UN-USED KEEPERS -- ideas from last parts of Education in UR-Hell

an option: You can first read the condensed Main Overview.

an option: You can first read a condensed-and-revised version of this section in the Main Overview.

an option: You can first read the condensed-and-revised versions of these sections in the Main Overview.

note to reader:  For awhile I'll ask "who will be viewing" and will examine speculations (by me & others) about who may or may not be watching Life Videos, and why.  If you want, you can skim or skip these sections, moving on to questions about suffering in Afterlife.

ends & means -- everyone can say "results were worth the unpleasant process-experiences" because "the ends justifies the means" for divine means & divine ends (questionable for humans, ok sometimes for people, ok always for God) / ends/means necessary for any credible theodicy / how – salvation by grace:  In pUR-Hell, how is a person saved?  A person will not “earn their salvation” by their own suffering in UR-Hell.    [more]

from #eduwonlife2 -- These missing people would prevent a Total Reconciling for creation-as-a-whole, or even for any individual because during Life each of us has interpersonal interactions that need to be healed (because this didn't happen in Life) with many people,* including many who were unsaved-in-Life but (with FA) will not be available to see/hear/feel the videos, to be part of a universal repenting & mutual forgiving-and-healing.  Therefore, due to the many missing people it seems that with FA there would not be a total healing for any individual — with a healing Total Restoration that in addition to being internal (to heal their own thinking-and-feeling) is also external (to heal all of their relationships with every other person) — and there would not be a Total Reconciliation for the community as a whole.  There would never be a total healing, with all sin-broken people & relationships being transformed into healthy people & relationships.  It seems to me that FA would be sad, because in Afterlife we (assuming you and I will be saved) could never again be with many of the people we loved in Life.

* How does God help a person become sanctified, during Life and/or Afterlife?  Jesus wants us to "sin no more" and He will help His followers (Christians who are saved in Life) pursue this goal in Life, with a process that is more effective when we cooperate;  Paul tells us "do not conform to the pattern of this world, but [with obedient cooperation] let God transform you inwardly by a complete change of your mind."  But although we can become less sinful during Life, we will become only partly sanctified (partly not-sinful) at death, until Afterlife when God transforms us into being totally sanctified (totally not-sinful, totally able & willing to feel-and-think/do in all of the ways that God wants).  How will this happen?  We can ask questions (re: what-how-when in Afterlife) about...

passively receive the changes, or be active participants, with changes being “done to us” or requiring our cooperation?   Compared with the transformations of saved people in Life and Afterlife, what will be the similarities & differences for unsaved people,* if God will produce UR?  The Bible tells that Afterlife will be much better for saved people, but... how? in what ways will it be better?    {more about what-how-when}  {* if God will cause EM or FA or UR, how is God working in the lives of unbelievers during Life?}

Although there are overlaps in “parts of the process” I'm imagining, maybe... God will give salvation when people believe-and-repent due to His educational process, and sanctification will occur due to His corrective process;  although the process of correcting will be unpleasant, a person does not earn their salvation by their suffering, instead God graciously saves people as a gift that is free for us because it was earned for us by God with His compassionate sacrificial incarnation-crucifixion-resurrection in Jesus.    {notice that salvation-by-God is essentially the same in Life and Afterlife;  in each time period, God saves people when they believe-and-repent, and salvation is a gracious free gift from God that isn't “earned by us” because of anything we do.}

@ persons & relns, @ victims/offenders (each of us is both)  /  healing = restoring = being made fully-healthy again, right, righteous, /  correcting-and-healing --> restoring, as with corrective surgery (--> wounds) followed by healing back to healthy

what?  A BIGGER CHALLENGE for FA & (especially) EM -- How can we be happy in Heaven-Kingdom, knowing people we loved-in-Life will be eternally-alive in torment (and gone from us, separated from us), or will be eternally-dead (and thus gone from us) NOW in Afterlife.  This is a much greater difficulty than just "not being there" for mutually-watching videos, to forgive & be forgiven.

possible solutions:  somehow [not defined] God will wipe away every tear (ok but better if with loved ones, less tears to overcome);  wipe away memory of them (this "swiss-cheesing of brains" is a horrible "solution" that is the opposite of valuing Life and learning from Life); 

original ideas for #edu8mutual -- POSSIBLE RESULTS -- summary-transition to WONLIFE

Life-Review Videos being mutually shared-experienced by everyone would be useful, but could be impossible ==== in two ways:

all unsaved would not see if FA (and if before MViewing are killed permanently, gone forever), or if EM (alive but spatially separated)

two kinds of missing persons, due to annihilation or salvation:  If a person "isn't around" for a mutual sharing of Life-Experiences with Afterlife, their absence might be due to annihilation (with FA) or because persons who were saved-in-Life are not participating in the sharing of Videos.

if God will use Life-Review Videos – in solo viewings and mutual viewings –

Two ways to have mutual viewings that don't include all persons are if...

if a main purpose of mutual viewing of Videos could help people forgive each other and heal their relationships. 

in summary, keep simple/short, consistent, to put focus on differences

God could decide... that... multiple (one or more) decisions by God could result in many possibilities:

all people do MV's because they're used

only unsaved people do MV's (to sanctify them for UR) but they're not needed for saved people who already are sanctified.

no people will do MV's, because not needed for UR; or because God won't do UR

fa - unsaved people will be killed before MV's, so only saved people do MV's; [fa, before]

only saved people do MV's, unsaved are killed before doing MV's; [fa, after]

for unsaved -- UR and use Vs for sanct, UR and don't use for sanct /

    FA but use Vs (for benefit of saved-sanct) before killing unsaved / EM and use Vs (for benefit of saved-sanct) while in EM-Hell

for saved -- use for sanct or for extra maturing / already sancfd so don't use, not

how?  mutual viewings by everyone:  If God uses Mutual Viewing, they will be most effective if all people participate.  But some people would be missing if God kills them (with FA) or is exiling them (with EM) and their absence would hinder the Restorations of saved people.

This could be prevented Full Reconciliation of all interpersonal relationships (as an important part of the best possible ending), all persons would have to participate in mutual viewings.

Divine Justice

what and how – degrees of suffering:  maybe... God will use a process of pUR-Hell that is unpleasant-yet-productive to transform unsaved people, to sanctify them, to make them become righteous without sin.  This process will be unpleasant, so asking “why?” is useful.  If part of the "unpleasant" will be sorrowful repentance, degrees of suffering (as described by Jesus) will occur intrinsically because the sorrowful suffering caused by a person (in Life) leads to the sorrowful suffering they will feel in Afterlife, so if more suffering caused, then more suffering received.  This proportional cause-and-effect seems fair.  What we're sowing now, we later will reap. 

why and how – the purpose of pain:  In pUR-Hell, why is there suffering?  Part of the suffering would occur due to sorrowful repentance;  this would be a necessary by-product of the corrective process, and the primary “purpose” of God would be to transform-and-sanctify, not to cause painful suffering.  But the suffering will be intense, so Jesus warns us so we can reduce our sinning (in Life) because this is better for us now, and it also will reduce our suffering later (in Afterlife).  In pUR-Hell, how is a person saved?  A person will not “earn their salvation” by their own suffering in UR-Hell.  Instead they will be saved in the same way we are saved in Life, by believing-and-repenting and gratefully accepting the gracious gift of salvation that Jesus earned for us when He voluntarily died in our place (with His death atoning for our sins) and then rose to life (with victory over death) to show us that He will give us abundant life with Eternal Joy.   [more]

degrees of suffering:  Jesus describes different degrees of suffering  in Afterlife.  For an unsaved person, with FA this could occur before they are killed, but then "so what" because their experiences will die with them.  With EM there could be degrees of misery, even though all in EM-Hell would have infinite suffering after their eternity of time.

@ DEGREES -- He could do this with pUR.  How?  In the pUR-Hell I'm imagining, the suffering caused by a person in Life (what they sowed) will/might/could lead to the sorrowful suffering they feel in Afterlife (what they will reap) and this seems fair because pUR produces personally-customized accountability for all actions (so if more suffering caused in Life, then more suffering received in Afterlife) with God achieving justice for the victims of their sinning. 

Long -- DEGREES -- By contrast, God could produce different degrees of suffering in UR-Hell if there is a correlation between suffering-caused and suffering-received, so if a person causes more suffering in Life, they will receive more suffering in Afterlife, if “what they sow, they will reap.”

@ PAIN -- During this process, God would not cause suffering for the purpose of achieving justice (or for the purpose of inflicting pain), instead His main purpose would be to sanctify persons and to heal relationships.  How?  Maybe... life-review videos will produce mutual empathies and understandings, so everyone forgives everyone, with each person feeling satisfied that justice has been achieved for them and for everyone else.  During the educational correction-and-healing process used by God to achieve His worthy goals (to heal persons & relationships and achieve justice) a “side effect” would be the suffering felt by each person. 

@ SALVATION BY SUFFERING -- But a person would not earn their salvation by their own suffering, instead salvation would be a gracious gift from God;  Jesus earned our salvation when He voluntarily died in our place (with His death atoning for our sins) and then rose to life (with victory over death) to show us that He also will give us Life after Death.

Main-inEdu -- What and How?  @ PAIN & DEGREES -- maybe... God will use a process of pUR-Hell that is unpleasant-yet-productive to transform unsaved people, to sanctify them, to make them become righteous without sin.  This process will be unpleasant, so asking “why?” is useful.  If part of the "unpleasant" will be sorrowful repentance, degrees of suffering (as described by Jesus) will occur intrinsically because the sorrowful suffering caused by a person (in Life) leads to the sorrowful suffering they will feel in Afterlife, so if more suffering caused, then more suffering received.  This proportional cause-and-effect seems fair.  What we're sowing now, we later will reap. 

• the Bible tells us that God wants justice, and God is loving, so... does God want to achieve justice-WITH-love for everyone?   if God wants this, how could He do it?  and will He do it?

purposes for universal resurrection:  Jesus tells us (John 5:28-29) that all humans, both saved & unsaved, will be bodily resurrected, and will be judged by Him.  What are God's purposes for resurrecting people who were unsaved-in-Life?  It's easy to see a noble purpose – to eventually produce The Best Possible Ending – if God will use pUR-Hell to restore all people & all relationships, to make resurrection a “win” for everyone.  By contrast, although FA and EM propose a full restoring of some people {the saved-in-Life}, any restoring that's done for other people {the unsaved-in-Life} would provide no lasting benefits for these people because they will die (with FA) or will never escape from Hell (with EM).  With FA or EM, resurrecting unsaved people would not be beneficial for them;  it would not be love in action for them.  And if God will cause EM, an unsaved person would be MUCH better off without their extremely-unbeneficial resurrection, so... why would God force them to live again and continue living forever?   /   What about the saved-in-Life?  In the context of God commanding every Christian to "love your neighbor [including the unsaved?] as you love yourself," would the resurrection of unsaved people offer any benefits for saved people who will know that most people (including many they loved) are missing from God's Kingdom?    [some possible benefits]

God's merciful penalty of death:  How can a penalty be merciful?   {hint:  think about why – when we ask “if God annihilates unsaved sinners, would this be merciful?” – answers of “yes” and “no” can both be justified.}   It's because yes, FA is merciful compared with EM;  but no, FA is less merciful than UR. {iow, divine love in action is best with UR, is less-loving with FA, is worst with EM.}    God's response to sin – removing His supernatural protection (symbolized by "the tree of life") so natural process would lead to natural death – was a severe penalty that is merciful because it prevents people from living forever with sin, in sinful Eternal Misery.  God can prevent EM by causing FA or UR.  But either way, Genesis 3 tells us that because of sin every human has two kinds of severe penalties:  intrinsic penalties that are consequences of sin, causing spiritual death (a broken relationship with God, described in verses 6-13) and relational injury (with interpersonal relationships damaged in many ways, as in the finger-pointing of 12-13) and physical suffering (with life becoming more difficult & less pleasant, in 16-19), PLUS a divine judicial penalty of Death (declared in 22, actualized in 23-24), beginning with Biological Death at the end of Life, followed by penalties in Afterlife:  if God will cause FA, the divine penalty of Death will cause most people to lose their opportunity for Eternal Life with Joy, and this would be an extremely severe penalty;   but even if God will cause UR that ultimately produces the best possible Final Result in Afterlife, before this all people will suffer the intrinsic consequences-of-sin during Life and they will die at the end of Life (after a fear of Death during Life, followed by grieving among those who still are living), and in Afterlife most people will go through the unpleasant experience of UR-Hell, so even with UR our sinning has brought severe penalties.  But with either FA or UR, the experiences & results are merciful when they're compared with EM.    /    also:  Conditional Immortality (with FA or UR) produces better justice (= righteousness) because CI eliminates unrighteous sin;  by contrast, EM maintains sin by causing unrighteous sinners (and their sinning) to continually exist forever.  With CI (but not with EM that is not-CI) the intrinsic consequences of sin are eliminated, because with CI (with FA or UR) only fully-sanctified sinless people are given Immortality, so they can remain alive in Eternal Joy.

PSA and righteous justice:  Most evangelical Christians think Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) is the main part of God's plan for producing righteous justice by converting sin-and-death into salvation-and-life.  I agree, because a logical evaluation of biblical evidence (in OT & NT) strongly supports a basic PSA claiming only that Christ was our Substitute and He paid our Penalty (for sins) to achieve Atonement.  But a basic PSA that is biblical PSA (because the sin-penalty is death) can be distorted by adding unbiblical details, especially when PSA is influenced by an unbiblical belief in Eternal Misery (claiming the sin-penalty is infinite suffering).  Therefore we should be willing to say “I affirm basic biblical PSA, but question some of the added details.”  [[ i.o.u. - later, probably in mid-January 2022, this paragraph will be written.]] that leads to exaggerated statements about the wrath of God. / But... can recognize that these "extra details" (motivated by attempts to defend EM and to define PSA so it's compatible with EM) so we can reject these claims, but affirm basic PSA and biblical PSA. / also: PSA is compatible with UR, because... the original penalty of Death was Retributive, then PSA was Retributive [but applied only on God by God] AND Restorative {for people who are saved during Life, i.e. for Christians}, then in Afterlife it could be only-Retributive {with EM or FA} or Retributive-and-Restorative {with UR} or only-Restorative {with UR} -- we should think about 3 Steps {the problem in Genesis 3;  God's problem-solving process of crucifixion-and-resurrection of Jesus;  the problem-solving results for us in Life & Afterlife} in the process of human sin and divine salvation, of death and life. ]]

the generosity of God:  How would you feel if – as implied in parables about all-day workers & a faithful older brother – God will be extremely generous?  If an evil sinner (who viciously harmed many people) repents on his deathbed, will God forgive him?  If he doesn't repent before his end of Life, will God let him repent in Afterlife?   If this man is educated-and-corrected in Afterlife to purify his evil heart & mind so he becomes a good person and he is saved, will you praise God for His generosity?  Of course, all of us should say “yes” because we love our neighbors and we want them to be saved, so we hope for Universal Restoration.  But... Jesus told these parables because people are complex, and there are reasons for Christians to have “mixed feelings” that will decrease our hoping for UR, and decrease our optimism that UR will happen.   But despite these reasons, all of us can try to sincerely hope (with all of our heart & mind, our feeling & thinking) that what eventually happens will be...

The Best Possible Ending for God's Grand Story, after God has caused Universal Restoration so in The Final State every person will look back – now with full knowledge – on everything that happened, and will say “I thank God for creating me, for giving me life.  I'm totally satisfied with what God gave me (and others) in Life & Afterlife.  Everything done by God was good, and I'm joyfully thankful for everything.”

for creation-as-a-whole, or even for any individual because during Life each of us has interpersonal interactions that need to be healed (because this didn't happen in Life) with many people,* including many who were unsaved-in-Life but (with FA) will not be available to see/hear/feel the videos, to be part of a universal repenting & mutual forgiving-and-healing.  Therefore, due to the many missing people it seems that with FA there would not be a total healing for any individual —

with a healing Total Restoration that in addition to being internal (to heal their own thinking-and-feeling) is also external (to heal all of their relationships with every other person) — and there would not be a Total Reconciliation for the community as a whole.  There would never be a total healing, with all sin-broken people & relationships being transformed into healthy people & relationships.  It seems to me that FA would be sad, because in Afterlife we (assuming you and I will be saved) could never again be with many of the people we loved in Life.

     {or... if God allows an Unsaved-in-Life person to remain alive in Afterlife until they have repented of their offenses, so all of their victim-and-offender interactions have been healed, but then — after this person has repented for all of their offending sins and has forgiven all who offended them, after they have moved further down the road to sanctification than most Christians have moved during their Life — this person is annihilated, does that seem like divine justice-with-love?     {Empathy in Relationships - for a Wonderful Life with Kindness & Golden Rule}

Other biblical reasons to reject Eternal Misery include...

divine character:  There is a logical mis-match when we compare the biblically-revealed character of God (He is good) and the non-good actions of causing Infinite Misery;  believing EM requires believing that “God is good” AND “God will cause infinite misery” but for many people this combination is difficult to believe, and this can lead them to doubt the existence of God.    [more and re-defining what “being good & doing good” means]

Universal Restoration – When, What, Why, How?

when? salvation in Afterlife:  if God will produce UR, this seems to require God saving people during Afterlife.   {will this happen?  the Bible doesn't clearly say Yes or No}  {if it's No, can we claim "Great is Thy Faithfulness"?}

what? education and correction (of persons & relationships):  if God will produce UR, probably... in His divine "lake of fire" (it's UR-Hell) God will use a process of educating unsaved people (so they believe-and-repent) and correcting them (to make them right, to produce righteousness that is justice when all people & all relationships have been restored so they are the ways God always wanted them to be, are fully loving without sin).   /   why and what?  We can have sinless Eternal Joy in God's Kingdom only after there is a full restoration of all persons and all relationships, so every person is fully reconciled with themself (internally) and (externally) with every other person & with God.   /   what?  With UR, full salvation is a “package deal” that eventually will include being forgiven AND being corrected, so salvation includes sanctification, and Conditional Immortality (with UR or FA) is “IF saved (forgiven-and-corrected), then immortal.”

why? God wants to eliminate sin because sinning disrespects God, and it harms persons & relationships, and God would achieve this goal with FA or UR (but not with EM) because although SIN is very evil and is powerful, GOD is very good and is more powerful.  God wants to defeat sin, and He will be successful in eliminating sin.   /   why?  Now during Life, God wants us to help us improve the ways we live (in our feeling & thinking-and-doing) by decreasing our sinfulness, because He loves us and He wants to decrease the harmful consequences of sin.  Later during Afterlife, God will eliminate the harmful consequences of sin.

how? salvation comes through Jesus:  We are saved by accepting the gracious forgiving that God offers, by having faith in Jesus (believing the biblical teachings about who He is, and what He has done for us & is doing, will do)* and by submitting to the lordship of Jesus (by repenting, wanting to live in the ways He wants us to live).  God gives salvation in the same way, whether He does this in Life or Afterlife;  if a person is saved in UR-Hell, they will be saved by accepting the salvation graciously given by God, they won't “earn their salvation” by their suffering.   /   * what Jesus "has done for you" includes living among us and dying for us (with His death atoning for our sins) and then rose to life (with victory over death) to show us that He will give us abundant life with Eternal Joy. 

why? suffering is part of the process: 

high standards -- God also forgives.

how? by re-experiencing Life:  maybe... God will sin-purify people in His "lake of fire" will occur in a process of educating-with-correcting in purgatorial UR-Hell where God purges the sins of unsaved people with purifying divine fire (in Greek, fire is pur) in His lake of divine fire.  This process would be educational {so people believe & repent} leading to salvation, in a process that's similar to how God saves people in Life, except it happens in Afterlife;*  and it would be corrective {with God skillfully using Holy Spirit surgery to remove the sinful character that prevents a person from fully loving Him and fully loving people, so people become healthy personally & interpersonally} to produce sanctification when their feeling-thinking-doing has been corrected so they aren't sinful, when personally they have become a healthy person, and interpersonally they have healthy relationships with other persons and with God, so they have become totally restored, totally righteous, after being transformed into the person that God always wanted them to be.  

How?  How is God transforming us now (in Life) and how will He do this later (in Afterlife)?  will the Afterlife-process occur instantly, or require time?  will it be “done to us” or require our cooperation?   Compared with the process for saved people, what will be the similarities & differences for unsaved people, if God will cause UR?  It will be much better for saved people, but... how?  in what ways?  {God hasn't told us the details of how-and-what}

How?  Although the Bible doesn't give us many details about the process of sanctifying, Jesus does tell us about one part of the process: "everything that is covered up will be revealed."  This doesn't happen in Life, so (logically) it will happen in Afterlife, maybe...  in Life-Review Videos that reveal the history of our feeling-and-thinking about people (ourselves & others) and about God, showing us the effects on ourselves & on others, in a wide-ranging interconnected web of interpersonal interactions.

How?  If life-review videos will be used, maybe... God will give each person multiple super-abilities – improved empathy, compassion, and self-responsibility (leading to sorrowful shame & repentance), plus heightened physical senses of seeing, hearing,... – to make our re-experiencing of events more intense, to magnify our feelings of joy (for good things that happened to us, and good things we did) and sorrow (for bad things that happened to us, and bad things we did, or good things we didn't do), with all emotional responses helping to produce beneficial personal & interpersonal transformations so God can correct-and-heal all persons & all relationships.    {the "maybe..." acnowledges that these are my biblically-informed speculations}

How?  During this process, God would provide divine guiding-and-empowering by Holy Spirit through intimate spiritual connections with each person, for the purpose of helping them learn more from their experiences.  God would provide conviction that leads to sorrowful repentance – so the person (now with a freed will) wants their own sinful nature to be eliminated – so they have an authentic desire to let God radically transform them, to fully cooperate with His purifying destruction of their sinful nature.  They will want to be radically transformed so they become totally sanctified (totally healthy as a whole person in their feeling-and-thinking & actions), so they become the righteous person that God always wanted them to be, and is now helping them to be.    [more]

How?  Maybe... life-review videos will be simultaneously viewed by each person & by all others – with all of them experiencing what did happen (during Life) and also what now is happening (during Afterlife) from their own perspective and from the perspectives of others.  In this way, each person can experience the sorrowful repentance of all others (who hurt them during Life) and these shared experiences will produce powerful mutual empathies & compassions, so finally everyone can forgive everyone, and all will be emotionally healed & spiritually healed.

What?  God wants to achieve justice-with-love, and He will do this, but how will it happen?  maybe... God will use pUR-Hell to cause a correcting-and-healing of all persons and all relationships. 

Why?  Multiple correctings-and-healings are necessary because every person sometimes is a victim (who has been hurt by the sinful offenses of others) and sometimes is an offender (who has hurt others in some ways).  These hurtings produce needs:  as victims, we need to forgive people, and we want to know that they have sorrowfully repented;   as offenders, we should want to repent-and-apologize, and we need to be forgiven by people & by God.  These forgivings – done by us for others, and by others for us – are an essential part of producing reconciliations that are “horizontal” (between people) and “vertical” (between people and God).

How?  Maybe... these needs (to forgive and be forgiven) will be satisfied during purgatorial UR if all persons experience the life-review videos of all persons, so we'll know the genuinely sorrowful repenting-and-apologizing of all others, and these shared experiences produce "mutual empathies & compassions" so "everyone will forgive everyone" and "all will be emotionally healed," to produce a Total Reconciling of all people with each other, and with God, which can occur only when people fully love each other, and fully love God.  This is the way it should be, how God wants it to be, and (we all should hope) how He will make it become.    {but if God will cause FA, would a Total Reconciling be hindered by the Annihilation of most people?}

What and How?  maybe... God will use a process of pUR-Hell that is unpleasant-yet-productive to transform unsaved people, to sanctify them, to make them become righteous without sin.  This process will be unpleasant, so asking “why?” is useful.  If part of the "unpleasant" will be sorrowful repentance, degrees of suffering (as described by Jesus) will occur intrinsically because the sorrowful suffering caused by a person (in Life) leads to the sorrowful suffering they will feel in Afterlife, so if more suffering caused, then more suffering received.  This proportional cause-and-effect seems fair.  What we're sowing now, we later will reap. 

Why and How? suffering  In pUR-Hell, why is there suffering?  Part of the suffering would occur due to sorrowful repentance;  this would be a necessary by-product of the corrective process, and the primary “purpose” of God would be to transform-and-sanctify, not to cause painful suffering.  But the suffering will be intense, so Jesus warns us so we can reduce our sinning (in Life) because this is better for us now, and it also will reduce our suffering later (in Afterlife).   [more]

Why and What? love-and-justice  Some correcting-in-Afterlife will be necessary, because it's impossible to have divine love without justice.  Why?  God is the only all-powerful entity, so if there will be total justice this must be produced by Him.  God loves people, so He wants to produce justice for us.  In an imaginary love-without-justice, God might use a “gentle bunny” approach, like an incompetent human judge who says “you're innocent” or “you're guilty, but free to walk away” for every crime, despite evidence that the crime actually was committed.  To achieve biblical justice, God must make things right.  For example, all interpersonal hurtings (done to a person as a victim, and done by them as an offender) are injustices;  these hurtings are not right, are not the way things should be, so to achieve justice God must heal the hurtings and make the relationships become right.

What? total justice/righteousness if God will produce UR – by transforming all people & all relationships so they have become right, without sin – this total righteousness (total justice) would be the best possible ending for God's grand story.  If God does this, pUR-Hell will be love in action and we will enthusiastically praise God because of what He is doing for people in Hell.   {for versus to:  in pUR-Hell, God does things for people, for their benefit, to help them;  but God does things to people, to punish them, to hurt-and-harm them, in FA-Hell or EM-Hell.}

What?  My website about Education for Problem Solving defines education as "learning from life-experience," and problem solving as "making things better."  If in pUR-Hell things will be made better – will be made best, made completely righteous to achieve complete justice – pUR will be a process of educational problem solving because God will be helping us learn (during Afterlife-experiences) from our Life-experiences so He can make things better for every person and every relationship.

What? Universal Salvation and free will:  Universal Restoration proposes that in Afterlife the unsaved can repent, and all do repent.  But if people have free will, how can we be certain (or even optimistic) that "ALL do repent"?  Well, maybe God has told us (in the Bible) that He will save all people.  But how could He save all if people have free will, so during Afterlife they might decide to continue not-believing or not-repenting?  UR is possible with free will, because God knows all and can do all (He is omniscient and omnipotent) so He can be more persuasive than during Life by providing stronger evidence and giving people a better perspective – by transforming them until they have a freed will that is freed from their slavery to sin – so they are able to make a wise decision by believing-and-repenting.  God knows what is required to persuade each person, so they will freely believe-and-repent.    [more]    /    Or maybe God will save some previously-unsaved people, but not all, to produce semi-Universal Restoration (semi-UR) that is a “hybrid” combination of UR and FA.

My Relationships – with God and people (believers & unbelievers)

I.O.U. – These sections will be written later, but not in 2021.  Until then, the "old ToC" has the best current versions.

Evangelism  –  Good News plus Bad News ?

With each view of Hell, what is The Whole News?

    with Eternal Misery, it's Good News (God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your Life) plus Bad News (God hates you if you die unsaved, and has a horrible plan for your Afterlife);  and even if you are saved, God will cause Infinite Misery for many of the people you love, for most of the people He created.   {is this really The Good News?}
    with Universal Restoration, it's truly Good News because God will produce the best possible ending for everyone, by transforming all persons & all relationships so we are free (mentally, emotionally, spiritually) with no sin, we are the way He always wanted us to be, so we can fully love other people and fully love God, can be fully alive with Eternal Joy.  In this way, God will achieve justice that is righteousness and ultimately each of us will say “God was wise and good in everything He did” and “I thank God for creating me.” 
    with Final Annihilation, it's Good News (for saved people) plus Mixed News (because for unsaved people, FA isn't The Bad News of EM, but isn't The Good News of UR).
    [more about The Whole News of EM & UR & FA]

enthusiasm for evangelism:  Are we less enthusiastic in proclaiming The Gospel if we – and usually the people we're talking with – think God will cause Eternal Misery, so instead of Good News it's actually Mixed News with Good News + Bad News?

praising God for Hell:  Yes, we can enthusiastically praise God because of what He will do FOR people in pUR-Hell, and this praising can help us fully love God with our whole heart & whole mind, as commanded by Jesus.  But is it more difficult to praise God because of what He would do TO people in EM-Hell, where He would force them to endure Infinite Misery?    [more]

hoping for Universal Restoration:  Every person (especially a Christian who is commanded by Jesus to fully “love their neighbors”) should sincerely hope – with all of their heart & mind, their feeling & thinking – that God will produce Universal Restoration, because it's the best possible ending.   {if a person thinks the Bible teaches EM, they can humbly hope their conclusion is wrong}    [more]

the purpose of salvation:  Are we mainly being saved from our slavery to sin?  Or is the main benefit that God saves us from God because – if He doesn't save us – He will eternally torment us, causing Eternal Misery?  Of course, defenders of EM say “both” but when a person is terrified by the threat of EM, they often will be mainly motivated by their fear of EM-Hell (of God harming them), not by their love for God.

total whole-person motives:  When a person is continually deciding whether to “say YES” and live by faith, their total motivation combines many motivations, including...   wanting better intrinsic Life-Process by getting more true joy (by more fully loving God & people) because they believe that God deserves to be loved-and-served, and that God can help them overcome their own self-centered sinfulness so they can more effectively love-and-serve other people;   wanting better extrinsic Afterlife-Results by getting joy in Heaven and avoiding misery in Hell.   Although I'm calling these motivations intrinsic (doing life-process) and extrinsic (receiving afterlife-results), all motives are internal because all contribute to how a person internally thinks about “getting what they want” in their whole life-and-afterlife as a whole person.    [more]

fear-motives versus love-motives:  Both motives are biblically justifiable, but it's often "versus" because typically when fear-motives increase, love-motives decrease;  usually, fear-motives are highest with belief in EM, and love-motives are highest with belief in UR.    [more]

belief in EM versus belief in God:  This doesn't have to be "versus" but it often is, because when a person logically evaluates four claims of EM – that God exists and is all-powerful and is all-good and (by adding EM) will cause Eternal Misery – they find it difficult to accept all four claims;  most people cannot reconcile "is good" and "will cause Eternal Misery" because they think-and-feel (using the moral conscience given to them by God) that a good God would not cause the infinite misery of Eternal Misery, so they logically conclude that “this God (who is good and causes EM) does not exist.”    [more]

motives for living as a dedicated disciple:  A follower of Jesus (a disciple) is motivated in many ways:  by believing that God exists and is good (is worthy of praise & worship);  by fear & love & other motives;  by thinking salvation is being saved from sin and/or saved from damnation;  and more.  The overall “blend of motives” varies from one Christian to another, and so do the ways that believing a view (EM, FA, UR) affects the discipleship of an individual and a community.  But when all things are considered, I think that for most Christians a high love-motive (easier with UR than with EM) will be most effective in producing biblical discipleship.    [more]

practical effects for living:  When we share The Good News, is including The Bad News (to cause “maximum fear”) useful and beneficial?  Maybe not.  But for many Christians, wanting to maintain motivation-by-fear is important, is a major factor in continuing to say “God will cause EM” because they worry that a non-Christian will think “I can believe later, in Afterlife” (with UR) or (with FA) “death wouldn't be so bad.”  They think Christians should use the “infinitely big stick” of Eternal Misery, because this terrifying threat is necessary for effective “carrots and sticks” motivation.  But... although EM increases fear-motives to convert, EM tends to decrease belief in God, and decrease a non-Christian's ability to fully trust-and-love God, to “say yes” and fully live for God.    [more]

evangelistic responsibilities:  Christians should try to accurately describe what the Bible teaches, including the character & actions (past, present, future) of God.  We should try to avoid giving the false hope that would occur IF a person claims “UR will happen” if UR won't happen (in the actual Afterlife-reality).  And we should try to avoid causing the false fear that would occur IF a person claims “EM will happen” if EM won't happen.  Each "avoid" is important, but (due to biblical ambiguity) it's impossible to know which "if" (about Afterlife-reality) is correct, so we cannot know-with-certainty that we're avoiding either giving false hope or causing false fear.    [more]    /    Should we proclaim The Good News that God won't cause Infinite Misery?  We have reasons for action (to persuade people that God is good, so He can be trusted-and-loved) but also reasons for caution.

reasons for “saying YES to God” now:  Why should a person “say YES” now?  what are the benefits?  My explanation of "why" and "what" begins with intrinsic life-process motives: "the main benefit is that you will have a closer relationship with God, letting you more fully experience the loving of God.  He also will help you live better by supplying what you need (love, joy, wisdom, strength, courage,...)* in your daily living."  Then I describe the extrinsic afterlife-results motives of wanting to gain positives (of Heaven) later, and avoid negatives (of Hell) later.  And I conclude that "if you're a rational person who believes that God exists and God is good, you should respond by ‘saying YES to God’ now (asap) because your Life will be better now, and later your Afterlife will be better, so at all times (during Life & Afterlife) your living will be better."   {* if we tell people that God "will help you live better," of course we should show this by actually living better.}    [more]

Divine Justice

We should have appropriate humility – not too little, and (as in postmodern views of divine ethics) not too much – when we're thinking about the character of God and His divine justice.

the character of God:  The Bible tells us that God is truly GREAT, because He is POWERFUL and also is GOOD, is JUST-and-LOVING.  God wants justice (and He will produce it, because “what we sow, we will reap”) and God is loving, so...  in each view of Hell, how will God use Hell as part of His plan for producing justice-with-love?  Genuine love is love-in-action that produces good results:  God's loving actions would do good for all people with UR (by correcting-and-healing all persons and all relationships) but He wouldn't do good for people in FA-Hell or (especially) EM-Hell.  I think the actions of God would be most just-and-loving if He produces UR, and least if He causes the infinite misery of Eternal Misery for most of the people He created.     {more about What Jesus Will Do when He judges us}

justice is righteousness:  in Greek the word [dikaiosuné] that means righteousness — produced when things (people, situations, relationships,...) have been made right, the way they should be — also means justice.  {in the NT this word is usually translated as righteousness in English, but as justice in other languages}   Would the final state of Afterlife produce righteous justice with UR? (yes, after divine correcting in UR-Hell makes everything correct, makes it right);  or with FA? (yes, because all people who remain alive will be righteous, but with fewer righteous persons than if God causes UR);  or with EM? (no, because unrighteous sinners would be kept alive forever, so un-righteousness that is un-justice would be preserved forever)    [more]

PSA and righteous justice:

believing the biblical evidence:  Most evangelical Christians think Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) is a key part of God's plan to produce righteous justice by converting sin-and-death into salvation-and-life.  I agree, because a logical evaluation of biblical evidence (in OT & NT) strongly supports a basic PSA claiming only that Christ was our Substitute and He paid our Penalty (for sins) to achieve Atonement.  But a basic PSA that is biblical PSA (because the sin-penalty is death) can be distorted by adding unbiblical details, especially when PSA is influenced by an unbiblical belief in Eternal Misery (claiming the sin-penalty is infinite suffering).  Therefore we should be willing to say “I affirm basic biblical PSA, but question some of the added details.”

trusting the wisdom of God:  Critics of PSA ask justifiable questions about some “added details” in common descriptions of PSA.  But despite this, my feeling is that God decided why-and-how to use PSA, He knows it will work properly, and (in the past, present, future) He causes it to work properly.  When we consider everything God has done for us – with salvation and in other ways – our simple bottom-line response should be to trust God, to trust that He has done what is best, and will continue doing what is best.  We should humbly appreciate...

the love story of PSA:  God wants us to know that His plan for salvation (by using PSA) was loving & good, so we will know-and-feel (in our minds-and-hearts) how much God loves us.  By using PSA, God shows us that sin is very bad, and He is very loving.  When we appreciate how God's using of PSA shows His love for us, we can love Him and trust Him, believing that what He has done (and is doing, and will do) is best, so we can like PSA and love God.    {by contrast, harsh critics of PSA think disliking PSA will lead to loving God, but I disagree.}

more:  If you have questions about PSA, you may want to read my full sections about PSA because they explore these ideas (and others) in more depth.

God's merciful penalty of death

How can a penalty be merciful?   {hint:  think about why answers of “yes” and “no” are both justifiable when we ask “if God annihilates unsaved sinners, would this be merciful?”}   We can say “yes” because FA is merciful compared with EM,  but “no” because FA is less merciful than UR.  {iow, divine love in action is best with UR, is less-loving with FA, is worst with EM.}    /    God wisely responded to sin by removing His supernatural protection (symbolized by "the tree of life") so natural process would lead to natural death.  This was a severe penalty – because humans lost our God-sustained immortality – that also is merciful because it prevents people from living forever with sin, in sinful Eternal Misery.  God can prevent sinful EM by causing either FA or UR.

sin-penalties are intrinsic and judicial:  Genesis 3 tells us that because of sin, every human has two kinds of severe penalties:  INTRINSIC penalties that are consequences of sin, causing spiritual death (a broken relationship with God, described in verses 6-13) and relational injury (with interpersonal relationships damaged in many ways, as in the finger-pointing of 12-13) and physical suffering (with life becoming more difficult & less pleasant, in 16-19), PLUS a divinely-decided JUDICIAL penalty of Death (declared in 22, actualized in 23-24), beginning with Biological Death at the end of Life.  And for most people, penalties in Afterlife:  if God will cause FA, the divine JUDICIAL penalty of Death is dominant, with God causing most people to lose their opportunity for Eternal Life with Joy, and this would be an extremely severe penalty;   but even if God will cause UR that ultimately produces the best possible Final Result in Afterlife, before this all people will suffer the INTRINSIC consequences-of-sin during Life and they will die at the end of Life (after a fear of Death during Life, followed by grieving among those who still are living), and in Afterlife most people will go through beneficial-yet-unpleasant purifying experiences in purgatorial UR-Hell, so even with UR our sinning has brought severe penalties.  But with either FA or UR, the experiences & results are merciful when they're compared with EM that would force most people to suffer the INTRINSIC consequences-of-sin forever.

CI will produce the best justice:  Either FA or UR will be Conditional Immortality (CI) that produces the best justice (= righteousness) because it eliminates sin.  By contrast, EM maintains sin by causing unrighteous sinners (and their sinning) to exist forever, so EM causes sinful unrighteousness that is injustice.  With CI (but not with EM that is not-CI) the intrinsic consequences of sin (spiritual death, relational injury, physical suffering) eventually are eliminated, because with CI (with FA or UR) only fully-sanctified sinless people are given Immortality, so they can remain alive with sinless Eternal Joy.

divine persuasion:  We observe that God isn't “obvious” about His existence & activities.  Why is this fact a logical/ethical argument for UR, and against EM?    [non-maximal divine persuasion]     Also, although much less important, there are two other aspects of...

divine ambiguity:  Why are we uncertain about the final results of hell?  When we ask “why is the biblical evidence ambiguous?” there are two why-questions:  WHY is there no obvious “answer” when we carefully examine all evidence in God's Bible?  and  WHY hasn't God made “the correct answer” more clear?  [why & why]    {how much ambiguity?  I'm very confident that the Bible clearly teaches Conditional Immortality and thus “UR-or-FA instead of EM” but is not consistently clear about UR-versus-FA.}

imagining infinite misery:  Take a few minutes (or a few hours, days, weeks,...) trying to vividly imagine an experience of eternal misery with torment that never.......... ends.    [more]

mercy killing:  If God annihilates an unsaved person in Afterlife, would this be merciful if otherwise they will have Eternal Misery?  if they will have Eternal Joy?    [more]

the purpose of resurrection:  What could be a loving purpose for God's resurrection of unsaved people?   {with EM this is difficult to imagine, but it's easy to understand if God will cause UR}    [more]

basic justice:  For each view, what is the overall change from Before Life to The End of Afterlife?

questions about results:  Do you also think the overall changes would be wonderful, wonderful, fair yet sad, unfair and bad?    [more & more]

questions about existence:  Before Life, if you knew nothing about “what your situation in life will be,” would you choose to be born if God will cause UR?  if FA?  if EM?    [more]

regarding situations and results, is Life fair?  how could God make Life-plus-Afterlife more fair?   will He do this?

salvation by personal merit:  Does a saved person earn their Eternal Joy because they have a good heart (so they want to love God) and (by making the all-important wise decision by “saying yes” to God) a smart mind?  does an unsaved person earn their Eternal Misery because they have an evil heart and an unwise mind?  {logically, our answers for both questions must be the same – either “yes, yes” or “no, no” – so if only some are saved, should we conclude that “we earned our salvation by merit, by being good-and-wise” ?} [more]    But if merit-in-Life doesn't earn results-in-Afterlife, are the results justifiable and fair?  This question is especially important for people who are unsaved-in-Life, if in Afterlife the results will be binary with two results that are infinitely different:

can binary justice to be fair?  Can you imagine a way to achieve true justice if there is only Eternal Joy or Eternal Misery for a person who dies unsaved, and who...  dies young?  is a moron?  re: salvation, is “dealt a bad hand” in Life? (e.g. they have bad experiences with Christians, or are devoted to the dominant non-Christian religion in their family & culture)   /   If salvation will depend on beliefs and/or actions that vary along a range — and if there will be a “dividing line” so, for example, a person whose beliefs-and-actions produce a “life score = 70.0” is saved to Eternal Joy, but with 69.9 they are damned to Eternal Misery, even though the overall lives were almost identical — would this be fair?  If not, is this a reason for God to avoid binary judging?   [more]

how would you feel if (as implied in some parables) God will be extremely generous?  If a terrible sinner, who viciously harmed many people, repents near the end of their Life, will God forgive them?  but if they don't repent before death, will God let them repent in Afterlife?   and if God does this, will you praise His generosity?    {of course, everyone should hope for everyone to be saved;  but are there reasons for a Christian to have “mixed feelings” that decrease their hoping for universal salvation, and decrease their optimism that UR will happen?}  {if a person thinks “the Bible teaches EM” should they hope their conclusion is wrong?}   /   the way it should be:  Every person should sincerely hope – with all of their heart & mind, in their feeling & thinking – that what eventually happens will be...

The Best Possible Ending after God has caused Universal Restoration, so eventually every person will look back (with full knowledge) on all that happened, and will say “I thank God for creating me, and I'm totally satisfied with what God gave me (and others) in Life & Afterlife;  everything done by God was loving, was good, and I'm joyfully thankful for everything.”

in the main paragraph -- unsatisfactory logic in crucifixion-versus-resurrection with EM: The focus of biblical history is this pair of events, when God (as the humanly fragile death-offering Jesus) first pays the sinner's penalty of death, and then God (as the victorious death-defeating Jesus) rises to life, showing us that He has conquered death. Because a sinner's penalty is death, this pair of events (with a contrast of death-offering versus death-defeating) makes sense, logically and dramatically. But it would not make sense if a sinner's penalty is the infinite suffering of Eternal Misery. {Crucifixion-and-Resurrection in PSA-and-CV}

extra un-used ideas -- the contrast between crucifixion and resurrection is logical. this focus matches the focus-on-death that is emphasized during the central pair of events in biblical history (the crucifixion-AND-resurrection of Jesus) when there is an obvious contrast – God (in the human form of Jesus) first pays our death penalty with His own death, and then He conquers death with His resurrection. But if the penalty is the infinite suffering of Eternal Misery, the

{* The Son actually was called Yeshua, but during translations His name was changed into Jesus.}

Genesis 2:17, "dying thou dost die" - tapatalk forum - blog serp#1 -

TERMS -- CI Definition

gen 3:22 both ways prevent EM -- same no-sin ending with both -- @ Glenn #4 (#2 ?) --

if all satisfy condition there was no condition -- two ways to conclude UR (begin w univ-uncond-Immort or w cond-Immort) -- nec vs suff --

After humans sinned, God removed his life-sustaining supernatural power, symbolized by the "tree of life" He can provide;  then Adam & Eve began a natural process of gradually dying, which happens naturally-and-continuously when we don't have the supernatural protection supplied by God.

Eventually the logic (in this section) will be summarized in the Venn Diagram below.  But before this diagram is shown, I'll explain each of the four claims (• • • •) that are described below the Venn Diagram.

The table above shows "4 ultimate results... that are possible."  Another way to look at these 4 possibilities — produced by imagining various combinations of Immortalities (Conditional & Unconditional, non-Universal & Universal) — is this visually-logical Venn Diagram:

In this diagram,...

the gray shading shows that Unconditional Immortality (and thus EM & one kind of theory about UR) violates a principle – Conditional Immortality – that is clearly taught in Genesis & Revelation.

the purple solid lines ( — ) show results that could occur in only one way:  

• solid -- FA requires [uni-I &] Conditional Immortality [vd for CI];  

• solid -- EM requires Unconditional Immortality, because EM violates Conditional Immortality [vd for EM].

the purple dotted lines ( ..... ) show results that could occur in either of two ways:  

• Universal Immortality could occur with either UR or EM;  

• UR requires Universal Immortality, but this could occur in two ways, with CI or not-CI[un-CI,unCI] [middle split-cell] / and one way combines Conditional Immortality with the Universal Immortality that would occur if God lets/causes everyone to satisfy The Condition so He can achieve Universal Reconciliation.  This possibility — shown in the diagram (yellow area) and in the table (yellow cell) — "is extremely important for logically analyzing the meaning of Conditional Immortality," for understanding why Conditional Immortality should mean "either FA or UR" instead of the logically unjustifiable "only FA".

“if Unconditional, then Universal” true [gray UR bottom], “if Universal, then Unconditional”) false [yellow UR top, Univ-AND-Cond]
[to disprove Grice claiming "if univ then uncond", must prove UR-AND-CI is possible -- so is my reasoning circular? /
solid foundation -- the yellow cell (UR that is Conditional-and-Universal) is a biblically-correct possibility if CI is biblically-correct.
[ask "does UR violate if-then?" and answer "no"]

• Conditional Immortality  (for FA, is necessary but not-sufficient)

a key difference:  IF (contrary to what the Bible teaches) immortality will be unconditional (and therefore universal) – because humans are intrinsically immortal, and God will not use His sovereign power to overcome this automatic immortality – then UR would be possible, but FA would be impossible.  Thus,...

for FA to occur, Conditional Immortality is necessary but not-sufficient:  Because "FA would be impossible" with Unconditional Immortality (not-CI) that is Universal Immortality, FA requires Conditional Immortality (CI), so CI is necessary for producing FA.   {using “visual logic” with Venn Diagrams:  a Venn Diagram for Final Annihilation includes only CI, because it cannot include not-CI}    /    But CI does not guarantee FA, because with CI the Final Result could be either FA or UR, so CI is not sufficient for producing FA.   {a Venn Diagram for Conditional Immortality includes both FA and UR, but not EM}

• Universal Immortality  (for UR, is necessary but not-sufficient)

for UR to occur, Universal Immortality is necessary but not-sufficient because Universal Immortality would occur with either UR or EM, although not with FA which requires non-universal immortality.    {a Venn Diagram for Universal Immortality includes both UR and EM, but not FA}

• Unconditional Immortality  (for UR, is not-sufficient and not-necessary)

As described above,

Unconditional Immortality (thus Universal Immortality) could be either UR or EM, so it's not-sufficient to produce UR, and...

the narrow road -- WHO and HOW MANY – ultimately, will most people remain unsaved?  Bible-based Christian UR is non-pluralistic, is compatible with strong exclusivism (a claim that salvation requires explicit belief in Jesus) so questions about inclusion-vs-exclusion and the narrow road (now being traveled by "few") are not significant for UR.  But these questions are extremely important for FA and EM, which claim that most people will be lost forever, will be annihilated or eternally tormented.

    two kinds of people, saved & unsaved {pUR agrees, by proposing "two kinds" in Life, and in Afterlife during judgment & pUR-Hell, but not in the final state},
    with few people on “the narrow road” {although this “narrow road” verse is evidence against religious pluralism, UR rejects this pluralism} and {although this verse does limit the number of saved people to only "a few" IF God will cause EM (or FA), it isn't limiting IF God will cause UR, and UR is possible because the verse literally says "few" are finding it (with the verb in present tense) now during Life, but this doesn't mean that only a few will find it (with the verb unjustifiably assumed to imply future tense) later during Afterlife;  and “finding it later” is proposed by UR},

Pluralism & Salvation, and Salvation after Death:  When we're thinking about "the narrow gate" we should recognize that the implications are very different for pluralism & for salvation, and are very different if salvation after death won't occur (with EM or FA) or will occur (with UR).

The Narrow Gate and Pluralism:  Jesus tells us that a person can be saved only by traveling the narrow road that leads them through "the narrow gate" so pluralism (claiming “all roads lead to God”) is biblically false.  Instead the Bible teaches exclusivism.     {but biblical universalism – as in Ultimate Restoration – is not pluralism}

The Narrow Gate and Salvation:  Final Annihilation and Eternal Misery claim – based partly on this passage – that “only a few will be saved,” but...  with a grammatically-correct literal translating of Greek into English,* Jesus tells us that "few" are finding "the narrow gate" leading to salvation, NOW during Life.  Jesus tells us that few are now finding the road, but He does not say that only a few will ever find it.  He isn't saying that few will ever be saved, either NOW (in Life) or LATER (in Afterlife).  Why is this distinction important?  Because if God will allow (and will cause) salvation in Afterlife a person could find "the narrow gate" later — because “not now” isn't the same as “not ever” — and universal Ultimate Restoration is possible.  But the other views (FA & EM) reject salvation in Afterlife so FA & EM do claim that because only a few people are now finding "the narrow gate" during Life, only these few will ever be saved, and all others will be damned.   /   * Jesus says literally that “few are finding the gate” now, but most translations misleadingly tell us “few will find the gate” either now (all views agree about this) or later (as claimed by FA & EM, but not UR).

The Narrow Gate and The Divine Story of God's Chosen People:  Jesus was speaking to Jewish people (both believers & unbelievers) when He declared that few are now finding the road leading to salvation.  IF (as claimed by FA and EM) there will be no belief/repentance-and-salvation in Afterlife, and IF (as proposed in mainstream Christian theology, and in my definition of UR) only people who explicitly “say yes to Jesus” will be saved, then the majority of Jewish people who lived in AD-history (anno domini, after the birth of Jesus) will be forever damned, because they have rejected Jesus.*  And this majority-rejection seems to be what was intended by God.  Is this the high price that most Jews will pay for being chosen by God, beginning with Abraham?  Is this the tragic ending for the divine history that God planned for His people?  During BC-history (before Christ) most Jews believed in YHWH (Yahweh) so He saved them, but in AD-history most Jews have not believed in Jesus (of the triune YHWH) so (according to strong-exclusivist FA or EM) God will never save them, instead their fate will be permanent non-existence or everlasting misery.  Is this major change – from most Jews being saved (BC) to most being damned (AD) – a reason for Jewish people, and other people, to rejoice and praise God for His gift of their Messiah?  Is this the "good news" in the angel's declaration (Luke 2:10) about the birth of Jesus being "good news of great joy which will be for all the people"?   Or... is the truly good news declared by Paul when he tells us (Romans 11:26,32) that "all Israel will be saved" because "God has bound everyone over to disobedience [due to Adam] so that [through Christ] He may show mercy to all"?  If God will "show mercy to all" — and this good news inspires Paul to end Romans 9-11 by joyfully saying "the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God" is a reason to praise God, so "to Him be the glory forever!" — this would be the best possible story-ending for all people (for Jews and others) so it's what everyone should hope will happen.    {i.o.u. - Later this paragraph will be much shorter, with details moved into a “full length” part of the page.}* Jesus is Yeshua:  If someone had called to Jesus by saying “hey, Jesus” He would not have responded, because His actual name was Yeshua (or Yehoshua) and only later did His name – after being translated into Greek and then English – become changed into Jesus.  I wish all Christians would follow the lead of most Jewish Christians (who call Him Yeshua), mainly because it was His correct actual name, but also because it sounds better by avoiding the multiple harsh ess-sounds when we say “Jesus” or (even worse) something like “Jesus's disciples.”

These forgivings – done by us for others, and by others for us – are an essential part of producing reconciliations that are “horizontal” (between people) and “vertical” (between people and God).

All of these hurtings are injustices that God wants to fix, to make right.

But... [two differences, fewer people and maybe not-quite-healed relationships]

By producing an Ultimate Restoration, God would finally achieve justice that is righteousness.  In the end, every person would say “I thank God for creating me” and “I'm satisfied with what God gave me (and others) in Life-and-Afterlife.”

if Ultimate Restoration will be the final result of Hell,

The Good News (The Gospel of Jesus Christ) really is "good news... for all people."  This would be the best possible ending for God's grand story because it would produce the best final state for everyone after God has transformed all persons and all relationships so they are perfect with no sin, the way He always wanted them to be, so every person can fully love God and fully love other people, can be fully alive with Eternal Joy.  By producing an Ultimate Restoration, God would finally achieve justice that is righteousness.  In the end, every person would say “I thank God for creating me” and “I'm satisfied with what God gave me (and others) in Life-and-Afterlife.”

We can view Life-and-Afterlife as a Grand Story that is being created & directed by God, and we can imagine the story having...

• a semi-wonderful ending with some people (but not all) having Eternal Joy, and nobody having Eternal Misery.  This would be fair, but sad.   {more}

A -- IF final result will be Final Annihilation

#basic -- FA is either good [eternal joy] or neutral [nothing to nothing] thus fair / some good, some neutral, all fair

merciful? i think YES compared w EM, but NO compared w UR [quote short version, @]

cannot have total rec --

wonlife - if life is to "learn from experience" many memories will be gone, cannot be revisited in-person, sad

no more tears? sadness in heaven, contrary to rev 21

* also, God has the right to decide who will be in His Kingdom, so it seems fair if The King decides “these people won't be in My Kingdom” and eliminates them with Annihilation.

with Final Annihilation, it's from Nothing (before life) to Nothing (after their Afterlife ends with permanent death) with a neutral change that seems fair, although it's sad because all of us should hope for everyone to have joy.* also, God has the right to decide who will be in His Kingdom, so it seems fair if The King decides “these people won't be in My Kingdom” and eliminates them with Annihilation.

A final state that's "the best achievable" is important when we're comparing Universal Restoration (UR) with Final Annihilation (FA) because each of these final states would be a way for God to actualize the Conditional Immortality (clearly taught in the Bible) that will produce a final state with no sinners and no sinning.*  But with UR all persons will be restored, not just (as with FA) the persons who were saved by God during their Life, so UR would produce the greatest good (eternal joy with full restoration of every person & every relationship) for the greatest number (for everyone).   /   Also, a Total Restoration of all relationships would be possible with UR, but this Total Restoring would not be possible with FA.     {* by contrast, if God will cause The Final State to include Eternal Misery for most of the people he created, instead of "no sinners and no sinning" God would be causing sinners and sin to exist forever.}

[[responses of EtJoy people to EM of many? quote two, then better,

I.O.U. – This section will be changed a LOT (much more than other sections), mainly by cutting most of what's below, and moving parts of it (after condensing & editing) into the section about reasons for caution (mostly due to criticisms by other Christians) and reasons for action.

If there will be no Eternal Misery to be "rescued from" by salvation, why should you ask God to save you?

from #specs -- In the Bible, God doesn't tell us the details of how He will sin-purify us to achieve His righteous justice by making everything the way it should be.  He also doesn't tell us how this process will be similar for saved people, except to say that it will be better for people who are saved during Life, who "say yes" and begin their process early, instead of waiting until it's forced onto them in Afterlife, in UR-Hell. much better for people who were saved-during-Life.

use God's help for living a better life now, with more love, courage, wisdom, [[but... most people see evidence from the ways Christians live, lives of Christians, with anti-science (as in their anti-science approach to questions about creation, in their defense of young-earth theories), conspiracy theories (QAnon), anti-vaccination,

This question is very important, so in "Practical Effects" I explain why...
    if an unsaved person believes that God WILL NOT cause Eternal Misery — if they think there will be an Afterlife-Hell but the hell-experience won't be Eternal Misery, instead the final result will be Annihilation or Reconciliation — their most rational response is to “say YES to God” now, ASAP, because this decision (whether or not the person fears Eternal Misery in Hell) will make their Life MUCH better now, and later it will make their Afterlife MUCH better.   All Christians – including defenders of Eternal Misery – should emphasize that “saying YES now” is the most rational response, whether a person thinks Hell will be temporary or permanent, will end or will never end.  And...
    if an unsaved person believes that God WILL cause Eternal Misery, two common responses are that...

    some people are more likely to say YES due to fear, because they are terrified by the threat of living forever in terrifying hell-misery,  and some of these people only "say YES" outwardly, even though inwardly they want to continue enjoying their life of sin, so they are not truly repenting (i.e. they are not truly wanting to change the direction of their lives),* so their apparent conversion is analogous to accepting a bribe and God knows what they are truly thinking-and-feeling.  But...
    some people are more likely to say NO due to disgust, because they are feeling revulsion, they are thinking-and-feeling that God's causing of EM is unfair (it will not achieve justice) and they don't like His EM-causing character (that I don't think is His actual character) so they cannot honestly love God and trust Him, and they will not be dishonest by pretending to love God and trust Him.

If a currently-unsaved person doesn't fear Eternal Misery in Hell — if they think the afterlife-for-unsaved will be “Hell for only awhile” followed by experience-ending annihilation or [as I hope] glorious reconciliation — won't they think “why should I say YES to God now, instead I'll just enjoy my life of sin”?

Evidently, stubbornly persevering sinners think life without God is the best way to live.  For effective evangelism, God (with the help of Christians) needs to persuade unsaved non-Christians that life with God is better than life without God.  How?  There are two basic evangelistic strategies:  We can try to persuade an unsaved person about The Love of God (actualized in Life & Afterlife) and/or The Revenge of God (actualized mainly in Afterlife), motivating them by love and/or fear.   We can try to show unsaved sinners, with our logic-and-loving, why-and-how a life with God is better due to The Love of God,  and we can try to persuade them that if during Life they reject God, later The Revenge of God will cause their Afterlife to be Eternal Misery. 

If we think fear-based evangelism is necessary, we're assuming that The Love of God doesn't provide sufficient motivation, so we also must emphasize The Revenge of God, to “scare” people into conversion.  And the bigger the scare, the better.  If suffering in Afterlife-Hell is temporary because it ends with Annihilation or Reconciliation, this isn't scary enough.*  The suffering must be permanent, with Eternal Misery.     { But, re: the intensity of suffering, most modern defenders of Eternal Misery don't propose literal hellfire and unimaginably horrible tormenting, so are they being ineffective by softening the horrors of hell?  are they violating their pragmatic principle that “the bigger the scare, the better”? }

* [[ but... fear of Hell is used in evangelism claiming Afterlife will be FA or pUR, so... I will revise the section above, using accountability for sins and educational healing in hell ]]

more, in related sections:  What are some effects of love and fear, for conversion-plus-discipleship during Life, for salvation & sanctification?  and  Why is it acceptable for a Christian to have thoughts-and-feelings about the love of God (using the logic of if/because,...) and about the character of God?

Don't Wait until Too Late

Maybe... God will graciously provide opportunities for repentance after death, by continuing to persistently search for us in the same way we would search for a valuable sheep, coin, or son that was lost.   {does lost = destroyed?}

But... maybe not.  Either way, we should listen to – and respond to – the warnings of Jesus.  In the context of Matthew 24-25, Jesus commands us to "be ready" like a faithful servant (24:45-51) and wise virgins (25:1-13).  He describes a good attitude for a guest ("all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted") or host (who should invite the poor, crippled, lame, blind) for a wedding feast (Luke 14:7-14) so "you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."  And if you "make excuses" you will regret missing the great banquet (Luke 14:15-24) where (Mathew 22:1-14) you must have suitable "wedding clothes."   /   What is the great banquet-feast?  Maybe... it's one aspect of the extra rewards that God will add to basic salvation.     {more about extra rewards and "judgments" for Christians}

I.O.U. – For awhile, this discussion is mostly relevant for Christians -- instead of non-Christians, and they're the main people I'm writing this page for) will end with the introduction above.  Instead of diving into details here, I'll just link to sections where the ideas – the reasons for action, and reasons for cautious inaction – are developed more thoroughly.

But... for non-Christians:  if you're wondering "why don't I hear this claim [that the Bible doesn't teach EM] more often?" it's partly due to the reasons for caution, and partly because most Christians just assume the Bible teaches EM, instead of carefully studying the question for themself.

yes, we should study the Bible carefully, to determine IF this claim is true, IF the Bible teaches us that EM really will happen.  These reasons include the mis-match we see when comparing the character of God (the Bible tells us that He is loving and just, He is good) with the actions of a God who would cause Eternal Misery (most people think this would not be a good action)

invite attacks by the self-appointed Doctrine Police who are becoming increasingly aggressive and (in some -- of the church) influential, on the internet and in other ways

negative -- a response of "oh well" because -- it's ok because it's "them" but not me -- or I can't do anything, so...

trust -- anything that God does is defined as good, because I trust him and have faith that whatever He does, it will be good -- this faith-based response is usually good, but (i think) not here, partly because EM isn't biblically justifiable (there is strong biblical evidence against it), and it certainly isn't biblically necessary.

before 1987, I don't think I truly believed (in the deepest parts of my mind & heart) that God (who is not "safe" but is good) would do the horrible things claimed by defenders of Eternal Misery.  It was something I “just didn't think about” in my mind, and “just didn't feel” in my heart.

in Bible, God is not a toothless "gentle bunny"

https://www.summit.org/resources/reflect/narnia-god-aslan-lewis/ -- Not Safe, but Good -- The truth about Jesus is not that he is most fundamentally an angry God who sets an impossible standard and then punishes us when we fail to live up to it; nor is Jesus willing to ignore evil in our own lives as if it were really no big deal. The truth is not even that Jesus is both equally loving and equally just. The truth is that God is love. And because God is love, he will be just. He will punish sin but he will stop at nothing to save us from those sins. / Aslan is, as Walter Hooper once described him, a being both intolerably severe and irresistibly tender. / {fearful and comforting}

teaching by inquiry, give opportunities to struggle and learn

Aslan - not safe, but good -- but... (re: the elephant) i don't think an EM-causing God would be good.  /  and this is the gut-level intuitive conscience-based response of [almost] everyone.

Eternal Misery is a terrible threat about “what God will do to people in Hell” (instead of a wonderful hope about “what God will do for people in Hell”) —

There are many Bible-based reasons to reject Eternal Misery, so I encourage you to "carefully STUDY the Bible to learn what it really does teach... instead of ASSUMING you already know what the Bible teaches."  Unfortunately, the process of choosing a hell-view usually is heavily influenced by non-biblical factors, like having mixed motives about hoping and wanting to maintain fear-motivation and avoid giving false hope and avoid conflicts.

the power of tradition:  Unfortunately, during history a biblical interpretation claiming that “God will cause Eternal Misery” became a tradition, partially due to a political motive of wanting to use the power of fear to control the thinking and actions of citizens.  In modern society this tradition continues to influence thoughts-and-actions when the powerful inertia of tradition is enforced by the powerful psychology-sociology of conformity, as in pressures (personal and/or professional) to affirm a “traditional” doctrine of Eternal Misery.

I think this is unfortunate because it's pressuring Christians who love God to say untrue-and-harmful things about His character.     {a tough question:  can Christians have mixed feelings about hoping for all to be saved? }

a better tradition:   Imagine that instead of most people assuming EM, very few believe it.  In this cultural context, it would be more difficult (compared with now) to claim “our loving Father will cause Eternal Misery.”  And it would be easier to proclaim “our loving Father will not cause Eternal Misery” (because He either will Annihilate or Reconcile) and this freedom would be much better.  We should be able to freely proclaim the goodness of God, by saying “He will cause good with love-in-action, instead of causing infinite harm with EM.”  Ideally, we should not have to feel afraid that saying “God will not cause infinite harm” could endanger a church and its leaders.  But currently we must feel afraid because of pressures to say “God will cause infinite misery for most of the people that He caused to exist in Life-and-Afterlife.”     /     accepting reality:  Ideally, we shouldn't have to feel afraid, but...  with the reality of our tradition and our current church-situations, often the wise-and-loving decision is to behave with cautious inaction, to avoid criticizing a claim that God will cause Eternal Misery.  Why?

I'm sad because I think some fellow Christians have been saying untrue-and-harmful things about the character of God (and most have been "letting it happen" by not acknowledging the elephant), even though their intention is to honor God.  I think their claim — that God wants most people to have everlasting misery, and He will cause this to happen — is not correct.  Therefore I want to tell you “no, this is not what God is like, and this isn't what He will do;  God is much better than this, He is more loving (i.e. less un-loving) in His thinking and actions.”

also, non-biblical psychology? (and sociology)

from #ift

   {more}  {and I'll compare the good character of Actual God versus the bad character of a hypothetical EM-Causing God who would be worse than Hitler IF He will use His power to cause infinite misery, but I'm very confident that He won't do this}

We should understand the importance of “if” and thus “because”,* so we will respectfully acknowledge that Bible-believing Christians – with appropriate humility (not too little, not too much) – can try to either defend EM-doctrine or criticize EM-doctrine.  This understanding of if-thus-because will make it easier to respectfully discuss doctrines about hell.  It's why even though I think fellow Christians are saying untrue-and-harmful things about the character of God when they say “God will cause (because He is sovereign) Eternal Misery for most of the people He created”, I think they are not motivated by disrespectful intentions (instead they are trying to honor God);  they are not intentionally saying slanderous (untrue-and-harmful) things about God. 

of a God who would cause EM, but in doing this they are only criticizing an idea-about-God, not the God who actually exists

• with believers,

Why do I feel disappointed and sad?  Because I think fellow Christians are saying untrue-and-harmful things about the character of God, and because within the community of believers there are strong pressures to conform, to avoid challenging culturally-accepted assumptions, to continuing believing that God will cause Eternal Misery for most of the people He has created.   /   But... should we continue saying these things, and exerting pressures to accept the current cultural assumptions?  or should we, like the noble Bereans, examine the biblical basis for doctrines-of-afterlife (that make claims about “what will happen in hell”) and openly discuss what we find?   if yes, of course we should communicate respectfully with love;  when we're doing this, useful principles are "in essentials unity, in non-essentials diversity, in all things charity."  When we're deciding whether a doctrine about “what will happen in hell” is essential, we should look at its importance-and-certainty by asking if it's theologically important {I think “no, it's not important enough to make this doctrine essential” even though it can have major effects on our thinking & actions} and if it's taught with certainty in the Bible {I think “no” for UR-vs-FA but “almost certain” for not-EM}.  Also,...

A section outlining the many biblical reasons to reject Eternal Misery ends by recognizing that "the process of choosing a hell-view usually is heavily influenced by non-biblical factors, like having mixed motives about hoping and wanting to maintain fear-motivation and avoid giving false hope and avoid conflicts."  All people (including Christians) want to avoid conflicts that are internal and external, are personal and interpersonal.  We want to avoid the internal conflict that occurs when we hear a claim that “you've been wrong in your beliefs” or “your church has been wrong in its beliefs,” because these challenges produce unpleasant feelings in our minds & hearts.  And we want to avoid the external conflict that would occur if we resist the strong pressures to conform, to continue believing the culturally-accepted assumption of Eternal Misery.    {you can read more about relationships with other Christians that include internal conflicts due to cognitive dissonance, and external conflicts due to pressures that produce reasons for caution}

I.O.U. — The rest of this page is a very rough outline for some of the ideas that (after they are developed-and-revised) probably will be in this page later, maybe in July 2018.

GENERALLY,

In the big page — written mainly for Bible-believing Christians, to show that the Bible does not teach Eternal Misery — a detailed Table of Contents will give you a quick overview of the main ideas, and help you decide “what to do next.”

This page is mainly for non-Christians, but I think Christians will find it interesting and useful.  I'm hoping it will stimulate every reader to think carefully for themself, and to have productive discussions with others.  I'm trying to write in ways that will appeal to non-Christians, that will reach their hearts and minds, so they will be able to love God and will say YES to God.  In one way to do this, later I will share more stories (based on history & analogy) to show how horrible claims that "God will cause Eternal Misery" seem, and how this claim doesn't accurately describe the actual character of God, as He has revealed Himself to us in the Bible.

and MORE SPECIFICALLY, ...

• a result worthy of praise:  A divine process of Purgatorial Universal Reconciliation (PUR) — that would occur if, near the beginning of Afterlife for an unsaved person, God will use UR-Hell to purify them in a painful process-of-purging that produces educational corrective healing (with divine spiritual surgery to remove sin) — would let God save them, and achieve Justice-with-Love.  When lovers-of-God think about this result of PUR, we can give God our SINCERE PRAISE for “what He will do for people in Hell” because He will achieve praiseworthy Justice-with-Love for victims and sinners with His temporary process of UR-Hell that produces permanent UR.

• But... some critics of Bible-based Christianity will object, by claiming that we should not praise God if He will use use "a painful process" in Hell, even if this process produces an extremely good result, a result that is permanently beneficial (and thus is loving) for unsaved people who will feel the temporary pain.  Are the means justified by the ends?  Would some temporary pain be justified by lots of permanent joy?

Yes.  Although I understand the objection (by claiming that a causing-of-pain is not a loving action), I believe the Bible,* and I think the Bible clearly teaches us that some people (certainly those who were unsaved at the end of their Life, and maybe everyone) will have some suffering in their Afterlife.  And when all things are considered with a long-term perspective, I think that with PUR the ends (permanent Eternal Joy) would justify the means (temporary painful process), when judged by our common human standards of weighing gain versus pain.  When we compare PUR with Eternal Misery, we see that God temporarily “does things FOR people” in UR-Hell (for the purpose of eventually helping them), but He eternally “does things TO people” in EM-Hell (with no apparent purpose except to hurt them);  due to this extreme contrast, I sincerely think that a Christian can honestly praise God for UR-Hell, and they can honestly feel ashamed of EM-Hell.

* Some critics will say “I don't care what the Bible teaches, instead I want to decide how-things-should-be without reading the Bible.”  Of course, they have a right to think this, and to express their opinion.  But they cannot claim to speak for mainstream Bible-based Christianity (as I am trying to do), they are just stating their preference, are just saying “I don't like it.”

• Also, I am arguing against Eternal Misery, and for “either Universal Reconciliation or Final Annihilation.”  If the final result of Hell for unsaved people will be non-existence (after Annihilation) instead of Eternal Joy (after Reconciliation), a claim that “I don't like it” is more likely and is more justifiable.  Although I'm hoping for Universal Reconciliation and would like to declare that “yes, this will happen,” I'm only optimistic (not confident) that it might happen.  I think the Bible is ambiguous when we ask “will the final result be Reconciliation or Annihilation?”, although I'm biblically confident that the final result won't be Misery that continues forever.  I'm frustrated by the ambiguity — re: the biblical evidence (and its logical evaluation) when we compare Reconciliation versus Annihilation — but I want to be honest about the ambiguity because...

• When we're describing Hell, every Christian has the responsibilities of trying to...   accurately describe what the Bible teaches, so they can   avoid an inaccurate description of God's character (but I think this happens when someone says “God will cause Eternal Misery”), and   avoid giving false hope (by claiming “UR will happen” if UR won't happen in the actual Afterlife-reality for an unsaved person), and also   avoid causing false fear (by claiming “EM will happen” if EM won't happen);*   each "avoid" is important, but (due to biblical ambiguity) it's difficult to be confident that we're doing both.     {* claiming “FA will happen” could cause false hope if EM will happen,  or cause false fear if UR will happen.}   {what would be worse, FA or EM?}

• I.O.U. -- Later, this section will explain why I think Christians should be kind to each other (in the two ways explained below)* when we're disagreeing about What Will Happen In Hell.  Why?  The basic reasons are summarized in this table of motivations-and-logic:

These ideas are explained with more detail here.

* My section-intro will describe two kinds of loving tolerance between Christians, when we are  1) being loving for defenders of EM, who should not be treated in the way we might treat a parent who defends a soccer coach accused of molesting the children he is coaching, by saying “I guess he did these horrible things, but it's ok because ____”, and   2) being loving for critics of EM, who are analogous to parents opposing child molestation, but defending the coach, by saying “IF he did this it would be horrible, but I don't think he did it because ____ .”   /   I will set up the analogy between two kinds of horrible actions — causing Eternal Misery, and molesting children — (I think one of these is much worse than the other)* and then will show the parallels between actions of EM-defenders & EM-critics and parents who defend & criticize the coach's ethics.  But... this "coaching" analogy doesn't fit perfectly, because it's easy to defend EM-critics (analogous to molestation-critics?), but is tough (impossible?) to defend EM-defenders (analogous to molestation-defenders?).  Therefore, I'll have to think about this analogy more carefully.   /   Also, an "effort to lovingly defend" uses two very different strategies:  those who "think EM will happen" try to defend the morality of God if (as they think will happen) He will cause EM;  those (like me) who "think EM won't happen" try to show why — based on what's in the Bible — EM won't happen, and also explain why we think EM-defenders are saying bad things about the character of God — because we love God so we want to explain why “no, He isn't like that, He won't do these horribly hateful actions” — when He is being falsely accused (we think) of wanting to cause EM.

* What is the worst action, A or B or C, if a dictator makes a prisoner suffer for awhile, and then...  A) releases them to freedom? or  B) kills them? or  C) continues making the person suffer for the rest of their very long life, doing everything possible to keep them alive so they will continue to suffer?   If you think C is worst, and if you think God will cause Eternal Misery and you defend this action, are you forced to use the logical principle that “anything done by God would be good, by definition, because He is God”?     {more about these ideas}

SOME PRINCIPLES based on biblical teachings, re: The Character of God (will He achieve Justice-with-Love?)

[ i.o.u. - Later these ideas will be either omitted-from-here, or revised so they will fit-better-here. ]

[[ Overall Existence, with Experiences-plus-Changes:  We should hope for an eventual result that leads every person to say "this was fair" in life-plus-afterlife, and "thank you for creating me, and for all of my experiences." ]]

[[ Moral Luck:  if God uses a purgatory Afterlife-Hell, I think He will consider the Moral Luck of individuals in Life (re: their abilities, life-situations, and life-opportunities) so He can customize their experiences;  this seems consistent with biblical descriptions, by Jesus, of servants who knew a lot (and therefore are beaten with many stripes) and those who didn't know much;  during education in hell God could give special consideration to those with bad moral luck, to "even it out" and as part of the "differing degrees of sorrow" during a painful purging;  I'm speculatively imagining, in this way, how God could "give grace" to those who were unlucky in their life-situations and in their probability of saying YES to God in Life]]  [[iou - I will connect this with binary special situations re: moral luck and other kinds of luck]]   [[ here, I will describe Rawls "veil of ignorance" and empathy-plus-compassion, when we're making decisions about policies for society ]]

[[ also, consider questions about some actions of God in the Old Testament:  justice in life-plus-afterlife could help explain "why" for many questions, by many people, about the Bible -- e.g. the mass killings commanded by God in OT -- many people, in their ethics-based human responses, don't think some of God's actions seem morally justifiable, and think some actions are not consistent with the character of a loving God, IF we consider only Life;  but IF we consider Life-plus-Afterlife, with a General Resurrection (described in John 5:28-29 & elsewhere) of everyone who ever lived, THEN the OT killings were temporary, to be un-done with the General Resurrection of All, when our questions about WWJD (=WWFD=WWHD = WWGD) becomes "then what? will their ultimate fate be everlasting misery (MUCH worse than just killing them during Life, makes questions about "morally justifiable?" MUCH more difficult), or everlasting non-existence (neutral overall change from nothing in initial BeforeLife to nothing in final AfterLife), or everlasting joy? (with a good answer for God's actions being "morally justifiable". ]]

<span style="background-color: #FFEB00">

<span style="background-color: #FFEB44">

<span style="background-color: #FFEEAA">