@WAR_ON_ERROR - Isn't it the way the prison system is run?

Errors in the order which they appear, reading from top to bottom, left to right, and from the center outwards, if that makes any sense to you.

"I find it hard to believe that a god can be infinitely hurt or offended by a mere act of rejection from an unworthy being." There are a few issues with this one, the least of which being that any parent can feel deeply impacting emotions in response to rejection from their own children and vice versa. Let's pull it out a step though, where would you begin to form a basis for your beliefs about a god, their motivations, their psychological make up, etc? 

Also, "Since when is the human mind even capable of such mental feats of infinite magnitude?" It is my understanding that in this scenario it is the interpretation of an action or belief that deals with infinity and not the actions or beliefs themselves. Sin is defined by heavenly mandate. It is in the palms of a deity that each decision is weighed, not on the mind of a mortal. 

"Who are you to judge God?" Is sort of a valid question. In a recent discussion about the natural born citizen clause I had to pose a question of qualification. The common man is unfit to properly interpret the constitution from a legal perspecctive. That's why we have the supreme court. A single person judging a constitutional matter may be correct or incorrect but they have neither the authority, nor likely the knowledge, to do so definitively. Now, I don't know about you but I'd be intimidated with someone such as Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein standing in front of me at a cocktail party and they are well within the bounds of human physiology and psychology. I'm not ever sure where I'd begin to find a justification for my personal ability to evaluate the decisions of a being that is omniscient OR so intelligent and knowledgable above and beyond the scope of humanity as to appear omniscient. I have trouble believing that you would either. 

"Even if it was easy to be saved, that wouldn't justify punishments not fitting the crime." Well, without referencing another response, Where would you begin when deciding what crimes fit what punishments? As it stands, with humanity sort of pulling the answers out of our collective backsides and then comparing notes and reconcilling them into law, we still don't agree. Do murderers deserve to die or live their life in prison? Do people that use marijuana deserve prison time, a fine, or no punishment at all? Stating that a punishment fits a crime insists that there is a golden standard from which to deviate. I know of no such standard. Even the most reasonable analysis of prison, in this country, 

Which brings us quite smoothly into "That is unprincipled internal coherency as though a mere statement affirming the opposite of a logical contradiction makes the contradiction go away." Actually, it cannot be said that it doesn't rest on similar principles as the system we have in place now. At the root cause of every moral sprouting from thin air or being pulled cleanly from someone's behind is an emotional response to an event. This event can be in reality or in their head (a reaction to a bit of information or an imagined occurrence). A thing is wrong because of effect a, which is undesirable because it evokes a negative emotion or spawns a situation which will evoke a negative emotion or denial of a positive physical or emotional state. I sense a healthy rebuttal to this one so let me know if you have something. 

"Hell cannot be merely the equivolent of just not being acquainted the Christian god in person with no torturous strings attached since it is constantly and vividly portrayed as eternal torment." Not so! =) Torture can be a state of mind just as easily as it can be a state of being and the denial of something highly desirable can be torturous. We could start with a limited example of having something that is rewarding, amazing sex for example, and then being denied it for an incredibly long period of time. Problem with such an example, and it applies equally to drugs and any equivalent example, is that the discomfort experienced may be the sole result of the physical changes that occur. People on drugs go through withdrawal which is an actual physical state. People that don't have sex .. eh too complicated for this discussion when I'm throwing it in a box with off-answers anyway. Now, a good example is coveting something (a person, a place, a thing, a state of being, a feeling) and being unable to possess it and having an emotional reaction to that created solely by the absence of that thing. Worse than that, coveting something that is just slightly out of reach. Worse than that, coveting soemthing that i just slightly out of reach that is of incredible value to you. Like sitting outside of the gates of heaven watching everyone rub shoulders with the big guy for eternity. That would be a self-created state and the vividness with which such a state may be portrayed, well I refer you back to the drugs. Many people use creative language to refer to the desire to resume drug use (or nicotine use, or alcohol abuse, or any other addiciton). They describe scenarios which are clearly only in their head but are compelling, vivid and tormenting. Demons, 'they just keep calling me', getting the itch, etc, etc. 

"Nobody should be allowed to "choose" this state in any event. It's an inhumane option." That is the beauty of free will. Just as people are free to say things that are horrifically offensive, untrue, or that have effects on others that can only be described as evil (manson, hitler) they are still allowed to say these things (within the legal bounds of course). Free will works in much the same way. Perhaps nobody should be allowed to slide the barrel of a loaded weapon into their mouth and squeeze the trigger with their toe until their thoughts ooze slowly down the ugly appolstered walls. Then again "should" is kind of a big word for a discussion of this sort. Where is this "should" coming from? 

"The Christian god is responsible for organizing the metaphysics of the afterlife. If "torment" is the "natural" result of choosing to not be in communion with that god, that's still mostly that god's fault." I wouldn't say that's so at all. Building a prison and a college next to eachother does not gaurantee that either will have people sitting in them. It is still the choices of individuals that will land them in one or the other. Knowing that someone will make a certain choice that will land them in either is not the same as dictating that choice, even for someone that's omnipotent, and even for that omnipotent being to have set up the system. Knowing and controlling are not the same. Building the jail does not an inmate make. Free will comes with responsibility over choices and actions. 

"A clayvoyant rapist who knows exactly where to hide when a woman trips and falls landing her vagina directly on his penis is still guilty of rape... even if that woman was attempting to rob the place." Legally, that's simply not true unless after that initial accidental penetration, she protested and he continued. I mean, I see where you're going with this.. it just doesn't fit the definition of the word you're trying to use for it. Moreover, if you take an action you take responsibility for hte parts of that action of which you are responsible. If you tripped and fell on someone you'd apologize. Why? Because, unless someone else tripped you, it's your fault. To make this more realistic let's evaluate a more human example. A guy knows (or for the purposes of this example has good reason to suspect) that a certain woman, when intoxicated or in a particular emotional or physical state, is extremely receptive to sexual advances and though she may not really want sex she won't say no to it at these particular times. If she places herself in such a situation where her receptivity is unusually high and, where the guy represents a natural or inevitable process or result of an action, the guy takes advantage of that, who is responsible for the ensuing sex? Well, this happens to be a two person example so both people would be but as I said, let the guy represent a natural or inevitable process. This leaves one person to shoulder the burden of the responsibility present, especially if they had foreknowledge or good reason to believe that the results would follow the set of actions they chose to pursue. If she knows she can't say no to sex when she's drunk and she goes to a party where guys are posing sexual advances and she gets drunk it's  not entirely unreasonable to think that she knows she's going to wake up the next morning with a sore vagina and a throbbing head in someone else's bed. It also isn't unreasonable to believe that it wouldn't have happened had she not drank. Responsibility. =)

"What's the practical difference if the end result is senseless eternal suffering of one kind or another?" I'm going to assume the statement that follows this has been used in an actual argument. In any event, that's a complex question fallacy. 

"The Christian system of "if you've broken even one law even a little, you've broken them all" is about as sane as having a gas gauge that reads empty if even on drop has been combusted." That's entirely incorrect. It's more like having a gas tank with a single drop of gas that reads empty no matter what type of gas that single drop is. If it's regular and it burns out you're on empty. if it's silver and it burns out, you're on empty. If it's rocket fuel and it burns out, you're on empty lol. It wouldn't matter what type of gas, would it? I think I'd more compare it to a police service examination. If you fail the psych test, you can't be a cop. If you can't fire your firearm you can't be a [real] cop. If you fail the fitness exam, you can't be a cop. if you have a record, you can't be a cop. You have to pass all of them or you fail entirely. Alternately, consider genetics. Mis-code even part of the human genetic sequence even a little and you have a pig. 

"Mercy kills: Allowing this farce to go on forever is cruel and unbefitting of a morally perfect being who would have the sense to put their poor ever-sinning creature out of its self-perpetatuted misery." Mercy has an emotional basis, not a logical one. That point aside, punishment doesn't end until it's over. Just because someone is losing their marbles in a lifetime sentence over a quadrupple homocide doesn't mean they get out for it, no matter how much you love them and have the power to change it. 

"If this were the case, it is implausible that a good god woudl create so many infant human souls which he knew oculdn't be destroyed and would never develop to spiritual maturity since so many die before they are even born." Source material for timeline of spiritual maturation in-utero and after birth?

"If created beings are contingent (according to many Christian philosophers) then why can't contingent beings be undone?" Not 100% on this but aren't we promised eternal life? Would God break his own word? 

"It is already possible for humans to have non-experiences where no memories of anything are being recorded in addition to experiencing a bare minimum of awareness." You're talking about physical conditions, not spiritual ones. We can't exactly speculate on spiritual states but as you covered, inadequately, in the counter-point, sinners would get away with their crimes. Again, trying not to reference earlier responses but binary system. Personally, I think any other system is fairly inefficient. It saves time and, if resources were a concern, it would save resources. Imagine if every crime had the punishment of death. Courts would never get backed up. Prisons wouldn't be draining tax money. I'm also fairly certain that it would be a pretty major deterrent to crime. Anyway, I kinda figure that existence on a spiritual plane would constitute awareness without the corporeal aspects of life that we observe. That said, who says that any sort of state of non-awareness would be possible without it constituting non-existence altogether? I think therefore I am. I do not think therefore I am not. Inverse and all that jazz. 

"The logical problem of evil." There is none.  Read Plantiga. 

"Ironically, only this god would deserve this punishment for giving out this punishment unjustifiably." See what I mean about determining punishments? To you that makes some modicum of sense in the sense that it would be giving him a dose of his own medicine, retribution being one of the finer points of western thought, but is there an actual justification for that? Evaluate that question after responding to the rest of my concerns. 

I was reading an article on what cosntitutes a mary sue earlier. It was saying something about constructing stories where you have characters that lack depth as opponents to the author's favorite character as a way of creating strawmen for their character to beat up in arguments. I'm certain that there are more complex and intellectual responses out there then what you've typed up here, mostly because i feel I brought at least a few to bear. 

@WAR_ON_ERROR - I haven't actually given it a good look yet but I commend you on a format that immediately seems easier to respond to. 
I was sort of wondering what those were. I was certain I had missed a legend of some sort. 

It's represented but not adequately addressed. The prooblem is that there is no solid standard to judge it upon and, given that, no good reason not to have an internal critique.  That's what I was getting at. 
Well, I'm not sure the "don't know what they are missing" rebuttal by christians is correct, nor meaningful to the nature of the discussion (not as we're having it but in general). Most people that are critical of these doctrines do so from a relatively informed stance. So, they have the information they just don't believe. After death, the afterlife would be confirmation of the information and thus they would instantly know exactly what they're missing. I'm eager to read the clarification. 
 Link later please. 

Yeah, I was hoping that no one had actually said that. In any event, "What's the practical difference if the end result is senseless eternal suffering of one kind or another?" constitutes a complex question because there is no way to answer it directly without affirming the position that the eternal suffering is senseless. If one says there is a practical difference then they are admitting it's senseless. If one says that there is no practical difference then they are admitting it's senseless. There is no fair way to answer the question directly. 
Link please. However, from the title alone I can rebutt that the argument posed invovles a gradiation from moral perfection to moral imperfection to entirely evil that doesn't really exist. I consider it akin to the system of law. You're either a criminal or you're not. If you break one law and are convicted, then you're a convicted criminal, no matter what law it is and no matter how many laws you break in addition to it. You cannot be a non-criminal if you break any of the laws. 

The blogspot was interesting but your response after is what I was talking about. I was wondering what would constitute a stunted spiritual life, especially when everyone must die at some point. 

Hmmm cool. I'll take a look and see what i can do if I see anything that I think looks strawmanish