How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3407

If you cannot justify why your morality should be considered objective, it is merely your opinion that is stated about God and there is no moral oughtness of how God should act.

Is there any moral oughtness of how Molech, Tezcatlipoca and Zeus should act? If you deem that there is, how do you deem it objective?

[otseng]

I clearly mentioned "punishing non-moral agents with a death penalty".

Even this statement makes no sense. When you say "death penalty", that means the person has been judged guilty of a crime and the punishment is death. Can you give any example of any non-moral agent being judged for a crime?

What I believe you are getting at is killing a non-moral agent, not punishing a non-moral agent.

Eating meat for survival is not "punishing non-moral agents with a death penalty" dear sir.

Eating meat requires killing. And you even stated this is a "necessary evil".

You have avoided most of what I said:

Problem of evil. Avoidance.

Bible says God is omnipotent. Avoidance.

Because these are not relevant to the discussion. The problem of evil can be covered as a separate topic later. What we are discussing is the charge that God commits evil.

As for God being omnipotent, I've already pointed out this has been debated in Is the Christian God omnipotent?

The problem is there is no clear definition of what "omnipotent" means. Skeptics typically use the term in order to create an imaginary straw man god. All I'm saying is we should drop the term and use Biblical language instead.

God is portrait in the Bible God as evil, malevolent, jealous, unjust, unwise, petty, genocidal, infanticidal, tribal, homophobic. Avoidance.

If you cannot provide a rational justification of objective morality, then the entire charge can be dismissed. Why should anyone care about your opinion of how God should act if there is no objective oughtness to it?

The problem with a sentient being on one side being portrait as the most perfect, just, kind, benevolent, wise, extremely powerful being and on other side we have this being using its great might to punish the moral agents (adults) together with the non-moral agents(babies, non-human animals, the severely mentally impaired from birth) in the process of which the being its inflicting great suffering; punishing some for the misdeeds of others, asking for genocides, being homophobic. Avoidance.

This is why I brought up the case of abortions. Though the general case of abortions is morally wrong, there are exceptions. And in the case of eating meat, you even stated it's a necessary evil. So, the point is there can be higher principles that can override in a particular situation.

The idea of omnipotence carries the idea that everything God does must be "perfect". But I don't think that's possible in our reality. If a pregnant woman is in jeopardy of her life carrying the baby, there is no win-win solution. It's either the woman must die or the baby must die. Or even now in the case of the war between Israel and Hamas, there is no way for Israel to engage in war without affecting civilians. The skeptic then claims, "If God is omnipotent, he can do anything, so there must be a way to save the baby and the mother and also be able to help Israel kill Hamas without killing any innocent lives." The problem with these is it's imagining this ideal hypothetical scenario that is not realistic.

I does not matter if one being is not omnipotent to my point.

The entire usage of the word omnipotent is irrelevant and a straw man.

We intuitively know this is generally true, but outside of intuition, how do we know it's true?

Its logic sir. Not intuition.
It’s both wrong or illogical to punish the blameless, the innocent.
It’s both wrong or illogical to punish a being that does not have free will.

It might be your logic, but there is no requirement everybody needs to abide by your logic. Why should a dictator abide by your Affective Empathy? And if one believes in natural selection, it's entirely consistent with natural selection to promote one's own reproduction and prevent another's.

Please provide a small snippet or a crux of the argument.

From Morality and Evolutionary Biology:

As for normative morality, evolutionary theory is lacking for an explanation:

Even philosophers sympathetic to ethical naturalism (the view that moral facts are themselves natural facts of some sort) have typically been wary of attempts to derive conclusions about morality in the normative sense from facts about evolutionary history. This is especially so when they are clear (unlike Spencer) about the principles governing Darwinian evolution through natural selection. From the fact that a certain trait is an adaptation, which evolved through natural selection by virtue of its positive feedback effects on germ-line replication of the alleles that generate the trait, nothing at all seems to follow about whether it is morally good or right, or something we ought to embrace and foster. Certain dispositions may be present in us for good evolutionary reasons without any implication that these traits benefit us, or are moral virtues or produce behaviors that are morally right.

It is hard to see how such evolutionary facts can possibly have normative authority or force for a rational agent.

This suggests that ethics, like mathematics, is an autonomous subject in the sense that it has its own “internal standards of justification and criticism”, such that its conclusions cannot be justified by other forms of inquiry such as evolutionary biology.

Normative ethical conclusions are justified through first-order ethical reflection and argument, just as mathematical propositions are justified through mathematical reasoning, rather than through learning more about our evolutionary past or about what is happening in our brains when we engage in these forms of reasoning.

From Evolutionary Ethics:

As the article admits, "evolutionary ethics still has a long way to go."

Evolutionary ethics is, on a philosopher’s time-scale, a very new approach to ethics. Though interdisciplinary approaches between scientists and philosophers have the potential to generate important new ideas, evolutionary ethics still has a long way to go.

From The Origins of Human Morality:

There have been two common responses - altruism and reciprocity:

There have traditionally been two answers to such questions. First, it makes sense for individuals to help their kin, with whom they share genes, a process known as inclusive fitness. Second, situations of reciprocity can arise in which I scratch your back and you scratch mine and we both benefit in the long run.

He admits neither of these explanations are tenable:

Moreover, neither of these traditional explanations gets at what is arguably the essence of human morality—the sense of obligation that human beings feel toward one another.

There is no planet in this universe or any place in any universe or plain of existence where punishing the blameless, the innocent is right or logical.

You claiming it extends to the entire universe does not also justify it. Yes, intuitively, I agree the innocent should not be killed. But it is not logic that dictates this, but our moral sense.

3. So according to your logic if a supposed god says X is wrong because the being says so that is subiective morality.

A subjective morality is a morality that would only apply to a certain group of people at a certain time. An objective morality would apply to all people for all time. Since God created all people and He is the source of morality, that morality would apply to all people for all time.

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #3407

If you cannot justify why your morality should be considered objective, it is merely your opinion that is stated about God and there is no moral oughtness of how God should act.

Is there any moral oughtness of how Molech, Tezcatlipoca and Zeus should act? If you deem that there is, how do you deem it objective?

Why are you trying to divert the topic and ask me about other gods? What is under debate is your claim:

Yet you presumably have no problem with the idea of that same deity brutally drowning every innocent child on earth in a global flood.

Again, how can you justify your moral judgment to be objective and it is not just your subjective opinion?

[otseng]

Re words and their meanings, "containing no error" (in this case "the Bible") "How can we trust the Bible if it contains errors?".

All works written by people contain errors. So it's redundant to add "if it contains errors".

Re the Bible - "What is there to trust and why must it be trusted?"

I shall put this to The Father.

I shall classify the rest of your post as random ramblings and irrelevant to the current debate.

[William]

Replying to otseng in post #3414

All works written by people contain errors. So it's redundant to add "if it contains errors".

Then the answer to "how" is simply a personal choice to trust the Bible and given your statement that the works which altogether make up the Bible contain errors, the better question to ask would be "why?" Why trust the Bible if it contains errors?

I shall classify the rest of your post as random ramblings and irrelevant to the current debate.

Can you justify your judgment to be objective and not just your subjective opinion?

I would encourage you to read the conversation I shared between The Father and I carefully and perhaps consider you may well be mistaken to have judged said conversation as "rambling" and "irrelevant to the current debate."

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3413

Why are you trying to divert the topic and ask me about other gods?

You're suggesting that nothing Yahweh does is wrong. I'm referring you to the similarities between his behavior and that of other gods. If you call his behavior right and theirs wrong, there's a double standard.

[alexxcJRO]

Even this statement makes no sense. When you say "death penalty", that means the person has been judged guilty of a crime and the punishment is death. Can you give any example of any non-moral agent being judged for a crime?
What I believe you are getting at is killing a non-moral agent, not punishing a non-moral agent.

You are the one not making any sense sir.

Yahweh, the perfect being punished the Amalek, the moral agents together with the non-moral agents for attacking the Israelites.
Yahweh, the perfect being punished the whole humanity the moral agents together with the non-moral agents in the Noah story.
Yahweh, the perfect being punished the people of Samaria, the moral agents together with the non-moral agents.
And so on.

"16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God." (Deuteronomy 20:16-18)

"Now go, attack the Amalekites. Destroy everything that belongs to them as an offering to the Lord. Don’t let anything live. Put to death men and women, children and small babies. Kill the cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”(1 Samuel 15:3)

“13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. 14 So make yourself an ark of cypress[a] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high.16 Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit[c] high all around.[d] Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.”(Genesis 6:13-17)
“The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open.”[a]”(Hosea 13:16)

Eating meat requires killing. And you even stated this is a "necessary evil".

There is a difference between surviving(hunter gatherers 100 000 years ago) and stuffing yourself, being obese and factory farming in 2023.

Because these are not relevant to the discussion. The problem of evil can be covered as a separate topic later. What we are discussing is the charge that God commits evil.
As for God being omnipotent, I've already pointed out this has been debated in Is the Christian God omnipotent?
The problem is there is no clear definition of what "omnipotent" means. Skeptics typically use the term in order to create an imaginary straw man god. All I'm saying is we should drop the term and use Biblical language instead.

Comedy.
The Bible clearly says God can "do all things", has "perfect knowledge", is "perfect", "just", "does no wrong", "righteous", "in him there is no darkness at all", “is love”.

"26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”"
"42 Then Job replied to the Lord:
2 “I know that you can do all things;
no purpose of yours can be thwarted."
"27 “I am the Lord, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?"
(Matthew 19:26, Job 42:1-2, Luke 1:37, Jeremiah 32:27)


“5 Great is our Lord and mighty in power;
his understanding has no limit.”
“Before a word is on my tongue
you, Lord, know it completely.”
“13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.”
“20 If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.”
“16 Do you know how the clouds hang poised,
those wonders of him who has perfect knowledge?”
(Psalm 147:5, Psalm 139:4, Hebrews 4:13, 1 John 3:20, Job 37:16)


“He is the Rock, his works are perfect,
and all his ways are just.
A faithful God who does no wrong,
upright and just is he.”
“31 “As for God, his way is perfect:
The Lord’s word is flawless;
he shields all who take refuge in him.”
“48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
“For the Lord is good and his love endures forever;
his faithfulness continues through all generations.”
“17 The Lord is righteous in all his ways
and faithful in all he does.”
“16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. “
“5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.”
“8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
"8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."
(Deuteronomy 32:4, 2 Samuel 22:31, Matthew 5:48, Psalm 100:5, Psalm 145:17, 1 John 4:16, 1 John 1:5, Heb. 6:18, Romans 5:8, 1 John 4:8)

If you cannot provide a rational justification of objective morality, then the entire charge can be dismissed. Why should anyone care about your opinion of how God should act if there is no objective oughtness to it?

I am not saying how God should act sir. God could be malevolent or indifferent.
I am saying if god is portrait like like Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Nero, Genghis Khan, Darth Sidious, Friez why trust and worship, adore such a being?

This is why I brought up the case of abortions. Though the general case of abortions is morally wrong, there are exceptions. And in the case of eating meat, you even stated it's a necessary evil. So, the point is there can be higher principles that can override in a particular situation.

The idea of omnipotence carries the idea that everything God does must be "perfect". But I don't think that's possible in our reality. If a pregnant woman is in jeopardy of her life carrying the baby, there is no win-win solution. It's either the woman must die or the baby must die. Or even now in the case of the war between Israel and Hamas, there is no way for Israel to engage in war without affecting civilians. The skeptic then claims, "If God is omnipotent, he can do anything, so there must be a way to save the baby and the mother and also be able to help Israel kill Hamas without killing any innocent lives." The problem with these is it's imagining this ideal hypothetical scenario that is not realistic.

Again there is a difference between surviving(hunter gatherers 100 000 years ago) and stuffing yourself, being obese and factory farming(kill billions of non-human animals) in 2023.
It is wrong to kill countless fully formed fetuses(non-moral agents).

God does not need to survive and is not a very limited being like humans. The comparisons are ridiculous.
God is perfect, has perfect knowledge and practically omnipotent(logically), creates realities and universe/omniverses though words alone.

Also one does not need omnipotence to not punish the moral agents (adults) together with the non-moral agents(babies, non-human animals, the severely mentally impaired from birth) in the process of which the being its inflicting great suffering; punishing some for the misdeeds of others, asking for genocides, being homophobic.
The contradictions are still there sir.

It might be your logic, but there is no requirement everybody needs to abide by your logic. Why should a dictator abide by your Affective Empathy? And if one believes in natural selection, it's entirely consistent with natural selection to promote one's own reproduction and prevent another's.
You claiming it extends to the entire universe does not also justify it. Yes, intuitively, I agree the innocent should not be killed. But it is not logic that dictates this, but our moral sense.

Logic rest on the logical absolutes.
Comedy.
Punishing the innocent is illogical because punishing means "to cause someone who has done something wrong or committed a crime to suffer". And innocent means not guilty of a crime or offence.
You are both saying someone X "who has done something wrong or committed a crime " and the same X is "not guilty of a crime or offence".
Breaking the law of non-contradiction. The law of non-contradiction I would say applies to aliens on the other side of the galaxy.

Why should a dictator abide by your Affective Empathy? And if one believes in natural selection, it's entirely consistent with natural selection to promote one's own reproduction and prevent another's.

The morality derived from the Affective Empathy coincidently offers the same result as careful philosophical and logical analysis. Punishing the innocent(non-moral agents) and beings that do not have free will is illogical and wrong.
Because truth is important.
Psychopaths and morons can say all they want things that are illogical, wrong or moronic.
Reality is not on their side.
I could say the sun is green. Does not mean I am right.
Saying so does not make it so.
One needs to show the truth.

A subjective morality is a morality that would only apply to a certain group of people at a certain time. An objective morality would apply to all people for all time. Since God created all people and He is the source of morality, that morality would apply to all people for all time.

I said:
“One says: "X is wrong because I say so".
Another one says: "X is wrong no matter what anybody says about X".
Please answer:
Q: If I said "X is wrong" because I said so would it be subjective morality or objective morality?
Q: Is saying "X is wrong no matter what anybody says about X" subjective morality or objective morality?”

You said:
“The first is subjective, the second is objective.”
I said: “So according to your logic if a supposed god says X is wrong because the being says so that is subiective morality.”

You said that when a being says X is wrong because the being said so it is subjective morality.
But when it comes to being X being God is not subjective morality.
Comedy continues.

From Morality and Evolutionary Biology:
otseng wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 6:40 am
As for normative morality, evolutionary theory is lacking for an explanation:
Even philosophers sympathetic to ethical naturalism (the view that moral facts are themselves natural facts of some sort) have typically been wary of attempts to derive conclusions about morality in the normative sense from facts about evolutionary history. This is especially so when they are clear (unlike Spencer) about the principles governing Darwinian evolution through natural selection. From the fact that a certain trait is an adaptation, which evolved through natural selection by virtue of its positive feedback effects on germ-line replication of the alleles that generate the trait, nothing at all seems to follow about whether it is morally good or right, or something we ought to embrace and foster. Certain dispositions may be present in us for good evolutionary reasons without any implication that these traits benefit us, or are moral virtues or produce behaviors that are morally right.

It is hard to see how such evolutionary facts can possibly have normative authority or force for a rational agent.

This suggests that ethics, like mathematics, is an autonomous subject in the sense that it has its own “internal standards of justification and criticism”, such that its conclusions cannot be justified by other forms of inquiry such as evolutionary biology.

Normative ethical conclusions are justified through first-order ethical reflection and argument, just as mathematical propositions are justified through mathematical reasoning, rather than through learning more about our evolutionary past or about what is happening in our brains when we engage in these forms of reasoning.
From Evolutionary Ethics:
otseng wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 5:01 am
As the article admits, "evolutionary ethics still has a long way to go."
Evolutionary ethics is, on a philosopher’s time-scale, a very new approach to ethics. Though interdisciplinary approaches between scientists and philosophers have the potential to generate important new ideas, evolutionary ethics still has a long way to go.
From The Origins of Human Morality:
otseng wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 6:25 am
There have been two common responses - altruism and reciprocity:
There have traditionally been two answers to such questions. First, it makes sense for individuals to help their kin, with whom they share genes, a process known as inclusive fitness. Second, situations of reciprocity can arise in which I scratch your back and you scratch mine and we both benefit in the long run.
He admits neither of these explanations are tenable:
Moreover, neither of these traditional explanations gets at what is arguably the essence of human morality—the sense of obligation that human beings feel toward one another.

Can you summarize this in few sentences. Why do you think it debunks the idea that morality evolved.
Also provide the links for your outsourced text please.
That is the proper thing to do.
To eliminate any suspicions of possible quote mining events and misunderstandings cause dishonesty and stupidity is a thing.

[otseng]

Then the answer to "how" is simply a personal choice to trust the Bible and given your statement that the works which altogether make up the Bible contain errors, the better question to ask would be "why?" Why trust the Bible if it contains errors?

Why the Bible? As I mentioned:

The Bible is meant to learn about God, how to have a relationship with God, how to live, etc. It is the absolute standard for Christian doctrine and life. It is how we learn what God is like and how to love God. It is our comfort, hope and inspiration for life.

What is the justification to trust the Bible? That is the purpose of this massive thread. The summary is in the OP:

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics

[otseng]

You're suggesting that nothing Yahweh does is wrong. I'm referring you to the similarities between his behavior and that of other gods. If you call his behavior right and theirs wrong, there's a double standard.

Where have I mentioned anything about other gods? I don't even believe other gods exist, so I don't really care how they are portrayed to act.

Since you will not answer how you can justify your moral judgment to be objective and it is not just your subjective opinion, it means you have no answer for it. You have no justification for making any objective moral judgment. So your claim that the God of the Old Testament has behaved morally wrong is merely your opinion and can be dismissed.

[otseng]

You are the one not making any sense sir.

Then why did you fail to answer my question? - "Can you give any example of any non-moral agent being judged for a crime?"

Yahweh, the perfect being punished the Amalek, the moral agents together with the non-moral agents for attacking the Israelites.
Yahweh, the perfect being punished the whole humanity the moral agents together with the non-moral agents in the Noah story.
Yahweh, the perfect being punished the people of Samaria, the moral agents together with the non-moral agents.
And so on.

You have not justified making any objective moral judgment, so who cares really what your subjective moral opinion is about God?

Eating meat requires killing. And you even stated this is a "necessary evil".

There is a difference between surviving(hunter gatherers 100 000 years ago) and stuffing yourself, being obese and factory farming in 2023.

Obesity and factory farming are separate issues. Is it morally acceptable for a thin person to eat a chicken that is raised in a country farm?

Comedy.

Comments such as this would be uncivil.

"26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”"

Is it possible for God to make a square a circle?

“20 If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.”

I do not dispute God is omniscient.

“He is the Rock, his works are perfect,
and all his ways are just.
A faithful God who does no wrong,
upright and just is he.”

Is God not omnipotent since he cannot do any wrong?

“31 “As for God, his way is perfect:
The Lord’s word is flawless;
he shields all who take refuge in him.”
“48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
“For the Lord is good and his love endures forever;
his faithfulness continues through all generations.”

I do not dispute God is omniperfect.

“17 The Lord is righteous in all his ways
and faithful in all he does.”
“16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. “
“5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.”

Is God not omnipotent since there is no darkness in him?

“8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
"8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

I do not dispute God is omnibenevolent.

I am not saying how God should act sir. God could be malevolent or indifferent.
I am saying if god is portrait like like Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Nero, Genghis Khan, Darth Sidious, Friez why trust and worship, adore such a being?

You are implying how God should act by bringing up dictators and saying God should not act like them.

Now, if you don't like how God acts, then it is merely your opinion. There is no moral objectivity that God has done anything evil. It is on the level of how people don't like singing hymns in church or a church must have coffee bars.

It is wrong to kill countless fully formed fetuses(non-moral agents).

I agree.

God is perfect, has perfect knowledge and practically omnipotent(logically), creates realities and universe/omniverses though words alone.

I am more in alignment with this statement.

Also one does not need omnipotence to not punish the moral agents (adults) together with the non-moral agents(babies, non-human animals, the severely mentally impaired from birth) in the process of which the being its inflicting great suffering; punishing some for the misdeeds of others, asking for genocides, being homophobic.
The contradictions are still there sir.

Yes, the specific allegations are still there. As I mentioned, I'll be addressing those later.

Comedy.

Another uncivil comment.

Punishing the innocent is illogical because punishing means "to cause someone who has done something wrong or committed a crime to suffer". And innocent means not guilty of a crime or offence.
You are both saying someone X "who has done something wrong or committed a crime " and the same X is "not guilty of a crime or offence".
Breaking the law of non-contradiction. The law of non-contradiction I would say applies to aliens on the other side of the galaxy.

If aliens come to earth to kill all humans and take over our planet, would we appeal to your logic to stop them? Highly doubtful.

The root issue is why do we feel the innocent and weak should be protected and not be mistreated?

Yes, given that the innocent and weak should be protected, then it is not logical to punish the innocent.

The morality derived from the Affective Empathy coincidently offers the same result as careful philosophical and logical analysis.

I have cited and argued against the evolutionary arguments from respected secular sources - the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and Scientific American. And I've provided summaries of my arguments against each of these. No, your analysis doesn't even come close to the level of these sources.

But when it comes to being X being God is not subjective morality.

Right, it is the objective because God is eternal and the source of morality.

Comedy continues.

Another uncivil comment.

Can you summarize this in few sentences. Why do you think it debunks the idea that morality evolved.

Here's their synopsis which summarizes it all:

Evolutionary ethics is, on a philosopher’s time-scale, a very new approach to ethics. Though interdisciplinary approaches between scientists and philosophers have the potential to generate important new ideas, evolutionary ethics still has a long way to go.

https://iep.utm.edu/evol-eth/

Also provide the links for your outsourced text please.
That is the proper thing to do.

All sources have been linked to in the original posts.

To eliminate any suspicions of possible quote mining events and misunderstandings cause dishonesty and stupidity is a thing.

This also comes across as uncivil.