I think the person he killed is supposed to be Jesus. Quite often, children are taught in the theistic framework that each sin you commit drives the nail deeper into Christ's hand. Of course, I could be wrong because of the apparent lack of specific faith. For example, if the movie has a Christian agenda, then where is Mr. Roberts' faith in Christ equated into his salvation? Does accepting him as your savior on earth mean squat at your judgment? I think the film suggests that faith has little to do with anything. Rather, it is our actions and choices that determine the end result. Odd. I wonder if the director/writer of this film is Christian or some other religion?

So I guess the basic argument could be: 

    At your judgment you are given a choice. 

    Depending on that choice, you are judged.

    Choosing to kill someone sends you to be judged by the devil and you are subsequently sent to hell.

    Choosing to leave sends you to God and who knows what happens after that.  

Beyond this basic and readily apparent argument, I'm unable to think of what else they're trying to say with this film.

Mr. Roberts isn't the antagonist.  He is the failed hero.  How the hero faces his choice at the end of the journey defines whether you have witnessed a comedy or a tragedy.  When the hero fails the test that is a tragedy.  When the hero passes the test it's a comedy - whether you laugh or not.

from DesiringGod.org blog

It's such a tragedy; That he would murder another human just to get what he wanted, only to find out in the end that what he got was pointless. That he was led like a goat to the slaughter, completely deceived. I'm afraid that's how many of us live our lives. We seek money - thinking that it will satisfy. But is that going to give you comfort when you're dying? We look at the latest gadget and think "If I just had that...". But what was once new is now old - only to be replaced by the next great thing that we must have - a never-ending one thing after another. We look to sex and masturbation. But once you ejaculate and reality comes back into view don't you feel like it was pointless - like your life is pointless? Like it was all fake and ultimately unsatisfying to your inner-most being? Yea, these things are great while they last, but they are ultimately unsatisfying. Paul once said "everyone who sins is a slave to sin". Don't you think that's true? We get addicted to these things because we look to them for our satisfaction. God knows this, that's why he wrote "My people have committed two sins: They have forsaken me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water." Like this man, we are willing to forsake God and look to virtually anything other than God. But in the end, when our world rolls away like a scroll and the real reality barges in unwelcomed we will come to the horrible realization that, like this dragon, we have utterly wasted our lives.

god (whatever that is) and the bible is your addiction. The difference is your obsession is with an imaginary "being" if it can be called that.

You live in an imaginary world. Your addiction is an attempt to escape reality. You cannot accept that your existence will permantly end.

The moral of the story is what all morality really boils down to, "Might makes right".

In this story God a complete asshat. A torturer and deceiver. Yet the powerless man that faces a moral dilemma to help his family is portrayed as evil. God can get a way with whatever torture he wants and still have people "love" him because he is all powerful. Theists are really just Divine ass kissers.

The greater good argument huh. So do you want to be the one that he kills?

                 What if ??

I think this film raises an interesting problem, even if it itends to or not. The problem of what moral system can or should a person choose between or appeal to, especially in times when those systems are in conflict with each other. I have not seen much from the atheist on this point. I usually see something along the lines that we will just figure ethics out and it is not really a serious problem. This film and message board on the film tease out the problem quite well. Different people appeal to different codes and principles of morality. Where one person may that it is always wrong to take the life of another, another person may argue equally well that benefitting a getter number of people or the greater good is always right. While a third may argue there is so such thing as right or wrong, but what you have the power to do. These are common ethical categories. The problem is that these ethical traditions come into conflict all the time and people make ethical choices everyday on them. There is no way to say what the right thing is in Mr. Roberts' particular situation. So the moral of the story may be that we need to still work out what morality even is and demands. We have to recognize that we live in a hodgepodge of moral traditions. The atheist and the theist can not easily answer the question of what is right or good. The film tries to come down on a side, by clearly punishing Mr. Roberts, but it is not clear that punish is justified, or award for that matter if he had chosen the key. But the idea that moral action is up to us, which comes off really well in this film, is an important and salient point. But another point is also clear, we do need a system of ethics that is consistently applies, without it the atheist and the theist whole project is worthless for human beings.

The ham-fisted tone of the dilemma, hackneyed premise, and uninspired acting stood out to me more than who was the antagonist. Even if there were subtle moral questions at stake, posing them would have been well beyond the reach of the writers, director and actors.

Moving beyond this film--which is essential to my continued tranquility--we can find much more realistic manifestations of the dilemma. Consider street racing, as I often have. There have been many deaths and injuries as a result of normal driving conditions, but it's a forgone conclusion that the likelihood of an accident will increase as reaction time is strained and driving rules disregarded on roads full of unsuspecting people. It's then arguable, that when one street races they accept the ballooning probability of their causing the death of another person. Whether any such thing actually occurs is incidental to the choice to accept the risk imposed on others.