Gods supposed perfection

[Esquilax]

It would help me to understand better if you were to qualify 'infinite' related to crimes and punishment. Do you mean to say: it is immoral to punish a finite number of crimes with a punishment of an infinite amount of time?

Essentially. By definition, unless the crimes committed are themselves infinite- which I don't even know what that would look like within our reality- then at some stage the punishment will go past the point where it would be excessive, and then still continue. And it would not stop. This is the problem with the kind of hyper-intense consequences religion pushes on people; no matter what you've done, eternity will eventually overtake your capacity to commit evil.

If I have accurately represented your premises and conclusion, then your argument is neither valid nor sound. You could make a more cogent argument from some of the existing premises.

I wouldn't even call it an argument. Rather, it is a simple set of factual statements, within the context of the christian narrative, that contradict the claims therein.

I would also raise the following objections/clarifications to your premises:
1. Is rehabilitation and atonement the only purpose of punishment?

It should be. I mean, I understand that containment is also a part of the process, removal from society for the safety of the law abiding, but if at all possible this should be done with a view to eventually removing the threat without ending the life of its instigator. We put people in prison to atone, so that they act as a deterrent both to repeat violations and potential violations from others, and to ensure that it doesn't happen again. It's a consequence that we hope will make criminals think twice.

What else would you use it for? Vengeance? I would think we are better than that.

2. Entirely subjective

I would call it a mathematical certainty. We live finite lives, and then we die; there is no possible way we could commit infinite crimes, and therefore infinite punishment becomes excessive at the point at which its length surpasses the length of our crimes. Now, I've seen you later on state that since god is an infinite being we have transgressed, infinite punishment is required, but this is nonsense. For one, a "crime" that causes no harm to this supposed infinite being can hardly be said to have been a crime against him. If you're just going to assert that god's authority cannot be crossed then my answer is that authority that is demanded and not freely given is a dictatorship, a tyranny entirely ill fitting of any morality, let alone supreme morality. That's being sent to a gulag without trial, not justice.

But if you're set on considering god the victim here, then let me accept that premise and remind you of something: what sort of court would set the victim of the crime as the judge of the accused? Judges are supposed to be impartial, after all. It is only right, in a sane and fair trial, that god recuse himself from the judgment of every soul, if you're committed to making him the victim. And if he doesn't, then we're back to tyranny, I'm afraid. That's vengeance, not justice.

3. Rehabilitation is entirely possible in an infinite punishment. This is exemplified in our current legal system. An inmate's punishment doesn't necessarily end when they have been rehabilitated. Some inmates spend the rest of their lives being both rehabilitated and punished.

"The rest of their lives," is in no way infinite.

4. No punishment necessitates rehabilitation. According to this premise, all punishments are potentially unjust because no punishment necessitates rehabilitation.

Would you not consider a punishment that seeks to morally correct the punished and turn them into productive members of society more moral than one that simply sees fit to punish? Is not betterment preferable to the infliction of pain?

5. Mercy is unjust, yet not immoral.

Highly dependent on what you're being merciful on. Showing mercy to an unrepentant serial killer, for example, only ensures more victims. There are types of mercy that are immoral, for sure.

7. What crimes are we unable to keep from committing?

Is it possible for any given human to avoid sinning their entire life?

8. Dictatorships are not necessarily immoral. If a dictator is moral, then he/she will make moral judgments. If a dictator is immoral, then he/she will make immoral judgments.

I would consider self determination enough of a moral imperative that democracy is inherently more moral than dictatorship.

9. Please define your terms 'regular morality' and 'perfect morality.'

The distinction is immaterial; regular morality is morality as we understand it, while perfect morality would be the consistent selection of actions that are the most morally correct for any given context.

I have to admit, when I first read what you had written it sounded very reasonable to me. They are, however, a list of assertions, mostly subjective, with no logical cogency. From such, we cannot logically conclude anything, not yet anyway. You are a very persuasive person, I'll give you that. Persuasive and illogical.

I think the issue is our disagreement on morality, given that, from what I can surmise you believe morality finds its source in god, whereas I find it to be a context driven determination based in a set of simple general rules founded on our nature as living beings. I simply can't give you the kind of absolute, objective grounding for my morality that you assert to exist, and so of course my arguments would seem to be assertions, a problem not helped by the fact that actually going through the grounding behind each premise would be a book on its own, and you'd probably still find them less than perfectly sound because of the expectations your own belief system has given you.

I agree with the second part. This is the answer as to why Jesus had to die, why the cross is necessary. Namely, it is how can God be completely merciful and just.

How does substitutionary atonement help the situation at all?

What do you mean when you say "advocator and performer of infinite punishment are mutually exclusive terms?"

Sorry, my sentence was a bit unclear :"Advocator and performer of infinite punishment" is mutually exclusive with "perfectly moral and just."

And what would be a "punishment commensurate with the crime they have committed," and who decides?

That would depend on the individual in question. Each life is different, which is another reason why giving everybody the same punishment is a ludicrous proposition. As to who decides... not god. Not the person bringing the charges.

We've built up an entire judiciary system around the idea of fair trials and eliminating bias, why would it then be okay to throw that all away at the most important trial of one's life, and make the judge, jury and executioner be the same person, who is also the prosecution and all the witnesses and the accuser, and also you get no defense or right to appeal, or human rights at all? That's madness.

Ever heard the phrase "Kangaroo Court"?