First of all love concedes the possibility of rejection. Experience tells us that one can pour love onto someone without any constructive alteration. A haven of love I would say excludes for instance the purely selfish ego. As the orthodox might say heaven would actually seem like hell for some..
As is well known, there are a number of words for 'love' in koine Greek, and it is important to understand what you actually mean by 'love' in this case, God's love, before you start making comparisons with one-to-one human situations. The Orthodox concept I've always found particularly unconvincing, since it seems predicated on the ideas of convinced believers who
cannot imagine a situation where there is no God as the ultimate reality, and presume that therefore anyone who does not believe must be consciously or unconsciously directly rejecting the supposed divine reality. A little more acquaintance with the actuality of what humans experience in their lives gives the lie to this idea - there are many genuine seekers who have not found, or some who thought they had found, and then realised they were deceiving themselves (myself included). Such would be the last to reject a divine presence, if there were one.
I think there is also the nominality question. Christianity is a distinctive thing which it is possible to be out with. It is perhaps those who think they have wangled inclusion who Jesus is referring to. Here not the Dawkinses of the world.
In this instance, you appear to be confusing a similar quote at Matthew 7 with the very specific one I referred to in Matthew 25. Both refer to 'doing the will of the Father', but the second one (which has the eternal fire reference) simply states what the fate of the cursed will be if they do not do good works. The former quote is more subtle, and refers to those who act from hypocritical motives, doing 'great works' in Jesus' name - however, there is no reference to eternal punishment here.
There is, of course, another possibility - on the assumption that there was a real historical Jesus, whose sayings and doings are buried somewhere in the NT text, and that Jesus himself had some sense of continuity in his mission. The possibility is that some of these texts are simply inauthentic - particularly the hell-fire one. Since Jesus made constant references to the Jewish law, 'one jot nor tittle of which would pass away', and was very familiar with the OT, he would certainly have been aware that there is not one reference to hell-fire therein, so would have been unlikely to start spouting such ideas, which largely grew up in the inter-testamental period.
I take the view (which I owe to Geza Vermes and others) that Jesus was Jewish through and through in his outlook, and that all other ideas expressed in the gospels are later accretions, reflecting the personal gripes and/or ardent aspirations of the evangelists who wrote about him.
If one finds themselves troubled by this I would search oneself to find out how and why.
I personally have ceased to be 'troubled' by these matters, since I have no axe to grind about convincing myself that the NT in any way portrays a consistent religious, philosophical or any other kind of view. I leave it to the true believers to be honest with themselves about what the text may or may not be trying to convey.
