A universal sense of moral right and wrong can only come from a source outside of ourselves: a transcendent source, a moral Lawgiver. So the recognition of moral law is by default the recognition of a moral Lawgiver.
Non sequiteur, I recognise that some things are morally wrong but I do not recognise that means there is a lawgiver. Morals are based on our societal norms, if you are claiming that you follow the laws as laid down within the bible then why are you not out stoning people? The reason people and society have morals is because from an evolutionary point of view any animal group needs rules or the group will not work as a society.
"Well, in some cultures they feel it is okay to eat you, and in others they don't. Which do you prefer."
My answer would be how many of those societies have survived into the modern age? Depriving fellow humans of their life is probably one of the most morally repugnent acts someone can commit, but was it a sin before moses bought down the ten commandments? As an atheist my answer (historical and mythical stories aside) is an unequivocal yes, what is your answer as a yahwist? Was it a sin before your god told society? It seems to me that if the answer is yes then your morals do not come from the bible but from society.
I don't think I'll start on how you know which parts of the bible to follow and which to ignore.
many medical therapies often present physical pain (an evil state of affairs according to non-theists), and yet they bring about an even better state of affairs: improved health. Physical pain is often highly beneficial as well. When a child touches a hot stove, the nervous system sends a neurological signal to the brain which is perceived as pain (a form of evil).
I would love to meet all these 'non-theists' that claim that painful physical therapy is evil. I have a sneaking suspicion that they don't exist except in your mind. Yes, Pain is a warning system, but lets deal with something a little less trivial. I'm sure we can all think of some of the horrific things that happen to people, so I wont trivialise it by listing any. Pain is not always useful, so much so that for some death is a release. Death through disease can leave emotional scars on loved ones that never heal.
But according to your article that is all ok because god enjoys the love (some of us) show him and for that it's worth all the suffering he puts all of humanity through?!
So then we get down to the point of the article, why. It turns out that you claim it is about choice. How is it choice if you are drowned in a flood or swept away in some other natural disaster? How is it choice if you are born without all of your body functioning correctly, or dieing of a heart attack at age 30?
The only choice I can see is the one you claim your god made, the one to create a world with so much unneccesary pain and suffering.
Of course to me all of this is academic because I am an atheist so I don't believe that there is a god responsible for all of this. But to suggest that some puff piece on the interweb is going to answer a theological problem that has perplexed some truly great minds in the past is beyond laughable.