Why are some people too ugly for god?

[Brakeman]

To clarify to people passing through: this is a requirement for priests, not the common people. Leviticus 21:22-23: "He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy."

It doesn't help the argument that it was only priests, that only divides the people further. The point of the issue is that your god sees a level of "defect" in the shallowness of an outward physical appearance that one would expect of a teenage valley girl. The "flat nose" prohibition seems to be aimed at the blacks. Was the author wearing a pointy white rode at the time? Today's christians believe in a god that is fair and inwardly seeking, yet they are wrong, the god of the bible is a shallow asshat that cares not what the heart of a slightly imperfect priest wanna-be contains.

---

The Israelites were incapable of understanding morality without a reference to physical deformity.

Not Morality, Sin. {twittiness by DRICH removed}

He knows perfectly well the the words "morality" and "sin," are not synonyms, it is you that has the problem with the logic. Perhaps you've banged your head too many times? The "morality" is that it's wrong to sin in a particular way. Now try to follow the conversations by answering the obvious intended question and not prattle on about semantics in order to derail and dodge.

God didn't give us any morals. How is that not a defect?

Because their was only one way to sin back then, all we had to understand was not to fall into that sin. (again Morality has little to do with identifying sin)

From Google:
mo·ral·i·ty/məˈralətē/
Noun:
1. Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Sounds like the rest of the inhabitants of planet earth disagree with you that morality has little to do with sin, provided one classifies "wrong" with "sin."
The moral question is whether it was wrong or not to commit a particular sin. Without the "morals" of right and wrong, adam and eve would not have known that it was wrong to disobey god. Having even that one moral destroys the story because all other morals are branches from that one according to the bible.

It seems that you have given some sort of answer for pretty much all of the question.

No, He has provided dodges and non-answers for pretty much all of the questions. That is all.

The question about the "ford" models was requesting that you describe the reasoning behind the "perfection line" that god drew to deem one of his creations as "blemished", and another as "perfect" when we know that everyone's body is imperfect and different. Is there a such thing as "Imperfect fingerprints" Why didn't god get into the imperfect DNA sequences? We know today, that short of photoshop, no one is physically perfect and that "perfection is in the eye of the beholder. We further know that this "beholder" is an asshat if he judges people by outward appearances.

If god was an onmipresent then as christians claim he is now, then the alter was no more "god's presence" than my toilet seat. God would see man in all of his imperfect blemishes every day, priest or not. Again, give us a good reason why god would care if his priest before the alter had a flat nose or not.