[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah Silent A got my point. You're under no obligation to follow the bible since you'd be doing it for others, not for yourself. You could be doing the wrong thing in the greater scheme of things but you're guaranteeing those you love eternal paradise. You are being completely selfless.

In one sense, it is ultimate EV. Once you've completed one murder and have guaranteed yourself hell, you're on a freeroll to be sending more people to heaven at no cost!

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand the argument. The point I am clearly failing to make is that you believe it to be a moral act (assuming that is implied by selfless and "ultimate EV"). But you dont believe hell is real. The people who believe hell is real do not accept your definitions of morality.

If you believed in hell and also believed one should act to minimise suffering, then your conclusion may follow (I think there are other more dubious counter arguments, but leaving them aside). The point is, the people we are discussing dont believe both of those things. They believe in hell and that one should act according to God's wishes.

EDIT: Another way of trying to say the same thing. In the quote above you said someone was under no obligation to follow the bible if they were doing it for others and not for themselves. Someone who believes in hell is not going to believe this. They will say you have to follow the bible, irrespective of the consequences.

Your argument makes sense to someone with a morality determined by the perceived or expected consequences. There are people who think consequences dont matter - what matters is following the rules.