He proceeds to argue that 'hell' does not fit into any of these catergories. His arguments are summarized as follows:
1) He argues that since most people still sin then 'hell' can't be the deterrent that God intended it to be. This is fallacious because it misses the point. Hell is still a deterrent regardless of the quantity of those who are motivated by it. He goes on to argue, from illustrations, that God could have come up with a better deterrent for sin. Well I kind of agree...its called grace. Romans 2:4 tells us it is the kindness of God which leads us to repentance. Hell isn't the only deterrent God used but it is still justifiably called a deterrent.
2) He says that separation is for the point of creating a better society. His main point is that God could have sent them to a place of separation which isn't a place of senseless torture. I would argue that Hell isn't a place of sensless torture. In fact the word 'torture' is never used to describe hell; rather the word is 'torment'. That is, it is a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth because of the inward regret and remorse. Hell is never described as a place God created so the devil can poke us with fire hot rods for all eternity.
3) Obviously if Hell is eternal then there is no rehab aspect to it with which I would agree with him.
But here is the problem...this is a false trichotomy. There is actually a fourth and fifth option to be added so let us continue. Two more reasons for punishement are
4) Restitution; the restoring of goods or services. That is, if I broke your window, instead of me going to jail for the night I actully have to pay for or fix the broken window. Unfortunately I do not see how this could be a legitimate point of why God created Hell so there must be another option.
5) Holiness; This is what David Mills fails to understan about God. In fact he points out his own ignorance on pgs 179-181. He concludes that the only way Hell benefits God is by scaring people into worshipping him and then says, "A truly benevolent and omnipotent God could simply let bygones be bygones and forgives "sinners" even though they adopted mistaken religious beliefs." We have to break down the stupidity of this quote. First, people do not simply go to hell because of 'false relgious beliefs'. They go there for strong moral atrocities. Second, God is not just benevolent but also holy. So a truly holy God cannot allow sin to go unpunished. Lets reverse his analogy and say that God as a righteous judge sent everyone to hell and didn't provide a way for forgiveness. Then David would complain about how God is mean and cruel. Ok lets say then that God did allow everyone to come to heaven and let the bygones be bygones. Well then the atheist would object (rightfully so) that God is unjust for allowing people like Hitler, Pol Pot, Jeffrey Dahmer and the likes into eternal bliss with the rest of us morally upstanding people. So I object to this quote because God is holy as much as He is love and thus cannot simply and ultimately overlook sin.
Therefore, not only does Mr. Mills miss other options for the purpose of punishment but he also mistakes the character of God. For these reasons and more his arguments are found wanting.