God, come out, come out wherever you are!

[Black Chakram]

If people are willing, allow me to interject.

There are a lot of Christians (myself included), who view hell a little differently. When the Bible mentioned a "lake of fire", it's likely that what it was actually referring to was symbolism referring to an actual lake outside the Western gate of Jerusalem. This lake was surrounded by hills, upon which a number of pagan worshipers made sacrifices to their heathen gods. The light from their fires would reflect in the lake. This provided strong symbolism for the "lake of fire" being representative of a life devoted to heathen worship.

I personally don't believe that hell has anything to do with actual fire. After all, if God really took the mindset of saying, "You don't believe in me? Fine! Suffer for all of eternity!", He'd be pretty damn petty.

Instead, I take another view. Hell is a complete absence from God. Now, given that most Christians believe God is all around us, absence from Him would be pretty unpleasant. Hence the idea why hell is so bad.

...

So what about the people who've never heard of God/the Bible/etc? There are 2 ideas on that.
1) They go to hell because, after all, why hang out with some dude you've never heard of for all eternity?
2) They'll be given a chance to choose after death. i.e. jungle native dies, sees God, then says, "Ooooooh! You're the great spirit I've been worshiping that whole time? Dang! If I had known your name, I would have happily followed!"

You'll find a pretty solid split in the above point among Christians.

Fair enough, but the same arguments still apply, and this view still makes God look petty, as it still involves eternal suffering.
As to possibility 1, this seems completely unjust of God no?
As for number 2, can you support it biblically? And is it just? Why don't I get the same opportunity? I won't have a chance to know for sure god exists before I choose. According to the bible I have to choose now despite the lack of evidence.

1) I hardly see it as unjust. Let's use an analogy (even though all analogies break down at some point). Imagine there's a guy you know. He's perfect in every way. One day, he invites you to a party. You have to decide: Are you happy going to the party, knowing that He'll be the center of attention and you'll just be in His shadow. (Although you'll probably still enjoy yourself since He's such a great guy). OR, do you say to yourself, "Eh. That guy's annoying. He may be perfect, but I'd rather hang out with someone else."

It would be hard to call this "perfect guy" unjust. After all, you're being given the choice to attend or not. He's not forcing you into anything.

2) Honestly, there's not a ton of scripture to support this, which is why this particular view is a little shaky. It's usually argued that the Bible doesn't specifically say that this life is the ONLY chance we get, but that's somewhat of a hollow answer.

The whole "having to choose despite a lack of evidence" is always a rather uncomfortable point. Put simply, God is asking if we trust Him despite having all the answers. It's easy to trust someone when you know for SURE what the outcome is. It's a lot harder when you don't. I'm sure there's some point I could argue here about how the second variety of trust is somehow inherently better, or leads to a deeper relationship, but it's rather late where I live and I had a long day of work. I'd be glad to try and revisit that point later, though, and see if I can add some meat to that bone.

As for whether or not that stance is just, that's also tricky. As far as I understand it, the Biblical logic here is that, "Those who've heard about God/Jesus/The Bible directly, have less of an excuse than those who haven't." But this can also be discussed to a greater extent later.

I don't like single posts that snowball into novels. I'd rather keep things to one or two main questions, then revisit some of the other points later if desired.