Human beings are finite creatures. In any moral system, we do some good and some evil. None of us can do infinite evil, in any moral system, in our brief lives. We simply don't have enough time to do so. So how can it be justified to conceive of a Hell in which human beings suffer eternal damnation for their finite sins? What can these poor, finite creatures do, in their short lives, to justify such an infintely cruel punishment? Since I cannot see any justification for such horrendous punishment, isn't it very likely that the believers in these religions have written their own need for revenge and 'divine justice' against their ideological enemies into the religious texts of both religions, if one is making the unlikely assumption that one of these religions might actually be 'true'? That being the case, and continuing with the assumption that one of these religions might be 'true', then isn't it more likely that the punishment for 'sin' in the afterlife is not eternal, and is more like a Purgatory? Men, after all, wrote both the Bible and the Koran. Human beings serve theri own ideological purposes when they write religious texts. A God who would punish mankind so severely for such finite offenses would be a monster, in every sense of the word. Doesn't it make more sense to assume that such an interpretation of God is false, that God is much kinder than that?