It makes no difference to me that you are not a full preterist. Full preterism is probably heresy. While it in all likelihood is heresy, I'm being kind to any of its adherents who might be reading this. Perhaps they have some comments to offer.
If it is true that predicting the destruction of people is belief in a hateful God, as you and others have posited; then that is just as true for the past as it is for the future. It is just as hateful to allow the killing Jewish babies in the Bethlehem of yore as it is to allow the deaths of Jewish unbelievers in a judgement of the future.
You might as well be consistent.
In fact, you call into question God's righteousness in judgement, as if God cannot impose terribly destructive judgements and still be a righteous God.
Do nearly full preterists believe in hell?
I'm not sure what a "nearly full preterist" is. Do you have a percentage breakdown that shows what one must believe in order to be considered "full" vs. "nearly full" vs. "not-so-nearly full"? Perhaps you're just thinking that if you can get a preterist close enough to "nearly full" you can call them a heretic too.
Speaking for myself, I affirm the historic, orthodox position on the subject.
From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.BTW, our friend buggman believes that Matt. 24, etc does have some sort of fulfillment in the events of AD70. He admitted, "I actually agree with the preterist and historicist that the Olivet Discourse and the Revelation (the latter in spite of its date of authorship) actually do prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD."
At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
and shall give account of their own works.
And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. (Athanasian Creed)
What sort of preterist does that make him?
It is just as hateful to allow the killing Jewish babies in the Bethlehem of yore as it is to allow the deaths of Jewish unbelievers in a judgement of the future.
To the best of my knowledge, the killing of the infants around the time of our Savior's birth was not because of any overt sin on the part of the Jewish people, now was it?
On the other hand, the events of AD70 were predicted by Jesus are completely in the context of punishment for "killing the prophets". Jesus refers to this as the "days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled". The "all things written" refers to everything He has spoken before. And "vengeance" must refer to the vengeance of the Lord (Rom. 12:19; Heb. 10:30).
In fact, you call into question God's righteousness in judgement, as if God cannot impose terribly destructive judgements and still be a righteous God.
Oh, He can and He does. But as I pointed out in this particular case, God never gave a prophecy about a future events without reason. And the context of the 2/3 massacre in Zech. 13 is plainly in the context of the particular sin of of Israel. What you need to do in order to apply this to events 2000+ years removed from the 1st century is to make the 2/3 Jews killed during your futurist holocaust somehow responsible for 1st century events. And then you need to have God violate His own law by punishing that generation 2000+ years removed from those events.
The inconsistencies in your theory are insurmountable.