If by "stands up to scrutiny" you mean "can be maintained by saying 'dunno' to the hardest questions" then sure, just about anything stands up to scrutiny :-). I don't think you've given any reason to think it's reasonable to suppose that human sins justify eternal torment.
Clearly Christians continue to disobey God (by which I mean: do things that are against what they consider, and what most people would consider if they took Christianity as premise and went from there, to be the will of God). So if you hope to escape hell then hell can't be a necessary consequence of disobeying God. So saving everyone from hell wouldn't require God to force everyone never to disobey him. So it doesn't seem like keeping everyone out of hell would require a total negation of human freedom.
I agree that it could still be true that getting out of hell requires (e.g.) that one make *at least one* genuinely unforced choice, which God couldn't interfere with without making it not work any more. (Though I have never yet heard any really coherent account of why that should be. It's easy to argue that your position is sound when you're allowed to invent constraints that supposedly apply even to God, without any actual evidence that he is under any such constraints or any good reason to think he should be...)
If, as appears to be the case, you agree with me that (assuming, as before, that Christianity is right) providing really good evidence would suffice to make the great majority of people become Christians of their own free will, then it seems to me that it's not enough just to say "oh, well, God's left it up to people like me to provide that evidence". Because, as you may have noticed, People Like You are *not* providing anything like enough evidence to make the great majority of people become Christians. (Even in places where the great majority of people *are* Christians, this appears to be mostly because people follow their parents' religion, not because of the weight of evidence they're provided with. And globally, the majority of people are not Christians.) I'm not blaming you for this (because, e.g., you can't provide evidence you don't have). But it seems to me that God, if God there be, ought to be doing something more effective.
Imagine that there is a global epidemic of a terrible disease, and that you are a phenomenally rich and phenomenally clever person who has just discovered a simple cure for it. You could make use of your tremendous wealth to set up manufacturing facilities everywhere, hire lots of people to provide the curative agent to everyone, provide demonstrations so that people can tell your cure really does cure, keep an eye on the operations to make sure they're actually working, etc. Instead, you pick a few not-specially-reliable people and say "Go and hand out the stuff". It turns out that they do a rather lousy job of this and billions of people are dying because they aren't doing it well; but you don't switch to a better way of getting the job done. I would not be greatly impressed by the depth of your concern or by your competence in this situation. I would not take "Oh, well, you see, I chose to leave it up to them" as a good explanation of why you weren't doing better.
no subject
Clearly Christians continue to disobey God (by which I mean: do things that are against what they consider, and what most people would consider if they took Christianity as premise and went from there, to be the will of God). So if you hope to escape hell then hell can't be a necessary consequence of disobeying God. So saving everyone from hell wouldn't require God to force everyone never to disobey him. So it doesn't seem like keeping everyone out of hell would require a total negation of human freedom.
I agree that it could still be true that getting out of hell requires (e.g.) that one make *at least one* genuinely unforced choice, which God couldn't interfere with without making it not work any more. (Though I have never yet heard any really coherent account of why that should be. It's easy to argue that your position is sound when you're allowed to invent constraints that supposedly apply even to God, without any actual evidence that he is under any such constraints or any good reason to think he should be...)
If, as appears to be the case, you agree with me that (assuming, as before, that Christianity is right) providing really good evidence would suffice to make the great majority of people become Christians of their own free will, then it seems to me that it's not enough just to say "oh, well, God's left it up to people like me to provide that evidence". Because, as you may have noticed, People Like You are *not* providing anything like enough evidence to make the great majority of people become Christians. (Even in places where the great majority of people *are* Christians, this appears to be mostly because people follow their parents' religion, not because of the weight of evidence they're provided with. And globally, the majority of people are not Christians.) I'm not blaming you for this (because, e.g., you can't provide evidence you don't have). But it seems to me that God, if God there be, ought to be doing something more effective.
Imagine that there is a global epidemic of a terrible disease, and that you are a phenomenally rich and phenomenally clever person who has just discovered a simple cure for it. You could make use of your tremendous wealth to set up manufacturing facilities everywhere, hire lots of people to provide the curative agent to everyone, provide demonstrations so that people can tell your cure really does cure, keep an eye on the operations to make sure they're actually working, etc. Instead, you pick a few not-specially-reliable people and say "Go and hand out the stuff". It turns out that they do a rather lousy job of this and billions of people are dying because they aren't doing it well; but you don't switch to a better way of getting the job done. I would not be greatly impressed by the depth of your concern or by your competence in this situation. I would not take "Oh, well, you see, I chose to leave it up to them" as a good explanation of why you weren't doing better.