What is the point of Hell?

@kellyjay said
I believe that there are allegory, symbolism, dreams, poems, and history in scripture.

Is what is said in allegory to be taken literally?
No, they are an allegory.
When something is described using symbolism, is that to be taken literally?
No symbolism.
When someone has a dream or a vision, should their dream or vision have to be taken as literal?
No, the only literal part is what was seen and understood came from a vision or dream!
Historical events need to be taken as literal.

There is more, but I hold next to no hope for you even to grasp this since you missed it the first time.

-Removed-

Hell, and Heaven are really literal, Jesus is the Son of God, the Holy Spirit of God is God, God the Father is God, they are the One God. God created everything that is not God. God made a way for us to be saved from God’s wrath through Jesus the Word of God becoming a man and dying for us all.

Th rest requires contextual study and my list is by no means all there is. Historical events are real.

@divegeester

But then I’m not proposing ludicrous doctrines, you are.

What I’m doing is proposing sane interpretations of the scriptures you and KellyJay and Jospehw et al, spout as evidence of supernatural genocidal torture on an unimaginable scale.

You propose there is no Triune God of the Father - Son - Holy Spirit and want us to view it as sane.

You propose the office of the Son of God is temporary. His throne is not forever and ever as the Bible says.

I QUOTE that God predestinated people to sonship as part of His good pleasure and His eternal will (not man's power grab).

"Even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blemish before Him in love,

Predestinating us unto sonship through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will." (Eph. 1:4,5)

I arguably refer to this as deification - being made God in life and nature and expression but not in His Godhead, not in His unique begetting Fatherhood.

"Mainstream Christianity" is probably Roman Catholicism (with her Mary Mother of God worship) as they may have the main largeness of numbers of professing Christians. But if not, the word of God doesn't change because the "Mainstream" under appreciates what is written there.

Not believing the Son of God is an office extending into ETERNITY what ground do you have to tout being more representative of "Mainstream Christianity?"

Do you think your Modalism negating the eternality of the Son of God is more "Mainstream Christian" theology than anything Josephw or KellyJay has written here?