No, that is more like a 'general question'.
And the fact that there are 'rules', means that your definition of 'love', either has to be explained, in that context, or, perhaps you don't believe in either rules, or hell.
This is where I am confused. I don't see the need to define what love is by contrasting it with rules. Love is love. Following the rules, or to put a specific point upon it, being moral, is a natural result of following love. It is not the result of being fearful of punishments. "Love works no ill", says Paul in Romans. You follow love, and love is moral. End of story.
If someone follows the rules because they are fearful of punishment, they are not being moral. It is not coming from a place of love. It does not flow from the source of compassion and empathy towards others, because you understand what love is in your own life. Rather, obeying the rules, being a "good person" because you are afraid of being caught and or punished, is not coming from love. It is self-interest alone at that point. And that is not genuine love. It is fear based.
Jesus taught to make clean the inside of the cup first, which means be filled with that Source of love, then the outside takes care of itself. Otherwise, you are a "whitewashed tomb" all clean on the outside but full of rot on the inside, as Jesus put it. This is the deception that religious piety hopes to mask.
As far as hell goes, no I do not believe in it literally. It is a metaphor to describe what it is like to live separated from that Source of Love, which is by contrast living in darkness. That's here in this world in each of us when we are out of true with that Center. It's not a "place", or any "where" that God sends you. It's a creation of our own, inflicted upon our own selves. God does not do that "to" us. To send another to their own misery, is an act of cruelty and evil. God is Love. Compassion does not do this. Fear does, however.
The fact that there are 'rules', and hell, so forth, may or may not be equated with fear, and that is getting to what we would be calling 'abstract'.
Everything we are talking about is abstract, so that does not pose any sort of problem. I'm not sure however you think that hell, as is traditionally abstracted as some place of eternal torture and punishment for those who don't follow the rules, cannot be equated with fear. Hell is the incarnation of fear. It is the ultimate symbol of fear.
Aside from that, your 'interpretation', that I meant, Theism is "based on fear of divine retribution", is incorrect, and I didn't say that at all.
I've never in my life imagined that Theism is based on fear of divine retribution. I view myself as a Panentheist, which is a form of theism. But even as a declared traditional theist in the past, I never once felt it was based on fear of retribution. Theism is simply the believe that God exists and is transcendent to us. God can be see through the eyes of love, or the eyes of fear.
God exacting divine retribution is an image of God based upon fear. But God promoting distributive justice for all, God having compassion and forgiveness and grace for all, is an image of God based on love. Both views are interpretations of theism. One sees God as benevolent, the other as fearful and threatening.
Your religious and deity ideas might be affecting your 'interpretations', and that could happen if you have a impersonal deity concept, (thusly everything is based on your actions, and the deity is just like a computer program, or abacus.
I should start by saying I don't have "deity ideas". I have experience. I start with personal experience, and from there try to find ways to describe that experience. Love with the complete absence of fear, is a description of experience. My experience does in fact affect my interpretation. Just as a lack of experience, and relying on concepts will affect anyone's interpretation. In the latter case, what they do draw from experientially often comes from a place of the fear of the Unknown.
Secondly, I view God as paradoxically both infinitely impersonal, as well as infinitely personal. I have experienced both "faces" of God as it were. These are simply reflective of the set of eyes we are seeing with, and both of these are within us ourselves. They are both from the single Source however, which is nondual.
One does not penetrate into the divine by concepts. That is done with one's own being, beyond thoughts and ideas. And what is found is both profoundly silent and profoundly alive. It is infinitely personal, and infinitely impersonal. Neither of which leaves one feeling threatened or afraid. The concept of hell, and that is what it is, has no place in the Divine. It is not possible to exist, as it is a non-reality. Nothing can exist outside God. And God is Love.