A just and righteous god would not condemn a mortal man to an immortal punishment for committing a mortal sin. A scandalous Church could tell you that if you did not belong to them and give them 10% you would burn in a lake of fire for all eternity, which i have to admit is the most brutal marketing strategy i have ever seen. Buy our product or burn in hell for eternity. brilliant, purely evil but brilliant non the less..
Your profile says you're not a believer... that poses a lot of interesting questions.
1. If you don't believe there is a God, why do you have such concern with the particular style of justice of an imaginary God... why are you here debating it?
You seem to have an odd preoccupation with the particular style of justice of an imaginary God.
Very very odd.
I don't believe in Santa Claus, and I feel ZERO compulsion to debate his particular theories of justice.
If you think God is imaginary... why so much concern about his sense of justice?
2. Do you believe there are absolute and universal standards for morality? However you answer this, it's going to lead to some logical dilemmas
- If, like most atheists, you DO NOT believe morality has absolute and universal values, then you have no way to measure whether this "justice of God" is righteous or not, because you cannot maintain, by your paradigm, that goodness or evil even exist!
- If you DO believe in absolute and universal standards for morality...
then I'd like to hear you account for WHERE exactly these universal and absolute moral standards come from, and WHAT exactly makes them absolute.
3. It is very strange that you, an unbeliever in this imaginary God, have somehow declared yourself an expert in knowing precisely how some imaginary being must necessarily act.
This is strange and illogical on a host of levels.
You're an expert on the behavior of an imaginary being which doesn't exist, and therefore can't possibly have any behavior to be an expert on... nor can you in any way guess what his thought processes or actions "might" be because he doesn't have any thought processes or actions to assess.
So that's it... you've declared yourself an expert on the necessary behavior of an imaginary being which can't possibly have any behavior to be an expert on?
Seriously?
Seriously?
Please... come up with just one way in which this is logically coherent.
4. If there is such a being as God, who is the "maximally great being" and knows all things... how could you POSSIBLY, IN ANY WAY, pretend to know all the depths of his mind and thoughts?
You would have to be God in order to do this.
For you to plumb the depth of his thoughts and reasoning, you yourself would have to be a "maximally great being", and have all knowledge of all things.
Again, your reasoning just breaks down logically.
If there is a maximally great being, who knows all things... you COULD NOT, in any way, even pretend to know the depths of his reasoning or motives.
5. What makes you contend, as a presupposition, that the act of defying an immortal being is only a "mortal crime"?
This is a huge presupposition.
You have no logical way to support this presupposition.
You just ASSERT it... with you proof of any kind.
There's more... but this should be enough to chew on for a while.