Religious Moral Inconsistency

Religion provides laws that people are expected to abide by, but there is hypocrisy. For example, such as when an individual believes God has commanded them to do something contrary to the norm. Now, what should be done, when someone does something socially unacceptable in the name of a deity that lands that person in trouble with their religious leader? You see, the monotheistic types love Abraham, the biblical character who prepared to murder his son Isaac, because he heard God command him. So, realistically, does this mean that any Joe Bloggs or Jane Doe who blames a divine command for their bad behaviour, should, avoid judgement? In all fairness they can appeal to similar scenarios with biblical characters in the divine scriptures, which mustn't be questioned—it is a bit of a paradox.

From a secular viewpoint, imagine if a person called Bob commits murder, let's just say, he kills a few politicians, corrupt ones, who (for want of a better argument) might have started world war III, had it not been for God commanding Bob to save the world. A biblical culling of skynet so to speak. How can the world truly ever know? The only measured practice we might fiegn around for such things is psychiatric assessment, evidence gathering. Any litigation charged with validating or falsify claims of a divine interaction would that of cheap afternoon movies. These things really are down to opinion, because, when fellow believers doubt Bob's experience, they also doubt key biblical characters, including the phenomena of divine command. If then, let's say, a religious person forgives Jane Doe, on the virtue of God speaking to her, for example; are they also expected to forgive the historical genocide God commanded his nations?

We would never expect any religion to provide empirical evidence, especially to prove how their respective God is responsible for anything. The Pope cannot ascribe responsibility to God for anything outside of his faiths dogma, such as someones car insurance quagmire, crypto currency or the Higgs field. So, divine command has limitations, compartments, denomenation and no one has a need to test the 'commanded' populace for signs of God or command.

There is real potential for inconsistency here in religious moral reasoning. The Quran teaches the sanctity of life. You may have heard an Islamic saying something similar to this: ‘to kill one person is to kill all humans’ meaning suicide is a denial of this teaching, and pretty frowned upon. Allah might hold authority on such things in holy text, but some modern Muslims contradict those scriptural teachings whenever they opt for becoming a suicide bomber or cut off a cartoonists head. However, motives and virtues are often applied postmortem to those who do kill themselves; words like martyr or self-sacrifice, music genius and freedom fighter might not necessarily portray the suicides view of themselves, or even, correctly support the objective history of events. Perhaps some musical geniuses end their lives with narcotic concoction and alcohol, because they genuinely feel utterly miserable? Catholicism condemns suicide while worshipping a man who committed suicide-by-law in a Roman province under Gods command. Things like this do raise questions about consistency, not to forget, divine commands test the faithful because all this God and afterlife stuff needs interpretation; if worshippers fail to believe in divine commands what is the point of them or the belief system?

Essentially, what can be done here to rectify things? Inspect every future ominous individual case who hears God's voice just in case? Or perhaps, simply clear out all the old irrational and hypocritical dogma that makes no sense?