Why are we here?

[KevinM1]

It's a distinction without meaning, really.  According to most, I'm going to go to hell for simply not believing.  Does it really matter if your god sends me there directly or if it's part of some automated process based on me not entering a covenant with it?  The method is the same: unbelief = hell.  Moreover, it's based on pettiness.  

What does a supreme being need with worship?  Christians espouse god's forgiving and loving nature all the time, but at the end of the day salvation relies on not just belief that it exists (despite it not providing clear, verifiable evidence of itself), but that I accept it as my lord and master.  I cannot do that, even under threat of torment.  I would rather be free in hell than a slave in heaven.

Let's get back to sin for a moment.  You made a big stink (capital letters and everything) a few posts up about my sins.  I jokingly asked you to list them.  I'll simply do it for you:

1. Not believing in your god
2. I stole a couple of beef chalupa supremes from the UNH food court over a decade ago because I was running late for class

That is, honestly, all I can think of.  I never cheated on my girlfriend.  I abhor violence, except in self-defense.  I haven't made nor possess idols of anything.  I don't drink, smoke, or do drugs.  Do I deserve to be tortured, even temporarily?

Note also that I think Original Sin is idiotic and barbarous.  Children should not be held to account for the crimes of their ancestors.

Pettiness? The morally perfect, eternal, creator of the universe says he cannot (as in not possible) have sin in his presence. And not just that, he desires to have us in his presence so much as to have provided a bridge to get us back to him. You, one of a few billion ants that exist for a time that is so insignificantly short compared to eternity past, deem this petty. 

Do you think that a little sin or a big sin matters to a morally perfect God who cannot have sin in his presence? To think so is to miss the point and/or engage in faulty reasoning.

Morally perfect?  Really?  This is circular logic at its finest/worst.  God is morally perfect because the bible demands you take its word for it rather than going by the actual actions described in the book itself.  God's immorality begins in Genesis chapter 2 and continues throughout.  You hand wave the atrocities described within because of a book - whose only authority on the matter comes from itself - tells you to.  Utterly ridiculous.

As far as not being able to have sin in its presence, it sounds like your god is a wuss.  Surely the almighty - which created everything, including, presumably, sin itself - should be able to handle it in a better way than sending those who have sinned to eternal torture.  Moreover, it brings up all the problems that have never received an adequate answer, such as:

Why did god create creatures that are at least as likely to fail as to succeed?  Even with free will, he could've made us more likely to follow his lead than not.
Why does he continue to create creatures that are destined to sin, and thus go to hell?  Isn't that incredibly wasteful?
Why does a perfect being desire us to rejoin him?  Doesn't want/desire point to imperfection?
Why hell, which isn't corrective, and not some other mechanism?
Why doesn't he simply provide unambiguous evidence of his existence and power, thereby greatly reducing the number of people who are sent to hell?
etc.
etc.

I deem your god petty because he thinks a finite crime, even those that don't actually hurt anyone (like unbelief) to be worthy of eternal torture.  Saying, "Well, the bible says he's just, so it's just" is laughable.  And, no, arguments from ignorance aren't going to cut it as a response.