>>515166623
>first half
you’re still assuming that moral ontology must be grounded in human moral intuitions, which is precisely what classical theism denies. i’m not “borrowing your yardstick”, i'm claiming that God’s nature is the yardstick, and our moral intuitions are valid insofar as they reflect that nature.
saying “if God’s nature were cruelty, then cruelty would be good” misses the point.
in classical theism, God’s nature is necessarily good, and cruelty is excluded not by preference, but by metaphysical necessity.
you’re treating “good” like a floating adjective we can attach to any essence. i'm saying “good” is identical with the nature of a necessarily perfect being.
so no, this isn’t rebranding answer B. Answer B implies arbitrariness (God could command anything and it would be good.)
my position says God cannot command evil, not because of external rules, but because His nature is the unchanging standard. that’s not tautology, it’s ontological realism.
if you want to challenge that, you’ll need to show how moral realism can exist without metaphysical grounding.
otherwise, you’re just projecting your own framework onto mine and calling it incoherent when it doesn’t match your assumptions.
>second half
archaeology shows how people perceived YHWH, not who He is.
Christian theology claims God revealed Himself progressively, not that He was always understood rightly.
misunderstanding isn’t disproof.