Of course I make moral judgements all the time.
Only yesterday I was wondering where I could locate a shotgun to deal with the mother sat in our local pub at noon on her third glass of wine whilst in charge of her 2 children both of whom were under 5.
I don't however base my judgements on a book that has on occasions been used to justify all sorts of dubious punishments.
Sure, you may not - and that is of course your prerogative based on your nature/ nurture.
Given religious books offer more than what someone subjectively considers to be "dubious punishments" based on the current cultural mores, other people may connect with various ideas about morality and spirituality in religious books and find them useful - that's their prerogative.
Which brings me to Gonnagle's point about being only human. If the suggestion is that religions go wrong, or at least aren't "true to God" because humans are involved and are flawed, does the same apply to the holy books that have been written?
Could be. The evidence seems to be that whether a holy book is flawed or not is a matter of faith.
If that is the case, how flawed are the holy books? 10% 30% 50%? Which interpretation is the true one? How do you know? Is Gonnagle basing his interpretation on his inbuilt sense of kindness/prejudice, etc?
You don't know which interpretation is the true one. You just do the best you can based on your individual nature/ nurture to try to interpret and understand the stories in the books and apply it to the environment you currently live in.
My nature/ nurture determines how much I prioritise social order and accountability over freedom and kindness. And living in the relative safety of London, my morality is different to if I was living in the middle of a war zone or living in a deprived, dangerous, inhospitable environment and trying to create some order or enforce social cooperation to defend against threats that are significantly more life-threatening than my inability to be my "authentic self".
