Yeah, maybe there just is no objective reason not to commit crimes, Christianity or not. What's wrong with that? Laws are subjective in the first place. That's why crimes still happen happen even in the most extremely Christian societies. Christianity doesn't solve crime, so I don't think its a valid citation for a solution to the motivation for crime (not to mention the roughly 6 billion humans on the planet who are not Christian and nonetheless have functioning societies, sometimes with significantly lower crime rates than Christian nations).
But I will also argue that there is a very strong subjective reason not to commit crimes for a vast majority of people - it just feels terrible to knowingly hurt other human beings, it's as simple as that. Maybe it's a moral code written into our hearts, maybe it's just an evolutionary trait where people who felt no remorse for hurting others were quickly stamped out of the gene pool because they were terrible for communal living, but at the end of the day most people do not like to hurt other people.
There is, of course, the problem hurting people without knowing that we're hurting people. Empathy is a strong force, but if it doesn't turn on, it fails. But that applies to Christian faith too - if we don't know we're sinning, we fail to stop ourselves from sinning. At the end of the day, it's because of the limitations of our senses and informational processing, not a lack of faith or empathy. Since God designed us that way, the responsibility would fall on him.
Also, if moral law is already written into the hearts of everyone, I guess I fail to see the purpose of Christianity other than to please God's vanity through demanding worship.
As for "Sheol" and direct biblical citation, I think that has little to do with what I'm addressing. My concern is with the popular mainstream beliefs of Christianity as a whole, and it's pretty clear that most modern Christians believe in eternal damnation. If you personally don't, that's admirable, but it does not represent the "other side" that I'm arguing against.
Free will, though, I will make an argument against. I believe that it cannot exist in any meaningful form. Further, I believe that the idea of free will is actively harmful because it places all responsibility on the individual instead of the circumstances they faced. It turns "this is a situation we should actively improve to prevent this from happening again" into "this person made the wrong choice, it's their personal choice so we can't do anything about it".
And what is free will really? It's a pretty nebulous term, so I would like to hear your exact definition of it. Certainly, humans constantly decide on things, but it's always based on prior information and internal biases. How do you know people had the ability to make a different decision at any given crossroads? People always make their choice for reasons, no matter how small the reason, and whether or not they're aware of those reasons. I just don't believe people have the power to make a different choice under the same circumstances. But if you can alter the circumstances by providing new information or change the choice altogether, you can get a different result, albeit still deterministically.
An extreme example, but if faced with the choice of saving a loved one at literally no cost versus choosing not saving them, could you ever make the choice not to save them? I don't think so. I don't think you actually have free will in that situation to make the other choice. I think that scenario could play out in a billion different universes and you would ALWAYS "choose" to save your loved one. The internal bias and learned information over the course of your life that tells you this person is important to you always makes that choice for you.
If you think that level of ability of choice constitutes free will, then I guess I won't disagree that people have "free will". I just don't think that this implicates anyone for the choices they do make. It's really no different from determinism, it's just masked over with individualism and the illusion of free will.
The alternative, I think, would be the ability to make any choice, entirely free from rationale, prior information, or internal bias. But then what's the point? If you are not influenced by prior information, reason, or even personality, can that be anything other than a roll of the dice?
But if you are influenced by prior information, reason, and/or personality, it must necessarily become deterministic by nature. If the same person, under the same circumstances could make a different choice, then it could only be the result of some randomness in the process, not an active choice. Perhaps you can cite the soul as the source of the choice, but that's just another internal bias which must either be deterministic or random.