This is the title to Rauser's Beliefnet article to be found here. He doesn't understand that our respective problems with regard to evil are not equivalent. For me evil is suffering/harm, especially unnecessary suffering/harm caused by human beings (who are moral agents). I don't need an absolute unchanging standard for identifying suffering/harm. The truth is, neither does he. Like other theists Rauser embraces progressive revelation, that his God continues to reveal moral truths just as he does theological truths. That means the Christian morality of yesterday was true for them, as is the morality of today for him, as will be the morality of tomorrow for others. That's moral relativism, plain and simple. At no time in the past, present, or future can any Christian theist say, "This is God's unchanging objective moral truth." Concerning the moral standard of love (one proposed unchanging standard), it has always been qualified by questions like, "who is my neighbor?" "who is deserving of our love" and "how should we show our love to people?" Those qualifiers have changed throughout the centuries too.