Why did God do Satan’s bidding?

[Angrboda]

It is in this context that such an appeal to hypocrisy would at least be plausible. It ignores the possibility that neither John nor Rhythm have the right of it, and that there may be another view which is correct.

I've previously noted that views on rights boil down to opinion. There is no "correct" view.

An opinion. What is your understanding of what an opinion is? My understanding is that an opinion is a proposition, asserted true, on the basis of facts and expertise acquired through experience and study. Opinions depend on the ability of the person making them for their weight. Who has appropriate ability to venture an opinion on the morals and rights of God, good or ill? You realize this leads directly to moral relativism, in which you believe that God is good and has these rights, not because of some objective fact, but because you say so. Are you now conceding that God is not objectively good, and has neither this nor any other right, but like all subjective truths, depends on the assent of others to make it so?

I agree that John's appeal to hypocrisy is fallacious,

Er, when a person makes a claim that they apply a principle consistently, how would you go about refuting it? Isn't pointing out inconsistency the most logical approach?

Please cite this claim of Rhythm's (or restate or paraphrase it, with appropriate links), so that I may examine it. Please also explain how you feel his inconsistency in the matter in any way relates to whether your argument for why God has certain rights is valid or not. (Which, correct me if I'm wrong, was that he possesses the "moral authority." Ignoring that this too leads to a circular argument, it seems you've simply substituted one undefined term for another. I would ask the same questions about 'moral authority' that I asked about rights. What is moral authority, how does one get it, and how does one know that someone has it? [And yes, Euthyphro is leering menacingly from the wings])

but perhaps it's fallacious on other grounds than simply misunderstanding the fallacy, or not grasping that the absence of a positive account of God's rights is not ameliorated by anything other than a successful positive account of those rights.

Who determines whether the positive account is successful, and on what basis must the judge? Again, this is opinion, and none of us can prove our case. Rhythm agreed that it's opinion, and claimed that he applies his opinions on rights consistently.

I think the problem, John, is that you need something a little stronger than 'opinion' to justify a being torturing people in burning fire for all eternity. If all you have is your opinion that God is good and has these rights, I'd ask a few questions. What matters of fact is this opinion based on? What expertise? There's a difference between the opinion of a trained professional as to the cause of my car's malfunction, and that of my Uncle. You seem to be equating the two. This seems self-serving, as expertise in theological matters doesn't grant one any utilitarian benefits in terms of diagnosing any tangible malfunction, and is primarily an exercise in memorizing the details of fairy tales, attempting to divine the truth in their tea leaves (like Drich does), and schooling oneself in a set of arguments that is not only not accepted anywhere outside of theology, but have been almost to a man refuted time and time again. Is that the source of your 'expertise', John, your knowledge of fairy tales and sophistic philosophical arguments?

For my part, I am a philosopher with no credentials or expertise. My opinion means nothing.