Christians, Prove Your God Is Good

[The Reality Salesman01]

It's interesting that the original sin was to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Supposedly we have the knowledge of good and evil, but we can't define those terms. That makes me suspicious that we have been framed for a crime we didn't commit.

If they didn't know right from wrong, what would compel them to comply with God's instruction to not eat the apple? Before my son was toilet trained, would it have been reasonable to expect him to comply with an instruction to not shit in his pants? And when he inevitably shit his pants, using the rationale of the bible, I should feel justifiably disappointed, and then as a punishment, I should make him self conscious of the importance of shitting in private for the rest of his days and then sentence him to a lifetime of wearing underpants as a reminder of his first mistake! This doesn't make sense. He was gonna wear underpants anyway, and there's a good chance that he'd eventually learn to shit in private too, barring any other detrimental negative impact my irrational reactions may have had on his psychological development. This story doesn't even serve any purpose as a metaphor. It's 100% absurd.

---

Is it being argued that people commit genocide, or is the point of discussion whether or not genocide is moral?

As far as I've been able to determine, Drich's position seems to be little more than "genocide has happened, therefore you can't say genocide is immoral while living in a society where it happened, therefore god is justified in committing genocide."

It's basically one huge tu coque wrapped in an equivocation.

That's what I was trying to figure out. I thought Drich was supposed to be justifying God as the highest form of morality rather than using less credible human examples to justify God's behavior. I'm confused.

---

Yeah, he's demonstrated a distressing lack of ability to distinguish between what is currently the situation and the siutation to which we should be striving as well. Like when his defense of slavery is saying that slavery still happens today.

Im not sure I've ever seen an Ought/Is distinction made quite in this way. I'm familiar with the distinction being used in support of Moral Relativism. As in-what we ought to do is relative to what a society deems as acceptable. I don't necessariliy agree with it, but I'm familiar. So far, it sounds to me like he's saying that if humans do it, and God did it, then we ought to keep doing it since God alone is the highest example of morality? I think there's some work left to be done on this moral theory.