I would have to know exactly how you are defining value in light of how I was defining it. I’m talking about the value that the one who is being tested for being trustworthy assigns something or someone. I’m saying that if you value something or someone, you are trustworthy if you consistently respect that value.I think the way you had it before was better, because I think we are really agreeing to disagree that the “rights” are the critical part.
I'm not sure either. However, I think the bolded part may be the relevant question. I would add that if you don't consistently respect that value, then you don't really value that thing/person in the first place. Hence, perhaps a rephrasing of your statement could be "You can only be considered trustworthy if you first value the thing/person who you are being trustworthy toward." That is a necessary, though perhaps not sufficient, condition of trustworthiness.
3. That we agree to disagree that we know in our hearts that these things, when unnecessary, are morally abhorrent?
I think we are back to agreeing on #3 then. We don’t need to agree to disagree here. Whether or not it is necessary is the critical component on whether it is morally acceptable or not. But without any common ground on #1, we can’t evaluate the question of whether or not it is necessary.
Yep, I agree here too.
And thank you.
I might not be online much for the next week. I'm going to the 150th anniversary reenactment of Shiloh - sorta in your neck of the woods. I likely had several Ancestors in that battle, and my appreciation of the struggles of our Ancestors is very significant to me. I don't think the kids have any understanding of the scope and magnitude of events like that - perhaps this will help.
Have a good day-