Here's the problem, as see it. If Jesus did not want humans to speculate or postulate any viable concept of hell, then He either A) does not broach the topic at all, or, B) clarifies the concept. We humans can only read what is written, from the claimed Book(s) in which He was said to have ultimately authored.
Hence, you can then swiftly see why I will disagree with your view of hell 
Yes, we've discussed this. My response is that Jesus is most interested in the life he came to give us, not giving all the details of the afterlife we might want to know. When Paul says that what has been promised exceeds human comprehension, I see no reason that should not work both ways.
As far as authorship, you know I am not an inerrantist. I don't hold that God authored the bible as a fundamentalist would. Inspired, yes, and inspired for the purpose of communicating the way to life given in Jesus Christ. In fairness to you, a good many of your complaints about Christianity aren't going to work unless you take a fundamentalist reading. I recognize that is the approach you need to take in order to sustain your position. I take the approach I do not only because I find the fundamentalist approach to the scriptures untenable, but also because I have not put my faith in the book, but in the resurrected Jesus Christ. In the opening post I make clear that World 2 does not depend on the scriptures as inerrant. My faith and that of many Christians does not depend on that approach to the scriptures.
I'll point you to posts #186 for my comments that scriptures are not as clear on the afterlife, especially damnation, as one might assume (or as many Christians seem to a assume).
In regards to belief and the passages you quoted, as you probably know the words translated "believe" (some variation of
pisteuo) denotes more than mere belief, or assent to a proposition. It is a whole life orientation towards the way to life communicated in Christ. Faith is a way of life trusting in Christ, not just in his person and work, but trusting him enough to live as he taught. This whole life orientation of faith is a work of grace by which we are transformed into his image in preparation for everlasting life.
In reference to what I wrote in post#186, humanity is condemned to the limits of finitude and death. Sin/evil cannot coexist with life forever. If everlasting life is going to obtain, then humanity must be transformed in such a way commensurate with everlasting life. That is, they must be able to live without embracing/participating in sin and evil. Jesus said, this is why he came, so that we might have life and have it abundantly.
Seems as though belief IS a requirement, where-as other areas of the Bible instead mention that one's intent is enough, away/apart from belief in the one true gateway, [Jesus] specifically. This equals conflict for me
Accepting what I have said above that it is more than mere belief, I agree with you. There is conflict. And as a Christian, I see it as my responsibility to try and come to terms with it, to some extent. I don't think I need to have all the answers, but I do need to be honest that the conflict exists, and that I am.
As I have said, I believe that God is just. Whatever judgments God makes will be just. What is justice according to the scriptures? Life. Justice obtains when the life God created flourishes as God intended. God set out to create life to live in fellowship with the divine, forever. So, if justice is going to obtain, that goal of life must obtain. If you are willing to accept that as my settled position, then here are my thoughts (please refer to post #340 for reference):
Those who have faith, i.e. whose lives are oriented towards everlasting life in him, are already being prepared for everlasting life. What of the others? This is an open question. Yes, they are condemned in that they are not yet fit for everlasting life. No one who has embraced sin and evil is fit for everlasting life. The scriptures indicate that Christ died for all and that all are resurrected for the judgment. So, the fact that all are resurrected on account of him is important. Generally speaking, Christians are not Platonists who believe that we have eternal souls. All that is, is created through Christ. All that is, is reconciled to God in Christ.
All this to say, when we all stand before God after having been raised it will be on account of Christ that we are all raised. This revelation is most likely why we are told that everyone, without exception, will bow before him and confess that he is Lord. So, whether you believe in him or not is not what determines your entrance into the afterlife. Everyone will be raised on account of him, because he died for all. Again, the goal is life for all. God desires that all should be saved. So, what of the judgment?
What is woefully ignored about divine judgment is that the judgment is according to what we have done. Jesus says this, Paul says this, and it makes sense. And it is just of God to judge us according to what we have done, because regardless of arguments to the contrary, we all know what is right and wrong. There is a reason that some version of the golden rule (treat others as you want to be treated) is found in virtually every religion and philosophy of significance. What is good and right works in favor of life and what is not, doesn't. It's not hard to understand.
So, we are judged according to what we have done, how we have lived. Have we lived in a way that favors life or not? In other words, are we living in a trajectory that favors life? We don't have to be perfect, but we had better live in a way that is not destructive of life. Living in a way that promotes life is what it means to love God and neighbor. Worship is not praying and singing songs. Worship is living as God intended. The prayers and songs are to that end, but true worship is in spirit and truth. As John says, anyone who says they know God but hates their brother or sister is a liar.
Given the basis of judgment, God is not going to judge the three month old the same as the 100 year old. Those who have been given much, from much is expected. Those who have had long lives will be held to account accordingly. Those who claim Christ as their Lord and Savior will especially be held to account because they had the truth in this world by which to live. Those who have never heard of him or had a chance to trust him for life cannot be held to account for what they could not control. But, we all can be held to account for the way we have lived.
Notice, I have not made any declarations concerning the outcomes of God's judgments. And, I wouldn't dare, because I myself am under judgement. It is simply not my place. But, whatever judgments God will make will be just. This caricature that God is going to simply condemn without proper judgement is ludicrous. It is too simplistic a reading of the scriptures. I hold Christians responsible for not doing a better job, but this does not excuse atheists who are unwilling to give a charitable reading to a more robust account.
Now CV, I know you well enough to know that you will be tempted to discard everything I have just said because "the bible says." Besides the fact that kind of response goes against the opening post, I would not let a Christain get away with that and I won't let you, either. Please, engage me on account of what I hold to be true as a living and breathing Christian who has given these things significant consideration, not on account of the caricatures you want me to believe.
Let [me] start by answering the OP, since I haven't.
I thought you had. I remember you stating possible options in regard to morality that you think are possible given World 1.
Here's one thing I have noticed about you and some others who post on the Apologetics forum. You are very much concerned with the evidentiary basis of faith. That is certainly understandable. But, here is the reality regarding what we humans know. It is not obviously true or obviously false, based on the evidence, that God does or does not exist. If it were, then there would not be a question for the vast majority of people. You may want to argue that point, but I want to get at something else, which we theists don't hear enough about.
Theists are not theists just because they think the evidence points in the direction of God. Honestly, unlike many atheists, I don't think the epistemological concerns rate as high among theists. We are more than willing to admit that faith is a significant factor in holding to theism. What does rate high are more existential concerns, i.e. meaning, purpose, values and morality, justice, truth, goodness, beauty, etc.
What we don't hear enough about on these threads is the atheist's account for these existential concerns. I know you are not a theist because you do not belive that the evidence is sufficient. But, CV you are more than an atheist. You are a human with human concerns. I know of atheists who are very consistent in regards to these kinds of things. David Hume was being consistent when he reduced morality to mere sentiment, because he understood it could be no more than that if we are mere bundles of ideas (as he thought).
Now, unlike I did in a previous post, I would front-load such an account. I will honor you as you have me by waiting for you to give the account. But, please do. Please, give some account of the basis or grounding for your understanding of morality, meaning, purpose, whatever you choose.
Yes.
