So your saying the accepted description of god is a schizophrenic fool? Could you tell me if this is just your opinion or the claimed opinion of the faiths.

If he requires us to try and maintain his laws then he has expectations.

If he knew we would fail because of our imperfections, then the exercise is pointless.

What in your opinion is failure and what is success?

How can you judge anything that is not perfect?

To point to an individual that may have caused millions to die by his failings, do you blame him for his imperfections or the god who claims his creation.

Your mind set is strangely earth bound in its logic of this god the creator. Why do you think he made us imperfect?

This is the logic of all described gods, not just your selected biblical examples.

How you interpreted what I stated to mean that, I haven't a clue :perplexed:

Perhaps, instead, you could address my point:

Isn't the definition of omnipotent, all-powerful? That is, God can do everything? If he can do everything, why can he not do mistakes?

so if he can and does , does that describe god. He lies and makes laws that say you must not lie, he creates but destroys, he destroys himself, he is not omniscient, he is...If you say he does then describe him in that manner, because i cant. I dont claim his existance, only question his description.

Reasoning why it is not made clear in scriptures, your acceptance of the gaps in your understanding and then remark as if it was a reasonable response, not so.

Your god makes demands and if you fail, you fail your god, if you choose not to ask for forgiveness and continue to disobey god, what is your reception? You fail to understand the logic of not believing. Why make us imperfect ? is the first question. Why make us at all? is the next. Why make rules that an imperfect creation can not abide by? is another. You conform because it is your will not because of your imperfection.

You just dont see the logic of this claim of creation , do you? If you could create perfection why make it less than so? No excuses such as its a secret or some such nonsense.

You just dont see the logic of this claim of creation , do you? If you could create perfection why make it less than so? No excuses such as its a secret or some such nonsense./

Again -- where exactly does it say that God expects perfection?[/COLOR] Not following rules, not obeying, but perfection. Why can't you answer this?

Maybe perfection is not possible in a "real" world?

It does not say we require perfection but what else is god expecting

he desires we perform to his standards...

The point of scriptures is to demand we obey and if we don't scriptures tell us of the consequences.

If there were no consequences then gods imperfect creation is accepted, as such.

Would a perfect creation fail in gods demands?

you see god as a creator of imperfection that has no real intention of judging his creation

I see a vengeful god who throughout scripture demands we act in accordance to his laws and if we dont we may expect his anger.

The revelations, a christian warning to all those who oppose god is laws or ignore his advice.

I don't think this is going anywhere

With good reason -- scripture lacks general principles or dictates on much of this subject, so the religious metaphysics of human imperfection and sin and punishment is a derivation. It comes from theology and tradition, not from scripture!

I say nothing of the sort on either point.

1. That humans are imperfect is universally understood in Judaism and Christianity.

2. It is generally felt that human imperfection is our own doing and not a specific consequence of God's agency

3. The degree to which God judges, rewards, and condemns is highly variable in this group of religions. How can you compare Unitarianism with Calvinism? How can you compare Reform Judaism with Roman Catholocism?

There is no uniform dogma, and part of the reason is that the ideas of imperfection, judgement, and consequence do NOT come directly from scripture!!

And yet all you're doing is citing anecdotes and not general principles or dictates. With good reason -- scripture lacks general principles or dictates on much of this subject, so the religious metaphysics of human imperfection and sin and punishment is a derivation. It comes from theology and tradition, not from scripture!

And that was one book at the end of one gospel written by one author, and if I'm not mistaken it is the single latest piece of writing to be included in the Christian Bible -- so it cannot be seen as representing the views of the many authors of the Old Testament and the remainder of the New Testament that had been put together over the previous 1200+ years. Secondly, Revelations is a work of apocalyptic literature -- it's not about disobedience. Thirdly, whatever you or I might say about Revelations, it is the single most controversial piece of the entire Christian Bible and there is no interpretation of it that is universally accepted as true.

That is because you're making unfounded, sweeping statements about something you haven't researched in the slightest, yet you just dig in your heels rather than try to have a conversation.

So we get back to the pick and mix scriptures the believer loves to use. Exclude anything that opposes your view but accept those that helps you make a debate more prolonged than it aught.

Sweeping statements, what sweeping statements, the references you ignore or class as invalid?

Scriptures are scriptures, what would you prefer me to remark on instead of scripture. The gospels according to Aedes and his notes on the dismissal of large sections thereof. Ruth to be included but not Elijah's,s bears.

First of all, I'm not a believer.

Secondly, religions themselves pick and mix scriptures. You think that Jews and Christians interpret Ezekiel and Isaiah the same way? They don't even interpret Genesis 1:2 the same way.

I'm not excluding anything except for blind generalizations, which you've been known to make in the past. All scripture is open to discussion -- but don't tell me about the story of Lot's wife or of Noah and then tell me that therefore God does this or that to all the disobedients.

You say "God expects perfection". That is a sweeping statement. It's also both wrong and unfounded. You say "I see a vengeful god who throughout scripture demands we act in accordance to his laws and if we dont we may expect his anger." That IS a valid interpretation if you're Cotton Mather. That is NOT a valid interpretation if you're Desmond Tutu. Why the difference? Because scripture does not provide a clear answer as to what God generally wants, what he specifically wants, or what he'll do about it.

I'm not dismissing them at all. I'm only dismissing your penchant for taking small snipets and quotes and generalizing from them as if they are representative of the whole. Different day different flavor.

God of scriptures, demands and refusal is judged by him and his entourage of angels.

I haven't offered you small snippets. I've simply pointed out that your chosen anecdotes don't justify your thesis.

Based on what generalizable statement? And why is it that this is not universally believed?

And I'm not a believer. I practice Judaism out of respect for my grandparents and parents, because of the togetherness that comes with family events, and to commemorate the fact that most of my family died because they were Jews in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is an authentic practice on my part. It has symbolic importance to me, even though I don't believe the stories or the theology literally.

I can understand the ritual of your faith and the respect it shows your loved ones but you should never, ever use it as a reason to justify your argument.

Don't convince me that scriptures dont request perfection

You dont get it, what is imperfection what is perfection?

You dont create an imperfect creature and make requests you know are not built in to its being.

1) Why would he plague us with the ability to think outsides the confines of the religion's teaching? 2) Why would he infect humans with the anti-religious idea of free will? 3) Why would god give humans the ability to disagree with his religion? 4) Why would god create humans so that they may create conflicting or different religious beliefs other than Christianity? 5) Why would god ever want to condemn his own children or to add, give us the ability to do such that he would condemn us for? 6) Why would god create humans with the reason to prove religion irrational in many areas? 7) Why would god ever make humans susceptible to the dangers of having a train of thought other than a strictly religious one?

Lets start with one: First is the probably false presumption that any existing teaching is from God. That human aspirations to a greater good yet to be realized via religious tradition or natural reason only sets the stage for the 'final God event'. Two: Free will is slippery concept. I would suggest that we do not have free will in any true moral sense. It is for that reason that war, injustice, environmental degradation and all the rest continue. In that sense we don't have either the free will or knowledge to be a sustainable species, the ultimate measure of a moral conception. three: back to the assumption that HIS religion exists? I would suggest that what does in fact exist is no more than a theological counterfeit, the ultimate intellectual vanity, humanities greatest own goal. Four:That 'spiritual' chaos only reflects the absence of an ultimate defining reality. We have only our illusions. five: While any 'judgment' is as yet not fully understood, to live within the current limitations of our natural condition is its own condemnation. If God intends, at some point, to save us from ourselves, and we decline the invitation, we condemn ourselves. six: because religion as it exists is irrational, and yet for religion to exist as it does must also mean that there exists within human nature an irrational component. Call it perfect ignorance it you like. seven: That is a result of the 'fall', a condition in which we still exist within that perfect ignorance.