Here my premise is that everything under discussion between them is untested and mere assumption. Rules, faults, weaknesses, punishment due, fallibility, responsibility, a source of rules, relative power, and profanity are all assumptions that are only potentially true, and therefore potentially false. Unless these things can be tested and ascertained to be factually correct, quantified and qualified as to relevance and import, then my premise is but that they aren't more than hypotheses. So, the one being questioned could put forth any hypothetical source, alteration of the rules, or exemption for himself from punishment (as many sectarians have).

Insofar as I understand the origins of the Abrahamic faiths, Christianity arose from Christ's reinterpretation of the Mosaic laws, and Islam from Mohammed's. Is there any test, any way to falsify any of the tenets of these faiths, to establish that one of them is wrong and the others potentially true? Then there's innumerable other traditions, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Shinto, Buddhism, the uncountable and ineffable Native American beliefs, those of the ancients that painted beautifully on the caverns of continental Europe, carved images on rocks in N. Africa, and the myriad religions across Subsaharan African, Asia, and across the seven seas.

Some of these make claims, that if taken at face value, can be used to falsify those claims, such as your proscription against taking the six days of creation literally. And that's a rub, because all of these other faiths can do the same thing, pointing out that their mythos is allegorical or metaphorical for the human journey, or a simplification of Raven's actual labors creating the world analogized by dropping an acorn into the sea. It is difficult enough to explain things that are falsifiable, that are testable. When removed to a distance from reality as metaphor or allegory, inquantifiable spirits and claims of the nature of God have no way to be disproved. It's not possible to demonstrate the maker of rules is sacred or profane through language because sacred and profane are not able to be qualified or quantified, cannot be falsified or tested to establish which is what, or how they got that way.

I'd say it's like arguing over the weight of air in a bucket, except I can devise ways to ascertain the weight of air in a bucket. That's something in my wheelhouse, something I am qualified to judge. Ineffable spiritual beliefs is not.