You could of just said you're not going to answer the question.

I thought I did answer by pointing out the difference in approachs.

I think some people are overshadowed by God (it could be all people are overshadowed) and intuitively know it and it causes them to hesitate in being negatively judgmental. (Abraham is overshadowed, isn't Job in chapter 23?)

I also find atheists like to shove negativistic literalistic interpretations down people's throats.

Imagine I know you for a lifetime or at least a decade or two and all I ever judge you on is one or two negative events. I never bother to look behind them or consider other factors and I toss out everything else about you.

Imo the atheists that argue from literal interpretations do just that.

You don't seem to understand the question. Forget the word "judge" and think more about "assess".

How can we assess the morality of god?

You assess the morality of god to be good. Asdf assesses it to be bad/inconsistent. You can argue that NEITHER of you can assess the morality of god, or you can argue that one or both of you can be WRONG, but you can't simultaneously hold the thought that you, Splendour, can (is able to) assess god's morality as good while Asdf is fundamentally unable to assess it.

So to resolve this doublethink you can clarify your position by stating whether or not gods morality is knowable to us and, if it is knowable, how we can come to know it e.g. by reading the Bible, praying, etc

I don't think you can assess Him until you know Him and what someone says about Himself is as important as what others say. Those are two lines of witnessing.

Some believers seem to know God a lot better than others.

But God personally makes Himself available through His Word.

Did you ever notice that the bible appeals to different people in different ways depending on their personality, experiences, knowledge and circumstances?

Theology will only get you so far and sometimes confuse you.

Read the bible on your own and let God inform you.

I think I understand you, but could you just respond with a yes or no to the following summary of your position:

'I believe it is possible to assess the nature of God by reading his Word (the Bible) and I believe it is possible to draw conclusions that are correct or incorrect'

Yes, I have.

Obviously Neither.... why would one be better at judging then the other?

If I had a position that wouldn't be an exact summary. I'm not arguing this. I'm discussing it so I'm not giving a yes or no answer like I'm a witness on a witness stand.

Obv, people draw different conclusions on the bible.

But how will people ever get on the same sheet of music without reference to a single resource?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnmbJzH93NU

"If I had a position" implies that you don't know if the Bible reveals the nature of god and you don't know if it's possible to be right or wrong about the nature of god.

Can you at least confirm THIS position? This isn't a trap for Pete's sake, I'm openly and honestly trying to understand your thinking on the matter.

Why don't you take time and reread the thread again then.

How can I be implying what you stated when I said above it's obvious people come to different conclusions?

I think I've said enough on the topic.

You haven't really said much of anything.

Here's the rub of the argument Splendour. Most (all?) Christians view God as omnibenevolent, i.e. He is all-loving and can do no evil. Presumably Christians believe this because the Bible tells them so. Now, assume for the sake of argument that the Bible was written by a non-omnibenevolent God, but the authors mistakenly added in that part. How would you know the difference?

When you don't know or don't have an answer to something wouldn't it be more honest to admit it? You seem to do this all the time.

Nowhere in the Elisha story does it say that the 42 were killed. They were not little children. They were likely a roving gang. Elisha cursed them-- not God.

The text says that they were female bears. Syrian bears are not grizzlies. They weighed 400 pounds at the most. Female bears usually only become agressive if you threaten their young. 42 roving youth need to kill and eat sometime, I'd imagine.

I don't see where God holds moral culpability here. We are talking about two verses, and sparse information, and little specifics.

And even if God did hold culpability, so what? Don't f*** with God's anointed children. Splendor is right. Fundy-atheists love to be maudlin, and "wax emo" in order to take some moral high ground. It's pathetic.

I think the answer to the OP is to give Splendour & Doggg some TV time.

I do.

I said I don't have a firm opinion in post #167.

He's referring to the moral topic, not the she-bear one.

Well I'm not going to say more on the topic.

Imo atheists are weak on OT knowledge and hyperfixated to find God in the wrong. You can read the OT. Sin is endemic and manifests itself over and over again in the OT and spiritual warfare still goes on today and sin could affect your judgment.

Jesus Christ himself spoke in parables to his disciples until Satan was surprised and disarmed by His work on the Cross.

Colossians 2:15
"And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross."

It's a serious matter to mock a prophet:

2 Chronicles 36

The Fall of Jerusalem

15 The Lord, the God of their ancestors, sent word to them through his messengers again and again, because he had pity on his people and on his dwelling place. 16 But they mocked God’s messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the Lord was aroused against his people and there was no remedy.

Bert Thompson on Elisha and the bears points out: "it is important to remember that God, not Elisha, used these bears to teach those young men an important lesson about respect and obedience. God is the One Who has power over the animal kingdom. He sent fiery serpents to bite the Israelites (Numbers 21:6); He sent a lion to slay a disobedient young prophet (1 Kings 13:24ff.); He prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah (Jonah 1:17); and He shut the lions’ mouths in order to protect Daniel (Daniel 6:22)."

BOYS, BEARS, AND BALDNESS
BERT THOMPSON

http://www.discoverymagazine.com/art...999/d9911e.htm

You really have your blinders on, don't you? I wasn't talking about the Elisha incident at all. Read what I wrote one more time and try again.

Atheists knowledge or lack thereof concerning the OT has nothing to do with why someone coming to know god is somehow more capable of judging him then someone coming to judge him.

Why was that the case again?

I already answered above.

You both think about it.

Please reiterate because we're obviously not getting it.

Trying my best to follow along Splendour's logic here, but I just can't do it.

It's like she thinks that if you disagree with someone, the way to win the argument is to be more and more vague as time goes on, until no one can reply because no one understands what you're talking about.

ajmargerine uses this tactic as well. I've had in depth discussions with him about his reasons for believing in God....and I still don't know what the **** he believes.

You don't know God so how can you judge Him?

Only the pure in heart get to see God so John the Baptist comes calling people to "Repent."

Repentance puts you onto the truth path of God.

After that you need to purify your heart.

Quote: "It is so precious if we are able to cultivate out everything that is not based on the Word of God. The authority of the Word of God becomes an urgent message. "Every word of God is pure...," PRO 30:5. May the Lord help us during this message to unfold the Word while looking at the blessedness of the pure in heart, for they shall see God."

http://www.gospelchapel.com/Sermons/...Mount/9_40.htm

Who do you think the Gardener in the Garden of Eden is? Does the Garden symbolize the world?

Doesn't the Gardener get to make the call on which branchs to prune and why?