Led by the nose of modernity

@RandalRauser

Christians who defend the doctrine of hell as eternal conscious torment…

I don't defend hell as eternal conscious torment but eternal conscious punishment or misery. Some of the damned deserve to suffer torment, but damnation is fundamentally about retributive justice, not torment. It's dishonest for progressives like Rauser to constantly mischaracterized the opposing position. 

…often challenge critics of the doctrine of "modern sentimentalism". 

If you prefer, what about modern immortality? Opposition to retributive justice is immoral. 

What, like the "sentimental" ideas that slavery and torture are wrong? 

Here he's resorting to a familiar wedge tactic. Cite alleged parallels which he assumes everyone ought to agree with. But the examples beg the question.

Under the circumstances, I think the OT position on "slavery" (not one thing) was justified. 

Gratuitous "torture" is wrong. But using physical or psychological coercion to extract information from an unwilling terrorist about future plots is morally warranted. 

That animal suffering is morally significant? 

I think the "moral" problem of animal suffering is vastly overrated. It's a sign of decadence by people spoiled by affluence. 

That military conflicts shouldn't target non-combatants? 

Military conflicts ought to avoid gratuitously targeting noncombatants. But there are human shield type situations where that's a necessary evil. 

That prisons should seek to reform and not merely to punish?

Depends on the crime. Retributive justice is good in its own right; it doesn't require remediation for its justification.

Those are all "modern" ideas. Yet, that is no argument against them. 

A willfully one-sided claim. There are lots of arguments againt his examples. They're only unquestionable within his bubbleworld of fellow progressives. 

The wedge tactic only works against like-minded people or those who lack the sophistication to critique the examples. 

And to call them "sentimental" would be diminished as retrograde, foolish ignorance.

Having no argument, he resorts to shaming opponents into submission. It's so egotistical when little twits like Rauser imagine their approval or disapproval should mean anything to anyone else. 

The moral censure of eternal conscious torment is drawn from the same well as the modern stance on all these other varied topics. 

Which cuts both ways. 

If we do not dismiss the latter as mere sentimentalism, why do so in the case of eternal conscious torment?

Because Christian faith demands commitment to biblical authority. If Christianity is a revealed religion, there are severe limits to its capacity for change.