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.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #188]

They are tools for the spiritual man to have and use.

If they are tools only available to those who already possess them, then they cannot function as publicly accessible epistemic tools.

Correct. Not for the public that doesn't want them functionally accessible.

In any case, the claim of the have-nots, does not nullify the tools of the haves.

It's the same accusation of the unrighteous against the righteous: I'm not righteous, and so no one is righteous.

Tit 1:15
Unto the righteous all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing righteous; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

An epistemic tool must be usable in a way that allows claims to be examined.

If the response to critique is:

• “You cannot see because you are not spiritual.”
• “Only those who already have the Spirit can understand.”

Then the claim becomes insulated from evaluation.

Rejecting what is available, does not make it unavailable.

Books available in the public library are for all comers. Those refusing to come, because they say the books are not available to the public, is dysfunctional accusation against them, that do come and read the books.

Luk 11:9
And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

Jas 4:2
Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.

Luk 10:41
And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

Just because you refuse tools others have, doesn't mean we don't have and use them.

The issue is not whether you believe you have them.

Not believe only, but do in daily use and practice.

The issue is whether they can function as justification in a debate.

Dysfunctional argument:
1. Demand know what other tools there are, that you don't have.
2. Told of tools others do have.
3. That doesn't count, because I don't have them.

If the only validation for the tool is:

“I know because I have it,” then the reasoning becomes self-authenticating and circular.

If the only invalidation for the tool is: “I don't know because I don't have it,” then the reasoning becomes self-authenticating and circular.

Every religious tradition can make the same move.

The perfect cannot be challenged and ruled by the imperfect.

The debate is not whether perfection can be ruled by imperfection.

False. When the debate is about judging the perfect by the imperfect, then the imperfect cannot judge the perfect, ends the debater: DOA.

If you now want someone to prove the Bible is inerrant, then that's trying to prove a negative, that there is no error.

It's up to the accuser to prove Bible error. If no error can be proven, then the Bible proves itself inerrant.

I'm not going to look for errors for you, because I'm not a fault finder of the Bible like you.

Abraham had instruction in God's justice, and submitted it to the LORD for judgment. Not an independent morality.

Even if Abraham’s understanding was shaped by prior revelation, he still possessed conceptual grasp.

If Abraham’s understanding was not by revelation, he possessed independent understanding.

Since Abraham’s understanding was by revelation, he possessed understanding dependent on the One revealing.

All morality of man is independent of God's true righteousness. Only them that believe Him can understand, possess, and do it.

Those who choose their own morality over God's righteousness, have not because they ask not. They ask not, because they won't do it.

Jhn 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 RBD in post #199]

The Bible God does: “all our moralities are as filthy rags.”

Quoting a verse does not resolve the epistemic issue.

It proves men writing long before you, already answered you.

Even if human morality is imperfect, it does not follow that it is meaningless.

Since human morality is imperfect, it follow that it is meaningless to perfect righteousness.

Even though human morality is imperfect, it does not follow that it is meaningless to everyone. It's only meaningless to the perfectly righteous, that reject it out of hand.

The question is if your own morality proves the Bible God contradicts His own righteous commandments…

No. The question is whether claims about divine righteousness are coherent.

Since the accusation is that divine righteousness is not coherent to the undivine moralist, then the answer is that divine righteous doe not contradict itself, because it's not coherent to the undivine morality.

If divine righteousness has meaningful content, then apparent contradictions can be discussed.

Correct. If they Bible appears to be contradicting itself. Not if others are contradicting the Bible.

Such as accusing the Bible of contradicting it's own righteousness, by moralists contradicting Bible righteousness by their own morality, that is not in the Bible itself.

You cannot prove that God is not perfectly righteous.

Correct — and equally, you have not proven that God is perfectly righteous.

Which is not the argument. The argument is that the Bible God is not perfectly righteous, because flawed moralists contradict His righteousness.

It only proves the self-evident: That God's perfect righteousness is not man's flawed morality, and man's flawed morality is not God's perfect righteousness.

The whole of your argument could have been summed up and dismissed from the beginning:

"I say God gives contradictory commands in the Bible, but I don't agree with them. The Bible God's righteousness is flawed, because my flawed morality says so..."

Earlier, you agreed:

Truth is not determined by a vote.

I reminded you of your own words, that your morality is truth, when you later claimed your morality is imperfect. It proves that your own morality is only your onw personally flawed truth.

Fallibility does not equal futility.

It does when it ends in the grave.

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.

If you declare your morality judges the Bible God, then your morality is supreme.

To evaluate a claim is not to declare supremacy.

It is when you accuse others of being unjust, by your own morality. An accusation of evil doing, is not an 'evaluation', but a condemnation.

Since you declare your morality is flawed, then your charge is meaningless.

No. Acknowledging fallibility strengthens, not weakens, rational inquiry. [/quote]
Not when you don't correct it, but keep it as the supreme judge to condemn others. Including the Bible God's righteousness, and 99% of men and women on earth.

Job 38… Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?

Appeals to divine grandeur address power and knowledge.

Pointing out that you were not at the beginning of creation, and are headed to a grave, is common sense proof that your personal morality and truth is not supremely everlasting.

It is insulation. My position is that the Biblical God is evil and imaginary. You have not proven the Biblical God to be real and good. I posted my reasons for my position: viewtopic.php?p=1179106#p1179106

You've proven that moral is not the Bible God's righteousness, by which you now accuse the Bible God of evil. Which is common to all moralists that hate the Bible God's righteousness.

But, that is not the argument, since anyone can have their own morality and judge others by it, until the grave.

It's the meaningless accusation made on this thread, that the Bible God contradicts His own righteous commandments, because you contradict them by our own personal morality.

These things I'll no longer waste time arguing with:

1. The accusation of contradiction in Bible righteousness fails, by moralists contradicting Bible righteousness.
2. That contradiction within the Bible, is by readers contradicting the Bible.
3. That perfect righteousness can be argued by imperfect morality.
4. That the Bible righteousness must include flawed morality.
5. That the perfect can be judged by the imperfect.
6. That you are not claiming supreme truth, by judging and condemning all others by your own personal moral truth.
7. That accusing and condemning of evil, is only evaluating coherence.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #201]

Correct. Only for those that have and use morality. Not by God, nor by me.

But you are using moral language.

You use terms like:

• Righteous
• Wicked
• Evil
• Judgment
• Obedience
• Rebellion
• Truth

Those are evaluative terms. They distinguish between what ought and ought not to be done.

If you truly did not use moral language, you could not meaningfully condemn “moral enmity,” nor praise “righteousness.”

The distinction itself presupposes intelligibility.

The only believers that do use morality… are believers in their own God…

Labeling disagreement as “enmity” does not answer the argument.

The question is not whether someone is loyal or disloyal.

The question is whether words like “righteous” have content that can be understood.

If righteousness has no moral content accessible to human cognition, then calling someone “righteous” or “unrighteous” communicates nothing evaluative.

If it does have content, then moral reasoning is not automatically illegitimate.
• If divine righteousness is intelligible, then moral language has content and can be discussed.
• If divine righteousness is unintelligible, then calling it “righteous” is not an ethical claim but a declaration of allegiance.

These things I'll no longer waste time arguing with:
4. That the Bible righteousness must include flawed morality.

At least you're openly declaring your moral enmity against His righteousness…

Disagreeing about moral coherence is not enmity.

If someone examines whether a claim about justice is consistent, that is analysis — not rebellion.

To equate critique with hostility is to redefine inquiry as opposition.

These things I'll no longer waste time arguing with:
7. That accusing and condemning of evil, is only evaluating coherence.

You have consistently affirmed that divine righteousness is not moral.

If so, then moral critique cannot apply — but neither can moral praise.

That is the logical consequence.

That's a big duh, Spock.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #201]

Correct. Only for those that have and use morality. Not by God, nor by me.

But you are using moral language.

You use terms like:

• Righteous
• Wicked
• Evil
• Judgment
• Obedience
• Rebellion
• Truth

Those are evaluative terms. They distinguish between what ought and ought not to be done.

If you truly did not use moral language, you could not meaningfully condemn “moral enmity,” nor praise “righteousness.”

The distinction itself presupposes intelligibility.

The only believers that do use morality… are believers in their own God…

Labeling disagreement as “enmity” does not answer the argument.

The question is not whether someone is loyal or disloyal.

The question is whether words like “righteous” have content that can be understood.

If righteousness has no moral content accessible to human cognition, then calling someone “righteous” or “unrighteous” communicates nothing evaluative.

If it does have content, then moral reasoning is not automatically illegitimate.
• If divine righteousness is intelligible, then moral language has content and can be discussed.
• If divine righteousness is unintelligible, then calling it “righteous” is not an ethical claim but a declaration of allegiance.

These things I'll no longer waste time arguing with:
4. That the Bible righteousness must include flawed morality.

At least you're openly declaring your moral enmity against His righteousness…

Disagreeing about moral coherence is not enmity.

If someone examines whether a claim about justice is consistent, that is analysis — not rebellion.

To equate critique with hostility is to redefine inquiry as opposition.

These things I'll no longer waste time arguing with:
7. That accusing and condemning of evil, is only evaluating coherence.

You have consistently affirmed that divine righteousness is not moral.

If so, then moral critique cannot apply — but neither can moral praise.

That is the logical consequence.

That's a big no duh, Mr Spock.

[RBD]

The Qur’an repeatedly attributes perfection, justice, wisdom, and absolute truth to Allah.

Part true. Part false. Allah is indeed attributed with perfection and wisdom, the same as the Bible God attributes to His created Lucifer.

Allah never speaks of himself having perfect justice nor eternal truth, no more then Lucifer after He rebelled against the eternal and true God of the Bible.

Allah himself, and Muhammed speak of him only the same as the created angel Lucifer. I have no doubt that an angel did come to Muhammed and give him words to write and speak, but it was another fallen angel, or Lucifer himself, not any angel of the true God, especially not Gabriel.

The very fact that Muhammed claims revelation from an angel, proves it has nothing to do with the Bible God and Jesus Christ:

Gal 1:6
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.


Allah also attributes many names to himself for wisdom and perfect beauty, but always falls short of naming himself the perfect and true God, whose judgments are altogether righteous. Nor does Allah ever say one of his names is a name above all names, which is Jesus Christ.

The fallen angel Lucifer also has several names attributed to him: The Dragon, Old Serpent, the Devil, and Satan.

No other book on earth, nor writer nor author, ever speaks of their God, nor of themselves as the only true, perfect, and eternal God and Creator of heaven and earth.

The Koran is certainly one of the most extensive works of a fallen angel, that apes the Bible, but it certainly isn't the Bible nor the God and Author thereof.

Dittoes for Joseph Smith, whose own angel whatsisname.

Examples:
• “Allah — there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of existence.” (2:255)
• “His is the dominion of the heavens and the earth… He has power over all things.” (57:2)
• “Indeed, Allah is not unjust to the people at all.” (10:44)
• “Your Lord is not unjust to His servants.” (41:46)
• “The word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can alter His words.” (6:115)
• “Indeed, Allah commands justice, excellence, and giving to relatives, and forbids immorality and oppression.” (16:90)
• “He is Allah, other than whom there is no deity, the Sovereign, the Pure, the Perfection, the Bestower of Faith, the Overseer, the Exalted in Might, the Compeller, the Superior.” (59:23)
• “Say: He is Allah, One. Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born.” (112:1–3)
• “Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.” (4:17)
• “Indeed, Allah is ever, over all things, Competent.” (2:20)

First, once again, there is no book other than the Bible, where the Author calls himself the perfect and true God and Creator:

Gen 17:1
And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Exo 3:14
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Isa 45:5
I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

1. Allah never Himself speaks of Himself, saying I am the Almighty true and eternal God of heaven and earth. It's only Muhammed speaking about Allah. 2. Muhammed only claims inspiration by an angel, to speak for Allah, and at times to quote Allah.
3. The only time Allah is said to have spoken directly to Muhammed, is not recorded, because it's only a Muslim tradition of doing so at Muhammed's ascension.

The Koran does not qualify as another Bible example of the Author speaking for Himself, and of Himself as Almighty and eternal true God. And why is that?

Why doesn't Mystery Allah simply come out and say of himself, what the Bible God says of Himself? I am Allah the Almighty eternal God, and there is no other God like me. Because there is only the one true God in heaven, that will never have any uncreated God like Himself besides Him, nor even saying so. The angels are all in subjection to the one true God, which includes the rebellious angels, that can only go so far in their mockery of God.

These verses explicitly describe:

• Divine uniqueness
• Absolute authority
• Perfect justice
• Immutable truth
• Moral command
• Eternal sovereignty

These verses explicitly describe what a man inspired of an angel says about a deity, that he says is the only one. All eternal beings are deities and gods by virtue of immortality, but not by being uncreated. Only the Bible God speaks of Himself as being the only true and perfect God, that is not created, but is from everlasting to everlasting.

"He neither begets nor is born.” Is a statement by Muhammad rejecting the Bible God the Father and Son, it's not a statement of the uncreated Godhead. And once again, it's not Allah but only an angel-inspired man, which certainly wasn't Gabriel of God.

One may reject them — but it cannot be claimed they do not exist.

You've shown yourself a sloppy debater, as here. The argument is not about believing what other book authors say, but only about no other book author ever speaks for himself, as the Bible God does:

Gen 17:1
And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Exo 3:14
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Isa 45:5
I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

If anyone is to believe in the Almighty God that is eternally I am, it can only be the Bible God, who says He is the eternal I am.

But they neither killed nor crucified him—it was only made to appear so.

So, Muhammed also heard Docetism as well as the gospel. He rejects the Bible, and gloms onto the docetic mystical touch.

I always knew Mohammed was nothing but a second rate scholar, aping the Bible and law of Moses with his own brand of carnal ordinances, angel inspiration, and mysticism.

So your assertion that the Bible is uniquely the only book where God declares Himself perfectly righteous and just is false.

So your assertion that the Koran is also where the author declares himself the perfectly righteous and just eternal God, is grammatically false. You're not just bad at reading the Bible and Koran, but your fervent fault finding of the Bible, can't even allow you to comprehend how the Koran is written.

Lucifer was created perfect… which is the same Allah says of himself.

This argument assumes the biblical narrative of Lucifer is already historically and metaphysically correct.

It proves Mohammed that read and knew the Bible, was speaking of his Allah the same as the Bible speaks of Lucifer: A created angel and anointed cherub, not the uncreated Lord God Almighty of the Bible.

Which proves the grammatical proof, that no other book ever has an author speaking of himself, the same as the Bible God.

You cannot use one text’s internal cosmology to invalidate another tradition’s theology without presupposing the first text is true.

And here is another proof of your ignorance between the Bible and Koran. Mohammed proves the errancy of his book, but contradicting himself about the Bible and the Koran: Mohammed claims that Allah is the Almighty deity that spoke to Abraham, and then rejects that the God of Abraham begets and is begotten:

Psa 2:6
Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

Jhn 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

You really need to stick with moralizing about yourself, as the foundation for condemning others, including the Bible God, rather than playing at knowing the Bible and Koran. Your morality and judgment of others by your morality, is your only forte here.

Muhammad only aped the law of Moses…

Religious traditions in the Near East share:

• Common Abrahamic roots
• Overlapping prophetic figures
• Cultural continuity

The Abrahamic offspring Mohammed only aped the law of Moses.

Similarity does not prove counterfeit.

Not authentic proves counterfeit, when claiming authentic. Seriously, your extreme animus against the Bible God is ruining your logical debate skills.
It's what happens when fault finding gets out of control.

The original philosophical issue remains untouched.

Even if one text uniquely claimed:

• Perfect righteousness
• Perfect law
• Perfect judgment

That claim must still be evaluated.

Declaring perfection is not the same as demonstrating perfection.

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

If it is intelligible, then it is open to discussion.

If it is not intelligible, then calling it “righteous” communicates allegiance, not moral content.

The epistemic problem remains exactly where it began.

These things I'll no longer waste time arguing with:
3. That perfect righteousness can be argued by imperfect morality.

And bold declarations — whether biblical or Qur’anic — do not resolve it by assertion alone. You are yet to prove the existence of the Biblical God and souls with actual evidence. All you do is assert various claims, but you have proven nothing.

These things I'll no longer waste time arguing with:
7. That the Bible must prove the negative, in order to be believed as true.

[RBD]

If God tells you to do something, is it the right thing to do simply because he commanded it?

Tcg

If He is the righteous and true holy God and Creator of all things, then of course, yes.

So, would you agree that any command of God found in the Bible should be followed without question?


Tcg

No, of course not. His law was changed from that of Moses for the national children of Israel, to the law of Christ for the churches of God.

Are you really that shallow?

Mar 12:13
And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.

[RBD]

[Replying to Tcg in post #207]

How dare you say my answer has no value.

Your question was answered. It was a YES or NO question. You didn't ask for a reason. I don't respond to phantom questions. How can I? I can't answer what isn't asked.

You got the answer you requested. Now its not good enough. Should I be inclined to give my reason you are likely to say it has no value and expect me to answer another phantom question.

Your question was answered

While I understand your honest frustration, you have to understand that with ardent fault finders, you're not dealing with serious people. Just look for things worth answering, and let the rest of the dribble just dribble on by.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #208]

Bible consistency is uniquely important, because it's with a couple dozen writers, spanning over a thousand years… That is not possible with imperfect men, unless guided by one perfect Hand…

That conclusion does not follow. Long-term thematic continuity does not require divine authorship.

The simple lesson of repeating the same statement correctly at the end of a circle, says otherwise. It's statistically impossible to do so for so many people over so many years from so many different places.

The argument is about reasonable believability.

There are several natural explanations:

• Later writers building upon earlier traditions
• Redaction and editorial harmonization
• Shared theological frameworks
• Canon formation processes selecting compatible texts

These things I'll no longer waste time arguing with:
9. Unproven Bible revisionism by purposed fault finders.

For example:

• Rabbinic Judaism

Judaist revisionism of the Torah.

• Islamic jurisprudence

Aping Law of Moses.

• Aristotelian philosophy

With no definitive declarations to live by.

• Confucian tradition

That changes with new tradition.

In any case, we're talking about the one unerring Book written by so many men, over so much time, from so many places. Statistical probabilities at least demand believability, if not command it.

Disbelief without proof of error is irrational blind fault finding. And the only reason for such irrationally blind fault finding, is because everyone knows that inerrancy proves at least rational believability.

If not, you wouldn't be here trying to argue an accusation against the Book, that the argument itself proves is meaningless.

You are arguing:

1. If the text is perfect, the writers are truthful.
2. The writers claim divine inspiration.
3. Therefore, they can be believed.

Correct! I was beginning to doubt if you could properly represent an opposing argument.

But the premise “the text is perfect” is what must be demonstrated.

These things I'll no longer waste time arguing with:
7. That the Bible must prove the negative, in order to be believed as true.

It cannot be assumed.

Back to sorry misrepresentation. So soon.

Nothing is assumed, but only proven from the text itself. False accusations of error in the text, proven false by the text, preserves inerrant believability of the text.

You're the one that has yet to offer any possible textual error. The assumption of error is by you.

If they are lying about their inspiration… then the text is fraudulent.

There is a third possibility:

They may have been sincere but mistaken.

These things I'll no longer waste time arguing with:
10. Lip service to writer's integrity, rather than calling them liars as accused.

So many have tried to find error in the Bible, which proves the importance of inerrancy…

That proves only that the claim of inerrancy is strong and controversial.

That proves that the claim of inerrancy is important, because the search for error is strong.

It does not prove that the claim is true.

It does prove that the claim is true, so long as the strong search for error finds none.

That is not hostility — it is proportional examination.

These things I'll no longer waste time arguing with:
11. That strong accusations of unproven error, is not hostility.

The Bible is full of scientific and historical errors. It is also full of self-contradictions. It is a deeply flawed book written by ignorant people. The Biblical God is an incoherent concept and is imaginary and evil.

These things I'll no longer waste time arguing with:
11. That strong accusations of unproven error, is not hostility.

You claim your morality is truth… and yet admit it is flawed.

Recognizing fallibility does not negate truth-seeking.

It does when there's no correction of the flaws.

In science, mathematics, and philosophy, we accept that human reasoning is fallible — yet we still engage in inquiry.

In science and mathematics and perfect righteousness, there is no error. In morality and philosophy, we we know it's flawed, — yet some still engage in irrational morality and philosophy as truth.

Declaring oneself beyond evaluation removes the possibility of correction entirely.

Thank you. You let people talk long enough, and the truth comes out:

Matth 12:37
For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned…for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

You finally acknowledge your own delusions of grandeur and supremacy:

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

Compassionist wrote:
Truth is not determined by a vote.

Th reason you never acknowledge that perfect righteousness cannot be judged by flawed morality, is because you believe your flawed morality is incorrectible.

And it isn't, for you until the grave.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #207]

How dare you say my answer has no value.

Your question was answered. It was a YES or NO question. You didn't ask for a reason. I don't respond to phantom questions. How can I? I can't answer what isn't asked.

You got the answer you requested. Now its not good enough. Should I be inclined to give my reason you are likely to say it has no value and expect me to answer another phantom question.

Your question was answered

If you hadn't sworn that you "just dont frequent this site often", I'd have asked a follow up then you'd have chance to add value. That ship has sailed and valueless it remains.


Tcg

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #211]

Correct. Not for the public that doesn't want them functionally accessible.

That response shifts the issue.

The question is not whether someone “wants” the tools.

The question is whether the tools are publicly testable in principle.

An epistemic tool that only works for those who already accept its framework cannot function as independent justification in debate.

If the structure is:

• You must first accept the conclusion.
• Only then will the tool validate the conclusion.

Then the reasoning is circular.

That is not hostility. It is structural analysis.

Rejecting what is available does not make it unavailable.

The issue is not availability.

Books in a library are publicly accessible and independently verifiable.

But “spiritual discernment” as described is not independently testable.

Two people from different religions can both claim spiritual confirmation of contradictory claims.

Without a shared evaluative standard, the appeal cannot adjudicate between them.

That is the epistemic problem.

Not believe only, but do in daily use and practice.

Sincerity and lived experience are not in dispute.

The issue is whether those experiences function as evidence in a debate.

Personal conviction, however genuine, does not automatically establish objective truth.

If the only invalidation is “I don't know because I don't have it,” then the reasoning becomes circular.

No.

The critique is not “I don’t have it, therefore it is false.”

The critique is:

If the only validation for a claim is internal experience accessible only after accepting the claim, then it cannot serve as independent justification.

That is a structural issue, not a dismissal.

If you now want someone to prove the Bible is inerrant, then that's trying to prove a negative.

That is incorrect.

Inerrancy is a positive claim:

“The Bible contains no error.”

Positive claims require support.

In mathematics, if someone claims a theorem holds universally, they must provide proof.

They do not shift the burden to others to disprove it first.

Similarly, the claim of inerrancy requires justification.

If no error can be proven, then the Bible proves itself inerrant.

That does not follow.

Failure to find error is not proof of absence of error.

Especially in a complex text spanning centuries.

Otherwise, any sufficiently large text could claim infallibility unless disproven exhaustively.

The burden of proof does not invert by default.

The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The order of events known from science is just the opposite. Genesis 1:1-2:3. Scientific knowledge is obtained through evidence. It proves that the Biblical account is false. Therefore, the Bible is inaccurate.

Since Abraham’s understanding was by revelation, he possessed understanding dependent on the One revealing.

Even if Abraham’s understanding came through revelation, he still possessed conceptual grasp.

He understood what justice meant well enough to frame the appeal:

“Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

If he had no intelligible concept of justice, the statement would collapse into tautology.

Understanding presupposes cognition.

Revelation does not bypass cognition — it informs it.

All morality of man is independent of God's true righteousness.

If all human moral cognition is entirely independent and invalid, then:

• Humans cannot meaningfully recognize divine righteousness.
• Humans cannot meaningfully repent.
• Humans cannot meaningfully obey.

Recognition requires comprehension.

If comprehension exists, then moral language is not meaningless. I have made this point many, many times. You keep failing to grasp it.

Those who choose their own morality over God's righteousness, have not because they ask not.

This reframes disagreement as moral rebellion.

But the discussion is not about refusal to ask.

It is about whether claims about divine perfection are epistemically justified.

Turning epistemology into accusation does not resolve the structural issue.

The central issues remain:

1. A claim accessible only after accepting it cannot serve as independent evidence.
2. Inerrancy is a positive claim and carries the burden of justification.
3. Revelation still requires human cognition to be understood.
4. Dismissing critique does not demonstrate its incoherence.

If divine truth is real, it will withstand examination.

If it cannot be examined except by prior submission, then it functions as commitment — not argument.

That distinction remains the philosophical heart of this debate.