Nothing. In fact, do nothing.
Our society doesn't work in a way where one man pays for another man's sins. Camping's actions aren't yours to carry. People have to atone for their own sins and correct their own mistakes.
You're probably right...
I don't understand this, though. Even if the end of the world, described by Christianity does come... what makes you think the date is calculable?
especially if said book clearly states that it cannot be calculated. I wonder about that a lot. It's either people not reading their bible enough, or trusting their preachers too much, or both. The position of preachers in conservative evangelical churches is fearfully central, more so than that of catholic priests in medieval times, and certainly more than in traditional protestant churches (where, by karl barts reasoning, a tape player holding the sermon should do just as fine...)
And what's with the whole eternal torture of the non believers? If you do believe in God, than we're all God's children and equal in his eyes.
The issue is a bit more complex. First, evangelical christianity has a wrong focus when it comes to condemnation. Nobody gets condemned for not believing according to the bible, but for his sins. The way to get saved from judgement is grace, which will be extended to those who believe. Exclusively in mainstream evangelical theology, among others in most others. I'm pretty strictly on the amongst others side here, because to support the exclusivist claim means to throw out half the bible and cinsider the letter to the romeans as ruling authority on the matter. That letter was more advertising than theology though, so i think it' a pretty poor interpretation.
But it goes to explain why the evangelical church focuses so much on a believer/unbeliever duplicity and not on siner/forgiven siner/can't really tell wheather forgiven or not scheme of the older theologies.
The thing about eternal torture, on the other hand, is an issue of text critisism, which is a sub-branch of theology. The beginning of the problem is the double meaning of the hebrew "olem", which can mean either eternal or final, depending on context. The other quarrel is with the greek word aeon, which's literal meaning is known, but the concept the woed was filled with at the time is lost. "From age to age" could therefore mean an undefined time, or it could mean a very closely defind time. To further complicate matter, we don't know how time itself was perceived. We know that the bible is one of tne few worldviews at those times that indeed considers time to be a finite quantity, but it's not really clear what that meant for the common man's perception of time.
Going strictly by simbolism, the punishement seems finite: all imagery used to describe it use images of devourment and distruction, not of torture. As such all that can be concluded is that punishment seems to be final and irrevocable, but not necessarily eternal, but that the text doesn't completely exclude the possibility.