Doesn't force? Doesn't force? "believe in me or burn in hell forever" what a great choice to make

There is a fallacy of false analogy between punishment and eternal vengeance and it is hidden underneath a fallacy of equivocation between human-justice and god-justice, if either can be said to exist.

Punishment is intended to decrease the frequency of the behavior that led to the punishment. In other words, punishment is intended to be corrective. Then there's the death penalty which is not intended to be corrective but is intended to protect other members of society by removing "dangerous elements." (Death in my use means the annihilation of consciousness.) Eternal vengeance, however, is not like that. It's not intended to decrease the frequency of the behavior that led to the eternal vengeance. Eternal vengeance, by definition, never allows the person who receives it the chance to exhibit corrected behavior. (When it would it happen, after eternity?) It's not corrective. It's also unlike the death penalty. Eternal vengeance may keep "dangerous elements" out of society like the death penalty but it doesn't do so any more effectively, it only increases the amount of pain indefinitely without bound. Eternal torment is not justice, it's a bloodthirsty tyranny.

The ideas are not analogous. The poster has tried to bury that false analogy by equivocating two diametrically-opposite ideas of justice using just one word, "justice." A similar argument would be, "My theory is that it rained yesterday because my sidewalk is wet and that should be taught alongside the theory of evolution in public school science classrooms." Obviously, "theory" means two different things in that argument, just as "justice" means two different things in the original argument. The fallacious equivocation of the two notions of justice helps shield the fallacious analogy. That shield isn't very strong though.

I would also recommend the person to reconsider his or her notions of justice. I cannot think of any mortal that could have conceivably caused infinite damage or pain that would warrant an infinite punishment. Consider Hitler, for example. He was a horrible man that did many horrible things. If God is omniscient, he would be able to categorize pain in such a way that he could quantify it. In other words, he would be able to assign numbers to it. For example: a pinch is 0.1 pain points, soft punch is 0.3 pain points, and so on. God, being omniscient, would also know how many people had experienced pain due to Hitler. God, being omniscient, would be able to create an equation that determines the amount of pain caused: pain = average pain points per person * amount of people. Hitler's pain equation would come out to a staggeringly high number, certainly, but it would not be an infinite number. If God inflicted infinite punishment on Hitler, God's own pain equation would be: pain = infinity pain points * one person = infinite pain. How does finite pain warrant a return of infinite pain? By what meaning of the word would such be called Justice? It's not Justice. If God is omnibenevolent then God would exhibit principles of justice, not injustice, so "omnibenevolence" and "affliction of infinite pain as punishment for finite pain" are contradictory notions because the second implies a gratuitous pleasure in increasing the amount of pain in reality, which is contradictory to omnibenevolence.

I would also recommend the person to reconsider his or her interpretation of the Bible. I'll simply use an excellent poem by Gary Amirault, a Christian, about "Just What the Hell is Hell?" to make my argument.

Just What the Hell is "Hell"?

by Gary Amirault

There once was a time, 'twas plain to see
Just what the hell, Hell was meant to be.
But then theologians got into the act
And Hell no longer was a simple fact.

Hell formerly was a dark hidden space
Imperceivable, covered, a true hiding place.
It could be a place, as crude as a shed
Or could be a helmet, to cover your head.

Smoochers and kissers oft needed a hell
For hidden in darkness, no one could tell.
Hall, hole, and hull come from the same root
Along with a heel covered with a boot.

"Too simple!" So theologians once said
And now from their scheming, confusion has spread.
They hired the Dantes and Michaelangelos
To paint pretty pictures of many great woes

Fire and torment, with much superstition
Was added to pagan mythology and fiction.
The Goddess of Hel from Norse mythology
Became Satan, hero of most eschatology.

Jesus the Savior, delivered mankind
He came not for few, but for ALL men to find.
His portion became a rather small lot
While most of mankind, in Hell-fire would rot.

The way to this Hell became broad and wide
The gift of God's grace was at its low tide.
Clothes, creeds and days, the right denomination
Became the sole means, the way to salvation.

Gehenna, Hades, Tartaroo, and Sheol
All became places that could swallow your soul.
Preachers now had us, right where they wanted
"Obey or to Hell with you" they often taunted.

Countless denominations of devilish preachers
Forsook the Gift and became Satan's teachers.
Thousands of ways of deliverance from "Hell"
In common they all have a self-righteous smell.

"Finished" He cried, "I will draw all mankind"
The Father's desire, "all saved" in His mind.
The task He was given, He accomplished it all
And as His witness, He commissioned St. Paul.

Paul's Gospel was different, it's easy to tell
Because never once did he use the word "hell."
So "hell" is no more, it's becoming a bore
It's taking its place along with common folklore.

Punish he will, for our Father is just
In age-long correction, you surely can trust.
On vindictive torment our Father's not bent
Mercy will, yes! triumph over judgment.

A safer logical statement would be to say that a car cannot also not be a car at the same time in the same context.

First significant point: If your happiness depends upon the knowledge that someone else is enduring eternal torment, then you are being distinctly un-christian. Therefore, a god who acts to appease those who would be upset by another's lack of suffering is also un-christian. Our first logical contradiction.

Second significant point: he's talking about humans getting angry at what they perceive as failures of human justice. God cannot be bound by our expectations or definitions of justice. If he wanted to, he could define justice as being a free pass no matter what, and we would just have to play along.

Again, that would be according to our definition of justice, by which god could not be bound.

So far, there is a logical fallacy in the projection of human judgement upon god. Of course, god might believe in the same kind of justice we do, so although you can't use that possibility to shore up a logical proof, there's no second contradiction yet.

Now we do have a second logical contradiction. Remember that we've already assigned human-like understanding of justice to god in order to explain his actions. Now examine the two examples of Jesus and the vase-breaking boy. To make the vase-breaking a true analogy, we must modify and extend it:

One day, during play and running around the house you child runs into a table and breaks a vase. You want to forgive him, but believe that someone must be punished for breaking the vase. So you find your wife and make another baby together. A few years later, you haul off and punch the younger child in the face, smashing his nose up into his brain and killing him, as punishment for the older child breaking the vase.

Is that recognisable as human-like justice? Or would you be locked up for the rest of your life and called a monster?

Herein lies the second logical contradiction: you cannot say that god's status as a paragon of humanitarian justice excuses his monstrously inhumane and unjust acts.

Conversely, if you say that god's justice, however inhumane it seems, is perfect by definition, (making it ok for him to smash the life out of an innocent child because he's decided someone needs to be punished and he likes his naughty child better), then you cannot rationalise his acts by saying he is bound by human-like notions of justice.