Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[The Grand Nudger]

Omnipotence does not mean can do anything. It means can do anything logically possible to do. 

Is it logically possible, in your opinion, for god to do evil?  How then, did god manage to do evil?  It seems as though you are not content to adhere to this fun little qualifier.  It seems silly, to me, to take this seriously when you are demonstrably speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

1. You would have to show that a world is actually possible (not just logically possible) where everyone has free will yet never chooses wrong. It is no longer a matter of logically possible, because you have now made it contingent upon a variable that God, by definition, does not control.

Why would anyone have to show that?  I, lowly human worm that I am, have created a ruleset that my own children are capable of following.  To do otherwise is to ensure their failure by my decree... and then blame -them- for it.  

2. The "ruleset" is not arbitrary or could have been some other way. It is based in the nature of God (which has always been the same). Part of that nature is also holiness and justice kicks in when confronted with a moral failure. These attributes must be satisfied in order for the relationship to be repaired.

What is holy in silence in the face of inequity?  Where is the justice in not providing help insomuch as you can?  Are the police supposed  to watch as crimes are committed before their very eyes..."because justice"?  You bullshit us alot about moral failure, but strangely refuse to acknowledge the moral failures of your own god.  Yes, these attributes -must- be satisfied for the relationship to be repaired...but the onus is not -and cannot be- entirely upon man to do so.  Your god needs to get his shit together. That's how relationships work.  

 
3. Failure to repair that relationship mean separation from God. The whole plan of redemption is all about rehabilitation and reconciliation. 

Then god should stop being a petulant child, blaming everyone else for all of his own failures...seen timelessly, even by himself, from before the very first moment of time.  

4. God provided a FREE method of repair, but cannot force us to take it (free will and all).

This supposedly free method of repair does nothing to atone for gods own sins, gods own failure to live up to those standards by wich human beings will, supposedly, be judged. This, I think, is possibly the most pointless aspect of it all...since vicarious redemption of a sinner does nothing to make whomever he has wronged whole in the first place, nor is there any cogent moral explanation as to how it could do so even for the sinner themselves. It is evil, piled atop a mountain of evil, demanding that the pot apologize to the potter both for having been so poorly made, and for having such a capricious master in the first place.

There is no holiness in this. There is no justice. There is no mercy. There is no atonement, no redemption. There is no morality to be found, in any of it.

It's a sales pitch. Act now, while supplies last, offer not valid in all states, subject to restrictions. What the fuck? At what point did it seem like a good idea to you to peddle this shit in response to comments on objective morality and gods status as a moral agent?