I'm aware, but I was under the impression that you are searching for justified reasons of the heart

I guess I’m just having trouble seeing what makes Christianity any more “justified” than Mormonism at this point. Both religions seem pretty absurd to me at the moment, but at least Mormon churches have a lot of cute girls, whereas most Christian churches tend to look like retirement homes.

Third, the doctrine of hell is inextricably bound to the doctrine of sin. Briefly, considering that God is infinitely holy, loving, and good, he is deserving of our loving obedience and worship, and a sin against God is a moral and cosmic crime of infinite magnitude.

This seems extremely problematic…….

If all sins are truly infinite in magnitude then wouldn’t this render meaningless the motivation to behave morally? Your view would entail that someone who lives a pretty virtuous life but commits a few minor sins is ultimately just as worthy of being sent to hell as a serial rapist, because both persons are infinitely sinful. And if that’s not bad enough, the serial rapist can even end up in heaven if he has blind faith in Jesus while the former person will be tossed into eternal hellfire if they’re non-Christian!

How do such views not utterly ruin the motivation to do good things? As a Christian, why should you be good if no matter how you behave during your life you will still have “infinity” stamped on your record of sins come judgment day? Your infinity of sins is no different from the serial rapist’s infinity of sins (or even Hitler’s infinity of sins for that matter!) because there is no such thing as one infinity being higher or lower than another. You can kill people from now until the time you die and you are just as ultimately moral in the eyes of the Christian God as everyone else because everyone is infinitely sinful! In other words: Sin on!

I really can’t imagine a more absurd system of morality than that. Far from taking sin seriously, it seems like your version of Christianity makes a complete mockery of morality. I really hope there are more plausible versions of Christainity available…

Moreover, since God is perfectly just, sin cannot simply be ignored.

But who is suggesting that sin be ignored? I don’t think sin should be ignored but that doesn’t mean I endorse the traditional doctrine of hell either. Surely you recognize how extraordinary it is to jump from the premise “sin can’t be ignored” to statements like “some people deserve everlasting conscious torment”? There’s a middle ground, right?

Much, much more can and perhaps should be said, but I'm just trying to briefly spell out the logic of the doctrine.

Eh, I don’t really see much logic here. Everything you’ve said thus far seems rationally on par with Mormon theology (that wasn’t a compliment, btw). In fact, I would say Mormonism’s “degrees of glory” conception of the afterlife puts the rationality of your Christianity to shame.

but it, again, all comes down to who God is and how serious sin is.

Why should the “seriousness of sin” entail everlasting conscious torment? I am not against punishment, per se. It’s just the ‘eternal’ part that troubles me. So with that said, can you offer a philosophical (i.e. non-scriptural) justification for the eternity of hell? I guess what I am saying here is that I don’t have a problem with hell itself. What I have a problem with is the eternal duration of hell.

To finish this segment, though, it is also worth noting that this doctrine has become increasingly resisted within Western culture (and Christianity) as moral relativism, religious pluralism, and casual or low attitudes toward 'sin' and immoral behaviors have become increasingly popular and mainstream.

What “immoral behaviors” do you have in mind? (Is being non-Christian one of them?)

Speaking of religious pluralism, do you fear getting punished by the God of another religion? For instance, do you fear getting sent to the Muslim hell?

Fifth, hell is a destination, in essence, that one chooses,

Is this “choice” of a libertarian or compatibilistic nature, according to your theology? Just wondering.

rather than a place God sends you. C. S. Lewis put it this way: "There are only two kinds of people in the end: Those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says in the end, 'Thy will be done. All that are in hell chose it. Without that self-choice, there would be no hell." Similarly, Pascal said, "One of the ways in which the damned will be condemned is that they will see themselves condemned by their own reason, by which they claimed to condemn the Christian religion."

These quotes about people choosing to do their own will instead of God’s will just seems like code for ‘being non-Christian’. Am I right about that? If not then what criteria is being used here to determine whether one “chose” hell?

Sixth, hell is not a place someone goes for simply not being a Christian.

Insofar as your quotes about “not doing God’s will” mentioned in 5 are just code for ‘being non-Christian’ then I believe you just contradicted yourself here.

What is a “Christian” anyway, to you? What are the necessary and sufficient conditions are being a ‘Christian’?

I can understand one framing the question in such a way, but it's simply too simplistic of a way to put it to be fair to the Christian doctrine of hell briefly explained above.

What’s simplistic about it? I think it’s more succinct than simplistic. I mean, if I died right now and your theology is right then I would go to hell, despite all the time I spent earnestly searching for God. It’s just kind of a bummer, you know?

I recommend watching WLC briefly hit on this issue in this video in which he touches some of what I've mentioned above.

Well, that video was pretty baffling to say the least. Again, how does one jump from “God can’t blink at sin” to “some people deserve everlasting conscious torment”? WLC invokes the concept of ‘perfect justice’ to support his position, which seems bizarre. Wouldn’t ‘perfect justice’ entail the prohibition of unfair and gratuitous punishments? That seems intuitively obvious to me. But perhaps this intuition of mine is just a case of my suffering the noetic effects of sin……..

I take it you mean epistemic primacy

Yes.............

one of the largest hurdles I have with adopting it entirely is, in essence, the arguments for theism. (Plus arguments for Christianity, personal religious experience, etc.)

What arguments do you have in mind?

I'm truly sorry that you seemed to have had such negative experiences at your local Protestant churches

Based on your defense of the traditional doctrine of hell, it sounds like you’d be right there co-signing their threats. Am I wrong?

There are other ways of dealing with a dreadful perceived truth.

Like what?

I've seen that your struggles with solipsism have caused you great pain, and I can't say I've ever considered it a live option, except only when I wanted it to be true because I thought it would relieve me of social problems that I had for years up until about a week ago lol.

I’m not sure why you were under the impression solipsism would abolish your social problems. That seems like a strange thing to say.