I hear ya.
But again, I don't think most people believe that people will suffer eternally if they never heard the word of Christ, thus never knowing about an eternal life. Those that do believe it, well, I think they believe that throughout history God gave us so many chances already, and he has stopped interfering for a bunch of ingrates.
Hmm. Yeah that's something alot of people feel differently about... Athiests for one don't believe that God has given enough proof of his existance. It's unreasonable to ask someone to have faith without some form of sign, some people simply require more to trust another person fully. But that's just stating the obvious, something that you already know.
That line of thinking always returns back to the original question I have about christianity and even eastern religions: Why does God need us to acknowledge his existance in the first place? Is it not enough to live life in a good manner, to follow the rules of what is suggested in the bible, but not be fully certain about his existance due to the evidence provided?
(The above are my own personal feelings on the matter.)
The question about retribution and restoration... This one is trickier. I think it's kind of like parents and their wills. Like you know you will get this inheritance from your parents. If you do all these wonderful things and work with charities, you will get all this money. If you coast through life, your parents may put your inheritance in a trust fund until you finish college - a purgatory of sorts, to make something of your life. If you rape and kill children, you are written out of their will. They are maybe not trying to punish you, but also certainly do not want to reward bad behavior. And they don't want to put money into your hands that will allow you to lure more children. Maybe this is a bad analogy but I think the principle is the same.
It certainly is a good one.
I've heard people describe the OT as God trying to teach his children through more harsher methods, and the NT as God not being involved as much but hoping that his children will understand what is the right thing to do. Effectively it's all about tough love but that is definitely different from retributive justice, not to mention restorative justice can be in the form of tough love.
The above also clashes with my understanding of free will. Don't many christians talk about how God gave people free will to make their own decisions. Think I might be losing my point a little since this part might be in reference to why people were treated 'unfairly' in the past. Yep. I've definitely lost the point I was trying to make.
Anyhow there's one more issue I take with this whole thing, unrelated to what has been mentioned so far, but relevant to this thread. The idea of doing things out of a reward based system seems kind of off... but maybe this is because I idealise altruism as a concept too much.
I don't know if hell is really this burning pit of fire, or if that was a metaphor. The whole book of Revelations was written in such a different manner from the rest of the books that it's hard to take it as a word for word interpretation. Some people, notable, Seventh Day Adventists, believe that the books of Daniel and Revelations are historic in nature and are applicable to things that have actually already happened. Prophecies about the Pope and things like that. Some people take the words in Revelation at absolute face value as it was written. There is precedent set for allegory in biblical interpretations, but which part is allegorical- who really knows for sure?
One thing I've heard but unfortunately have no sources is regarding the existence of hell. Someone mentioned it here earlier, not sure if it was you, that there were Christians who do not believe in the concept of hell. The idea that hell was a mistranslation/that it as a literal place created by God does not exist. That while there may be places where 'evil' gather, it is not an official location but rather a gathering place.
Alternatively the idea that hell is just people deciding that they don't really want a life with God. In this manner, the athiest view of death (oblivion/blackhole) may be similar to the idea of hell. However, an important aspect of all this is whether people reject God after getting to know him whether a rejection of God is permenant (as has been mentioned earlier on this thread).
It reminds me of depressed individual that reject the love of everybody, only to want a connection after they are better again. I'd be inclined to think that hell should not be a permenant place if God really was a loving individual. He is loving enough to allow people the choice of living without him, but he'd be willing to embrace them again should they decide to come back from hell.
But of course that idea is debatable... lots of people hold this idea that once you are in hell. You can't come back. Why? Is it because you've had your chance and you can't regret (which seems more like a punishing stance) or is it because they truly believe that someone who goes into hell won't want to be with God anyway?
There are many athiests in the world, that if shown the existance of God, would believe in him. But as it stands there isn't enough evidence to suggest that they should believe.