Psalm 139:8
If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
Tom: How do unbelievers get saved before they die in their sins? They perceive the truth about their need, take responsibility for their sin (i.e., confess it and own up to it), repent and cry out for mercy. I don’t imagine this is done away with in whatever postmortem context the wicked find themselves in.
BornAgain: OK. How do unbelievers come to faith in Jesus when they die in their sins. If they are in Hell, who comes and preaches the gospel to them again to give them another chance?
Tom: Do they NEED the gospel preached to them AGAIN?
Wow. You really have no clue do you? Dang.
Tom
Tom.
Ahh… If they don’t need the gospel preached again…what brings them to faith in Jesus? Soooo, according to you being tortured brings them to faith, huh Tom? Where is that in the bible Tom? 
It’s in the same part of the Bible as the Trinity - as in not the bit said by Jesus directly
Scripture plainly states that we were made alive with Christ while we were still dead in trespasses and sins. The “get saved before you physically die” paradigm is therefore moot and unscriptural.
Melchizedek.
.The “get saved after you die spiritually dead paradigm” is moot and unscriptural. 
Dude, you can “aha” all you want. That’s cool. I don’t think hell is “torture” per se, though. Nah. I don’t think God exactly “tortures” people into signed confessions if that’s what you’re wondering.
None of us really knows exactly what sort of context hell is anyway. Will we be utterly alone? Or will there be some social structure? Hard to say. Will God supply a minimum level of knowledge/truth necessary for those who NEVER heard the gospel? Assuming they’ll be in hell for all their crappy choices too, I think so, yeah. I don’t see why it’s so impossible to imagine God making the requisite truth available directly to the heart and mind. But none of us really knows first-hand does he? And those who died with plenty of information/knowledge regarding the truth of the gospel to begin with, why would they need to hear it again? I don’t suppose they would. Why would that mean they’re tortured into a confession. Look, as you know, universalists view the hell of suffer as remedial. As far as I can tell the remedial pain is believed to be a good thing. What’s your problem with it? Don’t quote me a verse. Just tell me what problem you have with the notion of remedial suffering. If a prisoner gets thrown into prison and suffers his imprisonment and through the pain of incarceration comes to take responsibility for his choices and ultimately confesses (just an analogy), you dismiss all this, his confession included? It’s all bogus because his confession required some suffering?
Be blessed,
Tom
Heya TGB, BA does that a lot, defeat his point and making the point of the Universalist. He is resorting to many questions fallacy, and sets up presumptive questioning in which there is only a “yes” or a “no” answer but is based on an assumption of a “yes” or “no” answer.
I do not rejoice in calling BA what he is, confused, stubborn, ignorant, naive, and confused, but I have seen this type of person many times and they try to rile up the forum with false pretenses of wanting to understand but are actually here to disprove. This is a definition of an internet Troll.
The unfortunate part is, they don’t know their own belief system to support it, in order to disprove our belief system. BA doesn’t know what he believes to discuss it, how do we even have a chance to demonstrate our belief system.
Anywhooo…
studentoftheword.
You have a very bad habit putting words in my mouth that I never said. I never pretended to want to learn about UR. If you cannot contribute to this thread without slandering me…then please do not say anything.
I’m thinking you’re right Craig. Yeah. 
Tom
Tom.
If you do not know that Hell is a miserable, unbearable, tormenting place where the fire is never quenched…you are kidding yourself and ignoring scripture.
BA: I never pretended to want to learn about UR.
Tom: You should want to learn about it, because you don’t get it.
Look, I really do appreciate where you’re coming from. Really. Been there. I hated universalism. It pissed me off. I was angry for months at the thought of it. Never mind why. But I’ve written and argued some of the arguments you make (not all of them 'cause some of your arguments are pretty lame! 
). Sorry. But all the same verses and a lot of the same objections. I remember what things looked like then, and I remember how much trouble I gave others.
All I can say is, as long as ECT works for you and you can hold it all together and love God and others, then there’s no point in debating things. People who are truly happy with their beliefs aren’t motivated to consider alternatives. And that’s where you are, and that’s cool. Heck, maybe you’re right and we’re all wrong and washed up. As opposed to you who are only PARTLY fallible and PARTLY infallible, there rest of us are 100% fallible. But over time the traditional view became absolutely impossible for me to believe. I literally couldn’t believe it anymore. But if it works for you, I’m happy for ya.
Blessings,
Tom
I am not slandering you BA, you slander yourself.
If you have no premise to learn about UR, you have no business discussing it here. You demonstrate you have no idea what we believe. You live in a fairy world of imagination, believing that what you think Universalism believes must be what they believe and try to disprove your own imagination.
It is a sign of a mature individual to know what he is discussing before even trying to disprove it. As Tom stated, if you are not here to learn about it, you should because you don’t know what we believe to disprove it.
P.S. It isn’t Slander, it is Liable.
P.P.S. In order to be liable, the person must not have demonstrated such behaviors but since you demonstrate such behaviors, there is no liable in calling a spade a spade.
P.P.P.S. I warned you about continuing down this path of destruction, but you seem to want to continue. As the sinners of Zion lament, “Who can live with continual burning!”
BA: If you do not know that Hell is a miserable, unbearable, tormenting place where the fire is never quenched…you are kidding yourself and ignoring scripture.
Tom: And if you don’t know that universalists don’t need to deny that any of this, then you don’t understand universalism and you SHOULD at least pretend to want to learn something about the view.
T
studentoftheword.
I have every right to be here as you do. Are you going to run of Jeffa for being an agnostic? Like I said, if you cannot contribute to this discussion respectfully…do not say anything. Thank you.
So no-one here is under any further obligation to explain their position or answer any of your questions. I presume from mow on you will be posting only statements.
Jeffa.
For a guy that pretends to believe in nothing…you sure have a whole lot to say.
Exactly! It is not a unviersalist position that there is no hell, though some universalists claim there is none.
The universalsit position is simple. Based on God’s intrinsic nature, there is only two logical ends: 1) Universalism 2) Annihilationism. There is no precedent for eternal torment in Scripture, it is a passed over doctrine of the Roman Emperor Cult and Mythrism. The reason such doctrine remains, is fear and igorance (which have nothing to do with God’s intrinsic nature); and Annihilationism is not found in any premise.
I don’t think you understand exactly what JeffA believes. Are you frightened by the word, “agnostic”? LOL.