Why does God give contradictory commands in the Bible?

[Compassionist]

The Bible presents a serious moral contradiction. In the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17), God explicitly says:

“Thou shalt not kill” (or more accurately in Hebrew, *lo tirtsach* — “you shall not murder”).

Yet, throughout the very same scriptures, this same God commands genocides and mass killings. For example:

Deuteronomy 20:16–17:

“You shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them — the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.”

1 Samuel 15:3:

“Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”

Numbers 31:17–18:

“Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.”

If “murder” means intentionally taking a human life, then these divine commands directly violate the very moral law God is said to have given.

Apologists often respond in one of three ways:

1. “Killing in war isn’t murder.”
But these passages go far beyond war — they include killing infants and non-combatants. Calling it “warfare” doesn’t make it morally right, especially when commanded by an allegedly all-good being.

2. “Those people were wicked and deserved it.”
But collective punishment of entire populations, including children, contradicts basic moral justice — even within the Bible itself. Ezekiel 18:20 says:

“The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father.”
So how can innocent children deserve death for their ancestors’ actions?

3. “God’s morality is beyond human understanding.”
This argument essentially abandons moral reasoning. If God’s morality can justify genocide, then anything — slavery, rape, torture — could be justified as “God’s higher purpose.” That makes morality arbitrary and destroys the very meaning of good and evil.

In short:
If the command “Thou shalt not murder” is absolute, then the genocidal commands are immoral.
If the genocidal commands are moral because God gave them, then “Thou shalt not murder” has no fixed moral meaning.

Either way, the Bible presents a contradiction that cannot be ethically reconciled without abandoning either moral consistency or divine goodness.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #169]

False. God has no moral framework, nor do the righteous followers of God.

If God has no moral framework, then the words good, just, and righteous become unintelligible.

To say “God is righteous” presupposes some meaningful content to righteousness.
If the term has no conceptual structure, then it communicates nothing.

If it does have meaning, then either:

1. That meaning is intelligible to human cognition (in which case moral reasoning is unavoidable), or
2. It is unintelligible (in which case calling God righteous conveys no information).

You cannot simultaneously affirm that God is righteous and deny that righteousness has any framework whatsoever.

You are the issue, when you declare your moral code is truth, and presume to speak for everyone as God.

I have not declared my moral code to be ultimate truth. I am asking a conceptual question:

Do moral terms have coherent meaning independent of sheer authority?

If “good” simply means “whatever God commands,” then the statement “God is good” reduces to “God commands what God commands.” That is tautological, not substantive.

It becomes impossible to distinguish:

• Goodness
• Power
• Authority

They collapse into the same category.

That is not elevating my morality. It is examining whether the claim itself is meaningful.

Good, justice, and righteousness are not moral terms. Man's morality is no good, unjust, and unrighteousness.

If good and justice are not moral terms, what are they?

Scripture commands:
• Do justice
• Love mercy
• Walk humbly

Those commands presuppose that the hearer understands what justice and mercy mean.

If humans are incapable of moral understanding, then those commands are meaningless noise.

You cannot condemn “man’s morality” unless you are using a moral standard to do so. The critique presupposes the very category it attempts to deny.

If there is that perfectly good, just, and righteousness of God in heaven, then all of man's morality is filthy rags.

That verse is about human unrighteousness before God — not about the impossibility of moral reasoning.

Even within Scripture:

• Abraham reasons with God about justice (Genesis 18)
• The prophets condemn injustice in Israel
• Jesus appeals to moral recognition in his listeners

Appeals to righteousness assume intelligibility.

If moral categories are entirely unusable, then prophetic rebuke collapses.

Moral arguments against eternal righteousness and true holiness are dysfunctional and meaningless.

They are only meaningless if:

1. Moral language has no coherent content, or
2. No moral reasoning is permitted regarding divine actions.

But Scripture itself evaluates actions as just or unjust.

If no evaluation is possible, then even calling God “perfectly righteous” becomes empty praise.

Perfection of what?
Righteous according to what?

If you say, “According to Himself,” then you are simply defining righteousness as self-consistency. That is not moral perfection. That is definitional closure.

Arguing against perfect righteousness by morality, is as dysfunctional as arguing against perfection by imperfection.

That assumes the conclusion.

You are assuming the Bible’s portrayal is perfect righteousness and then declaring any critique invalid by definition.

That is circular.

The question under debate is precisely whether specific portrayals cohere with the concept of goodness.

If moral reasoning is invalid, then apologetics is impossible.

If moral reasoning is valid, then appeal to “perfection beyond understanding” does not end the discussion — it simply reframes it.

Perfection does not cease to exist, just because the unholy choose imperfection.

Agreed.

But asserting perfection does not establish it.

If “perfect righteousness” means:

• Not assessable
• Not intelligible
• Not evaluable

Then it is indistinguishable from raw authority.

And if righteousness simply means “whatever sufficient authority commands,” then morality collapses into obedience.

At that point we are no longer debating ethics.

We are debating submission.

Those are not the same category.

The core issue remains:

If moral language has meaning, then it is intelligible enough to evaluate claims.

If it has no meaning beyond authority, then moral praise of God conveys nothing.

You cannot have both.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #170]

This is false. Some Christians do believe they can do anything, and be saved and justified with their Christ, by their faith alone.

You are shifting from what Christianity officially teaches to what some individuals may misunderstand or distort.

Every major historic Christian tradition — Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant — teaches:

• Moral accountability
• Judgment
• Repentance
• Transformation of character

Even within Protestant “faith alone” theology, the claim is not:

“Do whatever you want.”

The claim is:

Salvation is not earned by works — but genuine faith produces changed conduct.

If someone claims faith while deliberately embracing wrongdoing, most Protestant traditions would say that faith is not genuine.

You may think that framework is incoherent — but it is not equivalent to “license without consequence.”

They escape the charge of saying there is no consequences for that what may do wrong.

No orthodox Christian theology teaches that there are no eternal consequences for wrongdoing.

Even within “faith alone” traditions:

• Persistent unrepentant sin is evidence of false faith.
• Final judgment still exists.
• Hypocrisy is condemned.

You yourself quoted:

Mat 7:21 — Not everyone who says to me “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom…

That verse directly contradicts the idea that verbal belief grants unconditional moral immunity.

Their Faith Alone is a free pass escape route from God's eternal judgment.

This misrepresents the doctrine.

In classical Protestant theology:

Justification by faith does not mean moral indifference.
It means salvation is grounded in divine grace rather than human merit.

You may disagree with that framework.
You may critique substitutionary atonement.
You may argue it undermines moral coherence.

Those are substantive debates.

But portraying it as “Christians believe they can do anything eternally consequence-free” ignores how the doctrine is actually articulated.

Both are man's own standard, and not the righteous judgment of the Bible God.

Here is the key philosophical issue:

You cannot interpret Scripture, apply verses, distinguish true believers from false believers, or declare doctrines heretical without using human cognition.

Every theological claim requires:

• Interpretation
• Inference
• Conceptual judgment

Even saying “This group replaces God's righteousness with their own morality” is itself a moral evaluation made by a human mind.

Appealing to divine righteousness does not bypass reasoning.
It presupposes it.

Jesus Himself has more respect for your flawed morality… than lip-serving hypocrites.

If that is true, then you have implicitly affirmed that moral sincerity matters.

That admission already contradicts the earlier claim that human morality is worthless in itself.

You cannot simultaneously maintain:

• Human moral reasoning is entirely corrupt and meaningless.
• God evaluates people based on sincerity versus hypocrisy.

Evaluation presupposes moral intelligibility.

Either you were once a Faith Alone Christian, or you know them well enough to fairly ape their subtilty.

This is speculation about biography rather than engagement with the argument.

The argument was simple:

Portraying Christianity as moral license without consequence is inaccurate as a description of mainstream doctrine.

That is a descriptive claim, not an endorsement.

One can critique Christianity’s moral framework without caricaturing it.

The deeper issue remains:

If righteousness is meaningful, then it must be conceptually intelligible.

If it is intelligible, then moral reasoning cannot be dismissed as “man's filthy rags” while simultaneously being used to condemn hypocrisy.

If it is not intelligible, then calling God righteous conveys no content.

That tension still stands.

And that is the actual point under debate.

[RBD]

It's unsurrendered moral self-repression to disguise worship.

This reframes moral reasoning itself as rebellion. That move dissolves morality rather than defeats my argument.

Exactly again. Well done and well said. I said you were seeing the true light.

Gen 3:4
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Isa 64:6
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our moralities are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

It only remains for you to prove God's word to give His true righteousness at all times, to them that repent of their own moralities of doing good at times, and evil at times.

The imperfect for the perfect. The chaff that blows away, for the true riches that endure for ever:

Rev{3:16}
I know thy works, that they are either good or evil. I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Rev 3:18
I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

If moral discernment is illegitimate by definition, then moral exhortations in Scripture are reduced to tests of obedience,

For now, you still don't want to repent of all the darkness.

Scripture doesn't make moral exhortations, only moral men that have not the righteousness of the holy God above.

The Scriptural challenge is to believe there is that righteous and holy God in heaven, and that be your own repented morality for His sake, He will give the same righteousness to you, that He does in heaven, and His Son on earth.

Psa 143:11
Quicken me, O LORD, for thy name's sake: for thy righteousness' sake bring my soul out of trouble.

The reward is doing eternal righteousness forever, vs only temporary morality until the grave.

This is not preaching out of the blue to convert, but merely the natural flow of the argument at hand. The only 'drawback' is that if you do repent to receive Jesus' perfect faith and will, then no only some of your former veganists turn from you, but especially any Faith Alone Christians you may enjoy moral debates with. They will in fact hate you worse. It wasn't the Romans that had Jesus Crucified, but the moral Jews with their own moral law.

I.e. go green and don't eat animals. Oh boy.

This is dismissal, not rebuttal.

Correct. As you acknowledge, when someone is preaching true righteousness of God, then there is no debating with any morality of man, including going green without strong meat to eat. Which you know is just a modern version of old pagan universal spiritism, right?

You are not refuting moral reasoning here — you are forbidding it.

No. I reject it out of hand. You're free to reason it all you want. No one else must engage it.

Another difference between energetic moralists and righteous saints, is that we don't need to argue for the approval of moralists, but many moralists act like they need number to justify their morality.

Gal 1:10
For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

Tit 3:10
A man that is a moralist after the first and second admonition reject;


You are apparently still trying to convince someone, that your whole moral argument against the righteousness of the Bible God, has a function, other than proving your morality is against His righteous judgment.

I'm only repeating and demonstrating, that all such moral arguments are a non-starter to prove anything about the Bible God's righteousness.

I've moved on to the fact that you do understand the conclusion:

This reframes moral reasoning itself as rebellion. That move dissolves morality rather than defeats my argument.

My question is why you continue to try and argue an debate, where you yourself acknowledge there can be no functional debate.

I've already repented of my own morality, and now gladly make my stand with Jesus Christ's own righteousness. What about you?

Threat does not generate truth. Mortality does not invalidate moral reasoning. The grave proves nothing.

Only if the grave is the end of the person. Otherwise, the Bible eternal warnings remain. And since no man can prove the grave's end, or another beginning, then every person must now live by faith, which once again is not a functional debate.

If someone believes beyond the grave, then let them live so. If someone does not believe beyond the grave, then let them live so.

In the meantime, there is no functional debate about the Bible God's righteousness and warnings, that can be made by man's morality and unbelief.

Rom 3:3
For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

God's righteousness is not moral, and man's morality is not righteous.

Then we agree on the central point.

If divine “righteousness” is explicitly non-moral, then calling God “good” is not a moral claim at all. It is a declaration of supremacy.

Exactly.

RBD wrote:
Your morality… is 1% of all people, that judges 99% of all people murderers.

Truth is not determined by a vote.

So also with any man on earth declaring a supremacy of his own morally green vegan anti-meatism.

I am not trying to tell you how to be a Christian.

Ok, fair enough. And I certainly don't want to try and tell you how to be a green vegan non-meat eater.

[RBD]

At that point, “righteousness” no longer means morally good — it means commanded by the one with power.

And that brings us full circle.

You are not arguing that God is good in any moral sense.
You are arguing that God is above morality.

That is exactly why moral language, under your view, collapses into meaninglessness — and why my critique remains untouched.

Correct.

Just to let you know that I'm not ignoring your posts, but only practicing what we both agree: Moral arguments are meaningless beside divine eternal righteousness. As we could say, there is no debating there, there.

If you have anything other than moral arguments, then I'd be glad to see them. Do you not agree it's a waste of time to argue against the perfect, by arguing for the imperfect? Arguing a morality, that all moralists agree is 'however imperfect', cannot functionally argue with perfect righteousness and true holiness...

"Compassionist wrote:
Please prove that the Biblical God exists. Then moral language no longer functions normatively at all."


You acknowledge that if the perfect Bible God does exist with His perfect righteousness, then morality being imperfect, is not a functional argument for debate.

Perhps you could respond to the point that, since the Bible is the only Book on earth, that does declare the perfection of righrteous law and judgment, then the Bible can be the only Book on earth, that could possibly be written by that eternally perfect God in heaven:

Dan 2:28
But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets,...

Exo 15:11
Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?

[RBD]

Man's moral tools are not the only tools.

Then name the others — without presupposing the conclusion.

Dan 2:28
But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets,...

Rom 4:3
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Rom 9:31
But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith,

The unbelieving Jews also trusted only in their own moral tools.

Rom 10:4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Jhn 16:13
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:

1Co 2:16
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

The divine tools of God are faith and righteousness by His Spirit in Jesus Christ.

Which I suppose the moral man, that seeks his own morality, would call some sort of 'presupposing conclusion'? Simply because he acknowledges no other conclusion, than his own presupposing morality.

1Co 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Abraham’s question only makes sense if “right” has a meaning only from the Judge.

No — the question only makes sense if Abraham already has some grasp of what “right” excludes.

No. The submissive request proves that his view of right is true or not, based solely upon the answer of the righteous Judge of all the earth.

A moralist like you would have demanded it? In any case, that's why the Lord doesn't argue with man's morality, nor give in to their demands. He just judges them by their works.


Rom 14:12
So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Let's here the sum of your whole matter with God of the Bible: How can anyone comprehend God's divine righteousness, that allows for no shared human moral understanding?!

They can’t — and that is precisely my conclusion.

Exactly. Which is precisely why man must repent of his own morality for Jesus' sake, to receive the divine righteousness of his faith, and do it forever.

Rom 9:30
What shall we say then? That the moral nations, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith by Jesus Christ.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #148]

To call that discernment “false light” is to accuse the very moral awareness that Scripture presupposes it's audience to repent of.

This sentence quietly concedes my point.

"Compassionist wrote: ↑Thu Nov 06, 2025 3:39 pm
To call that discernment “false light” is to accuse the very moral awareness that Scripture presupposes as its audience."

The sentence presupposes your own conclusion. I know what I say, and how I don't talk. So, you either made a mistake, or you purposely quoted yourself as by me. For now, I'll grant you the former.

If Scripture presupposes a moral awareness in its audience, then that awareness must be functionally intelligible — otherwise repentance, warning, instruction, and exhortation are meaningless noises.

You see how you are still desperately trying to wring some sort of acknowledgement from the Bible of your morality, as though it exists beyond your own mind and life? Which ends in the grave.

Scripture doesn't speak of man's morality as an argument, period. But only as some meaningless noise of smoke in the air:

Jas 4:14
Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.

Jde 1:12
Clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

1 Cor 9: 26
I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:

The perfectly righteous and eternal God, is not One to foolishly argue with folly that dissolves in the dust of the earth in but a moment of time.

"Compassionist wrote:
This reframes moral reasoning itself as rebellion. That move dissolves morality rather than defeats my argument."

Once again, you yourself acknowledge that this is the case with Scripture's own judgment of righteousness, that shuns any acknowledgement of imperfect morality. Trying impute some hint of your morality from that which is perfect, is functional nonsense. Your morality will never be so much as acknowledge by the Bible, much less validating as something worth arguing about.

There is no morality in Scripture of God's righteousness, at all. There is no moral there, there, to extract or argue with.

But I'll continue a little in our folly so long as the Lord permit:

If all human moral judgments are meaningless, then no human utterance about God’s righteousness carries content either — including yours.

Since all human moral judgments are meaningless, then no human utterance about God’s righteousness carries content either. Therefore, only quoting Scripture of righteousness carries content of God's righteousness, including all my quotes.

If righteousness and wickedness require no moral distinction, then they collapse into indistinguishable labels.

If righteousness and wickedness require no moral distinction, then moral distinction collapses into indistinguishable labels.

Invoking “light” and “darkness” does not solve this — those metaphors only work because humans already grasp the moral contrast they signify.

Invoking “light” and “darkness” dissolves gray moral distinctions — those truths work because God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. Moralists already in darkness cannot grasp the light, except they repent of walking in darkness for the sake of the light of Jesus Christ.

John 3:20
For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

[RBD]

[Replying to Avoice in post #135]

Its because God said DONT eat it.

So, you believe in divine command theory? In other words, you believe whatever God commands is morally right. Is that correct?


Tcg

It looks like Avoice is avoiding my question. Is anyone else willing to address it?


Tcg

Yes. No.

God's commandments are not moral, but are true righteousness.
Psa 19:9
The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.

Eph 4:24
And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #173]

Exactly. God's righteousness is not moral, and man's morality is not righteous.

If that is your position, then the debate has reached conceptual clarity.

If God's righteousness is explicitly non-moral, then calling God “good” is not a moral statement. It becomes a declaration of supremacy, power, or authority — not goodness in any recognizable ethical sense.

That was precisely my point.

You cannot both:

• Deny that divine righteousness is moral
• Continue to use moral praise language (“good,” “holy,” “just”) in a meaningful way

If “good” does not refer to moral goodness, then it is no longer ethical language at all.

Scripture doesn't make moral exhortations, only moral men that have not the righteousness of the holy God above.

Scripture repeatedly commands:

• Do justice
• Love mercy
• Care for the poor
• Do not murder
• Do not oppress

Those are moral categories.

If those commands are not moral exhortations, then what are they?

If humans are incapable of moral discernment, then they cannot understand what is being commanded. And if they cannot understand it, exhortation becomes meaningless.

Communication presupposes intelligibility. Your position is incoherent.

I reject it out of hand. You're free to reason it all you want. No one else must engage it.

Rejecting moral reasoning is not the same as refuting it.

You are free to disengage from moral argument.
But doing so concedes that you are no longer offering a rational defense — only a declaration of allegiance.

That is a theological stance, not an argument.

Since no man can prove the grave's end, or another beginning, then every person must now live by faith, which once again is not a functional debate.

Uncertainty about the afterlife does not invalidate moral reasoning in this life.

The possibility of eternity does not eliminate the need for coherent definitions of justice and goodness.

Even if eternal judgment exists, the question remains:

Is divine judgment just?

And to answer that, one must appeal to some concept of justice — which returns us to moral reasoning.

So also with any man on earth declaring a supremacy of his own morally green vegan anti-meatism.

This is a category error.

Arguing that unnecessary suffering is morally wrong is not declaring personal supremacy. It is making a normative ethical claim open to examination, critique, and counter-argument.

It stands or falls on reasoning.

By contrast, saying “God’s righteousness is not moral and cannot be evaluated” removes the claim from rational assessment altogether.

That is not an argument against morality.
It is an exit from the discussion.

If someone believes beyond the grave, then let them live so. If someone does not believe beyond the grave, then let them live so.

If that is the position, then the claim “God is righteous” ceases to function as a truth claim and becomes a personal commitment.

But earlier you were not merely expressing personal commitment — you were asserting that moral arguments are a “non-starter” and that divine righteousness stands immune to critique.

Immunity from critique is not the same as truth.

You have now explicitly affirmed:

• God’s righteousness is not moral
• Moral reasoning cannot assess it
• Debate about it is non-functional

That confirms the core issue:

We are no longer debating ethics.

We are debating authority and submission.

And those are different categories.

If divine righteousness is beyond moral evaluation, then calling it “good” is not an ethical claim — it is a statement of allegiance.

That clarification does not defeat moral reasoning.

It simply moves the discussion from ethics to obedience.

And that distinction matters.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #174]

Correct.

Thank you for the clarity.

If you affirm that divine righteousness is not moral and cannot be assessed morally, then we are no longer debating ethics.

We are debating authority.

That distinction matters.

Moral arguments are meaningless beside divine eternal righteousness.

They are only meaningless if one assumes — without demonstration — that such divine righteousness exists and is perfect.

That is precisely the point under dispute.

You cannot declare moral reasoning irrelevant by presupposing the conclusion that God is perfectly righteous. That is circular.

The structure becomes:

1. God is perfectly righteous.
2. Perfect righteousness cannot be judged by imperfect morality.
3. Therefore moral critique is meaningless.

But premise (1) is what needs to be established.

Do you not agree it's a waste of time to argue against the perfect, by arguing for the imperfect?

If something is genuinely perfect, then moral reasoning will not defeat it.

But labeling something “perfect” does not make it so.

If a text describes actions that appear cruel, unjust, or disproportionate, the question is whether those descriptions cohere with the concept of goodness.

Appealing to “perfection beyond evaluation” avoids the question rather than answering it.

You acknowledge that if the perfect Bible God does exist with His perfect righteousness, then morality being imperfect, is not a functional argument for debate.

No.

Even if God exists and is perfect, moral language must remain intelligible.

Otherwise, “God is good” has no content.

Perfection does not eliminate meaning.
It intensifies it.

If divine goodness is utterly unlike anything recognizable as goodness, then calling it “good” is equivocation.

Since the Bible is the only Book on earth that declares the perfection of righteous law and judgment, then the Bible can be the only Book on earth that could possibly be written by that eternally perfect God in heaven.

This argument fails for multiple reasons:

1. It assumes uniqueness equals truth.
Many religious texts claim perfection, divine origin, or ultimate authority. The Quran does. The Bhagavad Gita does. Many other religious books do.

2. Declaring perfection is not evidence of perfection.
A book claiming to be flawless does not establish that it is. The Bible is full of inaccuracies and self-contradictions. Please see: https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/categories.html

3. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Even if the Bible uniquely declared perfect righteousness, it would not logically follow that it was written by a perfect God.

At best, it would show that it makes that claim.

Claims require evidence to prove that the claims are true.

The central issue remains unchanged:

You have removed divine righteousness from moral evaluation.

That protects it from critique — but it also removes it from meaningful ethical discourse.

If righteousness is beyond moral categories, then:

• It cannot be morally praised.
• It cannot be morally defended.
• It cannot be morally distinguished from raw authority.

And that is why the critique still stands.

Declaring something perfect does not end the debate.

It simply moves the burden to demonstrating that the declaration corresponds to reality.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #175]

The divine tools of God are faith and righteousness by His Spirit in Jesus Christ.

You were asked to name tools other than moral reasoning without presupposing the conclusion.

What you have offered is:

• Scripture
• Faith in Scripture
• The Spirit affirmed by Scripture

That is not an alternative epistemic tool.
It is a reaffirmation of the conclusion inside the system being defended.

If someone does not already accept the Bible as divinely authoritative, quoting it does not function as independent evidence. It simply restates the claim.

Which I suppose the moral man… would call some sort of 'presupposing conclusion'?

Yes — because that is precisely what it is.

You are saying:

1. The Bible is divinely revealed.
2. Therefore, divine righteousness is known through the Bible.
3. Therefore, moral reasoning outside it is invalid.

But step (1) is the very issue under debate.

Appealing to it as established is circular. You have to prove with evidence that the Biblical God is real and that he revealed the Bible.

The unbelieving Jews also trusted only in their own moral tools.

Even within the biblical narrative, Abraham reasons with God:

“Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” - Genesis 18:25 (KJV).

That question presupposes that Abraham has some understanding of what “right” means.

If “right” only means “whatever the Judge decides,” the question becomes empty:

“Shall not the Judge do whatever the Judge does?”

That is tautology, not moral discourse.

The submissive request proves that his view of right is true or not, based solely upon the answer of the righteous Judge of all the earth.

No.

If Abraham had no independent grasp of justice whatsoever, he could not even formulate the concern.

Dialogue presupposes shared intelligibility.

If human beings are entirely incapable of moral understanding, then moral language in Scripture collapses into opaque command.

The Lord doesn't argue with man's morality… He just judges them by their works.

Judgment presupposes standards.

If those standards are utterly unintelligible to those being judged, then accountability becomes incoherent.

To judge someone fairly, the criteria must be meaningfully knowable.

Otherwise, the concept of justice dissolves.

They can’t — and that is precisely my conclusion.

Then you have conceded the core philosophical problem.

If no shared human moral understanding is possible, then:

• “God is righteous” cannot be morally evaluated.
• “God is good” cannot be morally understood.
• Divine justice cannot be meaningfully distinguished from arbitrary power.

At that point, the claim reduces to:

“Submit to Biblical authority, which is beyond understanding and evaluation.”

That is a theological commitment, not an argument about goodness.

Man must repent of his own morality… to receive divine righteousness.

If repentance requires recognizing one’s moral deficiency, then some moral awareness must already exist.

If moral awareness is wholly corrupt and unusable, repentance becomes unintelligible.

You cannot both:

• Deny human moral discernment
• Require humans to recognize their moral failure

Recognition itself presupposes moral cognition.

The issue remains consistent throughout this exchange:

You are not offering an alternative epistemic tool that can be examined.

You are asserting revelation as self-authenticating and morally insulated from critique.

That position depends on the Bible being true, which you have not proven with evidence.

But it does not answer the philosophical question being raised.

It simply relocates it beyond discussion.

And that distinction is crucial.