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 hell as a serial rapist, because both persons have “infinite” sins.

How does this not utterly ruin the motivation to do good things? Why should I be good if I am a Christian? No matter how I behave during my life I will still have “infinity” stamped on my record of sins come judgment day. My infinity of sins is no different from your infinity of sins or Hitler’s infinity of sins. There is no such thing as one infinity being higher or lower than another. Not only is such a doctrine pretty offensive (Am I really as bad as Hitler?), but it makes a complete mockery of morality. Far from taking sin seriously, it seems like your version of Christianity makes a complete mockery of morality. If all sins are ‘infinite’, then morality becomes meaningless. You might as well sin as much as you want! I can kill people from now until the time I die and I am still just as ultimately “moral” as anyone else because we both have “infinite” sins! What an absurd system of morality…

Jesus expressively took sin very seriously when he stated that "If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell" (Matthew 5:29-30). This is commonly regarded as hyperbole, but the point is clear.

The “seriousness of sin” is fine and all, but the implication here is that those who reject the traditional doctrine of hell aren’t taking sin seriously.

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 I don’t endorse the a 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” or “all sins have ‘infinite magnitude’”?

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

I don't really see any logic so far. Everything you’ve said thus far seems rationally on par with Mormon theology (that wasn’t a complement, btw). In fact, I would say Mormonism’s “degrees of glory” conception of the afterlife puts the rationaltiy 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?

But what’s the problem with immoral behavior in your worldview? Nothing really. According to your theology, every sin is “infinite” in magnitude; so the people in the mainstream who are committing moral are just as bad as you are. If they repent at the right time then they won’t get to avoid hell, right? Whereas someone like myself who spends.

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

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

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 seem 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?
What is a “non-Christian” anyway, according to you?

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

And insofar as your quotes about “not doing God’s will” in 5 are just code for ‘being non-Christian’ then 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.

I don’t think it’s simplistic. It’s more succinct than simplistic.
If I died right now, then I would go to hell, despite all the time I spent pouring over arguments for God’s existence while someone who spent his life serial
Do you fear getting sent to the Muslim hell?

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 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?

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. Solipsism is just the simple idea that nothing exists except what you’re presently experiencing. So if you’re experiencing a social problem, then it exists. Social problems are just a particular kind of experience….