The univeralism that you claim lies in that you believe that heaven and hell will be here on earth, and God will be here too, which is a scriptural conundrum.
You
clearly have no clue what Universalism is and isn't then.
Why don't you learn what it is: it is the belief that all creation will be saved, either immediately or after a short chastizement. I reject that.
Thus, all are reconciled to God in one way or another.
Didn't say that. Outright said the contrary.
By definition, that's universalism.
You don't know what it is. Saying that creation will be transfigured isn't the same as saying all will experience heaven. That's an entirely different topic AGAIN. The experience of hell is
permanent and painful; I am NOT going to say that again and quite frankly, I shouldn't have to. If you actually
READ MY INITIAL POST you'd see exactly
why your equivocations are fallacious.
You can disagree with my eschatology, but to condemn it as Universalism is absurd. Again, common sense would say that, since staff has seen the post and it were Universalism, it would be edited or the thread moved for that reason. It hasn't. Therefore, it isn't a promotion of Universalism, and forgive me, but they wouldn't be allowed to staff this forum if they were ignorant on theology.
If you think I am wrong, then let's up the ante: report my "Universalist" post. Or, invite staff to personally intervene or ask one.
Without attempting to boast, I'm rather knowledgeable about theology. I know the history of theology, ecclesiology, and Christian philosophy fairly well. I'm extremely big on orthodoxy and I have little interest in adopting what is historically condemned. That includes Universalism.
That said, how about answering the question.
My initial post answers the question, staff has done nothing to my post, and another poster called you on your bad definition. I have nothing against you, but I do have something against your false accusation. Say you disagree with my eschatological views all you want, but to accuse me of something I am not guilty of is absurd.