(June 24, 2015 at 4:52 pm)SteveII Wrote: So, you have decided that God did not have morally sufficient reasons for his actions. Why wouldn't uncaused creator of the universe, who in his nature, defines good, has the benefit of seeing every possible action of every possible person from the beginning to the end of time, have sufficient cause to act as he sees fit. Oh, wait, he doesn't exists. You can't have it both ways, either he exists as I have described and therefore has sufficient reasons for his actions, or he does not and did not "murder". There is no argument against God here.
If I take a class on Shakespeare, am I not allowed to discuss and possibly disapprove of the actions of Claudius or Macbeth? Characters in books are fair game -- especially when a large number of people have trouble distinguishing characters in books from actually existing beings and act on that misunderstanding.
Think of it as an indictment of those who happily identify as the flock, who will excuse any atrocity as long as it was allegedly done by their favorite character in their favorite book.
