Cool, I was looking for a good answer to this 
There are two problems with Danielâs explanation Alex. Firstly, why sin just scratching the furniture? Wouldnât a better example, that shows something of sinâs size, be if the cat deliberately pressed a button launching nuclear war? AllanS said elsewhere itâs like me punishing my daughter when I am so much larger, but that misses half the problem. Sin is is not the size of my daughter itâs my size. Sin is man centric but God-focused, Danielâs example misses this. Secondly why is rehabilitative punishment better than retributive punishment?
It seems to me that pursuing ârehabilitationâ would be âbetterâ than just âretribution,â because it appears more consistent with our Teacherâs call to prioritize the command to love (including mercy toward the wicked). For my impression is that love seeks their best which would include the growth that rehabilitation seeks, whereas retribution is satisfied without it, and seems to me to be something that is discouraged.
Hmm. Scratching is within a catâs ability. Similarly God restricts the amount of evil a single person can do, not only by restricting a person to a 100 years but stopping them eventually. e.g. Even Hitler eventually was stopped. So Iâm not denying I or anyone can do a huge amount of terrible things, however, itâs still limited and finite.
The ends justifies the means? Itâs motivated out of love for the person. It will completely reconcile them to God and cleanse them of all evil.
Thatâs a significant thing Alex, to resize sin to only the size of human capability. I agree sin is human-centric in itâs origin but must be God-focused in itâs scope and manner, thatâs its whole point âsin = against-Godnessâ. We are made in the image of God, so our sin has similar dimensions. Thatâs why the cat-master example breaks down so badly, what is that example that shows the magnitude of the God-man connection?
Both retributive and rehabilitative punishment can fall into the error of the âend justifies the meansâ, so for example you might say 1,000 years in purgatory is justified because the person will be reconciled with God, but thatâs equally falling into the end justifies the means.
Iâve also been thinking about the existence of evil, clearly history is real and when weâre reconciled with God, history will continue to be real, so in a sense evil will continue to exist. (Not that evil is a thing but a category.)
By that logic, we will always be sinners in a sense! 
Iâm not sure what youâre getting at by saying that âin a sense evil will continue to exist.â Would you elaborate?
Sonia
Not entirely sure myself Sonia, I have to admit that last point is a little experimental! I was thinking about Christâs scars, permeant reminders in his human nature of his passion. I then realized something wasnât ringing true with the universalist argument that âtrue victory is evil vanishingâ. Perhaps there will be a difference between the memory of evil and the continued existence of evil in the form of sinful humans, clearly there must. However this distinction which I concede isnât really an argument in and of itself against universalism does show that talking about âtotal victoryâ isnât as straightforward as that particular universalist argument first suggests.
I totally agree that ultimately all sin is against God. However,
Hmm, I agree we are made in His image but donât think that makes our sin have similar dimensions e.g. Iâm made in the image of God but my wisdom isnât of similar dimensions! None of my attributes have similar dimensions to God so why is sin the exception?
I still canât see how such a finite being as myself can have an infinite impact on an infinite being. Iâm amazed it concerns Him at all, not because of a lack of anything in God, but because Iâm so small in comparison! Iâm not implying that sin isnât evil, but just that Godâs goodness is immeasurable, infinitely more.
How does retributive punishmentâs end, justify the means, if it has no end? 
Not sure what the definition of âpurgatoryâ is, however, I would say even a million years in Hell would be worth it, if in the end the person was reconciled with God. Way better for that person, than a million years in Hell, still not being reconciled with God, and the prospect of infinite amount more Hell 
That is interesting.
I agree, although exactly how it will work, I donât know.
True, it would apply even if there was only a few people in heaven.
Iâll concede that there are plenty of things we havenât been shown yet 
Back to the infinite sin thing, to loosely paraphrase CS Lewis, there are only two directions, two actions or two things people can do: against God or for God. Adam, and therefore everyone, has chosen against/away from God. In other-words the only thing that really matters, that really counts and that really exists, is our orientation against or for God. To say we are nothing compared to God makes two mistakes, it downplays our only significant characteristic and ignores the connection (or lack of) with God and if God is the largest most important person in the universe then that makes the our connection or lack of it the second most important thing.
(Just a quick note you canât use the end justifies the means counter argument because it could be used equally against both retributive and rehabilitative punishment. You need a different reason for why punishment is rehabilitative and why retributive punishment is a bad thing. )
Love {God} is not easily angered, might apply to this discussion.
I totally agree.
You said on another thread that we should think that we are Godâs equals in anything. I didnât say we are nothing, because by Godâs grace we are His children, which gives us worth. Our connection to Him is important. Our rejection of Him does have consequences, it just He never completely lets us go (proven by the fact He goes on sustaining us, even people in Hell), so when we turn (or are turned) He is right there waiting to embrace us again
sorry bro, Iâm not understanding you on this one, next time we bump into each other in person, you can explain it more
I agree with Luke on the cat analogy. However, I think Daniel makes the point in the end if the analogy is altered. For example, suppose the cat kills your son. Usually when a dog kills the neighbors kid the dog gets put down (euthanized). But now suppose that itâs not a cat and itâs Godâs prodigal son whoâs doing the killing.
Of course non-universalists try to appeal that such a person is not a child of God and therefore God is not inclined by his nature to love and have mercy on such a person. I would differ. I think we were all children of wrath at one point.
Now if itâs one son who kills the other and the reason your son does it is because heâs irrational, now thats where it gets interesting. The reason is (using Talbottâs analogy) anyone who puts his hand in a fire with every reason not to and no reason to would hardly be making what we call a rational choice. The person is irrational. Thus if God could heal the son (prodigal murderer - like Paul who was saved for unbelief and ignorance) why would he not? If he can and chooses not to (as in the reformed rednering of Esau) then simply put, that God is not loving. And if that God is not loving then heâs not so amazing. For the one who loves most, is the one who is most amazing. That is unless we value hatred of persons as a moral attribute. Now since scripture sings of Godâs love and since scripture teaches that God can humble anyone, then I assume that God can heal the cat (of his pride) and raise his dead son from the grave - reconciling all things.
In spite of this Lam3:31 states that God does not reject [sons of man] forever. Or Eze 16 when God states he will restore Sodom to what she was before?
I am both for God and against God simultaneously. If I am purely âagainst Godâ, then I could never believe the Gospel. If, in reply, you say God must regenerate me before I can believe, then this regenerated me doesnât need saving. I will also ask why he doesnât regenerate all people. If he cannot, he is not sovereign. If he will not, he is not loving. Either way, he becomes unworthy.
Christ came to save âmeâ from "sin. For this to be possible, âmeâ and âsinâ have to be two distinct things. I can save Bob from Fred, but I cannot save Bob from Bob.
Perhaps this can be seen in evolutionary terms. Maybe the part of me thatâs âin Adamâ or âof the earthâ are all the reptilian and primate behaviours that fester away in my subconscious and influence so much of what I do and feel. The part thatâs âin Christâ is the spiritual self, which includes self-consciousness, reason, aesthetics, morality, love. But Iâm speculating.
Dualism doesnât work because it requires two Gods, a good one ultimately responsible for good and a bad one ultimately responsible for bad. (Why are there two gods, whose stronger etc etc.)
Mystery is a legitimate category, e.g. what does the edge of the universe look like and paradox is also a legitimate category, e.g. your son is all at the same time, a son and a father.
The traditional doctrine of anthropology and sin moves human identity into the realm of paradox, e.g. the Incarnation. And salvation into the realm of mystery; why does God choose a few. Universalism doesnât resolve anything, just moves the paradox and mystery to different places, so the real question becomes, whose got the paradox and mystery in the right place? A thumb-nail response would be that traditional theology (Augustine-Calvin-Edwards-Frame) has got it right by following Romans 9 for the placement of the mystery.
Thier problem is they got Romans 9 wrong.
Paul writes many things difficult to understand⌠
What would you perceive to be the paradox and mystery of universalism?
Sonia
Hi Luke,
Dualism doesnât work when it comes to God, but itâs certainly my experience as a person. I am often âof two mindsâ.
Suppose Iâm tempted to sin. The part of me thatâs doing the tempting is obviously in rebellion against God, but the part thatâs resisting that temptation isnât in rebellion. Rather, it is fighting for God, not against him. The conclusion: I am both a rebel and a godly man simultaneously. Being evil, the rebel in me is a creature of darkness, a person-shaped hole. He is both unreal and entirely mysterious, an unknowable uncreated non-creature in whom God is not. Just as the godly man is filled with Godâs spirit, the rebel is utterly empty. And like all dark places, when it is finally filled with light (in the Lake of Fire?) the rebel will cease to exist.
âIf there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heavenâŚI declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.â
To me, even when I believed in ECT, the concept that sin against an infinite God requires an infinite punishment always seemed like a desperate attempt at rationalizing the seeming unjustness of ECT. It just doesnât make sense to punish someone for sins infinitely when done in the blindness of our temporal perspective. And just intuitively it seems to counter the concept that God is love. I believed in ECT though because thatâs what I was taught from childhood was true.