Islam, is it a religion of peace or war?

[superdave1984]

How can you think murder is a bigger, more serious sin when god says it isn't, unless you are saying that you don't believe god..?

I can't speak for Behr, but my guess is because Behr is human and God isn't. And our ways are not God's ways nor are our thoughts God's thoughts.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I can't speak for Behr, but my guess is because Behr is human and God isn't. And our ways are not God's ways nor are our thoughts God's thoughts.

And man's ways are generally humanistsic, seeing "good" and "evil" as sins against each other--thus the concept of "victimless" crimes. God defines morality based on relationships with one another as well as Him, and He sees Himself as the main thing. So, there are no victimless sins. Every sin is a sin against Him. Every sin is rebellion against Him and His design. The natural working of every sin is death. Every sin is a breaking of relationship with God--the source of life and all that is good.

Consider it this way...Merely agreeing that God is a liar and eating the forbidden fruit fell creation from an idyllic paradise where everyone would live forever in perfect harmony with one another and God, to one of curse, sweat, toil, childbirth, murder and rape.

So, in that case, everyone must ask, which is the worst sin? Eating fruit or murder?

Neither. Both are rebellion against God and a further war on His good plan for us.

 

[Behr]

And man's ways are generally humanistsic, seeing "good" and "evil" as sins against each other--thus the concept of "victimless" crimes. God defines morality based on relationships with one another as well as Him, and He sees Himself as the main thing. So, there are no victimless sins. Every sin is a sin against Him. Every sin is rebellion against Him and His design. The natural working of every sin is death. Every sin is a breaking of relationship with God--the source of life and all that is good.

Consider it this way...Merely agreeing that God is a liar and eating the forbidden fruit fell creation from an idyllic paradise where everyone would live forever in perfect harmony with one another and God, to one of curse, sweat, toil, childbirth, murder and rape.

So, in that case, everyone must ask, which is the worst sin? Eating fruit or murder?

Neither. Both are rebellion against God and a further war on His good plan for us.

Yea, that's what I meant. Haha.

Very well said IMO.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yea, that's what I meant. Haha.

Very well said IMO.

I'm sorry. I was agreeing with detail, not correcting or claiming your answer insufficient.

 

[Behr]

I'm sorry. I was agreeing with detail, not correcting or claiming your answer insufficient.

No dude, that was a joke. I do that sometimes when someone says what I was trying to say much better. Just my way of saying "I wish I'd said that".

 

[McDad]

No dude, that was a joke. I do that sometimes when someone says what I was trying to say much better. Just my way of saying "I wish I'd said that".

You're posting too much over here. Go back to the FF.

 

[Orange_Crush]

@Wafflestomper

I wanted to apologize to you for how I've treated you in discussion. It's been a root of ego and defensiveness and it's not becoming to have degraded you in the way I have--especially while discussing God's morality, ethics, character and plan for us (me). I genuinely and humbly ask your forgiveness and promise that, though I will fail due to character and nature, I will try harder in the future.

You too, @rjd970.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Flogged for holding hands.....and cuddling.

By 'Society'.

Luther approves.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Perhaps I missed it what is the source of Christian morality?

 

[rjd970]

@Wafflestomper

I wanted to apologize to you for how I've treated you in discussion. It's been a root of ego and defensiveness and it's not becoming to have degraded you in the way I have--especially while discussing God's morality, ethics, character and plan for us (me). I genuinely and humbly ask your forgiveness and promise that, though I will fail due to character and nature, I will try harder in the future.

You too, @rjd970.

No need to apologize to me and I have zero issue with you or Roust. I enjoy the banter and lively discussion, and find it worthwhile. If I didn't I wouldn't participate. It's a good way to clarify positions and change them if necessary.

 

[Orange_Crush]

No need to apologize to me and I have zero issue with you or Roust. I enjoy the banter and lively discussion, and find it worthwhile. If I didn't I wouldn't participate. It's a good way to clarify positions and change them if necessary.

Same here. As a matter of fact, both you and waffle have forced me to think deeper about things and especially how to better clarify points. Thank you for that.

I just get a bit passionate at times, and thus careless with my treatment of others. I also have a way of using sarcasm to make points--most especially logical conclusion points. Know this. My greatest desire is that you come to (what I profess to be) the truth because I believe it is the greatest source of protection, blessing, benefit and fulfillment for your life. When ego gets in the way of that and my motive is expressed more as being right than you finding the truth, I am worse than if I'd been quiet on matters.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I'll also add this to explain my comment earlier about atheistic philosophies claiming to offer an apparent system of ethics but not a moral system, since waffle asked earlier why absolute/relative is important when discussing morality.

Morality is concerned with establishing and basing right and wrong, good and evil. Ethical systems are concerned with the application of a moral system--how should we live according to that morality?

As far back as Plato, philosophers have recognized that you need an absolute to establish morality, for you can't establish relative morality. (That's why, if you notice, Waffle didn't present an atheistic morality for discussion when asked. He offered one of two lines of ethical thought [deontological--duty-bound/rules based--as opposed to teleological--means to end, outcome-based]).

If morality is the definition and establishment of what is right/wrong, good/evil, and the basis for claimed morality is personal opinion, there is no way to judge between moral claims. There is nothing to distinguish between two people that say Naziism is just/unjust. There is nothing to distinguish between the claims that one should torture babies for fun, and one shouldn't. In relative morality, only opinion is established, so neither good nor evil is established. It literally isn't a morality since it can't and doesn't establish right and wrong.

Again, this was recognized as far back as Plato.

So, Waffle offered up a Christian-based deontological ethical system to represent all naturalistic, relativity-based ethical systems that Kant inspired. The problem is that naturalistic, humanistic ethics are relative, for they haven't figured out where to get absolute moral standards. They may phrase the ethics as though they are absolute, but they are smuggling concepts in from outside their worldview to do so.

Their ethics are duty-bound, but they have no absolute to establish that duty. Why are we duty bound to xxx? yyy? zzz? To preserve society? From where did you smuggle in that that is "good"? That I'm duty bound to your definition of that ideal? They are ethical duties and rules with no established morality behind them. There is no true right/wrong to appeal to. There isn't an actual right/wrong. It's just a baseless ethical system masquerading as an ethical system. It's a list of rules for society with no GPS coordinates to position them.

Most often, they are stolen Christian ideals that most everyone agrees with, smuggled in as a priori statements because most everyone agrees with them.

Teleological ethics suffer the same weaknesses, but usually in a much more blatant and recognizable format. They are end-means ethics. Do what brings the most efficiency or benefit to _____ fill in the blank. But they too are missing the truly moral foundation that every ethic needs. There is just relative claims. So, where do you get what is the best outcome? Who defines the ideals that define what direction and outcome the efficiencies move us toward? They establish what is "good" and "right" with nothing having established that it's good and right.

The easiest way to recognize this is in the simple statement of hedonistic ethics. "Do what brings you the greatest pleasure, yet hurt no one."

Wait. Why is it wrong to hurt others? Why not do what brings me the greatest pleasure at no expense to me, uncaring of the expense to others? If I wanted to kill someone so I could have sex with their corpse, what underlying morality makes that wrong?

Crickets...

Except that we're all programmed to a general conscious of right and wrong, and we're all programmed to think of that as objective. So, we're programmed to accept those things a priori without recognizing that they were smuggled in from other worldviews, like Christian ideals.

That's why one rarely needs the specifics of a naturalistic ethical system to judge it. By definition, it will not rest on a truly founded morality. It will be implementing a relative morality, thus no morality, only one opinion above others. That is by definition since there is nothing in the closed system universe and natural laws to establish absolute "ought". So, at most, it becomes an activity of trying to spot what they've smuggled in, and from where.

Sorry for the long post.

 

[Roustabout]

Perhaps I missed it what is the source of Christian morality?

The source would be God’s being.
Many Christians make the error of saying the Bible is the source. It isn’t. The Bible is revelation not the source. That is to say, moral reality existed prior to mankind or any written document.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Sorry again... But after the last post, I need to add that when comparing worldviews, some are prone to confuse the statement of an ideal with the source of ideals. Some have tried to claim that appealing to God is the same as appealing to the opinion that an ideal is ideal. One is what is being judged, the other is the standard by which it's judged. This error had been used to equivocate between Christian moral foundations and atheistic/relative moral standards since they claim that their opinion on the ideal is the same as my opinion God. It's not. One has intellectual baggage that the other doesn't.

Others have used denial of the source of the ideals (God)--or a lack of caring about the ideal--to equivocate the fact that the source is not able to make normative/prescriptive statements. That is not true.

As example of both:

You won't call each other names or flame one another... is an ideal.
Freak is the one who established that ideal.
An appeal to either is not the same as an appeal to the other.
As the owner of Volnation, he has the sovereignty and right to make the ideal normative, whether you know who he is or care whether he can.
Your agreement to the ideal, his existence or his sovereignty has no bearing on whether you get banned or not at his digression, based on his normalized prescription.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

The source would be God’s being.
Many Christians make the error of saying the Bible is the source. It isn’t. The Bible is revelation not the source. That is to say, moral reality existed prior to mankind or any written document.

Can we keep this conversation at a purely informational level? I am not seeking a "gotcha" moment, but simply a better understanding of your beliefs.

You and I are very much in agreement that a moral code existed before the Bible.

Can we call it a moral code? Is it objective?

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Terrorist Kills Israeli Father of 12 And Teenage Israeli Soldier. Palestinians Celebrate Him As 'Pure.'

In yet another of the countless examples of why Israel has no “partner for peace” when it comes to Israeli-Palestinian Arab negotiations, a 19-year-old Palestinian terrorist stabbed a 19-year-old Israeli soldier to death Sunday, stole his gun, shot a father of 12 children to death, and was eventually killed by Israeli Defense forces in a firefight. Fatah, which has close ties with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, lauded the terrorist as a martyr and “pure.” On March 10, Abbas, who has been a member of Fatah, appointed Mohammad Shtayyeh, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, as prime minister.

Omar Abu Leila started his bloody, murderous day on Sunday by stabbing Staff Sgt. Gal Keidan, 19, to death at the Ariel Junction; Keidan hailed from the town of Beersheba. After murdering Keidan, the terrorist stole his rifle. The BBC reportedthat according to Israeli military spokesman Lt. Col Jonathan Conricus, the terrorist fired at three vehicles, one of which was driven by Rabbi Ahiad Ettinger, 47, a father of 12 children and the head of the Oz and Emunah yeshiva in the Neve Sha'anan neighborhood of southern Tel Aviv. Ynet reported that Ettinger's family said he prevented further atrocities by the terrorist by opening fire at him before he was shot to death.

So how did Fatah describe the terrorist on its Facebook page? A Google translate version goes like this: “The people of the martyr Umar Abu Leila and the Fatah movement accept the condolences in the town of Zawia in Burhan Al Salakhi Hall starting from this day at 10 am for three days. May Allah have mercy on the heroic martyr, knowing that his pure body remains in the grip of the criminal occupation army."

Terrorist Kills Israeli Father of 12 And Teenage Israeli Soldier. Palestinians Celebrate Him As 'Pure.'

 

[Orange_Crush]

Can we keep this conversation at a purely informational level? I am not seeking a "gotcha" moment, but simply a better understanding of your beliefs.

You and I are very much in agreement that a moral code existed before the Bible.

Can we call it a moral code? Is it objective?

Not to split hairs, but isn't there a difference between a moral code and its source/standard? If I am reading this right, the code would be the ideals and the source/standard would be the foundation of the ideals. IOW, the Bible could be considered a moral code. In Christian theology, the image of God and human conscience could be considered a moral code. Technically, before humans existed, God's Word that created reality would be a moral code since it defined how things "ought" to be.

But God would be the source of that moral code. His nature and purpose for reality would be the standard for that moral code. But neither would be the moral code.

Since God's code is based in His nature and He couldn't not be as He is, then it is objective, as opposed to subjective or arbitrary. Further, if God has perfect knowledge of all things, one has to consider whether it's even possible for Him to hold an "opinion" as we contemplate the idea. So, from the perspective of morals baked into creation as purpose and design, His character and nature etc, would you consider it even possible to say that God's moral statements are "just His opinion"?

No gotcha. Serious questions. All within the context of, "If God exists as the Necessary Being that Christian theology and philosophy proposes"...?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Terrorist Kills Israeli Father of 12 And Teenage Israeli Soldier. Palestinians Celebrate Him As 'Pure.'

In yet another of the countless examples of why Israel has no “partner for peace” when it comes to Israeli-Palestinian Arab negotiations, a 19-year-old Palestinian terrorist stabbed a 19-year-old Israeli soldier to death Sunday, stole his gun, shot a father of 12 children to death, and was eventually killed by Israeli Defense forces in a firefight. Fatah, which has close ties with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, lauded the terrorist as a martyr and “pure.” On March 10, Abbas, who has been a member of Fatah, appointed Mohammad Shtayyeh, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, as prime minister.

Omar Abu Leila started his bloody, murderous day on Sunday by stabbing Staff Sgt. Gal Keidan, 19, to death at the Ariel Junction; Keidan hailed from the town of Beersheba. After murdering Keidan, the terrorist stole his rifle. The BBC reportedthat according to Israeli military spokesman Lt. Col Jonathan Conricus, the terrorist fired at three vehicles, one of which was driven by Rabbi Ahiad Ettinger, 47, a father of 12 children and the head of the Oz and Emunah yeshiva in the Neve Sha'anan neighborhood of southern Tel Aviv. Ynet reported that Ettinger's family said he prevented further atrocities by the terrorist by opening fire at him before he was shot to death.

So how did Fatah describe the terrorist on its Facebook page? A Google translate version goes like this: “The people of the martyr Umar Abu Leila and the Fatah movement accept the condolences in the town of Zawia in Burhan Al Salakhi Hall starting from this day at 10 am for three days. May Allah have mercy on the heroic martyr, knowing that his pure body remains in the grip of the criminal occupation army."

Terrorist Kills Israeli Father of 12 And Teenage Israeli Soldier. Palestinians Celebrate Him As 'Pure.'

Meanwhile the celebration in Washington DC began in earnest.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Not to split hairs, but isn't there a difference between a moral code and its source/standard? If I am reading this right, the code would be the ideals and the source/standard would be the foundation of the ideals. IOW, the Bible could be considered a moral code. In Christian theology, the image of God and human conscience could be considered a moral code. Technically, before humans existed, God's Word that created reality would be a moral code since it defined how things "ought" to be.

But God would be the source of that moral code. His nature and purpose for reality would be the standard for that moral code. But neither would be the moral code.

Since God's code is based in His nature and He couldn't not be as He is, then it is objective, as opposed to subjective or arbitrary. Further, if God has perfect knowledge of all things, one has to consider whether it's even possible for Him to hold an "opinion" as we contemplate the idea. So, from the perspective of morals baked into creation as purpose and design, His character and nature etc, would you consider it even possible to say that God's moral statements are "just His opinion"?

No gotcha. Serious questions. All within the context of, "If God exists as the Necessary Being that Christian theology and philosophy proposes"...?

I am talking about the source of the moral code. Just looking for some shorthand ways to discuss.

I think I understand your position as far as the objectiveness goes.

Personally, I find the objective v. subjective line to be blurry. You like to question people for "smuggling the christian morality" into the discussion and you have God as the source. I am more of the opinion that humanity's moral code is something akin to instinct developed over time. Cavemen figured out that while killing their neighbor might be good in the short run that it could have negative consequences in the long run. The moral code seems to have many sources, by way of example it actually seems to be baked into our DNA and is taught to us by our parents, teachers and other authority figures. I don't dispute that much of those teachings, at least in predominantly Christian nations are morals espoused in the Bible. However, while you believe that God laid down the morals in the Bible, I believe that it was human experience.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I am talking about the source of the moral code. Just looking for some shorthand ways to discuss.

I think I understand your position as far as the objectiveness goes.

Personally, I find the objective v. subjective line to be blurry. You like to question people for "smuggling the christian morality" into the discussion and you have God as the source. I am more of the opinion that humanity's moral code is something akin to instinct developed over time. Cavemen figured out that while killing their neighbor might be good in the short run that it could have negative consequences in the long run. The moral code seems to have many sources, by way of example it actually seems to be baked into our DNA and is taught to us by our parents, teachers and other authority figures. I don't dispute that much of those teachings, at least in predominantly Christian nations are morals espoused in the Bible. However, while you believe that God laid down the morals in the Bible, I believe that it was human experience.

I understand. In my view, the rational weakness there is as I've already posted. It's not a morality since it doesn't define right/wrong, good/evil. And once you get to the instinctual level, you're talking about evolutionary programming, which does away with any concept of good/evil whatsoever, as any action whatsoever by humans can be interpreted as handed to us by evolutionary process, therefore beneficial to us being here. Infanticide, wife-murder, rape, slavery as much as or more than group cooperation, etc.

We have direct biological programming by evolutionary process as well as intellectual/rational biological programming. Both would be nothing more than what evolution gave us. I don't see any rescue out of that for the naturalist. You;'re saying that morality == intellect and instinct, both of which are mere products of the survival of the fittest. Which means that everything we do is given us by the survival of the fittest. So everything can be rationalized that it must have been beneficial. Thus everything is "moral".

You're back to a literal lack of anything resembling true morality--i.e. the definition and distinction between right/wrong. So, again, you're cherry picking Christian morality and rationalizing it after the fact to describe that nature gave it to us. You're smuggling as far as I can tell.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

I understand. In my view, the rational weakness there is as I've already posted. It's not a morality since it doesn't define right/wrong, good/evil. And once you get to the instinctual level, you're talking about evolutionary programming, which does away with any concept of good/evil whatsoever, as any action whatsoever by humans can be interpreted as handed to us by evolutionary process, therefore beneficial to us being here. Infanticide, wife-murder, rape, slavery as much as or more than group cooperation, etc.

We have direct biological programming by evolutionary process as well as intellectual/rational biological programming. Both would be nothing more than what evolution gave us. I don't see any rescue out of that for the naturalist. You;'re saying that morality == intellect and instinct, both of which are mere products of the survival of the fittest. Which means that everything we do is given us by the survival of the fittest. So everything can be rationalized that it must have been beneficial. Thus everything is "moral".

You're back to a literal lack of anything resembling true morality--i.e. the definition and distinction between right/wrong. So, again, you're cherry picking Christian morality and rationalizing it after the fact to describe that nature gave it to us. You're smuggling as far as I can tell.

I don't see a difference in what you are doing in attributing the source to god.

I would not say that my argument rests on survival of the fittest. If anything, I would say that humans do and have for a very long time gone against survival of the fittest because we have the ability to rationalize. Good vs. Evil are human creations to deter undesirable behavior.

I believe the Bible (and other religious texts) have had a tremendous influence on morality, good vs. evil etc, but I simply disagree with the source.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I don't see a difference in what you are doing in attributing the source to god.

I would not say that my argument rests on survival of the fittest. If anything, I would say that humans do and have for a very long time gone against survival of the fittest because we have the ability to rationalize. Good vs. Evil are human creations to deter undesirable behavior.

I believe the Bible (and other religious texts) have had a tremendous influence on morality, good vs. evil etc, but I simply disagree with the source.

How do you not see the difference? Christianity says there's an actual source to an actual ideal and that humans have a non-material soul that is above and beyond the cause/effect mechanism of a closed system. Christianity believes that humanity transcends the closed system and can affect the closed system. I'm not sure how you can say that humanity have "gone against survival of the fittest:" for a long time. That would mean that humanity, as mere matter within the closed system, has transcended the closed system. That would mean that humanity intellect has transcended that which developed it--that we've transcended to develop intellect and processes that weren't produced by those selection mechanisms.

Are you a materialist? Atheist? Naturalist? Do you believe as Sagan assured that only the natural universe exists, that's all that's ever existed, and all that will ever exist? If so, I think you're locked into humanity as just another animal that is the result of the natural processes that developed us with no way to transcend those natural processes. Thus, our intellect is merely the product of natural selection and it will "intellect" according to what was selected upon and passed on to the next generation--not according to what is the most logical thought process, or closely aligned to reality, or moral, or beneficial to society. Just what allows the most personal genetic material to be passed along at the expense in competition with our rivals.

So, whatever we do and however we think, that mode of thinking and acting came to us by natural selection--whether rape, slavery or town building. So all are equally "moral" from an evolutionary perspective.

That is, unless you have some mechanism by which human thought has transcended the natural processes that produced it.

Also, did you see my post per the logical necessity of an absolute to have morality? i.e. that you can't have an actual morality without an external, absolute standard by which to genuinely establish right/wrong? If a morality can't establish right/wrong, it's not a morality. So, evolutionary morality would be just one of many naturalistic morality attempts that isn't morality and evolutionary ethics are just an ethical system with no morality to apply.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

How do you not see the difference? Christianity says there's an actual source to an actual ideal and that humans have a non-material soul that is above and beyond the cause/effect mechanism of a closed system. Christianity believes that humanity transcends the closed system and can affect the closed system. I'm not sure how you can say that humanity have "gone against survival of the fittest:" for a long time. That would mean that humanity, as mere matter within the closed system, has transcended the closed system. That would mean that humanity intellect has transcended that which developed it--that we've transcended to develop intellect and processes that weren't produced by those selection mechanisms.

Are you a materialist? Atheist? Naturalist? Do you believe as Sagan assured that only the natural universe exists, that's all that's ever existed, and all that will ever exist? If so, I think you're locked into humanity as just another animal that is the result of the natural processes that developed us with no way to transcend those natural processes. Thus, our intellect is merely the product of natural selection and it will "intellect" according to what was selected upon and passed on to the next generation--not according to what is the most logical thought process, or closely aligned to reality, or moral, or beneficial to society. Just what allows the most personal genetic material to be passed along at the expense in competition with our rivals.

So, whatever we do and however we think, that mode of thinking and acting came to us by natural selection--whether rape, slavery or town building. So all are equally "moral" from an evolutionary perspective.

That is, unless you have some mechanism by which human thought has transcended the natural processes that produced it.

Also, did you see my post per the logical necessity of an absolute to have morality? i.e. that you can't have an actual morality without an external, absolute standard by which to genuinely establish right/wrong? If a morality can't establish right/wrong, it's not a morality. So, evolutionary morality would be just one of many naturalistic morality attempts that isn't morality and evolutionary ethics are just an ethical system with no morality to apply.

Let's start off with what I am. I am not into labels, but as far as religion goes, I am agnostic. I am not convinced that there is not a God, but I don't see evidence of the one that is described in the Bible. If what you describe of Sagan's beliefs is accurate then no I do not completely buy that either.

Humans have been able to evolve over 200,000 years or so by the ability to rationalize and otherwise think beyond their biological/evolutionary imperatives. When I say that humans have gone against survival of the fittest, it seems quite clear that they have. Bigger, stronger, faster etc doesn't equate to much in humans as it relates to survival. As a species, we have adapted and come up with rules that are for the good of the whole. Now, as I said, humans codified many of these rules in the Bible. Going beyond the big 10, OT says don't eat shrimp or pigs. IMO, a bunch of people contracted food borne illnesses from those critters and thus the rule from "God."

 

[Orange_Crush]

Let's start off with what I am. I am not into labels, but as far as religion goes, I am agnostic. I am not convinced that there is not a God, but I don't see evidence of the one that is described in the Bible. If what you describe of Sagan's beliefs is accurate then no I do not completely buy that either.

Humans have been able to evolve over 200,000 years or so by the ability to rationalize and otherwise think beyond their biological/evolutionary imperatives. When I say that humans have gone against survival of the fittest, it seems quite clear that they have. Bigger, stronger, faster etc doesn't equate to much in humans as it relates to survival. As a species, we have adapted and come up with rules that are for the good of the whole. Now, as I said, humans codified many of these rules in the Bible. Going beyond the big 10, OT says don't eat shrimp or pigs. IMO, a bunch of people contracted food borne illnesses from those critters and thus the rule from "God."

What exists besides the universe? What created/developed humanity besides natural processes? My point is that even humanity's reasoning facilities are the product of natural selection unless there is something besides natural selection to have produced us and our intellect. So in that framework, it is impossible for humanity's reasoning to have gone against survival of the fittest, as they would have had to have transcended that which produces them.

What, besides natural selection, produced human intellect/reasoning?

 

[Wafflestomper]

I figured I'd restate a concise statement of Christian moral philosophy:

• God is the source of Christian morality.
• It is based in His character--that which is according to God's character is "good". That which goes against His character is "evil".

We've argued this point before but I think it's important to note as a response here that the notion that God's character being "good" boils down to God's character being God's character, which doesn't at all explain why it's good. This has to be taken as axiomatic, but there's really no reason for someone who doesn't already believe to accept this premise.

• God created the universe, and humanity within it, for purpose that is according to His nature. So, that which is fit for God's purpose is "good". That which is not fit for purpose is evil.

This relies on the previous point being true.

• God, as the Necessary, Perfect Being, could not not have been as He is, thus Christian morality is not arbitrary.

I don't see how the conclusion follows from the premise. If God's nature is necessarily the way that it is then there is either a reason for the way that it is, or it is arbitrary (i.e., a brute fact). If there's a reason that God's nature is what it is, then what caused it to be what it is rather than something else?

• God, as the Necessary, Perfect, fully Sovereign, Creative Being is sufficient to make morality normative.
• Since the design of the universe is based on God's character and plan, His morality is normative.
• Since God's character and plan are built into humanity, His morality is normative.

The way I've been using the term "normative" may not be the same way it is often used when talking about ethics; Christian morality is normative in the sense that it attempts to provide an absolute basis for morality. I've been saying it isn't normative because it fails at this (due in part to the above).

I won't be able to address everything that you posted today as I'm just too busy so I thought I'd focus on this post, at least for the time being. And I appreciate the apology although it was unnecessary. If I was offended or upset about our interactions I would have blocked you a long time ago.