Having said that, I think there are some important flaws with Fedora's original post. I'm tempted to post my own response, but I'll have to see what time will allow. But here are two examples. First, Fedora has an objecton to the doctrine of atonement. However, I think Fedora fails to distinquish the difference between an ideal society and a real society. For instance, we wouldn't want someone to sacrifice himself in modern society because we would consider it unjust. However, when we read, say, the ending of A Tale of Two Cities, we have quite a different reaction. Finally, while God did offer up his son for the sins of mankind, Jesus was perfectly willing.

Second, Fedora's final conclusion is the following: The Judeo-Christian God cannot have revealed to Human beings a true, objective, perfect, set of ethical facts. Setting aside whether the argument is actually logically valid (I'm too lazy to figure that out right now), this conclusion simply does not follow. Just because certain biblical passages do not conform to our own intuitions on controversial issues does not necessarily mean that the Bible therefore presents an unethical God. Furthermore, it would be wrong, I think, to try to apply biblical ethical normative statements to God because the Bible never says that these statements apply to both God and man. For instance, I believe it was God who argued something like: the closer to reach perfection, the less duties apply to you.

Anyway, I'd have to write my own paper to fully articulate my objections.

Having said that, I think there are some important flaws with Fedora's original post. I'm tempted to post my own response, but I'll have to see what time will allow. But here are two examples. First, Fedora has an objecton to the doctrine of atonement. However, I think Fedora fails to distinquish the difference between an ideal society and a real society. For instance, we wouldn't want someone to sacrifice himself in modern society because we would consider it unjust. However, when we read, say, the ending of A Tale of Two Cities, we have quite a different reaction. Finally, while God did offer up his son for the sins of mankind, Jesus was perfectly willing.

Second, Fedora's final conclusion is the following: The Judeo-Christian God cannot have revealed to Human beings a true, objective, perfect, set of ethical facts. Setting aside whether the argument is actually logically valid (I'm too lazy to figure that out right now), this conclusion simply does not follow. Just because certain biblical passages do not conform to our own intuitions on controversial issues does not necessarily mean that the Bible therefore presents an unethical God. Furthermore, it would be wrong, I think, to try to apply biblical ethical normative statements to God because the Bible never says that these statements apply to both God and man. For instance, I believe it was God who argued something like: the closer to reach perfection, the less duties apply to you.

Anyway, I'd have to write my own paper to fully articulate my objections.