Just putting some words down not trying to be dogmatic.
RationalMadman's statements are clever to say the least. My favorite one was, "That's like asking how the definition of an adjective constitutes possessing the adjective if one repeatedly behaves in the way of the definition" when replying to Athias about amoral character.
I remain unpersuaded by his arguments and I disagree that God is amoral is the only acceptable interpretation for this reality.
A large part of this discussion hinges on defining morality and accepting the things that we regard as moral. I think it can be defined as all moral precepts ought to cause human flourishing. This definition gives us a baseline for judging the morality of omniscient being (God).
Whenever we see God letting evil prevail, it's instinct to believe God is flawed and his being in part isn't all moral (or good). However, Humans are finite creatures and can only judge events in the moment. On the other hand, God is eternal and infinite for all purposes. He judges all events in existence and the entire human race. Therefore, his moral precepts may involve the flourishing of the entire species across time as opposed to the good of particular individuals.
If we judge God as being amoral because of all good and bad events, then we concede that God may simply being what is the best for us (human species).
