Human beings are finite creatures. In any moral system, we do some good and some evil. None of us can do infinite evil, in any moral system, in our brief lives. We simply don't have enough time to do so.
So how can it be justified to conceive of a Hell in which human beings suffer eternal damnation for their finite sins? What can these poor, finite creatures do, in their short lives, to justify such an infintely cruel punishment?
Since I cannot see any justification for such horrendous punishment, isn't it very likely that the believers in these religions have written their own need for revenge and 'divine justice' against their ideological enemies into the religious texts of both religions, if one is making the unlikely assumption that one of these religions might actually be 'true'?
That being the case, and continuing with the assumption that one of these religions might be 'true', then isn't it more likely that the punishment for 'sin' in the afterlife is not eternal, and is more like a Purgatory?
Men, after all, wrote both the Bible and the Koran. Human beings serve theri own ideological purposes when they write religious texts.
A God who would punish mankind so severely for such finite offenses would be a monster, in every sense of the word. Doesn't it make more sense to assume that such an interpretation of God is false, that God is much kinder than that?
Some punishments are arbitrary and petty. When we see these we recoil against their illogic. Some are overly cruel. Again they are not logical.
However, when you touch a hot stove that is neither arbitrary, petty, nor cruel. It is just the natural order of things. The universe is the way it is and our foolishness does not change the universe it just results in us receiving the natural consequence.
Just like the universe has a natural order so too does God.
Three main qualities of God are that He is just, holy, and merciful.
Because he is just he cannot ignore that which is wrong. If you as a just person became aware that a pedophile were living on your street molesting the children in your neighborhood could you really be just if you did nothing about it? Crime demands a punishment or God cannot be just. It also demands a logical and fair punishment. God cannot be unjust it is against His nature. (It is a limit on what he can do which relates to the question of omnipotence and omniscience)
Because he is holy (righteous, sacred or set aside for a special purpose) He is separate from that which is base or profane. He cannot coexist in communion with evil. God is in a holy place called heaven and hell is far far away (spiritually speaking since heaven and hell don't have physical properties). That which is unholy would be destroyed by his presence and is therefore instead cast out of heaven. The definition of hell is simply not being with God and the definition of heaven is simply being with God.
When we put these two ideas; (justice and holiness) together we see that the being who has become unholy by corrupting the good universe that God created for all cannot be in the presence of God and must receive a just consequence. To do anything else would be wrong. This is the natural order of things and just as touching a stove results in burns it is natural and necessary that corrupting the universe and rejecting God result in consequences and separation from Him.
God is merciful. He wants what is best for His creation. When He sees his creation experiencing the consequences of sin (the corruption of our world), He wants to step in and help. When he sees that his creation is already separated from him (the spiritual death that Adam experienced on the first day he sinned and that we all have when we first sinned) and is destined to be separated from him for all eternity He wants to step in and intervene. We are already dead and we are already separated from God right here on earth when we sinned. That is the natural order of things. God wants to restore life to us and he wants to bring us back into communion with Him. So He has created a loophole. Nothing arbitrary but again what is logical. The sin was a lack of trust in God's plan for our lives. God said if you eat that apple you will die on that very day. If one trusted and had faith in God one would not eat the apple. If one did not trust in God but trusted in himself he would decide to do what he wanted to do and not what God said. The logical solution is for the first sin, the lack of trust, to be remedied with it's opposite, trust and faith in God. When you trust that God has a plan to bring you back to Him, that He alone can do it, then your faith allows God to give you holiness and righteousness.
Justice demands you receive a punishment, holiness demands that it be your separateness from God, mercy allows God to correct your mistake Himself.
Is the most glory is given to God if people see in creation His wonderfullness, respond to that, love and trust God forever? That did not happen in the Garden.
Would the next best would be for people to see in creation His wonderfullness, respond to that, regain trust for God and be brought back into a loving relationship with Him? Or would this actually be better than the first option since we can now see His quality of forgiveness that we would otherwise not see if man had never sinned?
Is there a next best? If you do not respond to his wonderfullness in creation, before you sin as in option #1 or after you sin as in option #2, is it not still good to respond to Him when you see Him after death? There is no faith when you believe what you have seen with your own eyes. If there is no faith then how is the lack of faith to be corrected? I do not know of any passages in the bible that deny one could be brought back to God after the second death. Sheep and goats (a reference to a passage about hell) will go to one end or another but what about men? I also know of none that clearly teach that one can. Just when is the eleventh hour that the thief experienced on the cross? Is the twelfth hour at death or after? It is somewhat ambiguous. Perhaps that ambiguity will lead people to choose option 2 since it is too late for option #1. Will you hold out for option #3? Why would you choose to glorify God later rather than sooner? is option #3 more glorifying to God or less than option #2?
