I am about to ask a serious but utterly reprehensible question

[Ben Davis]

For those who argue against objective morality, there isn’t really a problem (how is rape wrong under a subjective morality) However; that is a different subject; and I’ll assume objective morality in the answer.

Wrong. There's nothing wrong with rape under an 'objective' morality if the source says that it's moral. For example, in the Old Testament when God 'gives' the women of a conquered tribe to his chosen people, the lack of consent is explicit consequently any sex is rape. However in modern, secular, subjective moralities, expression of the rights to self-determination and bodily autonomy are explicit in describing the immorality of rape because there is no consent. You are completely wrong on this point.

I think that there are a couple of aspects to your question.  The first has to do with why something is wrong.   In the case of rape, I think that this has more to do with the why; rather than the what is occurring.   C.S. Lewis made the distinction of intentions when discussing morality, rather than the outcome.  He stated, that we are angry with the person, who attempts to trip us up, yet fails.  But not angry with the person who trips us by accident; even when the result is injury. There may initially be some emotion from the injury or embarrassment, but I think that for a rational person, this should subside.    Now from the principle in your example, the second case is “far worse” in result, so shouldn’t we be able to compare them?  I think that the answer is no, because the intentions do make a difference.   In the case of rape, the motivations are selfish, and set themselves on something that God has set apart to be Holy.

Bad analogy. Rape is defined by the outcome and attempted rape is also a crime. I'm also keen to understand how you could 'accidentally' rape someone. Please, do tell...

The second aspect, is that I think you are working from a pop culture caricature of hell.  A Greek Orthodox would describe hell and the torment therein; as a result of separation from God.    I do agree with this view, but also think that some can take it too far (making it purely emotional and  self-inflicted), and I believe ignoring some parts of scripture.  While I believe that most of the descriptions of hell in the Bible are symbolic; they still represent that which they are symbolizing.  What the Bible describes is the consequences of sin, and the result of separation from God.  

Well, here's the bible contradicting itself again. Jesus makes it very clear that hell is a physical place where people are tortured with fire. There's no punishment in being separated from something that you were already separated from and that's what hell's all about, isn't it? Divine retribution?

So the answer is no; I wouldn’t agree with what you proposed, or do anything like that.  I don’t think that it is an equivalent comparison, nor accurate of the Biblical description.

Well, it's great that you wouldn't but you have to acknowledge that the bible endorses rape and doesn't classify it as immoral unless it occurs outside of wedlock. Raping your wife, whatever age she is, seems to be a common occurrence in the bible. Whether any christian would? Well, have you seen some of the insults that christians throw at atheists, sometimes actually threatening rape? Yes, I know they're the nutters but they're christians none-the-less.