(June 19, 2023 at 12:29 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: -and I think this has gone so long I'm just going to have to try to give you an assist. There's a disturbingly easy response to moral objections to theism. When some supposedly good god is said to have done or commanded horrid shit...that's not god saying that - that's his ghostwriters. Maybe that's why god always looks like the ideal tribal chieftan of whatever fucking hellhole he comes from?
God's up there watching this....The Real One™.....and is not amused. Now, I get that you have some latent compulsions to inerrantism bouncing around in your head, but consider this. Just as above, if you insist for reasons of inerrantism that god DID TOO! order the code red....then you are not refuting the moral objection - you're confirming it's fundamental validity.
which is Why I am separating God from man's objective moral standard.
Making God's will the source of his righteousness and not some arbitrary/objective standard making God answerable to man.
That way God can in fact the Order 'Santiago's Code Red' and retain 100% perfect righteousness. Even if it violates man's objective standards.
like I said, 'not even on the visible spectrum.'
