The "something I read" from where I learned about perdition is called "The Holy Bible".
What is the Bible? Is is it a single book, or is it a collection of different books compiled together as a library of books? That is a key understanding here for you and others who believe the Bible is a single book we need to address. When you say "the Bible said it", that is not what really is going on. What is the Bible?
The Bible is actually a library of different books, and a cover wrapped around a collection of these different books, from different traditions, each expressing their own vision and view of God. There are also different collections of books in different Bibles. There is no "Bible", but there are different bibles, with different books. This has to be understood. And once understood, then you have to ask which author said what, and what was the background and circumstances, the tradition the author followed, the context of the the time in history, and so forth.
In other words, there is not a single voice that you can say "The Bible says" as if it is a thing alone by itself. It simply is not.
If you listen to Crossan's video I shared in the OP, he talks about those different traditions by name, and you will see the different faces of God each of those traditions held. What you have in the Bible, is not a single message, not a single image of God, but different, competing images. He goes into this, in the video, as well of course in his book based upon his many years as a researcher, historian, theologian, and scholar.
The Bible as a single book with a single message, is a mythology created in modern times by conservative fundamentalists as a mythic response to modernity's critical research methodologies. It is inherently contradictory, and has to ignore, or "cherry pick" the bible in order to try to make the theology fit.
Unless you can explain how you know Heaven is literal and Hell is metaphorical--since countless verses mention both physical locations--I have to understand that you are cherry picking and interpreting the Bible based on experience, which is something all exegetes try to avoid as a primary rule.
I have never claimed heaven as a literal place with "physical locations". I do not see in that way, as literal "places". And I do not agree that the Bible specifically calls out "physical locations". Jesus spoke of the kingdom of God as very much not a "place". He pointed to the world before him and said in essence "this is the kingdom of God. It is here among you, in your very midst. You just don't see it". He specifically told them not to look for here "here or there", or a "physical location.
As far a cherry picking goes, most certainly I am not. Cherry picking only selects verses that support how you believe, while rationalizing away contradictions, or outright ignoring them. Cherry picking is a form of intellectual dishonesty. Yet everything I have and am saying, very much looks at everything and considers all of them critically, not ignoring or making excuses for the unpleasant bits, like trying to say that absolute Love, somehow, can be violent. Which it cannot.
I acknowledge the Bible has a violent portrayal of God, complete with burning people in endless tortures. I know it's there. That is what this thread is about, to understand why its in there, and how one can possible accept that God is Love, while at the same time reading how violent and unforgiving he is to those who fail being perfect.
I agree with you on many points as to what love is, but God is not only love but a God of justice, even vengeance.
Would you burn someone horribly while keeping them alive in order for them to suffer, because they didn't obey you? Do you see Jesus, who teaches the path of love and forgiveness, as capable of such monstrous action? I cannot. Loving Jesus, holding those whom he loves in his arms, while severed heads lay at his feet? I understand love to be very, very different than that image.