I'm sorry, I don't follow your metaphor anymore. What does the house stand for to you? Existence? Salvation? Eternal life? The wager of belief? It seems to vary depending on your objection.

It was salvation

Anyhow, I think I get where you're going with this, but I disagree. First, you're assuming a certain faith tradition, I think, of penal substitution as the Crucifixion.

I don't know what this means.

You also assume that no one needs redemption, which frankly I find to be a laughable concept when you consider the track record of the human race.

I didn't assume that, I recognize there is no authentic offer of salvation.

You assume that Hell is a threat of eternal torture if humans don't obey arbitrary rules, instead of, say, a natural consequence of voluntarily separating themselves from the wellspring of eternal life. And then you seem upset that there isn't evidence that any of the previous exists, which seems curious at best.

There is no natural implication of hell, it only exists a man made book.

Basically it sounds like you're trying to force an interpretation of Christianity which is least favorable to you, then debate that. So an awful lot like a strawman. But I don't think Christianity actually works that way, nor do I think any part of it doesn't exist, so your points appear largely irrelevant.

Inaccurate. I was just pointing out that your house is intangible and undetermined.

Perhaps we could abandon the metaphor and talk about what you find illogical in the Crucifixion and atonement. That would seem to be a more fruitful endeavor.

I find it illogical to reward faith and condemning scrutiny.