Hehehe. 
Hmmm… I’m not quite sure how you arrive at your conclusion? What do you think Christianity is? What do you think the “gospel” is?
Here’s what I think about missions. Followers of Christ have been given the commission to spread the good news to all people–the “ministry of reconciliation”, as Paul puts it.
We have the greatest news in the world, and we have been commissioned by God as His messangers. Paul says in Romans 10
…the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”
We have been sent. No one will be saved without hearing the message. Your question about withholding the gospel from people who might suffer from it really doesn’t make sense. Our Lord suffered for righteousnes, and says His followers will suffer also. It is an honor to suffer for Christ.
What you’re saying is tell people to continue living a lie, fearing a lie, living in sin and darkness, wandering through this world as lost sheep. Jesus is worth any suffering this world can throw at us.
Sonia
Reverse missions? That would be extremely pointless. The most I’ve ever heard of happening is one group pulled missionaries out when they changed to universalism, but that was because they misunderstood the full implications of their belief. No one would actually be silly enough to waste the time and resources to counter-evangelize.
I sense some grasping at straws here.
Jason is correct, the only “Christianity” that Universalism is inconsistent with is one that is hopeless, such as the version you hold to, BA. You’ve offered up a false dichotomy with this topic.
To be fair, I should have said “some Christianity with ultimate hopelessness in it”, or something of that sort. I am not aware of any non-universalist variety of Christianity that is completely hopeless; and that wasn’t what I meant. Obviously non-kath Christianities have some limited, finite hope; similarly, a Christianity with a limited, finite love of God (where God is not in fact essentially love–unlike if orthodox trinitarianism is true 
) still could be said to preach a loving God per se. To that limited extent.
Instead of “these three things remaining when all else has passed away”… 
The greatest of which is…?
(…hopefully remembered, as one of the most famous verses in all scripture, by anyone anywhere able to read a message board. 
But if anyone doesn’t know what will be remaining, and which of them is the greatest, let someone around here know and we’ll hunt up chapter and verse.)
Anyway, I thought I ought to correct myself to something more accurate; my bad for going a tad too far there. Sorry. 
An impulsive response here – something I promised myself long ago not to do. Guess I’m having a relapse or something.
Upon reading some of BA’s stuff (sorry BA; I know you’re listening in, so please don’t assume me rude just yet!) I resolved simply not to read any of his threads. (BA; do you yet have a feel at all for the ethos of this site? check out Tom Talbotts notion – and practice! – that ALL posts should be well considered, contain substance and intellectual “heft” and not be unleashed without serious reflection… You display the precise opposite of that ethos – though I hasten to add that I too once argued as do you!! Long ago, when I was immature… Well, I’m STILL immature as displayed by my tendency to allow you to raise my pique …)
Had I followed up on my resolution to myself though, I would have deprived myself of the stunning wisdom of Tom aka TGB. Tom bless you a thousand times over. I myself was raised in the missionary environment and my God what souls these folks are. The WAY you say things Tom – my God! Just know this; you bless me every time you open your mouth (OK, every time you contribute here…!!)
I hasten to add however that many many bless me here as well; somehow Jason has risen rapidly in the ranks of my most respected Christian mentors, and JeffA provides me with yet another incredibly compelling atheist/agnostic friend who, I am just CERTAIN (I think this about many of my A/A friends; JeffA stands apart though) would fall in LOVE with the Christ as I see Him….
Anyway…
BA: I always found it hard to deal with the unsavory characters I encounter in my work. Even though a Christian, it was really hard for me NOT to see folks (raised as I was conservative Protestant) as the potential lost.
Lost however is no longer an option since I’ve embraced UR; to be “lost” means Christ, the great finder of the lost has failed. And Jesus does NOT fail.
So now I take care of a hardened criminal, handcuffed to his very stretcher he is so violent, and great big tattoo across his chest is “BITCH - ‘KILLA”, and I am forced by UR to recognize that this man is going to be my NEIGHBOR in the new Kingdom!!!
Sorry to intrude on your threads like this BA…
Blessings all
TotalVictory
Bobx3
Oh PS:
your thread title screams of your hubris; you alone define Christianity?
Please…
Jeffa or Jason.
I would like this thread to be removed based of Tom’s testimony. Although, I still don’t believe in UR. but,.Universalist’s like Tom and others have gave me insight on UR that has changed my mind about the content of this thread. 
Oh that is good.
BA,
As I have said over in your other thread calling for the removal of this thread ( 
) I’m not sure it’s a good idea - but let the other mods comment before anything is done (not least because it involves the removal of other people’s posts as well).
I’m cool with removing this thread. Wouldn’t it be very *universalistically loving of us poof it into non-existence? ;o)
T
Oh no! another flavour of Universalism - the Universalist Annihilationists 
(Note: this is a ditto of a reply I made in a different thread; which, due to its essential redundancy to the previous few comments, may eventually be merged with this one by the mods.)
It might not be a bad idea to simply retitle this thread. (Though I’m not sure to what.)
If it hasn’t been done yet, BA, you could edit your first post to add a message similar to what you’ve written here (which is very kind and will be appreciated by most of our forum members–though obviously not by all of them {sigh}), and at the same time give the “subject” line of your first comment in this thread a title you believe is more accurate to the eventual contents of the thread. This will change the title of the whole thread. (You’ve got the authority to do that, as well as the mods and admins. One of us could try to come up with a new title, but I’m completely sure all of us ‘officials’ want to find a way to keep you personally engaged in what happens around here, especially in your own threads. 
)
God’s grace to you meanwhile, and thank you for the request. {bow!}
No, no! Let’s vote on the best retitling of the whole thread! Everybody gets one suggestion and we vote on the top three. Jason chooses the winner.
My top ideas (just kidding here BA! Love ya!):
Newcomer F**ks Up
BornAgain Thread Born Again
ECTer Favors Annihilation For Thread
ECTer Wants a Second Chance?
Ok! here we go…
If Universalism is true…Christianity is not ultimately hopeless.
The Adventures of Tom Bornagainbadil.
Dr StrangeLove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Tolerate Universalism.
Ignore the silly people, B. (I know for a fact that they both like you, btw. They really are only trying to have fun with you, not against you.)
More seriously, I was thinking along the lines of “Isn’t Universalism Not Evangelical? Thus Not Christianity?”
That would pull together the topics of your first post; it would synch with the name of the forum in a challenging way; and, put as questions, it allows room for answers pro and con (thus retroactively acknowledging some worth to at least some of the eventual answers. )