Perhaps no greater Christian doctrine has challenged the politically correct mindset of the last twenty years than the doctrine of hell.  In this brief response, we'll simply explore two primary claims that lead many Christians to abandon this doctrine in favor of a more "sensitive" perspective of the divine (we'll assume that the biblical record stands firm in proffering belief in hell, so our concentration will be on responding to the critics who perceive this doctrine to be an affront to God's benevolence).

(i) If God is all-powerful, then He can save all persons from Hell.

On the surface, it appears that to deny this claim is to minimize God's omnipotence.  However, such is not the case for omnipotence does not include those things that are self-contradictory (i.e., God cannot make logical contradictions like "square-circles" or "married bachelors").  Since salvation is the result of each person's individual choice and there are some people who will freely reject salvation, then in a world where God desires that all persons freely receive salvation He cannot guarantee that all persons will in fact do so.  Therefore, it is possible that we live in such a world where those that find salvation are many but it may not be the case that all persons can be freely saved.

(ii) If God is all-good, then He wants no persons to go to Hell.

Again, a surface read suggests that this is not controversial.  After all, God has expressed that He desires that all persons be saved (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9).  But the objector means something else - he means to say that if God is all-good then He would prefer making a world where no person actually goes to Hell.  First of all, the problems of our response to (i) cannot be surmounted and, hence, there are some people who freely reject God's grace.  Secondly, I don't see why (ii) is necessarily true.  After all, if God is perfectly Just just as He is perfectly loving then I think God, out of moral necessity, demands that that justice be satisfied ("an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth").  And God cannot compromise His nature by turning a blind eye to sin for that justice must be satisfied.  So perhaps the objector prefers to say

(ii*) If God is all-good, then He will find an alternative means of punishment (lesser duration and/or intensity) over Hell.

But I see no reason to think (ii*) is necessarily true either.  Sin separates one from God forever and so the gravity of each sin is profound - demanding a corresponding punishment (one of infinite duration).  And the Bible suggests that Hell's intensity is contingent on the infraction(s) committed:

Therefore, given no good reasons to affirm (i), (ii), and (ii*) I find no good reason to abandon the Christian doctrine of Hell.