You know already, though, that I agree with you that torture cannot be a component of hell.

Huh?

Sure, a person being tortured would say anything to appease his tormenter. In "The Great Divorce" hell's not solidified yet (if ever) and it's reasoning not torture. You know already, though, that I agree with you that torture cannot be a component of hell.

We know that torture is not an effective means of gaining true information.

I'm not quite certain of the connection, my friend.

There's no need to repent after death, though I like Lewis's allegory "The Great Divorce" in which the afterlife is seen as integral with this life where choices are still available. The provision makes it possible now for those who have never heard of Christ to respond in faith in accordance with conscience.

We know that torture is not an effective means of gaining true information.

How do you reconcile those two verses? Where in the bible does it say that someone can repent after death?

Let me say first Ishryal, that if you are an atheist, you handle Scripture better than 90% of all atheists I've corresponded with in the past. Thanks for that; it's refreshing.

There's no need to repent after death, though I like Lewis's allegory "The Great Divorce" in which the afterlife is seen as integral with this life where choices are still available. The provision makes it possible now for those who have never heard of Christ to respond in faith in accordance with conscience.

Again, Abraham is a great example. Paul goes on to explain that through faith, it was credited to Abraham as righteousness. What was credited to him? Christ's atoning work, though it's obvious he was a gentile, without the law, and ignorant specifically of Christ.

So you're right when you say the ignorant are judged accordingly and that there's no get out of jail free card, but they're judged according to the light they were given: those whose respond to that light are credited accordingly. Either way, salvation comes through the applied work of Christ, so your verse above "No one comes to the Father except through me" holds, and presents no inconsistency or contradiction.

Thanks for the reply. I still don't see it being a provision that those who are ignorant have a special get out jail free card. Romans, from what I read and understand, is more about emphasising that the Jews will be judged in the exact same way as the Gentiles, even those who are ignorant of the law. If this is so, then if god judges us based on all the other factors mentioned in the bible, then the ignorant are also judged accordingly. And if 'ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God', and if our 'sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear', then the ignorant cannot do that one thing that is also important to go to heaven... repent. You can't repent when you're dead. Jesus Christ himself said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

How do you reconcile those two verses? Where in the bible does it say that someone can repent after death?

What's clear from Romans 2 is that a provision exists: "the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)" Paul links this accusing and defending specifically with the judgment: "This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ."

It's true, as you point out, that those without the law can perish. Their thoughts would accuse them. But verse 12 does not make the claim that all without the law will perish. If there are those who respond to the light they are given, their consciences will defend them.

This theme is developed in Romans by Paul. For instance, Abraham, the subject of Paul's discourse in subsequent chapters, was not Jewish and lived before the law was given, yet he responded in faith and the atonement of Christ was ultimately applied to him. And while you are correct to lay the blame for perishing with sin and not a rejection of Christ, it is the application of the atoning work of Christ that removes sin.

The same could be said for Adam, Seth, Noah, etc. I see no reason to assume this model would not apply to those who do not have access to Christ at any considered era, say, Native Americans, for example, or children in Africa.

One must reject Jesus to accept hell

But neither does accepting Jesus alone get you to heaven. There's a lot more you have to do to get to heaven. The bible may be not so fleshed out regarding what happens to the ignorant, but it's very vocal about what you need to do to get there and what you can't do. Accepting Jesus is just ONE part of going to heaven. And if you don't do what is required, then you don't get to heaven... so by the laws of god, if you don't go to heaven, you go to hell.

MS (Quixote)
Romans 2 does not mention anything about the ignorant being saved. It's a passage relating to the Jews... that even a Gentile who doesn't know the law is in a better position to judge than a Jew that breaks the Law. It says nothing about going to heaven. Indeed, Romans 2:12 says specifically that those without the law will PERISH without the law... doesn't say they will be saved. If they sin, they will perish. And we're all born with sin are we not?

Not butting in on the argument, but though Scripture is not thorough on your subject, it is not silent. Romans 2:

14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.