I respect the fact that you have not read it yet. If my premise is incorrect then my question is moot. But if my premise is correct (or even if it is just my perception), am I making logical and theological correct conclusions or am I way off base?

Two comments:

1) Tim I am curious on these two posts about Bell. The titles give the impression that you are on one side and then in the details it appears you are on the other? I guess it grabbed my attention so maybe that actually is the point.

2) I have listened to the live event and have read his book. I took from both that he believes that we have a choice now to believe in God and we will have a choice later and that our ability to choose doesn't end. He does believe in a hell now and a hell later but again, we can make choices so that neither is permanent. If that is all true, I guess I don't know why any of it matters. I mean, if I can always choose to love God later, why choose now? Sure I might miss out on some things or have some pain now but why not forget it all, do what I please and maybe decide to love God later? What is the point of Christianity at all if this is true? Am I missing something?