I watched for a minute then skipped to minute five. Head explosion indeed.

Yeah, I like these guys and I enjoy their YouTube clips, but this is a topic where they could do a better job of demonstrating common ground, by showing that even hardcore Bible believers pick and choose between "sensible" Biblical laws and "outdated / crazy" laws. How do believers differentiate? By their own sense of fairness / justice / mercy ... which is coincidentally how atheists decide right from wrong.

If you have to decide which laws make sense and what don't in your belief system, what is the point of having a predefined set of them at all? I think that is the main difference and comes across pretty well.

I also find it interesting that very often the criteria by which the decisions concerning the practicality/sensibility/point of religious rules are made are very often the result of secular, scientific reasoning which would never have come to pass if we lived in a 100% religious world.

Maybe it's more a matter of emphasis then. Pretty often, when asked "how do you decide what you should and should not do", the guy answers "I use reason"; it would be helpful if he added "... and so do you, let me show you". Focusing on "I use reason" emphasizes and exaggerates differences that aren't there so much, and puts up a roadblock.

And yes, it really does call into question what good the rule book is. Which would be a great point to make, but first you've got to show that a person's sense of right and wrong doesn't originate from the rule book.

The best justice incorporates mercy anyway as a matter of course. Reducing a penalty because it is unduly harsh or counterproductive could be called "mercy", or it could also be called "not compounding the original injustice with a sentencing injustice".

Reducing a penalty for being "unduly harsh" or a "sentencing injustice" isn't mercy, its simply restoring justice. Reducing a "duly harsh" sentence that was justly applied for reasons of compassion would be mercy. Mercy can lead to a more fair/just/societally optimal outcome, without being 'justice'. Of course this depends on specific definitions of justice and mercy that aren't universally agreed upon, but are what the caller was talking about there (suffering proportional to crimes). The point on show's side is not that salvation is bad, but rather that the Christian definition of salvation contradicts justice.

More important is the idea that salvation in the Christian sense isn't about restoration or retribution (although some saints did dedicate their live to making amends or making themselves suffer) but simply loving and obeying God. I was commonly told in Catholic school stories of horrible men who engaged in brutality and accepted God right before their deaths to find the reward of eternal paradise in heaven. While their innocent victims who did not accept God would suffer eternally. Christianity (or most denominations) basically say that all other crimes are insignificant compared to accepting complete control by God.

As the show points out, its a philosophy whereby good people suffer unimaginable torment for being born in the wrong place while horrible people, even if its good that they reform, find no punishment in this life or the next. You could say that knowledge of their own misdeeds will haunt them, but that's not really how heaven is described.

To put it simple: the angular stone of this "system" is based on how much you appeal to the ego of a narcicistic god. As long as you worship him, even one nanosecond before dying, all your bill is clean, and you can keep harrasing costumers in heaven.

I must disagree. salvation is a loathsome concept, at least in terms of religion. It means that a magical wizard priest man can simply wave his hand and declare ANYONE who puts forth whatever effort the religion requires as "saved" regardless of their crime or offense to mankind. The reason it gives people hope and is interpreted as such a great facet of religion is because people know it's a lazy, easy way out of actually doing anything to redeem themselves in any actual way that's effective, so it's much more attractive. Also, conceding that religion's great saving grace is salvation, means that you also HAVE to concede then that religion is qualified to make judgments in the opposite direction, and that condemning people to hell or to death or whatever is totally A-OK because they know what they're talking about.

Whiskey, Catholics don't do sola fide; they're saved through the church and the sacraments. Mortal sins prevent salvation, but they can be forgiven if someone is truly penitent, which is closer to what Night Train was saying. It sounds to me like Darrel is conveniently assuming that justice requires retribution, which is unfortunate.

(but he still kicked that guy's ass)