Correct. It's in the light of a Westernized evangelical interpretation of Paul's writing, "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god," where one interprets God as an actual divine thing/being/judge who created humans for the purpose of giving Him praise and glory. A certain standard being established by that god must be adhered to and held up, with anyone falling short of that being in peril of damnation, with all offenses large and small being judged alike. But, wait, there's more! That god loves us so much that we're offered a chance at redemption, a chance at redemption that entails killing someone so we can be redeemed...if we accept a contract/covenant agreement that we'll call that God by a certain name, make a certain pledge, and then run from our transgressions & run back to that god in our debased guilt when we again transgress.

And my stance on that -- as well as many, many others who are Christians but sick of that kind of stance -- is that it's a terrible form of religion, a type of faith that is full of words and lacking substance and transformative power. It doesn't speak for what's moral, it speaks for the boundaries of that religion's club rules.

How do you judge your divine dictate as good? Skip the circular argument please.

I never said He was good. I simply said He alone has authority to declare what is good.

Genesis 1&2 He declares what is good. Genesis 3 mankind attempts to declare something good. You likely know the rest of the story. The only circular reference is that we've been attempting to declare what is good, overstepping our authority, ever since the garden.

And my stance on that -- as well as many, many others who are Christians but sick of that kind of stance -- is that it's a terrible form of religion, a type of faith that is full of words and lacking substance and transformative power. It doesn't speak for what's moral, it speaks for the boundaries of that religion's club rules.