I could also 'wax emo' on God having two bears slaughter forty two children, but let me guess, they had a psychopath gene as well...

...where does this evidence lead you?

You can wax emo all you want.

The youths weren't children. They were of military age. They were a gang.

Prophets were the mouthpieces of God per agreement with the Jews ancestors at Mt. Sinai and the youths were hazing Elisha.

There you go with your hypotheticals again. Where does it say they were a gang (of thieves)? That's right, it doesn't...you're just pulling out another hypothetical (yes, I read the same apologist's arguments that you have). It doesn't really matter though, even if they were of age, and even if they were a gang, it does not mean God is justified in having bears slaughter them.

King James Version (KJV)

23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

New International Version (NIV)

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.

English Standard Version (ESV)

23 He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” 24 And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.

The original text uses the words "Na`ar" and "Qatan" to describe the children. "Na'ar" translates to "youth" or "boy" or "young man". The last definition can be made to fit the apologist's purposes. While "Qatan", which modifies, "Na'ar" means "small", "little", or "very young" it can also mean lesser or insignifigant, in that their status was lower to the prophethood of Elisha, or even the town. However, they were still in their teens and probably were offended by Elisha's claims of miracles.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Elisha

...you apparently skipped over the most important bit:

What you're going to have to justify is that there were zero better options available to God in the scenario. That of all the infinite options available to an omnipotent being, having bears rip a group of teenagers to shreds was the best he could come up with.

I'm concerned with the ancient language translation above.

Nor with the encyclopedia's interpretation.

I included the link so you will know it's not something I made up.

...as I said, the translation related to the age of the 42 people in question is of no consequence:

I would suggest you study alternative interpretations before you set yourself up as God's ethics judge.

I don't buy that you're worthy or ethical enough to question God's ethics. God tolerates us doing it but it doesn't mean it's a human prerogative.

You already revealed you didn't check the translation but went with a literal interpretation. I'd hate to have you sitting on a jury if I were on trial. It seems you won't ask deep enough questions or reflect long enough before drawing conclusions.

That's the million dollar question Splendour! You finally got it. You deem yourself and others worthy of judging God of benevolence and mercy and love, but the minute, nay the second, he does something evil, we the human race are no longer worthy or ethical enough to question him.

They say the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. Well, the greatest trick God ever pulled was convincing the world he was all loving, all caring, and all just.
.

Unlike those guys who killed women and children accused of witchcraft, who presumably carefully and rationally measured up the evidence

Splendour, is it your realistic, unbiased, non superstitious, analytic and meticulously researched finding that your God can do no evil?

You should stop arguing from the OT scriptures when you don't even know if someone is a literalist or not because it's not convincing.

You've limited yourself to a literalist interpretation whereas the people you argue with may or may not do so.

Where in the below quote did I argue anything about a literal interpretation of scriptures? I was addressing your claim that humans have no right to judge God.

As a quick aside, I do love the fact that Christians are becoming more and more liberal with their allegorical interpretations. I wonder how long it will be before everything is allegorical?

In post# 151.

So to be clear, you think the she-bears story was allegorical?

....and please respond to the below:

I don't have a firm opinion. I haven't read it recently. But there's more to it than the bald way people like to present it on here.

And there's always more than one way to interpret the bible.

And shouldn't there be? The bible's a spiritual growth book.

No! God should of been perfectly clear when inspiring a holy book that people are supposed to live their lives by. God should not of authored a book of moral mad libs.

Please respond to the question of how it is possible for you to assess God to be moral

I don't see it that way.

People like mental challenges.

Nothing worse than everything so easy that you're bored.

I'll see if I can come back to it.

Invited to play a tournament tomorrow and I have to re-charge the mental battery.

I'm sure there's some combined factors but I haven't thought a lot about it.

But there's a difference between using your intellect in a discerning way and passing a judgment that's hard for me to explain.

Really, I mean really, that's the reasoning you're going to use?

Why is it God's fault?

You've got more confidence in the human heart than I do. Our own sinfulness could affect our ability to interpret him clearly.

Psalm 19 (CEV)

11 By your teachings, Lord,
I am warned;
by obeying them,
I am greatly rewarded.
12 None of us know our faults.
Forgive me when I sin
without knowing it.
13 Don’t let me do wrong
on purpose, Lord,
or let sin have control
over my life.
Then I will be innocent,
and not guilty
of some terrible fault.

Psalm 18 (KJV)

25 With the merciful thou wilt shew thyself merciful; with an upright man thou wilt shew thyself upright;

26 With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt shew thyself froward.

definition:


fro·ward
   [froh-werd, froh-erd]

adjective
willfully contrary; not easily managed: to be worried about one's froward, intractable child.

cf. Matthew 18

How is this compatible with exegesis?

But please, if you have time to respond to any posts, please first respond to asdfasdf32's important question re: making assessment of God's morality.

With what purpose do you approach reading the bible?

To judge God or to know Him?

Who is more capable of judging God? The one who comes to judge him or the one who comes to know Him first?

A true believer comes to know Him and in doing that they come to know themselves and they know the seemingly insurmountable gulf between them and God and that God is exalted over it. One of the reasons God is exalted is because of his absolute ethical purity (he is described as "Holy" approximately 140 times in the book of Leviticus and as such in Psalm 99). God is so holy that the prophet Isaiah can't even speak in His presence until his lips are purified.