Gods supposed perfection

[orangebox21]

So, instead, you create a god in your mind who created you just to fuck with you. Makes perfect sense.

Are you suggesting that I created the God of the Bible in my mind?

I am so fucking tired of hearing this passive aggressive "oh, you just want god to behave like you want him to, you want to tell god what to do!" That's not, usually, the argument being made, but it's what it gets twisted into because it's easier to make the opponent out to be arrogant and prideful rather than to address the issue, which is that god as he is described in the bible does not match up with the claims made about him.

The initial claim is that 'God is morally wrong because eternal punishment is wrong.' This assertion is different than 'God is morally wrong because how He is described in the bible does not match up with the claims made about him.'

The initial claim made, is that God is immoral because eternal punishment is wrong. The atheist uses this assertion to conclude God's not fair, not moral, not worthy of praise, doesn't exist, etc. The direct implication of the original claim is that if God punished people in a way fitting to the critics liking [acted the way I want Him too], then He would be fair, moral, worthy of praise, existent, etc.

If you want to claim that God is wrong to punish people, then justify the claim. If you want to argue that God, as He is described in the Bible, does not match up with the claims made about him, then justify that claim. I'm content discussing either claim.

This isn't about selfishly reinventing god to suit our purposes, unsurprisingly you've got this completely backwards. It's about comparing the actions of god to his purported characteristics- infallibility, omnibenevolence, etc etc- and finding that the two don't match up. Kindly stop with this stupid strawman; it is offensive to the intelligence of everyone in the thread, and if you honestly believe that it is what is being said, then you need some serious help with your reading comprehension.
This isn't us demanding that god works in certain ways; what you're seeing is our refusal to do what you yourself are doing, namely retrofitting god's actions into the presuppositions about his nature that you already have and refuse to relinquish.

How do you know that I'm assuming the conclusion [God's nature] to prove the premise [God's actions]? How do you know that I don't recognize that people break the moral law, read in the Bible that God forgives [action] some [through sacrificial atonement] and doesn't forgive others and then conclude that God [His nature] is both merciful and just?

And are you honestly saying here that you can't see the huge, huge expanses of possible punishment between "no punishment at all," and "eternal, constant, inhumane torture"? You really can't see any other alternative?

Are you honestly suggesting here that I have an argument with myself? I can think of possible alternatives, but no one has offered one.

I take issue with the bible's definition of both. Justice because we're being punished for something we have no control over. Mercy because we're expected to beg forgiveness for something we have no control over.

What are you defining as the 'something' we have no control over? And please explain how we have no control over 'it'.