comment: >
  
  Most humans probably would. Just look at basic social gatherings, say movies were people cheer when a character they dislike gets killed in that made up fantasy. It’s probably deep satisfaction to watch the destruction of that which one finds repulsive, even if that destruction is leads to inhumanity. However, social norms try to limit expressions of this basic fact
context: people who do not believe in and accept God will go to hell when they die, regardless of how good of a person they are.
  
  Hell is a horrible place where people suffer eternally.
  
  This idea if he'll doesn't match up with what some of the major Christian sects believe in. Many don't rule out people returning to God after death and hell as not being some eternal torture:
  
  Hell is not eternal torment, but is the final and irrevocable choosing of that which is opposed to God so completely ... that the only end is total non-being."
  
  That's from the church of England. >
  
  My own mom and dad have told me countless times that it makes them so sad that I've rejected God and won't be in heaven. That's after they raised me as a christian my entire life and now tell me I never was simply because I no longer believe. 
  I told a guy to eat shit and burn in hell the other day because he told me the same. That all of my efforts to be a good human being mean jack shit to them if it isn't in the name of their god. I don't tolerate it anymore. Fuck all of them. >
  
  All your great deeds that lead to you being proud of telling people "eat shit and burn in hell." Maybe there's some canceling out going on. >
  
  There are several Christian schools of thought that do not subscribe to the general view you have stated.
  Some Christians believe in the idea of universal salvation, which basically states that everyone eventually gets to Heaven regardless of the state in which they died. In that light, those in both Heaven and Hell do not have to contest with the idea that their suffering is eternal.
  Origen (early Christian scholar) suggests that Hell is not a place of suffering but purification to which only the sinful aspects of a person go, not the entirety of the human soul. The image of fire is metaphorical and not meant to be interpreted literally.
  Annihilationists believe that the souls of bad people are simply allowed to die naturally, which isn't "eternal life" great but is distinctly not "burning in hell" bad.
  More generally, Pope John Paul II asserted that the suffering in Hell was about "the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God" rather than Hell as a separate space - not great, but not "burning" bad either. >
  
  Is Hell on earth? There are people suffering with lifelong mental disorders who’ve never experienced a break which makes me wonder if it is really a state of mind after all. Because on the same plane you have people that are happier than ever >
  
  Can you not be happy unless everyone you know is happy? >
  
  
  How can anybody be happy in heaven knowing that their loved ones who don't believe in God are suffering forever in hell?
  
  In fact for people with traumatic experiences how can they be happy in Heaven without fixing those problems? But fixing those problems either by altering your memory or changing your ability to cope with them would in essence be changing what makes you you, so it could be argued that whatever makes it into Heaven is just loosely based on the messed up humans on Earth.
  There is of course a simple answer to your question that fits within the scope of Christian theology. A good Christian is assumed to trust God's judgment and understand that whoever is in Hell deserves it, and rejoice that this deserved fate has been delivered. This is backed up by the entire concept that God himself thinks it just and appropriate to torture some people for eternity for whatever they did in their finite time on Earth.
  The central issue here is that your concept of what a "good Christian" should be doesn't mesh with the underlying theology of the religion. It isn't that heaven/hell don't exist (of course they actually don't, but that isn't the point here) or that your understanding of what they are is skewed (it probably is, but again that isn't the point). Instead the issue is that you a reasoning from the standpoint of a good person not being OK with being in Heaven, and that underlying premise is false because the idea of a "Good Christian" is really not a good person in our modern system of ethics.
  Now if that doesn't satisfy you there is a more biblical answer which comes straight from scripture. I will reference the Book of Job to produce this summary of the morals: "God is super powerful and doesn't have to explain shit." >
  
  How can anyone be happy in heaven if their loved on is in hell?
  What if heaven gave each person in heaven their perfect ideal paradise without their knowledge. Perhaps your loved one went to Hell and you went to heaven, but within your own heaven, you are reunited with what you believe is your loved one. 
  This would also solve the issue of how there can be a perfect paradise for everyone, knowing that each individual can have different values that can conflict with others. >
  
  Or it's one place. If I got sent to someone else's paradise and had to live in the paradise of some fundamentalist Christian I can think of no worse hell >
  
  Yea, which is why I think if it were to exist and truly be paradise for everyone, it would be to be siloed per individual. Otherwise, like you said, many people would be in hell anyway. >
  
  Based on the stereotypical view of hell, and the one I think you're thinking of, I cant try to change your view.
  It's worth noting however, that concept of hell is not biblical. In fact, hell is never mentioned in the bible. (There are a few metaphors that are often pointed at as discussing hell, but it's not actually clear on the subject.)
  Some interpretations for don't consider heaven and hell to be separate "places", even if they believe in hell at all. For example, some believe that hell is a state of "mind" (for lack of a better term). 
  Imagine you suddenly had a perfect understanding of cause and effect, and of morality. Those that tried their best in life, would understand that their shortfalls were out of their hands, while those who didn't, would be fully, painfully aware of the full extent of the harms they caused. "Hell" under this framework would be the guilt caused by that understanding. (This is just one of several versions of the idea. I've also heard it used for just accepting God, without the other morality bits.)
  Furthermore, you can interpret "accepting God" and the like, as more the concept of wmbeacing goodness and grace, rather than accurate belief in the specifics of the litteral entity.
  I've spoken to several (prptestant) priests about the issue, and every one has said some form of "I believe in a loving, merciful God. As such, I believe we can trust that good people, such as our loved ones, would necessarily be cared for, even if they don't fully know His love in life." >
  
  It seems pretty biblical to me.  E.g., Matthew 25:31--46 Jesus talks about sending those who help others to heaven, and those who don't to "eternal punishment" "into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels".  I mean... I guess this could be metaphorical eternal fire and metaphorical punishment... but... I don't really see any reason not to accept it as literal. >
  
  That discusses punishment and torment, but it really doesn't describe a "place". It certainly doesn't give the detailed specifics about hell the average person thinks is codified into Christian cannon.
  I'm not claiming it's an unreasonable interpretation, but most people seem to think the details are unambiguously laid out. >
  
  Constantine tells us that one of the pleasures of Heaven is witnessing the tortures of those in Hell. So presumably the only people admitted are the sort thst would enjoy that kind of thing.